01-1Council File # O \ � �
RESOLUTION
Presented By
Referred To
Green Sheet # 1 O� 00 S
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA � �
�t
�� �J -
Committee: Date
2 WHEREAS, Joseph and Ellen Konstan, in Zoning File No. 4095 and pursuant to the
3 provisions of the Saint Paul Legislative Code Chapter 73, made application to the Saint Paul
4 Heritage Preservation Commission (hereinafter the "Commission") for a permit to demolish an
5 existing house located within the Historic Hill Preservation District, for the purposes of
6 constructing a new residence on the site, commonly known as 828 Sumuiit Avenue and legally
7 described as contained in the said zoning file; and
9 WHEREAS, the Commission, after having provided notice to affected property owners,
10 conducted a public hearing on August 24, 2000. In its Resolution No. 4095, adopted September
11 21, 2000, the Commission determined to grant the application based upon the following findings
12 and conclusions:
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
1. The building does not have significant architectural or historic merit. It is
an unusual building in that preliminary research does not disclose any other
residential designs by Mr. Ingemann in the 1950s, that the French Renaissance
Revival style design of the house appears unrelated to architectural trends of the
time, and that the scale, materials and site design of the house are quite dissimilar
to those of its neighbors. These unusual aspects of the building do not, however,
make it significant. Mr. Ingemann was known during the 1920's and 1930's for
period revival residential designs and for the design of municipal, institutional,
and commercial buildings over a number of decades, particularly in the colonial
revival and art deco/moderne styles. An examination of the body of his
architectural work reveals that a number of better examples of his work survive in
Saint Paul and around the State of Minnesota. Finally, the Ingemanns lived in this
residence for only approximately five years before they retired; they moved to
Mexico several years later.
2. The proposed demolition would not have an adverse impact on the historic
or architectural character and integrity of surrounding buildings, nor would the
construction of the proposed residence. The residential nature of the avenue
would be preserved.
34 3. While the existing residence, at approximately 2600 sq. ft. has economic
35 value, the proposed 10,000 sq. ft. residence would have significantly more
36 economic value.
37
38
O\—�
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council hereby recognizes from this matter that there
3 may exist within designated preservation districts, significant numbers of structures which may
4 not, if taken individually, meet the criteria for designation as a heritage preservation site but
5 which, if considered as a whole, significantly contribute to the fabric of the heritage preservation
6 district and to the overall appearance of the city. For instance, the testimony in this matter
7 indicated that no fewer than twenty structures within the Historic Hill Preservation District could
8 be eligible for demolition. The Council further recognizes that the incremental demolition of
9 non-designated structures within designated heritage preservation districts carries significant
10 risks for the continued enhancement and vitalaty of the city's preservation policy set forth in
11 Saint Paul Legislative Code § 73.01. From this, the Council shall, under separate resolution,
12 direct the Commission to undertake a study and to report back recommendations for a city policy
13 concerning the demolition of non-designated structures within designated heritage preservation
14 districts in light of the city's preservation policy set forth in Saint Paul Legislative Code § 73.01.
15
16 FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to
17 Joseph and Ellen Konstan, SARPA, the zoning administrator and the Commission
18
19
Requested by Department of:
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
By: ���.�� �
Approved by Mayor: Date _ '���/�/
HY. ��C/�������
By:
Form Approved by City Attorney
B � G�/,./��,�-. tz-iy_o�
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
Adopted by Council: Date �'cw.. '3 � �ne�
��-.�
GREEN SHEET
Peter Warner
JaYtuary�03; 2001
ROR
T07'AL # OF SIONATURE PAOES �_
otr�e+MOn a�omaR
N�106005
ancouNa�
❑ CRVAiTORNC! � d1Y0L�Rli �,_
❑lN�NCVILKIINCPiql0. ❑'WNCN�f[RVIACCTO
❑ Wvo111011AUNrNir) ❑
{CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)'
Resolution memorializing the decision of the City Council on October 4; 2000, denying the appeal of the
Summit Avenue Residential Preservation Association (SARPA) to a decision of the Heritage Preservation
Commission granting approval of a demolition permit at 828 Suinmit Avenue.
PIANNINO COMMISSION
CIB COMMITTEE
CIVII SERVICE COMMI6SION
AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION t
80URCE
(EXPWN)
266-8710
Hes thie pereo�rm aver vrorketl under a cpMrect for ihls depa�tmeM7
YE& NO
Hes thla pareonlArm aver peen a elry empbyee9.
YES NO
poes thle pereoMim poeaees a sldll not normellypoaeeased by any curtent clly employee?
VES NO
IsMIsP�eoMlrmetaroMetivendoY7 ' ,
YE8 NO
COST/REVBNY4 BUDOR7lD (CIRC�6 ONE)
ACTNITY NUMBER
YES NO
i �
4
a� r . . ...w I_. . . w . . v . J.v. _ —
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Nm�m Coleumi+, Mnym•
December 19, 2000
Nancy Anderson
Council Secretary
310 City Hall
15 West Kellogg Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55102
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Claytan M. Robinson, Jr., City Attorney 4 `�\
Civi1 Drvtsion
400 Ciry Hnll Telephone.• 651 266-8710
15 West Kellagg Blvd. Frscsimile.� 651 298-56/9
SnintPau(Minnesatn55l02 ,
Hand Delivered
�aun��i ��so�rch G�r�4er
��� � �. a000
Re: Appeal by SARPA of a decision to grant approval of a demolition permit for
828 Summit Avenue
Dear Ms. Anderson:
Attached please find a signed resolution memorializing the decision of the City Council to deny
the appeal by SARPA and to reaffirm the decision of the HPC to approve a demolition permit for
the property commonly known as 828 Summit Avenue. Please place this on the Council's
Consent Agenda at your earliest possible convenience.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
,,2f, � (¢,., ��cvv�"'.1
Peter W. Warner
Assistant City Attorney
PW W/rmb
Enclosure
OFFICE OF UCENSE, INSPECTIONS AND
ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION
Rabert Kessler, Director
� ��
1�
d � � �
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Na•iu Ca(e�nnn, Mnya�
September 8, 2000
Ms. Nancy Anderson
Assistant Secretary to the City Council
310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Dear Ms. Anderson:
LOWRY PROFESSlONAL BUILDING
Suite 300
350 St. Peter S(reet
SaintPnul, Minnesota 55102-1510
{ � � � , �
� ��
r�" Q
/��y �oa n l A-
Telephone: 65/-266-9090
Facsimi[e: 651-266-9124
Co+�ci4 R�seae�h G��1.�P
SEP � �, 26�0
I would like to request that a public hearing before the City Council be scheduled for
Wednesday, September 27, 2000 far the following appeal of a Heritage Preservation
Commission decision:
Appellants: Summit Avenue Residential Preservation Association (SARPA)
HPC File: #4095
Purpose: Appeal a Heritage Preservation Commission decision to grant approval of
a demolition permit
Address: 828 Summit Avenue
Tlie Heritage Preservation Commission held a public meeting on this matter and voted 7- 0 on
August 24, 2000 to approve the requested permit.
This City Council public hearing does not require published notice. Please call me at 266-90�14
if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
��-__. ��
Tom Riddering
Building Code Official
c: Robert Kessler, LIEP Director
James Bellus, HPC Chair
Peter Warner, Assistant City Attomey
James V. Toscano, SARPA President
Bud Batterson
✓
OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND
ENVIRONMENTALPROTEC770N
Robert Kessler, Director
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayar
September 8, 2000
Ms. Nancy Anderson
Assistant Secretary to the City Council
310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota SSY02
Deaz Ms. Anderson:
LOWRYPROFESSIONAL BUILDMG
SuiYe 300
350 SL Peter Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55702-lS10
��—�
Telephone: 651 •266-9090
Facsrmile: 651-266-9124
I would like to request that a public hearing before the City Council be scheduled for
Wednesday, September 27, 2000 for the following appeal of a Heritage Preservation
Commission decision:
Appellants: Summit Avenue Residential Pzeservariott Associarion (SARPA)
HPC File: #4095
Puzpose: Appeal a Heritage Preservation Commission decision to gtant approval of
a demolition permit
Address: 828 Summit Avenue
The Heritage Freservation Commission held a public meering on this matter and voted 7- 0 on
August 24, 2000 to approve the requested permit.
'i'his City Council public hearing does not require published notice. Please call me at 266-9014
if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
� ��
v—`.
Tom Riddering
Building Code Official
c: Robert Kessler, LIEP Director
James Bellus, HPC Chair
Peter Warner, Assistant City Attorney
James V. Toscano, SARPt1 President
Bud Batterson
�\—\
JAMES VINCENT TOSCANO
Heritage Preservation Commission
350 3aint Peter Suite. Suite 350
Saint Paul Minnesota 55102
Attn: Tom Riddezing
Ta Whom It May Concern:
I shouid lilce to appeal to the SC Paul City Council the decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission
on the demolition of 828 Summit Avenue for the foliowing reasons:
I. Lack of an EAW being done before the decision. The Guide to Minnesota Environmental Rules, Page 30,
statas. " destruction in whole or part or the moving of a property that is listed on the National Register of
Historic Places or State Register of T3istoric Places" is subject m a mandatory Environmentai Assessment
Workshee£ Such a worksheet was not done.
2. Total disregard of staff recommendation for further study and lac3c of any discussion on siaff
recommendations.
3. Total disregard and lack of substanHve discussion of the objectious of SARPA, letter appended.
4. Lack of observation of the statute establishing the Swnroit Avenua historic preservation district, which,
on part, was passed to eliminate fiuther demolirion of homes on Summit Avenue..
5. Decision based on assumed and subjecrive azchitectw�al taste and not histaric preservation status in a
"living museum" of homes protected in the disd�ict.
6. Decision not fuily based on criteria listed under the statute establishing Narional Historic Preservation
districts.
7. Incomplete original stafFwork in not evaluating 828 Summit. This house was not evaluated, yet judged to
be not contributory, evan though that decision was not made by qualified government and advisory sta�
but arrogated to itself by the FTistoric Preservatian Commission in ciear violadon of stamte.
8. Tota( lack of discussion and observation of Summit Avenue Plan, part of comprehensive city plan,
established to protect Swncnit against demalition and listed of 828 Sumwit imder "Architects ofNote on
Swnmit Avenue. See attached letier,
This decisian has placed in jeopardy more tltan 10°/a of the homes on Suwmit buik after 1950 yeY regarded
as essantial in the historical development of the Avenue, essendal to the stah�s of `9iving muse�" that
Summit is. Parties with sufficient funds to destroy homes and build larger more eacpeasive buildings using
azchitects of note will then dominate ihe Avenue. Thus the Avenae will truly revert to the rich regardiess of
history or lilstoricai preservation of one of the geat boulevards in America.
Sincerely,
, ���� "
t �,sa�rn
��-\
� ,
1
Heritage Preservation Commission
350 St. Peter Street, Suite 300
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Dear Members:
August 20, 2000
1982 Summit Ave.
St. Paul, MN.55105
On behalf of the Board of Directors and members of the Siunmit Avenue Residential
Pxeservadon Association (SARPA), I am writing to express our totai opposition to the
demolition of 8Z8 Summit Avenue, paxt of the National Historical Preservation District.
Summit Avenue has been referred to as a"living" historical museum, and, similaz to any
museum, the Historic District is intended to preserve and protect all examples of the
varzous architectural styles and homes which together make up the unique character and
substance of the Avenue.
The Suinznit Avenue Plan, adopted by the City Council, lists ten recommendaxion for
action, the first of which is ".,,A11 of Summit Avenue should be protected against
demolition and anappmpriate new construction." Another recommendadon resulted in the
crearion of SARPA to be the residents' action giroup to ensure that these
recommendadons are observed and that the historic residendal nature of the Avenue
be preserved.
The $ummit Avenue Plan specifically lists 828 Summit under " Arciutects of Note on
Summit Avenue," p8: "12. Wiliiam Ingemann, 828 Summit. Designed the Lowell Tnu,
Weqerhaeuser Library at Macalester, Master Plan for Gustavus Adoiphus."
This home is the only example of tIris arciutecYs work ott Summit, an arclutect well
lrnown enough to be listed in the Plan and popular in 1950's residential design, who built
this particulaz home for lris family, making it pazticularly important to recognize the
contributing nature of the home to the overall mix of styles and designs on the Avenue.
Summit Avenue belongs not just to its residents, but to the tens of thousands who use it in
vanious ways each year, to the tourists who come to see one of the great residentiai
boulevards of the nation, and to all in our City, State and Nation. To deinolish otte part of
it is to d'vminish all of it, as well as ourselves.
We oppose the demolition of the home and urge your denial of tiris request.
Sincereiy,
v� ....�.—..
7 V. Toscano, President, SARPA
��—\
Joseph and Ellen Konstan
582 Crefin Avenue South
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55116
September 18, 2000
City Council of Saint Paul
Saint Paul, Minnesota
Dear Council Members:
We are writing in response to the appeal of the Heritage Preservation Commission's (HPC's)
unanimous approval of our demolition permit application for the structure at 828 Summit
Avenue, Saint Paul. The HPC made a well reasoned decision on appropriate grounds and we
urge the Council to uphold the HPC's decision. The appeal, filed on behalf of SARPA by James
Toscano, the organization's president, contains a substantial number of factual errors and
misstatemenCS of the relevant legal standards, as we identify more specifically in our response
below.
Backgroand. We have long loved Summit Avenue and look forward to the opportunity to raise
a family there. For the past six months, we've been acrively pursuing the opportunity to build a
house on the Avenue. We worked closely with HPC staff throughout the process to avoid
actions that would hatm or jeopardize the history and chazacter of the district, and made cleaz to
HPC staff and our own realtor our commitment to identify an appropriate property and design a
new'house such that the project would contribute to the azchitecture of Summit Avenue. To
Further that comrrritment, we have hired well-respected preservation azchitects and have openly
approached neighbors and community organizations to present and gather feedback on our plans.
We invited all residents on both sides of the block, along with the Summit Hill Association
(SHA) and SARPA, to a meeting on August 15; all neighbors and the SHA representatives were
extremely supportive. The two next-door neighbors submitted letters to the HPC strongly
supporting the project. We also presented to the Land Use Committee of the SHA (which was
unable to make a formal recommendarion due to lack of quorum) and have a standing offer to
SHA to present to their board at their request. .
We were dismayed to hear that SARPA's board voted to oppose this project before seeing any of
the details, but have nonetheless ofFered to meet with them to present the project. Thus faz, that
offer has been rebuffed, though we've been told that they may be willing to meet with us after the
City Council meeting at which their appeal is heard. We believe we've followed the process
thoroughly, going out of our way to provide opportunity for public comment. The HPC held an
open hearing at which SARPA's president presented the organization's objections. And the HPC,
after receiving a staff presentation on the azchitectural and historical significance of the structure
at 828 Summit Avenue, considered and unanimously supported our request for a demolition
pernut.
The Appeal. Mr. Toscano, on behalf of SARPA, appealed the HPC decision, citing eight points.
All of these points aze without merit, as each either mischaracterizes the facts, the process, or the
legal standazds that apply. We address each objection point-by-point.
Ol-�
1. SARPA cites the lack of an EAW being done before HPC's decision an the demolitian permit.
Response: An EAW is not required for the demolition of a unlisted praperty, such as 828 Summit
SARPA's appeal on this point is off the mark, as it suggests that the proposed demolition of 828 Summit
required that the HPC conduct an environmental assessment worksheet (EAW). However, the rule to
which 5ARPA is referring (Minnesota Rules section 4410.4300, subpart 31) does not require an EAW,
unless the proposal would desaoy a property that is individuaUy I'uted on either the National or State
Registers of Historic Places. Individual properties wiNtin the bisirict may be, and are, tisted when their
historical significance wazrants; for example, the houses at 432 and 1006 Summit aze noted as designated
historic in the City's District 16 Plan. The house at S28 Summit Avenue is not listed on either the
Natlonal or Sfate Registers of Historic Places. Therefore, by the plain language of the rule, no EAW
was required.
Not only is SARPA's reading of the state environmental regulation inaccurate, but SARPA also ignores the
fact that, by approving the demolition, the HPC was proceeding within the express authority delegated to it
by state statute and city ordinance. The state statute that enables the establishment of historic districts and
provides for their maintenance (the Historic District Act) states that local governments have the authority to
impose regulations governing demolition of structures within historic districts. Accordingly, the City
Council has established a procedure for protecting the swctures within the Heritage Hill district (St. Paul
City Code, Sec. 73 and 74 establish and set the jurisdiclion and procedures of the HPC; both the Summit
Avenue Plan of 1986 and the District 16 Plan of 1989 specifically indicate that requests for demoliflon
within the Historic District should be reviewed by the HPC). The HPC procedure not only adequately
protects all buildings within the district, but is even more protective than the EAW process, as it requires a
public hearing (which is only optional in an EAW proceeding) and is run by a commission that both has
expertise in [he subject and is specifically appointed to protect such historic azeas.
2. SARPA argues there was a ilisregard of staff recommendation for further study.
Response: Further study was performed that supported the HPC's decision to approve the
demolition permit.
The HPC staff report made and distributed before the HPC heazing suggested that some fmther study might
be helpful in detemilning the historic context of the structure. In the time betwcen the production of the
report and the hearing, "further study" was canied out. At the meetiag HPC staff member Aaron
Rubenstein indicated that he had conducted further study into the structure, the modifications made
to it, and lts relationsLip to the other work of the architect. When asked by a commissione�, Mr.
Rubenstein stated that he had enough information to judge that the azchitectural/historical integrity of the
structure had indeed been compromised by changes made to the strucnue; this is information and a
conclusion based on precisely the sort "fiuther study" that Mr. Rubenstein had suggested might be fivitful
in the staff report he had prepazed eazlier.
3. SARPA claims a total d'uregard and lack of substantive discussion of their objection.
Response: The HPC carefully considered 5ARPA's objections and followed the guidelines set ou« for
its consideration in the City Code.
In addition to receiving the SARPA letter and hearing an oral presentation from Mr. Toscano at the public
hearing, HPC members explicitly discussed the objections raised in both the lette� and the presentation.
The chair of the FTPC made a pointed statement reJecting SARPA's contention that this approval'
would set a bad precedent, instead finding that it is exactly for these challenging decisions that the
HPC exists. Members of the HPC discussed in detail both the relevance of this structure as an Ingemann
house (of which two others are still in St. Paul), and explicidy rejected SARPA's contention that a single
demolition would jeopardize the entire district. The ample discussion and subsequent rejection of SARPA's
objection surely does not consGtute "total discegard."
(7\-�
4. SARPA claims a lack of observation of the statute establishing the Sumn:it Avenue historic preservatian
districr, which, on pan, was passed to eliminate funher demolition of homes on SummitAvenue.
Response: The HPC observed the relevant statute which specifically directs it to review appllcadons
for demolitlon.
The relavant "statute" (which apparently is a reference ro City Code Chapter 74, tlrticle IIn is quite clear.
Section 74.67 provides explicit guidelines for the HPC in reviewing proposals for demolirion of structures
within the district. Those guidelines were presented, verbaHm, in the staff presentation ro the HPC and
followed by the HPC in approving the request. The code does not explicitly describe its intent in allowing
demolition, but does cleazly state the importance of the architechual character (Sec. 74.63(a)), its intent for
the HPC to consider the particular merit of a buiiding or area under review and the economic impact of its
decisions on property owners (Sec. 74.63(b)), and the fact that the guidelines in the statute have been
reviewed and approved by the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Officer as containing criteria which
will "substantially achieve the purpose of preserving and rehabilitating buildings of significance to the
district."
It is clear from the code that the HPC is expected (indeed, is directern to review applications for
demolition, and that the code anticipates that some buildings will not be of significance. The intent of
the code, therefore, would appear to be to enable the HPC to preserve significant buildings (for historic and
architectural reasons), not to effectively handcuff the FIPC by preven8ng it from approving demolirion
proposals, as is apparenUy alleged in the SARPA appeal.
We should note that 828 Summit Avenue lies within the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation DisVict rather
than the Suaunit Avenue West Heritage Preservation District. This distinction does not change the
language of the law regazding demolition, but may explain Mr. Toscano's comments about architectural
taste and discouraging demolition. The Suaunit Avenue West HPD code does not specifically refer to
azchitec[ural chazacter, and indeed was intended to have looser design guidelines than the older Historic
Hill HPD. '
S. SARPA argues that the HPC's decision was based on assumed and subjective architectural taste and not
historical preservation status in a 'living museum' of homes prorected in ihe district.
Response: The HPC eacplicitly discussed and made t5ndings about the historic significance of the
house. '
As specifically provided in the code, the HF'C also discussed and made findings about the impact of our
proposed new construction, both on surrounding houses and economically. Mr. Toscano and SARPA
may feel that Summit Avenue is a"living museum; ' but the HPC and t6e law bot6 are clear on the
fact that demolition and construction permit decisions are made individually, on their merits.
Furthermore, the state Hisroric Disvict Act and the City Code demonsuate that HPC is empowered (and
therefore, expecte� to make judgments, based on guidelines, as part of their stewazdship over the historic
district. Consistent with its duties, the HPC staff report and subsequent HPC discussion at the hearing
correctly examined whether our new consuuction fit the district guidelines (which aze neither highly
subjective nor necessazily reflective of cammissioners' tastes). The HPC, within its discretion, withheld
final approval of our construction plans pending their review of ffnal drawings and material selections.
6. SARPA argues that the HPC's decision was not fudly based an criteria l'uted under the statute establishing
National Historic Preservation districts.
Response: The HPC specifically addressed these criteria in 3ts deliberations and in the tinditogs 9t
made at the hearing.
Mr. Toscano appeazs to be referring to the guidelines presented in St. Paul Code Section 74.67, which
references Secdon 73.06(i)(2). These criteria include "the azchitectural and historical merit of the building,
the efFect of the demolition on sunounding buildings, the effect of any proposed new construction ... on
O\—�
surrounding buildings, and the economic value of usefulness of the buildings as it now e�cists ... in
compazison with the value of usefulness of any proposed swctures designated w replace the present
buiiding or buildings." The HPC specifically considered these criteria in its deGberations and
addressed them in its findings. The Code does not preclude the HPC from considering additional facrors
as well (which may be what Mr. Toscano refers to with the "not fully" language), but in fact the discussion
was very focused on the guidelines presented in the code.
7. SARPA complains about incomplete original staff work in not evaluating 828 Summit.
Response: A 1982 Historic Sites Survey oF the structure at 82S Summit stated that the building was
not listed on either the State or Nallonal Historic Registers and concluded that the structure does not
have potential for individual desiguation.
Mr. Toscano likely refers to the Summit Avenue Study Inventory form on which the category of the house
is left blank, rather than listed as "contribuUng" or "non-contributing." Mr. Toscano does not mention the
1982 Historic Sites Survey that concluded that the home had neither National Register nor Local
designation potenNal as a historic building. This survey indicated the [owest leved of significance Found
on the form. Further, the survey was based on a review when ihe house was only "altered slighUy," which
we now know from the HI'C staffs invesGgauon tha't was reported at the HPC hearing, predates more
substantial alterations performed since that survey.
Further, even if the house had been classified on the survey as "contributing," it would have been within the
FIPC's discretion to evaluate our perntit request based on the criteria in St. Paul code Section 74.67. The
lack of designation on the survey is not unusuai (indeed, no building on the block has this classificarion
completed in the survey), and the HPC prope�ly has the responsibility for determining the level of
conhibution and significance of the house in its findings and decision.
8. SARPA complains of a total lack of discussion and observation of the Summit Avenue Plan ... established
to protect Summit against demolition and listed of 828 Summit under Architects of Note on Summit
Avenue.'
Response: The HPC observed all relevant aspects of the Summit Avenue Plan.
The 1986 Sumaiit Avenue Plan was raised by Mr. Toscano in his letter to the HPC prior to the public
hearing. Parts of the Plan have been put into effect Uurough amendments to the City Code (e.g., the
extension of heritage preservation to all of Summit Avenue), while other parts remain as mere
recommendations. The proposed project directly supports the two most relevant goals of the plan: (1)
Preserve the residential chazacter of Summit Avenue (which specifically includes the City nurturing "the
new posiHve energy to maintain and improve Sununit Avenue as a very desirable place to live"; (2)
Enhance Summit Avneue's role as the "showcase street" of St. Paul. The Summit Avenue Plan, in
recommendation #1, explicitly indicates that the "HPC should review all building pernut applications for
demolitron, house moves, ne�v consavction, ..." T6e HPC clearly observed tLe letter and spirit of the
Summit Avenue Plan in fulfilling its obligation to review our permit request..
We should note that Mr. Toscano does not refer to the latcr-adopted 1989 Dishict 16 Plan which similazly
endorses the use of the heritage preservadon district designation and associafed processes to ensure
historically appropriate development in the disvict.
We strongly disagree with SARPA's main contendons, which are: (1) that no demolition
whatsoever may be allowed on Summit Avenue in order to keep it a"living museum," and (2)
that approving this project places more than 10% of the homes on the avenue "in jeopardy."
Indeed, we believe that careful evaluation of each project by the Heritage Preservation
Commission, as was done in our case, is essenrial to keeping Summit Avenue a"living" museum
rather than a"dead" one. Keeping Summit Avenue the "showcase" stated in the Summit Avenue
4 i -�
Plan requires cazeful management by curators who can judge the merit of each structure in the
museum. As was cleazly related by the chair of the HPC, this case merely reinforces the
precedent that any proposed demolition in the Historic District must first overcome the high
hurdle of approval by the HPC after a public hearing. No other building will be demolished as a
result of this action, and any other project will have to overcome the same high hardle.
Summary. SARPA, as represented by Mr. Toscano, presents an appeal based on their exueme
belief that no house on Summit Avenue should ever be demolished, but unsupported either by
the facts of the case or by the law. As directed by law, the HPC carefully studied this issue and
came to a unanimous decision approving our request.
SARPA rnakes an argument that this application creates a"slippery slope." This argument is
incorrect; no other house is placed in jeopardy by this decision. Each applicadon for demolition
or development requires the carefal review and approval of the HPC.
SARPA's argument about the Avenue "reverting to the rich" is insulting and counterproductive
name-calling. It is they who threaten to impoverish at least one pair of modest-income Summit
Avenue residents by needlessly taldng from them much of the value of their property on the
Avenue.
We ask you to uphold the HPC's approval and to issue our pernrit so that we may proceed
without undue delay.
Respect£ully submitted,
�dl� �� ��,
Joseph and Ellen Kottstan
Attachments: letters from neighbors and owners of 828 Summit Avenue
Mario Tosto 61 ��
828 Summlt Avenue • St. Paui, MN 55105 • Phone 617-290-1099 • E-mail: marlo@tosto. com
September 18, 2000
To the St. Paul City Council:
KEY REASONS TO CONFIRM TH.E HPC DECISION ON
DEMOLITION OF 828 SUMMITAVENUE
• If the August decision, made through due process, is
not consummated soon serious economic hardship
would be imposed on two .longtime residents
• The present building has never been considered archi-
tecturally significant and should not be considered so
now since major alterations have been made to it over
the past twenty-five years, changing its original look
and function
• The new structure would be more in harmony with the
surrounding structures and would certainly add value
to the neighborhood
� Based on the HPC decision we have made a commit-
ment to buy a home in Boston and further delay would
cause us to miss our closing and have near-
catastrophic economic consequences
• The state has recommended a course of action based
on best available information.
Please affirm the HPC decision
Mario Tosto
<b� e-�r4:,P>
Joan Ostrin
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
DETAIL
6�-�
SARPA has done many good things for Summit Avenue over the years and cer-
tainly has good intentions
BUT in thls case those good inEentions for the street ae a whole are blinding it to
the extraordinarily difficult consequences for iwo of its long-time residents
We aze among the few who have lived on Siurunit Avenue continuously for over
twenty flve years
We have done our part to preserve the livability of the neighborhood over that
tixne, contributed to local causes and tried to keep our piace presentable
In order to do that we have invested heavily in the building, greatly altering it,
changing it from its original purpose, as a duplex. It was we who removed the fuc-
tures and plumbing for an upstairs kitchen
We added azchitectural touches like a lintel above the kitchen window in front
and a new azchway around the front door
We removed almost all the original windows, which were grossly inadequate for a
residential str-ucture (they were single-pane, metal framed factory units)
We added skylights to the attached building - added after the house had been
built
We removed the doors that made for two private entrances.
We added a room in back to remedy the lack of storage space that should have
been afforded by an attic or basement
We parked our car outside for twenty five years because there was no garage
We took down a wall in the llving room to enlarge it
We replaced cheap Philippine Mahogany paneling with quality cherry paneling
We replaced other cheap paneling with dry wall and wall paper
We landscaped the front
We corrected many construction and design defects
We added heating wlres for water pipes that had been designed to be too close to
the nortkt wall, causing freeze-ups and pipe bursting
About us
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
On November 1, 1999 I was offered an important job in Boston and relocated
there, leaving my wife to manage the house mostly alone, though I commute once
or 'lwice a month
In Aprll we were seriously considering plans to relocate to Boston
In the midst of these discussions we received an offer from the realtor for the Kon-
stans, which we belleve was an answer to prayer
Within a few weeks we had arrived at a very satisfactory agreement to sell our
house
We have spent the better part of the summer lnvestigating the options for relocat-
ing to Boston
In case you didn't know it, Boston is the third most eicpensive city for real estate
in the country. The offer from the Konstans would go a long way to providing us
with a comfortable, though much smaller, home
We are eager to stop all this commuting and long distance calling and resume a
normal family relationship
No, we aze more than eager - we are getting desperate
2
About the structures
D�-�
26. Honestly, when we first received the offer to purchase our house we were suspi-
cious that it was from a developer who would construct a cheap and ugly multi-
family building - or worse
27. We have seen the plans for the new house to be built on our lot and feel gratified
that we can leave our beloved street knowing it wlll be graced by something more
elegant and substantial than what we are leaving
28. We are happy - and relieved - AND YOU SHOLJLD BE TOO - that it is not a face-
less corporate institution that will be replacing Joan and me
29. That it will not be greedy speculators who will be replacing Joan and me
30. But tY►at it is Joe, and Ellen Konstan, and their son, Ben
31. We are happy that a young family will be living there - and will be enjoying the
beauty and charm of Summit avenue, even while adding a significant amount of
the same
32. Though we know that it's the life inside a house that really makes it a home, as
people with an eye for these sort of things, we appreciate the architect's critique of
our present structure. The buffding does not uUlize the space as well as it could.
33. .As they have mentioned, the original azchitect, Mr. Ingemann, could not have
been very proud of this building. He certainly didn't seem to spend much on it,
either in materlals or workmanship, compared with his other works. And didn't
spend much time in it, either.
34. We were told by his daughter, Judy, that it was just an"in-town" house - the
main residence being on the St. Croix river. 828 was used mostly by her and her
sister while they were in college, and when her parents needed an occasional
place to stay while in St. Paul
3
About freedom and individual rights 6�-�
35. We appreciate that neighborhoods need to be protected, especially historic ones
like Summit Avenue
36. We also appreciate that Minnesota has instituted measures to preserve the heri-
tage of its cities
37. The Heritage Preservation Cominission is one of those measures and has cazefully
considered the present project - giving it unanimous approval after an open pub-
lic meeting attended by several of our neighbors
38. AND '1'I-IAT SHOULD BE ENOUGH.
39. I SAI', THAT SHOULD BE ENOUGHI
40. Having complied with all. the regulations and procedures, having received ap-
proval by official experts and neighbors, having entered into a legal and agreeable
contract for a purchase and sale - it is time for freedom to have its course.
41. It is time to respect the basic rights of individuals to own and sell their private
property
Concluding statement
42. SARPA, for all the good you do and have done, your zeai has gotten the better of
you this time. You have not offered to help Joan and me to make the transition to
our new life - you aze getting in the way of that. Joe and Ellen have made such
an offer - and we have accepted it, gratefully. If you prolong, and possibiy pre-
vent, the consummation of this agreement, you wlll have not only overstepped
your charge -�ou wlll be causing us serious econoxnic hardship. You wiil also
inadvertently be sending the chilling message to all other residents of Summit
Avenue, that whether they intended to or not, whether they like it or not, whether
they can afford to or not - they aze imprisoned in a"museum" and have fewer
rights and opportunities than people who live,just a block away. Please with-
draw your appeal, withdraw further resistance to this project and cease harassing
us.
43. Council members, we aze just two people, Joan and I, who want to get back to-
gether and live a normal life. We don't have an army of lawyers or great financial
resources to quibble about whether a"living museum" is more unportant than let-
ting citizens exercise their fundamental and sacred right to be properly owners; to
let them fulflll a long and honorable tenure on Sumxnit Avenue and get on with
the next phase of their life. We have you, representing real people like us, to do
what? To invent the wheel7 To reinvent it? No - just to afHrm what a legislatively-
authorized agency has already carefully done. Do the right thing. - decide in fa-
vos of this project. �
[!
Sent by: ED1NA REALTY CITY LAKE 812 925 7758; 08/23/00 5:25PM;Jg�#504;Page 25/29
Rmasived: 6/26/DO �e60PM� 612 286 ey24 •� �pINA qEALTY CITY LAKE; Pagp q
WJG-23-19F1� 16�21 FRpM CIIY L7F ST PAIJL LIEP
Ma�r�o To s�o 8a
• ' -
01-�
.Joan Ostr,��n
82a supfmis pveaue • 6F. Paul, M
Augusc 7, 2000
T�car Hcritaga Prescsvat�on Commissian Meml�ers:
We are tt�e ownars of the property at 828 Summit Aveaue. This notarized. letter is pro-
vidod to yau as a wr3ttcn statesaent of our support oi the applioasioa isom J'oseph ar�d
Ellen Konstan tor Che demolition of the aurrent struccure lecated oss this� pmperty for tho
parpose of constructittg a new si�le family hosne. 'DVC aze in cosacusteSnce with their per-
mit request axsd have a fuU� executed purchase agrecment to sell this properly to the
Konst&ns upon approval ai tltis demolition and new cott9tructior,t application by the Heri-
tago 8se�avafioa Coauais�ioa.
We reapecltu]ly a�c t1�,at you approvo their �pplic�tion.
8incerei�+, -
�� ���
�.�__ �ei<�.
�
s
'//!'
ii� c�
. ,
=, ���a � o�z- O S
� � � � /�
�
�w��WYNw
' NOHEMI ACUIIAR
NOTAAY WiBLIGYIW1EgOTA
�b�nlwkn pqhrJm,i�,�00d
, • ■
�2
aent uy: cu1IVN HtHLIY GlIY �AKt
Rooaivede A/aq/00 Os�OPM;
fW.A'a^23-19d9 16:21 FROM
Mnc:nta�5•r•i:R Cc�,.,.,x;r:
,.
F ��'
l�U�l{9� 16o ZQ�O
Mrs. F!laaD. Kanakan
582 Cretin ti�venue South
5eint Paul. MN SSl lb
Deat Mra. Konstwic
1�N't/14111'lll.{II:Y {7hPAN1'Mf:N'i
I�rpy ( IItA.W � ��\'Y.MI�'�;
S�w� P.,� i_ �hwnP�r�c,� asina�xu9
dc-1
G
0
� C �. �
iV
;,� . '
� •%�
-_ -;:
o •
:a
i� was n pleasutn meoting you a�ut youc family at yesterday's moeting regazding your
pcopoaed new home•et if�E Stunmit Aveaue. My wifa, Wa1ko: pearce, and I ve�y mndi
appteciate We effort that you ntade W'inform us of yriur plan&, As your nextrdoor neigll6ora at
834 Summtf, we sre delighted with youe vary wel!-developed plans for improving tlie siee. Your
propased hoane is quite besutltL) and wiai be a greaR addttion to aur neigh6orhood.
We have eqjoyod our naigbbora, who a��e quilo nich pcopie. 1'liay did a gr�at job
maintaicung the�r homo, but they were vcry limited by llYa sntiull house. As you kpow. it is u�ade
Yi�om clader blaok, and abvut a quacter of the &qnt of the buiiding was made by euclosirsg the
garago. Consequeudy. We building has aa iususual appesrance and an odd configuration Wat, i
belteve, ►t�ay be in vlolation of the aurrent hui4ding staadards. Your p�oposed pro,jeat wip bring
the site into oon£ormIty witlt currant standards, and it wil( tb�ke a utuch more appealing part oP
the commupity.
I partioula�ly like your laads�„aping ideas. Your plan tc ramove the perkissg from d�e &oat
yard to ehe baolry�ltd ahould make a grwt improvement of tho view finm our froat windows. At
prosBnt, tho houso on tl�e loe is mostty htdden by ve�station and t!u cars that are usualiy parked in
tho yard. Your plans �o open up tha &os�t wiil mako a much moce dramatic settiuig for your
hamo.
We hopatbat you will soon bo our netghbors. We are very pleased to have a nice young
family next door w us, aad wa ue very impressed with Your hvust plans. If we can bo o�' aay
holp alang the way, please do not tsesitate to cot�tect us.
Sin�rely.
D�� ��u/�k��Z��
k Weathexfvrd
Home phone: 651 221-9834
Work phone: 63 t 696-6144
812 925 7758; 08/23/q0 5:25PM;J�#504;Page 26/29
67'2 2Ba ef2a -> SQiNA flEAL7Y OY7Y LAIC�: PapO 6
CYIY OF 5T PAUL LI� 7'O %129257758 P.906i00g
Elomo fax; 65t 292-9420
9'I u hbdp�h.h{Y�
I'n�: n;r •rwK •Ft:�
Z�
Sent by: EDINA REALTY CITY LAKE 812 925 7758; 08/23l00 5:28PM;J�'g�#504;Page 28/29�
Reoaived: 8/�a/oo 9e8o�M: et2 ze6 912s - s epx[aA qEAL7v osYV Ln�; Paqe 7
FiLIG-23—l900 16%21 FROM CITY OF ST PqJ_ �.IEP TD %12925'7756 P.007i00g
, ��—\
r+ -r,?Ny�• ;
. � � ',1
r, ° •; 'j�:' , rt ,.. .
L.QR V FORRESTER CJ ��.;°?'2 i�:i !=i �3
.,......_. ._..._.�_..___�_—�--• —�----- ............._.�.___... ....,.. _.....__.t��r�;�;:�eu
. tllO5l7MMITAVFalUE
6T PAU(. Mry Yil OS+�44{
Augast 17, 20Q0
Ellen aad Joa Konstan
582 Cratin Avanue 3outh
St PaW, MN 55116
Dear �Iten and Joa:
This is to thank you for the ahowiug of your p;oposed plans for a naw homc at 828
Summit Avenun, and co assur+e you of my suppoK of this venture.
�
As yaa know. I live nwct door to the sito at 818 Summit Avoeae. 'Your dasign for a
�aciaus itume which would bload so wcll inlo a naighborhood oP Iace ninaternth-oarly
twmntieth century riome�s would greatty improvo t1u view "from my yard".
I bought the housc gt 818 Summit In 1992 to �nesen+c and care for it as well ss to havc a
comfottahie and gaoious home. 1 am awa[e of th� cha�r and work of SARI'A, and I am
aften i�► agr�euient with them. in somo cases suah as the existing hous� at 828 Sumenit, i
be1(eve that the histo�ioal charncter of the neighborhdod wnuld be �eatly improved by
the removal oF a house that is,, in my opinion. �e,ry us�sttractive and of an incompatiHle
slylo with the balance ofthe naighbattwud.
I hope tltat SARPA can support you. lFthoy cannot do so, l hope they will ratkain flrom
objectin8 � Yoqr plsn.
Teol lFee to sharo my opinion with anyone.
I wish you eho best of suoeass, and eagerly anticipale tHa oppottunity to welcome you as
next door nci$bbors.
Sinoerol�r,
J',-����-� .
��
CJ1-\
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION
FILE NUMB�R 4095
DATE 21 September 2000
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) is authorized by Chapter 73 of the
Saint Paul Legislative Code to review permit applications for exterior alterations, new construction or
demolition on or within designated Heritage Preservation Sites or Heritage Preservation Districts; and
WHEREAS, Joseph and Ellen Konstan have applied for permits to demolish the existing house at
828 Sumrnit Avenue, located within the Historic Hill Heritage Preservafion District, and to construct a
new house on the site; and
WHEREAS, the existing structure on the site is the William and Dorothy Ingemann House, a two-story
residence designed by William Ingemann and constructed in 1956; it has painted smooth concrete block
walls and a slate-shingled mansard roof; and
WHEREAS, the following is the citation in the City's Legislative Code concexning HPC review of
demolition permits:
Chapter 73, Heritage Preservation Commission; Secrion 73.06, Review of permits;
Paragraph (i), Factors to be considered:
Before approving any permit application required under paragraph (d) of this section to
be approved by the heritage preservation commission, the commission shalt make
findings based on the program for the preservation and architectural control for the
heritage preservation site in regard to the following:
(2) In the case of the proposed demolition of a building, prior to approva] of said
demolition, the commission shall make written findings on the following:
Architectural and historical merit of the building, the effect of the demolition on
surrounding buildings, the effect of any proposed new construction on the
remainder of the building (in case of partial demolirion) and on surrounding
buildings, and the economic value or usefulness of the building as it now exists
or if altered or modified in comparison with the value or usefulness of any
proposed structures designated to replace the present building or buildings; and
WHEREAS, relevant portions of the Historic Hill District Heritage Preservation District design review
guidelines for new construction that pertain to the proposed building include the following:
III. Naw Construction, A. General Principles: The basic principle for new construction in the Historic
Hill Dishict is to maintain the district's scale and quality of design. The Historic Hill District is
architecturally diverse within an overall pattern of harmony and continuity. These guidelines for new
conshuction focus on general rather than specific design elements in order to encourage architectural
innovation and quality design while maintaining the harmony and continuity of the district. New
construction should be compatible with the size, scale, massing, height, rhytlun, setback, color, material,
building elements, site design, and character of surrounding structures and the area.
� 1—�
HPC Resolution re: 828 Summit Avenue / File #4095
21 September 2000
Page 2
III., B. Massing and Height: New construction should conform to the massing, volume, height and scale
of existing adjacent structures. Typical residential shuctures in the Historic Hil] District are 25 to 40 feet
high. The height of new construction should be no lower than the average height of all buildings on both
block faces; measurements should be made from sheet level to the highest point of the roofs.
III., C. Rhythm and Directional Emphasis: The existence of uniform narrow lots in the Historic Hill
naturally sets up a strong rh}rthm of buildings to open space. Historically any structure built on more than
one lot used vertical facade elements to maintain and vary the overall rhythm of the street rather than
interrupting the rhythm with a long monotonous facade. The direcrional expression of new construction
should relate to that of exisring adjacent structures.
III., D, Materials and Details: Variety in the use of architectural materials and details adds to the
intimacy and visual delight of the district. But there is also an overall thread of continuity provided by
the range of materials commonly used by turn-of-the-centuty builders and by the way these materials
were used. This thread of continuity is threatened by the introduction of new industrial materials and the
aggressive exposure of earlier materials such as concrete block, metal framing, and glass. The purpose of
this section is to encourage the proper use of appropriate materials and details.
The materials and details of new construction should relate to the materials and details of existing nearby
buildings.
Prefened roof materials are cedar shingles, slate and tile; asphalt shingles which match the approximate
color and texture of the preferred materials are acceptable substitutes. ... Materials, including their
colors, wil] be reviewed to determine their appropriate use in relation to the overall design of the structure
as well as to surrounding structures.
III., E. Building Elements: Individual elements of a building should be integrated into its composition for
a balanced and complete design. These elements for new construcHon should compliment existing
adjacent structures as well.
III., E., 1. Roofs. ...The skyline or profile of new construction should relate to the predominant roof
shape of existing adjacent buildings. Most houses in the Historic Hill District have a roof pitch of
beriveen 9:12 and 12:12 (rise-to-run ratio). Highly visible secondary sfixcture roofs should match the
roof pitch of the main structure, and generally should have a rise-to-run rario of at least 9:12. Roof
hardware such as skylights, vents, and metal pipe chimneys should not be placed on the front roof plane.
III., E., 2. Windows and Doors. The proportion, size, rhythm and detailing of windows and doors in new
construction should be comparible with that of existing adjacent buildings. Most windows on the Hill
have a vertical orientation, with a proportion of between 2:1 and 3:1 (height to width) common.
Individual windows can sometimes be square or horizontal if the rest of the building conveys the
appropriate directional emphasis. Facade openings of the same general size as those in adjacent buildings
are encouraged.
Wooden double-hung windows are tradirional in the Historic Hill District and should be the first choice
when selecting new windows. Paired casement windows, although not historically common, will often
prove acceptable because of their vertical orientation. ...Vertical muntins and muntin grids may be
acceptable when compatible with the period and style of the building.
�\-�
HPC Resolution re: S28 Summit Avenue / File #4095
21 September 2000
Page 3
IIT., E., 3. Porches and Decks: In general, houses in the Historic Hill District have roofed front porches....
Front porches provide a transitional zone between open and closed space which unites a building and its
Site, semiprivate spaces which help to define the spatial hierazchy of the district. They are a consistent
visual element in the district and often introduce rhythmic variation, clarify scale or provide vertical
facade elements. The porch heatment of new structures should relate to the porch treatment of existing
adjacent structures. If a porch is not built, the transition from private to public space should be articulated
with some other suitable design elernent; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission, based upon the evidence presented at its
August 24, 2000 public hearing on said permit applications, made the following findings of fact
conceming the proposed demolition of the existing building:
1. The building does not have significant architectural or historic merit. It is an unusual building in
that preliminary research does not disclose any other residential designs by Mr. Ingemann in the
1950s, that the French Renaissance Revival style design of the house appears unrelated to
architectural irends of the time, and that the scale, materials and site design of the house aze quite
dissimilar to those of its neighbors. These unusual aspects of the building do not, however, make
it significant. Mr. Ingemann was lmown during the 1920s and 1930s for period revival
residential designs and for the design of municipal, institutional, and commercial buildings over a
number of decades, particularly in the Colonial Revival and Art Deco/Moderne styles . An
examination of the body of his architectural work reveals that a number of better examples of his
work survive in Saint Paul and around the state of Minnesota. Finally, the Ingemanns lived in
this residence for only approximately five years before they retired; they moved to Mexico
several years later.
2. The proposed demolition would not have an adverse impact on the historic or architectural
character and integrity of surrounding buildings, nor would the construction of the proposed
residence. The residential nature of the avenue would be preserved.
While the existing residence, at approximately 2,600 square feet, has economic value, the
proposed 10,000 squaze foot residence would have significantly more economic value.
4. The existing residence has seen some significant alteration, which lessens its architectural
integrity. The attached garage was converted to living space in the 1970s and an inappropriate
brick arched facade was attached to this part of the building facing Summit Avenue. A
significant number of the original steel casement windows have been replaced (approximately 50
percent of them, according to one representative of the applicants); and
W�REAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission, based upon the evidence presented at its
August 24, 2000 public hearing on said permit applications, made the following findings of fact
concerning the proposed new residence:
The proposed structure conforms to the new construction guidelines for the Summit Avenue
West district. It would "be compatible with the size, scale, massing, height, rhythm, setback,
color, material, building elements, site design, and chazacter of sunounding structures and the
area." The materials and details relate to those of existing nearby buildings. The individual
elernents of the building are integrated into its composition for a balanced and complete design.
� l --� 1
HPC Resolution re: 828 Summit Avenue / File #4095
21 September 2000
Page 4
Garaging is located at the rear of the lot, off of the alley (the site currently has surface parking in
front of the house).
2, Detailed plans, including final selection of materials and details, have not yet been prepared.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based on the above findings, the Heritage Preservation
Commission grants approval of a demolition permit to remove the existing residence at 828 Summit
Avenue, subject to the condition that the house be docuxnented with photographs and/or measured
drawings (to be determined by HPC staf�; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that based on the above findings, the Heritage Preservation
Commission grants approva] of a building permit to construct the proposed residence and garage, subject
to the condition that ftna] plans and materials shall be reviewed and approved by the commission's
Design Review Committee.
Decisions af the Heritage Preservation Commission are final, subject to appeal to the City Council within 14
days by anyone afPected by the decision. This resolution does not obviate the need for meeting applicable
building and zoning code requirements, and does not constitute approval for tax credits.
�\-1
�..J
Joseph and Ellen Konstan
582 Cretin Avehue South
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55116
September 18, 2000
City Council of Saint Paul
Saint Paul, Minnesota
Dear Council Members:
We are writing in response to the appeal of the Heritage Preservation Commission's (HPC's)
unanimous approval of our demolition permit application for the structure at 828 Summit
Avenue, Saint Paul, The HPC made a well reasoned decision on appropriate grounds and we
urge the Council to uphold the HPC's decision. The appeal, filed on behalf of SARPA by James
Toscano, the organization's president, contains a substantial number of factua] errors and
misstatements of the relevant legal standards, as we identify more specifically in our response
below.
Background. We have long loved Summit Avenue and look forward to the opportunity to raise
a family there. For the past six months, we've been actively pursuing the opportunity to build a
house on the Avenue. We worked closely with HPC staff throughout the process to avoid
actions that would harm or jeopardize the history and character of the district, and made clear to
� HPC staff and our own realtor our commitment to identify an appropriate property and design a
new'house such that the project would contribute to the architecture of Sumxnit Avenue. To
further that commitment, we have hired well-respected preservation architects and have openly
approached neighbors and community organizations to present and gather feedback on our plans.
We invited all residents on both sides of the block, along with the Summit Hill Association
(SFiA) and SARPA, to a meeting on August 15; all neighbors and the SHA representatives were
extremely supportive. The two next-door neighbors submitted letters to the HPC strongly
supporting the project. We also presented to the Land Use Committee of the SHA (which was
unable to make a formal recommendation due to lack of quorum) and have a standing offer to
SHA to present to their board at their request.
We were dismayed to hear that SARPA's board voted to oppose this project before seeing any of
the details, but have nonetheless offered to meet with them to present the project. Thus far, that
offer has been rebuffed, though we've been told that they may be willing to meet with us after the
City Council meeting at which their appeal is heazd. We believe we've followed the process
thoroughly, going out of our way to provide opportunity for public comment. The HPC held an
open hearing at which SARPA's president presented the organization's objections. And the HPC,
after receiving a staff presentation on the architectural and historical significance of the structure
at 828 Summit Avenue, considered and unanimously supported our request for a demolition
permit.
The Appeal. Mr. Toscano, on behalf of SARPA, appealed the HPC decision, citing eight points.
� All of these points aze without merit, as each either mischaracterizes the facts, the process, or the
legal standards that apply. We address each objection point-by-point.
0�-1
�
1,
SARPA cites the lack of an EAW being done before HPC's decision on the demolitian permit.
�
.
2.
3.
Response: An EAW is not required for the demolition of a unlisted property, such as 828 Summit.
SARPA's appeal on this point is off the mark, as it suggests that the proposed demolition of 828 Smmnit
required that the HPC conduct an environmental assessment worksheet (EAW). However, the rule to
which SARPA is referring (Minnesota Rules section 4410.4300, subpart 31) does not require an EAW,
unless the proposa] would desuoy a property that is individually iisted on eit6er the I3ational or State
Registers of Historic Places. Individual properties within the Disvict may be, and aze, listed when their
historical significance warrants; for example, the houses at 432 and 1006 Summit aze noted as designated
historic in the City's DisVict 16 Plan. The house at 828 Summit Avenue is not listed on either the
Nutional or State Registers of Historic Places. Therefore, by the plain language of the rule, no EAW
was required.
Not only is SARPA's reading of the state environmental regulation inaccurate, but SARPA also ignores the
fact that, by approving the demolition, the HI'C was proceeding within the express authority delegated to it
by state statute and city ordinance. The state statute that enables the establishment of historic districts and
provides for their maintenance (the Historic District Act) states that local governments have the authority to
impose regulations governing demolition of structures within historic districts. Accordingly, the City
Council has established a procedure for protecting the structures within the Heritage Hill disffict (St. Paul
City Code, Sec. 73 and 74 establish and set the jurisdic[ion and procedures of the HPC; both the Summit
Avenue Plan of 1986 and the Disvict 16 Plan of 1989 specifically indicate that requests for demolition
within the Historic District should be reviewed by the HPC). The HPC procedure not only adequately
protects all buildings wi[hin the district, but is even more protective than the EAW process, as it requires a
public hearing (which is only optional in an EAW proceeding) and is run by a commission that both has
expertise in the subject and is speciFically appointed to protect such historic azeas.
SARPA nrgues there was a disregard of staff recommendation for funher study.
Response: Further study was performed that supported the HPC's decision to approve the
demolition permit.
The HPC s[aff report made and distributed before the HPC hearing suggested that some further study might
be helpful in determining the historic wntext of the structure. In the time between the production of the
report and the hearing, "further study" was carried out. At the meeting IIPC staff member Aaron
Rubenstein indicuted that he had conducted further study into the structure, the modifications made
to it, and its relationship to the other work of the architect. When asked by a commissioner, Mr.
Rubenstein stated that he had enough information to judge that the architecturaUhisrorical integrity of the
structuce had indeed been compromised by changes made to the sVUCture; this is information and a
conclusion based on precisely the sort "further study" that Mr. Rubenstein had suggested might be fruitfut
in the staff report he had prepared earlier.
SAftPA claims a total disregard and lack of substantive discussion of their objection.
Response: The HPC carefully considered SARPA's objeMions and followed the guidelines set out for
its consideration in the City Code.
In addition to receiving the SARPA letter and hearing an oral presentation from Mr. Toscano at the public
hearing, HPC members expliciUy discussed the objections raised in both the letter and the presentation.
The chair of the HPC made a pointed statement rejecting SARPA's contention that this approval
would set a bad precedent, instead ending that it is exactly for these'challenging decisions that the
HPC exists. Members of the HPC discussed in detail both the relevance of this structure as an Ingemann
house (of which two others are still in St. Paul), and explicitly rejected SARPA's contention that a single
demolition would jeopardize the entire disuict. The ample discussion and subsequent �ejection of SARPA's
objection surely does not consti[ute "total disregard."
o�-�
� 4. SARPA claims a lack of observation of [he sratute esaablishing the Summit Avenue historic preservation
district, which, on part, was passed to eliminate further demolition of homes on SummitAvenue.
Itespanse: The HPC observed the relevant statute which speci�cally directs it to review applications
for demolltion.
The relevant "statute" (which apparently is a reference to City Code Chapter 74, Article III) is quite clear.
Section 74.67 provides explicit guidelines for the HPC in reviewing proposals for demolition of sVUCtures
within the district. Those guidelines were presented, verbatim, in the staff presentauon to the HPC and
followed by the HI'C in approving the request. The code does not explicitly describe its intent in allowing
demolition, but does clearly state the importance of the architectural chazacter (Sec. 74.63(a)), its intent for
the HPC to consider the particular merit of a building or area under review and the economic impact of its
decisions on property owners (Sec. 74.b3(b)), and the fact that the guidelines in the statute have been
reviewed and approved by the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Officer as containing criteria which
will "substantially achieve the purpose of preserving and rehabilitating buiidings of significance [o the
district."
It is clear from the code that the fIPC is expected (indeed, is directetn to review applications for
demolition, and that the code anticipates that some buildings will not be of significance. The intent oF
the code, therefore, would appear [o be to enable the HPC ro preserve significant buildings (for historic and
architectural reasons), not ro effectively handcuff the HPC by preventing it from approving demolition
proposals, as is apparenUy aileged in the SARPA appeal.
We should note that 828 Summit Avenue lies within the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation DisVict rather
than the Summit Avenue West Heritage Preservation District. This distinction does not change the
language of the law regarding demolition, but may explain Mr. Toscano's comments a6out azchitectural
� taste and discouraging demolition. The Summit Avenue West HPD code does not specifically refer to
architectural character, and indeed was intended to have looser design guidelines than the older Historic
Hilt HI'D.
5. SARPA argues that the HPC's decision was based on assumed and subjective architectural taste and not
historica[ preservation status in a'living museum' of homes protected in the district.
12esponse: The HPC explicitly discussed and made findings about the historic signiticance of the
house. '
As specifically provided in the code, the HPC also discussed and made findings about the impact of our
proposed new conshuction, both on surcounding houses and economically. Mr. Toscano and SARPA
may feel that Summit Avenue is a"living museum," but the HPC and the law both are clear on the
fact that demolition and construction permit decisions are made individually, on their merits.
Furthermore, the state His[oric District Act and the City Code demonstrate that HPC is empowered (and
therefore, expecter� to make judgments, based on guidelines, as part of their stewazdship over the his[oric
district. Consistent with its duUes> the HPC staff report and subseyuent HPC discussion at the hearing
correctly examined whether aur new construction fit the disuict guidelines (which are neither highly
subjective nor necessarily reflective of commissioners' tastes). The HPC, within its discretion, withheld
final approval of our construction plans pending their review of final drawings and material selections.
6. SARPA argues that the HPC's decision was not fully based on criteria listed under the statute estabZishing
National Historic Preservation districts.
Response: The HPC specifically addressed these criteria in its deliberations and in the findings it
made at the hearing.
� Mr. Toscano appears to be refening to the guidelines presented in St. Paul Code Section 74.67, which
references Section 73.06(i)(2). These criteria include "the azchitectwal and historical merit of the building,
the effect of the demolition on surrounding buildings, the effect of any proposed new construction ... on
0�-1
� surrounding buildings, and the economic value of usefulness of the buildings as it now exists ... in
comparison with the value of usefulness of any proposed structures designated to replace the present
building or buitdings." The HPC specifically considered these criteria in its deliberations and
Addressed them in i[s findings. The Code does no[ preclude the HPC from considering additional factors
as well (which may be what Mr. Toscano refers to with the "not fully" language), but in fact the discussion
was very focused on the guidelines presented in the code.
SARPA complains about incomplete original sta,�'work in not evaluating 828 Summit.
Response: A 1982 Historic Sites Survey oF the structure at 828 Sumrtvt stated that the building was
not listed on either the State or National Historic Registers and concluded that the structure does not
have potential for individual designation.
Mr. Toscano likely refers to the Summit Avenue Study Inventory form on which the category of the house
is left blank, rather than listed as "contributing" or "non-contributing." Mr. Toscano does not mention the
1982 Historic Sites Survey that concluded that the home had neither National Register nor Local
designatlon potential as a historic building. This survey indicated the lowest level of significance found
on the form. Further, the survey was based on a review when the house was only "al[ered slightly," which
we now know from the HI'C staffls investigaGon that was reported at the HPC heazing, predates more
substantial atterations performed since that survey.
FLrther, even if the house had been classified on the survey as "contributing," it would have been within the
HI'C's discretion to evaluate our permit request based on the criteria in St. Paul code SecUon 74.67. The
lack of designation on the survey is not unusual (indeed, no building on the block has this classification
completed in the survey), and the HPC properly has the responsibility for determining the level of
contribution and significance of the house in its findings and decision.
� 8. SARPA complains of a total lack of discussion and observation of the Summit Avenue Plan ... established
to protect Summit against demolation and listed of 828 Summit under Architects of Note an Summit
Avenue.'
Response: The HPC observed alt relevant aspects of the Summit Avenue Plan.
The 1986 Summit Avenue Pian was raised by Mr. Toscano in his letter to the HPC prior to the public
hearing. Parts oF the Plan have been put into effect through amendments to the City Code (e.g., the
extension of heritage preservation to all of Summit Avenue), while other parts remain as mere
recommendations. The proposed project directly supports the two most relevant goals of the plan: (1)
Preserve the residential character of Summit Avenue (which specifically includes the Ciry nuc[uring "the
new positive energy to maintain and improve Summit Avenue as a very desirable place to live"; (2)
Enhance Summit Avneue's role as the "showcase street" of St. Paul. The Summit Avenue Plan, in
recommendation #1, expliciHy indicates that the "HPC should review all building pernilt applicaGons for
demolition, house moves, new construction, ..." The HPC clearly observed the letter and spirit of the
Summit Avenue Plan in fultilling rts obligation to review our permit request..
We should note that Mr. Toscano does not refer to the later-adopted 1989 District 16 Plan which similazly
endorses the use of the heritage preservation disuict designation and associated processes to ensure
historically appropriate development in the district.
We strongly disagree with SARPA's main contentions, which are: (1) that no demolition
whatsoever may be allowed on Summit Avenue in order to keep it a"living museum," and (2)
that approving this project places more than 10% of the homes on the avenue "in jeopardy."
Indeed, we believe that careful evaluation of each project by the Heritage Preservation
� Commission, as was done in our case, is essential to keeping Summit Avenue a"living" museum
rather than a"dead" one. Keeping Summit Avenue the "showcase" stated in the Summit Avenue
O\- \
� Plan requires careful management by curators who can judge the merit of each structure in the
museum. As was clearly related by the chair of the HPC, this case merely reinforces the
precedent that any proposed demolition in the Historic District must first overcome the high
hurdle of approva] by the HPC after a public hearing. No other building will be demolished as a
result of this action, and any other project will have to overcome the same high hurdle.
�
Summary. SARPA, as represented by Mr. Toscano, presents an appeal based on their extreme
belief that no house on Summit Avenue should ever be demolished, but unsupported either by
the facts of the case or by the law. As directed by law, the HPC carefully studied this issue and
came to a unanimous decision approving our request.
SARPA makes an argument thaC this application creates a"slippery slope." This argument is
incorrect; no other house is placed in jeopazdy by this decision. Each application for demolition-
or development requires the careful review and approval of the HPC.
SARPA's argument about the Avenue "reverting to the rich" is insulting and counterproductive
name-calling. It is they who threaten to impoverish at least one pair of modest-income Smnmit
Avenue residents by needlessly taking from them much of the value of their property on the
Avenue.
We ask you to uphold the HPC's approval and to issue our pernut so that we may proceed
without undue delay.
Respectfully submitted,
�a� �� ��
Joseph and Ellen Konstan
Attachments: letters from neighbors and owners of 828 Summit Avenue
�
Mario Tosto ��
S28 Summlt Avenue • St. Paul, MN 55105 • Phone 617-290-1099 • E-mail: mario�tosto. com
�
To the St. Paul Citv Council:
September 18, 2000
KEY REASONS TO CONFIRM THE HPC DEGSION ON
DEMOLITION OF 828 SUMMIT AVENUE
• If the August decision, made through due process, is
not consummated soon serious economic hardship
would be imposed on two longtime residents
• The present building has never been considered archi-
tecturally significant and should not be considered so
now since major alterations have been made to it over
the past twenty-five years, changing its original look
. and function
• The new structure would be more in harmony with the
surrounding structures and would certainly add value
to the neighborhood
• Based on the HPC decision we have made a commit-
ment to buy a home in Boston and further delay would
cause us to miss our closing and have near-
catastrophic economic consequences
• The state has recommended a course of action based
on best available information.
Please affirm the HPC decision
Mario Tosto
f (� S e -�M�.l
• Joan Ostrin
� 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
�
�
DETAIL
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
���1
SARPA has done many good things for Surmnit Avenue over the years and cer-
tainly has good intentions
BUT in this case those good intentIons for the street as a whole are blinding it to
the extraordinarily difficult consequences for two of its long-Eime residents
We are among the few who have lived on Sununit Avenue continuously for over
twenty flve yeazs
We have done our part to preseroe the livability of the neighborhood over that
time, contributed to local causes and trled to keep our place presentable
In order to do that we have invested heavily in the building, greatly altering it,
changing it from its original purpose, as a duplex. It was we who removed the fix-
tures and plumbing for an upstairs kitchen
We added architectural touches like a lintel above the kitchen window in front
and a new archway around the front door
We removed almost all the original windows, which were grossly inadequate for a
residential structure (they were single-pane, metal framed factory units)
We added skylights to the attached building - added after the house had been
built
We removed the doors that made for iwo private entrances.
We added a room in back to remedy the lack of storage space that should have
been afforded by an attic or basement
We parked our car outside for iwenty five years because there was no garage
We took down a wall in the living room to enlarge it
We replaced cheap Philippine Mahogany paneling with quality cherry paneling
We replaced other cheap paneling with dry wall and wall paper
We landscaped the front
We corrected many construction and design defects
We added heating wires for water pipes that had been designed to be too close to
the north wall, causing freeze-ups and pipe bursting
About us
18. On November 1, 1999 I was offered an important job in Boston and relocated
there, leaving my wife to manage the house mostly alone, though I commute once
or lwice a month
19. In April we were seriously considering plans to relocate to Boston
20. In the midst of these discussions we received an offer frorn the realtor for the Kon-
stans, which we believe was an answer to prayer
21. Within a few weeks we had arrived at a very satisfactory agreement to sell our
house
22. We have spent the better part of the summer investigating the options for relocat-
ing to Boston
23. In case you didn't know it, Boston is the third most elcpensive city for real estate
in the country. The offer from the Konstans would go a long way to providing us
with a comfortable, though much smaller, home
24. We are eager to stop all this commuting and long distance calling and resume a
normal family relaUonship
25. No, we are more than eager - we are getting desperate
2
About the structures
61-1
26. Honeatly, when we first received the offer to purchase our house we were suspi-
� cious that it was from a developer who would construct a cheap and ugly multi-
family building - or worse
27. We have seen the plans for the new house to be built on our lot and feel gratified
that we can leave our beloved street knowing it will be graced by something more
elegant and substantial than what we aze leaving
28. We are happy - and relieved - AND YOU SHOULD BE 1'00 - that it is not a face-
less corporate institution that will be replacing Joan and me
29. That it will not be greedy speculators who will be replacing Joan and me
30. But that it is Joe and Ellen Konstan, and their son, Ben
31. We are happy that a young family will be living there - and will be enjoying the
beauty and charm of Sumrnit avenue, even while adding a significant amount of
the same
32. Though we know that it's the life inside a house that really makes it a home, as
people with an eye for these sort of things, we appreciate the architect's critique of
our present structure. The building does not utilize the space as well as it could.
33. ,As they have mentioned, the original architect, Mr. Ingemann, could not have
been very proud of this building. He certainly didn't seem to spend much an it,
either in materials or workmanship, compared with his other works. And didn't
spend much time in it, either.
34. We were told by his daughter, Judy, that it was just an "in-town" house - the
� main residence being on the St. Croix river. 828 was used mostly by her and her
sister while they were in college, and when her parents needed an occasional
place to stay while in St. Paul
�
3
About freedom and individual rights a �' 1
� 35. We appreciate that neighborhoods need to be protected, especially historic ones
like Sumxnit Avenue
36. We also appreciate that Minnesota has instituted measures to preserve the heri-
tage of its cities
37. The Heritage Preservation Commission is one of those measures and has carefully
considered the present project - giving it unanimous approval after an open pub-
lic meeting attended by several of our neighbors
38. AND THAT SHOULD BE ENOUGH.
39. I SAY, THAT SHOULD BE ENOUGH!
40. Having complied with all. the regulations and procedures> having received ap-
proval by official experts and neighbors, having entered into a legal and agreeable
contract for a purchase and sale ! it is time for freedom to have its course.
41. It is time to respect the basic rights of individuals to own and sell their private
property
Concluding statement
42. SARPA, for all the good you do and have done your zeal has gotten the better of
you this time. You have not offered to help Joan and me to make the transition to
our new life - you are gett3ng in the way of that. Joe and Ellen have made such
an offer - and we have accepted it, gratefully. If you prolong, and possibly pre-
vent, the consummation of this agreement, you will have not only overstepped
� your charge - you will be causing us serious economic hardship. You will also
inadvertently be sending the chilling message to all other residents of Summit
Avenue, that whether they intended to or not, whether they like it or not, whether
they can afford to or not - they are imprisoned in a"museum" and have fewer
rights and opportunities than people who live just a block away. Please with-
" draw your appeal, withdraw further resistance to this project and cease harassing
us.
43. Council members, we are just two people, Joan and I, who want to get back to-
geYher and live a normal life. We don't have an anny of lawyers or great financial
resources to quibble about whether a"living museum" is more important than let-
ting citizens exercise theii fundamental and sacred right to be property owners; to
let them fulfill a long and honorable tenure on Summit Avenue and get on with
the next phase of their life. We have you, representing real people like us, to do
what? To invent the wheel? To reinvent it? No - just to affirm what a legislatively-
authorized agency has already carefully done. Do the right thing, - decide in fa-
vor. of this project.
�
0
sent by: EOTNA REALTY CTTY LAKE 612 925 7758; 08/23/00 5:25PM;J�Fg�#504;Page 25/29
Rmosivmd: 6/26/00 3e6aPM� 612 26e 9184 .r Ep=ryq REALTY aZTY LAK6; Pagp a
AUCi-23-190H 16%a1 FfZOM CI'fY OF ST pqLIL LIEI' TO 9612925775B P.0&1i006
�
M a r � �
Tos�a_8a Joan
.'//!'
AuguBc 7, 2000
Dear �Seritage Preservatio,n Commissian Members:
Wa are the owners of the property at 828 8ummit Avenue.l'his raoterized letter is pro-
vidod to you as a writtcn stateraent of our support of Lhe applicatioss faror� J'oseph arid
EAesi Koristan Por the demolition of ibe curCent strvcture locate$ osi this prop�ip for the
purpose of constxucting a new single family homo. 'We are in concurrr,nce wiYh their per-
mit request and ha�ve a fiillp executed purchase agreement to sell this property to the
Kosistans upon approval o£ Chis dcmolition and new constructio�x appliaatiott by the PYeri-
tago l'resesvation Comsniasion.
We respectfully �sk that you approve their applic�tion.
Sirac�are3y,
�
Mario'fosm
�� . (!
!_���_.+..1�7/ ....
�
" FI
�
8�- 1
Ostr,�in
iit Avenue • Srt. Paul_ MN Ksi �
� �P , o'i�7?���
, ! � � � �.
w
NOHEMI AGUILAq
' NOTARYPI�eLIC•IU1tW�30TA
14' Caumi �stm &pYU.W. �t. RC7K
s
u
22.
aenc DY: rU1NH MtHLIY �ilr �AKt 612 925 7758; 08/23/00 5:25PM;JetF�r #504;Page 28/29
RoCOiVede 8/�9/0� Os80PM; 6i2 266 9426 -> �q=ryq pEALYY bY7v LAKE; PaOb 6
AUG-23-1990 16�21 FROM C17y � 5T PALN_ LIEP Y'p 9612925'7758 P.OQ[,i�
Mnc;nta�s'ri.�t Cc�l.�.�x;t:
�
�
r :; •
Augus[ 16, 2000
Mrs. �llcn D. ICpnstan
582 Cretitt Avtnue Squth
Saint Paui, MN 53116
Dedr Mra. KonaGvl:
�o
� G
:�J
'V
w � ,; ,
� -
° --�.'
- �%
o •
w
Yc waa a pleasur� meoti�g you and your fsmily at yestorday's meoting regazding your
proposed now home•at 8,$ Sumi�it Avenue. My wife. Walker Pearce, and I very much
app�e¢iate the effort fliak you made to'irform us of yoar plans. As qour next-door neiglibora at
834 Sun�mit, we ara delighted with your very well-de�aloped pians for improving tlia site. Your
proposed hoxne is quite besutiful and wi)1 be a great addition to our neighborhood.
We have eqjoyad our peiglt6ora, who are quito nicc pcopie. 'L'licy did a gr�at job
maintainix►g tk►cy' home. but thoy were vcrylimited by ttYe smafl house. As you kqow. it is »iadr
fro�rt c�»der block, and abovt a quarter of the front of Ute building was made by euclosing tl�e
garage. Conseguently, the butlding has an unusuai appearanco and an odd configuration tliat, l
belleve, msy ba in violation of the aurrent 6uilding s[andards, Youc proposed project wiU bYi»g
the sittW into eonformtty with current standards, and it will make n utuch moro appealing part of
tho commwiity, •
! parricu[atly like your landa,aping ideas. Y'our plan to temove the parking fYom tl�e &ont
ya�d tu tha backy8td Shvuld maka a gFeat impcovanent of the view from our front windows. At
present, the housa on the lot fs mostly hidden by ve&etatian and the cars that arc usualiy parked in
tho yerd. Your plans to open up tha &ont wili mako a much mnre dramatic setting for your
hamo.
Wo hopathat you will soon bc our neighb�rs. Wo are very plsased to itave a �ice young
family next door to us, und we are very impressed w�ith your huusc plans. If we can be of any
holp along the way, please do not hesitate to coucect us.
Sinoerely,
G������
k Weatherford
Homo phone: 651 221-9$34 Elonte Fax; 65l 292-9420
Work phone: 631 696-6144
AN'111R111•1)I.{It:Y �)kPAN'1'INI:N'1
IIN%1 ( ittANU +�YB:11�3;
�AU.i Pa�:�.. S6n�6sur� asrot•i#qy
�I�11� Rt�•(n�h•ht8�
I�nc: n;� �r.x .r.u�
6�-1
.
��
Sent py: EDINA REALTY CITY LAKE
Aeeeived: 8/20/00 9:SOpM;
812 925 7758;
� RIJG-23-1980 16:21 FROM CIT' OF 5T Pq1.IL �(EP
OB/23/00
TO
� ; ." :.'.`'.5�
c;�;'ic: ���:' ,., • �
5:26PM;J�_#504;Page 28/29
Pape �
9612925'T'J58 P.997/008
Q �
L.QREN V FORRESTER c� �t:�, rya r�:. E�: cs
.,....�. _..�..,.�.,,..—,__..,... —•------ ........... .._.._.___... . ... . _....._ _ Ye . i�na . 63i'iz9{a6ee
kv
etie su�rr av�uE
ST PAUL MN 45105,'L96�
August 17� 2000
Ellen aad Joa iCoiutan
382 Cratin Avanuo South
St Paul, M2�155116
Dear EIIen and Jc�a:
� This is to thank you for st►e showius of your proposed plans for a nc.w hamc ar 828
Summit Avenuu, and [o assur+e you of my suppon of ihis venture.
� ,
As you know,l liva s►ext door to the site at 8] 8 Summit Avenue, Your design for a
�tciaus hame which would blcnd so well into a ncip,hborhood of Iatc �inoteenth-oarly
twentieth contury homes would greatiy improva t1�e view "from my yaM".
I boug,ht the house �t 818 Summit in 1992 to ps�esetve and oare fur it as wel! as to havc a
comFottable and p,racioras home. 1 am awure of the charter and i�rork of 5AR1'A, and I am
aftcn t�► ay,�'�emcnt with them. !n some cases such as tho existin� housa at 828 3ummit,l
belfeve that the historicai character of the neighborhood wuuld be �eaHy improved by
the removal of a fiouse that is,, in my opiaion, ve,ry unattractive and of an incompatible
stylo with tho balance of the neighbarhoud.
1 h�pet that SARPA can support you. If they Cannot do so, l hope tbey will rafruiq from
objectin� to •yoqr plaa
1'ecl llree ta share my opinion rvith anyone.
•
I wish yau tho best oFsuoeess, and eugerly anticipate the opportunity to welcome you as
next door nei�;hbors.
Sinoercly,
�'�a���
��
612 2BB �Y24 -s Epxryq R6ALYr CY7V LAKE(
�,
� M
� � � 4
Interdepartmental Memorandum
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
DATE: October 4, 2000
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Peter Warner, CAO
RE: Council Request for Information: HPC Appeal; 828 Summit Ave.
BACKGROUND
The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) granted a permit to Joe and Ellen Konstan for the
purpose of demolishing a dwelling at 828 Summit Avenue. Although the dwelling is located within
the boundaries of the Heritage Hill Preservation District, the dwelling is not specifically designated
as a heritage preservation site.
The Summit Avenue Residential Preservation Association (SARPA) appealed the HPC decision.
SARPA alleged on appeal that the HPC decision should be overturned because the HPC had failed
to prepaze a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA�. In support of this contention,
SARPA relied on a letter dated September 20, 2000 from the state Environmental Quality Board
(EQB). The letter had been prepared by EQB in response to a request posited by Planning and
Economic Development staff to interpret the meaning of Minn. Rule 4410.4300, Subp. 31 which
governs BAW's for historic sites. EQB advised that it interprets Minn. Rule 4410.4300, Subp. 31
to mandate an EAW for demolition permits for non-designated structures within the boundaries of
a state or nationally listed historic district. At the close of the public hearing, the Council requested
that the City Attorney's Office report back on the EQB's interpretation of Minn. Rule 4410.4300,
Subp. 31.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
It is the opinion of the City Attorney's Office that the EQB's interpretation of Minn. Rule
4410.4300, Subp. 31 is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the rule.
City Council Memo: 828 Summit Ave. HPC Appeal
October 4, 2000
Page Two
ANALYSIS
Minn. Rule 4410.4300 is entitled "Mandatory EAW Categories." The rule mandates preparation of
an EAW for 36 types of development projects. Minn. Rule 4410.4300, Subp. 31 is entitled "Historic
Places" It mandates an EAW "for the destruction, in whole or in part, ... of a property that is listed
on the National Register of Historic Places or State Register of Historic Places ..." (Emphasis
added).
The EQB's interpretation presents the following question: is EQB's interpretation of Minn. Rule
4410.4300, Subp. 31 consistent with the plain meaning of its language? If a state agency's
interpretation of a rule is consistent with the plain meaning of the rule, courts will uphold the
agency's interpretation. See, Cable Communications Board v. Nor-West Cable Communications
Partnershin, 356 N.W.2d 658, 667 (Minn. 1984). However, if an agency interprets a rule in a way
that does not correspond with the plain meaning ofthe rule, the agency interpretation is invalid. See,
White Bear Lake Care Center Inc. v. Minnesota Deparhnent ofPublic Welfare, 319 N.W.2d 7, 8-9
(Minn. 1982). Likewise, overly expansive rule interpretations have been struck down by Minnesota
courts. In M.T. Properties, Inc. v. Alexander, 433 N.W.2d 886 (Minn. App. 1988) the Court held
that a mandatory EAW category that specified its application to the "construction" of a pipeline did
not apply to the "relocation" of a pipeline.
The plain language in Minn. Rule 4410.4300, Subp. 31 requires a mandatory EAW only where a
permit is sought to demolish ". .. a property that it listed ..:' The word "property" is expressed in
the singular. The rule does not reference historic dish specifically. The rule does not refer to
individual properties within districts. The ordinary inference to be drawn from the word "listed" is
that it refers to formally designated individual heritage preservation sites.
CONCLUSION
6�- l
The plain and ordinary meaning of the language in Minn. Rule 4410.4300, Subp. 31 compels the
conclusion that the mandatory EAW requirement in the rule does not apply to demolition permits
for non-designated stnxctures within the boundaries of a state or nationally listed historic district.
2 4. The existing residence has seen some significant alteration, which lessens Q�—\
3 it architectural integrity. The attached garage was converted to living space in the
4 1970's and an inappropriate brick arched facade was attached to this part of the
5 building facing Summit Avenue. A significant number of the original steel
6 casement windows have been replaced (approximately 50% of them, according to
7 one representative of the applicants); and
9 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 73.06, the
10 Summit Avenue Residential Preservation Association ( hereinafter "SARPA") duly filed an
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2G
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
appeal from the determination made by the Commission and requested a hearing befare the Saint
Paul City Counci] (hereinafter the "City Council") far the purpose of considering the actions
taken by the said Commission; and
WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Legislative Code § 73.06 and upon notice to affected
parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on September 27, 2000, where
all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, at the close of the public hearing, the matter was laid over to October 4,
2000, for the purposes of receiving an opinion from the City Attorney's Office concerning state
environmental assessment worksheet regulations on the demolition of non-designated structares
located within a designated historical district; and
WHEREAS, on October 4, 2000, the City Attorney's Office delivered its opinion to the
City Council; and
WHEREAS, having heard the statements made, considered the application, staff reports,
and all the Commission's records, minutes and resolution, the Council does hereby
RESOLVE, that the Commission did not err in its facts, findings or procedures and,
accordingly, denies the appeal of SARPA; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council hereby adopts as its own the findings,
conclusions and approvals of the Commission as contained in its Resolution No. 4095; and be it
Council File # O \ � �
RESOLUTION
Presented By
Referred To
Green Sheet # 1 O� 00 S
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA � �
�t
�� �J -
Committee: Date
2 WHEREAS, Joseph and Ellen Konstan, in Zoning File No. 4095 and pursuant to the
3 provisions of the Saint Paul Legislative Code Chapter 73, made application to the Saint Paul
4 Heritage Preservation Commission (hereinafter the "Commission") for a permit to demolish an
5 existing house located within the Historic Hill Preservation District, for the purposes of
6 constructing a new residence on the site, commonly known as 828 Sumuiit Avenue and legally
7 described as contained in the said zoning file; and
9 WHEREAS, the Commission, after having provided notice to affected property owners,
10 conducted a public hearing on August 24, 2000. In its Resolution No. 4095, adopted September
11 21, 2000, the Commission determined to grant the application based upon the following findings
12 and conclusions:
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
1. The building does not have significant architectural or historic merit. It is
an unusual building in that preliminary research does not disclose any other
residential designs by Mr. Ingemann in the 1950s, that the French Renaissance
Revival style design of the house appears unrelated to architectural trends of the
time, and that the scale, materials and site design of the house are quite dissimilar
to those of its neighbors. These unusual aspects of the building do not, however,
make it significant. Mr. Ingemann was known during the 1920's and 1930's for
period revival residential designs and for the design of municipal, institutional,
and commercial buildings over a number of decades, particularly in the colonial
revival and art deco/moderne styles. An examination of the body of his
architectural work reveals that a number of better examples of his work survive in
Saint Paul and around the State of Minnesota. Finally, the Ingemanns lived in this
residence for only approximately five years before they retired; they moved to
Mexico several years later.
2. The proposed demolition would not have an adverse impact on the historic
or architectural character and integrity of surrounding buildings, nor would the
construction of the proposed residence. The residential nature of the avenue
would be preserved.
34 3. While the existing residence, at approximately 2600 sq. ft. has economic
35 value, the proposed 10,000 sq. ft. residence would have significantly more
36 economic value.
37
38
O\—�
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council hereby recognizes from this matter that there
3 may exist within designated preservation districts, significant numbers of structures which may
4 not, if taken individually, meet the criteria for designation as a heritage preservation site but
5 which, if considered as a whole, significantly contribute to the fabric of the heritage preservation
6 district and to the overall appearance of the city. For instance, the testimony in this matter
7 indicated that no fewer than twenty structures within the Historic Hill Preservation District could
8 be eligible for demolition. The Council further recognizes that the incremental demolition of
9 non-designated structures within designated heritage preservation districts carries significant
10 risks for the continued enhancement and vitalaty of the city's preservation policy set forth in
11 Saint Paul Legislative Code § 73.01. From this, the Council shall, under separate resolution,
12 direct the Commission to undertake a study and to report back recommendations for a city policy
13 concerning the demolition of non-designated structures within designated heritage preservation
14 districts in light of the city's preservation policy set forth in Saint Paul Legislative Code § 73.01.
15
16 FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to
17 Joseph and Ellen Konstan, SARPA, the zoning administrator and the Commission
18
19
Requested by Department of:
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
By: ���.�� �
Approved by Mayor: Date _ '���/�/
HY. ��C/�������
By:
Form Approved by City Attorney
B � G�/,./��,�-. tz-iy_o�
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
Adopted by Council: Date �'cw.. '3 � �ne�
��-.�
GREEN SHEET
Peter Warner
JaYtuary�03; 2001
ROR
T07'AL # OF SIONATURE PAOES �_
otr�e+MOn a�omaR
N�106005
ancouNa�
❑ CRVAiTORNC! � d1Y0L�Rli �,_
❑lN�NCVILKIINCPiql0. ❑'WNCN�f[RVIACCTO
❑ Wvo111011AUNrNir) ❑
{CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)'
Resolution memorializing the decision of the City Council on October 4; 2000, denying the appeal of the
Summit Avenue Residential Preservation Association (SARPA) to a decision of the Heritage Preservation
Commission granting approval of a demolition permit at 828 Suinmit Avenue.
PIANNINO COMMISSION
CIB COMMITTEE
CIVII SERVICE COMMI6SION
AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION t
80URCE
(EXPWN)
266-8710
Hes thie pereo�rm aver vrorketl under a cpMrect for ihls depa�tmeM7
YE& NO
Hes thla pareonlArm aver peen a elry empbyee9.
YES NO
poes thle pereoMim poeaees a sldll not normellypoaeeased by any curtent clly employee?
VES NO
IsMIsP�eoMlrmetaroMetivendoY7 ' ,
YE8 NO
COST/REVBNY4 BUDOR7lD (CIRC�6 ONE)
ACTNITY NUMBER
YES NO
i �
4
a� r . . ...w I_. . . w . . v . J.v. _ —
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Nm�m Coleumi+, Mnym•
December 19, 2000
Nancy Anderson
Council Secretary
310 City Hall
15 West Kellogg Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55102
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Claytan M. Robinson, Jr., City Attorney 4 `�\
Civi1 Drvtsion
400 Ciry Hnll Telephone.• 651 266-8710
15 West Kellagg Blvd. Frscsimile.� 651 298-56/9
SnintPau(Minnesatn55l02 ,
Hand Delivered
�aun��i ��so�rch G�r�4er
��� � �. a000
Re: Appeal by SARPA of a decision to grant approval of a demolition permit for
828 Summit Avenue
Dear Ms. Anderson:
Attached please find a signed resolution memorializing the decision of the City Council to deny
the appeal by SARPA and to reaffirm the decision of the HPC to approve a demolition permit for
the property commonly known as 828 Summit Avenue. Please place this on the Council's
Consent Agenda at your earliest possible convenience.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
,,2f, � (¢,., ��cvv�"'.1
Peter W. Warner
Assistant City Attorney
PW W/rmb
Enclosure
OFFICE OF UCENSE, INSPECTIONS AND
ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION
Rabert Kessler, Director
� ��
1�
d � � �
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Na•iu Ca(e�nnn, Mnya�
September 8, 2000
Ms. Nancy Anderson
Assistant Secretary to the City Council
310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Dear Ms. Anderson:
LOWRY PROFESSlONAL BUILDING
Suite 300
350 St. Peter S(reet
SaintPnul, Minnesota 55102-1510
{ � � � , �
� ��
r�" Q
/��y �oa n l A-
Telephone: 65/-266-9090
Facsimi[e: 651-266-9124
Co+�ci4 R�seae�h G��1.�P
SEP � �, 26�0
I would like to request that a public hearing before the City Council be scheduled for
Wednesday, September 27, 2000 far the following appeal of a Heritage Preservation
Commission decision:
Appellants: Summit Avenue Residential Preservation Association (SARPA)
HPC File: #4095
Purpose: Appeal a Heritage Preservation Commission decision to grant approval of
a demolition permit
Address: 828 Summit Avenue
Tlie Heritage Preservation Commission held a public meeting on this matter and voted 7- 0 on
August 24, 2000 to approve the requested permit.
This City Council public hearing does not require published notice. Please call me at 266-90�14
if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
��-__. ��
Tom Riddering
Building Code Official
c: Robert Kessler, LIEP Director
James Bellus, HPC Chair
Peter Warner, Assistant City Attomey
James V. Toscano, SARPA President
Bud Batterson
✓
OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND
ENVIRONMENTALPROTEC770N
Robert Kessler, Director
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayar
September 8, 2000
Ms. Nancy Anderson
Assistant Secretary to the City Council
310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota SSY02
Deaz Ms. Anderson:
LOWRYPROFESSIONAL BUILDMG
SuiYe 300
350 SL Peter Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55702-lS10
��—�
Telephone: 651 •266-9090
Facsrmile: 651-266-9124
I would like to request that a public hearing before the City Council be scheduled for
Wednesday, September 27, 2000 for the following appeal of a Heritage Preservation
Commission decision:
Appellants: Summit Avenue Residential Pzeservariott Associarion (SARPA)
HPC File: #4095
Puzpose: Appeal a Heritage Preservation Commission decision to gtant approval of
a demolition permit
Address: 828 Summit Avenue
The Heritage Freservation Commission held a public meering on this matter and voted 7- 0 on
August 24, 2000 to approve the requested permit.
'i'his City Council public hearing does not require published notice. Please call me at 266-9014
if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
� ��
v—`.
Tom Riddering
Building Code Official
c: Robert Kessler, LIEP Director
James Bellus, HPC Chair
Peter Warner, Assistant City Attorney
James V. Toscano, SARPt1 President
Bud Batterson
�\—\
JAMES VINCENT TOSCANO
Heritage Preservation Commission
350 3aint Peter Suite. Suite 350
Saint Paul Minnesota 55102
Attn: Tom Riddezing
Ta Whom It May Concern:
I shouid lilce to appeal to the SC Paul City Council the decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission
on the demolition of 828 Summit Avenue for the foliowing reasons:
I. Lack of an EAW being done before the decision. The Guide to Minnesota Environmental Rules, Page 30,
statas. " destruction in whole or part or the moving of a property that is listed on the National Register of
Historic Places or State Register of T3istoric Places" is subject m a mandatory Environmentai Assessment
Workshee£ Such a worksheet was not done.
2. Total disregard of staff recommendation for further study and lac3c of any discussion on siaff
recommendations.
3. Total disregard and lack of substanHve discussion of the objectious of SARPA, letter appended.
4. Lack of observation of the statute establishing the Swnroit Avenua historic preservation district, which,
on part, was passed to eliminate fiuther demolirion of homes on Summit Avenue..
5. Decision based on assumed and subjecrive azchitectw�al taste and not histaric preservation status in a
"living museum" of homes protected in the disd�ict.
6. Decision not fuily based on criteria listed under the statute establishing Narional Historic Preservation
districts.
7. Incomplete original stafFwork in not evaluating 828 Summit. This house was not evaluated, yet judged to
be not contributory, evan though that decision was not made by qualified government and advisory sta�
but arrogated to itself by the FTistoric Preservatian Commission in ciear violadon of stamte.
8. Tota( lack of discussion and observation of Summit Avenue Plan, part of comprehensive city plan,
established to protect Swncnit against demalition and listed of 828 Sumwit imder "Architects ofNote on
Swnmit Avenue. See attached letier,
This decisian has placed in jeopardy more tltan 10°/a of the homes on Suwmit buik after 1950 yeY regarded
as essantial in the historical development of the Avenue, essendal to the stah�s of `9iving muse�" that
Summit is. Parties with sufficient funds to destroy homes and build larger more eacpeasive buildings using
azchitects of note will then dominate ihe Avenue. Thus the Avenae will truly revert to the rich regardiess of
history or lilstoricai preservation of one of the geat boulevards in America.
Sincerely,
, ���� "
t �,sa�rn
��-\
� ,
1
Heritage Preservation Commission
350 St. Peter Street, Suite 300
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Dear Members:
August 20, 2000
1982 Summit Ave.
St. Paul, MN.55105
On behalf of the Board of Directors and members of the Siunmit Avenue Residential
Pxeservadon Association (SARPA), I am writing to express our totai opposition to the
demolition of 8Z8 Summit Avenue, paxt of the National Historical Preservation District.
Summit Avenue has been referred to as a"living" historical museum, and, similaz to any
museum, the Historic District is intended to preserve and protect all examples of the
varzous architectural styles and homes which together make up the unique character and
substance of the Avenue.
The Suinznit Avenue Plan, adopted by the City Council, lists ten recommendaxion for
action, the first of which is ".,,A11 of Summit Avenue should be protected against
demolition and anappmpriate new construction." Another recommendadon resulted in the
crearion of SARPA to be the residents' action giroup to ensure that these
recommendadons are observed and that the historic residendal nature of the Avenue
be preserved.
The $ummit Avenue Plan specifically lists 828 Summit under " Arciutects of Note on
Summit Avenue," p8: "12. Wiliiam Ingemann, 828 Summit. Designed the Lowell Tnu,
Weqerhaeuser Library at Macalester, Master Plan for Gustavus Adoiphus."
This home is the only example of tIris arciutecYs work ott Summit, an arclutect well
lrnown enough to be listed in the Plan and popular in 1950's residential design, who built
this particulaz home for lris family, making it pazticularly important to recognize the
contributing nature of the home to the overall mix of styles and designs on the Avenue.
Summit Avenue belongs not just to its residents, but to the tens of thousands who use it in
vanious ways each year, to the tourists who come to see one of the great residentiai
boulevards of the nation, and to all in our City, State and Nation. To deinolish otte part of
it is to d'vminish all of it, as well as ourselves.
We oppose the demolition of the home and urge your denial of tiris request.
Sincereiy,
v� ....�.—..
7 V. Toscano, President, SARPA
��—\
Joseph and Ellen Konstan
582 Crefin Avenue South
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55116
September 18, 2000
City Council of Saint Paul
Saint Paul, Minnesota
Dear Council Members:
We are writing in response to the appeal of the Heritage Preservation Commission's (HPC's)
unanimous approval of our demolition permit application for the structure at 828 Summit
Avenue, Saint Paul. The HPC made a well reasoned decision on appropriate grounds and we
urge the Council to uphold the HPC's decision. The appeal, filed on behalf of SARPA by James
Toscano, the organization's president, contains a substantial number of factual errors and
misstatemenCS of the relevant legal standards, as we identify more specifically in our response
below.
Backgroand. We have long loved Summit Avenue and look forward to the opportunity to raise
a family there. For the past six months, we've been acrively pursuing the opportunity to build a
house on the Avenue. We worked closely with HPC staff throughout the process to avoid
actions that would hatm or jeopardize the history and chazacter of the district, and made cleaz to
HPC staff and our own realtor our commitment to identify an appropriate property and design a
new'house such that the project would contribute to the azchitecture of Summit Avenue. To
Further that comrrritment, we have hired well-respected preservation azchitects and have openly
approached neighbors and community organizations to present and gather feedback on our plans.
We invited all residents on both sides of the block, along with the Summit Hill Association
(SHA) and SARPA, to a meeting on August 15; all neighbors and the SHA representatives were
extremely supportive. The two next-door neighbors submitted letters to the HPC strongly
supporting the project. We also presented to the Land Use Committee of the SHA (which was
unable to make a formal recommendarion due to lack of quorum) and have a standing offer to
SHA to present to their board at their request. .
We were dismayed to hear that SARPA's board voted to oppose this project before seeing any of
the details, but have nonetheless ofFered to meet with them to present the project. Thus faz, that
offer has been rebuffed, though we've been told that they may be willing to meet with us after the
City Council meeting at which their appeal is heard. We believe we've followed the process
thoroughly, going out of our way to provide opportunity for public comment. The HPC held an
open hearing at which SARPA's president presented the organization's objections. And the HPC,
after receiving a staff presentation on the azchitectural and historical significance of the structure
at 828 Summit Avenue, considered and unanimously supported our request for a demolition
pernut.
The Appeal. Mr. Toscano, on behalf of SARPA, appealed the HPC decision, citing eight points.
All of these points aze without merit, as each either mischaracterizes the facts, the process, or the
legal standazds that apply. We address each objection point-by-point.
Ol-�
1. SARPA cites the lack of an EAW being done before HPC's decision an the demolitian permit.
Response: An EAW is not required for the demolition of a unlisted praperty, such as 828 Summit
SARPA's appeal on this point is off the mark, as it suggests that the proposed demolition of 828 Summit
required that the HPC conduct an environmental assessment worksheet (EAW). However, the rule to
which 5ARPA is referring (Minnesota Rules section 4410.4300, subpart 31) does not require an EAW,
unless the proposal would desaoy a property that is individuaUy I'uted on either the National or State
Registers of Historic Places. Individual properties wiNtin the bisirict may be, and are, tisted when their
historical significance wazrants; for example, the houses at 432 and 1006 Summit aze noted as designated
historic in the City's District 16 Plan. The house at S28 Summit Avenue is not listed on either the
Natlonal or Sfate Registers of Historic Places. Therefore, by the plain language of the rule, no EAW
was required.
Not only is SARPA's reading of the state environmental regulation inaccurate, but SARPA also ignores the
fact that, by approving the demolition, the HPC was proceeding within the express authority delegated to it
by state statute and city ordinance. The state statute that enables the establishment of historic districts and
provides for their maintenance (the Historic District Act) states that local governments have the authority to
impose regulations governing demolition of structures within historic districts. Accordingly, the City
Council has established a procedure for protecting the swctures within the Heritage Hill district (St. Paul
City Code, Sec. 73 and 74 establish and set the jurisdiclion and procedures of the HPC; both the Summit
Avenue Plan of 1986 and the District 16 Plan of 1989 specifically indicate that requests for demoliflon
within the Historic District should be reviewed by the HPC). The HPC procedure not only adequately
protects all buildings within the district, but is even more protective than the EAW process, as it requires a
public hearing (which is only optional in an EAW proceeding) and is run by a commission that both has
expertise in [he subject and is specifically appointed to protect such historic azeas.
2. SARPA argues there was a ilisregard of staff recommendation for further study.
Response: Further study was performed that supported the HPC's decision to approve the
demolition permit.
The HPC staff report made and distributed before the HPC heazing suggested that some fmther study might
be helpful in detemilning the historic context of the structure. In the time betwcen the production of the
report and the hearing, "further study" was canied out. At the meetiag HPC staff member Aaron
Rubenstein indicated that he had conducted further study into the structure, the modifications made
to it, and lts relationsLip to the other work of the architect. When asked by a commissione�, Mr.
Rubenstein stated that he had enough information to judge that the azchitectural/historical integrity of the
structure had indeed been compromised by changes made to the strucnue; this is information and a
conclusion based on precisely the sort "fiuther study" that Mr. Rubenstein had suggested might be fivitful
in the staff report he had prepazed eazlier.
3. SARPA claims a total d'uregard and lack of substantive discussion of their objection.
Response: The HPC carefully considered 5ARPA's objections and followed the guidelines set ou« for
its consideration in the City Code.
In addition to receiving the SARPA letter and hearing an oral presentation from Mr. Toscano at the public
hearing, HPC members explicitly discussed the objections raised in both the lette� and the presentation.
The chair of the FTPC made a pointed statement reJecting SARPA's contention that this approval'
would set a bad precedent, instead finding that it is exactly for these challenging decisions that the
HPC exists. Members of the HPC discussed in detail both the relevance of this structure as an Ingemann
house (of which two others are still in St. Paul), and explicidy rejected SARPA's contention that a single
demolition would jeopardize the entire district. The ample discussion and subsequent rejection of SARPA's
objection surely does not consGtute "total discegard."
(7\-�
4. SARPA claims a lack of observation of the statute establishing the Sumn:it Avenue historic preservatian
districr, which, on pan, was passed to eliminate funher demolition of homes on SummitAvenue.
Response: The HPC observed the relevant statute which specifically directs it to review appllcadons
for demolitlon.
The relavant "statute" (which apparently is a reference ro City Code Chapter 74, tlrticle IIn is quite clear.
Section 74.67 provides explicit guidelines for the HPC in reviewing proposals for demolirion of structures
within the district. Those guidelines were presented, verbaHm, in the staff presentation ro the HPC and
followed by the HPC in approving the request. The code does not explicitly describe its intent in allowing
demolition, but does cleazly state the importance of the architechual character (Sec. 74.63(a)), its intent for
the HPC to consider the particular merit of a buiiding or area under review and the economic impact of its
decisions on property owners (Sec. 74.63(b)), and the fact that the guidelines in the statute have been
reviewed and approved by the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Officer as containing criteria which
will "substantially achieve the purpose of preserving and rehabilitating buildings of significance to the
district."
It is clear from the code that the HPC is expected (indeed, is directern to review applications for
demolition, and that the code anticipates that some buildings will not be of significance. The intent of
the code, therefore, would appear to be to enable the HPC to preserve significant buildings (for historic and
architectural reasons), not to effectively handcuff the FIPC by preven8ng it from approving demolirion
proposals, as is apparenUy alleged in the SARPA appeal.
We should note that 828 Summit Avenue lies within the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation DisVict rather
than the Suaunit Avenue West Heritage Preservation District. This distinction does not change the
language of the law regazding demolition, but may explain Mr. Toscano's comments about architectural
taste and discouraging demolition. The Suaunit Avenue West HPD code does not specifically refer to
azchitec[ural chazacter, and indeed was intended to have looser design guidelines than the older Historic
Hill HPD. '
S. SARPA argues that the HPC's decision was based on assumed and subjective architectural taste and not
historical preservation status in a 'living museum' of homes prorected in ihe district.
Response: The HPC eacplicitly discussed and made t5ndings about the historic significance of the
house. '
As specifically provided in the code, the HF'C also discussed and made findings about the impact of our
proposed new construction, both on surrounding houses and economically. Mr. Toscano and SARPA
may feel that Summit Avenue is a"living museum; ' but the HPC and t6e law bot6 are clear on the
fact that demolition and construction permit decisions are made individually, on their merits.
Furthermore, the state Hisroric Disvict Act and the City Code demonsuate that HPC is empowered (and
therefore, expecte� to make judgments, based on guidelines, as part of their stewazdship over the historic
district. Consistent with its duties, the HPC staff report and subsequent HPC discussion at the hearing
correctly examined whether our new consuuction fit the district guidelines (which aze neither highly
subjective nor necessazily reflective of cammissioners' tastes). The HPC, within its discretion, withheld
final approval of our construction plans pending their review of ffnal drawings and material selections.
6. SARPA argues that the HPC's decision was not fudly based an criteria l'uted under the statute establishing
National Historic Preservation districts.
Response: The HPC specifically addressed these criteria in 3ts deliberations and in the tinditogs 9t
made at the hearing.
Mr. Toscano appeazs to be referring to the guidelines presented in St. Paul Code Section 74.67, which
references Secdon 73.06(i)(2). These criteria include "the azchitectural and historical merit of the building,
the efFect of the demolition on sunounding buildings, the effect of any proposed new construction ... on
O\—�
surrounding buildings, and the economic value of usefulness of the buildings as it now e�cists ... in
compazison with the value of usefulness of any proposed swctures designated w replace the present
buiiding or buildings." The HPC specifically considered these criteria in its deGberations and
addressed them in its findings. The Code does not preclude the HPC from considering additional facrors
as well (which may be what Mr. Toscano refers to with the "not fully" language), but in fact the discussion
was very focused on the guidelines presented in the code.
7. SARPA complains about incomplete original staff work in not evaluating 828 Summit.
Response: A 1982 Historic Sites Survey oF the structure at 82S Summit stated that the building was
not listed on either the State or Nallonal Historic Registers and concluded that the structure does not
have potential for individual desiguation.
Mr. Toscano likely refers to the Summit Avenue Study Inventory form on which the category of the house
is left blank, rather than listed as "contribuUng" or "non-contributing." Mr. Toscano does not mention the
1982 Historic Sites Survey that concluded that the home had neither National Register nor Local
designation potenNal as a historic building. This survey indicated the [owest leved of significance Found
on the form. Further, the survey was based on a review when ihe house was only "altered slighUy," which
we now know from the HI'C staffs invesGgauon tha't was reported at the HPC hearing, predates more
substantial alterations performed since that survey.
Further, even if the house had been classified on the survey as "contributing," it would have been within the
FIPC's discretion to evaluate our perntit request based on the criteria in St. Paul code Section 74.67. The
lack of designation on the survey is not unusuai (indeed, no building on the block has this classificarion
completed in the survey), and the HPC prope�ly has the responsibility for determining the level of
conhibution and significance of the house in its findings and decision.
8. SARPA complains of a total lack of discussion and observation of the Summit Avenue Plan ... established
to protect Summit against demolition and listed of 828 Summit under Architects of Note on Summit
Avenue.'
Response: The HPC observed all relevant aspects of the Summit Avenue Plan.
The 1986 Sumaiit Avenue Plan was raised by Mr. Toscano in his letter to the HPC prior to the public
hearing. Parts of the Plan have been put into effect Uurough amendments to the City Code (e.g., the
extension of heritage preservation to all of Summit Avenue), while other parts remain as mere
recommendations. The proposed project directly supports the two most relevant goals of the plan: (1)
Preserve the residential chazacter of Summit Avenue (which specifically includes the City nurturing "the
new posiHve energy to maintain and improve Sununit Avenue as a very desirable place to live"; (2)
Enhance Summit Avneue's role as the "showcase street" of St. Paul. The Summit Avenue Plan, in
recommendation #1, explicitly indicates that the "HPC should review all building pernut applications for
demolitron, house moves, ne�v consavction, ..." T6e HPC clearly observed tLe letter and spirit of the
Summit Avenue Plan in fulfilling its obligation to review our permit request..
We should note that Mr. Toscano does not refer to the latcr-adopted 1989 Dishict 16 Plan which similazly
endorses the use of the heritage preservadon district designation and associafed processes to ensure
historically appropriate development in the disvict.
We strongly disagree with SARPA's main contendons, which are: (1) that no demolition
whatsoever may be allowed on Summit Avenue in order to keep it a"living museum," and (2)
that approving this project places more than 10% of the homes on the avenue "in jeopardy."
Indeed, we believe that careful evaluation of each project by the Heritage Preservation
Commission, as was done in our case, is essenrial to keeping Summit Avenue a"living" museum
rather than a"dead" one. Keeping Summit Avenue the "showcase" stated in the Summit Avenue
4 i -�
Plan requires cazeful management by curators who can judge the merit of each structure in the
museum. As was cleazly related by the chair of the HPC, this case merely reinforces the
precedent that any proposed demolition in the Historic District must first overcome the high
hurdle of approval by the HPC after a public hearing. No other building will be demolished as a
result of this action, and any other project will have to overcome the same high hardle.
Summary. SARPA, as represented by Mr. Toscano, presents an appeal based on their exueme
belief that no house on Summit Avenue should ever be demolished, but unsupported either by
the facts of the case or by the law. As directed by law, the HPC carefully studied this issue and
came to a unanimous decision approving our request.
SARPA rnakes an argument that this application creates a"slippery slope." This argument is
incorrect; no other house is placed in jeopardy by this decision. Each applicadon for demolition
or development requires the carefal review and approval of the HPC.
SARPA's argument about the Avenue "reverting to the rich" is insulting and counterproductive
name-calling. It is they who threaten to impoverish at least one pair of modest-income Summit
Avenue residents by needlessly taldng from them much of the value of their property on the
Avenue.
We ask you to uphold the HPC's approval and to issue our pernrit so that we may proceed
without undue delay.
Respect£ully submitted,
�dl� �� ��,
Joseph and Ellen Kottstan
Attachments: letters from neighbors and owners of 828 Summit Avenue
Mario Tosto 61 ��
828 Summlt Avenue • St. Paui, MN 55105 • Phone 617-290-1099 • E-mail: marlo@tosto. com
September 18, 2000
To the St. Paul City Council:
KEY REASONS TO CONFIRM TH.E HPC DECISION ON
DEMOLITION OF 828 SUMMITAVENUE
• If the August decision, made through due process, is
not consummated soon serious economic hardship
would be imposed on two .longtime residents
• The present building has never been considered archi-
tecturally significant and should not be considered so
now since major alterations have been made to it over
the past twenty-five years, changing its original look
and function
• The new structure would be more in harmony with the
surrounding structures and would certainly add value
to the neighborhood
� Based on the HPC decision we have made a commit-
ment to buy a home in Boston and further delay would
cause us to miss our closing and have near-
catastrophic economic consequences
• The state has recommended a course of action based
on best available information.
Please affirm the HPC decision
Mario Tosto
<b� e-�r4:,P>
Joan Ostrin
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
DETAIL
6�-�
SARPA has done many good things for Summit Avenue over the years and cer-
tainly has good intentions
BUT in thls case those good inEentions for the street ae a whole are blinding it to
the extraordinarily difficult consequences for iwo of its long-time residents
We aze among the few who have lived on Siurunit Avenue continuously for over
twenty flve years
We have done our part to preserve the livability of the neighborhood over that
tixne, contributed to local causes and tried to keep our piace presentable
In order to do that we have invested heavily in the building, greatly altering it,
changing it from its original purpose, as a duplex. It was we who removed the fuc-
tures and plumbing for an upstairs kitchen
We added azchitectural touches like a lintel above the kitchen window in front
and a new azchway around the front door
We removed almost all the original windows, which were grossly inadequate for a
residential str-ucture (they were single-pane, metal framed factory units)
We added skylights to the attached building - added after the house had been
built
We removed the doors that made for two private entrances.
We added a room in back to remedy the lack of storage space that should have
been afforded by an attic or basement
We parked our car outside for twenty five years because there was no garage
We took down a wall in the llving room to enlarge it
We replaced cheap Philippine Mahogany paneling with quality cherry paneling
We replaced other cheap paneling with dry wall and wall paper
We landscaped the front
We corrected many construction and design defects
We added heating wlres for water pipes that had been designed to be too close to
the nortkt wall, causing freeze-ups and pipe bursting
About us
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
On November 1, 1999 I was offered an important job in Boston and relocated
there, leaving my wife to manage the house mostly alone, though I commute once
or 'lwice a month
In Aprll we were seriously considering plans to relocate to Boston
In the midst of these discussions we received an offer from the realtor for the Kon-
stans, which we belleve was an answer to prayer
Within a few weeks we had arrived at a very satisfactory agreement to sell our
house
We have spent the better part of the summer lnvestigating the options for relocat-
ing to Boston
In case you didn't know it, Boston is the third most eicpensive city for real estate
in the country. The offer from the Konstans would go a long way to providing us
with a comfortable, though much smaller, home
We are eager to stop all this commuting and long distance calling and resume a
normal family relationship
No, we aze more than eager - we are getting desperate
2
About the structures
D�-�
26. Honestly, when we first received the offer to purchase our house we were suspi-
cious that it was from a developer who would construct a cheap and ugly multi-
family building - or worse
27. We have seen the plans for the new house to be built on our lot and feel gratified
that we can leave our beloved street knowing it wlll be graced by something more
elegant and substantial than what we are leaving
28. We are happy - and relieved - AND YOU SHOLJLD BE TOO - that it is not a face-
less corporate institution that will be replacing Joan and me
29. That it will not be greedy speculators who will be replacing Joan and me
30. But tY►at it is Joe, and Ellen Konstan, and their son, Ben
31. We are happy that a young family will be living there - and will be enjoying the
beauty and charm of Summit avenue, even while adding a significant amount of
the same
32. Though we know that it's the life inside a house that really makes it a home, as
people with an eye for these sort of things, we appreciate the architect's critique of
our present structure. The buffding does not uUlize the space as well as it could.
33. .As they have mentioned, the original azchitect, Mr. Ingemann, could not have
been very proud of this building. He certainly didn't seem to spend much on it,
either in materlals or workmanship, compared with his other works. And didn't
spend much time in it, either.
34. We were told by his daughter, Judy, that it was just an"in-town" house - the
main residence being on the St. Croix river. 828 was used mostly by her and her
sister while they were in college, and when her parents needed an occasional
place to stay while in St. Paul
3
About freedom and individual rights 6�-�
35. We appreciate that neighborhoods need to be protected, especially historic ones
like Summit Avenue
36. We also appreciate that Minnesota has instituted measures to preserve the heri-
tage of its cities
37. The Heritage Preservation Cominission is one of those measures and has cazefully
considered the present project - giving it unanimous approval after an open pub-
lic meeting attended by several of our neighbors
38. AND '1'I-IAT SHOULD BE ENOUGH.
39. I SAI', THAT SHOULD BE ENOUGHI
40. Having complied with all. the regulations and procedures, having received ap-
proval by official experts and neighbors, having entered into a legal and agreeable
contract for a purchase and sale - it is time for freedom to have its course.
41. It is time to respect the basic rights of individuals to own and sell their private
property
Concluding statement
42. SARPA, for all the good you do and have done, your zeai has gotten the better of
you this time. You have not offered to help Joan and me to make the transition to
our new life - you aze getting in the way of that. Joe and Ellen have made such
an offer - and we have accepted it, gratefully. If you prolong, and possibiy pre-
vent, the consummation of this agreement, you wlll have not only overstepped
your charge -�ou wlll be causing us serious econoxnic hardship. You wiil also
inadvertently be sending the chilling message to all other residents of Summit
Avenue, that whether they intended to or not, whether they like it or not, whether
they can afford to or not - they aze imprisoned in a"museum" and have fewer
rights and opportunities than people who live,just a block away. Please with-
draw your appeal, withdraw further resistance to this project and cease harassing
us.
43. Council members, we aze just two people, Joan and I, who want to get back to-
gether and live a normal life. We don't have an army of lawyers or great financial
resources to quibble about whether a"living museum" is more unportant than let-
ting citizens exercise their fundamental and sacred right to be properly owners; to
let them fulflll a long and honorable tenure on Sumxnit Avenue and get on with
the next phase of their life. We have you, representing real people like us, to do
what? To invent the wheel7 To reinvent it? No - just to afHrm what a legislatively-
authorized agency has already carefully done. Do the right thing. - decide in fa-
vos of this project. �
[!
Sent by: ED1NA REALTY CITY LAKE 812 925 7758; 08/23/00 5:25PM;Jg�#504;Page 25/29
Rmasived: 6/26/DO �e60PM� 612 286 ey24 •� �pINA qEALTY CITY LAKE; Pagp q
WJG-23-19F1� 16�21 FRpM CIIY L7F ST PAIJL LIEP
Ma�r�o To s�o 8a
• ' -
01-�
.Joan Ostr,��n
82a supfmis pveaue • 6F. Paul, M
Augusc 7, 2000
T�car Hcritaga Prescsvat�on Commissian Meml�ers:
We are tt�e ownars of the property at 828 Summit Aveaue. This notarized. letter is pro-
vidod to yau as a wr3ttcn statesaent of our support oi the applioasioa isom J'oseph ar�d
Ellen Konstan tor Che demolition of the aurrent struccure lecated oss this� pmperty for tho
parpose of constructittg a new si�le family hosne. 'DVC aze in cosacusteSnce with their per-
mit request axsd have a fuU� executed purchase agrecment to sell this properly to the
Konst&ns upon approval ai tltis demolition and new cott9tructior,t application by the Heri-
tago 8se�avafioa Coauais�ioa.
We reapecltu]ly a�c t1�,at you approvo their �pplic�tion.
8incerei�+, -
�� ���
�.�__ �ei<�.
�
s
'//!'
ii� c�
. ,
=, ���a � o�z- O S
� � � � /�
�
�w��WYNw
' NOHEMI ACUIIAR
NOTAAY WiBLIGYIW1EgOTA
�b�nlwkn pqhrJm,i�,�00d
, • ■
�2
aent uy: cu1IVN HtHLIY GlIY �AKt
Rooaivede A/aq/00 Os�OPM;
fW.A'a^23-19d9 16:21 FROM
Mnc:nta�5•r•i:R Cc�,.,.,x;r:
,.
F ��'
l�U�l{9� 16o ZQ�O
Mrs. F!laaD. Kanakan
582 Cretin ti�venue South
5eint Paul. MN SSl lb
Deat Mra. Konstwic
1�N't/14111'lll.{II:Y {7hPAN1'Mf:N'i
I�rpy ( IItA.W � ��\'Y.MI�'�;
S�w� P.,� i_ �hwnP�r�c,� asina�xu9
dc-1
G
0
� C �. �
iV
;,� . '
� •%�
-_ -;:
o •
:a
i� was n pleasutn meoting you a�ut youc family at yesterday's moeting regazding your
pcopoaed new home•et if�E Stunmit Aveaue. My wifa, Wa1ko: pearce, and I ve�y mndi
appteciate We effort that you ntade W'inform us of yriur plan&, As your nextrdoor neigll6ora at
834 Summtf, we sre delighted with youe vary wel!-developed plans for improving tlie siee. Your
propased hoane is quite besutltL) and wiai be a greaR addttion to aur neigh6orhood.
We have eqjoyod our naigbbora, who a��e quilo nich pcopie. 1'liay did a gr�at job
maintaicung the�r homo, but they were vcry limited by llYa sntiull house. As you kpow. it is u�ade
Yi�om clader blaok, and abvut a quacter of the &qnt of the buiiding was made by euclosirsg the
garago. Consequeudy. We building has aa iususual appesrance and an odd configuration Wat, i
belteve, ►t�ay be in vlolation of the aurrent hui4ding staadards. Your p�oposed pro,jeat wip bring
the site into oon£ormIty witlt currant standards, and it wil( tb�ke a utuch more appealing part oP
the commupity.
I partioula�ly like your laads�„aping ideas. Your plan tc ramove the perkissg from d�e &oat
yard to ehe baolry�ltd ahould make a grwt improvement of tho view finm our froat windows. At
prosBnt, tho houso on tl�e loe is mostty htdden by ve�station and t!u cars that are usualiy parked in
tho yard. Your plans �o open up tha &os�t wiil mako a much moce dramatic settiuig for your
hamo.
We hopatbat you will soon bo our netghbors. We are very pleased to have a nice young
family next door w us, aad wa ue very impressed with Your hvust plans. If we can bo o�' aay
holp alang the way, please do not tsesitate to cot�tect us.
Sin�rely.
D�� ��u/�k��Z��
k Weathexfvrd
Home phone: 651 221-9834
Work phone: 63 t 696-6144
812 925 7758; 08/23/q0 5:25PM;J�#504;Page 26/29
67'2 2Ba ef2a -> SQiNA flEAL7Y OY7Y LAIC�: PapO 6
CYIY OF 5T PAUL LI� 7'O %129257758 P.906i00g
Elomo fax; 65t 292-9420
9'I u hbdp�h.h{Y�
I'n�: n;r •rwK •Ft:�
Z�
Sent by: EDINA REALTY CITY LAKE 812 925 7758; 08/23l00 5:28PM;J�'g�#504;Page 28/29�
Reoaived: 8/�a/oo 9e8o�M: et2 ze6 912s - s epx[aA qEAL7v osYV Ln�; Paqe 7
FiLIG-23—l900 16%21 FROM CITY OF ST PqJ_ �.IEP TD %12925'7756 P.007i00g
, ��—\
r+ -r,?Ny�• ;
. � � ',1
r, ° •; 'j�:' , rt ,.. .
L.QR V FORRESTER CJ ��.;°?'2 i�:i !=i �3
.,......_. ._..._.�_..___�_—�--• —�----- ............._.�.___... ....,.. _.....__.t��r�;�;:�eu
. tllO5l7MMITAVFalUE
6T PAU(. Mry Yil OS+�44{
Augast 17, 20Q0
Ellen aad Joa Konstan
582 Cratin Avanue 3outh
St PaW, MN 55116
Dear �Iten and Joa:
This is to thank you for the ahowiug of your p;oposed plans for a naw homc at 828
Summit Avenun, and co assur+e you of my suppoK of this venture.
�
As yaa know. I live nwct door to the sito at 818 Summit Avoeae. 'Your dasign for a
�aciaus itume which would bload so wcll inlo a naighborhood oP Iace ninaternth-oarly
twmntieth century riome�s would greatty improvo t1u view "from my yard".
I bought the housc gt 818 Summit In 1992 to �nesen+c and care for it as well ss to havc a
comfottahie and gaoious home. 1 am awa[e of th� cha�r and work of SARI'A, and I am
aften i�► agr�euient with them. in somo cases suah as the existing hous� at 828 Sumenit, i
be1(eve that the histo�ioal charncter of the neighborhdod wnuld be �eatly improved by
the removal oF a house that is,, in my opinion. �e,ry us�sttractive and of an incompatiHle
slylo with the balance ofthe naighbattwud.
I hope tltat SARPA can support you. lFthoy cannot do so, l hope they will ratkain flrom
objectin8 � Yoqr plsn.
Teol lFee to sharo my opinion with anyone.
I wish you eho best of suoeass, and eagerly anticipale tHa oppottunity to welcome you as
next door nci$bbors.
Sinoerol�r,
J',-����-� .
��
CJ1-\
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION
FILE NUMB�R 4095
DATE 21 September 2000
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) is authorized by Chapter 73 of the
Saint Paul Legislative Code to review permit applications for exterior alterations, new construction or
demolition on or within designated Heritage Preservation Sites or Heritage Preservation Districts; and
WHEREAS, Joseph and Ellen Konstan have applied for permits to demolish the existing house at
828 Sumrnit Avenue, located within the Historic Hill Heritage Preservafion District, and to construct a
new house on the site; and
WHEREAS, the existing structure on the site is the William and Dorothy Ingemann House, a two-story
residence designed by William Ingemann and constructed in 1956; it has painted smooth concrete block
walls and a slate-shingled mansard roof; and
WHEREAS, the following is the citation in the City's Legislative Code concexning HPC review of
demolition permits:
Chapter 73, Heritage Preservation Commission; Secrion 73.06, Review of permits;
Paragraph (i), Factors to be considered:
Before approving any permit application required under paragraph (d) of this section to
be approved by the heritage preservation commission, the commission shalt make
findings based on the program for the preservation and architectural control for the
heritage preservation site in regard to the following:
(2) In the case of the proposed demolition of a building, prior to approva] of said
demolition, the commission shall make written findings on the following:
Architectural and historical merit of the building, the effect of the demolition on
surrounding buildings, the effect of any proposed new construction on the
remainder of the building (in case of partial demolirion) and on surrounding
buildings, and the economic value or usefulness of the building as it now exists
or if altered or modified in comparison with the value or usefulness of any
proposed structures designated to replace the present building or buildings; and
WHEREAS, relevant portions of the Historic Hill District Heritage Preservation District design review
guidelines for new construction that pertain to the proposed building include the following:
III. Naw Construction, A. General Principles: The basic principle for new construction in the Historic
Hill Dishict is to maintain the district's scale and quality of design. The Historic Hill District is
architecturally diverse within an overall pattern of harmony and continuity. These guidelines for new
conshuction focus on general rather than specific design elements in order to encourage architectural
innovation and quality design while maintaining the harmony and continuity of the district. New
construction should be compatible with the size, scale, massing, height, rhytlun, setback, color, material,
building elements, site design, and character of surrounding structures and the area.
� 1—�
HPC Resolution re: 828 Summit Avenue / File #4095
21 September 2000
Page 2
III., B. Massing and Height: New construction should conform to the massing, volume, height and scale
of existing adjacent structures. Typical residential shuctures in the Historic Hil] District are 25 to 40 feet
high. The height of new construction should be no lower than the average height of all buildings on both
block faces; measurements should be made from sheet level to the highest point of the roofs.
III., C. Rhythm and Directional Emphasis: The existence of uniform narrow lots in the Historic Hill
naturally sets up a strong rh}rthm of buildings to open space. Historically any structure built on more than
one lot used vertical facade elements to maintain and vary the overall rhythm of the street rather than
interrupting the rhythm with a long monotonous facade. The direcrional expression of new construction
should relate to that of exisring adjacent structures.
III., D, Materials and Details: Variety in the use of architectural materials and details adds to the
intimacy and visual delight of the district. But there is also an overall thread of continuity provided by
the range of materials commonly used by turn-of-the-centuty builders and by the way these materials
were used. This thread of continuity is threatened by the introduction of new industrial materials and the
aggressive exposure of earlier materials such as concrete block, metal framing, and glass. The purpose of
this section is to encourage the proper use of appropriate materials and details.
The materials and details of new construction should relate to the materials and details of existing nearby
buildings.
Prefened roof materials are cedar shingles, slate and tile; asphalt shingles which match the approximate
color and texture of the preferred materials are acceptable substitutes. ... Materials, including their
colors, wil] be reviewed to determine their appropriate use in relation to the overall design of the structure
as well as to surrounding structures.
III., E. Building Elements: Individual elements of a building should be integrated into its composition for
a balanced and complete design. These elements for new construcHon should compliment existing
adjacent structures as well.
III., E., 1. Roofs. ...The skyline or profile of new construction should relate to the predominant roof
shape of existing adjacent buildings. Most houses in the Historic Hill District have a roof pitch of
beriveen 9:12 and 12:12 (rise-to-run ratio). Highly visible secondary sfixcture roofs should match the
roof pitch of the main structure, and generally should have a rise-to-run rario of at least 9:12. Roof
hardware such as skylights, vents, and metal pipe chimneys should not be placed on the front roof plane.
III., E., 2. Windows and Doors. The proportion, size, rhythm and detailing of windows and doors in new
construction should be comparible with that of existing adjacent buildings. Most windows on the Hill
have a vertical orientation, with a proportion of between 2:1 and 3:1 (height to width) common.
Individual windows can sometimes be square or horizontal if the rest of the building conveys the
appropriate directional emphasis. Facade openings of the same general size as those in adjacent buildings
are encouraged.
Wooden double-hung windows are tradirional in the Historic Hill District and should be the first choice
when selecting new windows. Paired casement windows, although not historically common, will often
prove acceptable because of their vertical orientation. ...Vertical muntins and muntin grids may be
acceptable when compatible with the period and style of the building.
�\-�
HPC Resolution re: S28 Summit Avenue / File #4095
21 September 2000
Page 3
IIT., E., 3. Porches and Decks: In general, houses in the Historic Hill District have roofed front porches....
Front porches provide a transitional zone between open and closed space which unites a building and its
Site, semiprivate spaces which help to define the spatial hierazchy of the district. They are a consistent
visual element in the district and often introduce rhythmic variation, clarify scale or provide vertical
facade elements. The porch heatment of new structures should relate to the porch treatment of existing
adjacent structures. If a porch is not built, the transition from private to public space should be articulated
with some other suitable design elernent; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission, based upon the evidence presented at its
August 24, 2000 public hearing on said permit applications, made the following findings of fact
conceming the proposed demolition of the existing building:
1. The building does not have significant architectural or historic merit. It is an unusual building in
that preliminary research does not disclose any other residential designs by Mr. Ingemann in the
1950s, that the French Renaissance Revival style design of the house appears unrelated to
architectural irends of the time, and that the scale, materials and site design of the house aze quite
dissimilar to those of its neighbors. These unusual aspects of the building do not, however, make
it significant. Mr. Ingemann was lmown during the 1920s and 1930s for period revival
residential designs and for the design of municipal, institutional, and commercial buildings over a
number of decades, particularly in the Colonial Revival and Art Deco/Moderne styles . An
examination of the body of his architectural work reveals that a number of better examples of his
work survive in Saint Paul and around the state of Minnesota. Finally, the Ingemanns lived in
this residence for only approximately five years before they retired; they moved to Mexico
several years later.
2. The proposed demolition would not have an adverse impact on the historic or architectural
character and integrity of surrounding buildings, nor would the construction of the proposed
residence. The residential nature of the avenue would be preserved.
While the existing residence, at approximately 2,600 square feet, has economic value, the
proposed 10,000 squaze foot residence would have significantly more economic value.
4. The existing residence has seen some significant alteration, which lessens its architectural
integrity. The attached garage was converted to living space in the 1970s and an inappropriate
brick arched facade was attached to this part of the building facing Summit Avenue. A
significant number of the original steel casement windows have been replaced (approximately 50
percent of them, according to one representative of the applicants); and
W�REAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission, based upon the evidence presented at its
August 24, 2000 public hearing on said permit applications, made the following findings of fact
concerning the proposed new residence:
The proposed structure conforms to the new construction guidelines for the Summit Avenue
West district. It would "be compatible with the size, scale, massing, height, rhythm, setback,
color, material, building elements, site design, and chazacter of sunounding structures and the
area." The materials and details relate to those of existing nearby buildings. The individual
elernents of the building are integrated into its composition for a balanced and complete design.
� l --� 1
HPC Resolution re: 828 Summit Avenue / File #4095
21 September 2000
Page 4
Garaging is located at the rear of the lot, off of the alley (the site currently has surface parking in
front of the house).
2, Detailed plans, including final selection of materials and details, have not yet been prepared.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based on the above findings, the Heritage Preservation
Commission grants approval of a demolition permit to remove the existing residence at 828 Summit
Avenue, subject to the condition that the house be docuxnented with photographs and/or measured
drawings (to be determined by HPC staf�; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that based on the above findings, the Heritage Preservation
Commission grants approva] of a building permit to construct the proposed residence and garage, subject
to the condition that ftna] plans and materials shall be reviewed and approved by the commission's
Design Review Committee.
Decisions af the Heritage Preservation Commission are final, subject to appeal to the City Council within 14
days by anyone afPected by the decision. This resolution does not obviate the need for meeting applicable
building and zoning code requirements, and does not constitute approval for tax credits.
�\-1
�..J
Joseph and Ellen Konstan
582 Cretin Avehue South
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55116
September 18, 2000
City Council of Saint Paul
Saint Paul, Minnesota
Dear Council Members:
We are writing in response to the appeal of the Heritage Preservation Commission's (HPC's)
unanimous approval of our demolition permit application for the structure at 828 Summit
Avenue, Saint Paul, The HPC made a well reasoned decision on appropriate grounds and we
urge the Council to uphold the HPC's decision. The appeal, filed on behalf of SARPA by James
Toscano, the organization's president, contains a substantial number of factua] errors and
misstatements of the relevant legal standards, as we identify more specifically in our response
below.
Background. We have long loved Summit Avenue and look forward to the opportunity to raise
a family there. For the past six months, we've been actively pursuing the opportunity to build a
house on the Avenue. We worked closely with HPC staff throughout the process to avoid
actions that would harm or jeopardize the history and character of the district, and made clear to
� HPC staff and our own realtor our commitment to identify an appropriate property and design a
new'house such that the project would contribute to the architecture of Sumxnit Avenue. To
further that commitment, we have hired well-respected preservation architects and have openly
approached neighbors and community organizations to present and gather feedback on our plans.
We invited all residents on both sides of the block, along with the Summit Hill Association
(SFiA) and SARPA, to a meeting on August 15; all neighbors and the SHA representatives were
extremely supportive. The two next-door neighbors submitted letters to the HPC strongly
supporting the project. We also presented to the Land Use Committee of the SHA (which was
unable to make a formal recommendation due to lack of quorum) and have a standing offer to
SHA to present to their board at their request.
We were dismayed to hear that SARPA's board voted to oppose this project before seeing any of
the details, but have nonetheless offered to meet with them to present the project. Thus far, that
offer has been rebuffed, though we've been told that they may be willing to meet with us after the
City Council meeting at which their appeal is heazd. We believe we've followed the process
thoroughly, going out of our way to provide opportunity for public comment. The HPC held an
open hearing at which SARPA's president presented the organization's objections. And the HPC,
after receiving a staff presentation on the architectural and historical significance of the structure
at 828 Summit Avenue, considered and unanimously supported our request for a demolition
permit.
The Appeal. Mr. Toscano, on behalf of SARPA, appealed the HPC decision, citing eight points.
� All of these points aze without merit, as each either mischaracterizes the facts, the process, or the
legal standards that apply. We address each objection point-by-point.
0�-1
�
1,
SARPA cites the lack of an EAW being done before HPC's decision on the demolitian permit.
�
.
2.
3.
Response: An EAW is not required for the demolition of a unlisted property, such as 828 Summit.
SARPA's appeal on this point is off the mark, as it suggests that the proposed demolition of 828 Smmnit
required that the HPC conduct an environmental assessment worksheet (EAW). However, the rule to
which SARPA is referring (Minnesota Rules section 4410.4300, subpart 31) does not require an EAW,
unless the proposa] would desuoy a property that is individually iisted on eit6er the I3ational or State
Registers of Historic Places. Individual properties within the Disvict may be, and aze, listed when their
historical significance warrants; for example, the houses at 432 and 1006 Summit aze noted as designated
historic in the City's DisVict 16 Plan. The house at 828 Summit Avenue is not listed on either the
Nutional or State Registers of Historic Places. Therefore, by the plain language of the rule, no EAW
was required.
Not only is SARPA's reading of the state environmental regulation inaccurate, but SARPA also ignores the
fact that, by approving the demolition, the HI'C was proceeding within the express authority delegated to it
by state statute and city ordinance. The state statute that enables the establishment of historic districts and
provides for their maintenance (the Historic District Act) states that local governments have the authority to
impose regulations governing demolition of structures within historic districts. Accordingly, the City
Council has established a procedure for protecting the structures within the Heritage Hill disffict (St. Paul
City Code, Sec. 73 and 74 establish and set the jurisdic[ion and procedures of the HPC; both the Summit
Avenue Plan of 1986 and the Disvict 16 Plan of 1989 specifically indicate that requests for demolition
within the Historic District should be reviewed by the HPC). The HPC procedure not only adequately
protects all buildings wi[hin the district, but is even more protective than the EAW process, as it requires a
public hearing (which is only optional in an EAW proceeding) and is run by a commission that both has
expertise in the subject and is speciFically appointed to protect such historic azeas.
SARPA nrgues there was a disregard of staff recommendation for funher study.
Response: Further study was performed that supported the HPC's decision to approve the
demolition permit.
The HPC s[aff report made and distributed before the HPC hearing suggested that some further study might
be helpful in determining the historic wntext of the structure. In the time between the production of the
report and the hearing, "further study" was carried out. At the meeting IIPC staff member Aaron
Rubenstein indicuted that he had conducted further study into the structure, the modifications made
to it, and its relationship to the other work of the architect. When asked by a commissioner, Mr.
Rubenstein stated that he had enough information to judge that the architecturaUhisrorical integrity of the
structuce had indeed been compromised by changes made to the sVUCture; this is information and a
conclusion based on precisely the sort "further study" that Mr. Rubenstein had suggested might be fruitfut
in the staff report he had prepared earlier.
SAftPA claims a total disregard and lack of substantive discussion of their objection.
Response: The HPC carefully considered SARPA's objeMions and followed the guidelines set out for
its consideration in the City Code.
In addition to receiving the SARPA letter and hearing an oral presentation from Mr. Toscano at the public
hearing, HPC members expliciUy discussed the objections raised in both the letter and the presentation.
The chair of the HPC made a pointed statement rejecting SARPA's contention that this approval
would set a bad precedent, instead ending that it is exactly for these'challenging decisions that the
HPC exists. Members of the HPC discussed in detail both the relevance of this structure as an Ingemann
house (of which two others are still in St. Paul), and explicitly rejected SARPA's contention that a single
demolition would jeopardize the entire disuict. The ample discussion and subsequent �ejection of SARPA's
objection surely does not consti[ute "total disregard."
o�-�
� 4. SARPA claims a lack of observation of [he sratute esaablishing the Summit Avenue historic preservation
district, which, on part, was passed to eliminate further demolition of homes on SummitAvenue.
Itespanse: The HPC observed the relevant statute which speci�cally directs it to review applications
for demolltion.
The relevant "statute" (which apparently is a reference to City Code Chapter 74, Article III) is quite clear.
Section 74.67 provides explicit guidelines for the HPC in reviewing proposals for demolition of sVUCtures
within the district. Those guidelines were presented, verbatim, in the staff presentauon to the HPC and
followed by the HI'C in approving the request. The code does not explicitly describe its intent in allowing
demolition, but does clearly state the importance of the architectural chazacter (Sec. 74.63(a)), its intent for
the HPC to consider the particular merit of a building or area under review and the economic impact of its
decisions on property owners (Sec. 74.b3(b)), and the fact that the guidelines in the statute have been
reviewed and approved by the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Officer as containing criteria which
will "substantially achieve the purpose of preserving and rehabilitating buiidings of significance [o the
district."
It is clear from the code that the fIPC is expected (indeed, is directetn to review applications for
demolition, and that the code anticipates that some buildings will not be of significance. The intent oF
the code, therefore, would appear [o be to enable the HPC ro preserve significant buildings (for historic and
architectural reasons), not ro effectively handcuff the HPC by preventing it from approving demolition
proposals, as is apparenUy aileged in the SARPA appeal.
We should note that 828 Summit Avenue lies within the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation DisVict rather
than the Summit Avenue West Heritage Preservation District. This distinction does not change the
language of the law regarding demolition, but may explain Mr. Toscano's comments a6out azchitectural
� taste and discouraging demolition. The Summit Avenue West HPD code does not specifically refer to
architectural character, and indeed was intended to have looser design guidelines than the older Historic
Hilt HI'D.
5. SARPA argues that the HPC's decision was based on assumed and subjective architectural taste and not
historica[ preservation status in a'living museum' of homes protected in the district.
12esponse: The HPC explicitly discussed and made findings about the historic signiticance of the
house. '
As specifically provided in the code, the HPC also discussed and made findings about the impact of our
proposed new conshuction, both on surcounding houses and economically. Mr. Toscano and SARPA
may feel that Summit Avenue is a"living museum," but the HPC and the law both are clear on the
fact that demolition and construction permit decisions are made individually, on their merits.
Furthermore, the state His[oric District Act and the City Code demonstrate that HPC is empowered (and
therefore, expecter� to make judgments, based on guidelines, as part of their stewazdship over the his[oric
district. Consistent with its duUes> the HPC staff report and subseyuent HPC discussion at the hearing
correctly examined whether aur new construction fit the disuict guidelines (which are neither highly
subjective nor necessarily reflective of commissioners' tastes). The HPC, within its discretion, withheld
final approval of our construction plans pending their review of final drawings and material selections.
6. SARPA argues that the HPC's decision was not fully based on criteria listed under the statute estabZishing
National Historic Preservation districts.
Response: The HPC specifically addressed these criteria in its deliberations and in the findings it
made at the hearing.
� Mr. Toscano appears to be refening to the guidelines presented in St. Paul Code Section 74.67, which
references Section 73.06(i)(2). These criteria include "the azchitectwal and historical merit of the building,
the effect of the demolition on surrounding buildings, the effect of any proposed new construction ... on
0�-1
� surrounding buildings, and the economic value of usefulness of the buildings as it now exists ... in
comparison with the value of usefulness of any proposed structures designated to replace the present
building or buitdings." The HPC specifically considered these criteria in its deliberations and
Addressed them in i[s findings. The Code does no[ preclude the HPC from considering additional factors
as well (which may be what Mr. Toscano refers to with the "not fully" language), but in fact the discussion
was very focused on the guidelines presented in the code.
SARPA complains about incomplete original sta,�'work in not evaluating 828 Summit.
Response: A 1982 Historic Sites Survey oF the structure at 828 Sumrtvt stated that the building was
not listed on either the State or National Historic Registers and concluded that the structure does not
have potential for individual designation.
Mr. Toscano likely refers to the Summit Avenue Study Inventory form on which the category of the house
is left blank, rather than listed as "contributing" or "non-contributing." Mr. Toscano does not mention the
1982 Historic Sites Survey that concluded that the home had neither National Register nor Local
designatlon potential as a historic building. This survey indicated the lowest level of significance found
on the form. Further, the survey was based on a review when the house was only "al[ered slightly," which
we now know from the HI'C staffls investigaGon that was reported at the HPC heazing, predates more
substantial atterations performed since that survey.
FLrther, even if the house had been classified on the survey as "contributing," it would have been within the
HI'C's discretion to evaluate our permit request based on the criteria in St. Paul code SecUon 74.67. The
lack of designation on the survey is not unusual (indeed, no building on the block has this classification
completed in the survey), and the HPC properly has the responsibility for determining the level of
contribution and significance of the house in its findings and decision.
� 8. SARPA complains of a total lack of discussion and observation of the Summit Avenue Plan ... established
to protect Summit against demolation and listed of 828 Summit under Architects of Note an Summit
Avenue.'
Response: The HPC observed alt relevant aspects of the Summit Avenue Plan.
The 1986 Summit Avenue Pian was raised by Mr. Toscano in his letter to the HPC prior to the public
hearing. Parts oF the Plan have been put into effect through amendments to the City Code (e.g., the
extension of heritage preservation to all of Summit Avenue), while other parts remain as mere
recommendations. The proposed project directly supports the two most relevant goals of the plan: (1)
Preserve the residential character of Summit Avenue (which specifically includes the Ciry nuc[uring "the
new positive energy to maintain and improve Summit Avenue as a very desirable place to live"; (2)
Enhance Summit Avneue's role as the "showcase street" of St. Paul. The Summit Avenue Plan, in
recommendation #1, expliciHy indicates that the "HPC should review all building pernilt applicaGons for
demolition, house moves, new construction, ..." The HPC clearly observed the letter and spirit of the
Summit Avenue Plan in fultilling rts obligation to review our permit request..
We should note that Mr. Toscano does not refer to the later-adopted 1989 District 16 Plan which similazly
endorses the use of the heritage preservation disuict designation and associated processes to ensure
historically appropriate development in the district.
We strongly disagree with SARPA's main contentions, which are: (1) that no demolition
whatsoever may be allowed on Summit Avenue in order to keep it a"living museum," and (2)
that approving this project places more than 10% of the homes on the avenue "in jeopardy."
Indeed, we believe that careful evaluation of each project by the Heritage Preservation
� Commission, as was done in our case, is essential to keeping Summit Avenue a"living" museum
rather than a"dead" one. Keeping Summit Avenue the "showcase" stated in the Summit Avenue
O\- \
� Plan requires careful management by curators who can judge the merit of each structure in the
museum. As was clearly related by the chair of the HPC, this case merely reinforces the
precedent that any proposed demolition in the Historic District must first overcome the high
hurdle of approva] by the HPC after a public hearing. No other building will be demolished as a
result of this action, and any other project will have to overcome the same high hurdle.
�
Summary. SARPA, as represented by Mr. Toscano, presents an appeal based on their extreme
belief that no house on Summit Avenue should ever be demolished, but unsupported either by
the facts of the case or by the law. As directed by law, the HPC carefully studied this issue and
came to a unanimous decision approving our request.
SARPA makes an argument thaC this application creates a"slippery slope." This argument is
incorrect; no other house is placed in jeopazdy by this decision. Each application for demolition-
or development requires the careful review and approval of the HPC.
SARPA's argument about the Avenue "reverting to the rich" is insulting and counterproductive
name-calling. It is they who threaten to impoverish at least one pair of modest-income Smnmit
Avenue residents by needlessly taking from them much of the value of their property on the
Avenue.
We ask you to uphold the HPC's approval and to issue our pernut so that we may proceed
without undue delay.
Respectfully submitted,
�a� �� ��
Joseph and Ellen Konstan
Attachments: letters from neighbors and owners of 828 Summit Avenue
�
Mario Tosto ��
S28 Summlt Avenue • St. Paul, MN 55105 • Phone 617-290-1099 • E-mail: mario�tosto. com
�
To the St. Paul Citv Council:
September 18, 2000
KEY REASONS TO CONFIRM THE HPC DEGSION ON
DEMOLITION OF 828 SUMMIT AVENUE
• If the August decision, made through due process, is
not consummated soon serious economic hardship
would be imposed on two longtime residents
• The present building has never been considered archi-
tecturally significant and should not be considered so
now since major alterations have been made to it over
the past twenty-five years, changing its original look
. and function
• The new structure would be more in harmony with the
surrounding structures and would certainly add value
to the neighborhood
• Based on the HPC decision we have made a commit-
ment to buy a home in Boston and further delay would
cause us to miss our closing and have near-
catastrophic economic consequences
• The state has recommended a course of action based
on best available information.
Please affirm the HPC decision
Mario Tosto
f (� S e -�M�.l
• Joan Ostrin
� 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
�
�
DETAIL
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
���1
SARPA has done many good things for Surmnit Avenue over the years and cer-
tainly has good intentions
BUT in this case those good intentIons for the street as a whole are blinding it to
the extraordinarily difficult consequences for two of its long-Eime residents
We are among the few who have lived on Sununit Avenue continuously for over
twenty flve yeazs
We have done our part to preseroe the livability of the neighborhood over that
time, contributed to local causes and trled to keep our place presentable
In order to do that we have invested heavily in the building, greatly altering it,
changing it from its original purpose, as a duplex. It was we who removed the fix-
tures and plumbing for an upstairs kitchen
We added architectural touches like a lintel above the kitchen window in front
and a new archway around the front door
We removed almost all the original windows, which were grossly inadequate for a
residential structure (they were single-pane, metal framed factory units)
We added skylights to the attached building - added after the house had been
built
We removed the doors that made for iwo private entrances.
We added a room in back to remedy the lack of storage space that should have
been afforded by an attic or basement
We parked our car outside for iwenty five years because there was no garage
We took down a wall in the living room to enlarge it
We replaced cheap Philippine Mahogany paneling with quality cherry paneling
We replaced other cheap paneling with dry wall and wall paper
We landscaped the front
We corrected many construction and design defects
We added heating wires for water pipes that had been designed to be too close to
the north wall, causing freeze-ups and pipe bursting
About us
18. On November 1, 1999 I was offered an important job in Boston and relocated
there, leaving my wife to manage the house mostly alone, though I commute once
or lwice a month
19. In April we were seriously considering plans to relocate to Boston
20. In the midst of these discussions we received an offer frorn the realtor for the Kon-
stans, which we believe was an answer to prayer
21. Within a few weeks we had arrived at a very satisfactory agreement to sell our
house
22. We have spent the better part of the summer investigating the options for relocat-
ing to Boston
23. In case you didn't know it, Boston is the third most elcpensive city for real estate
in the country. The offer from the Konstans would go a long way to providing us
with a comfortable, though much smaller, home
24. We are eager to stop all this commuting and long distance calling and resume a
normal family relaUonship
25. No, we are more than eager - we are getting desperate
2
About the structures
61-1
26. Honeatly, when we first received the offer to purchase our house we were suspi-
� cious that it was from a developer who would construct a cheap and ugly multi-
family building - or worse
27. We have seen the plans for the new house to be built on our lot and feel gratified
that we can leave our beloved street knowing it will be graced by something more
elegant and substantial than what we aze leaving
28. We are happy - and relieved - AND YOU SHOULD BE 1'00 - that it is not a face-
less corporate institution that will be replacing Joan and me
29. That it will not be greedy speculators who will be replacing Joan and me
30. But that it is Joe and Ellen Konstan, and their son, Ben
31. We are happy that a young family will be living there - and will be enjoying the
beauty and charm of Sumrnit avenue, even while adding a significant amount of
the same
32. Though we know that it's the life inside a house that really makes it a home, as
people with an eye for these sort of things, we appreciate the architect's critique of
our present structure. The building does not utilize the space as well as it could.
33. ,As they have mentioned, the original architect, Mr. Ingemann, could not have
been very proud of this building. He certainly didn't seem to spend much an it,
either in materials or workmanship, compared with his other works. And didn't
spend much time in it, either.
34. We were told by his daughter, Judy, that it was just an "in-town" house - the
� main residence being on the St. Croix river. 828 was used mostly by her and her
sister while they were in college, and when her parents needed an occasional
place to stay while in St. Paul
�
3
About freedom and individual rights a �' 1
� 35. We appreciate that neighborhoods need to be protected, especially historic ones
like Sumxnit Avenue
36. We also appreciate that Minnesota has instituted measures to preserve the heri-
tage of its cities
37. The Heritage Preservation Commission is one of those measures and has carefully
considered the present project - giving it unanimous approval after an open pub-
lic meeting attended by several of our neighbors
38. AND THAT SHOULD BE ENOUGH.
39. I SAY, THAT SHOULD BE ENOUGH!
40. Having complied with all. the regulations and procedures> having received ap-
proval by official experts and neighbors, having entered into a legal and agreeable
contract for a purchase and sale ! it is time for freedom to have its course.
41. It is time to respect the basic rights of individuals to own and sell their private
property
Concluding statement
42. SARPA, for all the good you do and have done your zeal has gotten the better of
you this time. You have not offered to help Joan and me to make the transition to
our new life - you are gett3ng in the way of that. Joe and Ellen have made such
an offer - and we have accepted it, gratefully. If you prolong, and possibly pre-
vent, the consummation of this agreement, you will have not only overstepped
� your charge - you will be causing us serious economic hardship. You will also
inadvertently be sending the chilling message to all other residents of Summit
Avenue, that whether they intended to or not, whether they like it or not, whether
they can afford to or not - they are imprisoned in a"museum" and have fewer
rights and opportunities than people who live just a block away. Please with-
" draw your appeal, withdraw further resistance to this project and cease harassing
us.
43. Council members, we are just two people, Joan and I, who want to get back to-
geYher and live a normal life. We don't have an anny of lawyers or great financial
resources to quibble about whether a"living museum" is more important than let-
ting citizens exercise theii fundamental and sacred right to be property owners; to
let them fulfill a long and honorable tenure on Summit Avenue and get on with
the next phase of their life. We have you, representing real people like us, to do
what? To invent the wheel? To reinvent it? No - just to affirm what a legislatively-
authorized agency has already carefully done. Do the right thing, - decide in fa-
vor. of this project.
�
0
sent by: EOTNA REALTY CTTY LAKE 612 925 7758; 08/23/00 5:25PM;J�Fg�#504;Page 25/29
Rmosivmd: 6/26/00 3e6aPM� 612 26e 9184 .r Ep=ryq REALTY aZTY LAK6; Pagp a
AUCi-23-190H 16%a1 FfZOM CI'fY OF ST pqLIL LIEI' TO 9612925775B P.0&1i006
�
M a r � �
Tos�a_8a Joan
.'//!'
AuguBc 7, 2000
Dear �Seritage Preservatio,n Commissian Members:
Wa are the owners of the property at 828 8ummit Avenue.l'his raoterized letter is pro-
vidod to you as a writtcn stateraent of our support of Lhe applicatioss faror� J'oseph arid
EAesi Koristan Por the demolition of ibe curCent strvcture locate$ osi this prop�ip for the
purpose of constxucting a new single family homo. 'We are in concurrr,nce wiYh their per-
mit request and ha�ve a fiillp executed purchase agreement to sell this property to the
Kosistans upon approval o£ Chis dcmolition and new constructio�x appliaatiott by the PYeri-
tago l'resesvation Comsniasion.
We respectfully �sk that you approve their applic�tion.
Sirac�are3y,
�
Mario'fosm
�� . (!
!_���_.+..1�7/ ....
�
" FI
�
8�- 1
Ostr,�in
iit Avenue • Srt. Paul_ MN Ksi �
� �P , o'i�7?���
, ! � � � �.
w
NOHEMI AGUILAq
' NOTARYPI�eLIC•IU1tW�30TA
14' Caumi �stm &pYU.W. �t. RC7K
s
u
22.
aenc DY: rU1NH MtHLIY �ilr �AKt 612 925 7758; 08/23/00 5:25PM;JetF�r #504;Page 28/29
RoCOiVede 8/�9/0� Os80PM; 6i2 266 9426 -> �q=ryq pEALYY bY7v LAKE; PaOb 6
AUG-23-1990 16�21 FROM C17y � 5T PALN_ LIEP Y'p 9612925'7758 P.OQ[,i�
Mnc;nta�s'ri.�t Cc�l.�.�x;t:
�
�
r :; •
Augus[ 16, 2000
Mrs. �llcn D. ICpnstan
582 Cretitt Avtnue Squth
Saint Paui, MN 53116
Dedr Mra. KonaGvl:
�o
� G
:�J
'V
w � ,; ,
� -
° --�.'
- �%
o •
w
Yc waa a pleasur� meoti�g you and your fsmily at yestorday's meoting regazding your
proposed now home•at 8,$ Sumi�it Avenue. My wife. Walker Pearce, and I very much
app�e¢iate the effort fliak you made to'irform us of yoar plans. As qour next-door neiglibora at
834 Sun�mit, we ara delighted with your very well-de�aloped pians for improving tlia site. Your
proposed hoxne is quite besutiful and wi)1 be a great addition to our neighborhood.
We have eqjoyad our peiglt6ora, who are quito nicc pcopie. 'L'licy did a gr�at job
maintainix►g tk►cy' home. but thoy were vcrylimited by ttYe smafl house. As you kqow. it is »iadr
fro�rt c�»der block, and abovt a quarter of the front of Ute building was made by euclosing tl�e
garage. Conseguently, the butlding has an unusuai appearanco and an odd configuration tliat, l
belleve, msy ba in violation of the aurrent 6uilding s[andards, Youc proposed project wiU bYi»g
the sittW into eonformtty with current standards, and it will make n utuch moro appealing part of
tho commwiity, •
! parricu[atly like your landa,aping ideas. Y'our plan to temove the parking fYom tl�e &ont
ya�d tu tha backy8td Shvuld maka a gFeat impcovanent of the view from our front windows. At
present, the housa on the lot fs mostly hidden by ve&etatian and the cars that arc usualiy parked in
tho yerd. Your plans to open up tha &ont wili mako a much mnre dramatic setting for your
hamo.
Wo hopathat you will soon bc our neighb�rs. Wo are very plsased to itave a �ice young
family next door to us, und we are very impressed w�ith your huusc plans. If we can be of any
holp along the way, please do not hesitate to coucect us.
Sinoerely,
G������
k Weatherford
Homo phone: 651 221-9$34 Elonte Fax; 65l 292-9420
Work phone: 631 696-6144
AN'111R111•1)I.{It:Y �)kPAN'1'INI:N'1
IIN%1 ( ittANU +�YB:11�3;
�AU.i Pa�:�.. S6n�6sur� asrot•i#qy
�I�11� Rt�•(n�h•ht8�
I�nc: n;� �r.x .r.u�
6�-1
.
��
Sent py: EDINA REALTY CITY LAKE
Aeeeived: 8/20/00 9:SOpM;
812 925 7758;
� RIJG-23-1980 16:21 FROM CIT' OF 5T Pq1.IL �(EP
OB/23/00
TO
� ; ." :.'.`'.5�
c;�;'ic: ���:' ,., • �
5:26PM;J�_#504;Page 28/29
Pape �
9612925'T'J58 P.997/008
Q �
L.QREN V FORRESTER c� �t:�, rya r�:. E�: cs
.,....�. _..�..,.�.,,..—,__..,... —•------ ........... .._.._.___... . ... . _....._ _ Ye . i�na . 63i'iz9{a6ee
kv
etie su�rr av�uE
ST PAUL MN 45105,'L96�
August 17� 2000
Ellen aad Joa iCoiutan
382 Cratin Avanuo South
St Paul, M2�155116
Dear EIIen and Jc�a:
� This is to thank you for st►e showius of your proposed plans for a nc.w hamc ar 828
Summit Avenuu, and [o assur+e you of my suppon of ihis venture.
� ,
As you know,l liva s►ext door to the site at 8] 8 Summit Avenue, Your design for a
�tciaus hame which would blcnd so well into a ncip,hborhood of Iatc �inoteenth-oarly
twentieth contury homes would greatiy improva t1�e view "from my yaM".
I boug,ht the house �t 818 Summit in 1992 to ps�esetve and oare fur it as wel! as to havc a
comFottable and p,racioras home. 1 am awure of the charter and i�rork of 5AR1'A, and I am
aftcn t�► ay,�'�emcnt with them. !n some cases such as tho existin� housa at 828 3ummit,l
belfeve that the historicai character of the neighborhood wuuld be �eaHy improved by
the removal of a fiouse that is,, in my opiaion, ve,ry unattractive and of an incompatible
stylo with tho balance of the neighbarhoud.
1 h�pet that SARPA can support you. If they Cannot do so, l hope tbey will rafruiq from
objectin� to •yoqr plaa
1'ecl llree ta share my opinion rvith anyone.
•
I wish yau tho best oFsuoeess, and eugerly anticipate the opportunity to welcome you as
next door nei�;hbors.
Sinoercly,
�'�a���
��
612 2BB �Y24 -s Epxryq R6ALYr CY7V LAKE(
�,
� M
� � � 4
Interdepartmental Memorandum
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
DATE: October 4, 2000
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Peter Warner, CAO
RE: Council Request for Information: HPC Appeal; 828 Summit Ave.
BACKGROUND
The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) granted a permit to Joe and Ellen Konstan for the
purpose of demolishing a dwelling at 828 Summit Avenue. Although the dwelling is located within
the boundaries of the Heritage Hill Preservation District, the dwelling is not specifically designated
as a heritage preservation site.
The Summit Avenue Residential Preservation Association (SARPA) appealed the HPC decision.
SARPA alleged on appeal that the HPC decision should be overturned because the HPC had failed
to prepaze a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA�. In support of this contention,
SARPA relied on a letter dated September 20, 2000 from the state Environmental Quality Board
(EQB). The letter had been prepared by EQB in response to a request posited by Planning and
Economic Development staff to interpret the meaning of Minn. Rule 4410.4300, Subp. 31 which
governs BAW's for historic sites. EQB advised that it interprets Minn. Rule 4410.4300, Subp. 31
to mandate an EAW for demolition permits for non-designated structures within the boundaries of
a state or nationally listed historic district. At the close of the public hearing, the Council requested
that the City Attorney's Office report back on the EQB's interpretation of Minn. Rule 4410.4300,
Subp. 31.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
It is the opinion of the City Attorney's Office that the EQB's interpretation of Minn. Rule
4410.4300, Subp. 31 is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the rule.
City Council Memo: 828 Summit Ave. HPC Appeal
October 4, 2000
Page Two
ANALYSIS
Minn. Rule 4410.4300 is entitled "Mandatory EAW Categories." The rule mandates preparation of
an EAW for 36 types of development projects. Minn. Rule 4410.4300, Subp. 31 is entitled "Historic
Places" It mandates an EAW "for the destruction, in whole or in part, ... of a property that is listed
on the National Register of Historic Places or State Register of Historic Places ..." (Emphasis
added).
The EQB's interpretation presents the following question: is EQB's interpretation of Minn. Rule
4410.4300, Subp. 31 consistent with the plain meaning of its language? If a state agency's
interpretation of a rule is consistent with the plain meaning of the rule, courts will uphold the
agency's interpretation. See, Cable Communications Board v. Nor-West Cable Communications
Partnershin, 356 N.W.2d 658, 667 (Minn. 1984). However, if an agency interprets a rule in a way
that does not correspond with the plain meaning ofthe rule, the agency interpretation is invalid. See,
White Bear Lake Care Center Inc. v. Minnesota Deparhnent ofPublic Welfare, 319 N.W.2d 7, 8-9
(Minn. 1982). Likewise, overly expansive rule interpretations have been struck down by Minnesota
courts. In M.T. Properties, Inc. v. Alexander, 433 N.W.2d 886 (Minn. App. 1988) the Court held
that a mandatory EAW category that specified its application to the "construction" of a pipeline did
not apply to the "relocation" of a pipeline.
The plain language in Minn. Rule 4410.4300, Subp. 31 requires a mandatory EAW only where a
permit is sought to demolish ". .. a property that it listed ..:' The word "property" is expressed in
the singular. The rule does not reference historic dish specifically. The rule does not refer to
individual properties within districts. The ordinary inference to be drawn from the word "listed" is
that it refers to formally designated individual heritage preservation sites.
CONCLUSION
6�- l
The plain and ordinary meaning of the language in Minn. Rule 4410.4300, Subp. 31 compels the
conclusion that the mandatory EAW requirement in the rule does not apply to demolition permits
for non-designated stnxctures within the boundaries of a state or nationally listed historic district.
2 4. The existing residence has seen some significant alteration, which lessens Q�—\
3 it architectural integrity. The attached garage was converted to living space in the
4 1970's and an inappropriate brick arched facade was attached to this part of the
5 building facing Summit Avenue. A significant number of the original steel
6 casement windows have been replaced (approximately 50% of them, according to
7 one representative of the applicants); and
9 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 73.06, the
10 Summit Avenue Residential Preservation Association ( hereinafter "SARPA") duly filed an
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2G
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
appeal from the determination made by the Commission and requested a hearing befare the Saint
Paul City Counci] (hereinafter the "City Council") far the purpose of considering the actions
taken by the said Commission; and
WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Legislative Code § 73.06 and upon notice to affected
parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on September 27, 2000, where
all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, at the close of the public hearing, the matter was laid over to October 4,
2000, for the purposes of receiving an opinion from the City Attorney's Office concerning state
environmental assessment worksheet regulations on the demolition of non-designated structares
located within a designated historical district; and
WHEREAS, on October 4, 2000, the City Attorney's Office delivered its opinion to the
City Council; and
WHEREAS, having heard the statements made, considered the application, staff reports,
and all the Commission's records, minutes and resolution, the Council does hereby
RESOLVE, that the Commission did not err in its facts, findings or procedures and,
accordingly, denies the appeal of SARPA; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council hereby adopts as its own the findings,
conclusions and approvals of the Commission as contained in its Resolution No. 4095; and be it
Council File # O \ � �
RESOLUTION
Presented By
Referred To
Green Sheet # 1 O� 00 S
SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA � �
�t
�� �J -
Committee: Date
2 WHEREAS, Joseph and Ellen Konstan, in Zoning File No. 4095 and pursuant to the
3 provisions of the Saint Paul Legislative Code Chapter 73, made application to the Saint Paul
4 Heritage Preservation Commission (hereinafter the "Commission") for a permit to demolish an
5 existing house located within the Historic Hill Preservation District, for the purposes of
6 constructing a new residence on the site, commonly known as 828 Sumuiit Avenue and legally
7 described as contained in the said zoning file; and
9 WHEREAS, the Commission, after having provided notice to affected property owners,
10 conducted a public hearing on August 24, 2000. In its Resolution No. 4095, adopted September
11 21, 2000, the Commission determined to grant the application based upon the following findings
12 and conclusions:
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
1. The building does not have significant architectural or historic merit. It is
an unusual building in that preliminary research does not disclose any other
residential designs by Mr. Ingemann in the 1950s, that the French Renaissance
Revival style design of the house appears unrelated to architectural trends of the
time, and that the scale, materials and site design of the house are quite dissimilar
to those of its neighbors. These unusual aspects of the building do not, however,
make it significant. Mr. Ingemann was known during the 1920's and 1930's for
period revival residential designs and for the design of municipal, institutional,
and commercial buildings over a number of decades, particularly in the colonial
revival and art deco/moderne styles. An examination of the body of his
architectural work reveals that a number of better examples of his work survive in
Saint Paul and around the State of Minnesota. Finally, the Ingemanns lived in this
residence for only approximately five years before they retired; they moved to
Mexico several years later.
2. The proposed demolition would not have an adverse impact on the historic
or architectural character and integrity of surrounding buildings, nor would the
construction of the proposed residence. The residential nature of the avenue
would be preserved.
34 3. While the existing residence, at approximately 2600 sq. ft. has economic
35 value, the proposed 10,000 sq. ft. residence would have significantly more
36 economic value.
37
38
O\—�
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council hereby recognizes from this matter that there
3 may exist within designated preservation districts, significant numbers of structures which may
4 not, if taken individually, meet the criteria for designation as a heritage preservation site but
5 which, if considered as a whole, significantly contribute to the fabric of the heritage preservation
6 district and to the overall appearance of the city. For instance, the testimony in this matter
7 indicated that no fewer than twenty structures within the Historic Hill Preservation District could
8 be eligible for demolition. The Council further recognizes that the incremental demolition of
9 non-designated structures within designated heritage preservation districts carries significant
10 risks for the continued enhancement and vitalaty of the city's preservation policy set forth in
11 Saint Paul Legislative Code § 73.01. From this, the Council shall, under separate resolution,
12 direct the Commission to undertake a study and to report back recommendations for a city policy
13 concerning the demolition of non-designated structures within designated heritage preservation
14 districts in light of the city's preservation policy set forth in Saint Paul Legislative Code § 73.01.
15
16 FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to
17 Joseph and Ellen Konstan, SARPA, the zoning administrator and the Commission
18
19
Requested by Department of:
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
By: ���.�� �
Approved by Mayor: Date _ '���/�/
HY. ��C/�������
By:
Form Approved by City Attorney
B � G�/,./��,�-. tz-iy_o�
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
Adopted by Council: Date �'cw.. '3 � �ne�
��-.�
GREEN SHEET
Peter Warner
JaYtuary�03; 2001
ROR
T07'AL # OF SIONATURE PAOES �_
otr�e+MOn a�omaR
N�106005
ancouNa�
❑ CRVAiTORNC! � d1Y0L�Rli �,_
❑lN�NCVILKIINCPiql0. ❑'WNCN�f[RVIACCTO
❑ Wvo111011AUNrNir) ❑
{CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)'
Resolution memorializing the decision of the City Council on October 4; 2000, denying the appeal of the
Summit Avenue Residential Preservation Association (SARPA) to a decision of the Heritage Preservation
Commission granting approval of a demolition permit at 828 Suinmit Avenue.
PIANNINO COMMISSION
CIB COMMITTEE
CIVII SERVICE COMMI6SION
AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION t
80URCE
(EXPWN)
266-8710
Hes thie pereo�rm aver vrorketl under a cpMrect for ihls depa�tmeM7
YE& NO
Hes thla pareonlArm aver peen a elry empbyee9.
YES NO
poes thle pereoMim poeaees a sldll not normellypoaeeased by any curtent clly employee?
VES NO
IsMIsP�eoMlrmetaroMetivendoY7 ' ,
YE8 NO
COST/REVBNY4 BUDOR7lD (CIRC�6 ONE)
ACTNITY NUMBER
YES NO
i �
4
a� r . . ...w I_. . . w . . v . J.v. _ —
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Nm�m Coleumi+, Mnym•
December 19, 2000
Nancy Anderson
Council Secretary
310 City Hall
15 West Kellogg Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55102
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Claytan M. Robinson, Jr., City Attorney 4 `�\
Civi1 Drvtsion
400 Ciry Hnll Telephone.• 651 266-8710
15 West Kellagg Blvd. Frscsimile.� 651 298-56/9
SnintPau(Minnesatn55l02 ,
Hand Delivered
�aun��i ��so�rch G�r�4er
��� � �. a000
Re: Appeal by SARPA of a decision to grant approval of a demolition permit for
828 Summit Avenue
Dear Ms. Anderson:
Attached please find a signed resolution memorializing the decision of the City Council to deny
the appeal by SARPA and to reaffirm the decision of the HPC to approve a demolition permit for
the property commonly known as 828 Summit Avenue. Please place this on the Council's
Consent Agenda at your earliest possible convenience.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
,,2f, � (¢,., ��cvv�"'.1
Peter W. Warner
Assistant City Attorney
PW W/rmb
Enclosure
OFFICE OF UCENSE, INSPECTIONS AND
ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION
Rabert Kessler, Director
� ��
1�
d � � �
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Na•iu Ca(e�nnn, Mnya�
September 8, 2000
Ms. Nancy Anderson
Assistant Secretary to the City Council
310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Dear Ms. Anderson:
LOWRY PROFESSlONAL BUILDING
Suite 300
350 St. Peter S(reet
SaintPnul, Minnesota 55102-1510
{ � � � , �
� ��
r�" Q
/��y �oa n l A-
Telephone: 65/-266-9090
Facsimi[e: 651-266-9124
Co+�ci4 R�seae�h G��1.�P
SEP � �, 26�0
I would like to request that a public hearing before the City Council be scheduled for
Wednesday, September 27, 2000 far the following appeal of a Heritage Preservation
Commission decision:
Appellants: Summit Avenue Residential Preservation Association (SARPA)
HPC File: #4095
Purpose: Appeal a Heritage Preservation Commission decision to grant approval of
a demolition permit
Address: 828 Summit Avenue
Tlie Heritage Preservation Commission held a public meeting on this matter and voted 7- 0 on
August 24, 2000 to approve the requested permit.
This City Council public hearing does not require published notice. Please call me at 266-90�14
if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
��-__. ��
Tom Riddering
Building Code Official
c: Robert Kessler, LIEP Director
James Bellus, HPC Chair
Peter Warner, Assistant City Attomey
James V. Toscano, SARPA President
Bud Batterson
✓
OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND
ENVIRONMENTALPROTEC770N
Robert Kessler, Director
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayar
September 8, 2000
Ms. Nancy Anderson
Assistant Secretary to the City Council
310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota SSY02
Deaz Ms. Anderson:
LOWRYPROFESSIONAL BUILDMG
SuiYe 300
350 SL Peter Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55702-lS10
��—�
Telephone: 651 •266-9090
Facsrmile: 651-266-9124
I would like to request that a public hearing before the City Council be scheduled for
Wednesday, September 27, 2000 for the following appeal of a Heritage Preservation
Commission decision:
Appellants: Summit Avenue Residential Pzeservariott Associarion (SARPA)
HPC File: #4095
Puzpose: Appeal a Heritage Preservation Commission decision to gtant approval of
a demolition permit
Address: 828 Summit Avenue
The Heritage Freservation Commission held a public meering on this matter and voted 7- 0 on
August 24, 2000 to approve the requested permit.
'i'his City Council public hearing does not require published notice. Please call me at 266-9014
if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
� ��
v—`.
Tom Riddering
Building Code Official
c: Robert Kessler, LIEP Director
James Bellus, HPC Chair
Peter Warner, Assistant City Attorney
James V. Toscano, SARPt1 President
Bud Batterson
�\—\
JAMES VINCENT TOSCANO
Heritage Preservation Commission
350 3aint Peter Suite. Suite 350
Saint Paul Minnesota 55102
Attn: Tom Riddezing
Ta Whom It May Concern:
I shouid lilce to appeal to the SC Paul City Council the decision of the Heritage Preservation Commission
on the demolition of 828 Summit Avenue for the foliowing reasons:
I. Lack of an EAW being done before the decision. The Guide to Minnesota Environmental Rules, Page 30,
statas. " destruction in whole or part or the moving of a property that is listed on the National Register of
Historic Places or State Register of T3istoric Places" is subject m a mandatory Environmentai Assessment
Workshee£ Such a worksheet was not done.
2. Total disregard of staff recommendation for further study and lac3c of any discussion on siaff
recommendations.
3. Total disregard and lack of substanHve discussion of the objectious of SARPA, letter appended.
4. Lack of observation of the statute establishing the Swnroit Avenua historic preservation district, which,
on part, was passed to eliminate fiuther demolirion of homes on Summit Avenue..
5. Decision based on assumed and subjecrive azchitectw�al taste and not histaric preservation status in a
"living museum" of homes protected in the disd�ict.
6. Decision not fuily based on criteria listed under the statute establishing Narional Historic Preservation
districts.
7. Incomplete original stafFwork in not evaluating 828 Summit. This house was not evaluated, yet judged to
be not contributory, evan though that decision was not made by qualified government and advisory sta�
but arrogated to itself by the FTistoric Preservatian Commission in ciear violadon of stamte.
8. Tota( lack of discussion and observation of Summit Avenue Plan, part of comprehensive city plan,
established to protect Swncnit against demalition and listed of 828 Sumwit imder "Architects ofNote on
Swnmit Avenue. See attached letier,
This decisian has placed in jeopardy more tltan 10°/a of the homes on Suwmit buik after 1950 yeY regarded
as essantial in the historical development of the Avenue, essendal to the stah�s of `9iving muse�" that
Summit is. Parties with sufficient funds to destroy homes and build larger more eacpeasive buildings using
azchitects of note will then dominate ihe Avenue. Thus the Avenae will truly revert to the rich regardiess of
history or lilstoricai preservation of one of the geat boulevards in America.
Sincerely,
, ���� "
t �,sa�rn
��-\
� ,
1
Heritage Preservation Commission
350 St. Peter Street, Suite 300
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Dear Members:
August 20, 2000
1982 Summit Ave.
St. Paul, MN.55105
On behalf of the Board of Directors and members of the Siunmit Avenue Residential
Pxeservadon Association (SARPA), I am writing to express our totai opposition to the
demolition of 8Z8 Summit Avenue, paxt of the National Historical Preservation District.
Summit Avenue has been referred to as a"living" historical museum, and, similaz to any
museum, the Historic District is intended to preserve and protect all examples of the
varzous architectural styles and homes which together make up the unique character and
substance of the Avenue.
The Suinznit Avenue Plan, adopted by the City Council, lists ten recommendaxion for
action, the first of which is ".,,A11 of Summit Avenue should be protected against
demolition and anappmpriate new construction." Another recommendadon resulted in the
crearion of SARPA to be the residents' action giroup to ensure that these
recommendadons are observed and that the historic residendal nature of the Avenue
be preserved.
The $ummit Avenue Plan specifically lists 828 Summit under " Arciutects of Note on
Summit Avenue," p8: "12. Wiliiam Ingemann, 828 Summit. Designed the Lowell Tnu,
Weqerhaeuser Library at Macalester, Master Plan for Gustavus Adoiphus."
This home is the only example of tIris arciutecYs work ott Summit, an arclutect well
lrnown enough to be listed in the Plan and popular in 1950's residential design, who built
this particulaz home for lris family, making it pazticularly important to recognize the
contributing nature of the home to the overall mix of styles and designs on the Avenue.
Summit Avenue belongs not just to its residents, but to the tens of thousands who use it in
vanious ways each year, to the tourists who come to see one of the great residentiai
boulevards of the nation, and to all in our City, State and Nation. To deinolish otte part of
it is to d'vminish all of it, as well as ourselves.
We oppose the demolition of the home and urge your denial of tiris request.
Sincereiy,
v� ....�.—..
7 V. Toscano, President, SARPA
��—\
Joseph and Ellen Konstan
582 Crefin Avenue South
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55116
September 18, 2000
City Council of Saint Paul
Saint Paul, Minnesota
Dear Council Members:
We are writing in response to the appeal of the Heritage Preservation Commission's (HPC's)
unanimous approval of our demolition permit application for the structure at 828 Summit
Avenue, Saint Paul. The HPC made a well reasoned decision on appropriate grounds and we
urge the Council to uphold the HPC's decision. The appeal, filed on behalf of SARPA by James
Toscano, the organization's president, contains a substantial number of factual errors and
misstatemenCS of the relevant legal standards, as we identify more specifically in our response
below.
Backgroand. We have long loved Summit Avenue and look forward to the opportunity to raise
a family there. For the past six months, we've been acrively pursuing the opportunity to build a
house on the Avenue. We worked closely with HPC staff throughout the process to avoid
actions that would hatm or jeopardize the history and chazacter of the district, and made cleaz to
HPC staff and our own realtor our commitment to identify an appropriate property and design a
new'house such that the project would contribute to the azchitecture of Summit Avenue. To
Further that comrrritment, we have hired well-respected preservation azchitects and have openly
approached neighbors and community organizations to present and gather feedback on our plans.
We invited all residents on both sides of the block, along with the Summit Hill Association
(SHA) and SARPA, to a meeting on August 15; all neighbors and the SHA representatives were
extremely supportive. The two next-door neighbors submitted letters to the HPC strongly
supporting the project. We also presented to the Land Use Committee of the SHA (which was
unable to make a formal recommendarion due to lack of quorum) and have a standing offer to
SHA to present to their board at their request. .
We were dismayed to hear that SARPA's board voted to oppose this project before seeing any of
the details, but have nonetheless ofFered to meet with them to present the project. Thus faz, that
offer has been rebuffed, though we've been told that they may be willing to meet with us after the
City Council meeting at which their appeal is heard. We believe we've followed the process
thoroughly, going out of our way to provide opportunity for public comment. The HPC held an
open hearing at which SARPA's president presented the organization's objections. And the HPC,
after receiving a staff presentation on the azchitectural and historical significance of the structure
at 828 Summit Avenue, considered and unanimously supported our request for a demolition
pernut.
The Appeal. Mr. Toscano, on behalf of SARPA, appealed the HPC decision, citing eight points.
All of these points aze without merit, as each either mischaracterizes the facts, the process, or the
legal standazds that apply. We address each objection point-by-point.
Ol-�
1. SARPA cites the lack of an EAW being done before HPC's decision an the demolitian permit.
Response: An EAW is not required for the demolition of a unlisted praperty, such as 828 Summit
SARPA's appeal on this point is off the mark, as it suggests that the proposed demolition of 828 Summit
required that the HPC conduct an environmental assessment worksheet (EAW). However, the rule to
which 5ARPA is referring (Minnesota Rules section 4410.4300, subpart 31) does not require an EAW,
unless the proposal would desaoy a property that is individuaUy I'uted on either the National or State
Registers of Historic Places. Individual properties wiNtin the bisirict may be, and are, tisted when their
historical significance wazrants; for example, the houses at 432 and 1006 Summit aze noted as designated
historic in the City's District 16 Plan. The house at S28 Summit Avenue is not listed on either the
Natlonal or Sfate Registers of Historic Places. Therefore, by the plain language of the rule, no EAW
was required.
Not only is SARPA's reading of the state environmental regulation inaccurate, but SARPA also ignores the
fact that, by approving the demolition, the HPC was proceeding within the express authority delegated to it
by state statute and city ordinance. The state statute that enables the establishment of historic districts and
provides for their maintenance (the Historic District Act) states that local governments have the authority to
impose regulations governing demolition of structures within historic districts. Accordingly, the City
Council has established a procedure for protecting the swctures within the Heritage Hill district (St. Paul
City Code, Sec. 73 and 74 establish and set the jurisdiclion and procedures of the HPC; both the Summit
Avenue Plan of 1986 and the District 16 Plan of 1989 specifically indicate that requests for demoliflon
within the Historic District should be reviewed by the HPC). The HPC procedure not only adequately
protects all buildings within the district, but is even more protective than the EAW process, as it requires a
public hearing (which is only optional in an EAW proceeding) and is run by a commission that both has
expertise in [he subject and is specifically appointed to protect such historic azeas.
2. SARPA argues there was a ilisregard of staff recommendation for further study.
Response: Further study was performed that supported the HPC's decision to approve the
demolition permit.
The HPC staff report made and distributed before the HPC heazing suggested that some fmther study might
be helpful in detemilning the historic context of the structure. In the time betwcen the production of the
report and the hearing, "further study" was canied out. At the meetiag HPC staff member Aaron
Rubenstein indicated that he had conducted further study into the structure, the modifications made
to it, and lts relationsLip to the other work of the architect. When asked by a commissione�, Mr.
Rubenstein stated that he had enough information to judge that the azchitectural/historical integrity of the
structure had indeed been compromised by changes made to the strucnue; this is information and a
conclusion based on precisely the sort "fiuther study" that Mr. Rubenstein had suggested might be fivitful
in the staff report he had prepazed eazlier.
3. SARPA claims a total d'uregard and lack of substantive discussion of their objection.
Response: The HPC carefully considered 5ARPA's objections and followed the guidelines set ou« for
its consideration in the City Code.
In addition to receiving the SARPA letter and hearing an oral presentation from Mr. Toscano at the public
hearing, HPC members explicitly discussed the objections raised in both the lette� and the presentation.
The chair of the FTPC made a pointed statement reJecting SARPA's contention that this approval'
would set a bad precedent, instead finding that it is exactly for these challenging decisions that the
HPC exists. Members of the HPC discussed in detail both the relevance of this structure as an Ingemann
house (of which two others are still in St. Paul), and explicidy rejected SARPA's contention that a single
demolition would jeopardize the entire district. The ample discussion and subsequent rejection of SARPA's
objection surely does not consGtute "total discegard."
(7\-�
4. SARPA claims a lack of observation of the statute establishing the Sumn:it Avenue historic preservatian
districr, which, on pan, was passed to eliminate funher demolition of homes on SummitAvenue.
Response: The HPC observed the relevant statute which specifically directs it to review appllcadons
for demolitlon.
The relavant "statute" (which apparently is a reference ro City Code Chapter 74, tlrticle IIn is quite clear.
Section 74.67 provides explicit guidelines for the HPC in reviewing proposals for demolirion of structures
within the district. Those guidelines were presented, verbaHm, in the staff presentation ro the HPC and
followed by the HPC in approving the request. The code does not explicitly describe its intent in allowing
demolition, but does cleazly state the importance of the architechual character (Sec. 74.63(a)), its intent for
the HPC to consider the particular merit of a buiiding or area under review and the economic impact of its
decisions on property owners (Sec. 74.63(b)), and the fact that the guidelines in the statute have been
reviewed and approved by the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Officer as containing criteria which
will "substantially achieve the purpose of preserving and rehabilitating buildings of significance to the
district."
It is clear from the code that the HPC is expected (indeed, is directern to review applications for
demolition, and that the code anticipates that some buildings will not be of significance. The intent of
the code, therefore, would appear to be to enable the HPC to preserve significant buildings (for historic and
architectural reasons), not to effectively handcuff the FIPC by preven8ng it from approving demolirion
proposals, as is apparenUy alleged in the SARPA appeal.
We should note that 828 Summit Avenue lies within the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation DisVict rather
than the Suaunit Avenue West Heritage Preservation District. This distinction does not change the
language of the law regazding demolition, but may explain Mr. Toscano's comments about architectural
taste and discouraging demolition. The Suaunit Avenue West HPD code does not specifically refer to
azchitec[ural chazacter, and indeed was intended to have looser design guidelines than the older Historic
Hill HPD. '
S. SARPA argues that the HPC's decision was based on assumed and subjective architectural taste and not
historical preservation status in a 'living museum' of homes prorected in ihe district.
Response: The HPC eacplicitly discussed and made t5ndings about the historic significance of the
house. '
As specifically provided in the code, the HF'C also discussed and made findings about the impact of our
proposed new construction, both on surrounding houses and economically. Mr. Toscano and SARPA
may feel that Summit Avenue is a"living museum; ' but the HPC and t6e law bot6 are clear on the
fact that demolition and construction permit decisions are made individually, on their merits.
Furthermore, the state Hisroric Disvict Act and the City Code demonsuate that HPC is empowered (and
therefore, expecte� to make judgments, based on guidelines, as part of their stewazdship over the historic
district. Consistent with its duties, the HPC staff report and subsequent HPC discussion at the hearing
correctly examined whether our new consuuction fit the district guidelines (which aze neither highly
subjective nor necessazily reflective of cammissioners' tastes). The HPC, within its discretion, withheld
final approval of our construction plans pending their review of ffnal drawings and material selections.
6. SARPA argues that the HPC's decision was not fudly based an criteria l'uted under the statute establishing
National Historic Preservation districts.
Response: The HPC specifically addressed these criteria in 3ts deliberations and in the tinditogs 9t
made at the hearing.
Mr. Toscano appeazs to be referring to the guidelines presented in St. Paul Code Section 74.67, which
references Secdon 73.06(i)(2). These criteria include "the azchitectural and historical merit of the building,
the efFect of the demolition on sunounding buildings, the effect of any proposed new construction ... on
O\—�
surrounding buildings, and the economic value of usefulness of the buildings as it now e�cists ... in
compazison with the value of usefulness of any proposed swctures designated w replace the present
buiiding or buildings." The HPC specifically considered these criteria in its deGberations and
addressed them in its findings. The Code does not preclude the HPC from considering additional facrors
as well (which may be what Mr. Toscano refers to with the "not fully" language), but in fact the discussion
was very focused on the guidelines presented in the code.
7. SARPA complains about incomplete original staff work in not evaluating 828 Summit.
Response: A 1982 Historic Sites Survey oF the structure at 82S Summit stated that the building was
not listed on either the State or Nallonal Historic Registers and concluded that the structure does not
have potential for individual desiguation.
Mr. Toscano likely refers to the Summit Avenue Study Inventory form on which the category of the house
is left blank, rather than listed as "contribuUng" or "non-contributing." Mr. Toscano does not mention the
1982 Historic Sites Survey that concluded that the home had neither National Register nor Local
designation potenNal as a historic building. This survey indicated the [owest leved of significance Found
on the form. Further, the survey was based on a review when ihe house was only "altered slighUy," which
we now know from the HI'C staffs invesGgauon tha't was reported at the HPC hearing, predates more
substantial alterations performed since that survey.
Further, even if the house had been classified on the survey as "contributing," it would have been within the
FIPC's discretion to evaluate our perntit request based on the criteria in St. Paul code Section 74.67. The
lack of designation on the survey is not unusuai (indeed, no building on the block has this classificarion
completed in the survey), and the HPC prope�ly has the responsibility for determining the level of
conhibution and significance of the house in its findings and decision.
8. SARPA complains of a total lack of discussion and observation of the Summit Avenue Plan ... established
to protect Summit against demolition and listed of 828 Summit under Architects of Note on Summit
Avenue.'
Response: The HPC observed all relevant aspects of the Summit Avenue Plan.
The 1986 Sumaiit Avenue Plan was raised by Mr. Toscano in his letter to the HPC prior to the public
hearing. Parts of the Plan have been put into effect Uurough amendments to the City Code (e.g., the
extension of heritage preservation to all of Summit Avenue), while other parts remain as mere
recommendations. The proposed project directly supports the two most relevant goals of the plan: (1)
Preserve the residential chazacter of Summit Avenue (which specifically includes the City nurturing "the
new posiHve energy to maintain and improve Sununit Avenue as a very desirable place to live"; (2)
Enhance Summit Avneue's role as the "showcase street" of St. Paul. The Summit Avenue Plan, in
recommendation #1, explicitly indicates that the "HPC should review all building pernut applications for
demolitron, house moves, ne�v consavction, ..." T6e HPC clearly observed tLe letter and spirit of the
Summit Avenue Plan in fulfilling its obligation to review our permit request..
We should note that Mr. Toscano does not refer to the latcr-adopted 1989 Dishict 16 Plan which similazly
endorses the use of the heritage preservadon district designation and associafed processes to ensure
historically appropriate development in the disvict.
We strongly disagree with SARPA's main contendons, which are: (1) that no demolition
whatsoever may be allowed on Summit Avenue in order to keep it a"living museum," and (2)
that approving this project places more than 10% of the homes on the avenue "in jeopardy."
Indeed, we believe that careful evaluation of each project by the Heritage Preservation
Commission, as was done in our case, is essenrial to keeping Summit Avenue a"living" museum
rather than a"dead" one. Keeping Summit Avenue the "showcase" stated in the Summit Avenue
4 i -�
Plan requires cazeful management by curators who can judge the merit of each structure in the
museum. As was cleazly related by the chair of the HPC, this case merely reinforces the
precedent that any proposed demolition in the Historic District must first overcome the high
hurdle of approval by the HPC after a public hearing. No other building will be demolished as a
result of this action, and any other project will have to overcome the same high hardle.
Summary. SARPA, as represented by Mr. Toscano, presents an appeal based on their exueme
belief that no house on Summit Avenue should ever be demolished, but unsupported either by
the facts of the case or by the law. As directed by law, the HPC carefully studied this issue and
came to a unanimous decision approving our request.
SARPA rnakes an argument that this application creates a"slippery slope." This argument is
incorrect; no other house is placed in jeopardy by this decision. Each applicadon for demolition
or development requires the carefal review and approval of the HPC.
SARPA's argument about the Avenue "reverting to the rich" is insulting and counterproductive
name-calling. It is they who threaten to impoverish at least one pair of modest-income Summit
Avenue residents by needlessly taldng from them much of the value of their property on the
Avenue.
We ask you to uphold the HPC's approval and to issue our pernrit so that we may proceed
without undue delay.
Respect£ully submitted,
�dl� �� ��,
Joseph and Ellen Kottstan
Attachments: letters from neighbors and owners of 828 Summit Avenue
Mario Tosto 61 ��
828 Summlt Avenue • St. Paui, MN 55105 • Phone 617-290-1099 • E-mail: marlo@tosto. com
September 18, 2000
To the St. Paul City Council:
KEY REASONS TO CONFIRM TH.E HPC DECISION ON
DEMOLITION OF 828 SUMMITAVENUE
• If the August decision, made through due process, is
not consummated soon serious economic hardship
would be imposed on two .longtime residents
• The present building has never been considered archi-
tecturally significant and should not be considered so
now since major alterations have been made to it over
the past twenty-five years, changing its original look
and function
• The new structure would be more in harmony with the
surrounding structures and would certainly add value
to the neighborhood
� Based on the HPC decision we have made a commit-
ment to buy a home in Boston and further delay would
cause us to miss our closing and have near-
catastrophic economic consequences
• The state has recommended a course of action based
on best available information.
Please affirm the HPC decision
Mario Tosto
<b� e-�r4:,P>
Joan Ostrin
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
DETAIL
6�-�
SARPA has done many good things for Summit Avenue over the years and cer-
tainly has good intentions
BUT in thls case those good inEentions for the street ae a whole are blinding it to
the extraordinarily difficult consequences for iwo of its long-time residents
We aze among the few who have lived on Siurunit Avenue continuously for over
twenty flve years
We have done our part to preserve the livability of the neighborhood over that
tixne, contributed to local causes and tried to keep our piace presentable
In order to do that we have invested heavily in the building, greatly altering it,
changing it from its original purpose, as a duplex. It was we who removed the fuc-
tures and plumbing for an upstairs kitchen
We added azchitectural touches like a lintel above the kitchen window in front
and a new azchway around the front door
We removed almost all the original windows, which were grossly inadequate for a
residential str-ucture (they were single-pane, metal framed factory units)
We added skylights to the attached building - added after the house had been
built
We removed the doors that made for two private entrances.
We added a room in back to remedy the lack of storage space that should have
been afforded by an attic or basement
We parked our car outside for twenty five years because there was no garage
We took down a wall in the llving room to enlarge it
We replaced cheap Philippine Mahogany paneling with quality cherry paneling
We replaced other cheap paneling with dry wall and wall paper
We landscaped the front
We corrected many construction and design defects
We added heating wlres for water pipes that had been designed to be too close to
the nortkt wall, causing freeze-ups and pipe bursting
About us
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
On November 1, 1999 I was offered an important job in Boston and relocated
there, leaving my wife to manage the house mostly alone, though I commute once
or 'lwice a month
In Aprll we were seriously considering plans to relocate to Boston
In the midst of these discussions we received an offer from the realtor for the Kon-
stans, which we belleve was an answer to prayer
Within a few weeks we had arrived at a very satisfactory agreement to sell our
house
We have spent the better part of the summer lnvestigating the options for relocat-
ing to Boston
In case you didn't know it, Boston is the third most eicpensive city for real estate
in the country. The offer from the Konstans would go a long way to providing us
with a comfortable, though much smaller, home
We are eager to stop all this commuting and long distance calling and resume a
normal family relationship
No, we aze more than eager - we are getting desperate
2
About the structures
D�-�
26. Honestly, when we first received the offer to purchase our house we were suspi-
cious that it was from a developer who would construct a cheap and ugly multi-
family building - or worse
27. We have seen the plans for the new house to be built on our lot and feel gratified
that we can leave our beloved street knowing it wlll be graced by something more
elegant and substantial than what we are leaving
28. We are happy - and relieved - AND YOU SHOLJLD BE TOO - that it is not a face-
less corporate institution that will be replacing Joan and me
29. That it will not be greedy speculators who will be replacing Joan and me
30. But tY►at it is Joe, and Ellen Konstan, and their son, Ben
31. We are happy that a young family will be living there - and will be enjoying the
beauty and charm of Summit avenue, even while adding a significant amount of
the same
32. Though we know that it's the life inside a house that really makes it a home, as
people with an eye for these sort of things, we appreciate the architect's critique of
our present structure. The buffding does not uUlize the space as well as it could.
33. .As they have mentioned, the original azchitect, Mr. Ingemann, could not have
been very proud of this building. He certainly didn't seem to spend much on it,
either in materlals or workmanship, compared with his other works. And didn't
spend much time in it, either.
34. We were told by his daughter, Judy, that it was just an"in-town" house - the
main residence being on the St. Croix river. 828 was used mostly by her and her
sister while they were in college, and when her parents needed an occasional
place to stay while in St. Paul
3
About freedom and individual rights 6�-�
35. We appreciate that neighborhoods need to be protected, especially historic ones
like Summit Avenue
36. We also appreciate that Minnesota has instituted measures to preserve the heri-
tage of its cities
37. The Heritage Preservation Cominission is one of those measures and has cazefully
considered the present project - giving it unanimous approval after an open pub-
lic meeting attended by several of our neighbors
38. AND '1'I-IAT SHOULD BE ENOUGH.
39. I SAI', THAT SHOULD BE ENOUGHI
40. Having complied with all. the regulations and procedures, having received ap-
proval by official experts and neighbors, having entered into a legal and agreeable
contract for a purchase and sale - it is time for freedom to have its course.
41. It is time to respect the basic rights of individuals to own and sell their private
property
Concluding statement
42. SARPA, for all the good you do and have done, your zeai has gotten the better of
you this time. You have not offered to help Joan and me to make the transition to
our new life - you aze getting in the way of that. Joe and Ellen have made such
an offer - and we have accepted it, gratefully. If you prolong, and possibiy pre-
vent, the consummation of this agreement, you wlll have not only overstepped
your charge -�ou wlll be causing us serious econoxnic hardship. You wiil also
inadvertently be sending the chilling message to all other residents of Summit
Avenue, that whether they intended to or not, whether they like it or not, whether
they can afford to or not - they aze imprisoned in a"museum" and have fewer
rights and opportunities than people who live,just a block away. Please with-
draw your appeal, withdraw further resistance to this project and cease harassing
us.
43. Council members, we aze just two people, Joan and I, who want to get back to-
gether and live a normal life. We don't have an army of lawyers or great financial
resources to quibble about whether a"living museum" is more unportant than let-
ting citizens exercise their fundamental and sacred right to be properly owners; to
let them fulflll a long and honorable tenure on Sumxnit Avenue and get on with
the next phase of their life. We have you, representing real people like us, to do
what? To invent the wheel7 To reinvent it? No - just to afHrm what a legislatively-
authorized agency has already carefully done. Do the right thing. - decide in fa-
vos of this project. �
[!
Sent by: ED1NA REALTY CITY LAKE 812 925 7758; 08/23/00 5:25PM;Jg�#504;Page 25/29
Rmasived: 6/26/DO �e60PM� 612 286 ey24 •� �pINA qEALTY CITY LAKE; Pagp q
WJG-23-19F1� 16�21 FRpM CIIY L7F ST PAIJL LIEP
Ma�r�o To s�o 8a
• ' -
01-�
.Joan Ostr,��n
82a supfmis pveaue • 6F. Paul, M
Augusc 7, 2000
T�car Hcritaga Prescsvat�on Commissian Meml�ers:
We are tt�e ownars of the property at 828 Summit Aveaue. This notarized. letter is pro-
vidod to yau as a wr3ttcn statesaent of our support oi the applioasioa isom J'oseph ar�d
Ellen Konstan tor Che demolition of the aurrent struccure lecated oss this� pmperty for tho
parpose of constructittg a new si�le family hosne. 'DVC aze in cosacusteSnce with their per-
mit request axsd have a fuU� executed purchase agrecment to sell this properly to the
Konst&ns upon approval ai tltis demolition and new cott9tructior,t application by the Heri-
tago 8se�avafioa Coauais�ioa.
We reapecltu]ly a�c t1�,at you approvo their �pplic�tion.
8incerei�+, -
�� ���
�.�__ �ei<�.
�
s
'//!'
ii� c�
. ,
=, ���a � o�z- O S
� � � � /�
�
�w��WYNw
' NOHEMI ACUIIAR
NOTAAY WiBLIGYIW1EgOTA
�b�nlwkn pqhrJm,i�,�00d
, • ■
�2
aent uy: cu1IVN HtHLIY GlIY �AKt
Rooaivede A/aq/00 Os�OPM;
fW.A'a^23-19d9 16:21 FROM
Mnc:nta�5•r•i:R Cc�,.,.,x;r:
,.
F ��'
l�U�l{9� 16o ZQ�O
Mrs. F!laaD. Kanakan
582 Cretin ti�venue South
5eint Paul. MN SSl lb
Deat Mra. Konstwic
1�N't/14111'lll.{II:Y {7hPAN1'Mf:N'i
I�rpy ( IItA.W � ��\'Y.MI�'�;
S�w� P.,� i_ �hwnP�r�c,� asina�xu9
dc-1
G
0
� C �. �
iV
;,� . '
� •%�
-_ -;:
o •
:a
i� was n pleasutn meoting you a�ut youc family at yesterday's moeting regazding your
pcopoaed new home•et if�E Stunmit Aveaue. My wifa, Wa1ko: pearce, and I ve�y mndi
appteciate We effort that you ntade W'inform us of yriur plan&, As your nextrdoor neigll6ora at
834 Summtf, we sre delighted with youe vary wel!-developed plans for improving tlie siee. Your
propased hoane is quite besutltL) and wiai be a greaR addttion to aur neigh6orhood.
We have eqjoyod our naigbbora, who a��e quilo nich pcopie. 1'liay did a gr�at job
maintaicung the�r homo, but they were vcry limited by llYa sntiull house. As you kpow. it is u�ade
Yi�om clader blaok, and abvut a quacter of the &qnt of the buiiding was made by euclosirsg the
garago. Consequeudy. We building has aa iususual appesrance and an odd configuration Wat, i
belteve, ►t�ay be in vlolation of the aurrent hui4ding staadards. Your p�oposed pro,jeat wip bring
the site into oon£ormIty witlt currant standards, and it wil( tb�ke a utuch more appealing part oP
the commupity.
I partioula�ly like your laads�„aping ideas. Your plan tc ramove the perkissg from d�e &oat
yard to ehe baolry�ltd ahould make a grwt improvement of tho view finm our froat windows. At
prosBnt, tho houso on tl�e loe is mostty htdden by ve�station and t!u cars that are usualiy parked in
tho yard. Your plans �o open up tha &os�t wiil mako a much moce dramatic settiuig for your
hamo.
We hopatbat you will soon bo our netghbors. We are very pleased to have a nice young
family next door w us, aad wa ue very impressed with Your hvust plans. If we can bo o�' aay
holp alang the way, please do not tsesitate to cot�tect us.
Sin�rely.
D�� ��u/�k��Z��
k Weathexfvrd
Home phone: 651 221-9834
Work phone: 63 t 696-6144
812 925 7758; 08/23/q0 5:25PM;J�#504;Page 26/29
67'2 2Ba ef2a -> SQiNA flEAL7Y OY7Y LAIC�: PapO 6
CYIY OF 5T PAUL LI� 7'O %129257758 P.906i00g
Elomo fax; 65t 292-9420
9'I u hbdp�h.h{Y�
I'n�: n;r •rwK •Ft:�
Z�
Sent by: EDINA REALTY CITY LAKE 812 925 7758; 08/23l00 5:28PM;J�'g�#504;Page 28/29�
Reoaived: 8/�a/oo 9e8o�M: et2 ze6 912s - s epx[aA qEAL7v osYV Ln�; Paqe 7
FiLIG-23—l900 16%21 FROM CITY OF ST PqJ_ �.IEP TD %12925'7756 P.007i00g
, ��—\
r+ -r,?Ny�• ;
. � � ',1
r, ° •; 'j�:' , rt ,.. .
L.QR V FORRESTER CJ ��.;°?'2 i�:i !=i �3
.,......_. ._..._.�_..___�_—�--• —�----- ............._.�.___... ....,.. _.....__.t��r�;�;:�eu
. tllO5l7MMITAVFalUE
6T PAU(. Mry Yil OS+�44{
Augast 17, 20Q0
Ellen aad Joa Konstan
582 Cratin Avanue 3outh
St PaW, MN 55116
Dear �Iten and Joa:
This is to thank you for the ahowiug of your p;oposed plans for a naw homc at 828
Summit Avenun, and co assur+e you of my suppoK of this venture.
�
As yaa know. I live nwct door to the sito at 818 Summit Avoeae. 'Your dasign for a
�aciaus itume which would bload so wcll inlo a naighborhood oP Iace ninaternth-oarly
twmntieth century riome�s would greatty improvo t1u view "from my yard".
I bought the housc gt 818 Summit In 1992 to �nesen+c and care for it as well ss to havc a
comfottahie and gaoious home. 1 am awa[e of th� cha�r and work of SARI'A, and I am
aften i�► agr�euient with them. in somo cases suah as the existing hous� at 828 Sumenit, i
be1(eve that the histo�ioal charncter of the neighborhdod wnuld be �eatly improved by
the removal oF a house that is,, in my opinion. �e,ry us�sttractive and of an incompatiHle
slylo with the balance ofthe naighbattwud.
I hope tltat SARPA can support you. lFthoy cannot do so, l hope they will ratkain flrom
objectin8 � Yoqr plsn.
Teol lFee to sharo my opinion with anyone.
I wish you eho best of suoeass, and eagerly anticipale tHa oppottunity to welcome you as
next door nci$bbors.
Sinoerol�r,
J',-����-� .
��
CJ1-\
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION
FILE NUMB�R 4095
DATE 21 September 2000
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) is authorized by Chapter 73 of the
Saint Paul Legislative Code to review permit applications for exterior alterations, new construction or
demolition on or within designated Heritage Preservation Sites or Heritage Preservation Districts; and
WHEREAS, Joseph and Ellen Konstan have applied for permits to demolish the existing house at
828 Sumrnit Avenue, located within the Historic Hill Heritage Preservafion District, and to construct a
new house on the site; and
WHEREAS, the existing structure on the site is the William and Dorothy Ingemann House, a two-story
residence designed by William Ingemann and constructed in 1956; it has painted smooth concrete block
walls and a slate-shingled mansard roof; and
WHEREAS, the following is the citation in the City's Legislative Code concexning HPC review of
demolition permits:
Chapter 73, Heritage Preservation Commission; Secrion 73.06, Review of permits;
Paragraph (i), Factors to be considered:
Before approving any permit application required under paragraph (d) of this section to
be approved by the heritage preservation commission, the commission shalt make
findings based on the program for the preservation and architectural control for the
heritage preservation site in regard to the following:
(2) In the case of the proposed demolition of a building, prior to approva] of said
demolition, the commission shall make written findings on the following:
Architectural and historical merit of the building, the effect of the demolition on
surrounding buildings, the effect of any proposed new construction on the
remainder of the building (in case of partial demolirion) and on surrounding
buildings, and the economic value or usefulness of the building as it now exists
or if altered or modified in comparison with the value or usefulness of any
proposed structures designated to replace the present building or buildings; and
WHEREAS, relevant portions of the Historic Hill District Heritage Preservation District design review
guidelines for new construction that pertain to the proposed building include the following:
III. Naw Construction, A. General Principles: The basic principle for new construction in the Historic
Hill Dishict is to maintain the district's scale and quality of design. The Historic Hill District is
architecturally diverse within an overall pattern of harmony and continuity. These guidelines for new
conshuction focus on general rather than specific design elements in order to encourage architectural
innovation and quality design while maintaining the harmony and continuity of the district. New
construction should be compatible with the size, scale, massing, height, rhytlun, setback, color, material,
building elements, site design, and character of surrounding structures and the area.
� 1—�
HPC Resolution re: 828 Summit Avenue / File #4095
21 September 2000
Page 2
III., B. Massing and Height: New construction should conform to the massing, volume, height and scale
of existing adjacent structures. Typical residential shuctures in the Historic Hil] District are 25 to 40 feet
high. The height of new construction should be no lower than the average height of all buildings on both
block faces; measurements should be made from sheet level to the highest point of the roofs.
III., C. Rhythm and Directional Emphasis: The existence of uniform narrow lots in the Historic Hill
naturally sets up a strong rh}rthm of buildings to open space. Historically any structure built on more than
one lot used vertical facade elements to maintain and vary the overall rhythm of the street rather than
interrupting the rhythm with a long monotonous facade. The direcrional expression of new construction
should relate to that of exisring adjacent structures.
III., D, Materials and Details: Variety in the use of architectural materials and details adds to the
intimacy and visual delight of the district. But there is also an overall thread of continuity provided by
the range of materials commonly used by turn-of-the-centuty builders and by the way these materials
were used. This thread of continuity is threatened by the introduction of new industrial materials and the
aggressive exposure of earlier materials such as concrete block, metal framing, and glass. The purpose of
this section is to encourage the proper use of appropriate materials and details.
The materials and details of new construction should relate to the materials and details of existing nearby
buildings.
Prefened roof materials are cedar shingles, slate and tile; asphalt shingles which match the approximate
color and texture of the preferred materials are acceptable substitutes. ... Materials, including their
colors, wil] be reviewed to determine their appropriate use in relation to the overall design of the structure
as well as to surrounding structures.
III., E. Building Elements: Individual elements of a building should be integrated into its composition for
a balanced and complete design. These elements for new construcHon should compliment existing
adjacent structures as well.
III., E., 1. Roofs. ...The skyline or profile of new construction should relate to the predominant roof
shape of existing adjacent buildings. Most houses in the Historic Hill District have a roof pitch of
beriveen 9:12 and 12:12 (rise-to-run ratio). Highly visible secondary sfixcture roofs should match the
roof pitch of the main structure, and generally should have a rise-to-run rario of at least 9:12. Roof
hardware such as skylights, vents, and metal pipe chimneys should not be placed on the front roof plane.
III., E., 2. Windows and Doors. The proportion, size, rhythm and detailing of windows and doors in new
construction should be comparible with that of existing adjacent buildings. Most windows on the Hill
have a vertical orientation, with a proportion of between 2:1 and 3:1 (height to width) common.
Individual windows can sometimes be square or horizontal if the rest of the building conveys the
appropriate directional emphasis. Facade openings of the same general size as those in adjacent buildings
are encouraged.
Wooden double-hung windows are tradirional in the Historic Hill District and should be the first choice
when selecting new windows. Paired casement windows, although not historically common, will often
prove acceptable because of their vertical orientation. ...Vertical muntins and muntin grids may be
acceptable when compatible with the period and style of the building.
�\-�
HPC Resolution re: S28 Summit Avenue / File #4095
21 September 2000
Page 3
IIT., E., 3. Porches and Decks: In general, houses in the Historic Hill District have roofed front porches....
Front porches provide a transitional zone between open and closed space which unites a building and its
Site, semiprivate spaces which help to define the spatial hierazchy of the district. They are a consistent
visual element in the district and often introduce rhythmic variation, clarify scale or provide vertical
facade elements. The porch heatment of new structures should relate to the porch treatment of existing
adjacent structures. If a porch is not built, the transition from private to public space should be articulated
with some other suitable design elernent; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission, based upon the evidence presented at its
August 24, 2000 public hearing on said permit applications, made the following findings of fact
conceming the proposed demolition of the existing building:
1. The building does not have significant architectural or historic merit. It is an unusual building in
that preliminary research does not disclose any other residential designs by Mr. Ingemann in the
1950s, that the French Renaissance Revival style design of the house appears unrelated to
architectural irends of the time, and that the scale, materials and site design of the house aze quite
dissimilar to those of its neighbors. These unusual aspects of the building do not, however, make
it significant. Mr. Ingemann was lmown during the 1920s and 1930s for period revival
residential designs and for the design of municipal, institutional, and commercial buildings over a
number of decades, particularly in the Colonial Revival and Art Deco/Moderne styles . An
examination of the body of his architectural work reveals that a number of better examples of his
work survive in Saint Paul and around the state of Minnesota. Finally, the Ingemanns lived in
this residence for only approximately five years before they retired; they moved to Mexico
several years later.
2. The proposed demolition would not have an adverse impact on the historic or architectural
character and integrity of surrounding buildings, nor would the construction of the proposed
residence. The residential nature of the avenue would be preserved.
While the existing residence, at approximately 2,600 square feet, has economic value, the
proposed 10,000 squaze foot residence would have significantly more economic value.
4. The existing residence has seen some significant alteration, which lessens its architectural
integrity. The attached garage was converted to living space in the 1970s and an inappropriate
brick arched facade was attached to this part of the building facing Summit Avenue. A
significant number of the original steel casement windows have been replaced (approximately 50
percent of them, according to one representative of the applicants); and
W�REAS, the Saint Paul Heritage Preservation Commission, based upon the evidence presented at its
August 24, 2000 public hearing on said permit applications, made the following findings of fact
concerning the proposed new residence:
The proposed structure conforms to the new construction guidelines for the Summit Avenue
West district. It would "be compatible with the size, scale, massing, height, rhythm, setback,
color, material, building elements, site design, and chazacter of sunounding structures and the
area." The materials and details relate to those of existing nearby buildings. The individual
elernents of the building are integrated into its composition for a balanced and complete design.
� l --� 1
HPC Resolution re: 828 Summit Avenue / File #4095
21 September 2000
Page 4
Garaging is located at the rear of the lot, off of the alley (the site currently has surface parking in
front of the house).
2, Detailed plans, including final selection of materials and details, have not yet been prepared.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that based on the above findings, the Heritage Preservation
Commission grants approval of a demolition permit to remove the existing residence at 828 Summit
Avenue, subject to the condition that the house be docuxnented with photographs and/or measured
drawings (to be determined by HPC staf�; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that based on the above findings, the Heritage Preservation
Commission grants approva] of a building permit to construct the proposed residence and garage, subject
to the condition that ftna] plans and materials shall be reviewed and approved by the commission's
Design Review Committee.
Decisions af the Heritage Preservation Commission are final, subject to appeal to the City Council within 14
days by anyone afPected by the decision. This resolution does not obviate the need for meeting applicable
building and zoning code requirements, and does not constitute approval for tax credits.
�\-1
�..J
Joseph and Ellen Konstan
582 Cretin Avehue South
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55116
September 18, 2000
City Council of Saint Paul
Saint Paul, Minnesota
Dear Council Members:
We are writing in response to the appeal of the Heritage Preservation Commission's (HPC's)
unanimous approval of our demolition permit application for the structure at 828 Summit
Avenue, Saint Paul, The HPC made a well reasoned decision on appropriate grounds and we
urge the Council to uphold the HPC's decision. The appeal, filed on behalf of SARPA by James
Toscano, the organization's president, contains a substantial number of factua] errors and
misstatements of the relevant legal standards, as we identify more specifically in our response
below.
Background. We have long loved Summit Avenue and look forward to the opportunity to raise
a family there. For the past six months, we've been actively pursuing the opportunity to build a
house on the Avenue. We worked closely with HPC staff throughout the process to avoid
actions that would harm or jeopardize the history and character of the district, and made clear to
� HPC staff and our own realtor our commitment to identify an appropriate property and design a
new'house such that the project would contribute to the architecture of Sumxnit Avenue. To
further that commitment, we have hired well-respected preservation architects and have openly
approached neighbors and community organizations to present and gather feedback on our plans.
We invited all residents on both sides of the block, along with the Summit Hill Association
(SFiA) and SARPA, to a meeting on August 15; all neighbors and the SHA representatives were
extremely supportive. The two next-door neighbors submitted letters to the HPC strongly
supporting the project. We also presented to the Land Use Committee of the SHA (which was
unable to make a formal recommendation due to lack of quorum) and have a standing offer to
SHA to present to their board at their request.
We were dismayed to hear that SARPA's board voted to oppose this project before seeing any of
the details, but have nonetheless offered to meet with them to present the project. Thus far, that
offer has been rebuffed, though we've been told that they may be willing to meet with us after the
City Council meeting at which their appeal is heazd. We believe we've followed the process
thoroughly, going out of our way to provide opportunity for public comment. The HPC held an
open hearing at which SARPA's president presented the organization's objections. And the HPC,
after receiving a staff presentation on the architectural and historical significance of the structure
at 828 Summit Avenue, considered and unanimously supported our request for a demolition
permit.
The Appeal. Mr. Toscano, on behalf of SARPA, appealed the HPC decision, citing eight points.
� All of these points aze without merit, as each either mischaracterizes the facts, the process, or the
legal standards that apply. We address each objection point-by-point.
0�-1
�
1,
SARPA cites the lack of an EAW being done before HPC's decision on the demolitian permit.
�
.
2.
3.
Response: An EAW is not required for the demolition of a unlisted property, such as 828 Summit.
SARPA's appeal on this point is off the mark, as it suggests that the proposed demolition of 828 Smmnit
required that the HPC conduct an environmental assessment worksheet (EAW). However, the rule to
which SARPA is referring (Minnesota Rules section 4410.4300, subpart 31) does not require an EAW,
unless the proposa] would desuoy a property that is individually iisted on eit6er the I3ational or State
Registers of Historic Places. Individual properties within the Disvict may be, and aze, listed when their
historical significance warrants; for example, the houses at 432 and 1006 Summit aze noted as designated
historic in the City's DisVict 16 Plan. The house at 828 Summit Avenue is not listed on either the
Nutional or State Registers of Historic Places. Therefore, by the plain language of the rule, no EAW
was required.
Not only is SARPA's reading of the state environmental regulation inaccurate, but SARPA also ignores the
fact that, by approving the demolition, the HI'C was proceeding within the express authority delegated to it
by state statute and city ordinance. The state statute that enables the establishment of historic districts and
provides for their maintenance (the Historic District Act) states that local governments have the authority to
impose regulations governing demolition of structures within historic districts. Accordingly, the City
Council has established a procedure for protecting the structures within the Heritage Hill disffict (St. Paul
City Code, Sec. 73 and 74 establish and set the jurisdic[ion and procedures of the HPC; both the Summit
Avenue Plan of 1986 and the Disvict 16 Plan of 1989 specifically indicate that requests for demolition
within the Historic District should be reviewed by the HPC). The HPC procedure not only adequately
protects all buildings wi[hin the district, but is even more protective than the EAW process, as it requires a
public hearing (which is only optional in an EAW proceeding) and is run by a commission that both has
expertise in the subject and is speciFically appointed to protect such historic azeas.
SARPA nrgues there was a disregard of staff recommendation for funher study.
Response: Further study was performed that supported the HPC's decision to approve the
demolition permit.
The HPC s[aff report made and distributed before the HPC hearing suggested that some further study might
be helpful in determining the historic wntext of the structure. In the time between the production of the
report and the hearing, "further study" was carried out. At the meeting IIPC staff member Aaron
Rubenstein indicuted that he had conducted further study into the structure, the modifications made
to it, and its relationship to the other work of the architect. When asked by a commissioner, Mr.
Rubenstein stated that he had enough information to judge that the architecturaUhisrorical integrity of the
structuce had indeed been compromised by changes made to the sVUCture; this is information and a
conclusion based on precisely the sort "further study" that Mr. Rubenstein had suggested might be fruitfut
in the staff report he had prepared earlier.
SAftPA claims a total disregard and lack of substantive discussion of their objection.
Response: The HPC carefully considered SARPA's objeMions and followed the guidelines set out for
its consideration in the City Code.
In addition to receiving the SARPA letter and hearing an oral presentation from Mr. Toscano at the public
hearing, HPC members expliciUy discussed the objections raised in both the letter and the presentation.
The chair of the HPC made a pointed statement rejecting SARPA's contention that this approval
would set a bad precedent, instead ending that it is exactly for these'challenging decisions that the
HPC exists. Members of the HPC discussed in detail both the relevance of this structure as an Ingemann
house (of which two others are still in St. Paul), and explicitly rejected SARPA's contention that a single
demolition would jeopardize the entire disuict. The ample discussion and subsequent �ejection of SARPA's
objection surely does not consti[ute "total disregard."
o�-�
� 4. SARPA claims a lack of observation of [he sratute esaablishing the Summit Avenue historic preservation
district, which, on part, was passed to eliminate further demolition of homes on SummitAvenue.
Itespanse: The HPC observed the relevant statute which speci�cally directs it to review applications
for demolltion.
The relevant "statute" (which apparently is a reference to City Code Chapter 74, Article III) is quite clear.
Section 74.67 provides explicit guidelines for the HPC in reviewing proposals for demolition of sVUCtures
within the district. Those guidelines were presented, verbatim, in the staff presentauon to the HPC and
followed by the HI'C in approving the request. The code does not explicitly describe its intent in allowing
demolition, but does clearly state the importance of the architectural chazacter (Sec. 74.63(a)), its intent for
the HPC to consider the particular merit of a building or area under review and the economic impact of its
decisions on property owners (Sec. 74.b3(b)), and the fact that the guidelines in the statute have been
reviewed and approved by the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Officer as containing criteria which
will "substantially achieve the purpose of preserving and rehabilitating buiidings of significance [o the
district."
It is clear from the code that the fIPC is expected (indeed, is directetn to review applications for
demolition, and that the code anticipates that some buildings will not be of significance. The intent oF
the code, therefore, would appear [o be to enable the HPC ro preserve significant buildings (for historic and
architectural reasons), not ro effectively handcuff the HPC by preventing it from approving demolition
proposals, as is apparenUy aileged in the SARPA appeal.
We should note that 828 Summit Avenue lies within the Historic Hill Heritage Preservation DisVict rather
than the Summit Avenue West Heritage Preservation District. This distinction does not change the
language of the law regarding demolition, but may explain Mr. Toscano's comments a6out azchitectural
� taste and discouraging demolition. The Summit Avenue West HPD code does not specifically refer to
architectural character, and indeed was intended to have looser design guidelines than the older Historic
Hilt HI'D.
5. SARPA argues that the HPC's decision was based on assumed and subjective architectural taste and not
historica[ preservation status in a'living museum' of homes protected in the district.
12esponse: The HPC explicitly discussed and made findings about the historic signiticance of the
house. '
As specifically provided in the code, the HPC also discussed and made findings about the impact of our
proposed new conshuction, both on surcounding houses and economically. Mr. Toscano and SARPA
may feel that Summit Avenue is a"living museum," but the HPC and the law both are clear on the
fact that demolition and construction permit decisions are made individually, on their merits.
Furthermore, the state His[oric District Act and the City Code demonstrate that HPC is empowered (and
therefore, expecter� to make judgments, based on guidelines, as part of their stewazdship over the his[oric
district. Consistent with its duUes> the HPC staff report and subseyuent HPC discussion at the hearing
correctly examined whether aur new construction fit the disuict guidelines (which are neither highly
subjective nor necessarily reflective of commissioners' tastes). The HPC, within its discretion, withheld
final approval of our construction plans pending their review of final drawings and material selections.
6. SARPA argues that the HPC's decision was not fully based on criteria listed under the statute estabZishing
National Historic Preservation districts.
Response: The HPC specifically addressed these criteria in its deliberations and in the findings it
made at the hearing.
� Mr. Toscano appears to be refening to the guidelines presented in St. Paul Code Section 74.67, which
references Section 73.06(i)(2). These criteria include "the azchitectwal and historical merit of the building,
the effect of the demolition on surrounding buildings, the effect of any proposed new construction ... on
0�-1
� surrounding buildings, and the economic value of usefulness of the buildings as it now exists ... in
comparison with the value of usefulness of any proposed structures designated to replace the present
building or buitdings." The HPC specifically considered these criteria in its deliberations and
Addressed them in i[s findings. The Code does no[ preclude the HPC from considering additional factors
as well (which may be what Mr. Toscano refers to with the "not fully" language), but in fact the discussion
was very focused on the guidelines presented in the code.
SARPA complains about incomplete original sta,�'work in not evaluating 828 Summit.
Response: A 1982 Historic Sites Survey oF the structure at 828 Sumrtvt stated that the building was
not listed on either the State or National Historic Registers and concluded that the structure does not
have potential for individual designation.
Mr. Toscano likely refers to the Summit Avenue Study Inventory form on which the category of the house
is left blank, rather than listed as "contributing" or "non-contributing." Mr. Toscano does not mention the
1982 Historic Sites Survey that concluded that the home had neither National Register nor Local
designatlon potential as a historic building. This survey indicated the lowest level of significance found
on the form. Further, the survey was based on a review when the house was only "al[ered slightly," which
we now know from the HI'C staffls investigaGon that was reported at the HPC heazing, predates more
substantial atterations performed since that survey.
FLrther, even if the house had been classified on the survey as "contributing," it would have been within the
HI'C's discretion to evaluate our permit request based on the criteria in St. Paul code SecUon 74.67. The
lack of designation on the survey is not unusual (indeed, no building on the block has this classification
completed in the survey), and the HPC properly has the responsibility for determining the level of
contribution and significance of the house in its findings and decision.
� 8. SARPA complains of a total lack of discussion and observation of the Summit Avenue Plan ... established
to protect Summit against demolation and listed of 828 Summit under Architects of Note an Summit
Avenue.'
Response: The HPC observed alt relevant aspects of the Summit Avenue Plan.
The 1986 Summit Avenue Pian was raised by Mr. Toscano in his letter to the HPC prior to the public
hearing. Parts oF the Plan have been put into effect through amendments to the City Code (e.g., the
extension of heritage preservation to all of Summit Avenue), while other parts remain as mere
recommendations. The proposed project directly supports the two most relevant goals of the plan: (1)
Preserve the residential character of Summit Avenue (which specifically includes the Ciry nuc[uring "the
new positive energy to maintain and improve Summit Avenue as a very desirable place to live"; (2)
Enhance Summit Avneue's role as the "showcase street" of St. Paul. The Summit Avenue Plan, in
recommendation #1, expliciHy indicates that the "HPC should review all building pernilt applicaGons for
demolition, house moves, new construction, ..." The HPC clearly observed the letter and spirit of the
Summit Avenue Plan in fultilling rts obligation to review our permit request..
We should note that Mr. Toscano does not refer to the later-adopted 1989 District 16 Plan which similazly
endorses the use of the heritage preservation disuict designation and associated processes to ensure
historically appropriate development in the district.
We strongly disagree with SARPA's main contentions, which are: (1) that no demolition
whatsoever may be allowed on Summit Avenue in order to keep it a"living museum," and (2)
that approving this project places more than 10% of the homes on the avenue "in jeopardy."
Indeed, we believe that careful evaluation of each project by the Heritage Preservation
� Commission, as was done in our case, is essential to keeping Summit Avenue a"living" museum
rather than a"dead" one. Keeping Summit Avenue the "showcase" stated in the Summit Avenue
O\- \
� Plan requires careful management by curators who can judge the merit of each structure in the
museum. As was clearly related by the chair of the HPC, this case merely reinforces the
precedent that any proposed demolition in the Historic District must first overcome the high
hurdle of approva] by the HPC after a public hearing. No other building will be demolished as a
result of this action, and any other project will have to overcome the same high hurdle.
�
Summary. SARPA, as represented by Mr. Toscano, presents an appeal based on their extreme
belief that no house on Summit Avenue should ever be demolished, but unsupported either by
the facts of the case or by the law. As directed by law, the HPC carefully studied this issue and
came to a unanimous decision approving our request.
SARPA makes an argument thaC this application creates a"slippery slope." This argument is
incorrect; no other house is placed in jeopazdy by this decision. Each application for demolition-
or development requires the careful review and approval of the HPC.
SARPA's argument about the Avenue "reverting to the rich" is insulting and counterproductive
name-calling. It is they who threaten to impoverish at least one pair of modest-income Smnmit
Avenue residents by needlessly taking from them much of the value of their property on the
Avenue.
We ask you to uphold the HPC's approval and to issue our pernut so that we may proceed
without undue delay.
Respectfully submitted,
�a� �� ��
Joseph and Ellen Konstan
Attachments: letters from neighbors and owners of 828 Summit Avenue
�
Mario Tosto ��
S28 Summlt Avenue • St. Paul, MN 55105 • Phone 617-290-1099 • E-mail: mario�tosto. com
�
To the St. Paul Citv Council:
September 18, 2000
KEY REASONS TO CONFIRM THE HPC DEGSION ON
DEMOLITION OF 828 SUMMIT AVENUE
• If the August decision, made through due process, is
not consummated soon serious economic hardship
would be imposed on two longtime residents
• The present building has never been considered archi-
tecturally significant and should not be considered so
now since major alterations have been made to it over
the past twenty-five years, changing its original look
. and function
• The new structure would be more in harmony with the
surrounding structures and would certainly add value
to the neighborhood
• Based on the HPC decision we have made a commit-
ment to buy a home in Boston and further delay would
cause us to miss our closing and have near-
catastrophic economic consequences
• The state has recommended a course of action based
on best available information.
Please affirm the HPC decision
Mario Tosto
f (� S e -�M�.l
• Joan Ostrin
� 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
�
�
DETAIL
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
���1
SARPA has done many good things for Surmnit Avenue over the years and cer-
tainly has good intentions
BUT in this case those good intentIons for the street as a whole are blinding it to
the extraordinarily difficult consequences for two of its long-Eime residents
We are among the few who have lived on Sununit Avenue continuously for over
twenty flve yeazs
We have done our part to preseroe the livability of the neighborhood over that
time, contributed to local causes and trled to keep our place presentable
In order to do that we have invested heavily in the building, greatly altering it,
changing it from its original purpose, as a duplex. It was we who removed the fix-
tures and plumbing for an upstairs kitchen
We added architectural touches like a lintel above the kitchen window in front
and a new archway around the front door
We removed almost all the original windows, which were grossly inadequate for a
residential structure (they were single-pane, metal framed factory units)
We added skylights to the attached building - added after the house had been
built
We removed the doors that made for iwo private entrances.
We added a room in back to remedy the lack of storage space that should have
been afforded by an attic or basement
We parked our car outside for iwenty five years because there was no garage
We took down a wall in the living room to enlarge it
We replaced cheap Philippine Mahogany paneling with quality cherry paneling
We replaced other cheap paneling with dry wall and wall paper
We landscaped the front
We corrected many construction and design defects
We added heating wires for water pipes that had been designed to be too close to
the north wall, causing freeze-ups and pipe bursting
About us
18. On November 1, 1999 I was offered an important job in Boston and relocated
there, leaving my wife to manage the house mostly alone, though I commute once
or lwice a month
19. In April we were seriously considering plans to relocate to Boston
20. In the midst of these discussions we received an offer frorn the realtor for the Kon-
stans, which we believe was an answer to prayer
21. Within a few weeks we had arrived at a very satisfactory agreement to sell our
house
22. We have spent the better part of the summer investigating the options for relocat-
ing to Boston
23. In case you didn't know it, Boston is the third most elcpensive city for real estate
in the country. The offer from the Konstans would go a long way to providing us
with a comfortable, though much smaller, home
24. We are eager to stop all this commuting and long distance calling and resume a
normal family relaUonship
25. No, we are more than eager - we are getting desperate
2
About the structures
61-1
26. Honeatly, when we first received the offer to purchase our house we were suspi-
� cious that it was from a developer who would construct a cheap and ugly multi-
family building - or worse
27. We have seen the plans for the new house to be built on our lot and feel gratified
that we can leave our beloved street knowing it will be graced by something more
elegant and substantial than what we aze leaving
28. We are happy - and relieved - AND YOU SHOULD BE 1'00 - that it is not a face-
less corporate institution that will be replacing Joan and me
29. That it will not be greedy speculators who will be replacing Joan and me
30. But that it is Joe and Ellen Konstan, and their son, Ben
31. We are happy that a young family will be living there - and will be enjoying the
beauty and charm of Sumrnit avenue, even while adding a significant amount of
the same
32. Though we know that it's the life inside a house that really makes it a home, as
people with an eye for these sort of things, we appreciate the architect's critique of
our present structure. The building does not utilize the space as well as it could.
33. ,As they have mentioned, the original architect, Mr. Ingemann, could not have
been very proud of this building. He certainly didn't seem to spend much an it,
either in materials or workmanship, compared with his other works. And didn't
spend much time in it, either.
34. We were told by his daughter, Judy, that it was just an "in-town" house - the
� main residence being on the St. Croix river. 828 was used mostly by her and her
sister while they were in college, and when her parents needed an occasional
place to stay while in St. Paul
�
3
About freedom and individual rights a �' 1
� 35. We appreciate that neighborhoods need to be protected, especially historic ones
like Sumxnit Avenue
36. We also appreciate that Minnesota has instituted measures to preserve the heri-
tage of its cities
37. The Heritage Preservation Commission is one of those measures and has carefully
considered the present project - giving it unanimous approval after an open pub-
lic meeting attended by several of our neighbors
38. AND THAT SHOULD BE ENOUGH.
39. I SAY, THAT SHOULD BE ENOUGH!
40. Having complied with all. the regulations and procedures> having received ap-
proval by official experts and neighbors, having entered into a legal and agreeable
contract for a purchase and sale ! it is time for freedom to have its course.
41. It is time to respect the basic rights of individuals to own and sell their private
property
Concluding statement
42. SARPA, for all the good you do and have done your zeal has gotten the better of
you this time. You have not offered to help Joan and me to make the transition to
our new life - you are gett3ng in the way of that. Joe and Ellen have made such
an offer - and we have accepted it, gratefully. If you prolong, and possibly pre-
vent, the consummation of this agreement, you will have not only overstepped
� your charge - you will be causing us serious economic hardship. You will also
inadvertently be sending the chilling message to all other residents of Summit
Avenue, that whether they intended to or not, whether they like it or not, whether
they can afford to or not - they are imprisoned in a"museum" and have fewer
rights and opportunities than people who live just a block away. Please with-
" draw your appeal, withdraw further resistance to this project and cease harassing
us.
43. Council members, we are just two people, Joan and I, who want to get back to-
geYher and live a normal life. We don't have an anny of lawyers or great financial
resources to quibble about whether a"living museum" is more important than let-
ting citizens exercise theii fundamental and sacred right to be property owners; to
let them fulfill a long and honorable tenure on Summit Avenue and get on with
the next phase of their life. We have you, representing real people like us, to do
what? To invent the wheel? To reinvent it? No - just to affirm what a legislatively-
authorized agency has already carefully done. Do the right thing, - decide in fa-
vor. of this project.
�
0
sent by: EOTNA REALTY CTTY LAKE 612 925 7758; 08/23/00 5:25PM;J�Fg�#504;Page 25/29
Rmosivmd: 6/26/00 3e6aPM� 612 26e 9184 .r Ep=ryq REALTY aZTY LAK6; Pagp a
AUCi-23-190H 16%a1 FfZOM CI'fY OF ST pqLIL LIEI' TO 9612925775B P.0&1i006
�
M a r � �
Tos�a_8a Joan
.'//!'
AuguBc 7, 2000
Dear �Seritage Preservatio,n Commissian Members:
Wa are the owners of the property at 828 8ummit Avenue.l'his raoterized letter is pro-
vidod to you as a writtcn stateraent of our support of Lhe applicatioss faror� J'oseph arid
EAesi Koristan Por the demolition of ibe curCent strvcture locate$ osi this prop�ip for the
purpose of constxucting a new single family homo. 'We are in concurrr,nce wiYh their per-
mit request and ha�ve a fiillp executed purchase agreement to sell this property to the
Kosistans upon approval o£ Chis dcmolition and new constructio�x appliaatiott by the PYeri-
tago l'resesvation Comsniasion.
We respectfully �sk that you approve their applic�tion.
Sirac�are3y,
�
Mario'fosm
�� . (!
!_���_.+..1�7/ ....
�
" FI
�
8�- 1
Ostr,�in
iit Avenue • Srt. Paul_ MN Ksi �
� �P , o'i�7?���
, ! � � � �.
w
NOHEMI AGUILAq
' NOTARYPI�eLIC•IU1tW�30TA
14' Caumi �stm &pYU.W. �t. RC7K
s
u
22.
aenc DY: rU1NH MtHLIY �ilr �AKt 612 925 7758; 08/23/00 5:25PM;JetF�r #504;Page 28/29
RoCOiVede 8/�9/0� Os80PM; 6i2 266 9426 -> �q=ryq pEALYY bY7v LAKE; PaOb 6
AUG-23-1990 16�21 FROM C17y � 5T PALN_ LIEP Y'p 9612925'7758 P.OQ[,i�
Mnc;nta�s'ri.�t Cc�l.�.�x;t:
�
�
r :; •
Augus[ 16, 2000
Mrs. �llcn D. ICpnstan
582 Cretitt Avtnue Squth
Saint Paui, MN 53116
Dedr Mra. KonaGvl:
�o
� G
:�J
'V
w � ,; ,
� -
° --�.'
- �%
o •
w
Yc waa a pleasur� meoti�g you and your fsmily at yestorday's meoting regazding your
proposed now home•at 8,$ Sumi�it Avenue. My wife. Walker Pearce, and I very much
app�e¢iate the effort fliak you made to'irform us of yoar plans. As qour next-door neiglibora at
834 Sun�mit, we ara delighted with your very well-de�aloped pians for improving tlia site. Your
proposed hoxne is quite besutiful and wi)1 be a great addition to our neighborhood.
We have eqjoyad our peiglt6ora, who are quito nicc pcopie. 'L'licy did a gr�at job
maintainix►g tk►cy' home. but thoy were vcrylimited by ttYe smafl house. As you kqow. it is »iadr
fro�rt c�»der block, and abovt a quarter of the front of Ute building was made by euclosing tl�e
garage. Conseguently, the butlding has an unusuai appearanco and an odd configuration tliat, l
belleve, msy ba in violation of the aurrent 6uilding s[andards, Youc proposed project wiU bYi»g
the sittW into eonformtty with current standards, and it will make n utuch moro appealing part of
tho commwiity, •
! parricu[atly like your landa,aping ideas. Y'our plan to temove the parking fYom tl�e &ont
ya�d tu tha backy8td Shvuld maka a gFeat impcovanent of the view from our front windows. At
present, the housa on the lot fs mostly hidden by ve&etatian and the cars that arc usualiy parked in
tho yerd. Your plans to open up tha &ont wili mako a much mnre dramatic setting for your
hamo.
Wo hopathat you will soon bc our neighb�rs. Wo are very plsased to itave a �ice young
family next door to us, und we are very impressed w�ith your huusc plans. If we can be of any
holp along the way, please do not hesitate to coucect us.
Sinoerely,
G������
k Weatherford
Homo phone: 651 221-9$34 Elonte Fax; 65l 292-9420
Work phone: 631 696-6144
AN'111R111•1)I.{It:Y �)kPAN'1'INI:N'1
IIN%1 ( ittANU +�YB:11�3;
�AU.i Pa�:�.. S6n�6sur� asrot•i#qy
�I�11� Rt�•(n�h•ht8�
I�nc: n;� �r.x .r.u�
6�-1
.
��
Sent py: EDINA REALTY CITY LAKE
Aeeeived: 8/20/00 9:SOpM;
812 925 7758;
� RIJG-23-1980 16:21 FROM CIT' OF 5T Pq1.IL �(EP
OB/23/00
TO
� ; ." :.'.`'.5�
c;�;'ic: ���:' ,., • �
5:26PM;J�_#504;Page 28/29
Pape �
9612925'T'J58 P.997/008
Q �
L.QREN V FORRESTER c� �t:�, rya r�:. E�: cs
.,....�. _..�..,.�.,,..—,__..,... —•------ ........... .._.._.___... . ... . _....._ _ Ye . i�na . 63i'iz9{a6ee
kv
etie su�rr av�uE
ST PAUL MN 45105,'L96�
August 17� 2000
Ellen aad Joa iCoiutan
382 Cratin Avanuo South
St Paul, M2�155116
Dear EIIen and Jc�a:
� This is to thank you for st►e showius of your proposed plans for a nc.w hamc ar 828
Summit Avenuu, and [o assur+e you of my suppon of ihis venture.
� ,
As you know,l liva s►ext door to the site at 8] 8 Summit Avenue, Your design for a
�tciaus hame which would blcnd so well into a ncip,hborhood of Iatc �inoteenth-oarly
twentieth contury homes would greatiy improva t1�e view "from my yaM".
I boug,ht the house �t 818 Summit in 1992 to ps�esetve and oare fur it as wel! as to havc a
comFottable and p,racioras home. 1 am awure of the charter and i�rork of 5AR1'A, and I am
aftcn t�► ay,�'�emcnt with them. !n some cases such as tho existin� housa at 828 3ummit,l
belfeve that the historicai character of the neighborhood wuuld be �eaHy improved by
the removal of a fiouse that is,, in my opiaion, ve,ry unattractive and of an incompatible
stylo with tho balance of the neighbarhoud.
1 h�pet that SARPA can support you. If they Cannot do so, l hope tbey will rafruiq from
objectin� to •yoqr plaa
1'ecl llree ta share my opinion rvith anyone.
•
I wish yau tho best oFsuoeess, and eugerly anticipate the opportunity to welcome you as
next door nei�;hbors.
Sinoercly,
�'�a���
��
612 2BB �Y24 -s Epxryq R6ALYr CY7V LAKE(
�,
� M
� � � 4
Interdepartmental Memorandum
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
DATE: October 4, 2000
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Peter Warner, CAO
RE: Council Request for Information: HPC Appeal; 828 Summit Ave.
BACKGROUND
The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) granted a permit to Joe and Ellen Konstan for the
purpose of demolishing a dwelling at 828 Summit Avenue. Although the dwelling is located within
the boundaries of the Heritage Hill Preservation District, the dwelling is not specifically designated
as a heritage preservation site.
The Summit Avenue Residential Preservation Association (SARPA) appealed the HPC decision.
SARPA alleged on appeal that the HPC decision should be overturned because the HPC had failed
to prepaze a mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA�. In support of this contention,
SARPA relied on a letter dated September 20, 2000 from the state Environmental Quality Board
(EQB). The letter had been prepared by EQB in response to a request posited by Planning and
Economic Development staff to interpret the meaning of Minn. Rule 4410.4300, Subp. 31 which
governs BAW's for historic sites. EQB advised that it interprets Minn. Rule 4410.4300, Subp. 31
to mandate an EAW for demolition permits for non-designated structures within the boundaries of
a state or nationally listed historic district. At the close of the public hearing, the Council requested
that the City Attorney's Office report back on the EQB's interpretation of Minn. Rule 4410.4300,
Subp. 31.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
It is the opinion of the City Attorney's Office that the EQB's interpretation of Minn. Rule
4410.4300, Subp. 31 is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the rule.
City Council Memo: 828 Summit Ave. HPC Appeal
October 4, 2000
Page Two
ANALYSIS
Minn. Rule 4410.4300 is entitled "Mandatory EAW Categories." The rule mandates preparation of
an EAW for 36 types of development projects. Minn. Rule 4410.4300, Subp. 31 is entitled "Historic
Places" It mandates an EAW "for the destruction, in whole or in part, ... of a property that is listed
on the National Register of Historic Places or State Register of Historic Places ..." (Emphasis
added).
The EQB's interpretation presents the following question: is EQB's interpretation of Minn. Rule
4410.4300, Subp. 31 consistent with the plain meaning of its language? If a state agency's
interpretation of a rule is consistent with the plain meaning of the rule, courts will uphold the
agency's interpretation. See, Cable Communications Board v. Nor-West Cable Communications
Partnershin, 356 N.W.2d 658, 667 (Minn. 1984). However, if an agency interprets a rule in a way
that does not correspond with the plain meaning ofthe rule, the agency interpretation is invalid. See,
White Bear Lake Care Center Inc. v. Minnesota Deparhnent ofPublic Welfare, 319 N.W.2d 7, 8-9
(Minn. 1982). Likewise, overly expansive rule interpretations have been struck down by Minnesota
courts. In M.T. Properties, Inc. v. Alexander, 433 N.W.2d 886 (Minn. App. 1988) the Court held
that a mandatory EAW category that specified its application to the "construction" of a pipeline did
not apply to the "relocation" of a pipeline.
The plain language in Minn. Rule 4410.4300, Subp. 31 requires a mandatory EAW only where a
permit is sought to demolish ". .. a property that it listed ..:' The word "property" is expressed in
the singular. The rule does not reference historic dish specifically. The rule does not refer to
individual properties within districts. The ordinary inference to be drawn from the word "listed" is
that it refers to formally designated individual heritage preservation sites.
CONCLUSION
6�- l
The plain and ordinary meaning of the language in Minn. Rule 4410.4300, Subp. 31 compels the
conclusion that the mandatory EAW requirement in the rule does not apply to demolition permits
for non-designated stnxctures within the boundaries of a state or nationally listed historic district.
2 4. The existing residence has seen some significant alteration, which lessens Q�—\
3 it architectural integrity. The attached garage was converted to living space in the
4 1970's and an inappropriate brick arched facade was attached to this part of the
5 building facing Summit Avenue. A significant number of the original steel
6 casement windows have been replaced (approximately 50% of them, according to
7 one representative of the applicants); and
9 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 73.06, the
10 Summit Avenue Residential Preservation Association ( hereinafter "SARPA") duly filed an
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2G
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
appeal from the determination made by the Commission and requested a hearing befare the Saint
Paul City Counci] (hereinafter the "City Council") far the purpose of considering the actions
taken by the said Commission; and
WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Legislative Code § 73.06 and upon notice to affected
parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on September 27, 2000, where
all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, at the close of the public hearing, the matter was laid over to October 4,
2000, for the purposes of receiving an opinion from the City Attorney's Office concerning state
environmental assessment worksheet regulations on the demolition of non-designated structares
located within a designated historical district; and
WHEREAS, on October 4, 2000, the City Attorney's Office delivered its opinion to the
City Council; and
WHEREAS, having heard the statements made, considered the application, staff reports,
and all the Commission's records, minutes and resolution, the Council does hereby
RESOLVE, that the Commission did not err in its facts, findings or procedures and,
accordingly, denies the appeal of SARPA; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council hereby adopts as its own the findings,
conclusions and approvals of the Commission as contained in its Resolution No. 4095; and be it