Historic Preservation Proposal Sparks Heated Debate

Arbitrary. Capricious. Unconstitutional.

The topic of dispute was not domestic drone surveillance, nor national healthcare reform. These were just some of the words tossed about during a presentation by the city's Historic Preservation Advisory Commission (HPAC).

Michael Leek, community development director, wanted to make one things very clear: At the meeting on March 19, the commission was not asking the council to approve the ordinance or officially designate any of the properties in question as "historic." The commission was asking for feedback, primarily.

"We need to know if you have questions or issues with any of the contents, or if you see lapses in the ordinance," said Pat Ploumen, a member of the commission and the treasurer of the Shakopee Heritage Society. "It has taken us a long time to get to this point and we do not want to venture ahead without your acceptance and direction."

Nevertheless, one member of the council and several people in the audience viewed commission's presentation as a sign of encroaching state tyranny. Council Member Matt Lehman led the charge.

Mark Noble, city planner and advisor to the commission, had just finished describing how owners whose homes had been shortlisted by the commission as "historic" properties could "opt out" of the program. Noble said the commission originally had a list of 85 properties that could be considered historic. At least eight have been removed from the list at the request of the owner, including the Shakopee Depot.

"If they're not in favor of this they can submit a letter and in all cases we've said that's fine," Noble said. 

After Noble concluded his remarks, Lehman said, "Twice (this ordinance) was turned back with the recommendation that it come back as a voluntary program. This is the third time now that it's coming before us not as a voluntary program."

Noble protested that the commission was clearly striving to make it voluntary by giving resident the ability to refuse historic designation, though the "opt out" process itself is not explicitly included in the draft ordinance.

"There's nothing in (the draft ordinance) that says it's a voluntary program. Unless it's stated in the ordinance, I don't believe it's voluntary," Lehman said.

Lehman also thought that the draft ordinance did not give the council enough discretion. As per the ordinance, the HPAC researches the matter, then takes a vote on it. If a majority vote is reached, the commission sends a recommendation to the city council. The ordinance explicitly states that the property owner will be notified in advance of the recommendation to allow them to review and comment on the proposed designation. The recommendation will be accompanied by a report on the specific property and a "plan for treatment of the property." 

Only the city council can designate the site or house as historic. This is done by putting a resolution to a vote at a meeting, after a public hearing has been held.

Once a house is categorized as historic, the ordinance imposes a number of restrictions on what a homeowner can and cannot do with the property. If approved, the ordinance would require an alteration permit will be required in the event of:

• A major remodel or change to the building's outside appearance, including awnings or signs.
• Permanent interior remodeling that "visibly affects its exterior appearance" (ie changes that are apparent from the street view). 
• New construction of an addition, garage or landscape feature.
• Moving a building.
• Demolition.

Permits would be approved or denied by the HPAC. However, in the event of a denial, any appeal will go before the city council, which has the power to "modify or overrule" a denial by HPAC, but the council would be bound by the criteria set forth by the HPAC in the ordinance. Lehman felt that this clause—and many others—needed to be softened.

"I don't like the strong arm government tactic of forcing people to do something with their property, and giving them such strict guidelines about what they can and can't do with their property," Lehman said, who also called the measure arbitrary and capricious. 

The other members of the council seemed mostly supportive of the ordinance.

"At first I had some major concerns until I understood that folks had the ability to opt out of it. I don't think it's right to force people into this sort of things, but once they're in it, I have zero problem with there being strict, fairly sharp rules," said Mayor Brad Tabke. "I appreciate where you're going with it."

Homeowners present at the meeting were more inclined to side with Lehman. One was Lori Gillick, who said she owned two properties that had initially been included on the list, but had chosen to opt out.

"The ability to landscape my home, paint my house the color I want and to put up a structure or a patio is important for me," Gillick said. "I'd love to opt in but it's way to restrictive. The way it's written now I think more property owners will opt out than in."

The council will onsider the ordinance again at its April 9 meeting.