Preservation ordinance might save historic places
Published 12:00 am Friday, August 27, 1999
Michael Koop showed two slides of newspaper articles, each one detailing the demolition of a historic building.
Friday, August 27, 1999
Michael Koop showed two slides of newspaper articles, each one detailing the demolition of a historic building. One was in Albert Lea, the other (101 years old) in New Prague. Koop, a State Historic Preservation Program told his audience that both buildings were replaced by – you guessed it – parking lots.
Such is the danger of not having any local power to regulate historic places and buildings.
Albert Lea’s commercial district is listed in the National Register of Historic Places, but this designation lacks any true bite. An owner is free to modify, demolish or otherwise alter a building or area, the only thing that would happen as a result would be the removal of the site from the list and loss of any tax credit associated with being on the Register.
Koop said one path to preventing such losses is the passage of a Historic Preservation ordinance, and the subsequent creation of a Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC). The difference between an HPC and a local historical society is that the HPC exists to preserve buildings and sites, while a historical society serves more often to collect artifacts, pictures and other historical items and to interpret those.
Any historic district – in Austin the downtown is being talked about as a possible historic district – would only be established after research by the HPC and public hearing with the HPC and the Austin City Council. Only buildings within such a district or buildings designated historic by the HPC would be subject to review by the commission if any exterior changes were planned.
A local historic district has three main purposes: 1) to preserve the unique characteristics of buildings and surroundings; 2) to maintain and improve the setting for those buildings; and 3) to encourage the builders of new structures in the area to choose architectural designs which complement the historic structures.
While the city of Austin and interested residents and officials are only looking into that possibility, other southern Minnesota cities have already ventured into the arena of historic preservation. Lanesboro, Winona, Chatfield, New Ulm, Pipestone, St. Peter – all have such an ordinance in place. Most of the cities with designated historical districts and local ordinances addressing historic preservation are located in the southern half of Minnesota.
Convention and Visitor Bureau director Jeanne Sheehan thinks the high number of visitors and the high amount of historic preservation going on is more than coincidence.
"The southern Minnesota region is the second-largest-visited region – after the metro area – in the state," she said at the Wednesday informational meeting on historic preservation. "There must be a correlation between that and the large number of places that are doing historic revitalization."
Out of the more than 800 cities and municipalities in Minnesota, 41 have Heritage Preservation Commissions.