In St. Paul, failing to keep up a historic home could soon come with fines — or worse.

St. Paul’s nine historic districts have kept hundreds of century-old houses preserved since the 1970s. Anything requiring a permit — from a porch demolition to a new garden fence — may come before the city’s Heritage Preservation Commission for approval, adding time and cost in the name of history and aesthetics.

Now, at a time when some housing advocates want to reduce the commission’s powers, a series of proposals could greatly expand its reach.

Instead of mostly overseeing demolitions and new construction, the 12-member commission — whose members are appointed by the mayor — also would gain authority to require that owners of historic properties maintain them, or face potential penalties.

Among the proposals:

Reviews before St. Paul’s Heritage Preservation Commission would cost $500.

In construction cases where the state currently requires an impact study known as an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), jurisdiction over that process would shift from the director of the city’s planning and economic development department to the Heritage Preservation Commission.

Language mandating maintenance would say: “Properties designated as heritage preservation sites located in heritage preservation districts shall be preserved against decay and deterioration and kept free from structural defects by the owner or other person(s) who have legal custody and control of the property.”

“This is the first significant updating of the Historic Preservation ordinance since the commission’s initial inception (in 1976),” said Hannah Burchill, a spokeswoman for the city’s Department of Planning and Economic Development, in an email. “Much has changed in the field of historic preservation since 1976, such as energy efficiency and sustainability, as well as standards for specific project areas such as preservation, restoration and reconstruction.”

RELATED: The case of the $60,000 driveway: Former member fights Heritage Preservation Commission — and loses

The 17-page proposal stems, in part, from committees the Heritage Preservation Commission formed in 2003 and 2009 on rules changes. The ordinance amendments were refined by commission staff in January with input from the city attorney’s office.

“The update is not a radical departure from the existing ordinance,” Burchill said.

Not everyone agrees. Some housing advocates have expressed alarm, and even seasoned historic preservationists worry about overreach.

Portland Avenue resident Ray Meyer sat on the commission for 2½ years. In 2002, his preservation work on his restored Queen Anne Victorian home won a joint award from the St. Paul chapter of the American Institute of Architects and the Heritage Preservation Commission itself.

But Meyer said he would like to see the commission’s authority scaled back, rather than expanded.

Over the past year, Meyer said he’s made at least eight trips to City Hall in a failed effort to persuade the commission to allow him to fix his cracked concrete driveway. He wants to install stamped concrete that resembles a brick-like pattern. Calling the material out of step with history, commission members voted down his proposal in November, 11-0.

“They’re inflexible,” said Meyer, 79, who was led away from a hearing last fall by security. “They want to expand their powers? That would be a huge mistake.”

FEES INCREASE $500

The biggest proposed changes may be monetary. Basic fees for most city permits start at $70. But for owners of historic homes, the fee would climb to $500 if city staff determine that something such as a new driveway, roof or window replacement requires review by the 12-member commission.

Homeowners unhappy with commission decisions would still be able to appeal them to the city council.

But appeal fees would increase by $400 to help the city with the cost of preparing its response.

Another rule change would place an immediate, temporary ban on new demolitions and lot splits wherever the city begins to study the possibility of a historic district, an approach the city council recently considered but rejected in Merriam Park.

The new proposals are still being reviewed by members of the HPC. Repeated attempts to reach chair Michael Justin and vice-chair Barbara Bezat for comment over the past 10 days were unsuccessful.

“We’ve discussed them, but not in an official way,” said commission member Steve Trimble. “We’ve talked about ‘Minneapolis does such and such, and maybe we should consider doing that. Denver does some good things.’ And then the staff will put together a proposed change to the whole bundle of things. Definitely, we could make major or minor amendments on something that is proposed.”

The commission will host a public hearing at St. Paul City Hall at 5 p.m. May 24.

“I think it sounds like bad timing to me, with (the city’s recent) tax hike and St. Paul’s property tax base challenges,” said John Vaughn, executive director of the East Side Neighborhood Development Co. “It’s not a great time to be imposing extra fees and processes that impact homeowners’ bottom line.”

CRIMINAL MISDEMEANORS AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS?

Greg Seifert, the owner of a two-story bungalow on historic Summit Avenue, noted that city rules already make failure to abide by the regulations in a historic district a criminal misdemeanor, punishable by up to 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine.

However, those penalties are rarely, if ever, enforced to that degree.

In effect, he said, the commission’s proposal would also criminalize falling behind on costly, historically sensitive maintenance.

“I can understand telling homeowners some things they can’t do to historic properties,” said Seifert, in a recent email to the city. “But that is entirely different than telling homeowners what they must do.” Related Articles Minnesota Department of Revenue commissioner to step down

Ramsey County commissioner announces $31.8 million federal grant for second Amtrak train

South St. Paul parks and rec director laid off amid budget pressures

Coronavirus Tuesday update: 513 new infections and 10 more Minnesota deaths

Senate GOP plans vote on Trump’s court pick before election

Equally troubling to him, the proposed language is general enough that it seems to require both exterior and interior maintenance, as well: “Properties designated as heritage preservation sites located in heritage preservation districts shall be preserved against decay and deterioration.”

Until now, the HPC has regulated permitting for exterior improvements, as well as demolitions, but not for maintenance work on the interior of a home.

Burchill, in an email, said the commission has no intention of mandating interior improvements, despite the proposed language.

“HPC jurisdiction will remain on the exterior of a structure, except in extremely rare cases when an interior is significant to the people of St. Paul,” she said. “Our only designated interior is the Rathskeller at the Jacob Schmidt Brewery.”

City council President Amy Brendmoen said council members were still learning about the proposed changes. The changes eventually will come before the council for final approval.

“My sense in the briefing was that it was very early, and it was the first major change in 40 years, and they were going around to the stakeholders and making adjustments as they came up,” Brendmoen said.

A NEED FOR HOUSING, A LOVE OF HISTORY

Given both the growing pace of real estate construction throughout the metro area and the region’s expanding senior population, historic preservationists worry that developers will buy old homes from seniors and other willing sellers and tear them down in favor of larger houses, apartment buildings or multiple new residences.

Among developers, a common rationale has it that many older homes are in such disrepair, tear-downs may be the only realistic option.

Preservationists say requiring maintenance in historic districts would prevent what amounts to “demolition by neglect.” They note that St. Paul’s commitment to historic preservation has driven plenty of private investment in historic older structures.

History may be the city’s biggest selling point, from the downtown Landmark Center to the Schmidt Brewery, which is undergoing both a residential and commercial transformation along West Seventh Street.

“Irvine Park was a disaster prior to the 1970s,” said Chuck Repke, a lobbyist who has sometimes tangled with the Historic Preservation Commission. “The city’s plan was to demolish that and make it industrial. But for Irvine Park, most of the good things that happened on West Seventh Street near the old Civic Center wouldn’t have happened.”

Before the creation of the historic district, “there were people in the 1950s that said ‘you should tear down all the mansions on Summit Hill, because nobody is ever going to want to live in them again,’ ” Repke said. “Our historic stuff has saved most of the color and flavor of St. Paul. We don’t realize how important that stuff is.”

Critics, however, say that historic districts already make housing prohibitively expensive to maintain, and the proposed changes would go even further to prevent renters, first-time homebuyers, immigrants and racial minorities from being able to afford living in certain neighborhoods.

“There is at least one abandoned mansion on Summit Ave. right now waiting for a deep-pocketed, half-crazy buyer willing to pour into a restoration,” said Seifert, who has repeatedly appeared before the commission. “We all win when such people engage. But over-the-top preservation regulations and the promise of micro-management under threat of jail scares off all but the most tenacious buyers. We are already short on competent, driven people willing to restore old homes in St. Paul; don’t make the pool smaller.”

TWO NEW HISTORIC DISTRICTS?

Instead of tightening rules in historic districts, some housing advocates would like to see them eased to more easily allow the construction of new apartments, or to at least keep historic districts affordable to middle-class residents.

The city could be poised to create two new historic districts: historical surveys are underway in Merriam Park and Hamline-Midway.

When the city began exploring a possible historic district in Merriam Park, the proposition of even a temporary moratorium, or time-out, on lot splits and demolitions pit neighbor against neighbor, and almost froze the sale of two homes on Iglehart Avenue.

“I do have some concerns about the Dayton’s Bluff historic district tamping down investment that would have otherwise occurred,” Vaughn said. “I’d like to see a study done of it. When the district was created, I think a lot of the homes that benefited from historic preservation, they’ve been cherry-picked.

“So then the question is, is the general housing stock not being invested in as much as it could be because of the historic district requirements?” Vaughn said.

Related Articles St. Paul district reports enrollment drop as pandemic moves school online

Police: Teen has life-threatening injuries after being shot in face in St. Paul

CEO of MPR’s parent company to step down following blowback on racial and gender equity issues

Ramsey County commissioner announces $31.8 million federal grant for second Amtrak train

Frogtown Community Center unveils new artificial turf field, playground and outdoor fun Trimble, the East Side resident who represents the Ramsey County Historical Society on the commission, points to the positive impact of the Fourth Street restoration project. Led by Historic St. Paul, the effort has helped get a series of long-neglected Dayton’s Bluff properties into the hands of preservationists, rather than demolished.

“I don’t agree that all the nicer houses are already gone. There’s smaller ones — gems that could be fixed up,” Trimble said. “Now, if they’re beyond repair, they’ve torn some down, and we’ve said it’s OK. … But even if they’re in really bad shape, they can be brought back. And once you show that they can be brought back, other people are willing to go in.”