Mitchell preservation panel reviews proposed boundary cuts to downtown historic district; no action taken

The Mitchell Preservation Commission reviewed a staff-drafted proposal to shrink the Mitchell Historic Commercial District after multiple demolitions and remodeling on East 1st Street, but the commission did not take any official action and instead offered feedback for staff to take to the state review board.

State preservation staff described the area under review as a short stretch on East 1st Street where roughly six adjacent commercial buildings once stood, noting that one was demolished in 2021 and others were removed in 2023. Staff said three buildings in the study area “would be flipped from contributing to non contributing” because alterations have eroded their historic integrity, and that staff had re-evaluated 208 and 210 North Main as contributing after recent storefront and cornice restorations.

“Because it was on the edge of the district, there’s justification for removal and adjusting the boundary for that,” the state staff member said, explaining that new construction on lots adjacent to the district may still be subject to state review if it is in the district’s environs. The staff presentation made clear the next step is to present a draft to the state review board, with the target being their April meeting, and then, if approved at the state level, the National Park Service would make the final decision on any listing changes.

A central point of discussion centered on 201, a building currently listed as contributing that would become an “island” if properties immediately to its south were removed. One commissioner argued keeping 201 made sense because the building still “feels like it’s still a historic building,” while others said removing adjacent properties would leave 201 disconnected and could justify taking it off the district.

A property owner who identified himself as Blake urged that the subject building be removed from the district. “I have no desire whatsoever for that building to be in the assortment building, period,” he said, expressing opposition to continued inclusion.

Staff also described owner-notification procedures required for listing changes: owners in an added area can formally object, and if a majority of private owners in the new area object, that area cannot be listed. Staff emphasized that the process for taking properties off the register differs from adding new areas. Commissioners discussed practical implications: removing properties would reduce state review triggers but would not eliminate city permitting and planning review for projects in the central business district.

Commissioners suggested alternatives staff could consider in the draft, such as redrawing the line to incorporate a nearby parking lot to avoid creating a narrow appendage and to reduce the appearance of a gerrymandered boundary. Staff encouraged early comment from business owners and said roughly 11 businesses had received notification letters about the draft.

The staff briefing included reminders about funding resources: Mitchell is a Certified Local Government and therefore eligible to apply for CLG grants to help prepare nominations; staff also described a state tax moratorium program and federal historic tax credits that can be available to commercial properties that meet preservation standards.

No formal vote was taken. Staff will refine the draft boundary map and notification materials, solicit additional owner input, and bring a finalized proposal forward to the state review board for its review and to the National Park Service for final determination.