Document View

Almost 30 years have passed since the National Historic Preservation Act fashioned historic preservation as a tool of community planning. This 1966 law established the National Register of Historic Places, the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and state historic preservation offices. In general, historic district commissions have been given the power to approve exterior modifications, proposed additions, and in some cases, demolition of historic structures. Any community with historic properties should base its regulatory power on an established and approved historic preservation plan. Most effective preservation plans exist in the context of a comprehensive plan, with the comprehensive plan providing the land-use and other contextual items for the preservation plan. It is important for all communities, urban and rural, to recognize the value of preserving their physical heritage through historic preservation, which can provide economic and social benefits and give residents a sense of place. These resources should be integral components of comprehensive plans.

Almost 30 years have passed since the National Historic Preservation Act fashioned historic preservation as a tool of community planning. This 1966 law established the National Register of Historic Places, the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and state historic preservation offices. Local governments were given the biggest plum of all: local historic district commissions.

Since then, hundreds of communities have adopted historic districts and ordinances and designated local landmarks and districts. The National Alliance of Preservation Commissions estimates that there are now more than 2,400 regulated historic districts in the U.S. Their procedures are well established, and their power to protect historic properties from inappropriate changes has been confirmed in the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

Despite this success, many city planners still view historic preservation as ancillary to the process of master planning. They refer to historic districts as "overlay zones," meaning that they are not integrated with either the zoning code or the comprehensive plan.

We think that this disassociation of planning and historic preservation is inappropriate, and that historic preservation planning should become an integral part of a community's comprehensive plan.

In a study we conducted earlier this year, we examined the relationship between master planning and preservation planning. We reviewed the results of national surveys of state historic preservation offices administered in 2002 and 2005, as well as a state survey for Michigan in 2000, and have come to some conclusions about historic preservation plans and local comprehensive plans.

A unique power

Preservation of our built environment is an important form of land use. Many communities have used preservation to revitalize older neighborhoods. For example, Baltimore's Federal Hill Historic District contains several hundred 18th and 19th century houses dramatically overlooking the city's Inner Harbor redevelopment. The district's historic main street helps to maintain property values and the sense of a complete community, with residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, and educational uses.

In general, historic district commissions have been given the power to approve exterior modifications, proposed additions, and in some cases, demolition of historic structures. Some commissions also have the authority to review and approve proposals for new buildings in historic districts. To a large degree, these decisions are based on the aesthetic judgments of commissioners-something that is unique in local government.

The precedent for this authority is based on the 1954 Supreme Court decision in Berman v. Parker, which confirms that aesthetics alone can justify certain government regulations. Justice William Douglas, writing for the majority, noted that "It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy."

Other municipal agencies use objective criteria to evaluate proposals. The planning department reviews setbacks, heights, traffic impacts, and similar concerns, while the building department examines construction specifications. Traffic data are the focus of the transportation department, and police and fire departments apply safety codes. In contrast, historic district commissions often use subjective criteria to determine how proposed changes will affect historic character.

This is not to say that historic district commissions are capricious. Most are guided by provisions established by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior in its 1979 Standards for Rehabilitation. These 10 standards, as interpreted and clarified over the years, guide commissioners and provide a firm basis for determinations. If property owners disagree with a decision, they can file an appeal.

A success story

Any community with historic properties should base its regulatory power on an established and approved historic preservation plan. Such a plan was created in 1989 for Cherry Hill, a mile-square historic hamlet on the fringe of suburban Detroit.

Residents of Cherry Hill, whose population was about 150 at the time, were concerned that development would overtake their community and ruin its rural character. They commissioned a study to protect their hamlet and its surrounding farmland. The plan developed by Quinn Evans Architects dealt with community concerns at three levels.

First, it recommended that the hamlet's historic buildings be grouped in a designated historic district. Second, it suggested that a farmland conservation district be established to cover the area surrounding Cherry Hill-and that it be large enough to provide a visual barrier to future suburban development. The perimeter of this farmland area was partially screened with rows of trees at the edge of existing farms.

Third, the plan proposed that the development areas beyond the farmland conservation district be subject to cluster development. This would permit development, but in a manner compatible with the community's historic character.

Traditional planning and preservation are rarely blended in such an innovative way. More typically, historic preservation plans are tangential to historic district ordinances, just as comprehensive plans are often tangential to zoning ordinances. When local preservationists are asked if their community has a historic preservation plan, they typically say yes, but their concept of a plan consists of a survey and documentation of historic resources. From the planner's perspective, this work is limited in scope and has little to do with a community's broadly based comprehensive plan. A wellconstructed historic preservation plan should complement a historic district ordinance.

However, some relevant questions come to mind: What should be included in the historic preservation plan? And should it be separate from the comprehensive plan or should it be integrated with it?

The American Planning Association's Planning Advisory Service Report 450, Preparing a Historic Preservation Plan, suggests 10 components of a historic preservation plan: a statement of the community's preservation goals; a definition of its historic character; a summary of past preservation efforts; a survey of historic resources or an outline of the type of sutvey that should be conducted; an explanation of the legal basis for protecting historic resources; a statement relating historic preservation to other local land-use and growth management tools; an assessment of the public sector's responsibilities for historic resources; an outline of the incentives available to help preserve the community's historic resources; an explanation of how historic preservation relates to the educational system; and a precise statement of goals and policies.

A bird's-eye view

In 2002 and again earlier this year, we conducted national surveys of state historic preservation offices. In the most recent survey, we sent emails to offices in all 50 states asking a single question: "Does your state legislation mandate a historic preservation element in local comprehensive plans?" When appropriate, a follow-up question asked why the state had not required historic preservation plans.

We received responses from 28 public officials in various positions. Every major geographical region in the U.S. was represented.

The results of our recent survey showed that four states now require a historic preservation component in local comprehensive plans: Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and South Carolina. A follow-up question asked if local planners generally comply with these legislative mandates. Most respondents believe that local government units do comply, but the level and detail vary widely from one community to another.

Other responses to this question were not easily categorized as yes or no. Although some respondents gave definitive answers, others placed their replies along a continuum. They indicated that their states have policies and goals that promote historic preservation plans, but they added qualifying statements.

A Delaware official said her state' s historic preservation planning requirement applies only to communities with a certain minimum population. Maine bases a municipality's eligibility for certain grants on adoption of an approved comprehensive plan with 10 goals, one of which is a historic preservation component.

In states where historic preservation is not required, the law sometimes encourages it as an element in comprehensive plans. Seventy percent of the respondents in our 2002 survey said local governments are likely to offer only minimal compliance-in other words, state law encourages, but does not require, historic preservation planning. From this data, we conclude that the word "shall" is crucial to increasing the viability of historic preservation planning.

The surveys also included questions probing why states lacked such a requirement. Two primary reasons emerged. Most common was a lack of political support.

Mark Wolfe, the survey respondent from Colorado, said this: "There is no mandate [for historic preservation planning] in Colorado law. With the possible exception of Boulder and Denver, this is an extremely conservative state. Property rights are paramount, and preservation is basically accomplished through incentives rather than regulation."

A second reason is the cost of producing a historic preservation plan. Done properly, plan preparation can be time consuming and require preservation specialists. Many local officials may view this as simply another unfunded state mandate.

Michigan's stance

Michigan neither requires nor encourages preservation plans as part of comprehensive plans; consequently, the two types of plans are rarely integrated. The statewide survey that we conducted in 2000 focused on the status of the state's local historic preservation plans. We sent letters and questionnaires to members of all 65 historic district commissions to find out which districts had historic preservation plans and who prepared them.

Of the 34 individuals who responded, 23 said that their communities did not have a historic preservation plan, and five confirmed they had a stand-alone preservation plan. The remaining six respondents noted that their historic preservation plans were part of their community's comprehensive plan. Three respondents modified their questionnaires to change the word "plan" to "ordinance."

In its response, Rochester Hills included the outline of its preservation plan. The plan's five divisions were existing and potential sites (inventory) ; development and redevelopment; zoning and land use for historic properties; public awareness; and economic feasibility.

More typical is the city of Sault Ste. Marie, which in 2000 was using its 1998 historic structures management plan as its historic preservation plan. Although a substantial report, its greatest emphasis was placed on management of four significant historic structures.

No local historic preservation plans in Michigan contained all 10 elements identified in APA's report, but specific points most frequently stated were: development of a comprehensive survey of historic resources; specific goals, definite dmelines, and action plans to achieve them; a statement and definition of financial incentives; and public education concerning historic preservation. Of the four items, one and two are common planning activities, while the other items are less so.

Combining forces

In their 2000 book, Community Planning: An Introduction to the Comprehensive Plan, Eric Damian Kelly, FAICP, and Barbara Becker, AICP, summarize historic preservation planning this way: "Most effective preservation plans exist in the context of a comprehensive plan, with the comprehensive plan providing the land-use and other contextual items for the preservation plan."

It is important for all communities, urban and rural, to recognize the value of preserving their physical heritage through historic preservation, which can provide economic and social benefits and give residents a sense of place. These resources should be integral components of comprehensive plans. Ideally, these plans should go beyond the historic study and inventory that accompany the adoption of historic district ordinances and that use much more of the structure cited in the APA's PAS report.

State planning enabling legislation may have to be amended in order to promote the inclusion of a historic preservation component. The road to adoption of revised public laws could be long and bumpy, but the rewards will be appreciated by generations to come.