Comments on: S. Fifth Ave: Historic District, Development

By: Alice Ralph

Alice Ralph — Fri, 28 May 2010 22:03:32 +0000

Ten years ago I was on a “historic district evaluation study committee” (a long but accurate term). This type of volunteer committee is appointed by the local jurisdiction — in my case, the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners (WCBOC)–in order to fulfill certain articles of preservation ordinance concerning designation of a local historic district. Our committee would not have been appointed if county staff planners and the Washtenaw County Historic Dictrict Commission (WCHDC) had not received the request from the owner (there was only one, UM) of the nearly 70-acres concerned, and deemed it worthy of the months of effort on all parts. So, yes, the outcome can seem predictable. It isn’t.
Our committee was diligent and cognizant of the seriousness of our charge (as I believe the Germantown committee has been). We disagreed only on the boundary definition. (Sound familiar?) Our result was a unanimous committee recommendation for local historic district designation, with two alternate boundary definitions.
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviews and comments on study committee reports before final submission by the study committee to the local jusrisdiction. Upon final submission of our report, the WCBOC could hade made any decision or amendment they deemed appropriate, with or without regard to the recommendations. With the recommendations, they could have moved on either boundary recommendation in approving designation. The difference was about 60 acres.
At the time, there were 15 members of the WCBOC. With a great deal of public support and some political advocates, the WCBOC approved the Gordon Hall Historic District (GHHD) based on the alternate recommendation that used historic boundaries for the entire acreage. The vote was 14 to one dissenter.
There are two GHHD owners now, both non-profits who, as non-profits, do not benefit from historic preservation tax credit programs availbale to tax-paying businesses and private individuals. This is somewhat related to the basis for exemptions permitted to religious institutions. But it doesn’t mean that churches do not have historic value. Non-profit owners and religious institutions still have the opportunity to follow best practices of historic preservation with the assistance and review of historic district commissions who have jurisdiction over a larger district. In fact, with a certificate of appropriateness granted by WCHDC review, the new owner of 15 GHHD acres has nearly completed a compatible development of 60 low-profile semi-attached bungalows for active seniors.
This is more than I could or wanted to say in the three minutes correctly reported above. I still believe that historical context, topographical and overall character provide the best justification for a district boundary. As the study committee discovered, City Council could [but seems likely not to] justifiably decide on a larger district than they originally outlined. There is public support for it. My experience says to be as generous as best practices make possible.

By: Murph

Murph — Fri, 28 May 2010 19:35:32 +0000

Dave -

Can you provide any insight on the issue Mr. Munzel is quoted on in the article about historic districts not affecting religious institutions, which Chuck responds to in comments? Is this an idea that’s been verified by anyone involved in the process?

That is not my understanding. IANAL, but have spent some years administering both zoning and historic preservation ordinances, including legal challenge-free application of those to religious properties.

The most relevant area of statute and case law here is the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which provides generally that,

“No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government can demonstrate that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly or institution

1. is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
2. is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

Nothing in there automatically exempts a religious building from historic preservation ordinances. In order to make a successful claim under RLUIPA, the church would have to demonstrate that, in Chuck’s example, the requirement to use Gutter A rather than Gutter B would impose a substantial burden on religious exercise, with extra cost not automatically being a substantial burden.

RLUIPA goes on with other portions that require land use regulations not discriminate against or put religious institutions on less-than-equal-terms with other land uses. (e.g. prohibiting a church but permitting a concert hall with similar objective impacts because the concert hall will pay taxes.)

By: Vivienne Armentrout

Vivienne Armentrout — Fri, 28 May 2010 12:49:34 +0000

Thank you for the extensive timeline and description of the process. You provide an important archival resource.

By: Dave Askins

Dave Askins — Fri, 28 May 2010 00:43:35 +0000

Re: [5]

Finally, Dave, you write, “Approval of the Heritage Row PUD would entail a change in the city’s zoning to fit the project – that’s inherently what a PUD is. So the matter of right project would no longer be “matter of right,” because it would no longer meet the city’s code, which would now be defined by the PUD zoning.” Is this argument accepted by all sides or clearly resolved in case law? It seems to me the kind of thing lawyers would have a lot of fun (and make a lot of money) arguing about.

That’s an understanding that I confirmed with Wendy Rampson, who’s head of planning for the city of Ann Arbor, and Jill Thacher, who’s the city’s planner who specializes in historic preservation issues.

By: Chuck Warpehoski

Chuck Warpehoski — Thu, 27 May 2010 23:37:02 +0000

“The study is supposed to determine if the built environment meets the criteria set forth in the Secretary of the Interior standards for historic districts.”

I think it’s important to remember that the committee was only tasked to answer 1 question: does the proposed area fit with the standards of a historic district. re: @Marvin, in that regard, I think it’s appropriate it was staffed with preservationists.

That said, there are other important questions (impact on tax policy, land use, etc.) that should also be part of the discussion. I’m grateful for the hard work the committee put in, but their judgment on if the area meets the criteria for a historic district is not the only decision to make here.

On a side note, I was surprised to learn that religious buildings are exempt from historic district regulations. My faith community, Ann Arbor Friends Meeting, is in a historic district, and we recently spent A LOT of money replacing gutters in a manner to meet historic district guidelines (copper ain’t cheap). It was an experience that made me glad I don’t live in a historic district.

Finally, Dave, you write, “Approval of the Heritage Row PUD would entail a change in the city’s zoning to fit the project – that’s inherently what a PUD is. So the matter of right project would no longer be “matter of right,” because it would no longer meet the city’s code, which would now be defined by the PUD zoning.” Is this argument accepted by all sides or clearly resolved in case law? It seems to me the kind of thing lawyers would have a lot of fun (and make a lot of money) arguing about.

By: Dave Askins

Dave Askins — Thu, 27 May 2010 19:57:40 +0000

Re: [3] “Is it true that there is some sort of historic district up Braodway? That’s incredible, if true.”

The Broadway Historic District is the brownish area in the upper right part of the top-most graphic in the article. It was approved by the city council in the spring of 2008.

By: Marvin Face

Marvin Face — Thu, 27 May 2010 17:41:20 +0000

So you’re telling me that a committee made up of historic preservation advocates and neighborhood residents came to the unlikely conclusion that historic preservation was the way to go? UNEXPECTED!

One other observation: is it true that there is some sort of historic district up Braodway? That’s incredible, if true. Nothing historic up there but one house and even that is tenuous.

By: Dave Askins

Dave Askins — Thu, 27 May 2010 14:27:43 +0000

Re: [1] Yes. They're in a set of a few different .pdf files available on the city's website: [link]

By: Phil Dokas

Phil Dokas — Thu, 27 May 2010 14:24:56 +0000

Is there anyway to get a look at the inventory cards produced by the study committee? A detailed index of all of those houses would make for a very interesting read!