After a push forward from a city board, the controversial plan for a new St. Ronan-Edgehill historic district comes up for another public meeting Monday night.
A study report calling for preservation of the late 19th and early 20th century buildings of the proposed district received a generally positive review last week from the City Plan Commission.
The next public information session for property owners in the district takes place at the Celentano School Monday at 7 p.m.
Click here for a previous Independent story on the issue.
Anne-Marie Foltz and Karen Orzack-Moore (pictured), are the co-chairs of the study subcommittee, which prepared the illustrated document and presented it to commissioners.
The report, written by architectural historian James Sexton, emphasized the distinctive architectural styles being represented along the streets of the district, whose spine is Prospect Street. It also highlighted its cohesive sense of atmosphere and neighborhood.
Prior approval for the report had been received by the State Commission on Historical Preservation. A mid-April first full public meeting at the Celentano School on the issue attracted pockets of opposition, as well as support.
City Plan commissioners remembered that a similar attempt to create a local historic district (LHD) failed in 1989. So why again and why now? asked City Plan chair Pat King.
“Back then,” replied Foltz, “the vote was about 59 percent in favor, which is pretty good. The statute calls for two-thirds of the property owners in the district to approve, and we think we will achieve that this time. Otherwise we wouldn’t be doing it.”
She said that recent changes in the community were part of the motivation for the renaissance of the effort. “The attitude in the community had changed somewhat,” she said. “There are more fears of McMansions, tear-downs, and other threats.”
Roland Lemar (pictured with Pat King) championed the report, which contains individual photographs of properties and descriptions of their architectural distinction. “I really applaud your remarkable document,” he said. “And I wish you very good luck with it.”
The commissioners voted to recommend to the Historic District Commission (under whose auspices the study committee had been created) to proceed with its own public hearing, which then must be followed by a vote among landowners, and garner the 67 percent majority.
Since the City Plan meeting, Foltz said by email, her group had distributed “frequently asked questions” to all property owners, along with full copies of the study report. Foltz suggested that misunderstandings about an LHD, such as that bureaucracy would increase, or private property rights would be threatened, could be dispelled through education and information.
“We feel people just need time to learn accurately the implications of what it means to become a local historic district.”
Paging Paris Hilton
Not everyone agreed with that assessment. Donald Schwartz, who lives on Edgehill Road and was vocal in his opposition at the first public meeting, said that he had read the report and the FAQ. He said is not only still opposed, but even more adamantly so.
“Look,” he said, “because of the home invasion in the area, many of us here are getting motion sensors installed. You mean to tell me that if we were an historic district, we’d have to go before a commission, pay $85 bucks and hear if it’s OK?
“I’ve got neighbors who wonder if it’s OK to put up a swing set because it’s ‘barely visible’ from the road, and wouldn’t that come under the jurisdiction of a commission?
“I don’t think so. It’s like assigning Paris Hilton to tell me how to dress. A matter of taste. I just may disagree with her. ‘Historic District’ sounds very nice, but it’s basically taking away your rights and assigning taste to someone else.”
Foltz referenced a recent concern about the upcoming potential sale of the St. Francis School at Prospect and Highland is raising concerns that a structure may be built there out of proportion with the streetscape. A local historic district designation, she suggested, would provide another layer of protection against this.
On that score, Schwartz saw the negative side of an LHD designation as well. “Who are the only people who can afford the cost of architects and consultants to go through the process with a commission? The only ones are big developers.” So he suggested an LHD designation might attract, not repel unwanted development.
He also said that in reading the study report, he was more confirmed than ever that the St. Ronan-Edgehill proposed district architecturally just wasn’t cohesive. “Look, we’re very eclectic is what we are. If we were Nantucket, where everything should be painted gray, that’s one thing. But there’s no single style here. From that point of you it doesn’t make sense either.”
Although large parts of St. Ronan-Edgehill have National Historic designations, the protections offered under LHDs are generally considered more potent.
Following Monday night’s meeting at Celentano School, the Historic District Commission will hold its own formal hearing and then make its recommendation to the Board of Aldermen. Full BOA approval is necessary because the designation would require a zone change.
The city currently has three local historic districts: Wooster Square, Quinnipiac River, and, the most recent, City Point.
Ann-Marie Foltz incorrectly cites the final tally from the previous vote in 1990. It was not 59% in favor. It was 49% in favor, not a majority and a long way from the 67% needed to pass the measure.
Also, an assertion has been made by the proponents of the local historic district that having such a designation will help our property values increase more than in neighboring districts. This is hardly a given. A study published in The Appraisal Journal, a leading periodical for the real estate appraisal profession - which stands to gain nothing from the proliferation of historic districts, looked at this issue in the Shaker Square Historic District in Shaker Heights, Ohio. Shaker Heights is a very desirable suburb adjacent to Cleveland. Being a third generation Clevelander, I know this firsthand. As one of the earliest planned suburbs, it has a variety of neighborhoods with housing ranging from working class apartment buildings to grand estates.
The Shaker Square neighborhood is a mixed commercial and residential area. It was designated a local historic district in 1980, after a decade-long decline in the social and economic make-up of the neighborhood. A 4-year study of property transfers both inside the district and in neighborhoods immediately surrounding the district showed that properties just outside the district had a greater increase in sales prices than properties within the district. The study theorized that neighboring properties capitalized on the proximity to the district without having the burden of following the district guidelines.
The study report for the Saint Ronan-Edgehill neighborhood discusses the eclectic and highly varied architecture of the neighborhood. It emphasizes that cohesiveness is achieved not by architectural styles but by the compatibility of scale of the houses. This compatibility is achieved by the existing restrictions of the RS-1 zone.
The proponents look around and see a neighborhood threatened on both sides of the economic scale - nouveau riche McMansions on one side and tacky vinyl siding on the other side. This fearmongering could potentially be more harmful to property values. I look around and see a neighborhood that has evolved beautifully. I see my new neighbors as people who bought property here because they love it just as it is. I see not McMansions, but new construction done with taste and quality. I see people who are not speculators but who have the ability and desire to protect their investment. I see people who have worked hard and saved money to buy their dream house, like we did. I have no desire to have to appear before a committee of strangers to ask that our aesthetic choices for our private property be certified as appropriate.