The approval of guidelines for a new historic preservation district in the downtown didn't come easily Tuesday for the Monroe City Council.
The rules were put in place with a 6-4 vote that portrayed the discomfort some aldermen feel about tight restrictions in the guidelines and an owner's inability to appeal future decisions on future proposals to renovate buildings.
However, historic preservation districts are created for the purpose of restoring the look of a particular area to its past. To accomplish that, building renovations must be historically accurate. Otherwise, the look never will be accomplished and the historic district designation and the tax dollars spent on it are meaningless.
The majority of the council was right Tuesday to create the district and approve the guidelines that go along with it. Even though the wording in some of the guidelines won't allow for a true appeals process, aldermen still will have the ability to rewrite rules it might find to be too restrictive or unnecessary. The council and the Historic Preservation Commission now have the responsibility of closely monitoring the guideline's impacts, and making inevitable changes to them swiftly and fairly.
Monroe City Attorney Rex Ewald told the council Tuesday that portions of the commission's plan read like rules rather than guidelines. When words such as "shall" are used rather than "should," no room is left for deviations.
But as the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation - adopted as part of the commission's plan Tuesday - point out, "loss of character (of a building) is just as often caused by the cumulative effect of a series of actions that would seem to be minor interventions." In other words, changes that may seem small from project to project add up, and can ruin the historical integrity of an entire district. Which is why the Historic Preservation Commission's guidelines must include a fair number of "shalls" regarding building renovations. If it didn't have them, there'd be no change of preserving a consistent historic look.
That said, the commission and council will discover some provisions that just don't make sense in the bigger picture of historic preservation. Those detrimental rules will become obvious when they are protested by a building owner. The commission will be able to recommend, and the council able to make, changes by reworking the wording within the guidelines. It's a little more complicated and official to do it that way than through a case-by-case appeal, but it's certainly manageable. And in the end, making rule changes is more effective than hearing appeal after appeal.
The key for the commission and council is to spot those rule inefficiencies immediately, when the first person protests. Otherwise, there is the risk of inconsistencies in buildings and unequal treatment of people's properties.
Alderman Jan Lefevre, a commission member, said she and commission Chairman Dr. David Riese already have discussed revisiting the plan and "tweaking" it. That must be a continual process.
The rules were put in place with a 6-4 vote that portrayed the discomfort some aldermen feel about tight restrictions in the guidelines and an owner's inability to appeal future decisions on future proposals to renovate buildings.
However, historic preservation districts are created for the purpose of restoring the look of a particular area to its past. To accomplish that, building renovations must be historically accurate. Otherwise, the look never will be accomplished and the historic district designation and the tax dollars spent on it are meaningless.
The majority of the council was right Tuesday to create the district and approve the guidelines that go along with it. Even though the wording in some of the guidelines won't allow for a true appeals process, aldermen still will have the ability to rewrite rules it might find to be too restrictive or unnecessary. The council and the Historic Preservation Commission now have the responsibility of closely monitoring the guideline's impacts, and making inevitable changes to them swiftly and fairly.
Monroe City Attorney Rex Ewald told the council Tuesday that portions of the commission's plan read like rules rather than guidelines. When words such as "shall" are used rather than "should," no room is left for deviations.
But as the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation - adopted as part of the commission's plan Tuesday - point out, "loss of character (of a building) is just as often caused by the cumulative effect of a series of actions that would seem to be minor interventions." In other words, changes that may seem small from project to project add up, and can ruin the historical integrity of an entire district. Which is why the Historic Preservation Commission's guidelines must include a fair number of "shalls" regarding building renovations. If it didn't have them, there'd be no change of preserving a consistent historic look.
That said, the commission and council will discover some provisions that just don't make sense in the bigger picture of historic preservation. Those detrimental rules will become obvious when they are protested by a building owner. The commission will be able to recommend, and the council able to make, changes by reworking the wording within the guidelines. It's a little more complicated and official to do it that way than through a case-by-case appeal, but it's certainly manageable. And in the end, making rule changes is more effective than hearing appeal after appeal.
The key for the commission and council is to spot those rule inefficiencies immediately, when the first person protests. Otherwise, there is the risk of inconsistencies in buildings and unequal treatment of people's properties.
Alderman Jan Lefevre, a commission member, said she and commission Chairman Dr. David Riese already have discussed revisiting the plan and "tweaking" it. That must be a continual process.
