Neighborhood Conservation Districts: Planning and Administrative Practices Prepared for City of Detroit | December 7, 2018

William Cook, Associate General Counsel Tiffany Tolbert, Senior Field Officer James Lindberg, Vice President, Research & Policy

1

Introduction As part of the National Trust’s work with the City of Detroit on the Jefferson-Chalmers National

Treasure Campaign and Neighborhood Development and Implementation Plan, we have been

asked to conduct a review of neighborhood conservation district implementation and

administrative models. To assist the City with its review of neighborhood conservation districts

as a tool to help manage future neighborhood changes and development, the first part of this

memorandum defines neighborhood conservation districts and identifies common components

and models. The second part provides specific examples as the City considers whether to adopt

a conservation district.

The City of Detroit is currently developing community plans for two neighborhoods within the

city: Russell Woods and Jefferson-Chalmers. As a part of this process the city seeks to develop

planning strategies and tools which promote historic preservation of existing neighborhoods

while promoting economic development. One identified tool is the establishment of

Conservation Overlay Districts (COD). Conservation Overlay Districts are typically established in

residential neighborhoods with distinctive physical characteristics that have preservation or

conservation as the primary goal. These areas might not merit designation as a historic district

but are priorities based on their economic potential, significance to the community and

character. 1

The City of Detroit has a historic preservation ordinance (adopted in 1976) where it administers

local historic districts and design review through its Planning Department and the Historic

District Commission. These districts where established to ensure preservation of the historic

and culturally significant areas of the city. As the City continues the development of community

plans for Jefferson Chalmers and Russell Woods and to advance continue revitalization efforts it

prefers the use of planning-based tools and strategies. The creation of Conservation Overlay

Districts in these areas is intended to protect the character of these neighborhoods without

placing a higher level of regulatory review which come with designation of traditional local

historic districts.

1 “Lubens, Rebecca & Miller, Julia. (2002-2003). Protecting Older Neighborhoods Through Conservation District Programs, Preservation Law Reporter, 1001-1042.

2

Overview: Neighborhood Conservation Districts A neighborhood conservation district, or NCD, is a land use overlay tool2 that offers

communities the ability to tailor the management of community character to the needs of

specific areas and neighborhood residents, as opposed to the one-size-fits-all approach of a

traditional historic preservation ordinance. Through the use of architectural design review or

planning and zoning controls, NCDs are often used in tandem with historic preservation

regulation, but usually are designed to operate apart from a preservation commission’s

jurisdiction. In addition, NCDs are designed to protect character-defining streetscapes, without

a historic significance requirement. Examples of NCD uses include protecting against

teardowns and “mansionization,” stopping inappropriate demolition, or regulating

neighborhood change by requiring architectural standards, square footage requirements, lot

size, or tree conservation. In addition, as a rule, the degree of regulation for an NCD is designed

to be more lenient or flexible than historic preservation regulation.

Although NCDs vary from community to community depending on a particular area’s character

and needs, NCDs tend to fall into two categories: (1) a historic preservation-oriented approach,

focused on protecting key neighborhood features, or (2) a zoning-planning approach, in which

the NCD is typically designed to prevent wholesale demolition of properties, encourage specific

types of use, or maintain a certain scale of new construction. A conservation district program

can also take a hybrid form. In each case, however, NCDs are accomplished by using an overlay

zone or zoning district. The difference between these types lies in the methods and kinds of

protection available and level of regulation desired by neighborhood residents.

Historic Preservation Approach The historic preservation-based approach to a neighborhood conservation program focuses on

protecting the physical features of a neighborhood by regulating exterior changes and

demolition that could harm the neighborhood’s historic architectural character. This type of

NCD is usually found in an area with a large concentration of older buildings that share common

architectural features or period details. These structures could qualify as historic under a

traditional historic district framework but may lack integrity because of alterations or fail to

qualify as architecturally significant. In either case, however, a more flexible form of regulation

is desired in the neighborhood because although residents seek some level of preservation

protection, community support for a stricter form of regulation provided by typical historic

preservation ordinances is lacking.

Examples of common areas of review in NCDs following the historic preservation approach tend

to include changes to a neighborhood’s physical character, such as exterior alterations, new

construction, and demolition. Review and approval occur either through a historic preservation

2 NCDs are typically established by ordinance or through zoning overlay zones. Communities considering their adoption should verify consistency with state enabling laws or other limitation on municipal authority.

3

commission or an architectural or design review board—applying more flexible standards than

those required by the preservation ordinance—or by a neighborhood specific commission.3

Neighborhood Zoning-Planning Model Much like the historic preservation approach, neighborhood conservation programs based on a

zoning-planning model also focus on the physical characteristics that make a neighborhood

unique. One key difference is that regulatory review is addressed through planning or zoning

laws. In addition to architectural features, this form of NCD is designed to address lot size,

square footage, setback requirements, or types of use. In this way, the neighborhood planning

model is well suited to help steer neighborhood change ex ante in the direction of desired

outcomes, such as ensuring affordable housing or compatibility of uses when older areas are

faced with intensive development pressures. Review and approval are accomplished either

through approval by the local planning authority or a neighborhood specific commission.

Examples of Neighborhood Conservation Districts To assist the City of Detroit, residents, and stakeholders in evaluating the appropriateness of

neighborhood conservation districts as a way to preserve and protect the unique character of

neighborhoods, the National Trust selected six cities to demonstrate the wide range of models

nationwide. Holding conclusions about their effectiveness or applicability to Detroit aside,

common threads to success or failure of NCDs as a legal tool include:

(1) Whether the community had the ability to distinguish easily between historic districts and

conservation districts as a form of regulation.

(2) Whether ordinances, guidelines, and procedures are written in plain English and are easy to

understand.

(3) Whether more flexible standards are applied by reviewing entities.

(4) Whether review of proposed changes within districts is binding as opposed to advisory

only.

Additional details of each program, along with other programs surveyed, are included in the

attached survey list and chart (see page 14).

3 For example, in Cambridge, Massachusetts each designated NCD has an individual neighborhood commission. Members of the commissions are appointment by the city manager.

4

Raleigh, NC. Raleigh, which follows a planning model that is

administered through its zoning department with binding review,

including demolitions, has one of the most well established and

highly regarded neighborhood conservation district programs in

the United States. Raleigh enacted its conservation district

program in 1988 and has 19 districts. One reason for its success

is that Raleigh has been careful to ensure that neighborhood

conservation districts—designed to preserve and enhance key

neighborhood characteristics—offer a clear and more flexible

alternative to the more traditional and stringent regulation

provided by historic traditional districts. Underneath its

conservation district program, there are three types of districts

which can be established: Conventional (general historic

preservation approach), Street-Side (regulates what is visible 50-

feet from public right of way) and Neighborhood Conservation

Overlay (zoning code). Between the three types, the conservation districts provide regulation

for changes ranging from architectural details to lot size, setbacks, building height, and parking

surface area. Outreach and education is strong; the review process is easy to determine and

follow. Raleigh also provides strong staff support.

Indianapolis, IN. Indianapolis applies a hybrid model with

binding review that employs historic preservation and planning

techniques, including review of demolitions. Unlike many cities,

Indianapolis’ conservation district program’s broad purpose

embraces not only preservation of the unique character of the

built environment, but also the intangible qualities that contribute

to the distinctive overall character of the area including culture,

heritage, history and community development. The Indianapolis

program does this by utilizing a unique blend of guidelines and

through a lower level of regulation than that which is used in

historic preservation districts. Like Raleigh, Indianapolis uses

outreach and education to make clear the differences between

historic preservation districts and conservation districts. As of this writing, Indianapolis has

recognized six conservation districts. One helpful aspect of the Indianapolis program is that if

the area immediately contiguous to new construction does not offer adequate context to

establish an appropriate new building height, the larger historic area context is assessed. This is

a positive feature not considered by other surveyed NCDs.

5

Cleveland, OH. Cleveland applies a planning

model to enhance the character and visual image of

its neighborhoods and downtown through “Design

Review Districts.” Unlike Indianapolis, however,

Cleveland’s seven districts do not emphasize the

intangible qualities of neighborhoods. Instead, they

regulate the appropriateness of construction,

exterior alterations, building demolitions, and signs.

Review is advisory only—a potential weakness if

preservation and protections are goals. The administrative staff tend to allow proposed

changes in practice if the Advisory Committee grants a recommendation. There is no

requirement, however, that planning staff give any deference to the Advisory Committee’s

decision, which limits certainty of outcome and increases the risk of politicization in the review

process. Moreover, the number of elements reviewed are extensive. This tends to weaken the

efficacy of the conservation district-style program, which is generally intended to present a

clear alternative to more rigorous historic preservation regulation. A positive aspect of

Cleveland’s program encourages contemporary design except where such design would clearly

detract from the architectural unity of a grouping of architecturally significant structures.

New Orleans, LA. Administered by a Neighborhood Conservation District Advisory

Committee of the City of New Orleans, the one NCD district here

focuses on advisory-only demolition review in areas that mostly

overlap with areas that are either recognized as National Register-

listed and local landmark designated. Since demolition is an

irreversible step and a primary focus for the New Orleans program,

the city perceives a need for careful review to ensure that

demolitions are not performed unnecessarily. In addition, New

Orleans has “full control” and “partial control” historic districts, the

distinction being that in the former, design guidelines are applied

to all aspects of a property application, while in the “partial control” districts only demolitions,

new construction, and demolition by neglect are regulated. Preservation advocates report

ongoing political pressure to eliminate review in conservation districts in certain areas because

of perceived administrative burden and delay. A separate cultural heritage preservation

enhancement in certain neighborhoods through Arts Districts is in place for the French Quarter,

Garden District, and Faubourg Marigny, among others, some of which are also designated as

Neighborhood Conservation Districts. Similarly, Cultural Products Districts in sixteen

neighborhoods, including the French Quarter, are another enhancement that are designed to

promote and enhance cultural heritage through tax incentives. These districts are rich in

African American historical and cultural resources, home to some of the city’s most famous

festivals and events, and rich in historical architecture.

6

Milwaukee, WI. Since 2004, Milwaukee’s

Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Zones have

provided residents with a way to preserve, protect,

and revitalize older areas or districts within the city

that have distinctive features or identities.

Milwaukee has a clear dividing line for

establishment of these zones, reserving them for

areas that would not be good candidates for historic

district regulation. Currently, Milwaukee has established three conservation overlay zones and

employs a hybrid form of determining their features, which involves a combination of historic

preservation, planning, and zoning. The ordinance does not offer clear guidance on its face

concerning whether historic preservation or planning staff has jurisdiction over proposed

changes, although in practice the historic commission ‘s review is triggered in only the one

conservation district that partially overlaps with a historic district. However, it appears that

guiding new construction of these zones is the primary goal, a common trait of many NCDs. In

addition, Milwaukee has a good track record of public outreach and engagement in developing

neighborhood-specific standards.

Baltimore, MD. Baltimore has not adopted typical

neighborhood conservation districts as defined in this

document, although it has a significant number of

historic resources, many National Register listed, and a

robust local preservation program with a strong track

record of innovative and successful historic rehabilitation

tax credit projects, using local, state, and national

incentives. Baltimore has also received national

recognition for its advisory design review process, one of the first urban design programs in the

nation (adopted 1964). The purpose of this program—administered by Baltimore City’s

Planning Department—is like those of many neighborhood conservation districts programs

insofar as it is intended to provide design review expertise in the areas of urban design,

architecture, and landscape design for all proposed master planning efforts and significant

development projects within the urban core. An Urban Design and Architecture Advisory Panel

makes recommendations to the Planning Commission, a perceived weakness of this approach.

In addition, the applicable ordinance is vague concerning when review is triggered, as well as its

extent. Neighborhood context is considered, however, as part of “schematic review,” but the

review process does not include objective guidelines. Review does include, among other

things, how new projects relate in scale to the surrounding context and to nearby historic

landmark properties. Finally, Baltimore enhances existing historic districts using Arts &

Entertainment District Overlays, a statewide program which provides tax incentives. The

Station North neighborhood, near Baltimore Penn Station, is a good example of an historic area

7

that has benefitted from Urban Design Review and Arts & Entertainment District overlay

enhancements.

Ordinance Adoption As stated previously the City of Detroit’s historic preservation ordinance, adopted in 1976,

allows for the creation of local historic districts. This ordinance is based on the 1970 Historic

Districts Act enabling legislation for the State of Michigan. The 1970 Act details the process for

historic district designation but does not provide for different levels of designation such as a

conservation district. For cities, such as Indianapolis, where conservation district designation is

based on the general preservation ordinance, conservation districts are treated as a special

category of historic district. As Michigan’s enabling legislation does not allow this flexibility, a

local ordinance would need to be adopted establishing the conservation district process,

method of designation, criteria, types of conservation districts and administration.

Subsequently specific conservation districts could be established underneath the general

ordinance, which would establish boundaries, design standards and provide connection to the

existing zoning code and land use plan. Finally, we would note that the City of Buffalo, NY,

adopted in 2017 a form-based code for the entire city, which makes neighborhood design

review contextual citywide. In addition, in 2017 the Planning Department in San Francisco, CA,

adopted Urban Design Guidelines for the city as a whole. San Francisco’s Guidelines are

intended to enhance unique neighborhoods and improving predictability and consistency of

review. These final two approaches, therefore, lessen the need for individual NCDs, although it

is too early to evaluate the success or failure of these innovative citywide approaches.

When beginning the process to designate a conservation district ordinance it is important to

establish outreach to residents

and the local community to

determine support for such a

designation. Various methods

for outreach can be used such

as public meetings, workshops,

surveys and electronic

communication. Additionally,

local ordinances can be

designed to require a specific

level of agreement of property

owners before designation of a

district. For example, the City of

St. Petersburg, Florida requires

66% of property owners in a

proposed district to vote “Yes”

before a historic district

application can be submitted.

Representation of NCD designation process

8

Alternatively, for a city such as Indianapolis, where the statute does not require owner consent or public

input other than public hearings, the Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission has added

supplemental steps to the statutory designation process to encourage public and commission

collaboration.

Prior to any public hearings, Indianapolis’ designation process includes two checkpoints for

public input in order to “measure public support” for exploring designation and the drafted

preservation plan. If adopting a process for measuring property owner and public support

these are some practices that could be considered:

(1) Form an exploratory committee of property owners, neighborhood leaders, etc.

(2) Hold educational workshops within the neighborhood (document attendance)

(3) Use petitions, surveys, and mail-in ballots to document owner and resident consent

Measuring and documenting public support during the designation process is important to

provide evidence if needed to future challenges to the district designation. This is also useful to

avoid the spread of miscommunication concerning the purpose of designation and openness of

the process. Furthermore, education and outreach efforts should continue following

designation as property ownership and tenants will continue to change in the future. In areas

experiencing economic and development pressures additional outreach should focus on real

estate agents and developers who are actively promoting the neighborhoods for investment.

The success of outreach and education prior to ordinance adoption will vary based on the city,

current issues and local government willingness. However, identifying external factors which

might hinder these efforts is important to allow the development of strategies to lessen

negative impacts which can jeopardize current and future conservation efforts.

Raleigh, North Carolina follows a similar process as Indianapolis for conservation district

designation. According to its process, city staff can initiate the designation process, but

traditionally has not. Instead it asks the neighborhood to make a request to the city council for

a Built Environment Character Study. The city council then directs staff to begin the process.

Property owner consent is not required by statute, but the Raleigh city council asks for >50%

signatures from the property owners. The process continues with completion of the study by

city staff, then neighborhood meetings are held to report the study. Based on the city staff

report and study the council then votes to adopt the area definition into the zoning code. The

Built Environment Character Study serves as the "design guidelines" for conservation district.

Currently, according the planning director, the designation process typically takes at least one

year to complete.

9

District Administration As previously stated, the City of Detroit desires to separate its conservation district process

from the existing historic preservation commission. As the current ordinance does not allow

the commission to provide review of alternate districts, it appears likely the City will need to

establish a separate review body for its conservation districts. Based on information provided

from the study cities, administration of conservation districts can be divided into the following

categories:

• Historic Preservation Commission

• Conservation District Commission

• Planning Commission

• Architectural – Urban Design Review Committee

• Hybrid Model4

• Zoning

The City of Detroit has expressed the desire to have neighborhood control of the conservation

district review process. Of the cities reviewed and included in this document, use of this type of

dispersed administrative process was not found. The standard method of operation appears to

be hosting the administrative process and review process within a department of the city

government. One benefit of this method is to help ensure consistent and fair administration,

thereby increasing public respect for the program and lowering litigation risk. Different

administrative and review process could be developed at the will of the City within their

conservation district ordinance. If this is implemented special attention should be given to

ensure neighborhood review board members receive education so that review of applications

and decisions follow the adopted design standards and zoning code. Assigned city staff should

be utilized to ensure designs meet all standards and the decision process follows the legal

statute, however staff capacity with be a consideration.

This is further necessary if the ordinance establishes the review board decisions as “binding”

which would allow legal challenges by applicants. An alternative, if neighborhood involvement

in the review process is desired, would be to allow a neighborhood board to offer a non-binding

“advisory” recommendation to the city’s conservation district commission.

The city of Raleigh, North Carolina uses a mixture of board and administrative review for its

conservation districts. The Raleigh Historic Development Commission serves as the review

board for all conservation districts within the city. This is a 10-member board appointed by the

city council with recommendations for new members from the commission. Members serves

3-year appointments and are eligible to reappoint for an additional term.

4 For this document, Hybrid Models are NCD examples which incorporate a combination of approaches, preservation and planning, and/or share administrative responsibility.

10

Of the three types of NCDs previously mentioned, in Raleigh review is based on various factors.

For general historic districts “major work” is reviewed by the Commission, while “minor work”

receives administrative review by planning staff. The Neighborhood Conservation Overlay

districts receive administrative review of applications by planning staff. This is done because

the regulations are a part of the regular zoning code and based on quantitative values (exp.

1500sq feet lot size allowed). For its newest conservation option, the Street-Side Conservation

District, applications are reviewed by the Commission. It is focused only on front facades and

their massing, scale and height.

The Raleigh model allows for flexibility within the city depending on the location and needs of

the conservation district areas. Currently the Street-Side Conservation District has become the

most popular option do to its regulation of front facades visible only from the street, allowing

no regulation of rear additions and decks. Similarly, according to Raleigh’s planning director,

the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District regulation is requested more from mid-century

aged neighborhoods where homeowner associations have lapsed, and property owners are not

comfortable with traditional historic districts.

Ultimately, it appears that offering designation options within the conservation district

ordinance could allow flexibility for implementation in different areas of the city based on the

property owner support and physical neighborhood characteristics.

Representation of review process using preservation or planning administrative models

11

Preservation Incentives Historic preservation incentives can serve to encourage investment in historic neighborhoods

and district while simultaneously accomplishing a community’s preservation goals. Examples of

preservation incentives that have been implemented throughout the country include:

• Property Tax Abatements - Substantial rehabilitation projects should qualify for tax abatements that are equal to or greater than the incentives offered for new construction. This can be achieved by reducing the building portion of a property’s assessed value to zero when performing a substantial building rehabilitation. The value of the abatement would then be more in line with that of a newly constructed building. This can help close the gap between the level of financial incentive given to historic rehabilitations compared to that of new construction. In Oregon, historic property owners can take advantage of its Special Assessment of Historic Property Program which allows for historic properties to receive 10 a year tax abatement.

• Revolving Loan Fund, Grants, and Technical Assistance Programs - Programs should be developed and enhanced to support homeowners in the repair and rehab of historic homes, while targeting neighborhoods in greatest need. Homeowner support programs can be implemented through public-private partnerships to share cost burdens.

• Neighborhood Opportunity Fund – This type of program can incentivize preservation in underserved neighborhoods by allowing developers in stronger markets to purchase additional floor area/density bonuses by paying into a fund for neighborhood preservation, such as the City of Chicago has done through their Neighborhood Opportunity Fund. This approach allows the City to allocate funds according to publicly-vetted priorities, capitalizing on development momentum in strong markets to extend the benefits of revitalization to neighborhoods where public financial support is needed to catalyze neighborhood development.

• Waiver of local taxes and permitting fees – Cities such as Boulder, Colorado and

Chicago, Illinois have implemented local assistance programs which allow for the

waiving of fees associated with historic rehabilitation and permitting. Programs such as

this can assist historic property owners completing both small and larger scale projects.

There are examples of standard incentive programs which have been successfully implemented.

However, new programs could be developed specific to Detroit dependent on local capacity

and available funding. To determine which incentives would be most effective, assessing the

needs of the community can aid in creating responsive programs. For example, some programs

incentivize new investment, while others seek to assist existing property owners. For areas

experiencing development pressures, incentive programs can be used to either discourage

displacement and the loss of affordable housing. When developing a plan for the creation of

conservation districts, a useful strategy is to include the development and announcement of

new incentive programs in the timeline to bolster public support.

12

Conclusion The National Trust’s study found that NCDs can be an effective tool to help cities and their

residents protect, preserve, and enhance unique neighborhoods—thus enhancing their

economic, social, and cultural performance. This research helps define a common

understanding of NCDs and offers a range of examples spanning from preservation models that

resemble traditional historic preservation ordinances to planning models designed to guide

future development only to hybrid models that combine aspects of historic preservation,

planning theory, and joint administration.

However, no one size fits all. Every NCD reflects a community’s values, governance structure,

state enabling laws, extent of outreach and education, and political compromises. Not every

NCD has been successful. Reasons offered are anecdotal, but common threads in successful

programs include (1) making sure NCDs offer a clear alternative to stricter forms of historic

preservation regulation; (2) developing guidelines with neighborhood participation and

acceptance; (3) a streamlined, flexible review process that is user-friendly; and (4) predictability

about outcomes through consistent application and enforcement. Whether the program

follows a preservation, planning, or hybrid model is not determinative. It is no surprise that

strong NCDs—and historic preservation programs—tend to thrive in communities with strong

leadership and engaged citizen groups who care deeply about enhancing the public realm. In

fact, the newest approach to protecting a city’s character involve ambitious city-wide

development codes, such as in Buffalo, or design guidelines that are context-based, such as

those in San Francisco. However, we recognize a citywide approach would be time-consuming

and impractical to achieve in the short run, thus leaving existing neighborhoods with no existing

protection at risk.

Once Detroit has decided on an approach after reviewing the models offered in the survey,

additional research for Detroit will help it calibrate more specifically individual components of

an NCD program, such as how neighborhood commissions interface with preservation and

planning officials, staffing needs, administrative cost, and workload. Consideration of these

factors once Detroit has determined the best direction for establishing NCDs will help

guarantee the success of any future program.

13

Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District Comparison Chart

City Created Type Total Districts

Administration Review Demo Review

Annapolis, MD

1990 Preservation 5 Planning Binding Yes

Atlanta, GA

1994 Hybrid 1 Hist. Pres Commission

Advisory Yes

Austin, TX

1998 Planning 6 Planning Advisory No

Baltimore

1964 Planning Citywide Urban Design & Architecture

Advisory Panel

Advisory No

Boise, ID

2001 Hybrid 6 Hist. Pres Commission or

Planning Commission

Binding Yes

Boston, MA

1975 Preservation 7 Conservation District

Commissions

Binding Yes

Buffalo, NY 2017 Planning Citywide Planning Binding No, unless “principal

building” or “major site

plan”

Cambridge, MA

1983 Preservation 4 Conservation District

Commissions

Binding or advisory

(determined by individual

neighborhood)

Yes

Charlottesville, VA

2017 Preservation 3 Hist. Pres Commission

Binding Yes

Cleveland, OH

Late 1990s

Planning 7 Design Review Adv Commission

Advisory Yes

Dallas, TX

1988 Preservation 18 Planning Binding Yes

Indianapolis, IN

1995 Hybrid 6 Hist. Pres Commission & Development Commission

Binding Yes

14

Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District Comparison Chart

City Created Type Total Districts

Administration Review Demo Review

Memphis, TN

1988 Preservation 4 Planning Binding Yes

Milwaukee, WI

2004 Hybrid 3 Hist. Pres Commission or

Planning (depends on

issue)

Binding No

Minneapolis, MN

2014 Preservation 0 Planning & Econ Development Commission

Binding Yes, but demolition is

allowed if new

construction meets design

guidelines

Omaha, NE 2013

Hybrid 3 Planning Advisory No

Nashville, TN

1985 Preservation 22 Hist. Dist. Commission

Binding Yes

New Orleans, LA

Mid-1990s; current version

2013

Zoning 1 Conservation District Adv Committee

Advisory Yes

Oklahoma City, OK

1981 Planning 4 Planning Binding Yes

Philadelphia, PA

2004 Planning 6 Planning Binding No

Phoenix, AZ

1978 Planning 11 Planning Binding No

Pittsburgh, PA

2013 Hybrid TBD TBD TBD TBD

Portland, OR

1978 Hybrid 6 Hist. Pres Commission

Binding Yes

Raleigh, NC

1988 Planning 19 Zoning Binding Yes

San Antonio, TX

2000 Planning 9 Planning Binding Yes

15

Neighborhood Conservation District Survey Annapolis, MD Purpose: Neighborhood Conservation District and the Office and Commercial Design Overlay District were created to preserve the small, intimate character and scale of residential and commercial areas in Eastport, an Annapolis community known for its working-class origins, modest, turn-of-the-century homes, and the juxtaposition of its residential heart and the working maritime and commercial area along the water’s edge.

Notes: Governed by design guidelines, building setbacks, scale and massing, and building height limits, with an emphasis on preserving the vernacular appearance of the community. Link: https://www.annapolis.gov/DocumentCenter/View/3234/Eastport-A-Guide-to-the-Design-Review-Process-PDF?bidId

Atlanta, GA Purpose: “Conservation Districts” are intended to help conserve the historic, architectural, and cultural significance of neighborhoods

Notes: Not working well because of advisory nature of review. Local historic preservation law already allows for tailoring and individual neighborhood guidelines and review in a way similar to NCS, so NCDs may be duplicative. Link: https://www.atlantaga.gov/government/departments/city-planning/office-of-design/urban-design-commission/designation-criteria#condis http://atlanta.elaws.us/code/coor_ptiii_pt16_ch20_sec16-20.007

Austin, TX Purpose: Neighborhood Conservation Combining Districts (NCCD) are intended purpose of an Neighborhood Conservation Combining (NCC) District is to establish development regulations for unique neighborhoods in order to preserve their traditional character while allowing for controlled growth to occur

Notes: Use and site development standards. Priority is urban core. NCCDs are sanctioned by the State of Texas. An NCC District clearly defines boundaries separating residential uses from commercial uses and sets standards for redevelopment that is compatible with the unique character of the neighborhood. Link: http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=293630 https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Planning/Applications_Forms/07_neighborhood_comb_app.pdf

16

Neighborhood Conservation District Survey

Baltimore, MD Purpose: Provide design review expertise in the areas of urban design, architecture, and landscape design for all proposed master planning efforts and significant development projects with the goal of achieving high quality designs for the planned and built environment of Baltimore City.

Notes: Not a traditional neighborhood conservation district, but an early model. Ordinance is vague concerning when review is triggered, as well as its extent. Neighborhood context considered as part of “schematic review,” but the review process does not include objective guidelines. Review does include, among other things, how new projects relate in scale to the surrounding context and to nearby historic landmark properties. Link: https://planning.baltimorecity.gov/commissions-review-panels/udaap https://planning.baltimorecity.gov/urban-design-architecture-advisory-panel-udaap/development-projects

Boise, ID Purpose: Conservation Overlay Districts, Design Overlay Districts, and Neighborhood Overlay Districts are designed to protect unique areas of the city from inappropriate development, usually applied to residential neighborhoods with certain identifiable attributes embodied in architecture, use, urban design, geography, or history.

Notes: New development must be compatible with existing architectural styles, height, massing, and uses. Materials and window sill depth aren’t regulated. Shared parking is encouraged to reduce the need for parking. New parking garages and new off-site parking lots are prohibited. Adaptive reuse also emphasized. Jurisdiction is confusing. Review process isn’t clearly spelled out. Link: https://pds.cityofboise.org/media/184600/boise_s_zoning_districts__web_version_.pdf

Boston, MA Purpose: Protect citywide historical, social, cultural, architectural, or aesthetic significance.

Notes: Activities regulated are the same as in historic districts, but greater latitude allowed. Applies only to changes visible from a public right of way. Secretary of the Interior Guidelines apply. Link: https://www.boston.gov/departments/landmarks-commission/designating-landmarks-boston

17

Neighborhood Conservation District Survey

Buffalo, NY Purpose: Promote the interest and welfare of the people through standards that address the orderly and compatible use of land, the relationship between building facades and the public realm, the form and mass of buildings in relation to one another, and the scale and type of blocks, thoroughfares, and open spaces.

Notes: Buffalo has unified its zoning districts through a uniform development ordinance known as the Green Code. The streamlined process serves the same purpose of conservation overlay districts in that all review is designed to be context-based. This would require unifying all zoning classifications versus creating a new zoning classification that can fit into Detroit’s existing ordinance. Link: http://www.buffalogreencode.com/documents/New_Directions_Tech_Report.pdf

Cambridge, MA Purpose: Preserve and protect buildings and areas significant to local history.

Notes: Similar to historic commission review, but more lenient in theory and based on individualized neighborhood standards. Guidelines are detailed and specific, similar to traditional historic districts in other communities. Link: https://www.cambridgema.gov/~/media/Files/historicalcommission/pdf/ncd_brochure.pdf?la=en

Charlottesville, VA Purpose: Charlottesville’s “Historic Conservation District” designation is intended to protect the character and scale of the more modest historic Charlottesville neighborhoods that are facing increased development and tear-downs. Modern construction is encouraged, if done thoughtfully in concert with older structures.

Notes: HCDs do not impose requirements on the current residents who may want to rehabilitate their homes. A Historic Conservation District is different from an Architectural Design Control (ADC) District in three main respects: (1) Unlike in an ADC District, where review is required of all exterior changes to existing buildings, in a Historic Conservation District no BAR approval is required for rehabilitations of an existing building, or for smaller additions and demolitions; (2) The Historic Conservation District guidelines have been greatly condensed and simplified; and (3) The residents of a Historic Conservation District help identify neighborhood features to be preserved. Link: http://www.charlottesville.org/departments-and-services/departments-h-z/neighborhood-development-services/historic-preservation-and-design-review/board-of-architectural-review-bar/historic-conservation-districts

18

Neighborhood Conservation District Survey

Cleveland, OH Purpose: Enhance the character and visual image of Cleveland's neighborhoods and downtown, by design review of certain proposals for construction, exterior alterations, building demolitions and signs. Date established: Late 1990s

Notes: Districts are called “Design Review Districts.” Planning Comm’n appoints members to the Advisory Committee, ordinance allows for 5-11 members. Administrative staff approval allowed if application receives Advisory committee recommendation or it meets standard set by ordinance. Link: http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/designreview/ordinance.shtml

Dallas, TX Purpose: Protect neighborhood character through review of architectural changes, densities of the area, heights of structures, and setback guidelines.

Notes: Similar to historic district review in many communities, but more lenient in theory and based on individualized, detailed neighborhood standards. Well-established system. Quick review process. Link: https://dallascityhall.com/departments/sustainabledevelopment/planning/Pages/Conservation-Districts.aspx

Indianapolis, IN Purpose: Conserve through guidelines the distinctive overall character of an area, including culture, heritage, history and community development by utilizing a unique blend of guidelines and through a lower level of regulation than that which is used in historic preservation districts.

Notes: If the area immediately contiguous to new construction does not offer adequate context to establish an appropriate new building height, the larger historic area context should be assessed. Indianapolis Historic Preservation Comm’n “requests the residents to get seventy-five percent of the property owners to sign in support of the conservation district; this is not required by the ordinance but is done in practice.” Link: http://www.indy.gov/eGov/City/DMD/IHPC/Districts/Conservation/Pages/home.aspx

Memphis, TN Purpose: To preserve the overall character and form of a neighborhood’s new construction, demolition, and habitable additions through regulation of building orientation and setbacks, parking and fencing, and outbuilding placement as defined by neighborhood guidelines. Focuses on publicly visible facades only. Doesn’t apply to other alterations.

Notes: Decisions made by Memphis Historic Landmarks Comm’n, but planning staff now administers the program following the abolition of preservation commission staff in 2017. Link: https://www.speakcdn.com/assets/1151/landmarkscommission.pdf

19

Neighborhood Conservation District Survey

Milwaukee, WI Purpose: Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Zones provide a vehicle to initiate and implement programs for the revitalization or conservation of older areas or districts possessing distinctive features, identity, or character worthy of retention and enhancement, but where traditional historic district may not be warranted or desired.

Notes: Guiding new construction is primary goal. Extensive public outreach and engagement used in developing neighborhood-specific standards. Link: https://city.milwaukee.gov/NC#.W_v5p9tKjcs https://library.municode.com/ne/omaha/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=OMMUCOCHGEORVOII_CH55ZO_ARTXIOVDI_S55-601NCNECOENDI

Minneapolis, MN Purpose: Conservation Districts are designed to maintain and enhance the visual character, land use, or activity evident in a community’s notable architectural detail, building type, or development pattern by regulating changes to those attributes and adopting design guidelines. As part of the city’s comprehensive program of historic preservation, it is the intent of this ordinance to promote the use and conservation of notable properties or districts for the education, inspiration, pleasure, and enrichment of its citizens and for the long-term sustainability and vitality of the city. Conservation districts are designed to not only maintain but also expand the roster of buildings, structures, and sites that contribute to the visual character and support the land use and activity of the district.

Notes: User-friendly form and checklists used to establish conservation districts. Criticized for limiting creation input to property owners, as opposed to residents (including renters). Link: http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/www/groups/public/@cped/documents/webcontent/wcms1p-147201.pdf

Omaha, NE Purpose: “Neighborhood Conservation/Enhancement Districts” are zoning overlays intended to help preserve unique pedestrian-oriented land use, urban design, and other distinctive characteristics of older established neighborhoods and commercial areas as well as to enhance more recently developed neighborhoods and commercial areas to implement the urban design element of the city's comprehensive plan.

Notes: Applies only to subdivisions recorded after 1960 (conservation) or 1961 (enhancement). Focuses on setbacks, service area screening, wall materials, green parking areas, ground level transparency. Review procedure is unclear. Another form of district overlay applies to “Areas of Civic Importance” to preserve building lines that relate to urban streets. Link: https://urbanplanning.cityofomaha.org/nce-plans/about

20

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4kdytrGf2PiekoybERlbmZzZzQ/view

Neighborhood Conservation District Survey

Nashville, TN Purpose: Protect through guidelines neighborhood architectural character by regulating the appearance of new construction, additions, changes, and proposed demolitions.

Notes: Applies to new construction, additions, relocation of structures, setbacks, and only those changes visible from a public right of way. Link: https://www.nashville.gov/Historical-Commission/Services/Preservation-Permits/Districts-and-Design-Guidelines.aspx

New Orleans, LA Purpose: Preserve character of the built environment by regulating proposed demolitions.

Notes: Demolition focused only. Ongoing political pressure to eliminate review in certain areas. Link: https://www.nola.gov/safety-and-permits/ncdac/

Oklahoma City, OK Purpose: Urban Design Overlay Districts intend to promote the health, safety, economic, cultural and general welfare of the public by encouraging the revitalization and enhancement of the urban environment.

Notes: Good outreach and user-friendly guide to moving through the regulatory review process located on website. Review of changes to property and structures includes demolition, new construction, reconstruction and exterior remodeling for properties within the Urban Design District and within the Downtown Design District's "Cottage District" area. The planning committee and staff also review signage and City projects such as street furnishings. Link: https://www.okc.gov/departments/planning/design-review-and-historic-preservation/urban-design-districts https://www.okc.gov/home/showdocument?id=4692

21

Neighborhood Conservation District Survey Philadelphia, PA Purpose: Protect residential neighborhoods’ form and streetscape, including setbacks, cornice lines, landscaping, and other visual qualities by application of neighborhood guidelines.

Notes: Not widely used. Applies design guidelines to new construction and alteration to existing structures. Limited to building facades only that are visible from public right of way. Initiated by neighbors or a community group with proof of interest by 30% affected property owners. Link: Chapter 14-504 of the Philadelphia Zoning Code includes detailed information on neighborhood conservation overlay districts and their application in Queen Village and Overbrook Farms.

Phoenix, AZ Purpose: “Special Conservation Districts” are designed to conserve unique qualities of neighborhoods and to accommodate nonresidential uses as determined through a planning process.

Notes: Applies to new construction (height, volume, setback). Neighborhoods self-select and work with Planning Dep’t to develop a plan usually in response to a perceived threat. Link: https://www.phoenix.gov/pddsite/Documents/PZ/pdd_pz_pdf_00428.pdf

Pittsburgh, PA Purpose: Protect a neighborhood’s unique character through zoning overlays that consider the relationship between place and architecture; the community’s demographics; as well as the neighborhood’s culture and environmental characteristics.

Notes: Ordinance passed in 2013 for the creation of “Historic Conservation Districts,” sometimes referred to as Neighborhood Conservation Districts. No districts yet designated; no board for review. City is requesting members for a Working Group to develop design guidelines and standards. Link: http://pittsburghpa.gov/dcp/projects/ncd/index.html

22

Neighborhood Conservation District Survey Portland, OR Purpose: “Conservation Districts” and “Plan Districts” are geographic areas that are significant at the neighborhood level and regulated with more flexible historic resource protections than historic districts. Plan Districts are also designed to encourage infill housing compatibility and affordable housing.

Notes: Designed initially to address blighted areas in anticipation of demolition pressure from development. Intended to apply to major alterations. Activities regulated in Conservation Districts are identical to those in Historic Districts, but given greater latitude. Difference between conservation and historic districts are reported to be confusing. Also, administrative burden has been identified as another problem. All of Portland’s existing conservation districts were created as a result of the 1992 Albina Community Plan. Link: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/133983

Raleigh, NC Purpose: Preserve and enhance the general quality and appearance of neighborhoods by regulating built environmental characteristics such as lot size, setbacks, building height, and vehicular surface area through neighborhood guidelines.

Notes: Well established and highly regarded program with successful track record. Strong popular support with good community outreach, support, and education. Link: https://www.raleighnc.gov/business/content/PlanDev/Articles/Zoning/CharacterPreservationOverlayDistricts.html

23

Neighborhood Conservation District Survey San Antonio, TX Purpose: Protect and preserve residential neighborhoods that are worthy of preservation and protection, but may lack sufficient historical, architectural or cultural significance at the present time to be designated as historic districts. “Neighborhood Conservation Districts” aim to preserve, protect, enhance, and perpetuate the value of these residential neighborhoods or commercial districts through the establishment of neighborhood conservation district. Other goals include: to protect and strengthen desirable and unique physical features, design characteristics, and recognized identity and charm; promote and provide for economic revitalization; protect and enhance the livability of the city; reduce conflict and prevent blighting caused by incompatible and insensitive development, and to promote new compatible development; stabilize property values; provide residents and property owners with a planning tool for future development; promote and retain affordable housing; encourage and strengthen civic pride; and ensure the harmonious, orderly and efficient growth and redevelopment of the city.

Notes: Quick review for new construction, demolition, additions, alterations. Neighborhood group with planning staff writes guidelines. Design standards must include building height, number of stories; building size, massing; principal elevation features; lot size, coverage; front and side setbacks; off-street parking and loading requirements; roof line and pitch; and paving, hardscape covering. Link: http://sanantonio-tx.elaws.us/code/undeco_artiii_div4_sec35-335