ited by regulation, and that use threatens a nuisance-like
harm to other property owners (based on 'background
principles" of the ~tate's property and nuisance law),
compensation is not required, even if the owner loses all
economic value, because the disputed use is not consid­
ered inherent in the property rights of the owner in the
first place.
Lucas has little direct relevance for historic preserva­
tion and downzoning because these land-use techniques
are rarely used to restrict nuisance-like property uses.
Nonetheless, the Lucas decision may indirectly result in
more takings claims-or at least threatened takings
claims-because of the perception that the Supreme
Court is growing more sympathetic to property owners.
At the same time, it is important to note that the Court
in Lucas reaffirmed the broad regulatory authority of
state and local governments, and acknowledg that
only on "rare" or "extraordinary" occasions does a
regulation actually deprive a property owner of all
economically viable usc. As a precaution, however,
lawyers are now advising local governments to include
a safety valve that allows for exceptions to the law in
any regulation that somehow limits the activity a
property owner may undertake on his or her property.
The safety valve may be a variance or special permit
procedure or an economic hardship provision in the
ordinance or statute.
SPOT ZONING
Spot zoning usually refers to the rezoning-to either
a more or less restrictive land-use classification than is
applied to the surrounding area-of a small area or a
specific parcel. The term generally carries a negative
connotation because it is implied that the rezoning is not
intended to satisfy a legitimate public purpose but,
instead, is a means of increasing economic benefits for
the owner of the property and is in di egard of plan­
ning principles (Ziegler 1990 and Rohan 1981 b).
Unlike districtwide rezonings, downzoning/spot
zoning a specific parcel is more closely scmtinized in the
courts. Downzoning can be particularly difficult in
preservation situations when one specific resource is
being protected in an area that is surrounded by newer
development 01 a completely different sort.
Downzoning can serve as a last ditch alternative, or it
can supplement landmark designation or demolition
moratoria. Any objection by a court is likely to be based
on "voiding the creation of "islands" of incompatible
development, historic or otherwise.
Planning and zoning commissions will generally use
the following criteria to judge whether a rezoning is
invalid or unconstitutional due to spot zoning:
The size and number of parcels;
Compatibility with surrounding uses;
Public benefit; and
Compliance with the comprehensive plan.
These are the same criteria a court would apply if a
rezoning were challenged.
HOW TO DO ZONE
D wnzoning may entail a comprehensive reclassifi­
cation of properties in a neighborhood or the rezoning
of an individual parcel. This report deals primarily with
large-scale downzonings. Depending on the circum­
stances, downzonings are either initiated by one or a
group of property owners, a neighborhood group with
an interest in the area, or the planning department.
In cases in which downzoning is a reflection of a new
planning policy, the impetus may have originated with
residents of the area, but it is planners who usher the
rezoning through the approval process. Citizens or
neighborhood groups interested in downzoning must
contact the planning and zoning department to get
assistance with their request.
Downzoning can be accomplished in several ways.
In undeveloped areas, it may mean increasing the
minimum lot size. In urbanized areas, it can be accom­
plished by decreasing the allowable density within a
given district (from medium- to low-density residential,
for example) or by changing the zone classification from
commercial to residential or industrial to commercial.
Administratively, there is no difference behveen
downzoning and any other type of rezoning or request
for change of the zoning ordinance and map. There are
three constitutional i u. (in addition to the takings issue)
that must be acknowledged by the local government
with regard to all rezonings. TI1ese issues are procedural
and substantive due process, and equal protection. Proce­
dural due process relates to whether the affected property
owner was given advance notice and opportunity to
comment on the rezoning, and whether the hearing was
fair. Substantive due process ensures that the proposed
downzoning erves a legitimate public purpose that is
supported in a comprehensive plan. Equal protection
provides that the affected property owners will receive
comparable treatment to others in similar situations and
that low-income groups are not being excluded from the
community as a result of the downzoning.
LEGISLATIVE V. QUASI-JUDICIAL ACTS
Some states view rezoning of small parcels of land as
quasi-judicial. This has several consequences; most
notably, the merits of the rezoning will be subject to
greater scrutiny than in a legislative setting. The
applicant V\rill be required to submit evidence and
establish a record that proves that the rezoning is
justified. States that treat rezonings this way include
Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Maryland, Montana,
Nevada, Oregon, and Washington (Ziegler 1990).
Even in these states, however, comprehensive
rezonings or rezonings of large areas are still viewed
as legislative acts. Courts tend to use three general
criteria in evaluating rezoning proposals (see, for
example, Rohan 1981 b and Ziegler 1990):
27
 The physical scope of the proposed zoning change. Is it a
large parcel or wil'l there be charges of spot zoniDg?
The impact of the proposed rezoning on the surround­
ing land uses and public facilities. Can the area
reasonably support the development that will come as
a result of the zoning change?
The depth and extent of the planning process that led to the
request for zoning change. Is the downzoning based on
sound planning principles? Will the change throw off
an otherwise balanced mix of land uses in the commu­
nity?
Many communities have adopted criteria for evaluat­
ing rezoning requests. Local ordinances elaborate on
the criteria that the zoning commission will use and
provide lists of considerations that might be included
when considering a zoning change. This helps to "level
the playing field" to assure rezoning applicants that
their case will be subject to the same criteria and level of
scrutiny as everyone elses. Pasco County, Rorida, list
16 considerations which, when applicable, will be taken
into account. A few of the questions that will have to be
answered are:
Does the zoning change lead to the crcation of an
California, Rorida, and New Mexico, among other
states, make large rezonings contingent on amendments
to the comprehe sive plan ("Criteria for Rezonings,"
Zoning News, March 1990). In states that do not man­
date comprehensive planning, an amendment to the
zoning ordinance is equivalent to an amendment to the
comprehensive plan. If a plan does exist but does not
accurately reflect what development has actually
occurred (and which large downzonings or rezonings
are planned), the comprehensive plan should be
amended to reflect the new policies and to lend legal
clout to the proposed rezonings.
Maryland and Mississippi use what is called the
"Change or Mistake" rule for rezonings. This requires
the rezoning applicant to show that there is a mistake in
the original zoning designation or that "a change in
circumstances subsequent to enactment of the original
classification justifies the rezoning" (Ziegler 1990).
There are many instances in which new community
goals not adequately articulated in earlier planning
polici and d ments or the zoning ordinance
constitute a "change in circumstances." Historic
preservation and affordable h using are two good
examples of this. It has only been within the last two

decades that the importance of protecting a

isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby

districts?
community's historic resources and the value of historic
preservation as an economic d velopment tool have
Will the downzoning adversely influence Living

been widely acknowl dged at the local level. By the

conditions in the neighborhood?

same token, affordable housing really reached a crisis

Does the change adversely affect property values in
point only in the 1980s. Communities are now routinely
adjacent areas?
addre sing these issues and others (e.g., homelessness
Is the resulting change out of scale with the needs of the and solid waste disposal) in their comprehensive plans.
neighborhood or the county? An implementation tool such as downzoning is simply
one the many mechanisms communities use to accom­
RELAnON TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN plish these objectives.
The importance of the comprehensive plan in
downzonings should not be underestimated. The CASE STUDIES
general requirement found in state zoning enabling Twenty communities responding to the APA survey
legislation is that zoning must be in accordance with a said they had used downzoning as a tool to protect
comprehensive plan. Although this rule applies to both historic resources or neighborhood character. We have
initial comprehensive zonings and to rezoning, most
challenges to downzoning occur when a property is
being rezoned (Ziegler 1990).
Most districtwide downzonings represent an effort to
make the zoning consistent with a new comprehensive
plan, a new planning policy of the city, or to revise
errors made in earlier plans. Courts look favorably
upon comprehensive amendments to the zoning
ordinance when they are tied to valid community goals,
such as affordable housing, historic preservation, and
stable property values.

Under New York City's comprehensive zoning amend­

ments, the excessive paving of front yards and elimination
of landscaping is prohibited. Off-street parking //lust now
be accommodated in the "side lot ribbon."

28
 Left: Prior to the citywide d07Ullzoning effort, zoning regulations ill New York City neighborhoods permitted structures much taller
and bulkier than what existed. The downzonillg restricts the bulk of new buildings by coul/ting all floor ai'ea (including attics) within a
building into the FAR. The purpose is to help neighborhoods retain their low-density character (right).
chosen to highlight three fairly divergent examples­
from the neighborhoods of New York City to down­
town Portland, Maine, to downtown Boston-to
illustrate the possibilities of the technique.
Contexualism in New York City
Arguably the largest downzoning in history was
undertaken in 1989 by the New York City Planning
Department. There had been widespread concern by
residents in the city's many low-density residential
areas about incompatible high-density infill develop­
ment and conversions of attics and garages to apart­
ments. Older houses were being tom down and
replaced with boxy rowhouses. In many areas, the new
development included curb cuts for driveways and
unattractive paved surfaces where one would normally
expect a front yard. The proliferation of curb cuts
severely reduced the availability of on-street parking in
the neighborhoods.
The general sentiment among the residents and
neighborhood groups was that a low-density neighbor­
hood embodies a certain character that was worth
preserving and that none of the new construction that
was occurring was compatible with existing develop­
ment. When the citizens put pressure on the planning
department to evaluate the situation, planners agreed
that there was a problem. But the department also
recognized that compromises would have to be made to
continue construction of some new housing to allow
affordable housing to be built (Hornick 1990).
The comprehensive zoning amendment changed the
regulations for development in the city's four existing
low-density zones, R3-1, R3-2, R-4, and R-5. In several
of the districts, the new zoning reduced the allowable
floor area ratio (FAR), thus eliminating the incentive to
tear down houses and build to the maximum density
(New York City, Department of City Planning, 1989).
The crafters of the new regulations sought to encour­
age development tha is contextual-that fits in with
what is around it-but not "cookie cutter." They
decided on a general height limit for roofs of 35 feet,
with perimeter waUs limited to 21 feet in height. These
restrictions create sloping roofs with varied apex points.
Setbacks are allowed to vary in an effort to make the
streetscape look int r sting. Houses that are built with
usable attic space are eligible for 20 percent more FAR,
thus encouraging sloped r fs.
The new regulations also created six additional low­
density zones to be used in neighborhoods where the
existing zoning is inappropriate or does not reflect what
is built there. These zones will have to be mapped
before they have any effect. The city is now in the
process of identifying neighborhoods that warrant the
extra protection the new districts can provide. As these
new district are proposed, they must go through the
land-use approval process, which requires community
board review and approval by the city plan commission
and the city council.
Reducing Building Heights in Portland, Maine
In 1987, Portland, Maine, began developing a new
downtown plan, the Downtown Vision, as part of the
city's overall revision of its comprehensive plan. A
major objective of the process, according to Philip
Meyer, the city's chief urban designer, was "to protect
what we had in terms of character while at the same
time encouraging growth and development," (Meyer,
telephone conversation, July 17, 1991).
At approximately the same time that the Downtown
Vision was under consideration, the city council was
ushering through Portland's first historic preservation
ordinance. A previous attempt to pass such an ordi­
29
nance was defeated by one vote in 1980, and the issue
lay dormant for most of the decade. In the late 1980s,
however, a number of k y historic buildings were
demolished, including several in the downtown. These
losses spurred interest in getting the ordinance passed,
and it won by a clear majority in the city council in
August 1990.
Despite the fact that the Downtown Vision was being
worked on at the same time as the historic preservation
ordinance, the plan did not include preservation as a
main objective. As Meyer put it, "We didn't want to
fight the preservation battle again in doing the plan, but
we were very careful to emphasize the need for a
sensitive response to our existing historic buildings."
To that end, a laundry list of urban design and
zoning policies were instituted that protect and enhance
the historic elements of downtown. Most importantly,
height limits were increased in some areas to con en­
trate density and were reduced in other areas to protect
views of historic districts and building and th water­
front. First, the previous citywide limit for buildings,
which was 125 feet, was increased to 210 f et on Con­
gress Street, the main thoroughfare through dmvntowl1.
In historic and waterfront districts, maximum heights
were limited to 65 feet. These changes in new height
limitations reinforce the historical form of the city, with
the tallest buildings creating a spine down the middle of
the peninsula and heights gradually decreasing to the
waterfront. As the plan states:
The height policy directs and encourages the most
intensive growth in the cme of the downtown where it
can be best acconunodated. Building height should be
moderated in the historic area and near the waterfront
where the impacts of large-scale new developmenl
would be detrimental.
Particular attention is paid in the Downtown Plan to
protecting views of "visual landmarks," which in
Portland include several churches, City Hall, and an
observatory. The plan stresses how important it is to
surround landmarks with structures of similar scale.
Landmarks must also be able to be "read against the
sky" and not dwarfed by neighbors.
The new height limits contained in the Downtown
Vision for Portland serve preservation two ways. First,
they reduce development pressure in historic districts
by decreasing the allowable density, thus eliminating
the incentive to demolish and build larger buildings.
Second, they enhance the visibility and attention paid to
other individual landmarks by protecting views of
landmarks and view corridors to the waterfront.
Interim Downzoning in Boston
Most property reclassifications that result in
downzoning are meant to be permanent. In some cases,
however, downzoning can be used on an interim basis
to decrease development pressure on a specified area
until there can be a detailed analysis of what is appro­
30
priate in the long-term. In the case of Boston, the height
limits in the downtown were significantly reduced
under the Interim Planning Overlay District plan.
Although it was initially billed as an interim ordinance,
the primary objective was to get protective controls in
place to give the city some time to complete a perma­
nent revision of its downtown zoning ordinance (Collins
et al. 1991).
In 1987, the Boston Redevelopment Authority
adopted the Interim Planning Overlay District (IPOD)
ordinance, which imposed significant height restrictions
across the city for two years. The interim controls were
necessary to protect the quality of the historic down­
town from the effect of unbridled growth. The ordi­
nance established four types of districts-priority
preservation, restricted growth, medium growth, and
economic development.
Each district has a different range of allowable
heights within it. The restrictions were based on the
character of the buildings and the current land uses in
the clistricts. The h ight limits range from 40 feet with
FARs of 2:1 in the priority preservation districts to 300
feet with FARs of 14:1 in the economic development
districts.
AU the IPODs, except the priority preservation
district, have bonus provisions for developers to secure
more height and density for their projects. To be
allowed more density, developers must prove that the
project is compatible with the surrounding structures
and that the public benefits outweigh any burdens being
imposed. Special design review requirements apply in
the economic development districts for projects request­
ing more density or height. Developers must also
provide child care facilities for the employees of the
proposed building.
In order to lL her through major development
projects that 'were already in the works, certain pockets
within each lrOD ,vere set aside for planned unit
developments. Building heights in the rUDs cannot
exceed 400 feet. Both this concession and the density
bonus provisions were seen as a key factors in getting
the development community to support the entire lrOD
process.
According to many, the success of the IPOD process
was due to the willingness of the Boston Redevelop­
ment Authority to involve developers in the planning
process. Although some argue that the new height
limits still allow too much density, most preservationists
and planners are satisfied with the result of the
multiyear downzoning process.
Although the examples offered here are from big
cities, downzoning is a relatively simple technique that
can be used almost anywhere--including small tmvns
and neighborhoods. In fact, several of the examples of
conservation districts offered in Chapter 2 of this report
use downzoning to accomplish the objectives of the
districts.
 Chapter 4. Preservation and t e
Comprehensive Plan
Comprehensive plans represent the only format
unified overview of the quality of life in a community.
They are a status report on how a community is
performing in the way of providing affordable
housing, safe transportation systems, job growth,
economic development, and a clean environment,
among other indicators. Each of these issues is
typically addressed in an element of the plan. They
also provide a forum for setting goals about what the
community "vants to be in th future.
A municipality's authority to do comprehensive
planning comes from state planning and zoning
enabling legislation. Comprehensive plans are a
declaration of policy and intent of a local government,
and, in some states (e.g. Florida and Oregon), they
have the power of law. Even when comprehensive
plans are only advisory, courts have historically
supported the land-use and zoning decisions that
were articulated in them.
Historic preservation is an important element in
establishing a community's character and its residents'
quality of life. A preservation program provides a
historical context for future planning and land-use
policies, especially as these policies affect urban design.
Older neighborhoods and buildings help determine
what style and scale of future development is appropri­
ate. Using past architectural styles and a historical
urban form as a benchmark, historic preservation gives
community residents a connection to the history of their
home, neighborhood, city, and region. This "sense of
place" fosters pride and gives people a greater incentive
to remain active in the community as citizens, neigh­
bors, and property owners.
TYPES OF LOCAL PRESERVATION PLANS
Communities with a strong policy commitment to
preservation will, as a matter of course, include
preservation concerns in several other elements of
their comprehensive plan. Some communities, given
adequate staff time and a policy commitment (or
where required by state law), break out the elements
of the plan into separate documents. These docu­
ments an: produced by staff, task forces, or steering
committees with expertise in that policy area. Local
historic preservation plans, ill fact, are often a detailed
off-shoot of an clement in the community's compre­
lwnsive plan. Kane County, Illinois, for example,
recently published a historic preservation plan that
was developed as a component of the its new compre­
hensive plan.
Kane County's plan is a good response to a common
challenge for county preservation programs. The
county's jurisdiction contains three types of settlement
patterns: urban fringe areas, a handful of rural villages,
and agriculhlrallands. The plan has specific goals and
objectives to address the differing historic preservation
concerns confronting each geographical area.
For example, the goal for the suburbanizing and
urban fringe areas is "to maintain the elements of the
landscape that contribute to its attractiveness and
historical character." The objectives then list ways in
which this can be accomplished. One of these is to
"retain existing buildings, including barns and
creameries, by facilitating their reuse in ways appro­
priate to their new environments." The goal for the
rural villages is to "maintain the historic character [of
the villages] while encouraging their development as
commercial and cultural centers." Two of the seven
objectives put forth to achieve this are to "permit new
construction in village centers that is compatible in
design and placement with existing structures" and to
"separate the historic village from surrounding new
development through the use of open space and
landscaping" (Kane County 1989).
Communities may also develop specific historic
preservation plans, such as neighborhood, historic
district, or resource-based plans that prescribe a
detailed strategy for a specific area. Some of these
plans and studies are funded through the Certified
Local Governments (CLG) program of the National
Park Service, if the city has received that distinction.
A 1990 survey by the National Park Service of State
Historic Preservation Officers indicated that 13
percent of CLG grants to local governments went to
the development of preservation plans (Morris 1990).
Most communities that have locally designated
districts or districts listed in the National Register of
Historic Places have published an inventory of
existing resources with detailed design guidelines for
new construction and alterations. Although these
documents are often referred to as plans, they do not
contain policies and recommendations. Instead, their
purposes are to educate the public on the history of
the district, inform property owners what property
alterations are acceptable according to local ordi­
nances, and enable the local historic commission to
administer the historic preservation ordinance.
Other preservation plans go several steps further to
outline strategies for expanding the district and
identify problems or conflicts within the districts.
31

Eugene, Oregon, for example, did a specific plan for
its West University Neighborhood. Th purpose was
to develup effective methods for id tifying and
resolving c nflicts between new buildings and the
neighborhood's historic properties ( ity of Eugene
1990). Identifying such conflicts is an integral part of
the state of Oregon's preservation requirements for
communities. (More details on the state program can
be found below.)
Eugene's West University eighborhood plan does
contain an inventory of historic resources in the area.
The inventory ranks the properties according to their
architectural and historical significance. The catego­
ries used to assign significance--Primary, Secondary,
Contributing, and Noncontributing-are those used
throughout the preservation field. The survey
information is part of the basis for the plan's recom­
mendations. One of these recommendations points to
certain areas of the neighborhood that have enough
structures of primary and secondary significance to
be nominated as ational Register historic or locally
designated conservation districts.
It is important to note that great care should be taken
in developing criteria for determining rank in an
inventory. Criteria should include subjective elements.
Also, it must be recognized that criteria and evaluation
methods change over the years-including those used
to measure what is aesthetically significant or of value.
WHAT PRESERVAnON GAINS IN THE
PLANNING PROCESS
Comprehensive planning serves a number of
purposes that can help to advance preservation
values and concerns. As mentioned above, preparing
Retaining aspects of Kane County's agricultural heritaxe
in /lew development, StIch as keeping farmsteads in new
subdivisions (above, in the background; and right) is a
goal of the county's historic preservation plan.
32
a comprehensive plan can bring historic preservation
concerns to the forefront of local public policy when
preservation is used to help meet the goals of each
plan element. For example, the housing element of a
comprehensive plan contains analyses of existing
housing stock and describes what community hous­
ing needs are not being met. There are several com­
mon solutions to housing problems that involve
preservation. Rather than just planning for the
construction of new housing to meet shortages, a
preservation-minded plan encourages rehabilitation.
One goa[ outlined in the Asheville, North Carolina,
comprehensive plant for example, is to "promote the
conservation of Asheville's older housing stock by
developing new tools and creative programs to assist
with rehabilitation efforts." The implementation
portion of the plan stipulates that money from the
capital improvements program will be allocated to
assist in developing rehab programs.
omprehensive plans also contain clearly defined
strategies for implementing goals and policies. The
Atlanta preservation plan sees the implementation
portion of the plan as "necessary to define what tasks
need to be accomplished, who will accomplish them,
and when they need to be accomplished." This is not
just rhetoric. The plan include details on the imple­
mentation process, tasks, responsibilities, and time frame.
The process refers to the individuals (in this case, the
city's zoning administrator and the executive director
of the urban design commission) who will implement
the program on a day-to-day basis and the groups
that will support them. The list of eight specific tasks
includes: Meet with the city attorney to establish
logistics and appropriate procedures for implementa­
tion; and Work to obtain passage of ordinances and
enabling legislation as well as proposed increases in
city staff allocation to support preservation activities.
The responsibilities section delegates which groups,
departments, and others are charged with each of the
eight tasks, and the time frame section specifies the

 As recommended in its historic preservation plan, the city

of Atlanta is analyzing how existing zoning classifications
and floor area ratios in the downtown affect preservation
efforts. Shown here, tire historic Carnegie Building with the
Peachtree Westin Hotel as {/ backdrop.

months in which each task is to be completed (Atlanta

Comprehensive Development Plan 1991).
Finally, plans offer a forum for inter- and
intragovernmental cooperation. The Kane County,
lllinois, preservation plant for example, acknowledges
that municipal annexation of previously unincor­
porated land can result in the loss of protected status
of historic sites and districts iff in fact, the annexing
municipality does not have a historic pr s rvation
ordinance. The plan encourages formal agreements
between the county and its municipalities to "recog­
nize one anothers' landmarks and afford them
appropriate protection."
Atlanta/s comprehensive historic preservation
program contains implementation strategies to
coordinate the objectives of the program with those of
the comprehensive plant the community development
department, and other agencies whose programs
affect preservation. The following actions are recom­
mended for coordinating historic preservation with ing a built-in framework for incorporating preserva­
the comprehensive plan: tion ideals into the comprehensive plan. Six of the
eight states that mandate local planning (Florida,
Incorporate the provisions of the preservation
Delaware, Rhode Island, Georgia, Maine, and Ver­
program into the city's comprehensive plan;
mont) require that those plans provide for the protec­
Build cooperative working relationships between the
tion of historic and cultural resources; the two other
urban design commission and the department of states with mandated planning, New Jersey and
community development in designating and protect­ Washington, recommend that preservation planning
ing historic resources; be done. The implications of three of these programs
are discussed here.
Examine the implications of existing zoning classifica­
tions and FARs on preservation in neighborhoods, the
central area, and the Peachtree corridor. Florida: Incorporating Preservation Values
in Plan Elements
There are very specific recommendations for Rorida has both a state comprehensive plan and
adding preservation programs to community devel­ mandates planning at the local level. The state plan
opment programs: includes preservation values in one of its 25 goals and in
the policies of seve.ral other goals. The law requires that
The urban design commission should work with local governments plan for preservation of historic
Easements Atlanta to expand and market the facade resources. Specificany, preservation values must be
easement program; addressed in the communitys future land-use, housing,
The business improvement loan fund and the housing and coastal zone management elements or in a separate
rehabilitation program should be applied to preserva­ preservation element. For example, under the future
tion; land-use element, historic district boundaries must be
The tax abatement system used for the housing mapped, and historic properties meriting protection
enterprise zone program should be applied to historic must be identified. The housing element requires
multifamily structures; and identification of historically significant housing for the
City offices should be located in historic buildings
purposes of conservation, rehabilitation, and replace­
when possible.
ment. The coastal zone management element contains
policies that guide redevelopment and historic preserva­
STATE MANDATES FOR tion near the coast.
PRESERVATION PLANNING County and municipal plans may also include
States with growth management laws are provid­ historic preservation in their overarching goals. One

33
such goal in the Broward County, Florida, compre­
hensivC' plan is to "protect Broward County's natural
and historic resources through well-planned patterns
of growth and development" (13roward County
Comprehensive Plan 1990). This goal has 10 underly­
ing objectives, one of which is to "protect histuric
resources within Broward County from deterioratiun
and loss." Five specific directiv s are set forth to
reach this objective:
The Broward County Land-Usc Plan and local land­
usc plans shall map and maintain a current list of
historically, architecturally, and archaeologically
significant properties, and address the protection of
these historic resources;
Local land-use plans shall ensure the protection of
historic resources;
Local government entities with historic resources
should implement programs that preserve and/or
rehabilitate historic resources through techniques
such as historic preservation ordinances, building
code provisions, and tax incentives;
Local government entities shall coordinate their
historic resource protection with applicable state and
federal laws; and
Broward County and its local government entities
shall consider the impacts of land-use plan amend­
ments on historic resources.
Oregon: Identify Threats to Historic Resources.
The local historic preservation planning require­
ment in Oregon's land-use planning law goes several
steps further than other states'. A comprehensive
plan must examine conflicts that may result in the
alteration or demolition of historic resources. The
examination process includes a review of applicable
plans and policies, existing zoning, planned public
and private improvements, the condition of the
historic resource, and other local factors. Typical
conHicts unveiled in this process include current
threats (e.g., historic buildings in an advanced state of
disrepair) and future threats (e.g., street widening,
subdivisions, freeway extensions).
If there is a potential conflict, the community must
determine how likely it is that the conflict will occur.
The city of Eugene, for example, examined the ratio of
the value of historic buildings to the value of the lots
on which they sit. When a building's value was lower
than the land it was on, properties were considered to
be likely candidates for demolition. The city also
looked at the land values of areas containing historic
resources and compared those values to surrounding
land values. This analysis revealed that a large
number of historic properties were situated on land
that was valued lower than the surrounding parcels.
Historic properties in those situations were consid­
ered to be threatened with demolition due to redevel­
opment pressure.
34
The next step Oregon communities must undertake
is to analyze the economic, social, environmental, and
energy (ESEE) cons quences of allowing conflicting
land uses. These ESEE analyses consider the public
consequences-not those faced by individual prop­
erty owners. The results of the analysis are used to
decide how to proceed. The choices are: to design a
program to protect the threatened resource; to design
a program tha t balances protection of the resource
while allowing the conflicting use; or, finally, to allow
the conflicting use and let the resource go.
Interspersed throughout this process are commu­
nity workshops-not just public hearings-to help
determine the value of the resource to the community.
The results of the entire process-identifying re­
sources and scenarios to protect them, balancing their
protection with other uses, or leaving protection up to
the property owner-become part of the community's
comprehensive plan.
Rhode Island: Implementation Is the Key
The Rhode Island Compreh nsive Planning and
Land-Use Regulation Act of 1988 requires communi­
ties to include a natural and cultural resources
element in their comprehensivE' plan and tie it to an
implementation program. The implementation
program-for all elements, not just preservation­
defines the specific public actions to be undertaken to
achieve the goals of the element. It also contains a
schedule for these actions.
The preservation requirement is straightforward:
"The element shall include policies for the protection
of the historic and cultural resources of the municipal­
ity and the state." These policies and implementation
techniques must be identified and included in the
implementation program.
The plan piaces particular emphasis on the impact
of new develupment on the rural historic areas that
surround the jurisdiction and historic districts in a
town. It suggests an open space acquisition program
to help create a buffer between urban, suburban, and
rural zones, with the ultimate goal of preventing
sprawl into the surrounding countryside. Although
the state of Rhode Island does not specifically require
municipalities to draw urban growth boundaries, the
policy in place does indeed advocate a physical limit
to new development.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND URBAN
GROWTH BOUNDARIES
Six of the eight states with growth management
laws, and selected communities in other states (e.g.,
Lexington and Georgetown, Kentucky, Boulder,
Colorado, and Minneapolis-St. Paul), are using urban
growth boundaries as a means to balance local
growth and control sprawl. These boundaries are
also commonly referred to as urban limit lines or
urban service areas. The buundary consists of a
mapped line that identifies the outermost limit of a
city's planned expansion. Urban services (streets,
water, sewers, etc.) are provided only within the
boundary. The technique is d signed to encourage
compact urban development in and around existing
urban areas in a way that uses land and public
services efficiently and economically. It also serves to
protect the rural and agricultural areas that surround
cities from development.
In Oregon, the state that pioneered the technique in
the mid-1970s, a city's urban grm·vth boundary must
contain a 20-year supply of land zoned to accommodate
housing, commercial, and industrial development, and
the infrastructure necessary to support it. Outside the
boundaries, land is zoned exclusively for agricultural
and forest lands. Cities are required to reach agreement!
with ti1eir county on where the boundary is set.
Urban growth boundaries are not effective unless
they are integrated into the compreh nsive plan,
development review process, and zoning ordinance.
In the state of Washington's growth management law,
growth boundaries are a required element of the local
comprehensive plan.
The comprehensive plan contains the demographic
..............:
Boulder's urban growth boulldary
necessitatfd the adoption of in/ill
development policies and guidelines
to protrct the charactrr of t17r city's
.. :... :
neighborhoods and collln1rrcial areas.
. .
data and background studies that support a local
government's decisions about the location and
volume of land necessary to support all possible uses
in a given time frame. For example, the housing
element of a community with a 20-year growth
boundary would contain housing needs projections
for that period of time, includiGg the amount, type,
density, and location of development. The goals and
policies in each element of the comprehensive plan
are used to evaluate proposals for development
withh1 the boundary.
Zoning controls are an integral part of developing
the boundary. Often minimum lot sizes must be
increased outside the boundary to ensure that they
remain agricultural and forested lands. Within the
boundary, it is sometimes necessary to increase the
allowable densities to encourage certain types of
development and to promote compact development.
Using urban growth boundaries as a growth
management technique can have an impact on the
protection of historic resources. The boundaries can
be used as a tool to encourage revitalization and
redevelopment of existing neighborhoods and
downtowns. A key element of keeping a historic
'. 1 muc
'.
' .
.....
Area 1
Area 2A
Area 2B
o Area 3
35
neighborhood or commercial area viable is that it
must be used. By discouraging exurbanization, urban
growth boundaries can serve to steer development
into older historic areas and established neighbor­
hoods. This redevelopment, however, must be
guided by design controls to make both rehabilita­
tions and infill development compatible and contex­
tual with the urban fabric and historical development
patterns of the community.
The effects of urban growth boundaries on estab­
lished urban areas are not always 01 asurable in the
short term. Lexington-Fayette County, Kentucky, for
example, drew its first 20-year urban limit line in
1958. The purpose of the limit line was to protect the
scenic horse farms and agricultural areas that sur­
round the city. The goal of protecting these areas is
shared by planners, developers, and citizens. Horse
farms are what Lexington is known for and what
makes it a unique part of the country. The original
urban service area was analyzed and redrawn during
the 1980 comprehensive plan process. During the
most recent comprehensive plan update in 1988, it
was determined tha t the land identified in the 1980
urban service area is generally adequate to meet the
area's development needs until 2005.
Lexington-Fayette County planning director Dale
Thoma reports that, as of January 1992, only 500 acres
out of the 12,000 to 14,000 developabl acres within
the boundary had been developed (Thoma, telephone
conversation, February 20, 1992). Given the amount
of land still available, the boundary has yet to create
significant development pressure in established
neighborhoods. However, the community r assesses
the growth boundary every f w years to determine if
there is ample developable land for residential,
commercial, and industrial uses. Thoma projects that
developers' willingness to build only within the
boundary will wane as the remaining acreage within
the 20-year boundary is developed.
Thoma also points to the acceptability of certain types
of infill development in Lexington as an operative factor
in how well a growth boundary may work. He says "a
group of townhomes in a single-family neighborhood is
about the most radical thing you might get." In other
words, a policy to encourage infill development must be
sensitive to the political environment of the community
and the residents' willingness to accept higher densities
than already exist.
A 1991 analysis of urban growth boundary systems
in Oregon indicated that communities had allocated
too much land for future development within the
boundary to make it an effective growth management
tool. The biggest problem, in fact, has been spraWl
within the boundary. Consequently, the urban
growth boundaries in that state have not created a
demand for infill or redevelopment in older urban
neighborhoods and historic areas within the city
(Greenleaf and Kelly 1991).
36
On the other hand, the Boulder, Colorado, phased
development system-its version of an urban growth
boundary-has had measurable effects on historic
preservation and infill development since its incep­
tion in the city's 1978 comprehensive plan. Within the
city's jurisdiction, lands are designated as Area 1, 2,
or 3. Area 1 is alread y developed, Area 2 is urban
reserve (i.e., it is designated for future annexation and
development), and Area 3 is open space. The city
only approves development in areas where the full
range of urban services already exist-that is, Area 1.
The result is that most new development has occurred
inside the city limits.
This "confined development" has brought the
adoption of infill policies and design guidelines for
commercial and residential areas. One unique mecha­
nism in place is the "house behind a house" ordi­
nance. It allows single-family lots to be subdivided to
add a second house behind the principle house.
Allowing homeowners to build the second unit
prevents conversions of historic houses to rooming
houses-an obvious temptation in a town with a
22,000-student university. More than 100 second
houses, or alley houses, ha ve been built under the
ordinance. All were subject to design review guide­
lines to ensure that they are compatible with the
neighborhood (McGeyser, telephone conversation,
January 10, 1992).
Not every neighborhood has been amenable to this
style of infil!. According to Ruth McGeyser, the city's
historic preservation planner, a number of neighbor­
hoods have been downzoned at the request of the
residents to prevent neighbors from subdividing their
lots.
Since the adoption of the 1978 comprehensive plan,
the city has strongly encouraged all large-scale retail
development to be built in the center of town. In
1979, the city extended an urban renewal district to
help the Crossroads Mall (which is less than a mile
from downtown) to expand to become a regional
shopping center. Conversely, this policy has meant
turning down proposals for outlying shopping
centers.
AU new development within downtown Boulder­
in both the historic district and the surrounding
area-is subject to fairly stringent design guidelines.
The purpose of the guidelines for new construction in
the historic district is to "achieve compatibility with
the surroundings." For the nonhistoric areas, the
design guidelines reinforce the downtown as a
pedestrian-oriented environment by "encouraging
architectural solutions that are interesting in their
designs and that will house interesting activities."
These solutions include recommendations to provide
direct access from the street to retail shops, to ensure
easy visibility from the sidewalks into stores and to
permit sidewalk cafes. These provisions are added to
the typical requirements for compatibility between
new and old buildings with respect to height, mass­
ing, scale, and uniformity among architectural
features, such as aligning cornices and similar win­
dow configurations.
PLANNING AHEAD WITH URBAN
GROWTH BOUNDARIES
Urban growth boundaries can also serve as an
impetus for protecting historic resources on both
sides of the boundary that are not yet subject to
development pressure. Just as environmentalists can
alert planners as to the location of sensitive lands like
wetlands and floodplains, historic preservation offices
can provide maps and inventories of historic sites,
landscapes, and archaeology. In the environmental
realm, this is known as advanced identification-that
is, targeting sites, neighborhoods, or open land for
regulatory protection before it is threatened by
development. A caveat is in order here with regard to
publicly identifying historic and archaeological sites.
These resources should only be mapped in general
terms. Site specific loca tions of archaeological sites
should not be made publicly available and should be
given to developers judiciously. To specify the exact
location of the sites will only put them at risk when
the maps and plans are distributed to a wide audi­
ence.
The increasing use of urban growth boundaries
and their support by preservationists points to some
interesting trends. First, they represent the melding
of planning and preservation ideals. A basic tenet of
the urban growth boundary concept is the contain­
ment of development and the prevention of exurban
sprawl. This serves planning ideals by keeping urban
areas vital and protecting agricultural and environ­
mentally sensitive lands. It serves preservation ideals
by encouraging the continued use of historic build­
ings rather than their abandonment to sprawl.
The challenge planners and preservationists face
together is to encourage new infill and adaptive reuse
and rehabilitation of older buildings that complement
historic development patterns while maintaining a
regulatory environment that is receptive to economic
development. Creating a balance--in terms of
appropriate design, types of uses, and quality­
between new development and existing development
is something that conservation district ordinances
have successfully addressed. Such districts might be
very effective preservation tools in areas that use
urban growth boundaries. A detailed discussion of
how conservation districts work is contained in a
Chapter 2.
STATE AND FEDERAL
PRESERVAnON PLANNING
The federal government has also mandated all state
historic preservation offices to prepare and implement a
comprehensive statewide historic preservation plan.
Because the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
did not explicitly articulate what the plan is to entail,
many SHPOs have presented detailed inventories (also
known as historic contexts) of their states' historic
resources as their comprehensive plan. Other more
progressive states have adopted plans that include
inventories but also contain proactive strategies for
achieving preservation goals through better coordina­
tion with other agencies, increasing the role of the
public, and developing an overall vision for preserva­
tion in their states.
Moreoever, in the last several years, the National
Park Service, which oversees the activities of the SHPOs,
has been developing new planning requirements for the
states. In the future, SHPOs will be required to produce
plans that provide an assessment of current important
issues facing preservation, establish goals and objectives
that provide a vision for the state (and for the SHPOs'
work program), and that are developed with the input
of outside agencies and professionals. The National
Park Service believes that enhanced planning activity at
the state level will help the SHPOs better serve local
planners and preservationists by providing much­
needed technical assistance as well as a stronger voice in
the state legislature.
In the last decade, preservation concerns and values
have found their way into the comprehensive plan and
the overall planning process. Too often, preservationists
and planners have viewed each other as obstructionists
who really do not understand one another's purpose or
motivation. Today, many communities are recognizing
the value of preservation from both a design and
economic development point of view. Increasingly,
municipalities are including a preservation element in
their comprehensive plans or, at a minimum, incorpo­
rating preservation techniques into other standard
elements of the plan, including housing and urban
design. A 1991 review of 300 comprehensive plans by
the Planning Advisory Service of APA's Research
Department indicated that almost half of these have a
preservation element or have incorporated preservation
into other elements. This suggests that planners are
looking at preservation as part of the planning solution,
rather than a problem to be dealt with. State-mandated
planning laws have been instrumental in making this a
reality.
37
 REFERENCES
Books, Reports, Memos, Interviews, and Technical Papers
Abilene Historic Landmarks, City of Abilene, Texas, Planning
Deparment, July 1990.
Abrigg, Larry. Planner, City of Abilene, telephone conversa­
tion, October 21, 1991.
Argesinger, Floyd. "Governor Requests Review of State's
Historic Property Tax Exemption Benefit." Preservation
Washington. Office of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation. August 1991.
Atlanta Comprehensive Historic Preservation Program, August
1988. Prepared with the assistance of the Southeast
Negotiation Network, Georgia Institute of Technology,
and Institute for Environmental Negotiation, Univer­
sity of Virginia.
Austin, Kay. Local Preservation Programs Officer, Washing­
ton State Office of Archaeology and Preservation,
telephone conversation, October 10, 1991.
Bagne, Conrad E. "A Case for Downzoning: The Right to
Reevaluate Districts." Proceedings of the 12th Annual
Institute of Zoning and Planning, June 1975.
Beaumont, Constance E. "Local Incentives for Historic
Preservation." Fact Sheet. National Trust for Historic
Preservation, May 1991.
_ _ _--'. "Preservation Planning and Growth Manage­
ment: Innovations from New England." Preservation
Law Reporter, 7 PLR 1018, 1988 Annual.
_ _ _-----'. "State Tax Incentives for Historic Preservation:
A National Overview." Historic Preservation Forum
(Marchi April 1991).
Blaesser, Brian, and Alan Weinstein. Land Use and the
Constitution. Chicago: Planners Press, 1989.
Chittenden, Betty. "Tax Incentives for Rehabilitating Historic
Buildings: Fiscal 1986 Analysis." Preservation Assistance
Division, National Park Service, February 1987.
Collins, Richard c., A. Bruce Dotson, and Elizabeth B.
Waters. America's Downtowns: Growth, Politics, and
Preservation. Washington, D.C.: Preservation Press,
1991.
"Criteria for Rezonings." Zoning News, March 1990.
Conservation Zoning: Protecting Nashville's Architectuml
Heritage. Nashville Metropolitan Historic Zoning
Commission, 1989. (brochure)
Corpuz, Ray. "Historic Districts vs. Conservation Districts,"
staff memo from cultural resources manager to the city
manager. Tacoma, Washington, March 6,1991.
Dennison, Shain, Executive Director, Metropolitan [Nash­
ville] Historic Zoning Commission, telephone conver­
sations, May 2,1991.
Oowntown Height Study. Portland, Maine, Policy Report.
Carr, lynch, Hack amd Sandell, consultants. February
1989.
Oowntown Vision: A Celebration of Urban Living and a Plan for
the Future of Portland. (A component of the comprehen­
sive plan for the city of Portland, Maine.) March 1991.
Easley, Gail. Principal, Henigar and Ray, telephone conver­
sation, January 16, 1992.
The Economic Benefits of Preserving Community Character: A
Practical Methodology. Case studies of Galveston, Texas,
and Fredericksburg, Virginia. National Trust for
Historic Preservation. 1991.
City of Eugene, Oregon. West University Neighborhood
Conservation and Development Project Background Report.
March 1990.
Faxon, Don. Senior Historical Architect, Rhode Island State
Historic Preservation Office, telephone conversation,
November 14, 1991.
Freilich, Robert H., and Terri A. Muren. "Growth Manage­
ment and Historic Preservation." Prepared for the
Atlanta Historic Preservation Steering Committee.
Greenleaf, Craig, and John C, Kelly. Growth Management
Study: Summary Report. Oregon Department of Land
Conservation and Development. July 1991.
A GuidI' for Raleigh Ncighborhood Planning. City of Raleigh,
North Carolina, Planning Department. October 1991.
Hatmaker, Jan. Planner II, City of Phoenix, telephone
conversation, February 4, 1992.
Hellerstein, Jerome, R., and Walter Hellerstein. State and
Local Taxation: Cascs and Materials. St. Paul, Minn.: West
Publishing Company, 1978.
Henderson, Diedtra. "Tax Break: Public or Private Benefit."
Seattle Times, November 20,1990.
Hornick, Sandy. "Context is Everything." Planning,
December 1990.
Howard, J. Myrick. "Using a Revolving Fund for Down­
town Preservation." Center for Preservation Policy
Studies. National Trust for Historic Preservation. 1989.
Hunt, E.L. Roy. "Managing Growth's Impacts on Historic
and Cultural Resources: The Preservation Plan." Center
for Preservation Policy Studies. National Trust for
Historic Preservation. Spring 1989.
Kelly, Deborah M., and Jennifer Goodman. Conservation
District Projcct Research Report for the National Tmst for
Historic Preservation. Prepared by the Preservation
Coalition of Greater Philadelphia. June 1991.
Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois and Commis­
sion on Chicago Landmarks. Report of the Task Force on
Economic 1nw/tives for Chicago Landmarks. July 1, 1992.
State of Maryland, S.B. No. 327, Income Tax Deduction­
Preservation of Historic Property, July 1, 1987.
McGeyser, Ruth. Historic Preservation Planner, City of
Boulder, Colo., telephone conversation, January 10, 1992.
McIntyre, Suzanne. Planner, Park City Municipal Corpora­
tion, telephone conversation, October 16, 1991.
Meyer, Philip L., Urban Designer, City of Portland, Maine,
telephone conversation, July 17, 1991.
Miles, Don c., et al. Trackside: Preserving Railroad Station
Warehouse Districts. City of Tacoma, Washington,
Department of Community Development. 1988.
Morris, Stephen A. Certified Local Governments 1990: A
Status Report. National Park Service, Interagency
Resources Division, November 1990.
39
"Neighborhood Conservation Districts in Cambridge."
Cambridge Historical Commission, June, 1989.
(brochure)
New York City, Department of City Planning. "Lower
Density Contextual Zoning Amendment: Answers to
Commonly Asked Questions." June 7, 1989.
____. Lower Density Contextual Zoning Study. January
1989.
Oregon State Historic Preservation Office. "Special Assess­
ment of Historic Property." Fact Sheet, 1991.
Osborne, Pat. Historic Preservation Officer, City of San
Antonio, telephone conversation, October 15,1991.
Park City Municipal Corporation. 1990 Historic District
Incentives Program. Grant Information Sheet.
City of Phoenix, Neighorhood Plans Section. Special
Planning District Handbook. June 1988.
Roanoke Vision, Zoning: A Process for Balancing Preservation and
Change. Buckhurst Fish Hutton Katz, Thomas and Means
Associates, and Margaret Grieve, consultants, 1986.
Robinson, Susan, and John Petersen. Fiscal Incentives for
Historic Preservation. Washington, D.C.: Government
Finance Research Center, 1989.
Roddewig, Richard. "Economic Incentives for Historic
Preservation." Washington D.C.: National Trust for
Historic Preservation, Critical Issues Fund, 1988.
_ _ _ _. "Economic Incentives for Historic Preservation
in Atlanta." Submitted to the Institute for Environmen­
tal Negotiation and the Atlanta Preservation Center,
Inc., December 1987.
_ _ _ _. "Preservation Ordinances and Financial Incen­
tives: How They Guide Design." Washington, D.C.:
National League of Cities, 1981.
_ _ _---', and Christopher Duersken. Responding to the
Takings Challenge. Planning Advisory Service Report
416. Chicago: APA, 1989.
Rohan, Patrick J. "Comprehensive Plan." Chapter 37 in
volume 6 of Zoning And Land Use Controls. New York:
Matthew Bender & Co., Inc., 1981a.
_ _ _ _. "Spot Zoning." Chapter 38 in volume 6 of
Zoning And Land Use Controls. New York: Matthew
Bender & Co., Inc., 1981 b
Rypkema, Donovan. "The Economic Benefits of Rehabilita­
tion." Information Series No. 53. Washington, D.C.:
National Trust for Historic Preservation. 1991.
Rypkema, Donovan, and Ian Spatz. "Rehab Takes a Fall."
Historic Preservation, September IOctober 1991.
40
City of San Antonio. Departments of Buildings Inspections
and Economic and Employment Development. Annual
Landmark Resources Incentives Manual, 1988.
Schnidman, Frank, Stanley D. Abrams, and John D.
Delaney. Handling the Land Use Case. Boston: Little
Brown and Company, 1984.
Sivinski, Valerie, Historic Preservation Planner, Tacoma,
Washington, telephone conversation, April 21, 1991.
South Carolina Department of Archives and History.
"South Carolina Tax Incentive Program for Historic
Preservation Projects." Fact Sheet, 1991.
"Successful State Advocacy." Case studies of state-level
preservation efforts. Information Series No. 52.
Washington,o.c.: National Trust for Historic Preser­
vation, 1991.
Sullivan, Michael. Historic Preservation Officer, Tacoma,
Washington, telephone conversation, April 27, 1992.
Summers, John. Nashville City Councilman, telephone
conversation, May 6, 1991.
Swenson, Keith. Planning Consultant, Bozeman, Montana,
telephone conversation, May 4, 1992.
Taylor, Christine. Assistant Planner, City of Eugene,
Oregon, telephone conversation, October 26, 1991.
Thoma, Dale. Lexington-Fayette County Planning Commis­
sion, telephone conversation, February 20, 1992.
State of Vermont Division for Historic Preservation, Agency
of Development and Community Affairs. Vermont
Historic Preservation Plan. Fact Sheet, April 1990.
Washington Department of Community Development,
Office of Archaeology and Preservation. "Special
Valuation: A Local Tax Incentive Program." Fact Sheet,
1990.
Williams, Norman. "The Role of Judicial Attitudes in
Planning Law." Chapter 4 in American Planning Law,
Land Use and the Police Power. Deerfield, III.: Callaghan
and Company, 1988.
Zellie, Carole. A Study of Conservation Districts. Prepared for
the St. Paul, Minnesota, Heritage Preservation Commis­
sion, June 1991.
Ziegler Jr., Edward H. "Rezoning Procedures." Chapter 27
in Rathkop!,s, The Law of Planning and Zoning. New
York: Clark Boardman Company, September 1990.
_ _ _ _."Rezonings: Subtantive Validity and Standards
of Judicial Review." Chapter 27A in Rathokop!,s, The
Law of Zoning and Planning. New York: Clark Boardman
Company, March 1984.
 ORDINANCES
Abilene, Texas. Historic Preservation Ordinance. Adopted
1984; Historic Tax Reduction Ordinance. Adopted 1985.
Atlanta, Georgia. Unified Development Code, Chapter 35,
Division 10, "Historic Districts and Landmarks."
August 1987.
Athens, Georgia. Historic Preservation Commission
Ordinance. Adopted November 4, 1986.
Aurora, Illinois. Preservation Ordinance. Adopted 1990.
Bozeman, Montana. Neighborhood Conservation Overlay
District. Provisional Adoption, August 19, 1991.
Chicago, Illinois. Rules and Regulations of the Commission
on Chicago Landmarks. Adopted July 1, 1987.
Nashville, Tennessee. Historic Districts and Landmark
Regulations Ordinance. Adopted March 20, 1984,
updated August 20, 1988.
PLANS
Asheville City Plan 2010. Asheville, North Carolina, City
Planning Department. 1987.
Atlanta Comprehensive Development Plan. Atlanta, Georgia,
Department of Planning and Development. July 1991.
Broward County, Florida, Comprehensive Plan. Land Use
Element. 1989.
Downtown Boulder Urban Design Plan. Boulder Department of
Community Planning and Development. January 1986.
Restoration Riverside: A Plan for Downtown Historic Districts.
Riverside, California, City Planning Department. May
1983.
East Greenwich Comprehensive COlllmunity Plan. Town of East
Greenwich, Rhode Island, Planning Department. 1991.
The Plan for EI Paso. Technical Report VII, Historic Preserva­
tion. City of El Paso Department of Planning, Research,
and Development. 1988.
Phoenix, Arizona. Special Conservation (SC) District.
Supplement adopted August 31,1978.
Raleigh, North Carolina. Neighborhood Conservation
District Overlay District. Ordinance No. 292 TC 328.
1988.
Seattle, Washington. Landmarks Preservation Ordinance.
1977.
Tacoma, Washington. Landmarks Preservation Commission
and Landmarks Special Review Districts Ordinance.
Aopted December 12, 1989.
Williamsburg, Virginia. Archtectural Review Ordinance.
March 1, 1991 (draft).
Galella, Illinois, Comprehensive Plan. City of Galena, Illinois.
May 1991.
Kane County Historic Preservation Plan. Kane County, Illinois,
Development Department, Planning and Projects
Division. November 1989.
Montpelier Master Plan. Montpelier, Vermont, Department of
Planning and Development. June 1990.
Park City, Utah, Comprehensive Plan. Park City Municipal
Corporation. 1985.
Union Station District Master Plan. City of Tacoma,
Washington, Plannning Commission and Landmarks
Preservation Commission. May 1989.
41