Category Archive: Preservation News
-
Landmarks Supports Fifth/Forbes Plan
The City’s selection of Kravco as the developer for the Fifth/Forbes retail effort together with a commitment to recommendations made by the Plan C Committee and those of the consultant Don Hunter are being supported by Landmarks.
Kravco has promised to weave the Fifth/Forbes leasing effort into the total fabric of downtown utilizing the existing anchors of the Cultural District, office workers, department stores and buildings. No wholesale obliteration of buildings will occur as were proposed under Urban Retail Properties’ plan.
“ Kravco has adopted an incremental development approach, respecting the historic buildings and adding appropriately designed infill construction, as well as starting with a marketing base of the people who are already shopping in the area,” said Arthur Ziegler, president, “and we believe such an approach has the best chance of success. The developer respects the uniqueness and strengths that Pittsburgh has and builds on them”
The effort will be to secure retail tenants for Fifth/Forbes Avenues without requiring massive demolition for expensive movie theatres and more department stores. Housing will be a vital ingredient as well.
The development concept is much more in the tradition of Jane Jacobs’ analyses of both the growth and the revitalization of cities, an approach that has been proven to work and is outlined in Roberta Gratz‘s Cities Back From the Edge.”
“This developer realizes the anchors we already have in the downtown community in terms of demographics, buildings, retail stores and architecture. The first step in revitalizing a downtown is to recognize its own qualities and see them as strengths and seek retail appropriate to them, retail that will enlarge the market and be successful financially in the long term at the lowest possible taxpayer cost”, said Mr. Ziegler, “and we congratulate Mayor Tom Murphy on his selection.”
Landmarks will make its studies of the buildings in the area available to the developer during the four month preliminary period and has offered to work closely to help bring the project to success.# # #
-
Downtown plan may use Philly strategies
By Stephanie Franken
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Thursday, January 30, 2003Gov. Ed Rendell likely will use tax incentives and grants to attract more businesses and residents to downtown Pittsburgh.
Rendell used such a strategy to encourage investment in Philadelphia when he served as the city’s mayor, and he likely will try a similar approach in Pittsburgh, said Ken Snyder, a spokesman for the governor. Mayor Tom Murphy has been working for several years to attract investment in the ailing Fifth and Forbes corridor, once a bustling retail district.
“Individuals don’t just move in” to lackluster downtowns, Snyder said. “They move into developed properties where rent is affordable and it’s an attractive place to live, and there are things to do. The governor relied a lot on tax incentives to bring developers (to Philadelphia) to build these attractions, and also used some bond money.”
Rendell has convened an “economic crisis task force” that would, in part, explore using similar tools in Pittsburgh, Snyder said.
It is too early to know how much money would go toward improving Downtown, or what type of aid might be available. Snyder also didn’t identify where Rendell would get the money, although he said during the campaign he would issue bonds for economic- revitalization projects.
Mulugetta Birru, executive director of the Urban Redevelopment Authority, said he and eight others met with Rendell about 10 days ago to discuss the Downtown. Birru said he could not offer details about their four-hour conversation, but said the meeting was “an excellent beginning to signal that Gov. Rendell has placed a high priority on economic development.”
Birru said the city would need at least $10 million to $15 million from the state for the Fifth and Forbes project. Former Gov. Tom Ridge gave the city a $10 million grant, but the money was used for North Shore development after Downtown revitalization efforts stalled, Birru said.
Craig Kwiecinski, Murphy’s spokesman, said, “Creating a vibrant Fifth and Forbes corridor continues to be a top priority for the mayor, and we look forward to partnering with Gov. Rendell on this important issue for Pittsburgh.”
Murphy’s initial plan to improve the corridor called for $100 million in taxpayer money to attract national retailers, the razing of as many as 62 buildings and the threat of eminent domain to force owners to sell their properties to the city. Murphy abandoned those plans in 2000 in the face of criticism.
The mayor resurrected efforts to revitalize the corridor in November 2000.
He formed a task force that produced a report in 2002, known as Plan C, that called for preserving more buildings, keeping local retailers, and creating more residential and hotel space. The plan calls for $51.5 million in public money, $39.5 million in corporate and philanthropic investment, and $264 million in private investment.
The city has not named a developer to lead the project.
Birru has said the city is having a hard time attracting a developer because, in part, it needs to own more property in the corridor to attract a developer. Companies often would rather develop government-owned land that is ready to build on, rather than having to buy properties from private owners.
Still, Downtown Works, a division of King of Prussia-based Kravco, said it is interested in the project.
“Pittsburgh has something going for it that most other cities don’t have, and that’s a great array of department stores,” Midge McCauley, director of Downtown Works, said last week. “What they don’t have is the glue to hold those department stores together, the infrastructure between them.”
By taking advantage of city, state and federal incentives, she said, her firm could profit from the project.
“You have a new governor who is very pro-development and a mayor who understands what he needs to do to make the city economically healthy,” McCauley said.
Snyder, Rendell’s spokesman, said an estimated state deficit of $2.5 billion is daunting, but “the governor doesn’t believe that economic development is a place to skimp.”
“The governor’s going to fly this plane while he’s fixing it,” Snyder said.
The mayor’s Plan C task force will meet on Feb. 10. The group hasn’t met for several months, and Kwiecenski, Murphy’s spokesman, would not discuss the purpose of the meeting.
Plan C task force member Cathy McCollom, director of operations and marketing for the Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation, said she hopes that Tom Cox, executive assistant to Murphy, and Susan Golomb, the city’s planning director, will name a developer for the Fifth and Forbes project.
Stephanie Franken can be reached at sfranken@tribweb.com.
This article appeared in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review. © Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
-
Testimony By Angelique Bamberg, Department of City Planning and staff for the Historic Review Commission & Planning Commission on the Proposed Exemption of Religious Properties From Nomination as City Historic Structures Except By their Owners of Record:
Facts :
1. On December 4, 2002, Councilman Bob O’Connor introduced Bill 1148 into City Council. If passed, this bill would amend the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance to exempt religious properties from nomination except by their owners of record.
2. City Council has requested that the Historic Review Commission and the City Planning Commission conduct a review of this proposed legislation and report their findings to Council within 60 days.
3. The Historic Review Commission held a Public Hearing on the proposed legislation on January 8, 2003. The HRC voted unanimously to recommend that Council NOT ADOPT the proposed legislation. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on January 14, 2003 and another on January 28th, 2003, and voted unanimously to recommend that Council NOT adopt the proposed legislation.
4. Current Ordinance and Nominating Procedures:
a. Under the City of Pittsburgh’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, Title 11 of the City Code of Ordinances, a Historic Structure, Site, or Object may be nominated by:
i. the Mayor;
ii. a member of City Council;
iii. a member of the Planning Commission;
iv. a member of the Historic Review Commission; or
v. its owner of record or any resident of the City of Pittsburgh who has lived here for at least one year.
b. Once a property has been nominated to become a City Historic Structure, Site, or Object, the Historic Review Commission and City Planning Commission hold public hearings on the proposed designation and make recommendations to City Council.
c. City Council receives the recommendations of the Historic Review and Planning Commissions, holds its own public hearing, and votes on the proposed designation. If the property owner objects to the designation and/or if either Commission submits an unfavorable recommendation, a supermajority (six votes) of Council is required to vote for designation.
d. Once a building is nominated and until City Council votes on whether it should be designated, no exterior alteration (including demolition) may take place without the review and approval of the Pittsburgh Historic Review Commission.
5. Religious Properties Currently Designated by the City of Pittsburgh
The City currently has six (6) religious properties designated as City Historic Structures and 11 located in City Historic Districts. One City Historic Structure, a church, was demolished in 2000.
a. Shrine of St. Anthony of Padua, 1700 Harpster Street, Troy Hill
City Historic Structureb. John Wesley AME Zion Church, 594 Herron Avenue, Hill District
City Historic Structurec. St. Nicholas Croatian Catholic Church, 1326 E. Ohio Street, East Allegheny
City Historic Structured. Former St. Michael’s Catholic Church and Rectory, 21 Pius Street, South Side Slopes
City Historic Structuree. Greater Faith Tabernacle Church (demolished), 550 N. Homewood Avenue, Homewood
City Historic Structuref. Emmanuel Episcopal Church, 957 West North Avenue, Allegheny West
City Historic Structure, Allegheny West Historic Districtg. Calvary United Methodist Church, Allegheny and Beech Avenues, Allegheny West
City Historic Structure, Allegheny West Historic Districth. Tabernacle Cosmopolitan Baptist Church, 1240 Buena Vista Street, Mexican War Streets
Mexican War Streets Historic Districti. First Baptist Church of Pittsburgh, 159 N. Bellefield Street, Oakland
Oakland Civic Center Historic Districtj. St. Paul’s Cathedral, Fifth Avenue, Oakland
Oakland Civic Center Historic Districtk. Bellefield Presbyterian Church, 4001 Fifth Avenue, Oakland
Oakland Civic Center Historic Districtl. St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Cathedral, 419 Dithridge Street, Oakland
Oakland Civic Center Historic Districtm. Heinz Chapel, Bigelow Boulevard and Fifth Avenue, Oakland
Oakland Civic Center Historic Districtn. New Zion Baptist Church, 1304 Manhattan Street, Manchester
Manchester Historic Districto. Islamic Center of Pittsburgh, 4100 Bigelow Boulevard, Oakland
Schenley Farms Historic District6. Applications to the Historic Review Commission
Since 1977, the Historic Review Commission has received a total of 20 applications for exterior work from owners of designated historic religious properties. Of these, 19 were approved, including two for demolition (one of a church, one of an accessory building); one application (for the installation of aluminum awnings) was denied.
7. Legal Issues
Religious institutions are not exempt from zoning and other local land-use laws, as long as the laws do not threaten the free expression of religion. However, several pieces of legislation at the national, state, and local levels currently limit the amount of regulation that local governments may place on religious institutions. The validity of these new laws is to be decided by the courts.
As it stands, the Pittsburgh Historic Preservation Ordinance is a neutral statute, applying equally to all classes of property and to all property owners. The proposed changes to the ordinance would single out religious properties for unique treatment under the law. The City Law Department is currently conducting a review of the legality of the proposed Council Bill in order to determine if preferential treatment of religious institutions by a city government is valid under the Pennsylvania constitution as well as other federal and state statutes.The following issues must be closely considered in the proposed legislation:
a. Equal Treatment Under the Law
The Pittsburgh Historic Preservation Ordinance establishes that historic preservation is a compelling public interest for its ability to, among other things, “promote the economic and general welfare of the City of Pittsburgh” (City Code, Title 11, 1.1[b]). The Ordinance does not distinguish between classes of persons or properties who share this interest, but provides for a public process by which all citizens may participate in every activity of municipal preservation, from nomination and designation of property to hearings on work applications and economic hardship.
The test of applicability of the ordinance is the historical and/or architectural significance of a structure, district, site, or object, not the financial or other circumstances of an individual property owner or class or property owners.
The proposed bill would single out religious institutions as a distinct class and provide for their preferential treatment under the law. This would benefit the owners of religious properties by making compliance with the Historic Preservation Ordinance optional on their part. Staff urges the Commission to consider whether this would benefit the general public of the City of Pittsburgh, in whose interest the law was created.
b. Existing Relief from Undue Burdens
In speaking publicly about this proposed change, its advocates have spoken about the “burdens” of historic designation and benefits to them of being exempt. Yet there are existing means by which religious property owners may seek relief from the perceived burdens of historic designation.
i. The Historic Designation Process
The designation process itself provides two checks against unwanted designation. First, the Historic Review Commission holds a Preliminary Determination hearing to determine whether a new nomination has merit. This serves as a weeding process for frivolous or inappropriate nominations, and those which do not meet the test have the regulation of the Historic Review Commission lifted for the duration of the process.
Second, a supermajority (six votes) of City Council is required to designate a property over its owner’s objections. Owners of nominated religious properties have the opportunity to argue their position before Council in every case. Although it is not a written rule, Council has generally been reluctant to designate property over an owner’s objections.ii. Certificate of Economic Hardship
An applicant who is denied a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Historic Review Commission for any exterior work may apply for a Certificate of Economic Hardship. If the Historic Review Commission determines that denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness has resulted in loss of all reasonable use and/or return from the property or substantial hardship for the property owner, the Commission will then consult with the Department of City Planning about provision of relief from the economic hardship in the form of loans, grants, tax abatements, transfer of development rights, or other means.iii. Historic Religious Properties Initiative
Funds are available to assist the owners of religious properties with historically appropriate repairs and renovations. Each year, Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation awards between $50,000 and $60,000 in grants to historic religious institutions for bricks and mortar projects. Technical assistance is also awarded to several institutions each year. To qualify, a religious institution must be located in Allegheny County, be at least 50 years old, have an active, though not necessarily large congregation, and be of architectural or historical significance.A nonprofit organization called Partners for Sacred Places performs a similar function on a national level. Grants are also available from the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission.
iv. Tax Exemption
Of course, we must acknowledge that the purpose of tax-exempt status is not to provide a fund for preservation activities. However, freedom from taxation is a costly civic burden of which religious institutions have already been relieved. This suggests that religious institutions do not suffer unduly from obligations which apply equally to the taxed.c. Applications to the Historic Review Commission by Religious Institutions
Historic Review Commission records do not support the claim that historic designation has been a burden on religious property owners.In the 26 years since the first religious structures were designated by the City of Pittsburgh, only one application (for the installation of aluminum awnings) has been denied by the Historic Review Commission, and only one religious building (St. Nicholas Croatian Catholic Church) has been designated over the objections of its owner, the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh.* In 95% of cases before the Historic Review Commission concerning the treatment of religious structures, the applicant and the Commission have been in agreement over preservation methods, materials, and design.
The concerns of religious property owners appear to be about the potential burdens of future applications and nominations. The current Historic Preservation Ordinance provides for fairly resolving these, as they arise, on a case-by-case basis, as shown above.*(Another property, the former St. Michael’s Church and Rectory, also was designated against the wishes of the Catholic Diocese, but since this church was desanctified and not used for religious worship at the time, it would not have been considered a “religious structure” under the definition in the proposed amendment to the Historic Preservation Ordinance. In any case, St. Michael’s is currently being rehabilitated as condominiums by its new owner, with plans that have been approved by the Historic Review Commission.)
8. The staff for the Historic Review Commission and the Planning Commission stated that she did not believe that sufficient evidence exists that the current Historic Preservation Ordinance creates a burden for the owners of religious properties, or interferes with the free expression of religion, to justify the proposed changes to the Ordinance.
Rather, staff finds that the owners of religious properties are treated fairly and equally with other citizens under the ordinance, and the proposed changes would create a remedy for a burden that is imagined, but does not currently exist. The current ordinance provides adequate opportunities for every property owner to seek relief from burdensome Historic Review Commission decisions on a case-by-case basis without providing a blanket exemption for one class of citizens. In addition, assistance is available in the form of loans and grants to the owners of historic religious buildings.
Although exemptions for religious properties from historic preservation regulations do exist in a few other communities, these have been and will continue to be challenged in the courts. By passing the proposed amendments to Pittsburgh’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, the City would be making unnecessary changes to a fair and functional law and opening itself to costly and time-consuming litigation.
As of this date, the required public hearing before Council has not been scheduled. We concur and urge the public to write Council of their concerns regarding this legislation.
-
Historic site: Who decides? – O’Connor ‘optimistic’ about his proposal
By Tom Barnes,
Post-Gazette Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 14, 2003City Councilman Bob O’Connor isn’t letting a little setback with the Historic Review Commission get him down.
Last week, the commission unanimously recommended against a significant change that O’Connor wants to make in the city’s historic preservation ordinance.
O’Connor said the historic review panel’s stance “really doesn’t mean anything” because the final decision is still up to City Council. He said he thinks he has the support he needs to make the preservation ordinance less of a burden on those responsible for churches, synagogues and other religious buildings.
O’Connor said the historic commission’s vote is “just a recommendation to council. It’s nonbinding. I don’t think we expected anything different from them.”
O’Connor will try again today when the proposal comes before the city planning commission, which also will make a recommendation to council on the measure.
Under O’Connor’s revision, only the owner of an actively used religious building would be permitted to nominate it for historic status. Currently, many city officials, preservation groups and anyone who’s lived in the city for at least a year can make such a nomination, which could end up limiting what a church group can do with the exterior or the demolition of a building.
The Pittsburgh Catholic Diocese, which owns St. Nicholas Church on the North Side, was upset when that 100-year-old building was nominated for historic status, which was then approved by City Council. As a result, it’s much harder for the building to be sold to state transportation officials, who plan to raze it in order to widen heavily congested Route 28.
Leaders from across the religious spectrum, including Catholics, Episcopalians, Luth-erans, Orthodox officials and Jewish rabbis, are in favor of O’Connor’s bill.
Historic preservationists oppose it, saying it would weaken city efforts to preserve culturally and architecturally important church buildings.
In cases where the historic panel opposes nomination of a building, it takes a council super-majority of at least six votes to override the panel’s recommendation. But in this case, O’Connor said he just needs the normal five-vote majority of the nine-member council.
After the planning commission takes a stance on O’Connor’s measure, council will hold a public hearing on it and probably vote next month, O’Connor said.
“I’m optimistic it will be approved,” he said. “We feel strongly about this. I want to go ahead with my plan.”
Tom Barnes can be reached at tbarnes@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1548.
This article appeared in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. © Pittsburgh Post Gazette
-
Opposition to amphitheater plan must be resolved
Saturday, January 11, 2003
Daily CourierThe Great Meadows Amphitheater, for decades largely dormant and unused, was a symbol of inaction by Fayette County’s elected leaders. It would be a shame if efforts to reverse that trend were thwarted.
Yet, it appears that is what is happening now that the county has found someone willing to invest in the amphitheater site to create what is hoped to be a major tourist attraction.Fayette Films LLC is seeking a five-year lease to use the Great Meadows site, located off Route 40 in Wharton Township. The company wants to create a motion picture studio at the site. However, the project has been met with opposition from groups who feel it would detract from what is already one of the county’s most popular tourist attractions: Fort Necessity National Battlefield.
Fort Necessity, site of the first battle in the French and Indian War, is located on property adjacent to Great Meadows. Officials from Fort Necessity, and groups such as the Sierra Club, Preservation Pennsylvania and Kiski-Conemaugh River Basin Alliance are concerned there is not an adequate buffer between the amphitheater and acreage around Fort Necessity. They claim the scenic beauty surrounding the fort would be jeopardized by a large new development at the amphitheater and the crowds that will flock there.
We can sympathize with supporters of Fort Necessity and share their concerns. The battlefield is among the most historically significant attractions, not only in Fayette County, but in all of Pennsylvania. It is already an established tourist attraction and should not be compromised for the possibility that another attraction may draw more visitors to the area.
On the other hand, we know that the Great Meadows’ site has gone unused for far too long. The buildings there have fallen into disrepair, at great cost to the county, and the land, among the most pristine in the county, could and should be used for a better purpose. The property is doing nothing for the county’s finances, because it is off the tax rolls. Having the land bought and developed is something for which the county should strive.Fayette County commissioners, while right pursuing suitors who would develop the Great Meadows site, must do so with the protection, preservation and well-being of existing resources (including Fort Necessity) in mind. For example, an adequate buffer area between the sites is imperative and should be part of any development plans.
We urge commissioners and representatives of Fort Necessity to come to an agreement that is satisfactory to all parties involved. Plans to develop the Great Meadows site should not be terminated. The potential for the amphitheater has gone unmet far too long already.
-
Landmarks Testimony Before the Historic Review Commission on Proposed Legislation by Councilman Bob O’Connor to Restrict the Nomination of Religious Properties
January, 9th 2003
Given by Elisa Cavalier, Attorney and Landmarks Staff Member
We are here today to consider Council Bill 1148 proposed by Councilman O’Connor. Let’s look more closely at issue at hand. It is the ….
People — that have a faith
People– that have — and continue to –help to build religious structures in which to exercise their religion,
People (not the church as a separate entity)
who have a constitutional right through the First Amendment to the free exercise of religion … to express their religious views, to associate, and assemble for that purpose.People who have a right, through Article 1, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, “to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment.”
It is for thePeople through the Declaration of Policy in Pennsylvania’s History Code that “the irreplaceable historical, architectural, archaeological, and cultural heritage of this Commonwealth should be preserved and protected…[for] future generations.” [37 Pa. C.S. § 102]
and it is thePeople, as well as non-profit organizations, school boards, and businesses … ALL whom have the right under our existing ordinance to claim an ECONOMIC HARDSHIP as a remedy to application of the ordinance.
Yet it is the Church that claims that Pittsburgh’s preservation law interferes with the people’s right to the FREE EXERCISE of religion.
So what is there solution?
EXCLUDE the PEOPLE!!!
Our government and its laws are to be
OF THE PEOPLE
BY THE PEOPLE and
FOR THE PEOPLE.This legislation takes away from the people, — whether they are members of the congregation or the general public — the ability to participate in our democratic form of government. It prohibits PEOPLE to nominate religious structures for historic designation.
The proposed ordinance sets the church apart on a law of general applicability. Councilman O’Connor’s bill is inappropriate and should not be endorsed.
-
Sewickley considers historic designation
By Alisha Hipwell ,
Pittsburgh Post Gazette
Wednesday, January 08, 2003Sewickley is known for its glorious collection of historic homes. They include the work of some of the area’s finest architects, like the team of Frank Alden and Alfred Harlow, who built the Carnegie Institute.
Few would argue with the logic that has created three historic districts in the borough to protect and preserve at least the outward appearance of many of those homes.
But Sewickley is not all historic homes and important architecture. Just ask anyone who has driven through town on Route 65, which is lined with apartment buildings and rows of modest brick bungalows.
So why would anyone think the whole town needs the protection of a historic preservation ordinance?
A Sewickley councilman is suggesting just that. Charles Hays, citing concerns about development in the borough, has called for council to study the idea of extending the purview of the borough’s historic review ordinance to include the entire town. Borough council plans to study the pros and cons of the suggestion at a special February retreat-style session.
“I think we’ve reached the point where it’s time to protect the entire community. … It may be time to see what the community thinks about this idea,” said Hays, who has frequently criticized projects he believes would damage the cultural and economic diversity of the community. “There may be a way for the community to have a little more control over what happens.”
The idea already has the backing of some members of the borough’s Historic Review Commission. Steve Davis, an Edgeworth resident and member of the commission, told council at its December meeting that the commission was in favor of the idea but would only pursue it with council’s blessing.
Sewickley would not be the first municipality to take such a step.
Michel Lefevre, chief of preservation planning for the state Bureau of Historic Preservation, said other cities, including Lancaster and Bethlehem, have protected virtually their entire towns with either historic preservation ordinances or less-restrictive conservation district ordinances.
“What municipalities have been saying is, ‘We have historic districts and it’s been working. Now we want to protect other areas but do it a little less stringently,’ ” Lefevre said.
“We’ve come a long way from the notion that the mansion on the hill owned by the important white guy is the only historically significant building,” he said.
Mary Beth Pastorius, a Beaver Street resident and former 10-year Historic Review Commission member, said members for years have been interested in extending the borough’s historic preservation ordinance to the entire town.
The idea is back in play because of an increase in commercial development projects in the borough in the last decade, developments that have given pause to even those community figures, like Hays, who are more likely to champion property owners’ rights than historic preservation.
“It’s a hot topic now because you have people taking existing properties, tearing them down and building larger facilities,” said borough Manager Kevin Flannery.
One project cited by both Pastorius and Hays is the construction of a Thrift (now Eckerd) drugstore on Beaver Street in the mid-90s.
“With the parking lot in front and the design of the building — it’s not at all sympathetic to the historic character of the village,” Pastorius said.
Hays cited other projects, like the demolition of some older brick apartment buildings on Academy Avenue to make way for condominiums and the renovation of the former Connelly Motors building on Beaver Street into office and restaurant space.
More recently, a plan to tear down three apartment buildings located just outside a historic district at Beaver and Peebles streets and replace them with million-dollar condominiums created an outcry; residents have argued that the design of the four-story condominium buildings would be out of sync with the rest of the neighborhood.
Lefevre said similar concerns about development have prompted other municipalities to broaden their definition of “historic” and expand their preservation ordinances.
Such ordinances do not require state approval, something necessary for stringent classifications such as National Historic Landmark designation, but they do have to stay within the guidelines of state legislation which makes preservation ordinances possible.
Those guidelines let municipalities go beyond the familiar restrictions of zoning.
“What people now look at is a sense of place, created not by one, two or three buildings that are designated historic, but when a number of buildings, some less important perhaps, all contribute,” said Lefevre. He said zoning regulations frequently don’t address issues, such as architectural style, that are important to property owners.
While a historic ordinance applied to the entire town would not halt development, proponents of the idea say it would give the community a voice in the style of development allowed.
“It is the only way legally that a community can have a discussion about style and design,” said Pastorius.
Sewickley’s five-member Historic Review Commission reviews applications for exterior work on property in the three historic districts.
The commission reviews only work that requires a building permit and only work that is visible from a public right of way. It does not, for example, review exterior paint colors, but it does review new construction and demolition projects in historic districts.
The commission then makes a recommendation to council on whether a project should get a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Council can reject the commission’s recommendation, and has done so, most recently in the case of a proposed columbarium on the grounds of St. Stephen’s Church. The commission recommended that the project be granted a certificate, but council voted it down.
Proponents of giving the commission such power throughout the town — or of creating a similar process — argue that residents’ property values are affected not just by the structures that sit right next to them but by the ambiance of the entire borough.
“The only thing we’re trying to do is direct change so it helps everyone,” Davis said. “It’s not that we don’t want change, but that we want to guide it properly so we maintain the essence of Sewickley.”
There are practical issues to be considered, however, not the least of which is the amount of time and paperwork such a change would entail for a volunteer commission.
“How many hours of meetings would we need to have to keep up? We could have a bottleneck of bureacracy,’ said Charles Reist, a member of both council and the commission.
Flannery said any serious discussion of the issue also would have to examine the impact on the average homeowner and on business owners in the borough.
“Are you going to force community businesses to go to [the commission] if they want to change their sign out front?” asked Flannery.
Sewickley Chamber of Commerce President Don Reinhardt said he was aware of the idea and that chamber members planned to discuss it at their meeting Tuesday.
Lefevre said one option is for municipalities to create “layers” of regulation, with some layers more stringent than others, depending upon the character of the area and what kinds of work the borough wishes to regulate. But he stressed that public support for preservation ordinances is crucial.
Pastorius and Davis believe that support will come if homeowners accept the notion that individual property values are tied up with the overall look and feel of the town.
“On the one hand, the argument against a historic ordinance is that no one is going to tell me what to do with my house. On the other hand, what a historic ordinance gives you in exchange for giving up a little bit of freedom is protection,” Pastorius said. “You don’t have to worry about your neighbor doing something really inappropriate that ruins the look of the block.”
February’s study session is merely a first step. Should council decide to pursue the idea beyond that, it would be embarking on what Flannery described as “a lengthy process” involving a survey of homes, notification of the public, formal public hearings and a vote on an ordinance.
“We would have to give a very thorough explanation of the reasons behind doing this,” he said.
Alisha Hipwell is a freelance writer.
This article appeared in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. © Pittsburgh Post Gazette
-
O’Connor wants church owners to have control
By Stephanie Franken
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, January 5, 2003Pittsburgh Councilman Bob O’Connor fought to save his former church, but when the Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh decided it had to close St. Philomena in Squirrel Hill 10 years ago, he acquiesced.
O’Connor said he believes parishioners or others shouldn’t stand in the way when leaders decide it’s time for a place of worship to close.
At least 25 churches and temples could be affected by a bill he proposed that would prevent the public from nominating places of worship for city historic status, which often blocks the closing of the buildings. The legislation would allow only the owners of the buildings to nominate the structures.
“When they closed my church, it was the worst thing that happened to me outside a death in my family,” said O’Connor, the father of a priest. O’Connor’s proposal is supported by the diocese. “We fought to keep it open. We tried to raise money. But in the end, it was not to be.”
O’Connor’s bill “deprives all church members and all citizens of the right to protect their buildings through the nomination process, and it leaves the decision solely in the hands of the owners of the buildings, which are generally the diocese or other church leaders,” said Arthur Ziegler, president of the Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation.
A public hearing on the proposal is scheduled for 4 p.m. Wednesday before the city Historic Review Commission, 200 Ross St.
The public also may comment at meetings scheduled for Jan. 14 and 28 before the city Planning Commission. Ultimately, the city council will get the final say.
The Historic Review Commission so far has received only a handful of comments, said Angelique Bamberg, the city’s historic preservation planner. All oppose the legislation.
Ziegler said the measure could open the floodgates for other groups.
“Under the general principle (of the bill), any group could say that historic designation poses a problem for them. Why churches, and why not schools or factories or individual houses?”
Today, any city resident may nominate a building to become a City Designated Historic Landmark. The designation prevents alterations or demolition of structures without approval from the Historic Review Commission.
To be eligible for the designation, a building must be linked to historical events or people, represent a noted architectural type or have archaeological significance.
Six houses of worship have the designation today. Twenty-five more are eligible. A half-dozen local houses of worship are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which does not protect a building against demolition by private landowners. At Rodef Shalom Temple in Oakland, completed in 1907 and listed in the National Register of Historic Places, Executive Director Jeffrey Herzog said he has no problem with O’Connor’s bill.
“There is probably a difference of knowledge between the parishioners and the people who run the institution,” Herzog said. “In the case of the diocese, they would know whether a building is of significance as opposed to a parishioner, who would have an emotional tie.”
Pastor Michael Poloway, of St. John the Baptist Ukrainian Catholic Church on the South Side, agrees.
“A parishioner could make a suggestion,” Poloway said, “but a pastor is in charge, not the parishioner.”
Stephanie Franken can be reached at sfranken@tribweb.com.
This article appeared in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review. © Pittsburgh Tribune-Review