Challenge to Historic Preservation Designation Succeeds
By: RICHARD D. SNYDER
May 2003
Most would agree that a city’s efforts to preserve its history through the process of historic designation of buildings and districts generally is a good thing. However, as is often the case, there can be too much of a good thing. Historic designation efforts can go too far, sweeping modern, non-historic structures or undeveloped lots into “districts” and imposing upon them the same type of development restrictions that apply to historic properties.
Under historic preservation ordinances used by many cities, including Minneapolis, an entire area, including non-historic properties, can be designated as a historic “district.” The theory is that in order to regulate historic properties, the city must also be able to regulate the “setting” in which those properties are located. A historic “district” can be as large and inclusive as a city desires.
The impact of having property included in a historic district can be substantial. The city may forbid the owner of a property — whether historic or not — from demolishing a building, replacing it or altering the exterior. These restrictions can hamper development efforts and dramatically reduce the value of any building (historic or modern) that happens to find itself within the boundaries of a historic district.
A property owner in this situation is not without options. The owner can ask a court to review the city’s decision to designate property as historic or to include a property in a historic district. Such a challenge recently was mounted successfully on behalf of a property owner in a case before the Minnesota Court of Appeals, Billy Graham Evangelistic Ass’n. v. City of Minneapolis, 653 N.W.2d 638 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002). In that case, the City of Minneapolis created a historic district in the Harmon Place area near downtown to protect the remaining vestiges of the automotive industry that existed in the area during the early part of the 20th Century. As comprised, however, the district included more modern-era buildings and undeveloped lots than it did buildings remaining from the automotive era. Recognizing that the boundaries of a historic district could be stretched too far, the Court of Appeals overturned the City’s designation of a large portion of the district. The Court concluded that the City acted arbitrarily and capriciously in designating the boundaries of the district by excluding some “non-contributing” (non-historic) buildings and including other similarly situated buildings in the district.
The case is now pending before the Minnesota Supreme Court, which heard arguments in March. A decision from the Minnesota Supreme Court is expected this Fall; it may help establish limits on what non-historic properties may be swept into a historic district.
Editor’s note: Mr. Snyder represented the
property owner in the challenge to the Harmon Place Historic District.