Tempe Town Lake

Source

August 19, 2007

‘Historic’ label splits Tempe neighbors

Garin Groff, Tribune

Perhaps the East Valley’s favorite historic area is Tempe’s Maple-Ash neighborhood, though its residents love it for two vastly different reasons. One group of residents and visitors is impressed with the tree-lined streets and the charm of historic homes.

The other group is made of residents and absentee owners who are unapologetically interested in the value of the land underneath those trees and houses. The land is zoned for apartments and condos — making the properties far more valuable than those where only single-family homes are allowed.

The two groups have clashed for nearly two years as one band of homeowners has pushed to get historic designation for Tempe’s oldest existing neighborhood.

Now, as Tempe prepares to make a decision next month, it appears the city will reject a historic designation.

If the effort fails, it will be largely because opponents have successfully argued that the right to redevelop their properties without government interference is greater than the desire to preserve old homes. A historic district, they said, would tie their hands and lower property values by forcing them to keep their small homes instead of building condos or apartments in their place.

The arguments perplex Grady Gammage Jr., one of the Valley’s most prominent zoning attorneys. He teaches a class on historic preservation planning and owns one home in Maple-Ash. Neighborhoods that get historic designations don’t lose value because of the additional restrictions, he said.

“There is absolutely zero evidence in the history of historic designations in the U.S. of that being the case,” Gammage said.

Opponents created a hysteria with overstated predictions of doom if the neighborhood obtained the official designation, he said.

Many of the opponents own several homes and have had them in their families for two or three generations. They argue a new designation would hurt properties bought decades ago solely for their investment potential.

Warwick Hayes owns four properties facing Mill Avenue, including one his grandfather bought in the 1930s. Hayes’ grandfather bought the land as an investment, Hayes said, and the family shouldn’t be hampered by historic restrictions.

Hayes, who lives in Carmel, Calif., said a historic neighborhood there has hampered efforts to improve dilapidated buildings. One 80-year-old garage can’t be torn down because a little-known writer once spent time there, Hayes said.

“The only thing holding it up is termites,” Hayes said. “It’s been declared historic and it’s just going to stay there until it falls down.”

City planners say a historic designation wouldn’t bring Draconian restrictions. Private property rights would still allow owners to tear down any building, but in a historic area owners would have to wait 180 days after getting a permit. Remodeling is also possible.

Still, many opponents didn’t seem to know that, said Mark Vinson, city architect and principal planner.

“I’m thinking either we didn’t do a good enough job of getting information out or they just chose to ignore it,” Vinson said.

Supporters acknowledge opponents had one strong point in opposing the historic status. The city hadn’t yet developed rules for a historic district, so property owners didn’t know what regulations or bureaucratic process the city might create.

As a result, the city is working on a land-use tool called a form-based code. It would catalog existing building types and eventually let the neighbors consider whether they want to adopt guidelines that would encourage or require new buildings to reflect some of the existing styles.

That could preserve some of the area’s character in a less restrictive way, said Decima Sever, a planning outreach coordinator. She said that approach could be less polarizing than a historic district and bring homeowners together.

“Maybe they agree on a whole lot more than they think they do,” Sever said.

Tempe has designated three other historic neighborhoods with almost no controversy. They sailed through because they have single-family zoning and can’t build multiple units.

But Tempe rezoned Maple-Ash decades ago to allow higher density.

City officials and Gammage say higher density is in the neighborhood’s future regardless of historic status, and that some of the changes could be good.

But opponents said the designation would force them to sue Tempe under Proposition 207, which requires governments to pay landowners if new, stricter zoning regulations hurt their property values. City planning officials cited the threat of lawsuits as a major reason to not adopt the historic designation.

Gammage said opponents overstated Prop. 207’s impact — and that city officials may have used it to dodge controversy.

“I think it’s mostly political cover,” Gammage said.

He advocates creating a historic district and letting property owners file claims against the city if they believe their property values do suffer. If there is a real loss, Gammage said, Tempe should exempt that property from the district so the owner wouldn’t suffer financially.

The historic designation wouldn’t solve every problem or stop development, Gammage said, but it would instill more pride and encourage investment.

That happened in Phoenix’s Willow Historic District, where Gammage said deterioration had almost made the area unsalvageable.

But shortly after the city granted historic status, the area began to improve as residents restored old homes, Gammage said.

Though Maple-Ash is in better shape, Gammage said historic designation would spur improvement.

“You walk around Maple-Ash and it feels like the neighborhood is as it was 40 to 50 years ago,” Gammage said. “And that’s worth a lot in a metropolitan area where we lose that integrity too often.”