City Council Work Session

Return to the Search Page Return to the Agenda

Meeting Date:	06/28/2016
From:	Karl Eberhard, Comm Design & Redevelopment Mgr
Department:	Economic Vitality
Co-Submitter:

TITLE:

Discussion/Presentation on the Historic Preservation Ordinance with a focus on Cultural Resource Studies and the Role of the Historic Preservation Officer

DESIRED OUTCOME:

Present to Council and answer any questions

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

This report provides information about Historic Preservation with a focus on Cultural Resource Studies including the applicability, requirements, processes, decision making, authorities, and statistical history of the program. It also provides similar detail as to the role of the Historic Preservation Officer. The information is summarized, on one page, in the attached "At-a-Glance" flow chart.

INFORMATION:

PART 1 - CULTURAL RESOURCE STUDIES

Background:

Why are Cultural Resource Studies Required?

Regional Plan 2030: The adopted Regional Plan 2030 establishes the preservation of our heritage as an important policy of the City. “Preserving the region’s heritage, including its design, building traditions, and cultural preservation, enhances the quality of life in the Flagstaff area. Our region’s cultural and historic resources must be preserved, protected, and enhanced.” “For cultural and historic resources to serve as meaningful focal points within the community, it is necessary to preserve archaeological sites, historic sites, and historic buildings of significance.” Two Regional Plan 2030 goals specific to Cultural Resource Studies are:

Policy CC.2.1. Actively locate, identify, interpret, and preserve historical, archaeological, and cultural resources, in cooperation with other agencies and non-governmental organizations, as aspects of our society for future generations to retain, understand, and enjoy their cultural identity.

Policy CC.2.3. Mitigate development impacts on heritage resources.

City of Flagstaff Zoning Code: The Zoning Code identifies the following purpose for Cultural Resource Studies:

To identify significant cultural resources and potential impacts of proposed development so that mitigation measures can be established for major impacts prior to development of the property.

The process was designed and considered to not restrict property rights and to be fair and reasonable in proportion to the nature of the proposal and the value of the resource.

What are Cultural Resources?

Cultural resources are objects, structures, natural features, sites, places, and areas having historic, architectural, archaeological, cultural or aesthetic significance. In the Zoning Code, they are divided into historic and archeological types. Historic resources are most often buildings, but can be other structures, objects, sites, districts, and areas. Historic resources were generally created after European contact with native peoples and are most often above ground. Archaeological resources include remains from human activities prior to written records. They can be isolated elements like simple potsherds but can also be habitation complexes. Notably, cultural resources are finite and non-renewable resources that once destroyed cannot be returned to their original state.

What is a Cultural Resource Study?

In brief, Cultural Resource Studies seek the answers to four questions:

Are significant resources present (defined in ZC 10-30.30-050.B)? While the determination criteria are more detailed, in general, a resource is significant if it is already on a registry of historic places; if it is associated with historic people or events; or if it embodies distinctive characteristics. For archeological resources, a resource can also be significant if it may still yield information for further scientific research. Part of understanding a resource and its significance is identifying the historic context - the period, the place, and the events that created, influenced, or formed the backdrop to the historic resources. Similarly, this research identifies the “the period of significance” – the span of time associated with its significance.

Does the resource have integrity (defined in ZC 10-30.30-050.C)? Historic integrity refers to whether or not the property authentically retains its historic appearance, its completeness, and if the remaining physical characteristics still illustrate the property’s significance. Has the character been retained? Would someone from the period of significance recognize the resource? Integrity is the composite of seven qualities: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. Authenticity, or the lack of false history, is integral with integrity. As a result, preserving the original materials and avoiding re-created elements is important. Integrity and condition are not the same - a resource in poor condition can still retain integrity.

Will the proposed work negatively impact the resource (defined in ZC 10-30.30-050.D)? Change often preserves resources and can be positive from a preservation perspective by allowing buildings to have new uses and modern amenities. Negative impacts are those that compromise the integrity of the resource. Also, “readily reversible” is a special class of changes that have neither positive nor negative impacts. On one hand they are superficial and relatively inexpensive changes that often come about through maintenance, and that usually involve elements with relatively short life cycles (like paint). On the other hand, they can be elements (like additions) designed to allow the historic resource to dominate the overall design; to be compatible with the resource; and if removed, the original resource is intact or nearly intact.

How can negative impacts be mitigated (defined in ZC 10-30.30-050.E)? In most cases, project goals can be achieved in multiple ways. This portion of the study identifies steps that can be taken, or alternative design proposals, to mitigate proposed negative impacts on significant resources. Notably, the mitigation for a proposal to destroy the integrity of a significant cultural resource is complete documentation of the resource (i.e. additional more in-depth studies known as Phase 2 Cultural Resource Studies).

Authorities, Requirements, and Processes:

[Author’s Note: It may be assistive to have the attached “At-a-Glance” flow chart at hand when reading this section.]

What authorizes the requirement for a Cultural Resource Study and when are they required?

Title 10 of the Flagstaff Municipal Code (Zoning Code), Division 10-30.30: Heritage Preservation, Section 10-30.30.050 Cultural Resources authorizes the requirement for a Cultural Resource Study.

When a development approval (permit) is sought, Cultural Resource Studies are required for buildings that are already recognized as historic, buildings that are over fifty years old, and for undeveloped land (ZC 10-30.30.050.A.2). However, this basic applicability standard has exceptions for buildings that are deemed “immediate hazards” by the Chief Building Official, maintenance work, and interior work (ZC 10-30.30.020.B).

The exclusion of interior work from consideration differentiates the Flagstaff requirements from similar assessments prepared for other cities, the State, or to meet Federal regulations and is a calibration of the Zoning Code requirements to the values of this community.

Further calibrating the Zoning Code to local values and distinguishing it from similar codes, there are additional exceptions that the Historic Preservation Officer (HPO) may determine as applicable (ZC 10-30.30.050.A.2.b):

Small undeveloped parcels, but in generally developed areas, are not required to seek archeological resources on the basis that such sites are generally already disturbed.
In adding these requirements to the development review process, the City Council specifically excluded production housing built after 1945. This is reflective of broad discussions within the heritage preservation industry that question the historic value of post-war housing.
Structures that lack integrity are exempt. Notably, the practice of the HPO, supported by the City Attorney’s Office, has been only to exempt those that clearly lack integrity and when there is any doubt, when the answer is “maybe”, a Cultural Resource Study is sought.

In the first (2011) version of these Zoning Code provisions, it was necessary to rely on industry standards (referenced in the Zoning Code) for the definition of “integrity”. The 2016 revisions copied those standards directly into the Zoning Code.

Work that does not have major impacts; that does not diminish the significance or integrity of the resource; that is reversible; or that is temporary is exempt. Again, the practice of the HPO has been only to exempt those proposals that clearly do not have impacts and a Cultural Resource Study is sought when there is any doubt.

Projects designed to meet the Secretary of the Interiors’ Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (the Standards) retain eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and thus do not have impacts (ZC 10-30.30.050.F.2). Furthermore, projects formally or informally reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), with results indicating that NRHP eligibility is retained similarly do not have impacts (ZC 10-30.30.050.A.3.c(5)).

In the first (2011) version of these Zoning Code provisions, this exception was not clearly stated. In 2014 the City Attorney’s Office expressed concern about the language. This was addressed in the short term by a moratorium on the use of this exception and in the long term by the 2016 Zoning Code revisions.

Minor work that is eligible for Consent Approval, a Certificate of No Effect (ZC 10-30.30.030.C), is exempt.
The 2016 Zoning Code revisions added “Other (site specific) circumstances under which it is reasonable to conclude that a Cultural Resource Study is not warranted.” This reflects the desire for the process to be reasonable and responsive.

Decision: This applicability assessment is accomplished by the HPO as a standard part of the Inter-divisional Staff (IDS) review of proposed development projects or it is accomplished as a standard part of the review of a Building Permit when IDS review is not required.

Review Time: It has no additional review time implications for an applicant.

Historical Outcome: For 85% of development applications, a Cultural Resource Study is not required.

[Author's Note: As projects with exceptions for “immediate hazards”, maintenance work, and interior work are not tracked, statistics such as “85%” that have been provided in this report exclude such projects.]

What type of report is required and what is the process?

Applicants or report preparers work with the HPO to determine the appropriate report type and format based on the specific circumstances of the site and the proposed work (ZC 10-30.30.050.A.3.a). The appropriate type of report may be an Archeological Resource Study or a Historic Resource Study, or both. They also work collaboratively to determine the appropriate report format (ZC 10-30.30.050.A.3.c) and there are three typical formats, or levels of consideration - Letter Reports, Phase 1 Reports or Phase 2 Reports.

Letter Reports (ZC 10-30.30.050.A.3.c.(1)): A Letter Report is appropriate when site conditions, historic records, or previous research or studies indicate that cultural resources are not likely to be present, the integrity of a cultural resource is already severely compromised, or the proposed work will not compromise the integrity of the cultural resource, and when no mitigation measures are warranted. Letter reports are intended to be informal and brief. The contents of the report are reduced to only address the subjects in question. If the situation cannot be addressed in a brief format, or if on-site inspection or research suggests that these conditions are not true, then a Phase 1 Cultural Resource Study is appropriate.

Having reports with reduced content is another way that the program was designed to be reasonable; that calibrates the Zoning Code to local values; and that distinguishes our requirements from similar programs.

Decision: Letter Reports are accepted by the HPO (ZC 10-30.30.030.C.1.a) with oversight by the Heritage Preservation Commission (Commission) (ZC 10-30.30.030.C.2.b). At regular meetings of the Commission, the HPO presents Letter Reports that were approved in the prior month, including a description of the resource and project, why a Letter Report was appropriate, and what were the results. The Commission in turn provides feedback to the HPO on any aspect of the project, determinations, or approval which is then used when future considerations are made by the HPO.

Review Time: While Arizona law and our published application approval schedule allows 45 days, approvals are provided within a week. For projects subject to IDS review, the preparation of these reports overlaps with, or runs parallel to, other development review processes and has no impact on development schedules. For projects that go directly to a Building Permit (no IDS review), there can be a delay for preparation of the report – the length of that delay being dependent on how fast a consultant can work. As far as approvals of the Letter Reports, the typical turn-around is measured in hours if not minutes.

Historical Outcome: Letter Reports have been applicable for ten percent of all development applications – two-thirds of all required Cultural Resource Studies.

Phase 1 Cultural Resource Study (ZC 10-30.30.050.A.3.c.(2)): Phase 1 Cultural Resource Studies are the “baseline” requirement. Such reports formally identify the presence of cultural resources, evaluate the potential for additional cultural resources being discovered, assess the significance of identified and potential cultural resources, assess identified and potential impacts, and provide measures to mitigate major impacts on significant cultural resources. Again, if on-site inspection or research suggests that these conditions actually are not true, then the report is reduced to a Letter Report.

Decision: Phase 1 Cultural Resource Studies are reviewed and accepted by the Commission only. Like Letter Reports, the preparation of these reports overlaps with, or runs parallel to, other development review processes. Typically, in IDS cases, a delay is rarely the result and for direct to Building Permit cases, the process can cause delay.

Review Time: While Arizona law and our published application approval schedule allows 45 days, the typical turnaround does not exceed thirty days. There have been a handful of cases where an applicant has had to come back to the Commission to provide additional information and in one case the HPO needed to provide the Commission with additional information.

Historical Outcome: Phase 1 Cultural Resource Studies have been applicable for 4.25% of all development applications – nearly all of the remaining circumstances wherein a Cultural Resource Study is required.

Phase 2 Cultural Resource Study (ZC 10-30.30.050.A.3.c.(3)): When identified cultural resources are determined to be significant; when they retain integrity; and when total destruction of the resource’s integrity is proposed – only when all three conditions exist – it is appropriate to mitigate the loss of the resource via the preparation of a Phase 2 Cultural Resource Study. The Zoning Code specifies an “order of preference” for mitigating impacts on resources (ZC 10-30.30.050.E.3b). For historic resources, a Phase 2 Cultural Resource Study is the least desirable mitigation measure – the recovery of data. In these cases, where there is a proposal to destroy an intact significant cultural resource, the materials of a Phase 1 Cultural Resource Study are supplemented with as-built drawings so that there is a complete record of the resource prior to its destruction.

Notably, this documentation requirement does not prevent an applicant from destroying an intact significant cultural resource. So, while approximately 10% of identified significant resources have been destroyed even when the applicant was aware of the value, 90% of applicants have made proposals that do not destroy the resource.

Decision: Only the Commission determines when a Phase 2 Cultural Resource Study is required, and review and acceptance of the report is only by the Commission.

Review Time: When the Commission requires a Phase 2 Cultural Resource Study in response to reviewing a Phase 1 Cultural Resource Study, thirty additional days is normal. However, the conditions that establish a requirement for a Phase 2 Cultural Resource Study are defined by the Zoning Code and the requirement is very predictable (ZC 10-30.30.050.A.5). As a result, some applicants – understanding the value of the resource and the major impacts of the proposal – choose to provide the Phase 2 Cultural Resource Study on their first submittal and thus they do not experience the additional review time.

Historical Outcome: Phase 2 Cultural Resource Studies have been required for 1.5% of all development applications.

In addition, the Zoning Code has provisions for Phase 3 Archeological Reports (ZC 10-30.30.050.A.3.c.(4)). These are extremely rare reports that address circumstances where archeological artifacts are physically recovered from the field and curated at a museum. None have been required during the five years since these requirements have been in place.

Appeal Process (ZC 10-30.30.080): Anyone or any entity aggrieved by a decision of the HPO in interpreting, applying, or enforcing the provisions of the Heritage Preservation Chapter of the Zoning Code properly appeals the decision to the Commission. The practice of the HPO has been to offer a referral to the Commission – thus avoiding the time and expense of an appeal - whenever an applicant appears dissatisfied (per ZC 10-30.30.030.C.2.a). Similarly any decision of the Commission is properly appealed to the City Council. There are no provisions to appeal the decisions of the HPO to City management, State agencies, or directly to the City Council.

Additional Requested Information:

Who prepares Cultural Resource Studies?

For most development projects, applicants hire professionals to prepare application materials. These include land surveyors to map the land, water courses, trees, and other natural resources; architects to design the site and buildings; and engineers to design the storm water systems and to assess the traffic and other impacts. Similarly, applicants hire qualified consultants to prepare these reports addressing potential impacts to cultural resources. These professionals must be qualified in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (ZC 10-30.30.050.3.b).

How much do Cultural Resource Studies cost?

In 2001 when the City Council considered the Zoning Code changes that required Cultural Resource Studies, the Council specifically asked about the expected costs of this documentation. This was and still is difficult to determine due to the varied nature of resources, the complexity of resources and project proposals, and due to the varied costs of consultant services. However, the costs that have been reported to the HPO have been as predicted for Letter Reports and Phase 1 reports and substantially less than predicted for Phase 2 reports. In addition, on behalf of the City, the HPO has ordered several Cultural Resource Studies for our projects and the costs have been consistent with the expectations.

Letter Reports generally cost between $500 and $1,000 and Phase 1 Cultural Resource Studies cost between $2,500 and $5,000. Phase 2 Cultural Resource Studies were predicted to be double the cost of a Phase 1 Cultural Resource Study or more. The actual cost has been much less – most have cost less than $5,000 for both the Phase 1 and Phase 2 documentation.

What becomes of these reports?

Projects plans, impacts reports, and other development application materials, including Cultural Resource Studies, are public records and are maintained at the offices of the City, specifically at City Hall, pursuant to an established records retention schedules. Citizens may, and do, review the reports at City Hall. Only archeological reports are withheld pursuant to Federal law and the Zoning Code (ZC 10-30.30.050.A.4.b).

Staff has been working to make the Historic Resource Studies more available than other public records through curation at the Cline Library. Language regarding this curation in the 2011 version of the Zoning Code was determined to be legally insufficient. The language was addressed in the 2016 Zoning Code revisions and staff looks forward to being able to make these public records more available to the public in the future.

How has it been going?

Since the adoption of the new Zoning Code (November of 2011), nearly 400 development applications have been assessed for the need of preparing a Cultural Resource Study. The applicability of the Cultural Resource Study requirements has been as follows:

85% - Cultural Resource Study not required.

10% - Letter Report required.

4.25% - Phase 1 Cultural Resource Study required.

1.50% - Phase 2 Cultural Resource Study required.

Notably, fewer projects are getting the higher levels of review than was expected when the City Council considered these requirements.

During this time, as the reports have provided the information necessary for informed decisions, many projects have been conceptualized or changed to address the resources in an appropriate way. Just a few examples:

23 S. Agassiz Street was originally proposed for demolition and has since become a full restoration project.
623 N. Leroux Street was re-designed to be an exemplary adaptive re-use of an historic house.
The historic house on the site of the HUB is proposed to be moved instead of demolished.
The Babbitt House on North Beaver Street is proposed to be moved instead of demolished.
Previously unknown “pit houses” were found off Rain Valley Road and are being avoided in the development.
The pending Timber Sky development incorporated historic features of the McAllister Residence site into the design of their park and incorporated historic themes into the project design and street names.

Several resources that could have been saved – preserved, relocated, or incorporated into a development, were not.

PART 2 – THE ROLE OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER

What are the enabling ordinances that direct this position?

The role of the Historic Preservation Officer is enabled by Title 10 of the Flagstaff Municipal Code (the Zoning Code), Chapter 10-20: Administration, Procedures, and Enforcement - Section 10-20.20.060.

What are the duties of the Historic Preservation Officer?

The day-to-day duties of the HPO relative to Cultural Resource Studies have been illustrated above (Authorities, Requirements, and Processes). These preservation activities are assigned to the HPO and authorized by the Zoning Code (ZC 10-20.20.060):

Develop and direct all heritage preservation projects, activities, and investigations;
Conduct an ongoing survey(s) to identify objects, structures, natural features, sites, places, and areas within the City having historic, architectural, archaeological, cultural or aesthetic significance for the nation, region, State, or City;
Keep and maintain the Flagstaff Register of Historic Places;
Provide technical assistance and make professional recommendations on preservation matters that are brought to the Heritage Preservation Commission, other commissions, or the Council;
Make recommendations to the Heritage Preservation Commission on the designation of cultural resources as Landmarks or as Historic Districts;
Assist the Director with all matters pertaining to heritage preservation;
Serve as liaison between the City and the State Historic Preservation Officer and other government and non-governmental agencies in all matters pertaining to heritage preservation; and,
Serve as liaison between the Heritage Preservation Commission and the public, property owners, other City staff, the Council, and other government and non-governmental agencies in all matters pertaining to heritage preservation.

Please find the following descriptions of day-to-day duties of the HPO not illustrated above (Authorities, Requirements, and Processes):

Prior to the 2011, the Land Development Code inconsistently included application submittal requirements that were often also inconsistent with actual practice. With the 2011 Zoning Code, the submittal requirements for various development applications were removed from the text of the code - they are now prepared by staff and published separately. This change was not done in the Heritage Preservation chapter. The 2016 Zoning Code revisions changed the Heritage Preservation chapter to be consistent with other development application processes which in turn placed the preparation of submittal requirements with the HPO. While the HPO has developed a “working version” that utilizes the requirements removed from the text of the code, the HPO is currently working with the Commission to finalize the requirements.
The HPO follows approved projects to assure that what is built is consistent with what was approved. The Building Inspectors seek confirmation of this from the HPO prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
As a Certified Local Government (CLG), SHPO consults with the City of Flagstaff when matters of preservation in Flagstaff come within their jurisdiction. For private development, this is typically relative to the property tax incentives for historic preservation. Such consultations are specifically directed to the HPO (ZC 10-20.20.060.G) and include discussions of development reviews, approvals, and processes by the City; the work proposed and performed; and often the opinion of the HPO as to appropriate actions by SHPO.

In addition to direction provided by the Zoning Code and the Standards, the HPO consults with SHPO as needed on matters of preservation in Flagstaff. This typically involves assistance with interpretations of significance, integrity, impacts, or mitigation measures.

In developing the Zoning Code in 2011, the SHPO provided numerous materials and suggestions that were used to prepare the proposed programs and language of the code. Prior to the adoption by the City Council, the SHPO reviewed and commented on the final draft of the Heritage Preservation chapter. They recommend not excluding the building interiors from consideration and they commented on the use of the term "cultural resource" - suggesting the use of other terms such as "historic resource" and "archeological resource".

It may also be helpful to understand what HPO does not do:

The HPO does not require the preparation of a Cultural Resource Study. Cultural Resource Studies are required by the Zoning Code (ZC 10-30.30.050.A.2) and the role of the HPO (ZC 10-20.20.060.H) is simply to inform applicants of the requirement and to assist them in the process.
Unlike other Arizona cities, the HPO does not decide if a resource is significant, nor does the HPO determine or impose mitigation measures. With strict guidelines and under limited circumstances, the HPO may determine a lack of integrity or a lack of impacts (ZC 10-30.30.050.A.2.b). The significance, integrity, impacts, and mitigation measures are determined by the consultants of applicants.
The HPO works with applicants and consultants to initially determine the appropriate type and format of reports and what “level of report” (Letter Report, Phase 1, or Phase 2) is appropriate. However, with the exception of Letter Reports, what is accepted, what is ultimately required, is determined by the Commission.
Outside of the local historic districts, the HPO does not require that an applicant follow any preservation standards or guidelines. However, if an applicant wishes to utilize the “no major impacts” exception (ZC 10-30.30.050.A.2.b), they are directed to the Standards. The HPO provides technical advice when requested.

Attachments
Powerpoint Slides
At-a-Glance Flow Chart