August 11, 2008

Call to Order: at 5:00 p.m.


Roll Call.

PRESENT:  Chair Bob Baughman
Vice Chair Daniel Zwiener
Commissioner Patrick Foley
Commissioner Pat Spoerl
Commissioner Valerie Pullara
Commissioner Lois Nagy

Also present:  Salette Latas, Council Member
Sarah More, Planning and Zoning Director
Scott Nelson, Special Projects Coordinator
Lexa Mack, Town Civil Attorney
Diane Chapman, Senior Office Specialist


Call to the Audience opened and closed with no speakers.


Approval of July 14, 2008, minutes.

MOTION:  Vice Chair Zwiener MOVED to approve the July 14, 2008, Historic Preservation Commission minutes.  Commission Nagy seconded the motion.  Motion carried: 6:0.


Discussion of Historic Preservation Issues with Representatives of State Historic Preservation Commission (SHPO).

Jim Garrison, State Historian, State Historic Preservtion Office, Phoenix, came to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) meeting because he had heard that HPC was not hearing back from SHPO.  It appears the issues revolve around: Steam Pump Ranch (SPR) development and Certified Local Government (CLG). 


Local communities may be certified as a CLG certifies communities as having if they have an ordinance and a historic preservation commission and that they meet certain requirements that are established in the National Historic Preservation Act as amended about 1980.  Historic properties are usually, but don’t have to be, over 50 years old. There are no restrictions on the number or type of historic buildings on having to have a great supply of historic buildings to be able to certify be certified

What is the resource base and what will become eligible?  New buildings should be built to be able to certify in 50 years.  You want to have something that has a sense of place, a purpose and a relationship to the environment.

The requirements for being a CLG are: 
- Having an Ordinance
- Having a Commission
- Try to represent history, architecture and archaeology on the Commission to the best of your ability.
- Meet at least 3 times a year. 
- In the Ordinance, you review changes to properties.
- Have a design review function within the ordinance.
- Survey for historic properties.  
- Make sure historic properties are preserved and control the uses to protect the properties. 

This is an enabling legislation.  A Historic District is a powerful tool to control the character of a neighborhood.  

If the Town you becomes a certified local government, there is a contract signed between the Mayor and Counci and the SHPO office.  If certified, CLG SHPO will be able to assist in some of these activities if necessary.  Maximum funds issued yearly is $10,000 to each of 8 properties.  There is a rotating list for the funding cycle.  The funds help cover soft costs for ordinance revisions, surveying, nominations, workshops, and training.

SHPO will review application and see if there is anything else they need.  They will need to see an inventory of potential properties.  

Comments from Commissioners and staff:

-The Town has been pursuing CLG status prior to HPC being established. 
-There are a lot of areas that would fall under historic designation. 
-We don’t have the professional resources on staff. 
-The Town has grown from 2.6 square miles to 36+ square miles. 
-There is an interest in doing a survey. 

Ms. More stated the Town Council has in this FY budget identified $50,000 to start work on an inventory for the Town.  That may be the inventory we need to become certified.  We have had some modest training. 

Mr. Garrison assured the Commission that they are not reluctant to certify.  We have certified every community that has followed the requirements.  Technical issues have kept communities from becoming certified.  Once in program, it is self-monitoring.  SHPO applauds Oro Valley for taking this step.

Roxy Johnson, Oro Valley resident, stated that even though Oro Valley was incorporated in 1974, it has been lived in for many years before.  It is important to preserve Steam Pump Ranch and other historic properties. 

Mr. Garrison said that the next steps towards becoming certified will be for SHPO to look over the file and talk to the archaeologist.  They will need to see the new ordinance.  Within 30 days SHPO will send a letter back to the Mayor, with a copy to staff, with any concerns and give a timeline for when designation may occur.   


Commissioner Spoerl gave a PowerPoint presentation showing the SPR map and pictures of buildings.

Mr. Garrison presented a map of SPR showing the recommended boundary for the nomination of the designated site.  SHPO would like to see the National Register nomination boundary as tight a possible around the buildings, which gives more freedom to add support buildings with more contemporary uses outside the boundary.  It may not be necessary to treat the whole area as historic.   Leaving the area where the stock were outside the boundary allows for interpretative use and more freedom, for such things as a petting zoo, ponies, meeting rooms, etc. He suggested not freezing the whole ranch in time, i.e. the two periods of history.  That is all allowable within the concept of rehabilitation.


The end product should be treated with respect.  Treatment becomes an ongoing management issue.  Functionality should help to preserve the property.  

Currently, the National Park Service recognizes four treatments:
1.  Preservation -  Maintaining property as you have it right now. Don’t add or take anything away as of the date of district nomination. 
2.  Restoration - Returning the property to a specific point in time.  This is very expensive to do accurately and should be thought out very carefully. Can it be done without making part of it faux?
3.  Rehabilitation - Putting a property into contemporary use while maintaining those features and areas that make the building eligible and worthy of preservation.
4.  Reconstruction -  You have to have a historic property in order to preserve it.  If you don’t have it, and you are going to reconstruct it, when you reconstruct it, you still don’t have a historic property because it is brand new.  Reconstruction should be applied to a historic district.  You can’t reconstruct something that is not gone. 

Mr. Garrison encouraged exploring alternatives that may be more cost effective, and answer questions before deciding upon a treatment.  Interpretation is the goal and should drive the treatment. A cash flow is needed to maintain the property.

There was an amendment to the National Historic Preservation Act in 1992 to the definition of historic preservation.  The word "reconstruction" was taken out of the NPA.  Development interpretaive plan and then decide treatment. 

Mr. Nelson told Mr. Garrison that the Town has a Transportation Grant (TE) before Pima Association of Governments (PAG). PAG loved the project, but because SHPO’s recommendation was to keep the Ranch Pumphouse building as a ruin, it dropped the Town’s rating. The Grant won’t be moved forward to State level if SHPO wants to keep the Ranch Pumphouse building as a ruin. 

Mr. Garrison said that SHPO could write a letter for the TE grant.  There are challenges with any treatment the Commission chooses.  SHPO will agree with either treatment the HPC decides. 

Break:  5 minutes

MOTION:  Vice Chair Zwiener MOVED to continue agenda items XIII, IX, and X to the next Historic Preservation Commission meeting.  Commissioner Spoerl seconded the motion.  Motion carried 6:0.


Discussion and possible action regarding HPC Rules and Procedures.

Attorney Mack said that as the Rules and Procedures read now, site tours are like study sessions and would need minutes taken, etc.  The Town Council policy on site tours is that it is a tour only and not a public meeting, which accommodates concerns about open meeting laws.

Ms. More said that having to take minutes for a site tour would create logistical difficulties. 

Chair Baughman was not adverse to the Council’s approach.

MOTION:  Commissioner Pullara MOVED to accept Town Council policy on site tours for HPC.  Commissioner Nagy seconded the motion.

Discussion:  Vice Chair Zwiener asked is the reasoning behind this is we want to preserve a collaborative process, as well as provide for a better treatment of the process and prevent controversy?
Chair Baughman said that adopting the Town Council policy will not interfere with the collaborative process.

Motion carried, 6:0.


Discussion and possible action on the proposed amendments to the Historical Preservation Code.

The Historic Preservation Code handout showed minor housekeeping changes as indicated in the margins.  (See attached)

MOTION:  Commissioner Nagy MOVED to approve the amendments as discussed (and as indicated in the attached copy of the Historic Preservation Code).  Vice Chair Zwiener seconded the motion.  Motion carried, 6:0.


Discussion and possible action regarding Steam Pump Ranch.


Discussion and possible action regarding HPC Work Plan.


CLG Application


Cultural Resource Inventory Plan




Community Outreach


Process Plan for Historic Designation


Role of the HPC




Santa Cruz Heritage Alliance


Discussion and possible action regarding National Alliance of Historic Commissions.



Mr. Nelson said he has received notice from the Historic Preservation Grant consultant, Vivia Strand, that the Town’s Historic Preservation Heritage Grant is being recommended to be funded at the August 19 meeting.  The recommended grant award is for $111,000. 

- The National Preservation Conference is October 21 through 25 in Tulsa, OK. 

- Mr. Garrison said HPC should consider the Steam Pump Ranch project as a legacy project and submit it as a Certified Legacy Project by the Arizona Historical Advisory Commission. See website: AZCentennial.gov  The State and City of Phoenix are trying to have National Trust for Historic Preservation have the 2012 Conference in Phoenix. (Make an agenda item)


Items for future agendas.

- Historical Society would like to make a presentation for a historical garden at Steam Pump Ranch.

- Centennial projects.



MOTION:  Commissioner Spoerl MOVED to adjourn the HPC meeting.  Vice Chair Zwiener seconded the motion.  Motion carried, 6:0. 
The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.