Emily Dale read the land acknowledgment.

Moved by Bernadette Burcham, seconded by Abbey Buckham to approve the minutes of the July 17, 2024 Heritage Preservation Commission meeting.

Vote: 5 - 0 - Unanimously

Sara Dechter: Explained that this is currently on the agenda as a level 1 grant application. The applicant is still determining if the materials in need of repair on the building are original or not. Depending on the material, it is an alternative action to provide an updated preservation summary and upgrade the project to level 2 funding, if the committee would like. 

Duffie Westheimer: States that the committee was given a report of how much grant money is still available. If this were deemed eligible for level 2 funding, how much would be left over for future projects?

Sara Dechter: If the new grant request and grant extension is approved, she believes there will still be about $75,000 left for grants for the year.

Emily Dale: Asked if it would be possible to approve the application at level 1 and potentially have it come back for additional funding.

Sara Dechter: That is up to the Commission's discretion. The only thing that's clear in the guidelines on timing is that after receiving a one-year grant extension, a grant recipient cannot ask for a second extension. 

Emily Dale: Asked if the only roadblock for level 2 funding is whether or not the stucco on the house is original.

Sara Dechter: Preferred the property owner to answer the question since she did the research.

Emily Dale: One of the other conditions of level 2 funding was oversight by the HPO to make sure work was being done up to level 2 standards. Asked if Sara Dechter is filling that role currently.

Sara Dechter: Stated that she is. 

Duffie Westheimer: Said that she might be able to connect the owner with a family member to find out how long she knows the stucco has been there. She is in her 80s.

Alycia Hayes: Asked if the question is whether the house had stucco when it was originally built or is the question whether or not the stucco is original. Stucco is cyclic in nature, so its probably been tore off and redone a couple of times or its probably in bad shape if its that old.

Sara Decther: Not sure if the home was something like wood clad and replaced with stucco or if it was originally stucco.

Caitlin Kelly: Stated that she has been living on the property for nearly 15 years. Explained that the building was converted into three apartments in the 1940s, so her best guess is that it was stucco'd in at that time. Also explained that no material has been removed from the building yet. Doesn't want to change anything or tear anything down, just wants to bring it back to life a little bit.

Duffie Westheimer: Asked if the applicant is prepared to deal with structural damage if there is any. 

Caitlin Kelly: Absolutely. She expects it. 

Emily Dale: Asked if the contractor would be able to discern any past repairs or whether the building was originally stucco.

Caitlin Kelly: It has not been discussed.

Duffie Westheimer: Appreciates that the applicant wants to keep what's there, because that family is important to Flagstaff's history. 

Abbey Buckham: The project description on the application states that it is for stucco repair. Asked for clarification if that allows for other repairs that may be needed.

Caitlin Kelly: Explained that there is a bid for stucco repair and a bid for other work that will be done. Since the application is for $10,000 and the stucco is $25,000, she only included the stucco repair to keep the application clean. 

Abbey Buckham: Asked if this grant can only be used for the stucco repair.

Sara Dechter: It would depend on how the commission makes the motion. 

Duffie Westheimer: Feels like some of the application is backwards because structural work will need be done before completing the stucco repair if structural work needs to be done. For that reason, she supports providing additional funding to preserve the form of the structure.

Sara Dechter: Stated that if the commission chose to approve level 2 funding, she will likely request that the property owner provide a revised preservation budget summary. She can amend the application in that way following the motion.

Emily Dale: Asked the applicant if she is prepared to comply with the Secretary of Interior Standards that level 2 funding requires.

Caitlin Kelly: She believes so. 

Duffie Westheimer: Stated that if the bid for additional repairs were itemized it would help to identify what work is structural and help make a decision on funding level. 

Emily Dale: Asked if there were any other thoughts on level 1 or level 2 funding for this application.

Abbey Buckham: Stated that she is comfortable with approving level 1 funding with the possibility for the project to upgrade to level 2 funding if needed. 

Duffie Westheimer: Asked Sara Dechter if this would be allowed.

Sara Dechter: Stated that the guidelines do not state that you can't, so it should not be an issue. The guidelines require the applicant to outline what kind of work they want to be reimbursed for. If the commission requires the applicant to work with the HPO, she will work on getting a revised budget summary that reflects all of the work needed.

Duffie Westheimer: Asked if the contractor finds that the stucco is not stable, is the applicant prepared to take it off and replace it?

Caitlin Kelly: Stated that she is prepared.

Alycia Hayes: Asked if there has been any assessment of what is behind the stucco.

Caitlin Kelly: Explained that there are certain areas where the stucco has fallen off and sometines there is exposed chicken wire and sometimes there is not. 

Alycia Hayes: Sugggested using a snake camera to look behind or into a building wall. 

Moved by Bernadette Burcham, seconded by Duffie Westheimer to approve a level 1 grant for up to $10,000 for stucco repair at 823 W Aspen Avenue with the option to upgrade to a level 2 grant if the repair requires additional work related to structural issues.

Vote: 5 - 0 - Unanimously

Sara Dechter: The construction work at 1625 N Sunset Drive is underway, but they have not submitted receipts. The grant expired in July, so it should have came to the Commission in July. The property owner will be done with the work this fall and will be submitting receipts. 

Emily Dale: Asked if the reason for exceeding the time frame was because they couldn't get the materials that they needed.

Sara Dechter: Stated that she wasn't sure of the exact reason. 

*The Commission then moved on to the grant extension request for 416 S San Francisco Street*

Sara Dechter: This property has not yet started construction. Not sure what the delay has been, but they are still planning to go forward with the project. They will need an extension for it to be funded because they have exceeded the time period of their grant approval. 

Abby Buckham: asked if grant recipients are only allowed one extension.

Sara Dechter: Answered that they are allowed one extension. If the work is not completed by the end of extension, then they will have to submit another grant application as a new project. 

Moved by Abbey Buckham, seconded by Bernadette Burcham to approve a one-year extension for the Historic Signs and Facades Grant originally issued July 16, 2023 at 1625 N Sunset Drive.

Vote: 5 - 0 - Unanimously

Moved by Duffie Westheimer, seconded by Abbey Buckham to approve a one-year extension for Historic Signs and Facades Grants originally issued July 16, 2023 at 416 S. San Francisco St.

Vote: 5 - 0 - Unanimously

Tiffany Antol: Explained that there were four bills passed by the Governor of Arizona that will require changes to City Code. Senate Bill 1162 will impact the time frames in which zoning map amendments are reviewed. The code must be updated to reflect this by January 1, 2025. House Bill 2720 outlines standards for Accessory Dwelling Units. It mandates us to allow or expand their construction on parcels zoned for single-family homes. The code must be updated to reflect this by January 1, 2025. House Bill 2325 forbids municipalities from prohibiting single0family detached homes to keep up to six fowl in their backyards. House Bill 2721 requires us to allow the construction of duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and townhomes on all lots zoned for single-family residential use. The code must be updated to reflect this by January 1, 2026.

Presented proposed code amendment for zoning map amendment review time frames (SB1162). The recently adopted legislation requires municipalities to adopt an amendment to their zoning ordinance that requires a zoning application to be administratively complete within 30 days after receiving and to approve or deny the application within 180 days after the application is deemed administratively complete.

Explained that the reason for all of this legislation is the pressures and burdens in regard to the cost of housing. The cost of housing has always been tough in flagstaff, but the rest of state is starting to face the aspect of housing stock that is less affordable. You're going to see more and more push toward the legislature mandating more changes to the zoning code to increase housing stock and supply. 

Presented proposed code amendment for accessory dwelling units (HB2720). This amendment needs to be done by January 1, 2025. If it is not done by then, ADUs are allowed on all lots and parcels without any limitations. There were no exceptions granted for historic districts as part of this legislation. Whatever applies in this legislation will apply to all properties. It will mean some substantial changes, mostly for the Townsite district. Requirements of the new legislation include allowing at least one attached and one detached ADU on any lot or parcel that allows a single-family dwelling unit. The legislation is not clear on what attached means. On additional ADU may be permitted on a lot or parcel greater than one acre when the unit is restricted affordable dwelling. Also must allow an ADU that is 75% of the gross floor area of the SFD or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less. Municipalities may not prohibit the long-term lease of all units. Municipalities may not require a familial, marital, employment, or other preexisting relationship between the owner or occupant of an SFD and the occupant of an ADU. Municipalities may not require that a lot or parcel have additional parking to accommodate an ADU or require fees instead of additional parking. Municipalities may not require that an ADU match the exterior design, roof pitch, or finishing materials of the SFD on the same lot or parcel. Municipalities may not set restrictions for ADUs that are more restrictive than those for SFDs in the same zoning district with regard to height, setbacks, lot size or coverage, or building frontage. Municipalities may not require improvements to public streeds as a condition of allowing an ADU, except as necessary to construct or repair a public street that is disturbed as a result of the construction of the ADU. Municipalities may not require a restrictive covenant concerning an ADU. 

Presented future changes regarding missing middle housing (HB 2721). On or before January 1, 2026, the City must authorize by ordinance and incorporate into its development regulations, zoning regulations, and other official controls the development of duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes,  and townhomes as a permitted use in all lots zoned for single-family residential use within one mile of the municipality's central business district and at least twenty percent of any new developments of more than ten contiguous acres. This will likely primarily impact the R1N district, which currently has a higher density allowance affiliated with it but does not allow for multifamily housing. An code amendment has not been drafted at this time. Additionally, the municipality may not do any of the following:

Discourage development of missing middle housing through requirements or actions that individually or cumulatively make impracticable the permitting, siting, or construction of middle housing.
Restrict middle housing types to less than two floors.
Restrict middle housing types to a floor area ratio of less than fifty percent. 
Set restrictions, permitting or review processes for middle housing that are more restrictive than those for SFDs within the same zone.
Require owner occupancy of any structures on the lot.
Require any structures to comply with a commercial building code or to contain a fire sprinkler.
Require more than one off-street parking space per unit. 

This section does not prohibit the governing body of a municipality from allowing either of the following:

SFDs in areas zoned for SFDs.
Additional types of middle housing not required under this section.

This legislation does not apply to any of the following:

Unincorporated areas.
Areas that lack sufficient urban services.
Areas that are not served by water and sewer/
Areas that are not zoned for residential use. 
Areas that re not incorporated and are zoned under an interim zoning designation that maintains the area's potential for planned urban development. 
Areas covered under title 48, chapter 6, arcicle 4 (County Improvement Districts - DWID).
Any land within the territory in the vicinity of a public airport as defined in section 28-8486 or to the extent this section would interfere with the public airport's ability to comply with the laws, regulations and requirements of the United States related to applying for receiving or spending federal monies.
Any land within the territory in the vicinity of a military airport as defined in section 28-8461.

Tiffany Antol then began taking questions. 

Emily Dale: Asked if it specifically states in the legislation that there are no exceptions for historic districts.

Tiffany Antol: Stated that initial drafts stated some exceptions for historic districts and they were removed. 

Duffie Westheimer: Stated that her understanding is that when they wrote this they weren't aware of Flagstaff's historic districts with very small lots. They were thinking of big cities where there are historic houses on big lots. 

Sara Dechter: Pointed out that there was a point at which Mark Reavis and herself were communicating with lobbyists and providing comments and part of the reason this applies to cities of over 75,000 is because they wanted to include Flagstaff. While they may not have been aware of the particulars, they did particularly include Flagstaff because of the city's housing affordability issues.

Duffie Westheimer: Agreed that they are concerned about Flagstaff's issue, but do not know the impact of these decisions on Flagstaff's historic districts. 

Alycia Hayes: Explained that the Arizona SHPO provided comments on this and that's pretty much all they could do. This is happening in a lot of places, not just Arizona.

Duffie Westheimer: Pointed out that R1N allows duplexes, so it is not actually a single family zone.

Tiffany Antol: Responded that none of the city's zones are single family zones even though they have the misnomer of being called single family zones. 

Duffie Westheimer: Asked if setbacks will be five feet no matter what.

Tiffany Antol: Stated that the setback for ADUs will be five feet on the rear and anterior sides, which is what they are now. Currently the height limitation is 16 feet, but it will go up to 35 feet in most zones. 25 feet for the Townsite Overlay. 

Bernadette Burcham: Asked how parking changes will work in relation to winter parking.

Tiffany Antol: Stated that it is a conversation that will probably need to be had in the future. Also pointed out that a lot of communities with snow allow on-street parking all the time. Ultimately, it will be a council decision.

Duffie Westheimer: Requested that Tiffany Antol come again to present additional information specific to how these code changes will impact historic districts. 

Tiffany Antol: Explained that if the commission is interested and wants to protect their neighborhoods, they can have Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC&Rs) with private land use regulations. This requires 100% of property owners to agree to be included in deed restrictions, but CC&Rs can enforce stricter requirements.

Sara Dechter: Stated that whoever is serving as the Heritage Preservation Officer will convey to the commission when drafts become available and when they are scheduled for hearings. Planners are going to be learning this as a group and SHPO is probably going to be offering some technical guidance. As Alycia Hayes said, there has already been some webinars to help historic preservation professionals understand. It is too early in this process to give more specific details at this time.

Alycia Hayes: Asked if these types of discussions will be on the Planning & Zoning commission as well and if those are recorded.

Tiffany Antol: Agreed with Alycia Hayes and confirmed that the meetings are recorded. Provided details on dates related to amendments. 

Duffie Westheimer: Asked what council's role will be.

Tiffany Antol: Council could choose to be in violation of state law, and that's a conversation for them and their attorney. 

Emily Dale: Commented that Sara Dechter keeping the commission apprised of important dates would be great. And any specifics that could be provided could be really helpful. 

Sara Dechter: The consultant for the Downtown Mile Section 106 consultation requested to share a memo that they have sent to SHPO for concurrence. To complete the Downtown Mile, get a third rail, and address the bottleneck on Milton under the bridge, the bridge has to be replaced. The documentation they provided the commission is on the history of the bridge and the inventory form. They are looking at two forms of mitigation, interpretive panels and other inclusions of art. 

Duffie Westheimer: Asked which direction the lane widening is going, because there is a building there. 

Sara Dechter: The Milton Road Corridor Study has a widening plan for how wide they would like Milton to be at that location. It does not impact any existing building, except for maybe the one at the corner, but that's not going to happen initially with the bridge construction. 

Duffie Westheimer: Stated that Sitgreaves intersection is going to turn into a T-Intersection, no longer a slip lane. Asked if there will still be a pedestrian walkway.

Sara Dechter: Explained that ADOT usually follows the local standards for curb and sidewalks. The City would require that an arterial have sidewalks on both sides. There is currently no design work on that so, so it is not possible to answer any detailed questions at this time. 

Duffie Westheimer: Brought up that the Malpais along the wall there is new. It was done in 1988, which is not mentioned in the memo. The railing on the left side and above are also new. 

Sara Dechter: Believes that Mark Reavis made them aware of this. 

Duffie Westheimer: Explained that what's missing is the importance of that connector between South side and North side. 

Sara Dechter: Explained that this is likely outside of the scope of the document for concurrence.

Duffie Westheimer: Acknowledges this, but thinks the Criteria A, historic events and trends should include the importantance of linking the South side and North side of Flagstaff.

Emily Dale: Suggested that that may be more in line with the interpretive panels that Sara Dechter was mentioning, rather than a memo of concurrence.

Sara Dechter: Stated that she can take that feedback to Ted Roberts, who is the historic preservation professional working on this, and find out what he has in terms of those kind of materials for the interpretive panels. 

Sara Dechter: Explained that for the last 3 years when a grant was obligated the city budget team would roll over the money if they hadn't been paid by the end of the fiscal year. For some reason they did not do that this year. Doesn't know that they won't do it next year. Carry forward usually isn't requested until March, so next February sitting down with the budget team and talking about why will be on the list of things to do. With that, we have our budget request of $160,000, but some of it is tied to grants that were obligated last fiscal year.

Sara Dechter then explained the status of obligated grants. 

Sara Dechter: Stated that she will be preparing a monthly report on the status of grants. 

Sara Dechter: A certificate of no effect was approved for 111 N Beaver Street which is not contributing to the Downtown Overlay, but is in the Downtown Overlay. 

Sara Dechter: Stated that there was a Section 106 review this month. Federal Highways is looking at bringing a fiber optic line through the interstate corridor and they sent their 106 work over and let us look at all the sites they had determined. We sent them back a Phase 3 Cultural Resource Study that they had missed in their report that was completed on the East Side of town.

Michelle McNulty: Positions have been posted on the website for Senior Planner, Comprehensive Neighborhood Planner, and Historic Preservation Officer. 

Also stated that the acting attorney at the City will be doing the Prop 207 presentation that was requested. 

Sara Dechter: Updated on revised schedule for the final Regional Plan Committee meetings. 

Duffie Westheimer: Explained that an article is available regarding historic preservation's response to the "Yes in My Backyard" movement. Also asked what went to the IDS Review for the 15 N Park project. 

Michelle McNulty: Last month they brought a concept plan, which is a high level review of what they intend to build. The City make sure they are meeting codes, but it is not a formal approval. This application was also required to go through a site plan review, which is what is currently in review.

Sara Dechter: Added that project's like 15 N Park should probably submit a site plan and get at least one round of site plan review comments before coming to the Heritage Preservation Commission. This is because they could be redesigning through the site plan review process in a way that could change their application.