Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
09-26-16 CC Mtg - A1. Historic Structures Text Amendment
Page 1 of 16 14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance of Buildings and Demolition of Historic Structures Text Amendment Public Hearing Date: Zoning Commission/Planning Board public hearing - September 6, 2016 at 6 pm City Commission public hearing - September 26, 2016 at 6 pm. Project Description: These amendments create and clarify obligations of property owners to maintain their property and address the process for when and under what conditions structures can be removed when a structure is classed as a historic structure or located within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD). Project Location: Generally applicable throughout the City with special applicability within those areas documented as historically significant including the NCOD. Recommendation: Approval Recommended Advisory Board Motion: Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 14623 and move to recommend approval of the text amendment. Recommended City Commission Motion: Having reviewed and considered the application materials, public comment, and all the information presented, I hereby adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 14623 and move to approve the text amendment and direct staff to integrate these provisions as part of the update to the Unified Development Code. Report Date: September 15, 2016 Staff Contact: Chris Saunders, Interim Director Agenda Item Type: Action - Legislative EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Unresolved Issues – See Appendix C for discussion 1) Shall the restriction for issuance of a demolition permit for non-historic structures in the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District require simultaneous issuance of a building permit for the subsequent development? See Section 9, Paragraph D.3.a of the draft text. 2) Shall the definition of historic property/structure apply outside of the boundaries of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. See Section 6 and Section 8, Paragraph B of the draft text. 80 14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance of Buildings and Demolition of Historic Structures Text Amendment Page 2 of 16 Project Summary One of the distinguishing factors for Bozeman is its well-kept established neighborhoods. Many of these areas are located within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) where there are protections in place for historic buildings. The City has had regulations in place to protect historic buildings for about 24 years. For the past several years, there has been considerable discussion on how to balance historic preservation with community goals for infill development and redevelopment of under- utilized or obsolete properties. Overly restrictive regulations may inhibit desired redevelopment or removal of unsafe structures. Overly permissive regulations may allow the loss of important elements of Bozeman’s unique character. On July 14, 2014, the City Commission conducted a work session with staff to discuss these issues. Agenda item G.6 has the staff memo linked. A copy of the memo and meeting minutes is attached. The draft regulations incorporate the Commission direction given that day with some modifications determined appropriate during the code drafting process. The text amendment seeks a balance of these two issues by creating a clear definition of what is historic and distinguishing how historic, non-historic, and unsafe buildings are addressed. An associated concern is how to provide protection to adjacent residents from unmaintained properties. The concern is not limited to defined historic districts. Areas throughout the community need to ensure that properties remain safe and are not a detriment to the vicinity. The City has some standards in place under its nuisance code but they are administratively intensive and are subjective. These amendments provide additional clarity. In summary, the amendments propose the following. 1. Clean up text in Chapter 10, Building Codes, of the municipal code to fix references and assign correct staff responsibilities for certain duties. 2. Coordinate Chapter 10, Building Codes with Chapter 38, Unified Development Code that all zoning review needed prior to issuance of a building permit for demolition of a building is complete. 3. Coordination with Chapter 16, Environment and Health to clarify that structures must be kept safe. 4. Define what safe means for item 3 above. 5. Amend article 38.16, Neighborhood Conservation Overlay to establish the protection of historic structures as one of its purposes and coordinating with procedures for demolition. 6. Replace the procedures for demolition of buildings. This section currently puts buildings of all historic status into the same section. The proposed language separates them for clarity and adds cross-references as needed. The section also creates a consultation process where an owner of property can get a preliminary determination of whether a building can be removed. This early indication enables lower risk as private parties don’t have to 81 14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance of Buildings and Demolition of Historic Structures Text Amendment Page 3 of 16 provide full applications for subsequent development before finding out if the building can be removed. 7. Establish procedures to demolish a historic structure. Retains same review criteria as presently in place. Provides a clearer path through the review and greater explanation of how the existing stay of demolition is applied. This section codifies existing City Commission direction regarding timing of demolition. Before demolition can begin, the permit for the replacement structure must be issued. This would apply to all historic structures in the community. 8. Addresses how to demolish a non-historic structure within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. Retains same review criteria as presently in place. This has a lesser standard of review than for a historic building. Provides a clearer path through the review process. This section codifies existing City Commission direction. Before demolition can begin, the building permit for the replacement structure must be issued. This section does not apply outside of the NCOD. Discussion on this item is in Appendix C. 9. Gives specific procedures for demolition of unsafe structures. This is new text not currently existing. An expedited process is provided and criteria are simpler. Coordinates with the nuisance provisions in Chapter 16, Environment and Health, BMC. This section does not apply outside of the NCOD. 10. Establish procedure for clarity of what level of documentation may be required in association with demolition of a historic building. The required matrix has not yet been created. It is expected to be created when the City hires its new historic preservation officer this fall. 11. Specifically addresses duty to protect historic structures. Cross links with the general maintenance obligations of all property owners. Clarifies that standard maintenance and interior renovations are excluded from this standard. 12. Amends the zoning plan review article 38.19 to address when a COA is required to demolish a historic building. This expands the scope of the COA process to include historic buildings outside of the NCOD. This is authorizing language. The required documentation to execute this are not in place at this time. 13. Clarify noticing language for applications to demolish historic structures. 14. Expand application materials for demolitions to make clear the scope of the proposed work and supporting material to evaluate whether the criteria for demolition have been met. 15. Create a specific definition of what property is to be considered historic. Mere age alone is not enough. There are well defined national professional standards for evaluation of properties to determine if historic integrity still is intact. The City uses these standards. 82 14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance of Buildings and Demolition of Historic Structures Text Amendment Page 4 of 16 This definition requires a substantial process of fact collection and evaluation prior to determining a property to be historic. The National Park Service publishes the standards. The process can be found at https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/. A copy is attached to this report. The federal law can be found at https://www.nps.gov/nr/regulations.htm. This is discussed further in Appendix C. This set of amendments is being processed as part of the larger update to the Unified Development Code. If approved, the changes will take effect with the overall adoption in early 2017. Minor adjustments may be made to harmonize with other amendments during that process. Two copies of the text are provided with existing and proposed numbering for the UDC update. This is provided to illustrate the differences in formatting that will occur. Alternatives 1. Accept the draft text as written. 2. Require revisions prior to passage of the revisions. 3. Do not adopt the revisions. Alternative motion to address unresolved issue one: I move to revise Section 9, Paragraph D.3.a of the draft text to read “a. Subsequent development of the site must receive zoning approval and, if a building permit is required for the approved subsequent development, submit a complete application for a building permit prior to issuance of a demolition permit.” Alternative motion to address unresolved issue two: “I move to revise Section 6 and Section 8, Paragraph B of the draft text to limit application of demolition procedures for historic property/structures to the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District.” Advisory Board Actions The Zoning Commission, Planning Board, and Historic Preservation Advisory Board have considered these amendments and recommend approval. The Planning Board recommends that non-historic buildings in the NCOD not have to wait until issuance of building permit before removal of the building can occur. The video record of the Planning Board and Zoning Commission meeting is available at http://www.bozeman.net/Departments/Administration/City- Commission/Streaming-Video/Archives. No video of the Historic Preservation Advisory Board is available. Draft minutes are attached from all boards. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 1 Unresolved Issues ............................................................................................................... 1 Project Summary ................................................................................................................. 2 83 14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance of Buildings and Demolition of Historic Structures Text Amendment Page 5 of 16 Alternatives ......................................................................................................................... 4 Advisory Board Actions ..................................................................................................... 4 SECTION 1 - RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE ACTIONS ...................................... 5 SECTION 2 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ............................................................. 5 Section 76-2-304, MCA (Zoning) Criteria ......................................................................... 6 PROTEST NOTICE FOR ZONING AMENDMENTS ........................................................... 9 APPENDIX A - AFFECTED ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY PROVISIONS ............. 10 APPENDIX B - NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT .................................................... 10 APPENDIX C – BACKGROUND ......................................................................................... 10 FISCAL EFFECTS ................................................................................................................. 14 ATTACHMENTS ................................................................................................................... 14 SECTION 1 - RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE ACTIONS Having considered the criteria established for a text amendment, the Staff recommends approval as submitted. The Development Review Committee (DRC) considered the amendment on August 31, 2016. The DRC did not identify any infrastructure or regulatory constraints that would impede the approval of the application. The Zoning Commission and Planning Board held a joint public hearing on this text amendment on September 6, 2016 and recommend approval to the Commission. The Historic Preservation Advisory Board held a public meeting on September 13, 2016, and recommends approval. The City Commission will hold a public hearing on the text amendment on September 26, 2016. The meeting will be held at 121 N. Rouse Avenue, Bozeman. The meeting will begin at 6 p.m. SECTION 2 - STAFF ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS In considering applications for approval under this title, the advisory boards and City Commission shall consider the following criteria. As an amendment is a legislative action, the Commission has broad latitude to determine a policy direction. The burden of proof that the application should be approved lies with the applicant. 84 14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance of Buildings and Demolition of Historic Structures Text Amendment Page 6 of 16 In considering the following criteria the analysis must show that the amendment accomplishes criteria A-D. Criteria E-K must be considered and may be found to be affirmative, neutral, or negative. A favorable decision on the proposed application must find that the application meets all of criteria A-D and that the positive outcomes of the amendment outweigh negative outcomes for criteria E-K. Section 76-2-304, MCA (Zoning) Criteria A. Be in accordance with a growth policy. Yes. The following selections of goals and objectives from the growth policy, while not exhaustive, indicate that the proposed changes are in accord with the goals and objectives of the growth policy. The broad range of support for this factor across three separate chapters of the growth policy emphasizes its importance. No conflicts with the growth policy have been identified. 3.3 Land Use Goals and Objectives “Objective LU-1.4: Provide for and support infill development and redevelopment which provides additional density of use while respecting the context of the existing development which surrounds it. Respect for context does not automatically prohibit difference in scale or design.” The proposed amendments will support infill by creating a more clear and predictable path for development review in historic areas. Future, the context of existing areas is protected by avoiding speculative tear-downs which leave holes in the built environment of the neighborhood. Chapter 5 Historic Preservation “Bozeman residents value their community’s heritage: historic neighborhoods, buildings and landscapes are reminders of this heritage. The City envisions a community with a rich collection of historically and culturally significant resources for the benefit of all citizens living in and visiting Bozeman. The City’s mission: carry out a historic preservation program that protects and promotes Bozeman’s historic resources so they remain surviving and contributing pieces of our community.” “The surviving historic fabric is an incentive for tourism by providing an attractive and unique experience for tourists. Both actions support the local community’s economy.” This introductory statement and selection from the intent statement of the chapter sets out the importance of historic preservation in Bozeman’s identity and character. It makes it clear than specific action to protect historic character and structures is expected. “Goal HP-1: Protect historically and culturally significant resources that contribute to the community’s identity, history, and quality of life. 85 14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance of Buildings and Demolition of Historic Structures Text Amendment Page 7 of 16 Rationale: Protection of historically and culturally significant resources ensures the survival of Bozeman’s historic buildings, structures, landscapes, streetscapes and archeological sites to ensure a dynamic historic legacy for present and future generations. It also is a driver for economic development and activity in Bozeman, and supports the goal of sustainability. Therefore, historic preservation efforts support economic vitality and the environmental health of the community.” “Objective HP-1.1: Continue implementation and further develop historic preservation planning tools and research efforts that provide protection of historic resources.” “Objective HP-1.3: Provide clear and concise City standards and requirements to ensure protection of historic resources.” Chapter 5, Historic Preservation, is the source of the selections above. A clear link between community character, the health of the local economy, and action to support historic preservation is called for. The proposed regulations require very basic maintenance of all structures in the City whether designated historic or not. History is constantly in the making and new buildings become potentially qualified for historic recognition. Therefore, it is appropriate to maintain all structures. 5.4 Future Historic Preservation Needs “Affirmative Maintenance/Demolition by Neglect: Some property owners treat their properties with such negligence that they become likely candidates for demolition. Several of these properties are historically significant and if lost, damage the community’s collective past. A City ordinance should be drafted that establishes minimum maintenance and upkeep requirements for property owners, so the security and basic structural integrity of properties are preserved and structures remain safe for use.” The growth policy specifically identified the type of amendments presently proposed as an implementing action for the growth policy. “6.3 Housing Goals and Objectives Objective 1.2 – Encourage the preservation and rehabilitation of the existing housing stock to protect the health, safety, and welfare of Bozeman residents.” Maintaining housing and other buildings in a weather tight and secure condition will advance this objective. Further, it directly supports public health, safety, and welfare by lessening opportunities for vandalism, buildup of vermin, and the detrimental effects than an unmaintained building has on the surrounding properties. B. Secure safety from fire and other dangers. Yes. The revisions to require buildings to be secure will reduce fire hazard and trespassing. Earlier this year, at Main Street and Tracy Avenue persons entered an unsecured closet and 86 14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance of Buildings and Demolition of Historic Structures Text Amendment Page 8 of 16 started a fire. See the attached incident report. Police had to respond to trespassing calls to unoccupied homes on Peach and Rouse and Peach and N 3rd Ave. Arson is a particular problem for vacant and abandoned properties. The U.S. Fire Administration estimates that there were 28,000 fires annually in vacant residences between 2006 and 2008, with half of these spreading to the rest of the building and 11 percent spreading to a nearby building C. Promote public health, public safety, and general welfare. Yes. As described in criterion B above public safety will be improved. Further, the encouragement to maintain buildings which retain functional value improves the historic character of areas. The requirement to place new buildings in conjunction with removal of buildings prevents speculative demolition, vacant parcels, and loss of participation in the community by residents. Currently, the City’s nuisance code and adopted Building Codes are used to address properties and structures that have fallen into such disrepair that they pose a risk to the public health and safety. This code as written does not take effect until substantial damage to a building occurs with associated hazards to the public. Establishing a simple and clear preventative maintenance standard avoids the creation of nuisances which addresses all elements of this criterion. The proposed amendments also simplify the removal of buildings which truly are beyond salvage which expedites the clearance of potential hazards to safety. See the attached report on vacant properties D. Facilitate the provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements. Neutral. Generally, the maintenance of buildings supports the health and economic vitality of the community. In turn, this enables ongoing maintenance of public infrastructure. However, the effects of the proposed revisions are expected to be minor in the overall context of the community. E. Reasonable provision of adequate light and air. Neutral. The proposed text changes do not address this issue. F. Effect on motorized and non-motorized transportation systems. Neutral. The proposed text changes do not address this issue. G. Promotion of compatible urban growth. Neutral. The proposed text changes do not address this issue. H. Character of the district. Yes. The architectural heritage of an area is an essential element in determining the character of a district. Many areas where historic buildings have been identified are included within National Register Historic Districts (NRHD). These are honorary designations where a 87 14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance of Buildings and Demolition of Historic Structures Text Amendment Page 9 of 16 commonality of building design and historic features have been documented. An NRHD can span multiple zoning districts. Some buildings are not consistent with the character of a historic district either because they have been so substantially altered as to loose historic integrity, or they do not correspond to the character defining features of the historic district. Not all historic buildings are included within a historic district. Where the required documentation has been created to verify that buildings have historic integrity, the proposed amendments act to preserve that integrity. Buildings not having historic integrity may be removed to allow placement of new buildings which are consistent with the character of the district. I. Peculiar suitability for particular uses. Neutral. The proposed text changes do not address uses for specific properties. J. Conserving the value of buildings. Yes. When buildings are open to weather and not secure they can quickly receive cosmetic and more substantial damage. This can occur through vandalism, by water infiltration, infestation of rodents, growth of mold, and other undesirable occurrences. The requirement for buildings to be kept weather tight and secure will limit damage and retain building value. Buildings where demolition has been approved often exhibit signs of water and other weather damage on the interior. The proposed revisions to the process for demolition of buildings will require verification that a building is not economically viable before it is demolished. Removal of unsafe buildings will remove a detriment to a neighborhood which can depress the value of adjacent buildings. K. Encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the jurisdictional area. Yes. The proposed revisions help ensure that historically developed areas remain in active use by requiring approved development plans and permits before demolition of existing buildings. PROTEST NOTICE FOR ZONING AMENDMENTS IN THE CASE OF WRITTEN PROTEST AGAINST SUCH CHANGES SIGNED BY THE OWNERS OF 25% OR MORE OF THE AREA OF THE LOTS WITHIN THE AMENDMENT AREA OR THOSE LOTS OR UNITS WITHIN 150 FEET FROM A LOT INCLUDED IN A PROPOSED CHANGE, THE AMENDMENT SHALL NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE EXCEPT BY THE FAVORABLE VOTE OF TWO-THIRDS OF THE PRESENT AND VOTING MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION. 88 14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance of Buildings and Demolition of Historic Structures Text Amendment Page 10 of 16 APPENDIX A - AFFECTED ZONING AND GROWTH POLICY PROVISIONS Zoning Designation and Land Uses: Historic structures may be located in all zoning districts and be all types of land uses. The majority of designated historic structures are located within the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD). There are also many non-historic structures within the NCOD. The maintenance and nuisance prevention amendments will apply to the entire city and all structures both residential and non-residential. Adopted Growth Policy Designation: See discussion under Criterion A. APPENDIX B - NOTICING AND PUBLIC COMMENT A public notice was published in the Bozeman Daily Chronicle legal ads on August 21st and September 4, 2016. This is the legally required notice for amending the text of the municipal code. In addition, the City has convened an advisory committee representing many stakeholder groups within the community. Proposed edits were discussed with the committee for dispersal to interested parties. The City has also maintained a web site for the Unified Development Code update process which provides information on meetings and proposed edits. The Commission has discussed this issue and the Historic Preservation Advisory Board has commented several times during development of the text. This Historic Preservation Advisory Board met on September 13, 2016 to consider the amendments. Due to a computer software failure no recording of the meeting was made. This was not known until after conclusion of the meeting. No formal minutes were kept due to reliance upon the recording system. Staff has prepared summary minutes. A copy of the Planning Board resolution summarizing their meeting and recommendation is attached to this report. No comments were given at the public hearing or public meeting or received as of the writing of this report. APPENDIX C – BACKGROUND 1) International Property Maintenance Code. The City has considered a wide variety of alternatives to address maintenance of buildings. The City considered the possible adoption of the International Property Maintenance Code (IPMC). This is a publication of the International Code Council. The State of Montana Department of Labor and Industry (DLI) has control of the adoption of building codes for the state. A recent case of Svee v Helena was decided by the 89 14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance of Buildings and Demolition of Historic Structures Text Amendment Page 11 of 16 Montana Supreme Court which confirmed that cities, even with self-government powers may not adopt building construction standards different than those approved by the DLI. The IPMC is considered a building code and the DLI has chosen to not adopt it. Therefore, the City may not adopt the IPMC. As the IPMC is not available the City sought other alternatives to address maintenance of properties. After extensive internal discussion with staff from Community Development, Legal, Fire, and Building it was determined to take the very direct approach proposed. The City does have authority to avoid and abate nuisances to protect the public health and safety. A simple definition and standard incorporated in the nuisance component of the municipal code meets the essential need. As issues of health and safety are not limited to historic properties the requirement for property maintenance is applied generally throughout the city. Community Development has the primary responsibility for enforcement of the nuisance code. The various enforcement processes and penalties are described in Sections 16.02.060 through 16.02.140, BMC. 2) Unresolved issue 1: Bozeman does not provide the same level of scrutiny to removal of non- historic buildings as to historic buildings. Bozeman recognizes that some buildings have passed their useful life or are hazardous. However, many buildings can with appropriate care continue functioning well either to their original purpose or new purposes. There has been less clarity of process in determining removal of buildings than is desirable. The proposal strives to provide clarity depending on historic or safety status. Safety is prioritized over historic preservation in the draft text. The Commission previously gave direction that no buildings were to be removed in the NCOD until their replacement has been reviewed and is ready for issuance of a building permit. This applied to historic and non-historic buildings alike. The intent was to increase the likelihood of follow through on projects and avoid demolition without the subsequent building being constructed. The draft text reflects this direction. The process of demolishing a building can take several weeks or longer depending on the type of construction and whether materials are to be salvaged from the building being removed. The same impact to historic character does not occur with removal of non-historic buildings as occurs with demolition of historic buildings. However, there are still impacts to continuity of the building pattern, maintenance of sidewalks and landscaping, and similar issues. Removal of some buildings earlier may make site investigations for replacement buildings easier such as checking for soil load bearing characteristics needed for designing an adequate foundation. Therefore, there is less, but still some, community benefit in delaying building removal until the new structure is ready for construction. This greater balance of benefits to the community compared to the developer between alternatives is why this is an unresolved issue. The alternative motion provided still requires considerable investment by a developer prior to removing a non-historic building. It does not allow demolition in advance of preparation of a 90 14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance of Buildings and Demolition of Historic Structures Text Amendment Page 12 of 16 zoning application and building permit and therefore may create difficulties in evaluating a site for redevelopment. A second alternative is to allow removal of a non-historic building with a plan to complete the regrading of the site to removal all materials, fill any holes, control storm water, and revegetate the site. This is essentially the standard provided for unsafe buildings. This alternative may allow demolition of buildings in anticipation of but not assurance of replacement buildings resulting in unoccupied lots which are not in keeping with neighborhood character. 3) Unresolved Issue 2: Demolition of structures within historically designated areas has been controversial. It is important to know what is truly historical. No local definition presently is included in the zoning regulations. Not every old building has historic integrity or significance. Historic preservation is based upon factual determinations of compliance with specific criteria. The National Park Service publishes the standards and determines required professional qualifications. The process can be found at https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/. A copy is attached to this report and a summary of key issues is provided below. It is necessary to define what is historic before regulation and education can be effectively deployed. A historic structure or area may be designated due to: 1. Criterion A: Event 2. Criterion B: Person (persons of substantial influence and historical significance in a particular time and place) 3. Criterion C: Design/ Construction (building focused, often the basis for historic districts) 4. Criterion D: Information Potential (usually things like archeological sites) After consideration of the four criteria for potential historic eligibility the significance of the structure/area must be evaluated. Consideration of these criteria is heavily affected by the context of the thing being evaluated. Historical buildings and sites tell stories and communicate important information about their origins and circumstances in which they were important. The significance of a historic property can be judged and explained only when it is evaluated within its historic context. Historic contexts are those patterns or trends in history by which a specific occurrence, property, or site is understood and its meaning (and ultimately its significance) within history or prehistory is made clear. This may occur on a local, regional, or national level. If a structure/site has been found to be significant it must also be evaluated for integrity. Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance. To be listed in the National Register of Historic Places, a property must not only be shown to be significant under the National Register criteria, but it also must have integrity. Integrity is based 91 14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance of Buildings and Demolition of Historic Structures Text Amendment Page 13 of 16 on significance: why, where, and when a property is important. Only after significance is fully established can you proceed to the issue of integrity. To retain historic integrity a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the seven aspects of integrity. •Location •Design •Setting •Materials •Workmanship •Feeling (expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time) •Association The steps in assessing integrity are: Define the essential physical features that must be present for a property to represent its significance. Determine whether the essential physical features are visible enough to convey their significance. Determine whether the property needs to be compared with similar properties. And, Determine, based on the significance and essential physical features, which aspects of integrity are particularly vital to the property being nominated and if they are present. Ultimately, the question of integrity is answered by whether or not the property retains the identity for which it is significant. This is an information intensive process and requires professional skills to be completed accurately and thoroughly. Only after completion of this process can a structure or district be truly designated as historic. Therefore, the definition proposed for “historic” establishes a high standard that is not applied lightly. A question that has arisen during review of the draft text by the Historic Preservation Advisory Board is who may initiate the required documentation to establish a building as historic. According to the State Historic Preservation Office on September 19th, any person may prepare and submit historic inventory forms for their consideration. Planning staff was not aware of this open submittal option and had understood that a local government sponsorship of form preparation was required. That understanding was not correct. Therefore, the assumed procedural steps of community outreach in advance of inventorying new areas are not assured. No consultation with the property owner is required to create inventory forms. SHPO does review them for certain qualitative elements so that they are reliable. The form itself has no 92 14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance of Buildings and Demolition of Historic Structures Text Amendment Page 14 of 16 regulatory affect, it is simply information. If a formal historic district is to be created, then owner consultation is required and if objected to by 50% or more of the owners does not move forward. With this change to the zoning regulations and the new definition of “historic property/structure” the consequence of completing an inventory form is the application of land use regulations that alter the process for redeveloping property. At this point, the community has not completed the comprehensive discussion to expand the procedural requirements of the NCOD for demolition although there has been notice given of this text amendment. Staff is of opinion that it is better to retain the comprehensive definition of “historic property/structure” and limit its application to the NCOD at this time rather than revise the definition. As shown on Figure 12, page 49, in the report from December 2015 on the evaluation of the NCOD there are several areas in the City which are outside of the NCOD which could potentially meet the criteria for historic property/structures. Staff believes additional outreach to those areas is needed before applying the demolition procedures to those areas. Nothing in this draft prevents a group of property owners from pursuing classification of their property as historic or from seeking designation as a historic district. FISCAL EFFECTS No unusual fiscal effects have been identified. No presently budgeted funds will be changed by this text amendment. The ordinance also includes direction for staff to help provide education and outreach to the community on building protection and maintenance. It is anticipated that this work will be incorporated into the standard budget and work plan for the Historic Preservation Office (once the position is filled) and the building division. ATTACHMENTS The full application and file of record can be viewed at the Community Development Department at 20 E. Olive Street, Bozeman, MT 59715. Graphic illustrating summary steps to identify and document historic properties Draft text (two copies, one with existing numbering and one with future UDC numbering but the same words) Historic Preservation Advisory Board minutes Planning Board resolution Planning Board minutes Minutes from July 14, 2014 City Commission meeting Staff memo from July 14, 2016 Commission meeting Map of Historic Districts 93 14623, Staff Report for the Maintenance of Buildings and Demolition of Historic Structures Text Amendment Page 15 of 16 Map of Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Vacant Properties – The True Cost to Communities Fire incident report National Register Bulletin – How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation 94 Page 16 of 16 The Steps to Identifying and Listing Historic Properties, including key phrases 95 Ord XXX Page 1 of 15 (Unified Development Code revision element 2C, Maintenance and Demolition of Historic Properties) DESCRIPTION: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA AMENDING MULTIPLE SECTIONS OF THE BOZEMAN MUNICIPAL CODE INCLUDING CHAPTER 10, BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS; ARTICLE 16.02, PUBLIC NUISANCES; AND ARTICLE 38.16, NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATON OVERLAY DISTRICT TO ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION, MAINTENANCE AND DEMOLITION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES. WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman (the “City”) is authorized by the City Charter and Montana law to adopt land development and use standards to protect public health, safety and welfare and otherwise execute the purposes of Section 76-2-304, MCA; and WHEREAS, it is in the City’s best interest to preserve the fabric of the City and character of City neighborhoods; to have well maintained historic properties; and to prevent intentional and unintentional damage to historic properties through neglect; and WHEREAS, historic preservation is identified in Chapter 5 of the Bozeman Community Plan as an important element of community character and heritage, and the Bozeman Community Plan encourages the protection of historically and culturally significant resources. WHEREAS, the “Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District” (NCOD), Chapter 38.16, was established in 1991 to conserve and protect neighborhood character; and WHEREAS, the NCOD uses the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) process to review development of properties in the NCOD applying general guidelines for the protection of neighborhood character and targeted recommendations for historic properties; and WHEREAS, historic properties are not necessarily limited to the geographical boundaries of the NCOD; and WHEREAS, the Bozeman Municipal Code does not specifically define “historic property”, lessening certainty in identifying which properties are subject to the historic preservation provisions of the; and WHEREAS, adoption of a definition based on a property’s eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places is consistent with the best management practices adopted by 96 UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 2 of 15 other state and federal government agencies such as the Montana Department of Transportation and the Army Corps of Engineers; and WHEREAS, the City’s nuisance code, Chapter 16, and adopted technical codes (Building Codes), Chapter 10, are used to address properties and structures that have fallen into such disrepair that they pose a risk to the public health and safety. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA: Section 1 Legislative Findings: 1. The City’s experience with historic preservation shows that the adoption of a specific definition of “historic” will create a knowable and predictable classification of properties. 2. A specific definition of “historic” provides the opportunity to protect properties eligible for listing throughout the City (not limited to the NCOD). 3. A specific definition of “historic” enables the historic preservation program to more readily keep pace with changes in the community and reduce unintentional omissions. 4. A specific definition of “historic” creates a dynamic program which enables an evolving, growing community to recognize properties which are eligible for designation as historic. 5. The historic preservation goals in the City’s Community Plan will be promoted by maintaining historic properties in safe condition and good repair, preventing intentional and unintentional neglect of historic properties, and ensuring that historic properties be maintained as weather tight and secure. 6. The City Commission intends to be proactive and to discourage properties reaching the point that triggers action through either the nuisance code or adopted technical codes (Building Codes) by being neglected to the point of being unsafe. 7. The City’s involvement with homeowners and neighborhood groups to educate, assist and facilitate, and encourage collaborative approaches involving individuals, government, and the private sector to address neglected properties will promote the historic preservation goals in the Community Plan. 8. It is in the Bozeman community’s best interest for the City to deter speculative demolition of structures, which creates gaps in the neighborhood fabric, and diminishes the tax revenue stream, which reduces the City’s ability to provide services and infrastructure improvements to the area. In addition, vacant lots diminish the value of adjoining residences and create uncertainty for neighborhoods. The cost to maintain the street and deliver infrastructure to the property is the same while the tax revenue is diminished 97 UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 3 of 15 9. It is in the Bozeman community’s best interest to reduce the use of City resources by coordinating the provisions of the City’s nuisance code, adopted building codes, and zoning code. Section 2 That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by revising the Building Moving Code, Section 10.03.110.A as follows with the remainder of the section to remain unaltered: Sec. 10.03.110. - Same—Issuance restrictions and moving conditions. A. The following restrictions and conditions shall be observed before the issuance of a permit as required by this article: 1. No permit shall be issued to any person, firm or corporation to move or relocate any building or structure upon another building site unless such use, building or proposed conversion thereof conforms to Chapter 38, (Zoning) to include when applicable the final approval by the review authority specified in 38.34.010, of a Certificate Of Appropriateness, 10.02.030, (the International Building Code), 10.02.040, (the International Residential Code), 10.02.050 (the International Existing Building code) and all other pertinent portions of this Code. 2. No permit shall be issued to any person, firm or corporation to move, remove or locate any building or structure which is: a. So constructed or in such condition as to be dangerous or unsafe; b. Infested with pests or is otherwise unsanitary; c. Or, if a dwelling or habitation, is unfit for human habitation; d. Or is so dilapidated, defective or in such a condition of deterioration or disrepair that its relocation at the proposed site would create a safety or health hazard, or would cause substantial damage or material detriment to the property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site. 3. Every application shall be accompanied by the written consent of the deputy police chief and deputy fire chief – operations fire department, who shall be notified as to the route to be taken and the date of the move. 4. The department of public works building division shall specify in the permit the route to be taken in the moving of a building or structure, such means to be used to prevent the street pavement from being subjected to abnormal stresses as may be deemed necessary by the city engineer, and the limit of time which such building or structure shall be upon the streets or alleys. 5. No circuit or box of the city fire alarm shall be disturbed in any manner except with the permission of the deputy fire department chief - operations. 6. No building or structure which is being moved upon or over any street, alley or property of the city shall be occupied as living quarters while such building or structure is in transit. 98 UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 4 of 15 7. No permit as required by this article shall be issued unless the applicant demonstrates that the applicant has adequate machinery, appliances and equipment to safely complete the proposed move. Section 3 That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by adding Section 10.04.050.A.3 to the Demolition Code to read as follows with the remainder of the section to remain unaltered: Sec. 10.04.050. - Same—Issuance restrictions. A. The following restrictions and conditions shall be observed before the issuance of a permit as required by this article: 1. No permit shall be issued to any person, firm or corporation to demolish any building or structure while any part thereof is occupied. 2. No permit as required by this article shall be issued unless the applicant demonstrates that the applicant has adequate machinery, appliances, and equipment to safely complete the proposed demolition and disposal. 3. No permit shall be issued to any person, firm or corporation to demolish any building or structure unless such demolition thereof conforms to chapter 38 to include when applicable the final approval by the review authority specified in 38.34.010, of a Certificate of Appropriateness, the provisions of this article, and this code. Section 4 That Section 16.02.030 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended as follows: Article 2. – NUISANCES Sec. 16.02.030. - Responsibility for maintenance. A. Every owner, occupant, lessee or holder of any possessory interest of real property within the city is required to maintain such property so as not to violate the provisions of this article. The owner of the property shall remain liable for violations hereof regardless of any contract or agreement with any third party regarding such property or the occupation of the property by any third party. B. Every owner of property within the city must maintain such property to ensure the safe condition of the property, in a weather tight condition, and secure from unauthorized entry. Section 5 That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by adding new definitions in Section 16.02.040 as follows: 99 UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 5 of 15 Sec. 16.02.040. - Definitions. A. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: 1. "Abatement" means the removal, stoppage, prostration, or destruction of that which causes or constitutes a nuisance, whether by breaking or pulling it down, or otherwise destroying, or effacing it. 2. "Owner" means the owner of record or any person with legal, financial or equitable interest in the property on which the alleged public nuisance exists at the time of the violation. 3. "Property" means any real property, premises, structure or location on which a public nuisance is alleged to exist. 4. "Public nuisance" means any fence, wall, shed, deck, house, garage, building, structure or any part of any of the aforesaid; or any tree, pole, smokestack; or any excavation, hole, pit, basement, cellar, sidewalk subspace, dock; or any lot, land, yard, premises or location which in its entirety, or in any part thereof, by reason of the condition in which the same is found or permitted to be or remain, shall or may endanger the health, safety, life, limb or property, or cause any hurt, harm, inconvenience, discomfort, damage or injury to any one or more individuals in the city, in any one or more of the following particulars: a. By reason of being a menace, threat and/or hazard to the general health and safety of the community. b. By reason of being a fire hazard. c. By reason of being unsafe for occupancy, or use on, in, upon, about or around the aforesaid property. d. By reason of lack of sufficient or adequate maintenance of the property, and/or being vacant, any of which depreciates the enjoyment and use of the property in the immediate vicinity to such an extent that it is harmful to the community in which such property is situated or such condition exists. The term "public nuisance" shall mean any nuisance designated in section 16.02.050. 5. “Safe condition” means a condition not involving or likely to involve danger, harm or loss from fire and other hazards. 6. "Summary abatement" means abatement of the nuisance by the city, or a contractor employed by the city, by removal, repair, or other acts without notice to the owner, agent, or occupant of the property except for the notice required by this article. Section 6 That Chapter 38, Article 16 the Bozeman Municipal Code, Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District, be amended by adding Section 38.16.010.G to read as follows with the remainder of the section to remain as written: 100 UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 6 of 15 G. It is further the purpose of this article to protect historic structures as defined in 38.42.1365 by requiring any person seeking to demolish or move a historic structure to comply with 38.19.080 whether or not the structure is located within the NCOD. Section 7 That Section 38.16.080 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended as follows: Sec. 38.16.080. - Review of demolition or movement of structures or sites within the conservation district. A. The demolition or movement of any structure or site within the conservation district shall be subject to the provisions of this article and section. The review procedures and criteria for the demolition or movement of any structure or site within the conservation district are as follows: 1. Applications for the demolition or movement of structures within the conservation district will not be accepted without a complete submittal for the subsequent development or treatment of the site after the demolition or movement has occurred. The subsequent development or treatment must be approved before a demolition or moving permit may be issued. 2. The demolition or movement of conservation district principal and accessory structures or sites, which are designated as intrusive or neutral elements by the state historical and architectural inventory, and that are not within recognized historic districts or in other ways listed on the National Register of Historic Places, shall be subject to review per articles 19 and 34 of this chapter, and the standards outlined in 38.16.050. The state historical and architectural inventory form shall be reviewed and, if necessary, updated by a qualified professional acceptable to the state historic preservation office to reflect current conditions on the site, prior to the review of the demolition or movement proposal. The review authority for the demolition or movement of structures or sites described within this section shall be coordinated with the larger project when demolition or movement is proposed in conjunction with a deviation, variance, conditional use permit or planned unit development application. 3. The demolition or movement of conservation district principal and accessory structures or sites, which are designated as contributing elements by the state historical and architectural inventory, and all properties within historic districts and all landmarks, shall be subject to public notice. Notice shall be provided in accordance with article 40 of this chapter. Prior to any final action on the application the review authority shall receive a recommendation from the historic preservation office; and if the demolition does not conform to the criteria below a recommendation from the historic preservation advisory board. The state historical and architectural inventory form shall be reviewed and, if necessary, updated by a qualified professional acceptable to the state historic preservation office to reflect current conditions on the site prior to the review of the demolition or movement proposal. The review authority for the demolition or movement of structures or sites described within this section shall be coordinated with the larger project when demolition or movement is proposed in conjunction with a deviation, variance, site plan, 101 UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 7 of 15 conditional use permit or planned unit development application. The review authority shall base its decision on the following: a. The standards in 38.16.050 and the architectural, social, cultural and historical importance of the structure or site and their relationship to the district as determined by the state historic preservation office and the planning department. b. If the review authority finds that the criteria of this section are not satisfied, then, before approving an application to demolish or remove, the review authority must find that at least one of the following factors apply based on definitive evidence supplied by the applicant, including structural analysis and cost estimates indicating the costs of repair and/or rehabilitation versus the costs of demolition and redevelopment: (1) The structure or site is a threat to public health or safety, and that no reasonable repairs or alterations will remove such threat; any costs associated with the removal of health or safety threats must exceed the value of the structure. (2) The structure or site has no viable economic or useful life remaining. 4. If an application for demolition or moving is denied, issuance of a demolition or moving permit shall be stayed for a period of two years from the date of the final decision in order to allow the applicant and city to explore alternatives to the demolition or move, including, but not limited to, the use of tax credits or adaptive reuse. The two-year stay may be terminated at any point in time if an alternate proposal is approved or if sufficient additional evidence is presented to otherwise satisfy the requirements of subsection 2 or 3 of this section. 5. All structures or sites approved for demolition or moving shall be fully documented in a manner acceptable to the historic preservation planner and administrative design review staff prior to the issuance of demolition or moving permits. 6. In addition to the remedies in article 34 of this chapter, the owner of any structure or site that is demolished or moved contrary to the provisions of this section, and any contractor performing such work, may be required to reconstruct such structure or site in a design and manner identical to its condition prior to such illegal demolition or move, and in conformance with all applicable codes and regulations A. The demolition or movement of any structure or site shall be subject to the provisions of this article. This process applies to: 1. Historic properties, as defined in 38.42.1365, per 38.16.090. 2. Non-historic properties per 38.16.100. 3. Unsafe structures whether historic or non-historic per 38.16.110. The provisions for unsafe structures take priority over other provisions for demolition. B. An application to move or demolish a structure subject to this article must follow the applicable review procedures. C. Optional provisional review of demolition. A property owner may request provisional review of the proposed demolition of a structure subject to this article prior to submittal of a certificate of appropriateness application for seeking demolition of the structure. The director of community development may establish criteria for the application for provisional review of 102 UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 8 of 15 demolition. Provisional review is advisory only and does not constitute approval to demolish a structure. Provisional review shall consider: a. The property’s historic significance. b. Whether the structure has no viable economic life remaining. “No viable economic life remaining” means the costs of repair and/or rehabilitation to bring the structure to a habitable condition as established by the applicable technical codes in Article 10.02, exceed the costs of demolition and redevelopment. Illustrative summary graphic will be developed and inserted appropriately – table is not regulatory, intended to provide handy cross reference. We will update the table after the text is finalized. Section 8 That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by adding a new section to read as follows: Sec. 38.16.090. - Demolition or movement of a historic structure or site. A. COA for demolition and subsequent development. Approval of the proposed subsequent development is required for all historic buildings and structures proposed for demolition and for the proposed movement of any building or structure or site. B. Public Notice. Proposals for demolition of historic properties within the city limits require public notice. Notice of application(s) shall be provided in accordance with article 40 of this chapter. C. Criteria. The reviewing authority will consider the following factors in evaluating applications for demolition or movement of a historic structure or site and subsequent redevelopment: 1. The property’s historic significance. 2. Whether the structure has no viable economic life remaining. “No viable economic life remaining” means the costs of repair and/or rehabilitation to bring the structure to a habitable condition as established by the applicable technical codes in Article 10.02, exceed the costs of demolition and redevelopment to minimum standards with a building of the same type and scale. 3. Whether the subsequent development complies with 38.16.050. 4. Whether the subsequent development includes construction of new building(s) unless the existing character of the area does not include buildings. 5. Subsequent development requires a building permit and does not include proposals which leave the site without building(s) or structure(s). D. Review process. 103 UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 9 of 15 1. Upon application for a COA for demolition and subsequent development the review authority may: a. Grant preliminary or final approval of the demolition with standard contingencies and/or project specific conditions. b. Deny the Certificate of Appropriateness application. 2. COA decision alternatives. a. Preliminary COA approval. After preliminary approval with contingencies or conditions requiring follow up work, the applicant may apply for final COA approval and must demonstrate compliance with development standards and completion of contingencies and conditions, including documentation, the review authority shall approve the COA for demolition and subsequent development. b. Final COA approval. If the submitted application materials demonstrate compliance with development standards and completion of contingencies and conditions, including documentation, the Review Authority shall approve the COA for demolition and subsequent development. c. COA denial due to the failure of the applicant to make a complete and adequate submittal or propose a subsequent treatment which complies with the standards of this chapter does not initiate the two-year stay. 3. If an application for demolition or moving is denied due to failure to meet 38.16.090.C issuance of a demolition or moving permit shall be stayed for a period of two years from the date of the denial in order to allow the applicant and city to explore alternatives to the demolition or move, including, but not limited to, the use of tax credits or adaptive reuse. The two-year stay may be terminated at any point in time if an alternate proposal is approved or if sufficient additional evidence is presented to otherwise satisfy the requirements of this section. a. Early termination of two-year stay. An owner of property subject to a stay under this section may seek early termination of the stay if the owner demonstrates it has actively and in good faith sought alternatives to demolition. These alternatives may include but are not limited to: listing the property for sale as a historic property; actively seeking input from neighborhood groups and interested parties; explored alternative funding sources for stabilization and/or reconstruction; and offering the property for relocation. b. If, upon expiration of the two-year stay of demolition, no alternate proposals have been approved or sufficient evidence has not been presented to otherwise terminate the stay, an application for a demolition permit may be presented to the city pursuant to Chapter 10, article 3 or 4 of this Code. If all requirements of the demolition permit are satisfied, including documentation of the structure to be moved or demolished and the review authority has approved the subsequent development and a building permit issued for the subsequent development, a demolition permit pursuant to Chpt. 10 article 3 or 4 shall be granted and no other proceedings under this chapter are required. 4. Standard Requirements. 104 UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 10 of 15 a. Subsequent development of the site must receive zoning approval, building permit approval, and pay all related fees prior to issuance of a demolition permit. b. Documentation of the structure shall be completed and submitted to the historic preservation officer and deemed complete and adequate prior to issuance of a demolition permit per paragraph 38.16.120. Section 9 That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by creating a new section to read as follows: Sec. 38.16.100. - Demolition or movement of a non-historic structure or site in the NCOD A. COA for demolition and subsequent development. Required for all properties proposed for demolition or movement of any structure or site. Subsequent development does not include proposals which leave the site without building(s) or structure(s). B. Public Notice. Notice shall be provided in accordance with article 40 of this chapter. C. Criteria. 1.The applicable criteria are the COA criteria of 38.16.050. 2. The subsequent development must include construction of new building(s) unless the immediately prior character of the area did not include buildings. D. Review process. 1. Upon application for a COA for demolition and subsequent development the review authority may: a. Grant preliminary or final approval of the demolition with standard contingencies and/or project specific conditions. b. Deny the Certificate of Appropriateness application. 2. COA decision alternatives. a. Preliminary COA approval. After preliminary approval with contingencies or conditions requiring follow up work, the applicant may apply for final COA approval and must demonstrate compliance with development standards and completion of contingencies and conditions, including documentation, the review authority shall approve the COA for demolition and subsequent development. b. Final COA approval. If the submitted application materials demonstrate compliance with development standards and completion of contingencies and conditions, including documentation, the Review Authority shall approve the COA for demolition and subsequent development. 3. Standard Requirements. a. Subsequent development of the site must receive zoning approval, building permit approval, and pay all related fees prior to issuance of a demolition permit. 105 UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 11 of 15 Section 10 That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by adding a new section to read as follows: Sec. 38.16.110. - Demolition or movement of an unsafe structure whether historic or non-historic A COA for demolition and subsequent development. Upon application and the chief building official’s determination that the property is unsafe the review authority may approve demolition and subsequent development. Subsequent development for an unsafe structure may be its replacement with a new building, integration of the area into a larger site which will support future development, or reclamation of the site to a safe, graded condition where storm water runoff and weeds are controlled. B. Public Notice. Notice shall be provided in accordance with article 40 of this chapter. C. The demolition of unsafe properties / structures may be subject to the public nuisance abatement provisions of Chapter 16, article 2 of this Code. Upon the chief building official’s determination that the property is unsafe and declaration of a public nuisance if the property owner does not resolve the unsafe condition, the review authority shall give final approval on a COA, which may be initiated by the city, and the demolition permit will be issued so the city may abate a nuisance. D. The provisions of this section may be initiated by a land owner; or by the city in accordance with article 16.02. Section 11 That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by adding a new section to read as follows: Sec. 38.16.120. - Documentation and administrative procedures. A. Documentation. All structures or sites approved for demolition or moving shall be fully documented. 1. The director of community development shall establish by administrative order rules for documentation of non-historic and historic properties. This documentation shall be created by a professional who satisfies professional qualification standards for History, Archeology or Architectural History, as established by the National Park Service and published in the Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61. 2. Documentation may be submitted as early in the process as the property owner desires to support the requested action, and to further the consideration and review of the request, but not later than prior to issuance of a building permit. B. A building permit application, in accordance with applicable codes and requirements, shall be submitted and approved before any demolition or construction. Commented [CHK1]: The matrix would recognize the varying levels of documentation, from new Property Record Forms to HABS II documentation. 106 UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 12 of 15 C. All fees and charges applicable to review of the request for demolition and construction of the subsequent development (e.g. park land, water rights, impact fees) shall be paid prior to issuance of a building or demolition permit. 1. When required by the city, this will include a financial security in a form approved by the city attorney ensuring completion of the demolition and reclamation of the site to a safe condition. D. In addition to the remedies in article 34 of this chapter, the owner of any structure or site that is demolished or moved contrary to the provisions of this section, and any contractor performing such work, may be required to reconstruct such structure or site in a design and manner identical to its condition prior to such illegal demolition or move, and in conformance with all applicable codes and regulations. Section 12 That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by adding Section 38.16.130 to read as follows: Sec. 38.16.130. - Safe condition and good repair. Each property/structure identified as contributing, potentially eligible, or landmark by the most recent cultural resources survey verified by the Montana State Historic Preservation Office shall be maintained in safe condition and good repair as required in 16.02.030 and 16.02.040. Nothing in this article shall be construed to prevent normal maintenance and repair of any exterior feature of any historic structure which does not involve a building permit. Interior arrangements or alternations to the interior of a building shall not be subject to this requirement. Section 13 That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by adding Section 38.19.080.C as follows: Sec. 38.19.080. Certificates of appropriateness—Additional review procedures and review criteria. A. Sign proposals which do not specifically conform to the requirements of this chapter. Independent sign proposals (i.e., not in conjunction with other development) which do not specifically conform to the requirements of this chapter, are required to submit full site plans. Additional site design information, in sufficient detail to demonstrate compliance with the design objective plan, encompassing the property's location shall be provided. B. Review procedures and criteria for certificates of appropriateness. 1. Certificates of appropriateness shall be issued according to procedures and criteria specified in articles 16, 17, 20 and 33, in addition to this chapter. 2. Sign proposals which specifically conform to the requirements of this chapter shall be reviewed according to procedures and criteria outlined in article 28 of this chapter. 107 UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 13 of 15 C. Demolition or movement of historic properties, structures or sites, located outside of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. 1. Demolition or movement of historic properties, structures or sites, located outside of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District shall be reviewed according to procedures and criteria outlined in 38.16.080. 2. Certificates of appropriateness shall be issued according to procedures and criteria specified in articles 16, 17, 20, 34 and 41 as applicable, in addition to this article. Section 14 That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by revising Sections 38.40.030, Table 38.40.030, footnote 4 to read as follows: 4Sketch plans for adding dwellings in the neighborhood conservation overlay district, demolition of historic structures as defined in 38.42.1365, contributing structures in the neighborhood conservation overlay district, or modification of wetlands. Section 15 That Section 38.41.090 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended as follows: Sec. 38.41.090. - Certificates of appropriateness; additional application requirements, review procedures and review criteria. A. Submittal requirements for certificates of appropriateness. All development proposals requiring certificates of appropriateness (i.e.e.g., located in a neighborhood conservation or entryway corridor overlay districts or historic property/structure) shall submit the following information in addition to any sketch plan, site plan or special development submittal requirements for the proposal: 1. Neighborhood conservation overlay district and historic property/structures. Certain information shall be provided to the appropriate review authority to review prior to granting or denying a certificate of appropriateness. The extent of documentation to be submitted on any project shall be dictated by the scope of the planned alteration and the information reasonably necessary for the appropriate review authority to make its determination. At a minimum, the following items shall be included in the submission: a. Completed application on form provided by the planning department; b. One current picture of each elevation of each structure planned to be altered and such additional pictures of the specific elements of the structure or property to be altered that will clearly express the nature and extent of change planned. Except when otherwise recommended, no more than eight pictures should be submitted and all pictures shall be mounted on letter-size sheets and clearly annotated with the property address, elevation direction (N, S, E, W) and relevant information; c. Sketch plan or site plan information, as per 38.19.050 or 38.19.060 108 UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 14 of 15 d. Historical information, including available data such as pictures, plans, authenticated verbal records and similar research documentation that may be relevant to the planned alteration; e. Materials and color schemes to be used; f. Plans, sketches, pictures, specifications and other data that will clearly express the applicant's proposed alterations; g. A schedule of planned actions that will lead to the completed alterations; h. Such other information as may be suggested by the planning department; i. It is further suggested that the applicant seek comments from the neighborhood or area; and j. Description of any applicant-requested deviation and a narrative explanation as to how the requested deviation will encourage restoration and rehabilitation activity that will contribute to the overall historic character of the community;. k. An illustration showing all internal and external elements of a structure to be removed or altered by a project. All elements to be removed or altered, and to what extent, shall be clearly identified and shall include those elements to be removed and reinstalled; l. If demolition of a historic structure, as defined in 38.42.1365, is proposed a structural analysis and cost estimates indicating the costs of repair and/or rehabilitation to bring the structure to a habitable condition as established by the applicable technical codes in Article 10.02, versus the costs of demolition and redevelopment. Analysis shall include cost estimates from more than one general contractor for the work. The cost comparison is between the cost to rehabilitate the structure to a condition which meets the building code standard for occupancy and demolition and construction of a new structure of similar size and use to building code standards.; m. If a building is claimed to be unsafe evidence to support that claim; and n. For any non-conforming structure, an analysis of demolition to determine whether the threshold for loss of protected non-conforming status per 38.32.040.B has been met or surpassed. 2. Entryway overlay district. a. Depending on the complexity of development, either sketch plans or site plans will be required as specified in this article. b. If the proposal includes an application for a deviation as outlined in 38.35.050, the application for deviation shall be accompanied by written and graphic material sufficient to illustrate the conditions that the modified standards will produce, so as to enable the review authority to make the determination that the deviation will produce an environment, landscape quality and character superior to that produced by the existing standards, and will be consistent with the intent and purpose of article 17 of this chapter. Section 16 That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by creating a new definition, Section 38.42.1365 to read as follows: Sec. 38.42.1365. Historic property / structure. 109 UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 15 of 15 Any site, building or structure that is: 1) listed in the State or National Register of Historic Places; or 2) designated as a historic property under local or state designation law or survey; or 3) certified as a contributing resource within a National Register listed or locally designated historic district; or 4) certified that the property is eligible to be listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places either individually or as a contributing building to a historic district by the State Historic Preservation Officer or the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places. Section 17 The city manager or designee must work with property owners to identify historic properties no longer maintained in safe condition and good repair. The city, enlisting the assistance of applicable departments, must work to educate property owners about neglected properties; inform them about assistance available; and facilitate connections between the private or nonprofit sector in the attempt to ensure properties are maintained in safe condition and good repair pursuant to this section. 110 Ord XXX Page 1 of 15 (Unified Development Code revision element 2C, Maintenance and Demolition of Historic Properties) DESCRIPTION: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA AMENDING MULTIPLE SECTIONS OF THE BOZEMAN MUNICIPAL CODE INCLUDING CHAPTER 10, BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS; ARTICLE 16.02, PUBLIC NUISANCES; AND DIVISION 38.34016, OVERLAY DISTRICT PROVISIONS TO ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION, MAINTENANCE AND DEMOLITION OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES. WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman (the “City”) is authorized by the City Charter and Montana law to adopt land development and use standards to protect public health, safety and welfare and otherwise execute the purposes of Section 76-2-304, MCA; and WHEREAS, it is in the City’s best interest to preserve the fabric of the City and character of City neighborhoods; to have well maintained historic properties; and to prevent intentional and unintentional damage to historic properties through neglect; and WHEREAS, historic preservation is identified in Chapter 5 of the Bozeman Community Plan as an important element of community character and heritage, and the Bozeman Community Plan encourages the protection of historically and culturally significant resources. WHEREAS, the “Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District” (NCOD), Chapter 38.16, was established in 1991 to conserve and protect neighborhood character; and WHEREAS, the NCOD uses the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) process to review development of properties in the NCOD applying general guidelines for the protection of neighborhood character and targeted recommendations for historic properties; and WHEREAS, historic properties are not necessarily limited to the geographical boundaries of the NCOD; and WHEREAS, the Bozeman Municipal Code does not specifically define “historic property”, lessening certainty in identifying which properties are subject to the historic preservation provisions of the; and WHEREAS, adoption of a definition based on a property’s eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places is consistent with the best management practices adopted by 111 UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 2 of 15 other state and federal government agencies such as the Montana Department of Transportation and the Army Corps of Engineers; and WHEREAS, the City’s nuisance code, Chapter 16, and adopted technical codes (Building Codes), Chapter 10, are used to address properties and structures that have fallen into such disrepair that they pose a risk to the public health and safety. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN, MONTANA: Section 1 Legislative Findings: 1. The City’s experience with historic preservation shows that the adoption of a specific definition of “historic” will create a knowable and predictable classification of properties. 2. A specific definition of “historic” provides the opportunity to protect properties eligible for listing throughout the City (not limited to the NCOD). 3. A specific definition of “historic” enables the historic preservation program to more readily keep pace with changes in the community and reduce unintentional omissions. 4. A specific definition of “historic” creates a dynamic program which enables an evolving, growing community to recognize properties which are eligible for designation as historic. 5. The historic preservation goals in the City’s Community Plan will be promoted by maintaining historic properties in safe condition and good repair, preventing intentional and unintentional neglect of historic properties, and ensuring that historic properties be maintained as weather tight and secure. 6. The City Commission intends to be proactive and to discourage properties reaching the point that triggers action through either the nuisance code or adopted technical codes (Building Codes) by being neglected to the point of being unsafe. 7. The City’s involvement with homeowners and neighborhood groups to educate, assist and facilitate, and encourage collaborative approaches involving individuals, government, and the private sector to address neglected properties will promote the historic preservation goals in the Community Plan. 8. It is in the Bozeman community’s best interest for the City to deter speculative demolition of structures, which creates gaps in the neighborhood fabric, and diminishes the tax revenue stream, which reduces the City’s ability to provide services and infrastructure improvements to the area. In addition, vacant lots diminish the value of adjoining residences and create uncertainty for neighborhoods. The cost to maintain the street and deliver infrastructure to the property is the same while the tax revenue is diminished 112 UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 3 of 15 9. It is in the Bozeman community’s best interest to reduce the use of City resources by coordinating the provisions of the City’s nuisance code, adopted building codes, and zoning code. Section 2 That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by revising the Building Moving Code, Section 10.03.110.A as follows with the remainder of the section to remain unaltered: Sec. 10.03.110. - Same—Issuance restrictions and moving conditions. A. The following restrictions and conditions shall be observed before the issuance of a permit as required by this article: 1. No permit shall be issued to any person, firm or corporation to move or relocate any building or structure upon another building site unless such use, building or proposed conversion thereof conforms to Chapter 38, (Zoning) to include when applicable the final approval by the review authority specified in 38.200.010, of a Certificate Of Appropriateness, 10.02.030, (the International Building Code), 10.02.040, (the International Residential Code), 10.02.050 (the International Existing Building code) and all other pertinent portions of this Code. 2. No permit shall be issued to any person, firm or corporation to move, remove or locate any building or structure which is: a. So constructed or in such condition as to be dangerous or unsafe; b. Infested with pests or is otherwise unsanitary; c. Or, if a dwelling or habitation, is unfit for human habitation; d. Or is so dilapidated, defective or in such a condition of deterioration or disrepair that its relocation at the proposed site would create a safety or health hazard, or would cause substantial damage or material detriment to the property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site. 3. Every application shall be accompanied by the written consent of the deputy police chief and deputy fire chief – operations fire department, who shall be notified as to the route to be taken and the date of the move. 4. The department of public works building division shall specify in the permit the route to be taken in the moving of a building or structure, such means to be used to prevent the street pavement from being subjected to abnormal stresses as may be deemed necessary by the city engineer, and the limit of time which such building or structure shall be upon the streets or alleys. 5. No circuit or box of the city fire alarm shall be disturbed in any manner except with the permission of the deputy fire department chief - operations. 6. No building or structure which is being moved upon or over any street, alley or property of the city shall be occupied as living quarters while such building or structure is in transit. 113 UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 4 of 15 7. No permit as required by this article shall be issued unless the applicant demonstrates that the applicant has adequate machinery, appliances and equipment to safely complete the proposed move. Section 3 That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by adding Section 10.04.050.A.3 to the Demolition Code to read as follows with the remainder of the section to remain unaltered: Sec. 10.04.050. - Same—Issuance restrictions. A. The following restrictions and conditions shall be observed before the issuance of a permit as required by this article: 1. No permit shall be issued to any person, firm or corporation to demolish any building or structure while any part thereof is occupied. 2. No permit as required by this article shall be issued unless the applicant demonstrates that the applicant has adequate machinery, appliances, and equipment to safely complete the proposed demolition and disposal. 3. No permit shall be issued to any person, firm or corporation to demolish any building or structure unless such demolition thereof conforms to chapter 38 to include when applicable the final approval by the review authority specified in 38.200.010, of a Certificate of Appropriateness, the provisions of this article, and this code. Section 4 That Section 16.02.030 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended as follows: Article 2. – NUISANCES Sec. 16.02.030. - Responsibility for maintenance. A. Every owner, occupant, lessee or holder of any possessory interest of real property within the city is required to maintain such property so as not to violate the provisions of this article. The owner of the property shall remain liable for violations hereof regardless of any contract or agreement with any third party regarding such property or the occupation of the property by any third party. B. Every owner of property within the city must maintain such property to ensure the safe condition of the property, in a weather tight condition, and secure from unauthorized entry. Section 5 That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by adding new definitions in Section 16.02.040 as follows: 114 UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 5 of 15 Sec. 16.02.040. - Definitions. A. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: 1. "Abatement" means the removal, stoppage, prostration, or destruction of that which causes or constitutes a nuisance, whether by breaking or pulling it down, or otherwise destroying, or effacing it. 2. "Owner" means the owner of record or any person with legal, financial or equitable interest in the property on which the alleged public nuisance exists at the time of the violation. 3. "Property" means any real property, premises, structure or location on which a public nuisance is alleged to exist. 4. "Public nuisance" means any fence, wall, shed, deck, house, garage, building, structure or any part of any of the aforesaid; or any tree, pole, smokestack; or any excavation, hole, pit, basement, cellar, sidewalk subspace, dock; or any lot, land, yard, premises or location which in its entirety, or in any part thereof, by reason of the condition in which the same is found or permitted to be or remain, shall or may endanger the health, safety, life, limb or property, or cause any hurt, harm, inconvenience, discomfort, damage or injury to any one or more individuals in the city, in any one or more of the following particulars: a. By reason of being a menace, threat and/or hazard to the general health and safety of the community. b. By reason of being a fire hazard. c. By reason of being unsafe for occupancy, or use on, in, upon, about or around the aforesaid property. d. By reason of lack of sufficient or adequate maintenance of the property, and/or being vacant, any of which depreciates the enjoyment and use of the property in the immediate vicinity to such an extent that it is harmful to the community in which such property is situated or such condition exists. The term "public nuisance" shall mean any nuisance designated in section 16.02.050. 5. “Safe condition” means a condition not involving or likely to involve danger, harm or loss from fire and other hazards. 6. "Summary abatement" means abatement of the nuisance by the city, or a contractor employed by the city, by removal, repair, or other acts without notice to the owner, agent, or occupant of the property except for the notice required by this article. Section 6 That Division 38.340 of the Bozeman Municipal Code, Overlay District Provisions, be amended by adding Section 38.340.010.G to read as follows with the remainder of the section to remain as written: 115 UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 6 of 15 G. It is further the purpose of this article to protect historic structures as defined in 38.700.090 by requiring any person seeking to demolish or move a historic structure to comply with 38.230.080 whether or not the structure is located within the NCOD. Section 7 That Section 38.340.080 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended as follows: Sec. 38.340.080. - Review of demolition or movement of structures or sites within the conservation district. A. The demolition or movement of any structure or site within the conservation district shall be subject to the provisions of this article and section. The review procedures and criteria for the demolition or movement of any structure or site within the conservation district are as follows: 1. Applications for the demolition or movement of structures within the conservation district will not be accepted without a complete submittal for the subsequent development or treatment of the site after the demolition or movement has occurred. The subsequent development or treatment must be approved before a demolition or moving permit may be issued. 2. The demolition or movement of conservation district principal and accessory structures or sites, which are designated as intrusive or neutral elements by the state historical and architectural inventory, and that are not within recognized historic districts or in other ways listed on the National Register of Historic Places, shall be subject to review per articles 19 and 34 of this chapter, and the standards outlined in 38.16.050. The state historical and architectural inventory form shall be reviewed and, if necessary, updated by a qualified professional acceptable to the state historic preservation office to reflect current conditions on the site, prior to the review of the demolition or movement proposal. The review authority for the demolition or movement of structures or sites described within this section shall be coordinated with the larger project when demolition or movement is proposed in conjunction with a deviation, variance, conditional use permit or planned unit development application. 3. The demolition or movement of conservation district principal and accessory structures or sites, which are designated as contributing elements by the state historical and architectural inventory, and all properties within historic districts and all landmarks, shall be subject to public notice. Notice shall be provided in accordance with article 40 of this chapter. Prior to any final action on the application the review authority shall receive a recommendation from the historic preservation office; and if the demolition does not conform to the criteria below a recommendation from the historic preservation advisory board. The state historical and architectural inventory form shall be reviewed and, if necessary, updated by a qualified professional acceptable to the state historic preservation office to reflect current conditions on the site prior to the review of the demolition or movement proposal. The review authority for the demolition or movement of structures or sites described within this section shall be coordinated with the larger project when demolition or movement is proposed in conjunction with a deviation, variance, site plan, 116 UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 7 of 15 conditional use permit or planned unit development application. The review authority shall base its decision on the following: a. The standards in 38.16.050 and the architectural, social, cultural and historical importance of the structure or site and their relationship to the district as determined by the state historic preservation office and the planning department. b. If the review authority finds that the criteria of this section are not satisfied, then, before approving an application to demolish or remove, the review authority must find that at least one of the following factors apply based on definitive evidence supplied by the applicant, including structural analysis and cost estimates indicating the costs of repair and/or rehabilitation versus the costs of demolition and redevelopment: (1) The structure or site is a threat to public health or safety, and that no reasonable repairs or alterations will remove such threat; any costs associated with the removal of health or safety threats must exceed the value of the structure. (2) The structure or site has no viable economic or useful life remaining. 4. If an application for demolition or moving is denied, issuance of a demolition or moving permit shall be stayed for a period of two years from the date of the final decision in order to allow the applicant and city to explore alternatives to the demolition or move, including, but not limited to, the use of tax credits or adaptive reuse. The two-year stay may be terminated at any point in time if an alternate proposal is approved or if sufficient additional evidence is presented to otherwise satisfy the requirements of subsection 2 or 3 of this section. 5. All structures or sites approved for demolition or moving shall be fully documented in a manner acceptable to the historic preservation planner and administrative design review staff prior to the issuance of demolition or moving permits. 6. In addition to the remedies in article 34 of this chapter, the owner of any structure or site that is demolished or moved contrary to the provisions of this section, and any contractor performing such work, may be required to reconstruct such structure or site in a design and manner identical to its condition prior to such illegal demolition or move, and in conformance with all applicable codes and regulations A. The demolition or movement of any structure or site shall be subject to the provisions of this division. This process applies to: 1. Historic properties, as defined in 38.700.090, per 38.340.090. 2. Non-historic properties per 38.340.100. 3. Unsafe structures whether historic or non-historic per 38.340.110. The provisions for unsafe structures take priority over other provisions for demolition. B. An application to move or demolish a structure subject to this article must follow the applicable review procedures. C. Optional provisional review of demolition. A property owner may request provisional review of the proposed demolition of a structure subject to this article prior to submittal of a certificate of appropriateness application for seeking demolition of the structure. The director of community development may establish criteria for the application for provisional review of 117 UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 8 of 15 demolition. Provisional review is advisory only and does not constitute approval to demolish a structure. Provisional review shall consider: a. The property’s historic significance. b. Whether the structure has no viable economic life remaining. “No viable economic life remaining” means the costs of repair and/or rehabilitation to bring the structure to a habitable condition as established by the applicable technical codes in Article 10.02, exceed the costs of demolition and redevelopment. Illustrative summary graphic will be developed and inserted appropriately – table is not regulatory, intended to provide handy cross reference. We will update the table after the text is finalized. Section 8 That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by adding a new section to read as follows: Sec. 38.340.090. - Demolition or movement of a historic structure or site. A. COA for demolition and subsequent development. Approval of the proposed subsequent development is required for all historic buildings and structures proposed for demolition and for the proposed movement of any building or structure or site. B. Public Notice. Proposals for demolition of historic properties within the city limits require public notice. Notice of application(s) shall be provided in accordance with division 38.220 of this chapter. C. Criteria. The reviewing authority will consider the following factors in evaluating applications for demolition or movement of a historic structure or site and subsequent redevelopment: 1. The property’s historic significance. 2. Whether the structure has no viable economic life remaining. “No viable economic life remaining” means the costs of repair and/or rehabilitation to bring the structure to a habitable condition as established by the applicable technical codes in Article 10.02, exceed the costs of demolition and redevelopment to minimum standards with a building of the same type and scale. 3. Whether the subsequent development complies with 38.340.050. 4. Whether the subsequent development includes construction of new building(s) unless the existing character of the area does not include buildings. 5. Subsequent development requires a building permit and does not include proposals which leave the site without building(s) or structure(s). D. Review process. 118 UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 9 of 15 1. Upon application for a COA for demolition and subsequent development the review authority may: a. Grant preliminary or final approval of the demolition with standard contingencies and/or project specific conditions. b. Deny the Certificate of Appropriateness application. 2. COA decision alternatives. a. Preliminary COA approval. After preliminary approval with contingencies or conditions requiring follow up work, the applicant may apply for final COA approval and must demonstrate compliance with development standards and completion of contingencies and conditions, including documentation, the review authority shall approve the COA for demolition and subsequent development. b. Final COA approval. If the submitted application materials demonstrate compliance with development standards and completion of contingencies and conditions, including documentation, the Review Authority shall approve the COA for demolition and subsequent development. c. COA denial due to the failure of the applicant to make a complete and adequate submittal or propose a subsequent treatment which complies with the standards of this chapter does not initiate the two-year stay. 3. If an application for demolition or moving is denied due to failure to meet 38.340.090.C issuance of a demolition or moving permit shall be stayed for a period of two years from the date of the denial in order to allow the applicant and city to explore alternatives to the demolition or move, including, but not limited to, the use of tax credits or adaptive reuse. The two-year stay may be terminated at any point in time if an alternate proposal is approved or if sufficient additional evidence is presented to otherwise satisfy the requirements of this section. a. Early termination of two-year stay. An owner of property subject to a stay under this section may seek early termination of the stay if the owner demonstrates it has actively and in good faith sought alternatives to demolition. These alternatives may include but are not limited to: listing the property for sale as a historic property; actively seeking input from neighborhood groups and interested parties; explored alternative funding sources for stabilization and/or reconstruction; and offering the property for relocation. b. If, upon expiration of the two-year stay of demolition, no alternate proposals have been approved or sufficient evidence has not been presented to otherwise terminate the stay, an application for a demolition permit may be presented to the city pursuant to chapter 10, article 3 or 4 of this Code. If all requirements of the demolition permit are satisfied, including documentation of the structure to be moved or demolished and the review authority has approved the subsequent development and a building permit issued for the subsequent development, a demolition permit pursuant to chapter 10 article 3 or 4 shall be granted and no other proceedings under this chapter are required. 4. Standard Requirements. 119 UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 10 of 15 a. Subsequent development of the site must receive zoning approval, building permit approval, and pay all related fees prior to issuance of a demolition permit. b. Documentation of the structure shall be completed and submitted to the historic preservation officer and deemed complete and adequate prior to issuance of a demolition permit per paragraph 38.340.120. Section 9 That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by creating a new section to read as follows: Sec. 38.340.100. - Demolition or movement of a non-historic structure or site in the NCOD A. COA for demolition and subsequent development. Required for all properties proposed for demolition or movement of any structure or site. Subsequent development does not include proposals which leave the site without building(s) or structure(s). B. Public Notice. Notice shall be provided in accordance with division 38.220. C. Criteria. 1.The applicable criteria are the COA criteria of 38.340.050. 2. The subsequent development must include construction of new building(s) unless the immediately prior character of the area did not include buildings. D. Review process. 1. Upon application for a COA for demolition and subsequent development the review authority may: a. Grant preliminary or final approval of the demolition with standard contingencies and/or project specific conditions. b. Deny the Certificate of Appropriateness application. 2. COA decision alternatives. a. Preliminary COA approval. After preliminary approval with contingencies or conditions requiring follow up work, the applicant may apply for final COA approval and must demonstrate compliance with development standards and completion of contingencies and conditions, including documentation, the review authority shall approve the COA for demolition and subsequent development. b. Final COA approval. If the submitted application materials demonstrate compliance with development standards and completion of contingencies and conditions, including documentation, the Review Authority shall approve the COA for demolition and subsequent development. 3. Standard Requirements. a. Subsequent development of the site must receive zoning approval, building permit approval, and pay all related fees prior to issuance of a demolition permit. 120 UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 11 of 15 Section 10 That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by adding a new section to read as follows: Sec. 38.340.110. - Demolition or movement of an unsafe structure whether historic or non- historic A COA for demolition and subsequent development. Upon application and the chief building official’s determination that the property is unsafe the review authority may approve demolition and subsequent development. Subsequent development for an unsafe structure may be its replacement with a new building, integration of the area into a larger site which will support future development, or reclamation of the site to a safe, graded condition where storm water runoff and weeds are controlled. B. Public Notice. Notice shall be provided in accordance with article 40 of this chapter. C. The demolition of unsafe properties / structures may be subject to the public nuisance abatement provisions of Chapter 16, article 2 of this Code. Upon the chief building official’s determination that the property is unsafe and declaration of a public nuisance if the property owner does not resolve the unsafe condition, the review authority shall give final approval on a COA, which may be initiated by the city, and the demolition permit will be issued so the city may abate a nuisance. D. The provisions of this section may be initiated by a land owner; or by the city in accordance with article 16.02. Section 11 That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by adding a new section to read as follows: Sec. 38.340.120. - Documentation and administrative procedures. A. Documentation. All structures or sites approved for demolition or moving shall be fully documented. 1. The director of community development shall establish by administrative order rules for documentation of non-historic and historic properties. This documentation shall be created by a professional who satisfies professional qualification standards for History, Archeology or Architectural History, as established by the National Park Service and published in the Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61. 2. Documentation may be submitted as early in the process as the property owner desires to support the requested action, and to further the consideration and review of the request, but not later than prior to issuance of a building permit. B. A building permit application, in accordance with applicable codes and requirements, shall be submitted and approved before any demolition or construction. 121 UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 12 of 15 C. All fees and charges applicable to review of the request for demolition and construction of the subsequent development (e.g. park land, water rights, impact fees) shall be paid prior to issuance of a building or demolition permit. 1. When required by the city, this will include a financial security in a form approved by the city attorney ensuring completion of the demolition and reclamation of the site to a safe condition. D. In addition to the remedies in division 38.220, the owner of any structure or site that is demolished or moved contrary to the provisions of this section, and any contractor performing such work, may be required to reconstruct such structure or site in a design and manner identical to its condition prior to such illegal demolition or move, and in conformance with all applicable codes and regulations. Section 12 That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by adding Section 38.340.130 to read as follows: Sec. 38.340.130. - Safe condition and good repair. Each property/structure identified as contributing, potentially eligible, or landmark by the most recent cultural resources survey verified by the Montana State Historic Preservation Office shall be maintained in safe condition and good repair as required in 16.02.030 and 16.02.040. Nothing in this article shall be construed to prevent normal maintenance and repair of any exterior feature of any historic structure which does not involve a building permit. Interior arrangements or alternations to the interior of a building shall not be subject to this requirement. Section 13 That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by adding Section 38.230.080.C as follows: Sec. 38.230.080. Certificates of appropriateness—Additional review procedures and review criteria. A. Sign proposals which do not specifically conform to the requirements of this chapter. Independent sign proposals (i.e., not in conjunction with other development) which do not specifically conform to the requirements of this chapter, are required to submit full site plans. Additional site design information, in sufficient detail to demonstrate compliance with the design objective plan, encompassing the property's location shall be provided. B. Review procedures and criteria for certificates of appropriateness. 1. Certificates of appropriateness shall be issued according to procedures and criteria specified in divisions 38.340, 38.430, and 38.200, in addition to this chapter. 2. Sign proposals which specifically conform to the requirements of this chapter shall be reviewed according to procedures and criteria outlined in division 38.560. 122 UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 13 of 15 C. Demolition or movement of historic properties, structures or sites, located outside of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District. 1. Demolition or movement of historic properties, structures or sites, located outside of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District shall be reviewed according to procedures and criteria outlined in 38.340.080. 2. Certificates of appropriateness shall be issued according to procedures and criteria specified in divisions 38.220, 38.340, 38.430 as applicable, in addition to this article. Section 14 That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by revising Sections 38.220.030, Table 38.220.030, footnote 4 to read as follows: 4Sketch plans for adding dwellings in the neighborhood conservation overlay district, demolition of historic structures as defined in 38.700.090, contributing structures in the neighborhood conservation overlay district, or modification of wetlands. Section 15 That Section 38.220.090 of the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended as follows: Sec. 38.220.090. - Certificates of appropriateness; additional application requirements, review procedures and review criteria. A. Submittal requirements for certificates of appropriateness. All development proposals requiring certificates of appropriateness (i.e.e.g., located in a neighborhood conservation or entryway corridor overlay districts or historic property/structure) shall submit the following information in addition to any sketch plan, site plan or special development submittal requirements for the proposal: 1. Neighborhood conservation overlay district and historic property/structures. Certain information shall be provided to the appropriate review authority to review prior to granting or denying a certificate of appropriateness. The extent of documentation to be submitted on any project shall be dictated by the scope of the planned alteration and the information reasonably necessary for the appropriate review authority to make its determination. At a minimum, the following items shall be included in the submission: a. Completed application on form provided by the planning department; b. One current picture of each elevation of each structure planned to be altered and such additional pictures of the specific elements of the structure or property to be altered that will clearly express the nature and extent of change planned. Except when otherwise recommended, no more than eight pictures should be submitted and all pictures shall be mounted on letter-size sheets and clearly annotated with the property address, elevation direction (N, S, E, W) and relevant information; c. Sketch plan or site plan information, as per 38.230.050 or 38.230.060 123 UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 14 of 15 d. Historical information, including available data such as pictures, plans, authenticated verbal records and similar research documentation that may be relevant to the planned alteration; e. Materials and color schemes to be used; f. Plans, sketches, pictures, specifications and other data that will clearly express the applicant's proposed alterations; g. A schedule of planned actions that will lead to the completed alterations; h. Such other information as may be suggested by the planning department; i. It is further suggested that the applicant seek comments from the neighborhood or area; and j. Description of any applicant-requested deviation and a narrative explanation as to how the requested deviation will encourage restoration and rehabilitation activity that will contribute to the overall historic character of the community;. k. An illustration showing all internal and external elements of a structure to be removed or altered by a project. All elements to be removed or altered, and to what extent, shall be clearly identified and shall include those elements to be removed and reinstalled; l. If demolition of a historic structure, as defined in 38.700.090, is proposed a structural analysis and cost estimates indicating the costs of repair and/or rehabilitation to bring the structure to a habitable condition as established by the applicable technical codes in Article 10.02, versus the costs of demolition and redevelopment. Analysis shall include cost estimates from more than one general contractor for the work. The cost comparison is between the cost to rehabilitate the structure to a condition which meets the building code standard for occupancy and demolition and construction of a new structure of similar size and use to building code standards.; m. If a building is claimed to be unsafe evidence to support that claim; and n. For any non-conforming structure, an analysis of demolition to determine whether the threshold for loss of protected non-conforming status per 38.270.040.B has been met or surpassed. 2. Entryway overlay district. a. Depending on the complexity of development, either sketch plans or site plans will be required as specified in this article. b. If the proposal includes an application for a deviation as outlined in 38.250.050, the application for deviation shall be accompanied by written and graphic material sufficient to illustrate the conditions that the modified standards will produce, so as to enable the review authority to make the determination that the deviation will produce an environment, landscape quality and character superior to that produced by the existing standards, and will be consistent with the intent and purpose of article 17 of this chapter. Section 16 That the Bozeman Municipal Code be amended by creating a new definition, Section 38.700.090to read as follows: Sec. 38.700.090. Historic property / structure. 124 UDC Revision Reference 2C, Revisions to Chapters 10, 16, and 38 Regarding Demolition Page 15 of 15 Any site, building or structure that is: 1) listed in the State or National Register of Historic Places; or 2) designated as a historic property under local or state designation law or survey; or 3) certified as a contributing resource within a National Register listed or locally designated historic district; or 4) certified that the property is eligible to be listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places either individually or as a contributing building to a historic district by the State Historic Preservation Officer or the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places. Section 17 The city manager or designee must work with property owners to identify historic properties no longer maintained in safe condition and good repair. The city, enlisting the assistance of applicable departments, must work to educate property owners about neglected properties; inform them about assistance available; and facilitate connections between the private or nonprofit sector in the attempt to ensure properties are maintained in safe condition and good repair pursuant to this section. 125 Historic Preservation Advisory Board September 13, 2016 6:00 pm City Hall, Madison Room 121 N. Rouse Ave., Bozeman, Montana A. Call meeting to order at 6:05 – Roll Call Mark Hufstetler – Present Pat Jacobs – Present Marri Ketterer – Present Vickki York – Present Chris Saunders – Present B. Changes to the Agenda – No Changes to the Agenda C. Disclosure of Ex Parte Communication – No Ex Parte Communication D. Public Comment – No public comment E. Approval of Minutes – No minutes for approval G. Action Items 1. Review and comment on the draft text for the Maintenance and Demolition of Historic Structures municipal code text amendment Chris Saunders presented an overview of the proposed draft. He called the Board’s attention to the memo and materials provided with the packets. Three key elements of the draft. First, obligation to maintain properties included as part of the nuisance ordinance. Second, a definition of what constitutes a historic property/structure. Third, revisions and clarifications of process for demolishing buildings. Discussion on the differences of procedure for different classifications of buildings. Discussion on what constitutes an unsafe structure. Discussion on the definition of Historic Property/Structure. Discussion on noticing provisions for demolitions. Who is noticed by what means. Footnote 4, Table 38.40.030 sets noticing for demolition of contributing structures. Board expressed desire to be kept informed of proposed demolitions. 126 Discussion of whether the table could be revised to be more clear about noticing for demolition. Saunders described the on-going update to the Unified Development Code and noted that changes could perhaps happen through that process. Discussion regarding the required documentation matrix. Not prepared at this time but will be prior to implementation of the text changes in the spring. Expected that new historic preservation officer will prepare this document. It was agreed that it is good to have alternative options to use depending on the circumstances. Discussion on who can initiate development of historic inventory forms and what effect this would have. Can private parties prepare inventory forms on their own? There are interested persons who may be willing to do some of this work in the community. Issue of mid-century buildings not being well documented. Saunders agreed to look into this further with the state historic preservation office. Affects Section 16 of the draft amendments. Discussion on whether there was an opportunity to revisit the stay of demolition if conditions has substantially changed such as a building becoming eligible due to passage of time or formation of a historic district including the property. Saunders noted that there are limitations to changing conditions or regulations after review of a project has begun. It could be looked into. Discussion of importance to use accurate and current information, not just most recently available information. Either staff or applicant could update inventory forms. Need to ensure professional quality standards are met. Pat Jacobs moved to recommend approval of the draft as written with consideration of the comments offered at the meeting. Vikki York seconded the motion. Motion passed 4-0. H. FYI/Discussion 1. Strengthening HPAB Membership New appointments are scheduled for September. Either the 19th or 26th. Will need to select officers to finish out the year. Will place an action item on the October 11th agenda. 2. Possible HPAB Retreat in October Agreed to place the issue on the October 11th agenda for discussion with the new board members. 3. MSU cooperative data gathering effort Next effort will occur on October 5th. MSU support is much appreciated. Janet Ore, an MSU faculty and preservation architect, is leading the effort this year. 4. Community Development Director Interviews were held on September 12th. City Manager hopes to make decision shortly. Selection process for historic preservation officer to begin soon so the Director can make a selection shortly after their start with the City. 127 5. Panel Discussion Extreme History Project is sponsoring a panel discussion this Thursday at Townshend’s Tea House on the subject of historic preservation in Bozeman as part of a week-long dialogue series called, "Building Community through Historic Preservation." Saunders will attend on behalf of the City. Jacobs will also be participating as a private citizen. I. Adjournment – Approximately 7:30 For more information please contact Chris Saunders at csaunders@bozeman.net or 406-582- 2260 This board generally meets the second Tuesday of the month from 6:00 to 8:00 PM in the City Commission Chamber at 121 N. Rouse Ave. Preservation Board meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require assistance, please contact our ADA coordinator, Chuck Winn (TDD 582- 2307). 128 Maintenance and Demolition Text Amendment, Application 14623 1 RESOLUTION NO. 14-623 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BOZEMAN PLANNING BOARD REGARDING AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTERS 10, 16, AND 38 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE ADDRESSING OBLIGATION TO MAINTAIN PROPERTY AND PROCESSES TO DEMOLISH PROPERTIES. WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman has adopted a growth policy pursuant to Section 76-1-601, Mont. Code Ann.; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board has been created by ordinance by the Bozeman City Commission as provided for in Title 76-1-101, Mont. Code Ann.; and WHEREAS, The City of Bozeman has adopted various provisions providing for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare by addressing nuisances; and WHEREAS, The City of Bozeman’s adopted growth policy includes a chapter on historic preservation and calls for certain actions to advance historic preservation; and WHEREAS, the proposed text amendment application has been properly submitted, reviewed, and advertised in accordance with the required procedures; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board and Zoning Commission held a joint public hearing on Tuesday, September 6, 2016, to review the application and any written public testimony on the application; and WHEREAS, no members of the public provided written or oral testimony on the matter of the text amendment application; and WHEREAS, the Department of Community Development, based on the materials and information included in the Staff Report, recommended approval of the requested text amendment; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board and Zoning Commission reviewed the application against the purposes of the zoning enabling act; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Planning Board voted 8:0 to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for the text amendment with a revision to not require non-historic buildings to have an approved building permit for subsequent development prior to demolition; and WHEREAS, the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission voted 3:1 to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Commission for the text amendment; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, having heard and considered public comment, application materials, and staff findings the City of Bozeman Planning Board voted 8:0 and the City of Bozeman Zoning Commission voted 3:1to officially recommend to the Bozeman City 129 Maintenance and Demolition Text Amendment, Application 14623 2 Commission approval of text amendment application no. 14623 to amend Chapters 10, 16, and 38 of the municipal code addressing obligation to maintain property and processes to demolish properties. DATED THIS 6th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2016 Resolution No. 14623 _____________________________ ____________________________ Chris Saunders, AICP Paul Neubauer, President Department of Community Development City of Bozeman Planning Board 130 Zoning Commission and Planning Board Tuesday, September 6, 2016 6:00 PM City Commission Chamber – 121 N. Rouse Ave. A. 06:17:20 PM (00:08:25) Call meeting to order Lauren Waterton - Planning Henry Happel - Planning Brianne Dugan - Planning Julien Morice – Zoning Jordan Zignego – Planning and Zoning Paul Neubauer – Planning George Thompson – Planning and Zoning Eric Garberg – Zoning Paul Spitler – Planning B. 06:18:00 PM (00:09:05) Changes to the Agenda – As part of public comment, Mr. Rogers will give an update on the code update. C. 06:18:13 PM (00:09:19) Public Comment - No Comments from the public. 06:18:28 PM (00:09:34) Tom Rogers presents a UDC update. D. 06:21:28 PM (00:12:33) Action Items 1. 06:21:50 PM (00:12:55) Parkland Mitigation Text Amendment A revision to the standards for how to calculate required mitigation for impacts on the recreation system. 131 Chris Saunders begins presentation on the Parkland Mitigation Text Amendment. Provides board with statistics on growth in the City and surrounding areas. Discusses the change in the type of growth and development we are experiencing. 06:24:39 PM (00:15:45) Mr. Saunders indicates the 4 types of changes we are looking to make with regards to parks program and why. 06:37:50 PM (00:28:55) Conclusion of presentation – open for questions for staff George Thompson questions the process for the City establishing cost. Mr. Saunders responds that it’s based on raw land value and how we have done this in the past. He states that we may continue to do it that way or explore other means for determining cost. 06:39:39 PM (00:30:44) Mr. Thompson is concerned with the Parks Department not being qualified to determine cost. Mr. Saunders states that the parks department will be the agency that will secure an agreement with someone qualified to make these estimates. 06:40:06 PM (00:31:11) Erik Garberg questions one unit as the trigger for park land. Mr. Saunders stated that it is a place holder or starting point until they can get more feedback. 06:41:13 PM (00:32:18) Mr. Garberg questions items that were excluded – for example Peet’s Hill would likely be excluded according to the stipulations. Mr. Saunders stated those are guidelines, but the City can determine if it is acceptable as an exception to the general rule. 06:43:05 PM (00:34:10) Mr. Garberg questions when cash-in-lieu is acceptable. Mr. Saunders responds there are some areas where they want a more urban and dense area (like in B-3), so cash-in-lieu is always accepted. In addition, he states that land is valuable, but at some point, too much open grass space is unnecessary and we should start making improvements on existing open spaces to make some parks more functional. In addition, in an effort to maintain affordability, improvements are preferable at times. 06:46:09 PM (00:37:14) Brianne Dugan questions what prevents someone from doing one unit at a time over and over (or whatever the indicated number of homes may be) to avoid hitting the requirement for park land. Also, she questions how we enforce parkland. Mr. Saunders responds with an example of a property that was presented as one large project, but had to be broken down into multiple developers, which messed up the original park land plan. He responds that to avoid losing parkland, the city requires a parkland easement to secure the park land with the initial phase, which can be reduced or changed if the project changes, if need be. Mr. Saunders responds that there is nothing keeping someone from submitting for one property at a time, but it’s impractical for builders, so unlikely they will go that route. 06:48:49 PM (00:39:54) Mr. Neubauer questions who is the deciding factor. Mr. Saunders responds that it is the commission, because the commission is responsible for approving sub- 132 divisions. Mr. Saunders provides examples of ways that developers can get approval on their parkland independent of the subdivision process as well. 06:50:53 PM (00:41:59) Mr. Garberg questions how the City keeps other developers from claiming the set aside park land. Mr. Saunders responds that it’s allocated by parcel. Mr. Garberg questions if it’s possible to use the large community parks to allocate towards helping form affordable housing – instead of requiring additional park land. Mr. Saunders responds that it would likely need to be presented to the City Attorney to determine if that’s an option. Mr. Neubauer questions what happens if appraisals done by the City and the Developer have a great discrepancy. Mr. Saunders stated that we are relying on professionalism and if an estimate just seems completely unrealistic, we will explore realistic numbers. 06:54:44 PM (00:45:49) Julian Morice questions if this document removes the cash-in-lieu option from the developer and puts it in the City’s hands. Mr. Saunders responded that it has always had to be requested, this process should just make the process easier. Mr. Morice questions if improvements to a water course or a trail system will count towards the parkland requirement. Mr. Saunders responds that is true, those improvements do count. For some situations, it is at the City’s discretion. 07:00:00 PM (00:51:06) Chris Mehl states there were 4 categories in the beginning, but he does not feel that valuation was really covered. He states that he has been a commissioner for 6 years and doesn’t feel that cash-in-lieu ever really seems to cover the full cost of the land not being dedicated. Mr. Saunders responds. Commissioner Mehl questions if by making the cash-in-lieu process more streamlined and easy, if we will see an increase in cash in lieu proposals. Mr. Saunders responds that we may see more, but for smaller projects, it may make the process more accessible. Ultimately it’s up to the City to approve and determine if it is a good fit. Commissioner Mehl states that by the time these proposals get to the commission, there is usually a lot of momentum to keep moving forward. Mr. Saunders responds that they are working on a way to make this independent of the subdivision process so that it comes before the commission first to decide if it’s appropriate. 07:03:25 PM (00:54:30) Commissioner Mehl questions how the city will set a value on improvements. Mr. Saunders responds that we have some bench marks, that we know how much some things cost, but can also get pricing on specific projects. 07:04:36 PM (00:55:41) Commission Mehl questions how far away improvements can be made. Mr. Saunders states that it has to show that it will benefit the specific project being presented based on a service radius. 133 Commissioner questions what happens for parks that do not have a plan. Mr. Saunders state that either the park doesn’t qualify, or the developer or parks department can put a plan together. 07:06:58 PM (00:58:04) Commissioner Mehl questioned the access to land. Mr. Saunders responds that there are some cases where public parks aren’t provided, but there may be space on private sites, which need to have a public access easement. 07:07:52 PM (00:58:57) Commissioner Mehl questions non park land open space. Mr. Saunders states there has been no changes to open space that is not park land. 07:08:34 PM (00:59:39) Paul Spitler questions who pays for maintenance of parks after improvements have been made. Mr. Saunders responds it can be the City or the Developer. In some cases, it is indicated that until the City establishes a park’s district, that the HOA must maintain the park. Mr. Spitler states that it seems important to indicate who will be responsible for the maintenance of parks before allowing cash in lieu. Mr. Spitler questions the exemptions listed. Mr. Saunders explains in detail – specifically as it applies to high density. Mr. Spitler questions the difference between the .03 acres and square footage measure for parkland. Mr. Saunders responds that mathematically, it should be the same. 07:15:36 PM (01:06:41) Mr. Spitler questions if the manual for cash-in-lieu would come back to the planning board. Mr. Saunders stated that no, it would not, not unless the commission requested it was. Mr. Morice questions if it’s true that what the Park’s Department can maintain is being exceeded. Mr. Saunders responded that yes, they have reached their capacity and if we create a park district, then the department would need to expand. 07:17:31 PM (01:08:36) Mr. Neubauer states that in B-3 and Downtown allows for cash-in-lieu, but questions if land is even an option. Mr. Saunders responds that there is an option for land, but you do not have to provide land, unlike other districts, where you start with land and get to cash-in-lieu depending on what is being proposed. 07:18:36 PM (01:09:42) Ms. Waterton questions the different plans mentioned and if they were the same. Mr. Saunders explains the different park plans – master plan, plan and concept plan. 07:20:37 PM (01:11:42) Mr. Neubauer questioned if there should be individual votes for planning and zoning boards. Mr. Saunders responds that yes, both boards should vote independently. 07:20:56 PM (01:12:01) Open for Public Comment – no public comment 134 07:21:21 PM (01:12:26) Board discussion on the proposed text amendment 07:21:44 PM (01:12:50) Erik Garberg comments that the trigger should be set at about 8 residential units to encourage smaller projects and infill. 07:22:39 PM (01:13:44) Julien Morice responds that he agrees that the baseline needs to be much higher than 1, to encourage infill projects. 07:23:27 PM (01:14:32) Lauren Waterton questions if the goal is to encourage infill. If so, is parkland the best way to do that. 07:24:03 PM (01:15:09) Commissioner Mehl states that there will be a portion of the code that relates directly to infill, so the board may want to revisit this issue at that time, if other incentives are not sufficient. Mr. Garberg states that we could possibly just as a note that “if infill… than…”. Board continues to discuss parkland with respects to infill and the threshold for parks. Mr. Spitler states that it comes down to which type of development we are looking to incentivize. Mr. Spitzler questions how much each home costs in terms of parkland. Mr. Saunders said that for cash-in-lieu, it’s roughly $1,100 per home. The change with this process is that the appraiser would typically cost the project about $600/project. Whereas in this case we will be able to use a pre-determined amount. 07:32:41 PM (01:23:47) Julien Morice questions some of the subsequent documents needed to support this and how long it will take to put them in place. Mr. Saunders responded that a lot of it has been written up already. This will also allow for the City Staff to make some cash in lieu decisions without it going to the commission depending on what the commission feels is best. 07:35:28 PM (01:26:33) Mr. Spitler states that it appears that this will lead to an increase of cash-in-lieu. He sees opportunities and challenges. He said that it will be important to have some strong master plans to know the direction of our parks and who is responsible for the maintenance. Discussion about how to present motion to both boards for discussion. 07:37:46 PM (01:28:51) Eric Garberg Moves: Having reviewed and considering the application materials, public comment all information presented, I hereby move to adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 14-581 and move to approve the text amendment and direct staff to integrate these provisions as part of the update to the Unified Development Code. Second by Julien Morice 135 07:38:48 PM (01:29:53) Discussion on the motion Erik Garberg states that he doesn’t want to spend a ton of time determining the threshold number whether it’s 1 or 8, but that he generally supports what is being presented. He feels that the board is being presented with a lot of information quickly and must absorb it quickly. Julien Morice supports the document, but has concerns with the level of predictability with the documents for the developers and encourages having those documents as detailed as possible while maintaining some flexibility. 07:40:16 PM (01:31:21) Vote by the zoning commission – board unanimously approves the motion. 07:40:36 PM (01:31:41) Motion by the planning board: George Thompson: Having reviewed and considering the application materials, public comment all information presented, I hereby move to adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 14-581 and move to approve the text amendment and direct staff to integrate these provisions as part of the update to the Unified Development Code. Second by Paul Spitler Mr. Thompson states that he appreciates that we are moving forward with streamlining this process for the planners and developers. Mr. Spitler agrees that he appreciates the changes. Vote by the Planning Board – Unanimously approve the motion 2. 07:42:10 PM (01:33:15) Maintenance and Demolition Text Amendment These amendments clarify obligations of property owners to maintain their property and address the process for when and under what conditions structures can be removed when a structure is classed as a historic structure. 07:42:32 PM (01:33:38) Chris Saunders begins presentation on the Maintenance and Demolition Text Amendment. 07:58:50 PM (01:49:55) Open for questions for staff Eric Garberg questions who would determine that properties need to go through this process and what burden would it place on them. Mr. Saunders clarifies that it applies only to demolition, it would not alter the process of additions and changes. Mr. Garberg questions if there can be an interim plan for demolition. Or if you need to go from demo to building. Mr. Saunders responds in detail. 136 08:01:21 PM (01:52:26) Henry Happel questions if contributing structures are considered historic and therefore, who determined that they were. Mr. Saunders responds with how those homes were listed as contributing – based on a site survey that was also sent to the state historic preservation office for final say. Mr. Happel questions how many homes in Bozeman are listed formally on the national historic registrar. Mr. Saunders responds. Mr. Happel concludes that about 70%-80% of the homes in the historic districts have a historic label on them. Mr. Saunders responds that is correct. Within the conservation overlay it would be a smaller number. Mr. Happel questions how home owners know that their homes are listed as historic. Mr. Saunders responds with how many of them got listed and how individuals should be aware that their home is included in the historic district. Mr. Saunders indicates that the national register listing does not require homes be preserved. It is through City zoning that we have determined that homes should or can be preserved. Mr. Saunders explains how different districts are formed and how they need to speak to a common element. To be considered contributing to a district, individual properties or structures need to fit the elements of that district. 08:07:46 PM (01:58:51) Mr. Happel questions if historic designation is based on just the exterior of a home or if it’s based on the interior as well. Me Saunders responds that generally speaking, it is simply the exterior. The interior can be designated if it had been open to and accessible to the public. He gave the example of the Rialto vs the Hotel Baxter. Mr. Happel states that it appears that the commission favors vacant buildings over vacant lots – he asks for clarification on why. Mr. Saunders responds that it is economic value, in addition to maintaining character of the neighborhood. 08:11:17 PM (02:02:22) Mr. Thompson states that with the demo application it appears there will be a requirement for a building permit as well and he appreciates that. He states he lived in a community where there were smaller affordable homes that were being demoed and replaced with a home 2 or 3 times the size. In this case, it does not meet the character of the neighborhood. He questions how we stop these larger homes from coming in. Mr. Saunders states that this will not solve that. However, individual neighborhoods could create the expectation for specific building sizes through zoning. We cannot solve the problem in a blanket way. Mr. Thompson questions a specific building being historic. The building does not look historic, and is unattractive. Mr. Saunders states that there are a number of criteria to determine if a site is historic, and they are not always attractive. 137 08:16:39 PM (02:07:45) Mr. Thompson questions who can document what is historic. Mr. Saunders states that the standards apply to everyone, regardless of who is doing the work. It will need to be done appropriately though and approved. So, if someone is indicating something in a document, it must be backed up. 08:17:58 PM (02:09:03) Mr. Morice indicates that it’s also on the person who wants to demo a property to indicate that a property is not historic. Mr. Saunders said that is correct. In many cases the forms have been completed and it would be up to the developer to come in and indicate that the form is incorrect. Julien Morice disclosed to the board and FYI that he will be apply for a demo permit in a couple of months for a property outside of the overlay district. Julien Morice questions who determines if a home is salvageable. Mr. Saunders stated the historic preservation officer will be involved. In addition engineering will need to indicate if a building is not salvageable. In addition, there will be a building inspection to determine if there is any economic life left in the building – that the cost to remodel is greater than the cost of a new home. 08:22:00 PM (02:13:06) Julien Morice questions demolition by neglect and what the requirements are if you do not remodel a structure and it loses economic integrity over time. Mr. Saunders stated that is in part why maintenance requirements have been included. Further discussion between Julien Morice and Mr. Saunders about enforcement to avoid demolition by neglect. Mr. Happel questions enforcement mechanism for making sure individuals maintain their property. Mr. Saunders responds that it will be through general code enforcement. Mr. Happel argues that it does not count as a public nuisance and wonders how it gets included in that provision. Mr. Saunders states that he will bring that up to the city attorney, but that he feels comfortable enforcing it through that provision. Mr. Happel argues that the statute does not give the City authority to deal with the nuances for specific homes – he questions if there was a thought to give the city more discretion on a property by property basis. Mr. Saunders states that it was considered, but this was considered to be what was legally permissible. Discussion continues between Mr. Happel and Mr. Saunders regarding renovation of properties and new construction. Mr. Saunders gives details about how new construction can be implemented in historic districts. 08:34:54 PM (02:25:59) Commission Mehl questions why we do not adopt the international maintenance code. Mr. Saunders responds that we could not adopt them through the building 138 code authority – that is limited through the state. We might possibly adopt it under different authority, but it will be a question about who will maintain the code. We currently do not have the appropriate staff for that. 08:36:28 PM (02:27:34) Mr. Spitler questions what triggers a determination on what is historic or not. Mr. Saunders responds that if someone requests changes to a home in a district that triggers it. Otherwise, the neighborhood could trigger it or the City could trigger it. Likewise, they could drop a designation. 08:37:37 PM (02:28:43) Julien Morice moves: Having reviewed and considering the application materials, public comment all information presented, I hereby move to adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 14-623 and move to approve the text amendment. Eric Garberg Seconds Mr. Morice comments that the text seems appropriate. He feels it adds more substance to an argument about whether a property is historic. He does not agree with staff on waiting for demo until a permit is pulled, he feels some structures that are in complete disarray should be able to just come down – it can give a better view for potential buyers. A vacant lot that is maintained could be much more aesthetic than a degrading home. 08:41:02 PM (02:32:07) Mr. Garberg questions if this will be moving historic outside of the NCOD. Mr. Saunders states that is correct. Mr. Garberg states that this will expand a subjective element beyond its current bounds and therefore he cannot support it. 08:42:13 PM (02:33:18) Mr. Morice states that he shares Mr. Garberg’s concerns about expanding beyond the current NCOD. 08:43:13 PM (02:34:18) Vote by the Zoning Commission: Eric Garberg only one to vote against the motion. Motion passes. 3:1 08:43:30 PM (02:34:36) Mr. Thompson makes a motion for the Planning Board: Having reviewed and considering the application materials, public comment all information presented, I hereby move to adopt the findings presented in the staff report for application 14- 623 and move to approve the text amendment. Second by Jordan Zignego George Thompson comments that the nuances will always be a challenge, but feels the document is a good starting point. 08:45:50 PM (02:36:55) Henry Happel comments that he feels this is a step in the right direction. He however, he does not feel he’s in favor of having a building permit in hand before demolition of non-historic structures. Otherwise, he supports the document. As an unresolved issue, he doesn’t feel the building permit item does not need further attention. 139 Commission Mehl suggests he can amend the motion to reflect that. 08:48:26 PM (02:39:32) Mr. Happel moves to amend the motion to the city commission to indicate that a certificate of appropriateness not be required to demo a non-historic structure. Second by Commissioner Mehl Amendment to the motion passed unanimously. Vote on the amended motion: Motion passes unanimously. F. FYI/Discussion – no additional discussion G. 08:52:04 PM (02:43:10) Adjournment For more information please contact Alicia Kennedy at akennedy@bozeman.net This board generally meets the first and third Tuesday of the month at 7:00pm Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a disability and require assistance, please contact our ADA coordinator, Mike Scott at 582-2307 (TDD 582-2301). 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 1 Commission Memorandum REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Commission FROM: Wendy Thomas, Director of Community Development Anna Saverud and Greg Sullivan, City Attorney’s Office SUBJECT: Obligation to Maintain Historic Properties and Demolition of Historic Properties MEETING DATE: July 14, 2014 AGENDA ITEM TYPE: Action RECOMMENDATION : The City Commission direct Staff to return to the Commission with revisions to the Bozeman Municipal Code which address: Issue 1: Define “Historic Property/ Structure” ............................................................................... 3 Issue 2: Requiring affirmative maintenance and repair of historic properties ................................ 8 Issue 3: Timing of demolition and redevelopment permits .......................................................... 13 Issue 4: Clarify the two year stay of demolition ........................................................................... 16 Defining “historic property” was not requested of Staff by the Commission. Staff finds that creating such a definition is necessary to clarify what properties are subject to the provisions for affirmative maintenance and demolition permitting. SUGGESTED MOTION: 1. I move to direct staff to bring forward a Municipal Code text amendment that reflects proposed definition two; defining “historic property” as any property eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. 2. I move to direct staff to bring forward a Municipal Code text amendment that enacts recommended Step 1 and Step 2 for addressing affirmative maintenance of historic properties. 3. I move to direct staff to bring forward a Municipal Code text amendment that modifies the process for demolition of structures in the NCOD as recommended in Step 1, Step 2 , Step 3 and Step 4. 4. I move to direct staff to bring forward a Municipal Code text amendment that clarifies the language about the two year stay of demolition as recommended in Option 1. 262162 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Commission directed staff to develop a program or policy to address the neglect and subsequent deterioration of historic properties. This memo contains a series of options from which the Commission will be able to review and recommend further development of City policy to address owner maintenance of historic properties. The foundation of the program is the establishment of a definition of “historic property”. The three definitions offered range from the narrowest to the broadest. Staff recommends definition two which is a definition of historic property based on a community wide shared commitment to historic structures and an obligation to maintain a current inventory of historic properties located throughout the community. The staff offers two code options requiring maintenance of historic properties. The first establishes a legal requirement to maintain historic properties. The second option is an enhancement of option one and requires owner maintenance and commits the city to assisting owners through outreach and education. To address the timing of demolition of historic structures, Staff offers the City Commission a series of recommended amendments to the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) to clarify the process timeline for City approval of demolition permits and approval of the development of the cleared site. The recommended approach is based on City Commission direction/action taken on approved projects. The recommendations are: • Adopt definition of subsequent development; • Amend process to allow determination of viability and preliminary denial/approval of demolition permit; • Specify standard process requiring payment of fees and securing zoning and building approval of replacement development; and • Outline process for demolition of unsafe structures. Finally, Staff recommends the City Commission amend the BMC to clarify the process at the conclusion of a Commission approved two year stay of demolition of a historic property. This memo was presented to the Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board and the input of the board is shown in italics throughout this document. ALTERNATIVES: As identified within each section. FISCAL EFFECTS: Dependent upon Commission direction from this discussion, a variable amount of legal and community development staff time and resources to draft municipal code language. In the future, based on full implementation of the proposed BMC changes, staff time from police, legal and community development will be needed to address cases. APPENDIX: Appendix A: Statistics for the 1984 Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory and Certificate of Appropriateness Applications Appendix B: Map of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District Appendix C: How other government agencies define historic properties Appendix D: Statistics on properties built before 1965 in Bozeman Appendix E: Montana Cities, comparison of the two year stay of demolition 263163 3 Appendix F: March 27, 2014 Historic Preservation Advisory Board Minutes Appendix G: The Steps to Identifying and Listing Historic Properties, including key phrases Appendix H: Proposed timing for issuance of a demolition permit Report compiled on: July 7, 2014 Issue 1: Define “Historic Property/ Structure” Creating a definition of “historic property or structure” is important because it clarifies which properties will be subject to historic preservation provisions like affirmative maintenance or the demolition process. An adopted definition will replace terms used in the Bozeman Municipal Code (BMC) which are no longer used by cultural resource professionals to classify properties as “historic” or “non-historic.” Adoption of a definition will create clarity for property owners in addition to providing a foundation upon which to evaluate development applications. Staff has provided the Commission with three approaches to defining “historic property or structure.” They are listed from the narrowest definition to the broadest definition. A definition may include more than one of the following options, which are not mutually exclusive. Staff’s recommended solution Staff recommends definition two, which enables a continually evolving historic preservation program based upon ongoing survey work created by professional architectural historians. This definition provides property owners with a predictable understanding of what is defined as a historic property/structure. On March 27, 2014, the Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board motioned and voted to support a definition that is consistent with Definition Three, as modified as follows: “A proposal to require any property over 50 years of age or more to be evaluated prior to demolition for its eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places or its potential contributing status in a National Register Historic District.” The BHPAB’s minutes are included in Appendix F. Why the current approach is no longer effective The BMC does not specifically define “historic property.” Creating a definition of “historic property” would clarify which properties are subject to the historic preservation provisions of the Municipal Code. The City currently uses the 1984 Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory (Inventory) to identify historic properties. This Inventory identified potentially historic properties as “landmarks,” or “contributing.” Properties unlikely to be eligible for listing on the National Register were identified as “neutral,” “non-contributing” or “intrusive.” Many “contributing” properties became part of a historic district, while others were not included in a historic district. In 2007 the Department of Planning and Community Development commissioned an evaluation of the Inventory’s continued usefulness. Completed in early 2008 by Renewable Technologies, Inc., a professional cultural resource management firm located in Butte, MT, the evaluation found that: 264164 4 “…the existing inventory data has become too dated to be an effective reference tool for city planners,” and “many additional Bozeman buildings have reached an age where their potential historic significance must be considered.” The report recommended “that the City of Bozeman undertake a comprehensive re-evaluation of the historic buildings within its jurisdiction. Such a project, which ideally would be implemented as a phased, multi-year effort, would incrementally update the existing inventory data and expand it to meet current professional standards. A digital copy of the evaluation of the Inventory is available on the City’s record management system, Laserfische, here. The Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board discussed the deficiencies of the 1984 Inventory during their March 27, 2014 meeting. Minutes of the meeting are available in Appendix F. Specific comments included recommending that the City Commission entirely disregard the 1984 Inventory. Board members also expressed concern that the 1984 Inventory, which wasn’t completed to the professional standards of its time, could expose the City of Bozeman to legal liability. Established in 1991 to conserve neighborhood character “The Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District” (NCOD) is now found in Chapter 38.16, BMC. The program uses the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) process to apply provisions for historic properties. The Bozeman Design Guidelines for Historic Preservation and the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District includes more general guidelines for the protection of neighborhood character. The Design Guidelines also include targeted recommendations for historic properties. The NCOD encompasses 2,270 properties in addition to those individually listed on the National Register or within an established District (See appendix A for Inventory data about properties in the NCOD). All properties in the NCOD are subject to the same Certificate of Appropriateness criteria, found in Sec. 38.16.050, BMC. The NCOD uses the property classification found in the 1984 Inventory to delineate different processes and criteria for demolition of properties within the NCOD. The NCOD requires that all “contributing” structures go through the same process for demolition. (Please see Appendix B for a map of the NCOD and historic districts). 265165 5 Options for definitions for “historic property/ structure”: Definition One: Properties listed on a historic registry or landmark list Draft definition: A property, site or structure recognized as historic through inclusion within a district listed on a national, state or local register of historic places or by any type of individual landmark designation recognized by the City of Bozeman. Advantages 1. There is a defined list of properties already listed on the National Register of Historic Places. All property owners have to agree with the nomination to the National Register before the listing can proceed. 2. Leaves the door open to establishment of a local landmark or local historic district program. 3. Provides predictability for property owners as these are geographic locations which may be readily mapped and made available to the public. Potential consequences 1. Does not protect properties currently identified as “potentially eligible” that are located outside of a Historic District and are not historically significant enough for an individual listing on the National Register. 2. The lack of funding for ongoing cultural resource survey work could lead to a static program. 3. Creates a disincentive for listing a property on a National or Local Register, or in a Landmark program as becoming a listed property subjects it to additional regulation. City actions to execute this option 1. Adopt a definition for "historic property". 2. Adopt a resolution which specifies which types of landmark designation are recognized by the City of Bozeman. Number of properties affected Total number of properties affected 698 Individually listed 51 Included in a District 647 Related Discussion Definition one is not preferred by Staff or the HPAB because it could create a disincentive for listing properties on the National Register, which is intended as an honorary program. 266166 6 Definition Two: Properties eligible for listing (Staff’s recommended definition) Draft definition: A property, site or structure identified as “contributing,” “potentially eligible,” or “landmark” by the most recent cultural resources survey verified by the Montana State Historic Preservation Office. Advantages 1. More broadly applies the provisions for historic properties which enables the historic preservation program to more readily keep pace with changes in the community and reduce unintentional omissions. 2. Creates a dynamic program which enables an evolving, aging and growing community to recognize historic properties constructed since 1945. 3. This definition has a specific meaning and creates a knowable and predictable classification of properties. Enables community members to know when provisions for historic preservation will apply and under what circumstances the provisions will be applied. Potential consequences 1. Depends on 1984 Inventory data or subsequent updates to classify “contributing” and “non-contributing” properties. 2. Requires routine funding for surveying for cultural resources. 3. Updated cultural resources survey work could generate community interest in new historic district nominations. Historic districts have higher property values and encourage maintenance of historic properties. 4. Protects properties eligible for listing (not limited to the NCOD). A determination of eligibility does not require a property owner’s consent. 5. May require moving provisions for historic properties from the NCOD into a separate place in the Code. City actions to execute this option 1. Adopt a definition for “historic property” which reflects the approach of eligibility for listing on the National Register. 2. Fund historic property survey work in order to create updated data set. Number of properties affected Total number of properties identified as "contributing" in 1984 Inventory 963 Number of "contributing” properties in established historic districts 698 Number of "contributing" properties in the NCOD 265 Related Discussion Staff recommends adoption of definition two; basing the definition on a property’s eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. This approach is consistent with the best management practices adopted by other state and federal government agencies like the Montana Department of Transportation and the Army Corps of Engineers. This approach also enables the City of Bozeman’s historic preservation program to grow with the community. The criteria for evaluating a property’s eligibility for historic designation were established by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. (For additional information, please see Appendix C). 267167 7 In order to successfully implement this option, the City of Bozeman needs to address the deficiency in the 1984 Inventory by routinely funding cultural resource survey work. An example of such an update will occur in the summer of 2014. The Department of Community Development has partnered with the Downtown Bozeman Partnership to fund a survey of 100 properties in the B-3 “Commercial Core” zoning designation. The bid process revealed a cost of $220 per property to generate a new Montana Property Record Form for each property. Definition three: 50 years or older (BHPAB recommended definition, in addition to Definition One) Draft definition: Any developed site or structure over 50 years of age. Note: Fifty years is a common threshold although a lesser age may be appropriately used in combination with one of the other alternatives. Advantages 1. Easiest threshold to define and is uniformly applicable throughout the community. 2. Could be used as a screening test in combination with Definition Two, listed above. 3. Applies the provisions for historic preservation to the broadest number of properties. Potential consequences 1. Significantly expands the number of properties that the provisions for historic properties would apply. 2. Creates uncertainty for property owners with structures more than 50 years old that haven’t been surveyed. Who funds the survey of the property? City actions to execute this option 1. Adopt a definition for "historic property". 2. Clarify data set on date of construction for all properties. 3. Modify the BMC to expand provisions for historic properties outside of the NCOD. 4. Adopt procedures for obtaining documentation for structures for which a survey has not been done. Number of properties affected Total number of properties in the city limits built before 1965 8677 Residential structures in the City Limits built before 1965 8223 Residential structures built in 1965 or older within the NCOD 1935 Residential structures built in 1965 or older outside the NCOD 577 Commercial Structures in the City Limits built before 1965 454 Commercial structures built in 1965 or older within the NCOD 361 Commercial structures built in 1965 or older outside the NCOD 93 Related Discussion Definition three places the burden of developing cultural resource information on property owners with any property over 50 years of age. It should be noted that not all buildings over 50 years of age are historically significant. About 600 residential properties and 100 commercial 268168 8 properties, respectively, are inside the City Limits, built before 1965 and located outside of the NCOD. (Please see Appendix D for additional statistics). The BHPAB passed a motion supporting a hybrid approach that uses definition three to require creation of a cultural resource survey which evaluates a property’s historic eligibility in a manner consistent with definition two. Board members felt this approach allowed the process and provisions for historic preservation to move through history with the community. Using a 50 year date as a benchmark established an easy threshold for community members. Should the Commission enact this approach, the BHPAB members expressed the need for a robust public outreach effort to educate property owners, developers, design professionals and contractors about the shift in policy. The BHPAB members felt that the worst thing that could happen is a property owner finding out about this requirement when they apply for a building permit, before which they’ve invested thousands of dollars in design services. The BHPAB discussed participating in such public outreach. If the City Commission moves forward with adopting such amendments to the BMC, Staff will engage in a public outreach process. Issue 2: Requiring affirmative maintenance and repair of historic properties The BMC does not currently place a direct affirmative obligation on owners of designated historic properties to maintain their properties in good condition to prevent intentional or unintentional neglect. Staff’s recommended solution: In discussing this issue at length, it appears that a distinction between historic properties that are single household dwellings and historic properties that are or have been considered to be commercial, industrial, or institutional continues to cause concern. For that reason, Staff seeks direction from the Commission on what properties it seeks to regulate and provides possible options for the different property types. Should the Commission direct staff to address both single household dwellings and commercial, industrial, or institutional historic properties, staff recommends Option 1 with Steps 1 and 2, and to create a “maintenance and repair” ordinance that applies to historic properties and addresses the concerns regarding ‘demolition by neglect’. Staff recommends enacting both Step 1 and Step 2, as it encourages the City to educate owners of historic properties about neglect and risks associated with neglected properties, and helps facilitate ways to mitigate impacts of neglect. Should the Commission wish to address only commercial, industrial, or institutional historic properties, it should direct staff to develop Option 2 and adopt a “maintenance of historic buildings” ordinance. For either option, the creation of a definition of ‘historic property’ as discussed in Issue 1, and the geographical boundaries of historic properties as discussed in Issue 2 will identify properties subject to this responsibility. 269169 9 Preservation Board recommends incorporation of discussion and edits included below in the Commission memo, discussion and action. Option 1: Adopt maintenance and repair ordinance to require all historic properties to be maintained in good condition and repair. Option 1 can be satisfied with only step 1, but staff recommends steps 1 and 2 in conjunction. Step 1: Establish a legal requirement on specific properties designated as "historic properties" to maintain and repair the property. Example language Each historic property in the NCOD shall be maintained in good condition. Nothing in this article shall be construed to prevent normal maintenance and repair of any exterior feature of any historic structure which does not involve change in design, material, color or outward appearance. Interior arrangements or alternations to the interior of a building shall not be subject to this requirement. Advantages 1. Places an affirmative obligation on an owner of a historic property to maintain the property in good condition. 2. Places no financial obligation on the City to assist homeowners. Issues needing to be developed 1. Determinations will need to be made regarding how and what to enforce. 2. Definition for “good condition and repair”. 3. Economic feasibility for property owners and the possibility to allow for economic hardship. 4. Depending on implementation, potential to result in litigation. City actions to execute this option 1. Adopt an ordinance amending the Unified Development Code (Chpt. 38, BMC). 2. Train staff to identify properties subject to the requirement. 3. Develop enforcement protocols. 4. Work with the City Attorney’s Office on enforcement. 270170 10 Related Discussion Currently, the City’s nuisance code and adopted Building Codes are used to address properties and structures that have fallen into such disrepair that they pose a risk to the public health and safety. The Commission asked what could be done to avoid properties reaching the point that triggers action through either of these codes. The goal is to prevent intentional and unintentional neglect of historic properties; specific goals are that historic properties be maintained as weather tight and secure. Violations of the adopted standard could be handled under the existing terms of Section 38.34.160 BMC “Violation.” Option 1 (with one or both steps) will require a commitment of staff time from the City Attorney’s Office, Community Development Staff, and Code Enforcement Staff each participating in the code compliance work. Step 2 (Staff's recommendation): In addition to step one, commit the City to assist owners of historic properties. Example language The City Manager or designee shall work with property owners to identify historic properties no longer maintained in good condition and faithful to historic character. The City, enlisting the assistance of applicable departments, shall work to educate property owners about neglected properties; inform them about assistance available; and facilitate connections between the private or nonprofit sector in the attempt to ensure properties are maintained in good condition pursuant to this section. Advantages 1. Places an affirmative obligation on owner of a historic property to maintain their property in good condition and repair. 2. Recognizes the City’s interest in having well maintained historic properties and requires the city to be involved with homeowners and neighborhood groups to educate, assist and facilitate repairs. 3. Encourages collaborative approachs involving individuals, government, and the private sector to address neglected properties; and 4. Less risk of litigation if outreach and education based. Issues needing to be developed 1. Determine how and what to prioritize; 2. Definition for “good condition and repair”; Economic feasibility for property owner and potential to allow for economic hardship. Under zoning law economic hardship is not a basis for not conforming to the regulations; and 3. Determine if code and enforcement will differentiate between income properties and owner occupied properties. City actions to execute this option 1. Same as Step One with the additional program requirements and extensive staff time to develop acceptable definitions of terms as well as staff time to develop partnerships and work directly with owners to improve properties. 271171 11 The BHPAB’s discussion of this matter reflected long consideration of the matter. They questioned creating a regulatory standard only applicable to “historic properties,” as defined by the City. The Board noted that structures in a state of disrepair extensive enough to trigger this definition are probably so far altered that they have no historic integrity remaining. Though no formal motion and vote were taken, the BHPAB reached a consensus to recommended removing “and faithful to its historic character” from the proposed language. The BHPAB recommended that the Commission not open the door to considerations of economic ability and felt the onus was on the City to make fair judgments on the issue. Option 2 had not been developed prior to meeting with the BHPAB. Option 2: Adopt maintenance of historic properties ordinance that addresses demolition by neglect with historic properties considered to be commercial, industrial, or institutional. Example language Maintenance of Historic Buildings: (possibly under 38.21 or 38.23) a. The City finds that the protection, enhancement, perpetuation, and continued use of historical properties located within the City are important in the interest of the prosperity, civic pride, and the general welfare of its citizens. The City further finds that the economic, cultural, and visual standing of the City cannot be maintained or enhanced by disregarding the heritage of the City or by allowing the destruction, defacement, and neglect of historical properties and cultural assets; and that the neglect and deterioration of such assets is harmful to the entire community. It is therefore the intent of the City to protect the general welfare by establishing effective administrative procedures to prevent the owner’s failure to maintain a historic property such that it deteriorates to the extent that the only option to abate the health and safety risks cause by such deterioration is demotion, commonly known as “demolition by neglect”. b. Each historic property shall be maintained in good condition. Failure to maintain a historic property in good condition may result in a determination the property constitutes a nuisance pursuant to Chapter 16. c. The provisions of this chapter apply to all historic properties, excluding single household dwellings within the city limits of Bozeman. d. For the purposes of this section, the term good condition and repair shall constitute the structure be weather tight; secure from unintended entry; and free from dangerous conditions. Advantages 1. Places an affirmative obligation on owner of a historic property to maintain their property in good condition and repair. 272172 12 Related Discussion Option 2 addresses the historic buildings that the community as a whole recognizes as culturally significant and beneficial to the community. These properties are more likely to be the properties the City will choose to allocate funds to, if need be, in an effort to maintain their historical integrity as oppose to the single household dwelling. The Commission could ask Staff to encourage an outreach program similar to Option 1, Step 2, without adding anything to the BMC to encourage, assist, and educate property owners of single household dwelling historic properties about demolition by neglect and the importance of maintaining their property in good condition and repair. Option 2 has not been discussed with members of the BHPAB. Advantages 2. Addresses historic properties community collectively has an interest in preserving. Issues needing to be developed 1. Definition for “good condition and repair” 2. Enforcement. City actions to execute this option 1. Adopt an ordinance 2. Train staff to identify properties subject to the requirement. 3. Develop enforcement protocols. 4. Work with the City Attorney’s Office on enforcement. 273173 13 Related Discussion: Either of the options will require a commitment of staff time from the City Attorney’s Office, Community Development Staff, and Code Enforcement Staff each participating in the code compliance work. The BHPAB’s discussion of this matter reflected long consideration of the matter. They questioned creating a regulatory standard only applicable to “historic properties,” as defined by the City. The Board noted that structures in a state of disrepair extensive enough to trigger this definition are probably so far altered that they have no historic integrity remaining. Though no formal motion and vote were taken, the BHPAB reached a consensus to recommended removing “and faithful to its historic character” from the proposed language. The BHPAB recommended that the Commission not open the door to considerations of economic ability and felt the onus was on the City to make fair judgments on the issue. Issue 3: Timing of demolition and redevelopment permits There are a number of opportunities to clarify the process and criteria for demolishing structures in the NCOD. The Department of Community Development cannot accept an application for demolition or movement of a structure inside the NCOD without a complete proposal for subsequent development of the property, per BMC 38.16.080.A.1. This burdens property owners considering demolition of a structure in the NCOD with the cost of designing the full subsequent development of the property before the City will make a determination if the structure can be demolished. Section 38.16.080 A 2 and 3 could be clarified to delineate and separate procedures and criteria for demolition into distinct categories of structures (historic, non-historic and unsafe structures). This would provide clarity about the process and review criteria for property owners, applicants and the review authority. Staff’s recommended solution We recommend modification to the BMC to enable the Department of Community Development to make a preliminary determination on applications proposing demolition of structures. Staff further recommends clarifying the timing of issuance of a demolition permit for historic and non- historic properties. Staff recommends enacting Option 1, 2 and 3. Depending on the direction from the Commission with regard to Steps 1-3, Staff may recommend revisions to the process for demolition of unsafe structures. In discussing the matter, the BHPAB was generally supportive of the approach recommended by Staff. Potential options for clarifying the application process for demolitions: Step 1 (Staff's recommendation): Incorporate a definition of “subsequent development” into the BMC. The definition may include allowing only a written description of the plan to grade the site, install landscaping, construct a dwelling, etc. 274174 14 Advantages 1. Enables the Department of Community Development to accept an application for demolition of a structure in the NCOD without a fully designed plan for the subsequent development. 2. Reduces the financial burden on the property owner in order to gather information about the likelihood of the City of approving of the demolition. Issues needing to be developed 1. Unknown City actions to execute this option 1. Adopt a definition of “subsequent development” 2. Modify application checklist Related Discussion: The Department of Community Development is prohibited from considering proposals to demolish any structure in the NCOD without a full plan of the site’s subsequent development or treatment of the site by Section 38.16.080.A.1 BMC. Municipal Code does not define “subsequent development” or “treatment.” “Development” is defined by BMC 38.42.860 as: Any manmade change to improve or alter real estate, including, but not limited to, subdivision of land, buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations. The current requirement of a complete plan for subsequent redevelopment of a site prior to issuance of a demolition permit creates uncertainty for applicants that can only be resolved through significant investment in professional design services. Modifications to Sec. 38.16.080 or an adopted definition of “subsequent development” are required in order to enable the City to consider demolition of structures separately from consideration of the development to follow. We suggest Community Development should be able to determine the viability of existing structures to issue a preliminary denial or approval to demolish a structure before an applicant invests in the professional services necessary to submit a complete proposal for the subsequent development of the property. Step 2 (Staff's recommendation): In addition to step 1, stipulate the preliminary approval of demolition of “historic properties” is subject to the following standard Conditions of Approval: Standard Conditions of Approval 1. Demolition permit for historic properties shall not be issued until all necessary zoning and building entitlements and permits have been issued, and all related fees paid. 2. The subsequent development must receive all necessary Certificate of Appropriateness approvals prior to issuance of a demolition permit. Advantages 1. Prevents speculative demolition of structures by requiring that the redevelopment be approved and the Building Permit issued prior to or concurrently with the issuance of a Demolition Permit from the Building Division. 275175 15 2. The recommended Conditions of Approval make this step consistent with Commission directives based on prior project approvals. Issues needing to be developed 1. None anticipated City actions to execute this option 1. Adopt Code provisions to require the Building Permit for the redevelopment be approved and all related fees paid prior to issuance of the Demolition Permit from the Building Division. Related Discussion: If demolition is approved, and depending if a property is determined to be historic, the Certificate of Approval could be conditioned to prohibit issuance of a demolition or moving permit until the subsequent development, including issuance of a building permit, has been fully approved. Step 3 (Staff's recommendation): In addition to step 1 and step 2, stipulate that issuance of a demolition permit for non-historic properties from the Building Division is dependent upon approval of the zoning review for the site’s complete redevelopment. Advantages 1. Prevents speculative demolition of structures by requiring that the redevelopment be approved and the Building Permit approved prior to issuance of a Demolition Permit from the Building Division. Issues needing to be developed 1. None anticipated City actions to execute this option 1. Adopt Code provisions to require the zoning approval for the redevelopment be approved and all related fees paid prior to issuance of the Demolition Permit from the Building Division. Related Discussion: It is in the community’s best interest to avoid speculative demolition of structures, which creates gaps in a neighborhood fabric and diminishes the tax revenue stream, which reduces the City’s ability to provide services and infrastructure improvements to the area. The intention of this provision is to preserve historic structures and neighborhood character by preventing speculative demolition. Vacant lots diminish the value of adjoining residences and create uncertainty for neighborhoods. The cost to maintain the street and deliver infrastructure to the property is the same while the tax revenue is diminished. 276176 16 Step 4 (Potential follow-up): Depending on direction on Steps 1, 2, and 3, revise the existing process for demolition of unsafe structures to be consistent with revised demolition process. Advantages 1. Would clarify the process for City Staff, elected officials and property owners in the removal of unsafe structures, thus improving public safety. Issues needing to be developed 1. None anticipated. City actions to execute this option 1. Adopt Code provisions to require the Building Permit for the redevelopment be approved and all related fees paid prior to issuance of the Demolition Permit from the Building Division. Related Discussion: The City has an existing process for addressing unsafe structures through the Building and Nuisance Codes (Article 16.02 BMC, “Nuisances”). Depending on Commission direction for Steps 1, 2, and 3, it may be necessary to revise the existing process for the demolition of unsafe structures. Issue 4: Clarify the two year stay of demolition A “stay” of a demolition permit by the City of Bozeman is authorized in BMC 38.16.080.A.4, which states that if an application for issuance of a demolition permit is denied, the issuance of a demolition permit is stayed for up to two years. In circumstances where the demolition is stayed, the code language does not provide guidance on what, if any, additional proceedings are desired at the end of two years. The City Attorney has issued an option that because the code does not specifically require any additional action by the owner; the owner may proceed directly to an application for a demolition permit under Chpt. 10, BMC. Recommendation for clarifying the two year stay of demolition: Staff recommends amendment of Section 38.16.080.A.4 to include language to clarify whether additional proceedings are required at the end of the two year stay. Staff recommends enacting Option 1. The BHPAB recommends that if a demolition has been denied, any subsequent request needs to be accompanied by a description of any efforts made to preserve the historic structure. 277177 17 Potential options for clarifying the two year stay of demolition: Option 1 (Staff's recommendation): Revise municipal code to clarify what happens during and at the end of the two year stay of demolition. Example language If, upon expiration of the two-year stay of demolition, no alternate proposals have been approved or sufficient evidence has not been presented to otherwise satisfy the requirements of this section, an application for a demolition permit may be presented to the City pursuant to Chapter 10, article 4 of this Code. If all requirements of the demolition permit are satisfied, a demolition permit shall be granted and no other proceedings under this chapter are required. Advantages 1. Clarifies what happens after the two year stay expires. Issues needing to be developed 1. None anticipated. City actions to execute this option 1. Adopt an ordinance to amend Municipal Code. Related Discussion: Comparing Section 38.16.080 of the BMC with similar provisions regarding staying the demolition of a historic structure in communities around the state, Bozeman has by far the Option 2 (Staff's recommendation): In addition to Option 1, provide incentive for property owner to work with community to consider alternate proposals. Example language (In addition to the example language in option 1) An owner of the property subject to a stay under this section may seek early release from the stay if the owner demonstrates it has actively and in good faith sought input from interested parties; explored alternative funding sources; and considered reasonable proposed alternatives to demolition. Advantages 1. Clarifies what happens after the two year stay expires. 2. Encourages the property owner to engage in good faith with interested parties. Issues needing to be developed 1. None anticipated. City actions to execute this option 1. Adopt an ordinance to amend Municipal Code. 278178 18 longest stay in place for demolitions of historic structures (See appendix E). Additionally, of the handful of cities that were looked at around the country, the longest delay to a demolition permit was two years (San Antonio, TX). Modifying the existing duration for the stay of demotion is not advised. Eliminating the two year stay would take away the opportunity for the City or other interested groups to come up with alternatives proposals to demolition. Extending the stay beyond two years would likely give rise to regulatory takings issues. Providing additional guidance in the BMC will provide clear direction for applicants, the City, and interested parties as to what can occur when the two year stay expires. In discussing the matter on March 27, 2014, members of the BHPAB expressed concern that nothing in the proposed language pressures owners and applicants to find solutions rather than wait out the two year delay in demolition. They noted that the draft language does not create a requirement that property owners allow access to the site for others to develop alternatives and wondered if the language instead enabled demolition by neglect during the two year stay of demolition. Staff noted there is expenses to a property owner to have a property sit vacant, not generating revenue. Staff also noted that allowing access to the property may create liability for the owner. Ultimately, the BHPAB recommended that if a demolition has been denied, any subsequent requests should to be accompanied by a description of efforts made to preserve the historic structure. The BHPAB felt such a requirement would ensure the owner engage with community groups interested in preserving the historic property. The language in Option 2 has not been discussed with members of BHPAB. 279179 19 Appendix A: Statistics for the 1984 Montana Historical and Architectural Inventory and Certificate of Appropriateness Applications Historic District # of contributing properties # of non-contributing properties Total # of properties # of contributing in NCOD but not in a historic # of properties missing an Inventory # of properties in the NCOD identified as intrusive # of properties in the NCOD identified as neutral # of COA applications since 1991 # of COA applications since 2003 # COA applications requesting demo since 2003 # of properties demolished since 2003 # of contributing principal structure demos since 2003 Bon Ton 190 39 229 - - - 318 170 2 2 1 Cooper Park 222 42 264 - - - 297 194 1 1 1 Lindley Place 26 8 34 - - - 38 19 2 2 1 Main Street 49 15 64 - - - 186 98 2 2 1 Brewery 5 0 5 - - - 15 12 1 1 1 N. Tracy 21 8 29 - - - 34 20 0 0 0 S. Tracy 6 1 7 - - - 8 5 0 0 0 S. Tracy/ S. Black 78 15 93 - - - 126 85 5 4 5 NP/ Story Mill 50 10 60 - - - 0 0 0 0 0 Individual listed properties 51 0 51 - - - 17 12 1 1 1 NCOD 265 0 2,270 844 833 285 1,770 1086 N/A N/A N/A Totals: 963 138 3,106 43 844 833 285 2,809 1701 14 13 11 % of all properties in NCOD 31% 4% - 1% 27% 27% 9% N/A* N/A* .4% .4% .35% Acronyms COA: Certificate of Appropriateness NCOD: Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District HD: Historic District * Some properties have received multiple COAs 280180 20 Appendix B: Map of the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District A link to this map is available here. 281181 21 Appendix C: How other government agencies define “historic properties” The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 The term "historic property" is defined in the NHPA as: "any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion on the National Register"; such term includes artifacts, records, and remains which are related to such district, site, building, structure, or object. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation: "Any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion on the National Register"; such term includes artifacts, records, and remains which are related to such district, site, building, structure, or object.” 1 Criteria for listing on the National Register of Historic Places include: a. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or b. That are associated with the lives of significant persons in or past; or c. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or d. That have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act “…Prior to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds on the undertaking or prior to the issuance of any license, as the case may be, take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register.” “A historic property need not be formally listed on the National Register to receive NHPA protection, it need only meet the National Register criteria (i.e., be eligible for listing in the National Register).”2 1 Definition from the National Historic Preservation Act; 16 U.S.C. Section 470(w)(5). 2 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 282182 22 Appendix D: Statistics on structures built before 1965 in Bozeman Number within City Limits Structures built before 1965 Percentage Number of 1965+ structures within the NCOD Number 1965+ structures outside the NCOD Residential structures 8223 2512 31% 1935 577 Commercial structures 1831 454 25% 361 93 These numbers are estimates based on Department of Revenue data. Therefore, some errors and limitations may exist. 283183 23 Appendix E: Montana Cities comparison of two year stay CITY CODE LANGUAGE BUTTE Found in 2.64.120 “Demolition permit review and demolition by neglect program” E. The HPC shall review all demolition permits for local register properties and historic properties in its jurisdiction F. The HPC is authorized to invoke a ninety -day demolition delay to find demolition alternative and make recommendations. The HPC must notify the owner in writing of demolition delay and hold a public hearing. BILLINGS Found in Historic Preservation Section 27.516 Criteria for demolition permits (a) No application for a permit to demolish a structure which is subject to this article shall be approved unless: (1) It is found that the structure to be demolished is not historically or architecturally significant; and (2) Preservation of the structure is not feasible; or (3) The Yellowstone Historic Preservation Board with recommendations from the city building official has determined that the structure poses an immediate threat to public safety. (b) No disapproval of a permit to demolish shall be in effect for more than six (6) months after the board's recommendation. During such six-month period, the historic preservation board may take or encourage the taking of whatever steps seem likely to lead to the structure's preservation. The board may work with the property owner to seek alternative economic uses for the property, may consult with private civic groups, interested private citizens and other public boards or agencies. HELENA Found in Chapter 15: “Review process for demolition of historic buildings” If the city commission denies the application, no further demolition permit application may be considered for the subject property for six (6) months from the date a completed application is submitted, unless the commission finds there are changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a new application. (Ord. 2639, 11-16-1992; amd. Ord. 3097, 4-7-2008) 284184 24 MISSOULA “Relocation and Demolition Delay: Upon receipt of a completed Historic Preservation Permit application for demolition or relocation, the Commission may impose a relocation or demolition delay for 90 days to allow sufficient time to explore preservation of the historic resource.” 285185 25 Appendix F: Bozeman Historic Preservation Advisory Board minutes from March 27, 2014 Minutes of the March 27, 2014 meeting Members Present: Lora Dalton (chair), Steve Keuch, Courtney Kramer (staff liaison), Lisa Verwys, Ryan Olson, Matt Kennedy, Mark Hufstetler, Jillian Bowers I. Call to order- meeting was called to order at 6:34 pm II. Approval of prior meeting minutes- Minutes from the February 27 meeting were unanimously approved as presented III. Public comment- none IV. Disclosure of ex parte communication- none V. Introduction of invited guests- Marsha Fulton and Crystal Alegria of the Extreme History Project, City Attorney Anna Saverud VI. Decision Items a. Collaboration with Extreme History Project (EHP) and allocation of $500 in funding to support walking tours i. Crystal Alegria reported on the fall 2013 walking tours that received funding from the board. 8 tours were given in October 2013 (2 cemetery tours and 6 downtown tours). 52 people attended the tours (all locals, no tourists), good turnout especially given the off-season and the lack of a marketing budget. ii. EHP would like to expand the walking tour program beginning in May 2014. 7 walking tours have been developed in collaboration with Derek Strahn and Dale Martin. Tours would occur on a regular basis with up to 6 tour guides. EHP requests $500 in funding support from the BHPAB to support walking tour program. iii. BHPAB has $900 in budget (fiscal year ends June 30, 2014) and no plans in the foreseeable future to use the funds. Motion made (SK) to approve $500 allocation of funds, seconded (MK), and unanimously passed. b. Discussion of the preservation and demolition memo i. Issue 1- definition of historic properties 1. General discussion and agreement that the 1984 survey is outdated with erroneous information and that it should not be used as a basis for definition of historic property, but that it may contain information useful to future surveys. MH- 1984 survey was not prepared to professional standards and may not/would not stand up to legal scrutiny. 2. If a new cultural resources survey (option 2 in memo) were required to define historic properties, it could be funded by community development block grants, surcharges on major COAs (this fund currently has $80,000; $15,000 currently bookmarked for survey work this spring on commercial properties), or from the general fund. Discussion about the difficulties in keeping a survey 286186 26 updated; issues with a survey being a snapshot in time that may no longer be accurate as structures age and change 3. Discussion regarding option 3 (age- 50 years) as definition for historic property. LV- concerned that this leaves younger properties vulnerable. MH- any younger properties that would have qualified as historic have been demolished. MH- personal recommendation would be a combination of options 2 & 3: require evaluation of any property over 50 years old for potential historic property eligibility prior to demolition. JB- concerned about financial burden for evaluation placed on homeowners and concerned that homeowners will invest significant amounts of money prior to finding out that they must have their property evaluated; education should be part of formal recommendation. CK- have required individuals to finance evaluations in the past for structures in conservation overlay district. General discussion regarding need for education of property owners and architects, need for dissemination of information/education through materials distributed by city staff. LD- education could also come from the board’s outreach activities. 4. MH moves to support a proposal to require properties over 50 years old to be evaluated prior to demolition for eligibility to the National Register or potential contributing status to National Register Historic District. Seconded (RO) and passed unanimously. ii. Issue 2- Affirmative Maintenance 1. Discussion begins with understanding that ordinance is written as a broad/basic, that “good condition” refers to weather tight and secure, and that enforcement is TBD and not expected to be common occurrence. 2. MK- How will owners know if they have a historic property if there is not a survey of historic properties? Use of “historic property” may depend on which definition is adopted in issue 1. Discussion regarding substituting “conservation overlay district” for “historic property” in the ordinance, MH- concerns over including phrase “historic character” which is not easily definable and which may no longer exist in a property that is in disrepair. LD- a broader definition may be more workable. Anna Saverud- ordinance must be construed to address specific properties. 3. Additional discussion regarding concerns over how issues of economic disparity will be addressed. 4. BHPAB recommends that the City Commission takes this discussion into consideration. iii. Issue 3- Timing of demolition and redevelopment permits 287187 27 1. CK- deals with ability to give preliminary yes or no so that there is not incentive to let a property fall into neglect. Chris Saunders- gives higher level of protection for historic properties. LD- issue and recommendations are in line with past BHPAB discussions iv. Issue 4- Clarifying two year stay of demolition 1. Clarification of code necessary to ensure that implied meaning and public interpretation matches. 2. Discussion regarding what occurs during a stay of demolition: time allows for alternate proposals to be made by interested parties; there is no requirement for property owners to let interested parties access the property in order to propose alternate solutions. LD- there is no incentive for property owners to find alternate solutions when they can simply wait out the stay. RO- financial incentive for owners (not cheap to let a property sit unused). Is there a way to encourage property owners to find alternate solutions or engage with the community for alternate proposals? MH- suggests addition to provision: if a demolition has been denied, subsequent requests should be accompanied by a description of efforts made to preserve historic structure. 3. Lack of clarity regarding liability of properties during a stay of demolition. Is the city or the property owner liable for the structure during a stay? VII. Chair’s Report a. Expiring terms i. 7 board member terms expire in June 2014 (Mark Hufstetler, Jillian Bowers, Ryan Olson, Lisa Verwys, Jessie Nunn, Nicole Becker, Lora Dalton). Board members should be thinking about recruitment. ii. RO will not be continuing on the board and will need to pass on committee duties, specifically regarding Historic Preservation Awards. iii. Possibility of reducing the size of the board via bylaw revision. MH and LD will work on this. b. Budget i. After approval of Extreme History Project allocation, there is $400 remaining in the budget. Ideas for use are welcome. ii. Possible use of funds for Bill Grabow oral history. CK will speak with Bill about sitting for an interview and LV will speak with historian Betsy Watry regarding a proposal for conducting the interview. VIII. Committee Reports a. Outreach i. LV, SK, BL met regarding history alliance; sketched out broad plan for a meeting in September. Committee will meet again April 14, 6:30pm at Coldsmoke Coffeehouse to finalize a name and meeting details. As 288188 28 requested, LV will send a reminder to board so other interested members can attend. ii. LD has Pete Brown’s presentation as MP3, CK will work on making it available via the website. If anyone wants a copy, email LD (32mb powerpoint and 69mb recording) IX. Staff Liaison Report a. Received COA application for Willson Auditorium. Recommending that thorough documentation of space occur prior to renovations. Modifications are not appropriate historically. b. Working on Community Development Block Grant to evaluate the Conservation Overlay District as a zoning approach c. Re-surveying 100 properties in the B-3 area. Findings of potentially historic properties will be reported to the board. d. Streetlamps (SAT grant) are ready to be installed. e. Story Mansion appraisal is in, not currently slated as an agenda item for the City Commission X. Meeting adjourned at 9:05 pm. Next meeting set for April 24, 6:30 PM End of Minutes Secretary: Lisa Verwys 289189 29 Appendix G: The Steps to Identifying and Listing Historic Properties, including key phrases 290190 30 Appendix H: Proposed timing for issuance of a demolition permit 291191 192 193 Vacant Properties The True Costs to Communities 194 © August 2005 Acknowledgements The National Vacant Properties Campaign would like to thank the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for providing the funding to develop this report. We also thank the many people who contributed to the study: Margaret Bass, Don Chen, Jennifer Leonard, Lisa Mueller Levy, Cheryl Little, Barbara McCann, Allie Moravec, Joe Schilling, and Kevin Snyder. Photo Credits Cover Photo: Joe Schilling Inside Photos: Ken LeBlanc Jennifer Leonard Joe Schilling National Vacant Properties Campaign 1707 L Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20036 www.vacantproperties.org 195 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ............................................................................................1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................2 Costs of Municipal Services .............................................................................3 Decreased Property Values and Tax Revenues .............................................7 Costs to Homeowners ........................................................................................11 The Spiral of Blight: The Cumulative Impact of Vacant Property .........12 Summary .............................................................................................................13 Bibliography .......................................................................................................14 Endnotes ..............................................................................................................18 196 WHAT ARE VACANT PROPERTIES? The National Vacant Properties Campaign (NVPC) defines vacant properties as residential, commercial, and industrial buildings and vacant lots that exhibit one or both of the following traits: § The site poses a threat to public safety (meeting the definition of a public nuisance), or § The owners or managers neglect the fundamental duties of property ownership (e.g., they fail to pay taxes or utility bills, default on mortgages, or carry liens against the property.) Vacant properties can include abandoned, boarded-up buildings; unused lots that attract trash and debris; vacant or under-performing commercial properties known as greyfields (such as under-leased shopping malls and strip commercial properties); and neglected industrial properties with environmental contamination known as brownfields. The NVPC also monitors deteriorating single-family homes, apartments with significant housing code violations, and housing that remains vacant for long periods of time, as these are indicators of future vacancy and abandonment. State laws and uniform building codes further refine what constitutes an abandoned building, but these vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Often these structures have been unoccupied for over a year, are beyond repair, and pose serious danger to public safety. 197 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities 1 Executive Summary By all accounts, vacant properties are a curse. Just ask anyone who lives next to a drug den, a boarded-up firetrap or a trash-filled lot. But abandonment often seems beyond the control of local officials, and it rarely incites a sense of urgency beyond the neighbors on the block where it occurs. But the evidence shows that vacant properties are an expense that local governments simply cannot afford – and that the expense grows with every year a property remains vacant or abandoned. Such properties produce no or little property tax income, but they require plenty of time, attention, and money: § A study in Austin, Texas found that “blocks with unsecured [vacant] buildings had 3.2 times as many drug calls to police, 1.8 times as many theft calls, and twice the number of violent calls” as blocks without vacant buildings.1 § More than 12,000 fires break out in vacant structures each year in the US, resulting in $73 million in property damage annually. Most are the result of arson.2 § Over the past five years, St. Louis has spent $15.5 million, or nearly $100 per household, to demolish vacant buildings. Detroit spends $800,000 per year3 and Philadelphia spends $1,846,745 per year cleaning vacant lots.4 § A 2001 study in Philadelphia found that houses within 150 feet of a vacant or abandoned property experienced a net loss of $7,627 in value.5 The aim of this report is to summarize the many and varied costs that vacant and abandoned properties impose upon communities. It compiles research from across the country quantifying a wide variety of costs, including city services (nuisance abatement, crime and fire prevention), decreased property values and tax revenues, as well as the costs born by homeowners and the issue of the spiral of blight. This report also includes some good news: communities are finding ways to recapture the value in vacant properties, bringing vitality back to once blighted neighborhoods. These communities are providing valuable lessons for us all, and many of the most successful practices are being replicated throughout the country. 198 2 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities Introduction The places with the most well known vacant property problems are older industrial cities in the Midwest and Northeast. One leading expert has estimated that roughly ten percent of residential structures are vacant in Camden (NJ), Baltimore, and Detroit.6 But with sprawl pushing new development to the edges of many communities, even growing metropolitan areas such as San Diego and Las Vegas pay the costs of vacant and abandoned properties. The Brookings Institution found that in 60 cities with populations over 100,000, there are an average of two vacant buildings for every 1,000 residents7 (see table below). Region Number of Cities Reporting Abandoned Property Data Average % of Vacant Land to Total Area Average Number of Abandoned Structures per 1,000 Inhabitants Northeast 7 8.3 7.47 Midwest 10 11.3 3.16 South 20 17.1 2.98 West 23 15.7 0.62 All Regions 60 14.8 2.63 Source: Pagano & Bowman p. 7 Properties are often abandoned as a result of metropolitan-wide trends, such as sprawling development, consumer preference, job loss, and demographic shifts. But on an individual level, the most common reason a property is abandoned is that the cost of maintenance and operation exceeds the apparent value of the property. This occurs regardless of “whether the market is intrinsically capable of supporting continued use of the property, or whether market inefficiencies, or inadequate and inaccurate information, lead property owners to that conclusion.”8 Most importantly for cities facing abandonment problems, the longer a property remains abandoned, the higher the cost of renovation. This leads to continued abandonment even when market conditions have dramatically improved. Cities must address the increasing number of vacant properties, not only because of the negative impact they have on the surrounding community, but because of the numerous costs they impose. They strain the resources of local police, fire, building, and health departments, depreciate property values, reduce property tax revenue, attract crime, and degrade the quality of life of remaining residents. In summary, vacant and abandoned properties “act as a significant fiscal drain on already strapped municipalities, requiring disproportionate municipal resources, while providing little or no tax revenue to municipal coffers.”9 199 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities 3 Costs of Municipal Services Vacant properties have been neglected by their owners, leaving it up to city governments to keep them from becoming crime magnets, fire hazards, or dumping grounds. In some communities, attending to vacant and abandoned properties can overwhelm city resources. The police and fire departments bear the brunt of the responsibility, along with building inspection and code enforcement units. But most municipalities have staff from several departments addressing the care of vacant properties: legal offices, public works, housing, and real estate services all deal with vacant properties. In Philadelphia, at least fifteen public agencies, not including the police and fire departments, have a role in the management of public land.10 Vacant property management also demands coordination among local governments, such as county health departments, tax collectors and assessors. Crime Vacant properties often become a breeding ground for crime, tying up an inordinate amount of police resources. The City of Richmond, VA conducted an analysis of citywide crime data from the mid-90s. Of all the economic and demographic variables tested, vacant/abandoned properties had the highest correlation to the incidence of crime.11 Another study focusing on crime in abandoned buildings in Austin, Texas found that crime rates on blocks with open abandoned buildings were twice as high as rates on matched blocks without open buildings. The survey also found that “41 percent of abandoned buildings could be entered without use of force; of these open buildings, 83 percent showed evidence of illegal use by prostitutes, drug dealers, property criminals, and others. 200 4 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities Even if 90 percent of the crimes prevented are merely displaced to the surrounding area, securing abandoned buildings appears to be a highly cost-effective crime control tactic for distressed neighborhoods.”12 A crime-prevention tactic that has gotten much attention in recent years is directly related to vacant, neglected, and abandoned property. According to George Kelling and James Q. Wilson, “The Broken Window Theory” holds that “If the first broken window in a building is not repaired, then people who like breaking windows will assume that no one cares about the building and more windows will be broken… The disorder escalates, possibly to serious crime.” Wilson and Kelling suggest that it is the nature of the physical environment that leads to an increase in criminal activity.13 While the monetary costs of addressing the crime associated with abandoned buildings has not been calculated, it is clear that vacant properties burden police departments. Arson and Accidental Fires In 1999, firefighters in Worcester, Massachusetts entered a vacant cold storage building that was aflame to search for a homeless couple reported to have been in the building. Two firefighters became disoriented, and others went to their aid. Six became trapped and died in the fire. The homeless couple had left the premises after the fire began.16 The firefighters’ deaths became national news as one of the major costs of vacant properties became all too clear. The US Fire Administration reports that over 12,000 fires in vacant structures are reported each year in the US, resulting in $73 million in property damage annually. Fires are likely in vacant properties because of poor maintenance, faulty wiring, and debris. In the winter, homeless people burn candles for light and heat and may even bring in outdoor grills. But more importantly, vacant buildings are a primary target of arsonists. More than 70 percent of fires in vacant or abandoned buildings are arson or suspected arson. Such fires strain the resources of fire departments. Because vacant buildings often contain more open shafts, pits, and holes that can be an invisible threat to firefighters, the cost of fighting those fires is more than financial. The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) estimates that 6,000 firefighters are injured every year in vacant or abandoned building fires.17 Neighborhoods in Bloom Fights Crime Richmond, Virginia’s focus on vacant and abandoned properties through the Neighborhoods in Bloom (NiB) program resulted in a dramatic drop in crime rates. The initiative launched a coordinated, focused effort in seven neighborhoods to restore physical livability and improve neighborhood stability, tackling everything from code enforcement to increasing homeownership rates. Bringing together multiple stakeholders – city council, city staff, community development corporations, neighborhoods residents, and private developers – has been an important factor in the program’s success.14 In the first three years of the initiative, the targeted neighborhoods experienced a 19 percent reduction in crime compared to a 6 percent reduction citywide.15 201 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities 5 Public Nuisances and Health Vacant and abandoned properties require a disproportionate amount of public maintenance. In addition to securing buildings against criminal activity, local governments must clean and care for them to prevent a buildup of trash, illegal dumping, and rodent infestations. In some cases, abandoned properties contain toxic waste, particularly in the case of abandoned industrial buildings.18 Most municipalities have adopted ordinances that allow them to clean, board, and secure abandoned buildings. For example, in Roanoke, Virginia, the city has taken a tougher stance on properties deemed health and safety hazards. If a property is deemed a hazard by the city the owner is given thirty days to ameliorate the problem. If no action is taken, the city will solicit input from the neighborhood, do asbestos and lead abatement, solicit demolition bids, raze the house, and place a lien on the property to try to recoup the demolition costs.19 Cities spend significant funds on these activities. “In Trenton, New Jersey during the 1990’s, these dedicated resources (depending on the amount allocated for demolition) ranged from $500,000 to well over $1 million per year.”20 Over a five-year period, St. Louis spent $15.5 million, or nearly $100 per household, to demolish vacant buildings.21 Detroit spends $800,000 each year just to clean vacant lots.22 202 6 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities Demolishing crumbling vacant buildings does not completely eliminate the costs associated with abandonment. The resulting vacant lots still require maintenance. A study of vacant lots in Philadelphia estimated that the city and closely related public agencies spent $1.8 million annually on cleaning vacant lots. At the current level of activity and assuming a three percent inflation rate, this adds up to $49.6 million over the course of twenty years.23 The study only included the costs of five out of the fifteen agencies that have a role in vacant property management.24 Rehabilitation is clearly a better choice. An examination of the St. Paul, Minnesota budget for maintenance and security costs associated with vacant buildings revealed that while demolition saves $4,697,25 the rehabilitation of a vacant building will save an estimated $7,141 in maintenance costs over a twenty-year period. Managing vacant properties ties up the time of municipal employees and the resources of municipal taxpayers. At the same time, these properties depress the value of other properties and generate little or no tax revenue themselves. Lot Clean-Up Programs Lot clean-up programs offer a means for neighborhoods to reverse the neglect associated with vacant and abandoned properties with sweat equity. Most often, they are efforts run by community volunteers with supplies and dumpsters provided by local government. In St. Louis, Missouri, Project Blitz, puts 75,000 volunteers to work every spring on 100 neighborhood “cleaning and greening” projects. This program has helped clear more than seven million pounds of trash from streets, alleys, and vacant lots.26 203 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities 7 Decreased Property Values and Tax Revenues Vacant properties reduce city tax revenues in three ways: they are often tax delinquent; their low value means they generate little in taxes; and they depress property values across an entire neighborhood. Lower property values mean lower tax revenues for local governments. According to Frank Alexander, Interim Dean and Professor at Emory University Law School and an expert in housing issues, “failure of cities to collect even two to four percent of property taxes because of delinquencies and abandonment translates into $3 billion to $6 billion in lost revenues to local governments and school districts annually.”27 Property taxes remain the single largest source of tax revenue under local control, so this loss of income is substantial.28 Lost Tax Revenue Taxes are often lost on vacant properties because of tax delinquency. Abandoned properties often become delinquent because the cost of paying taxes on the property may well exceed the value of the property. If the property goes into tax forfeiture, a common fate for vacant or abandoned properties, ownership is transferred to the municipality which tries to recover the lost taxes through the sale of the property. But such sales are problematic for several reasons. Simply gaining title is a long and difficult process that consumes government resources (see From the State House to Your House on page 8). Once the title is obtained, cities often auction off delinquent properties for the amount of the tax lien, but the reclamation of all of the lost taxes is not guaranteed. One study found that 83 percent of the balance due is lost on foreclosed properties. When cities try to recover delinquent taxes on parcels where homes have been demolished, not only are they not able to recover the taxes, but typically the demolition itself was 204 8 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities costly – in St. Paul, the overall loss to the city for a single demolished house is about $7,789.”29 And while tax sales provide a source of income for municipalities, they do not ensure that the abandoned property will be put to productive use. The properties are sometimes purchased by speculators without any intent to restore them, and the process fails to assemble marketable parcels of land. Even if the taxes are being paid, those taxes don’t amount to much. In St. Paul, a vacant lot produces $1,148 in property taxes over 20 years; an unrenovated but inhabited home generates $5,650, and a rehabilitated property generates $13,145. 30 From the State House to Your House: Reform of Tax Foreclosure Laws as a Tool for Community Revitalization One of the first barriers cities face in rehabilitating vacant properties is simply gaining control over them. Michigan’s legislature responded with Public Act 123, passed in 1999. PA 123 amended the General Property Tax Act to streamline the system for returning tax-delinquent properties to productive use. More efficient than previous foreclosure laws, which could take up to six years to deliver property to new ownership, PA 123 enables county and state governments to reclaim properties in two years with a clear title judgment.31 The property is titled to either the county or the state. The law helps local governments move quickly, before a vacant building deteriorates or starts to spread blight. The law also created a fund, paid for through property sales, that helps local governments manage foreclosed land. Genesee County, home to Flint, has done the most to take advantage of PA 123. The Genesee County Treasurer’s Office and the Genesee County Land bank, created in 2002, work in tandem to prevent foreclosure and bring tax reverted properties back into productive use. Since 2002, the Land Bank has acquired more than 4,400 residential, commercial, and industrial properties, from which almost 600 will have been demolished by December 2005, and 248 have been transferred to side yards.32 The Land Bank is completing a $3.8 million mixed-use redevelopment in downtown Flint, over 40 housing renovations are completed or underway, and they continue to assemble parcels for additional development projects. The county has also received $200,000 from the U.S. EPA to complete environmental inspections on commercial, industrial, and residential properties. The process is a collaborative one, pulling in partners from a diverse array of local, regional, state, and national agencies. 205 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities 9 Lower Property Values Vacant properties generate little in taxes – but, perhaps more importantly, they rob surrounding homes and businesses of their value. In a 2001 study, researchers from Philadelphia found that houses within 150 feet of a vacant or abandoned property experienced a net loss of $7,627 in value. Properties within 150 to 300 feet experienced a loss of $6,819 and those within 300 to 450 feet experienced a loss of $3,542 (see diagram below). Philadelphia researchers also found “that all else being equal, houses on blocks with abandonment sold for $6,715 less than houses on blocks with no abandonment.”33 A University of Minnesota study also evaluated the fiscal benefits the city of St. Paul would receive if it renovated abandoned housing. The study found that vacant properties negatively affected neighborhood property values, reducing the city’s tax base. While a renovated property did not negatively affect surrounding property values, demolishing a vacant building and leaving a vacant lot in its stead led to “$26,397 in lost property tax revenue over a twenty- year period.”34 These lower property values represent a hit in the pocketbook for both homeowners and the city. But a focused effort to bring vacant properties back can restore value – and taxes – for the city. 450 feet 300 feet 150 feet -$7,627 -$6,819 -$3,542 Abandoned Property Temple University Center for Public Policy & Eastern Pennsylvania Organizing Project. “Blight Free Philadelphia: A Public Private Strategy to Create and Enhance Neighborhood Value.” Philadelphia, 2001. 206 10 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities Recapturing the Value in Vacant Properties Richmond’s Neighborhoods in Bloom (NiB) program (see Neighborhoods in Bloom Fights Crime on page 4) has made a significant impact that goes beyond targeted neighborhoods. Housing prices within the NiB neighborhoods appreciated at a rate 9.9 percent per year faster than the citywide average. Prices in non-targeted blocks, but within 5,000 feet, increased at an annual rate 5.3 percent faster.35 The nearly 400 housing units built or renovated through the program equal an 11 percent increase in the number of occupied homes and apartments in the targeted neighborhoods.36 This increase in property values and sales generated growth in tax revenue. The Federal Reserve estimates that the aggregate value for tax assessments in the targeted areas increased 44 to 63 percent.37 And over the next 20 years, it’s estimated that NiB-generated appreciation of single-family homes in the targeted areas will result in an additional $14.7 million in property tax revenues (in 1997/98 dollars.)38 In communities with many vacant lots and a falling population, immediate rebuilding may not be an option. Cleaning up vacant lots and seeding them with grass and plantings can help increase neighborhood property values. A recent report by Susan Wachter, of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania validates what “clean and green” advocates have known for some time – that investment in greening translates not only into increased quality of life benefits, but also into higher property values. The Pennsylvania Horticultural Society coordinated a vacant land management system with the New Kensington Community Development Corporation that includes clearing abandoned lots of debris, planting grass and trees, regular cleaning and mowing, and transferring parcels to adjacent homeowners as private side yards. Previously, many of the lots in the New Kensington neighborhood had been havens for illegal activity. Wachter’s study, which analyzed more than 3,000 home sales from 1980 to 2003, found that planting trees within 50 feet of houses increased home prices by 9 percent (approximately $3,400) and that sales prices increased as much as 30 percent when homes were located near vacant lots that had been “cleaned and greened.” In the New Kensington area this translates to a $4 million gain in property value through tree plantings and a $12 million gain through lot improvements.”39 Philadelphia has seen more than a financial payoff from their efforts. By greening many abandoned sites in the same area, the lots have been converted into “green corridors.” To further the environmental benefits, the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society has added a stormwater management component to the program, which has been highlighted by the U.S. EPA as a national model for reclaiming and managing vacant urban lots.40 207 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities 11 Costs to Homeowners Living in a neighborhood with many vacant and abandoned properties exacts many costs on homeowners. As discussed above, it leads to decreased property values, which can devastate a family’s financial security. When neighborhood populations decline and properties become vacant, a smaller number of residents bear a greater proportion of the city’s tax burden. This fact is particularly relevant in lower-income neighborhoods and among residents without the resources or the desire to leave their neighborhood. And there are other, less easily measured costs of owning a home in an area with vacant properties – costs that are both fiscal and psychological. Higher Insurance Premiums The proximity of vacant and abandoned properties makes obtaining homeowner’s insurance, mortgages, and loans for home improvements more difficult. Insurance companies pay attention to what is going on in a neighborhood; this can mean increased premiums or even policy cancellations for those homeowners living close to an abandoned property. Determining how vacant and abandoned properties influence the cost of homeowners insurance is difficult at best. There are a number of variables involved in the setting of premiums and many insurance companies hold their underwriting manuals to be proprietary. An interview with an insurance agent in Washington, DC representing a national insurance company revealed that the presence of a “high hazard” property (which includes condemned properties) within forty feet of a solid masonry building and 100 feet of a non-masonry building would lead to a cancellation or non- renewal of an insurance policy.41 Poorer Quality of Life Vacant properties degrade quality of life for remaining residents. Genesee County Treasurer Daniel T. Kildee tells the story of a Flint resident. “I met a woman who bought her house a decade ago, so proud to be a new homeowner. She took good care of her home and her family, and has seen the properties on both sides of her home burn and sit abandoned for many years. Finally under our program (see From the State House to Your House on page 8), we took control of the adjacent properties and have scheduled them for demolition and to transfer to her as part of our side-lot program. Sadly, our program was not in place for many years as she watched the neighborhood slowly slip away. This is a woman that saw her single greatest financial investment become valueless - not due to the condition of her home, but due to the neglect of the property that surrounds her. She only had two choices: stay and maintain her home and make her mortgage payments, or abandon the property and ruin her credit and her home. That is a story that has repeated itself in our community a thousand times over, with a far less happy ending.”42 With abandoned buildings comes social fragmentation. Individuals who live in communities with an increasing number of vacant buildings begin to feel isolated, weakening the community as a whole. A large number of vacant buildings in a neighborhood symbolizes that no one cares, increasing the likelihood that property values will continue to decline and that further abandonment will set in. In the case of vacant properties, the problem is out in the open, for all to see. The aesthetic impact of abandoned properties, while not easily quantified in dollars, is another cost. 208 12 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities The Spiral of Blight: The Cumulative Impact of Vacant Property The costs imposed by a single vacant building are not contained. If left alone, that building can trigger a costly spiral of blight. With each arson or lot filling up with garbage comes further incentive for the remaining residents and businesses to flee. To stem these problems it is important for municipalities to address the issue early. In Renewing the Urban Landscape: The Dilemma of Vacant Housing, the authors describe the issue of vacant and abandoned property as a self-feeding problem. “In blighted neighborhoods that adjoin abandoned ones, existing homeowners face stagnating or declining property values. Unscrupulous real estate agents play on these fears by inducing existing residents to sell cheaply in order to maximize profits at the expense of incoming families. Although this property is still generating revenues for the city, the combination of high resale prices and high tax rates discourage maintenance of such structures. In this way, communities in transition start to look shabby and run-down. Businesses see their profits dwindle and are unlikely to remain in such locales.”43 Part of the reason abandonment becomes contagious is that “it makes it harder for people to sell their homes or because it leads banks to lower appraisals or deny loans entirely on blocks with abandoned properties.”44 209 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities 13 Summary Vacant and abandoned properties are burning a hole in the pockets of local governments, businesses, and individuals. The root of the problem may seem far beyond the control of local governments. The vacancies are often a result of larger forces, such as corporate decisions to transfer jobs overseas, or developers’ decisions to invest in sprawling new homes far on the urban fringe. But taking no action simply allows the problem to grow worse. The places that have done the most to end the financial drain of vacant properties are those that recognize their value. The Pennsylvania Horticultural Society provides an idea of the positive returns cities can expect by investing in a comprehensive program for dealing with vacant and abandoned property. PHS estimates that, over the course of twenty years, the City of Philadelphia would receive $1.54 in benefits for every $1.00 in costs ($158.7 million in benefits, $106.7 million investment). This figure stands before even considering the additional benefits that may “accrue to families and private businesses if the elimination of vacant land results in an increase in the value of their property, a decrease in insurance rates, or a greater interest by businesses to locate in a more attractive city.”45 Many cities and counties across the country are looking for strategies that help them capture the value reported by the programs discussed in this report. While some communities have yet to take the first step, others are enacting their own programs to different degrees of success. Sharing experiences and knowledge – what works and what does not – is the role of the National Vacant Properties Campaign, providing a forum to arm communities, civic leaders, and policymakers with information that can embolden them to take action. The Campaign hopes to encourage communities and researchers to seek solutions to these and other outstanding problems relating to the scope and cost of vacant properties: § Many communities don’t have a reliable accounting system to track of the number of vacant properties that exist within their borders. § Many of the financial costs incurred by a jurisdiction, including demolition, fire and nuisance abatement, are not routinely tracked. § While anecdotal evidence abounds regarding homeowners losing their insurance because of their proximity to an abandoned house, determining the actual cost is difficult. § Much of the data available about the costs of vacant properties is found from a variety of sources and is difficult to obtain. Please contact the Campaign to share the experiences in your community. 210 14 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities Bibliography Accordino, John and Gary T. Johnson. “Addressing the Vacant and Abandoned Property Problem.” Journal of Urban Affairs 22.3 (2000): 301-315. Accordino, John, Galster, George, and Peter Tatian. “The Impacts of Targeted Public and Nonprofit Investment on Neighborhood Development,” Richmond: The Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 2005. Alexander, Frank. “Renewing Public Assets for Community Development” Local Initiatives Support Collaborative, 2000. Anderson, Laurie M., Scrimshaw, Susan C., Fullilove, Mindy T., Fielding, Jonathon E., and the Task Force on Community Preventive Services. “The Community Guide’s Model for Linking the Social Environment to Health.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 24.3S (2003): 12-20. Arsen, David. “Property Tax Assessment Rate and Residential Abandonment: Policy for New York City.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 51.3 (1992): 361 Bowman, Ann O’M. and Michael A. Pagano. “Transforming America’s Cities: Policies and Conditions of Vacant Land.” Urban Affairs Review 35.4 (2000): 559-581. Bright, Elise. “TOADS: Instruments of Urban Revitalization.” Managing Capital Resources for Central City Revitalization. Eds. F. Wagner, T. Joder, and A. Mumphrey Jr. New York: Garland Press, 2000. Bright, Elise. “Making Business a Partner in Redeveloping Abandoned Central City Property: Is Profit a Realistic Possibility?” Federal Reserve System’s Third Community Affairs Research Conference. 27-28 March 2003. Colvin, Ashley, Fergusson, Ian, and Heather Phillips. “Renewing the Urban Landscape: The Dilemma of Vacant Housing.” Center for Public Policy Research – The Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy at the College of William Mary for the International City/County Management Association, 2000. Cramer, John. “Roanoke Pushes for Improvement – or Demolition – of Neglected Houses.” The Roanoke Times 3 August 2003 <http://www.roanoke.com/roatimes/news/story153274.html>. Doyle, James. “One House at a Time.” Journal of Housing and Community Development 58.1 (2002):14-17. Duhigg, Charles. “Tax Auctions Rarely Deliver a Dream.” The Washington Post, 19 July 2003. “EPA Administrator Lauds Innovative Program in Philadelphia.” U.S. EPA, 2 August 2005 <http://yosemite.epa.gov/r3/press.nsf/7f3f954af9cce39b882563fd0063a09c/ 3c74ddbadb18b79c85257051006ff8da!OpenDocument> Farris, J. Terrence. “The Barriers to Using Urban Infill Development to Achieve Smart Growth.” Housing Policy Debate 12.1 (2001): 1-30. 211 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities 15 Goetz, Edward G., Cooper, Kristin, Thiele, Bret, and Hin Kin Lam. “Pay Now or Pay More Later: St. Paul’s Experience in Rehabilitating Vacant Housing.” CURA Reporter (April 1998): 12-15. Goetz, Edward G., Cooper, Kristin, Thiele, Bret, and Hin Kim Lam. The Fiscal Impact of the St. Paul HOUSES TO HOMES Program. Neighborhood Planning for Community Revitalization, Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, University of Minnesota. <http:// www.npcr.org/reports/npcr1055/npcr1055.html, accessed June 17, 2003>. Greenberg, Michael R., Popper, Frank J., and Bernadette M. West. “The TOADS: A New American Urban Epidemic.” Urban Affairs Quarterly 25.3 (1990): 435-453. Greenberg, Michael, Popper, Frank, Schneider, Dona, and Bernadette West. “Community Organizing to Prevent TOADS in the United States.” Community Development Journal 28.1 (1993): 55-65. “Greening boosts home prices – here’s the proof,” 24 February 2005 <http:www.upenn.edu/ pennnews/current/2005/022405/research.html> Grow Smart Rhode Island. “The Costs of Suburban Sprawl and Urban Decay in Rhode Island – Executive Summary.” Prepared by H.C. Planning Consultants, Inc. & Planimetrics, LLP, 1999. Hillier, Amy E., Culhane, Dennis P., Smith, Tony E., and Dana C. Tomlin. “Predicting Housing Abandonment with the Philadelphia Neighborhood Information System.” Journal of Urban Affairs 25.1 (2003): 91-105. Hughes, Mark Alan, and Rebekah Cook-Mack. “Vacancy Reassessed.” Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures, 1999. IOCAD Emergency Services Group. “Firefighter Fatalities in the Unites States in 1999.” National Fire Data Center, 2000. Jakle, John and David Wilson. “Derelict Landscapes: The Wasting of America’s Built Environment.” 1992. Kildee, Dan. “Bringing Flint Back to Life.” Getting Smart! 6.4 (2003). Keenan, Paul, Lowe, Stuart, and Sheila Spencer. “Housing Abandonment in Inner Cities – The Politics of Low Demand for Housing.” Housing Studies 14.5 (1999): 703-716. Kromer, John. “Serious About Neighborhoods: Ten Success Strategies for Philadelphia’s Residential Communities.” 2003 <http://neighborhoodrecovery.com>. Kromer, John. “Vacant-Property Policy and Practice: Baltimore and Philadelphia.” Washington, DC: Discussion paper prepared for Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy and CEOs for Cities, 2002. Leigh, Nancey Green. “The State Role in Urban Land Redevelopment” Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy. MacKenzie, James J., Dower C. Roger, and Donald D.T. Chen. “The Going Rate: What it Really Costs to Drive.” Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, 1992. 212 16 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities Mallach, Alan. “From Abandonment to Reuse: Issues and Policies in Urban Abandonment.” Prepared for seminar hosted by Fannie Mae Foundation, 5 November 2001. “Michigan’s New & Improved Tax Foreclosure System.” Genesee County Land Bank, 1 March 2005 <http://thelandbank.org>. “New Tool Ready to Combat Arson: Vacant and Abandoned Buildings Targeted.” American Re. 16 June 2003 <http://www.amre.com/content/press/pressmain.asp?release=04-16-02_ abandonedbuildings>. Operation Brightside. St. Louis, MO. <http://stlouis.missouri.org/brightside/clean-up.html>. Pagano, Michael A. and Ann O’M Bowman. “Vacant Land in Cities: An Urban Resource.” Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Center On Urban and Metropolitan Policy, 2000. Pennsylvania Horticultural Society. “Vacant Land Management in Philadelphia Neighborhoods: Cost Benefit Analysis.” Philadelphia, 1999. Ress, David. “The Results Are in: Communities Improve; Neighborhoods in Bloom Program Spurs Changes in Several Areas of Richmond.” Richmond Times Dispatch, 19 July 2005. Richmond Lisc. “The Ripple Effect: Economic Impacts of Targeted Community Investments.” Richmond, 2005. Scafidi, Benjamin, Schill, Michael, Wachter, Susan, and Dennis Culhane. “An Economic Analysis of Housing Abandonment.” Journal of Housing Economics, 7 (1998): 287-303. Schilling, Joseph. “Vacant Properties: Revitalization Strategies.” IQ Reports 34.3 (ICMA, 2002). Schilling, Joseph M. “The Revitalization of Vacant Properties: Where Broken Windows Meet Smart Growth.” Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association, 2002. Schilling, Joseph M., and Naomi Friedman. “The Revitalization of Vacant Properties: Richmond, Virginia Case Study.” Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association, 2002. Setterfield, Mark. “Abandoned Buildings: Models for Legislative & Enforcement Reform.” Hartford, CT: Trinity College, Trinity Center for Neighborhoods, Research Project 23, 1997. Spelman, William. “Abandoned Buildings: Magnets for Crime?” Journal of Criminal Justice 21.5 (1993): 481-495. Temple University Center for Public Policy and Eastern Pennsylvania Organizing Project. “Blight Free Philadelphia: A Public-Private Strategy to Create and Enhance Neighborhood Value.” Philadelphia, 2001. “Urban Insurance Issues.” 2003. Insurance Information Institute. 11 July 2003 <http://www. iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/urban/content.print/>. “Vacant buildings: background: conditions.” Community Environmental Resource Program (CERP). <http://stlcin.missouri.org/cerp/vacant/conditions.htm>. 213 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities 17 Wachter, Susan. “The Determinants of Neighborhood Transformation in Philadelphia, Identification and Analysis: The New Kensington Pilot Study.” Philadelphia: The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 2005. Wallace, Rodrick. “Urban Desertification, Public Health and Public Disorder: Planned Shrinkage, Violent Death, Substance Abuse and AIDS in the Bronx.” Social Science Medicine 31.7 (1990): 801-813. Wilgoren, Jodi. “Urban Renewal Without the Renewal.” The New York Times, 7 July 2002. Wilson, David & Margulis, Harry. “Spatial Aspects of Housing Abandonment in the 1990s: The Cleveland Experience.” Housing Studies 9.4 (1994): 493-511. Wilson, James Q. and George L. Kelling. “Making Neighborhoods Safe.” Atlantic Monthly February 1989. 214 18 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities Endnotes 1 William Spelman, “Abandoned Buildings: Magnets for Crime?” Journal of Criminal Justice 21.5 (1993): 481. 2 “New Tool Ready to Combat Arson: Vacant and Abandoned Buildings Targeted,” American Re, 16 June 2003 <http://www.amre.com/content/press/pressmain.asp?release=04-16-02_abandonedbuildings>. 3 Jodi Wilgoren, “Urban Renewal Without the Renewal,” The New York Times, 7 July 2002. 4 Pennsylvania Horticultural Society, “Vacant Land Management in Philadelphia Neighborhoods: Cost Benefit Analysis,” Philadelphia, 1999: 17. 5 Temple University Center for Public Policy and Eastern Pennsylvania Organizing Project, “Blight Free Philadelphia: A Public-Private Strategy to Create and Enhance Neighborhood Value,” Philadelphia, 2001. 6 Alan Mallach, “From Abandonment to Reuse: Issues and Policies in Urban Abandonment,” Prepared for seminar hosted by Fannie Mae Foundation, 5 November 2001: 1. 7 Michael A. Pagano and Ann O’M Bowman, “Vacant Land in Cities: An Urban Resource,” Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Center On Urban and Metropolitan Policy, 2000: 6. 8 Mallach 5. 9 Mallach 4. 10 Pennsylvania Horticultural Society 17. 11 Connie Bawcum (consultant formerly with Richmond’s Neighborhoods in Bloom), 12 August 2003. 12 Spelman 481. 13 James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling, “Making Neighborhoods Safe,” Atlantic Monthly February 1989. 14 Joseph M. Schilling and Naomi Friedman, “The Revitalization of Vacant Properties: Richmond, Virginia Case Study,” Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association, 2002: 27. 15 Richmond Lisc, “The Ripple Effect: Economic Impacts of Targeted Community Investments,” Richmond, 2005: 5. 16 IOCAD Emergency Services Group. “Firefighter Fatalities in the United States in 1999.” National Fire Data Center, 2000: A-34 17 American Re 18 Mark Setterfield, “Abandoned Buildings: Models for Legislative & Enforcement Reform,” Hartford, CT: Trinity College, Trinity Center for Neighborhoods, Research Project 23, 1997: 5. 19 John Cramer, “Roanoke Pushes for Improvement – or Demolition – of Neglected Houses,” The Roanoke Times 3 August 2003 <http://www.roanoke.com/roatimes/news/story153274.html>. 20 Mallach 4, footnote 2 21 “Vacant buildings: background: conditions,” Community Environmental Resource Program (CERP), <http:// stlcin.missouri.org/cerp/vacant/conditions.htm>. CERP is an environmental clearinghouse for the St. Louis area funded by EPA and run under the auspices of the East-West Gateway Coordinating Council, a regional planning agency. 22 Wilgoren 23 Pennsylvania Horticultural Society 17. The study defined vacant properties as “unmanaged residential lots under one acre without structures or use for billboards, surface parking lots, or parks.” 24 Pennsylvania Horticultural Society 17-18. The departments are the Department of Licenses and Inspections, the Streets Department, the Redevelopment Authority, the Philadelphia Housing Development Corporation, and the Philadelphia Housing Authority. These costs include office administration as well as the actual cleaning and sealing of vacant lots. 25 Edward G. Goetz, Kristin Cooper, Bret Thiele, and Hin Kin Lam, “Pay Now or Pay More Later: St. Paul’s Experience in Rehabilitating Vacant Housing,” CURA Reporter (April 1998): 14. 26 Operation Brightside. St. Louis, MO. <http://stlouis.missouri.org/brightside/clean-up.html>. 27 Frank Alexander, E-mail to Laura Reilly. 28 Frank Alexander, “Renewing Public Assets for Community Development,” Local Initiatives Support Collaborative, 2000: 3. 29 Goetz, Pay Now 18. 30 Goetz, Pay Now 19. 215 Vacant Properties: The True Costs to Communities 19 31 “Michigan’s New & Improved Tax Foreclosure System,” Genesee County Land Bank, 1 March 2005 <http:// thelandbank.org>. 32 Robert Beckley (Genesee County Land Bank, Genesee Institute Director), 18 August 2005. 33 Temple University 22. 34 Goetz, Pay Now 19. 35 John Accordino, George Galster, and Peter Tatian, “The Impacts of Targeted Public and Nonprofit Investment on Neighborhood Development,” Richmond: the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 2005: 37. 36 David Ress, “The Results Are in: Communities Improve; Neighborhoods in Bloom Program Spurs Changes in Several Areas of Richmond,” Richmond Times Dispatch, 19 July 2005. 37 Richmond Lisc 5. 38 Accordino Addendum. 39 Susan Wachter “The Determinants of Neighborhood Transformation in Philadelphia, Identification and Analysis: The New Kensington Pilot Study,” Philadelphia: The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 2005: 14, 16. 40 “EPA Administrator Lauds Innovative Program in Philadelphia,” 2 August 2005 <http://yosemite.epa.gov/r3/press.nsf/7f3f954af9cce39b882563fd0063a09c/ 3c74ddbadb18b79c85257051006ff8da!OpenDocument> 41 Al Sisco, Gary Young Insurance (a Nationwide insurance affiliate) in Washington DC, telephone conversation, 8 July 2003. 42 Dan Kildee, “Bringing Flint Back to Life,” Getting Smart! 6.4 (2003): 1. 43 Ashley Colvin, Ian Fergusson, and Heather Phillips, “Renewing the Urban Landscape: The Dilemma of Vacant Housing,” Center for Public Policy Research – The Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy at the College of William Mary for The International City/County Management Association, 2000: 7. 44 Temple 22. 45 Pennsylvania Horticultural Society 26-27. 216 Frank Alexander, Emory University* Carl Anthony, Ford Foundation Charles Bartsch, Northeast Midwest Institute Noreen Beatley, The Enterprise Foundation Lavea Brachman, Delta Institute Kim Burnett, The Surdna Foundation Carlton Eley, U.S. EPA, Community and Environment Division Mindy Fullilove, Columbia University Peter Harnik, Trust for Public Land Rick Haughey, Urban Land Institute Dan Kildee, Treasurer, Genesee County Michigan* John Kromer, Fels Institute of Government Alan Mallach, National Housing Institute Joseph Molinaro, National Association of Realtors Rachel Morello-Frosch, Brown University Anne Pasmanick, National Neighborhood Coalition john powell, Ohio State University Joseph Reilly, JPMorgan Chase Jim Rooney, CEOs for Cities Carey Shea, Habitat for Humanity-New York City Diane Silva-Martinez, City of San Diego Susie Sinclair-Smith, Fannie Mae Foundation Israel Small, City of Savannah, Georgia Heather Smith, Congress for the New Urbanism Jeff Soule, American Planning Association Jennifer Vey, Brookings Institution, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy *affiliations used for identification purposes only The National Vacant Properties Campaign’s mission is to help communities prevent abandonment and reclaim abandoned and vacant properties. The Campaign focuses on properties — homes, factories, stores, and vacant lots — that are not legally occupied, show signs of neglect or pose a public nuisance. The Campaign is pursuing four core activities: • developing a national network of vacant property practitioners and experts; • providing tools and research; • developing persuasive arguments for property reclamation; and • building the capacity of local, regional, and national practitioners and decision-makers through technical assistance and training. The National Vacant Properties Campaign is a collaboration of four leading national organizations, Smart Growth America (SGA), Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech (MI), and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA). The Campaign is funded by the generous support of the Fannie Mae Foundation, the US Environmental Protection Agency, the Ford Foundation, and the Surdna Foundation. For more information and to get involved, visit the web site at http://www.vacantproperties.org or write the Campaign’s director at jleonard@smartgrowthamerica.org. National Vacant Properties Campaign Advisory Committee 217 218 219 220 221 NATIONAL REGISTER BULLETIN Technical information on the the National Register of Historic Places: survey, evaluation, registration, and preservation of cultural resources National Park Service Cultural Resources National Register, History and Education How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation ., 222 The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation's natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to tribes. The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the National Park System for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations. The Park Service cooperates with partners to extend the benefits of natural and cultural resource conservation and outdoor recreation throughout this country and the world. This material is partially based upon work conducted under a cooperative agreement with the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers and the U.S. Department of the Interior. Date of publication: 1990; revised 1991,1995,1997. Revised for Internet 1995. Cover (Top Left) Criterion B - Frederick Douglass Home, Washington, D.C. From 1877- 1899, this was the home of Frederick Douglass, the former slave who rose to become a prominent author, abolitionist, editor, orator, and diplomat. (Walter Smalling, Jr.) (Top Right) Criterion D - Francis Canyon Ruin, Blanco vicinity, Rio Arriba County, New Mexico. A fortified village site composed of 40 masonry-walled rooms arranged in a cluster of four house blocks. Constructed ca. 1716-1742 for protection against raiding Utes and Comanches, the site has information potential related to Na- vajo, Pueblo, and Spanish cultures. (Jon Samuelson) (Bottom Left) Criterion C - Bridge in Cherrytree Township, Venago County, Pennsylvania. Built in 1882, this Pratt through truss bridge is significant for engi- neering as a well preserved example of a type of bridge frequently used in northwestern Pennsylvania in the late 19th century. (Pennsylvania Department of Transportation) (Bottom Right) Criterion A - Main Street/Market Square Historic District, Houston, Harris County, Texas. Until well into the 20th century this district marked the bounds of public and business life in Houston. Constructed between the 1870s and 1920s, the district includes Houston's municipal and county buildings, and served as the city's wholesale, retail, and financial center. (Paul Hester) 223 PREFACE Preserving historic properties as important reflections of our American heritage became a national policy through passage of the Antiquities Act of 1906, the Historic Sites Act of 1935, and the National Historic Pres- ervation Act of 1966, as amended. The Historic Sites Act authorized the Secretary of the Interior to identify and recognize properties of national significance (National Historic Land- marks) in United States history and archeology. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 authorized the Secretary to expand this recogni- tion to properties of local and State significance in American history, ar- chitecture, archeology, engineering, and culture, and worthy of preserva- tion. The National Register of His- toric Places is the official list of these recognized properties, and is main- tained and expanded by the National Park Service on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior.1 The National Register of Historic Places documents the appearance and importance of districts, sites, build- ings, structures, and objects signifi- cant in our prehistory and history. These properties represent the major patterns of our shared local, State, and national experience. To guide the selection of properties included in the National Register, the National Park Service has developed the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. These criteria are standards by which every property that is nominated to the National Register is judged. In addition, the National Park Service has developed criteria for the recogni- tion of nationally significant proper- ties, which are designated National Historic Landmarks and prehistoric and historic units of the National Park System. Both these sets of criteria were developed to be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Stan- dards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation, which are uni- form, national standards for preserva- tion activities.2 This publication explains how the National Park Service applies these criteria in evaluating the wide range of properties that may be significant in local, State, and national history. It should be used by anyone who must decide if a particular property qualifies for the National Register of Historic Places. Listing properties in the National Register is an important step in a na- tionwide preservation process. The responsibility for the identification, initial evaluation, nomination, and treatment of historic resources lies with private individuals, State historic preservation offices, and Federal pres- ervation offices, local governments, and Indian tribes. The final evalua- tion and listing of properties in the National Register is the responsibility of the Keeper of the National Register. This bulletin was prepared by staff of the National Register Branch, Inter- agency Resources Division, National Park Service, with the assistance of the History Division. It was originally is- sued in draft form in 1982. The draft was revised into final form by Patrick W. Andrus, Historian, National Regis- ter, and edited by Rebecca H. Shrimpton, Consulting Historian. Beth L. Savage, National Register and Sarah Dillard Pope, National Reg- ister, NCSHPO coordinated the latest revision of this bulletin. Antionette J. Lee, Tanya Gossett, and Kira Badamo coordinated earlier revisions. 'Properties listed in the National Register receive limited Federal protection and certain benefits. For more information concerning the effects of listing, and how the National Register may be used by the general public and Certified Local Governments, as well as by local, State, and Federal agencies, and for copies of National Register Bulletins, contact the National Park Service, National Register, 1849 C Street, NW, NC400, Washington, D.C., 20240. Information may also be obtained by visiting the National Register Web site at www.cr.nps.gov/nr or by contacting any of the historic preservation offices in the States and territories. 2The Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation are found in the Federal Register, Vol. 48, No. 190 (Thursday, September 29,1983). A copy can be obtained by writing the National Park Service, Heritage Preservation Services (at the address above). 224 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface i I. Introduction 1 II. National Register Criteria for Evaluation 2 III. How to Use this Bulletin to Evaluate a Property 3 IV. How to Define Categories of Historic Properties 4 Building 4 Structure 4 Object 5 Site 5 District 5 Concentration, Linkage, & Continuity of Features 5 Significance 5 Types of Features 5 Geographical Boundaries 6 Discontiguous Districts 6 V. How to Evaluate a Property Within its Historic Context 7 Understanding Historic Contexts 7 How to Evaluate a Property Within Its Historic Context 7 Properties Significant Within More Than on Historic Context 9 Comparing Related Properties 9 Local, State, and National Historic Contexts 9 VI. How to Identify the Type of Significance of a Property 11 Introduction 11 Criterion A: Event 12 Understanding Criterion A 12 Applying Criterion A 12 Types of Events 12 Association of the Property with the Events 12 Significance of the Association 12 Traditional Cultural Values 13 Criterion B: Person 14 Understanding Criterion B 14 Applying Criterion B 15 Significance of the Individual 15 Association with the Property 15 Comparison to Related Properties 15 Association with Groups 15 Association with Living Persons 16 Association with Architects/Artisans 16 Native American Sites 16 Criterion C: Design/Construction 17 Understanding Criterion C • 17 Applying Criterion C 18 225 Distinctive Characteristics of Type, Period, and Method of Construction 18 Historic Adaptation of the Original Property 19 Works of a Master .....20 Properties Possessing High Artistic Values 20 Criterion D: Information Potential 21 Understanding Criterion D 21 Applying Criterion D 21 Archeological Sites 21 Buildings, Structures, and Objects 21 Association with Human Activity 22 Establishing a Historic Context 22 Developing Research Questions 22 Establishing the Presence of Adequate Data 23 Integrity 23 Partly Excavated or Disturbed Properties 23 Completely Excavated Sites 24 VII. How to Apply the Criteria Considerations 25 Introduction 25 Criteria Consideration A: Religious Properties 26 Understanding Criteria Consideration A 26 Applying Criteria Consideration A 26 Eligibility for Historic Events , 26 Eligibility for Historic Persons 27 Eligibility for Architectural or Artistic Distinction 28 Eligibility for Information Potential 28 Ability to Reflect Historic Associations 28 Criteria Consideration B: Moved Properties 29 Understanding Criteria Consideration B 29 Applying Criteria Consideration B 29 Eligibility for Architectural Value 29 Eligibility for Historic Associations 30 Setting and Environment 30 Association Dependent on the Site 30 Properties Designed to Be Moved 31 Artificially Created Groupings 31 Portions of Properties 31 Criteria Consideration C: Birthplaces and Graves 32 Understanding Criteria Consideration C 32 Applying Criteria Consideration C 32 Persons of Outstanding Importance 32 Last Surviving Property Associated with a Person 32 Eligibility for Other Associations 33 Criteria Consideration D: Cemeteries 34 Understanding Criteria Consideration D 34 Applying Criteria Consideration D 34 Persons of Transcendent Importance 34 Eligibility on the Basis of Age 35 Eligibility for Design 35 Eligibility for Association with Events 35 Eligibility for Information Potential 35 Integrity 36 National Cemeteries 36 Criteria Consideration E: Reconstructed Properties 37 Understanding Criteria Consideration E 37 Applying Criteria Consideration E 37 Accuracy of the Reconstruction 37 Suitable Environment 37 Restoration Master Plans 38 iii 226 Last Surviving Property of a Type 38 Reconstructions Older than Fifty Years 38 Criteria Consideration F: Commemorative Properties 39 Understanding Criteria Consideration F 39 Applying Criteria Consideration F 39 Eligibility for Design 39 Eligibility for Age, Tradition, or Symbolic Value 40 Ineligibility as the Last Representative of an Event or Person 40 Criteria Consideration G: Properties that Have Achieved Significance Within the Past Fifty Years 41 Understanding Criteria Consideration G 41 Applying Criteria Consideration G 42 Eligibility for Exceptional Importance 42 Historical Perspective 42 National Park Service Rustic Architecture 42 Veterans Administration Hospitals 42 Comparison with Related Properties 42 World War II Properties 42 Eligibility for Information Potential 43 Historic Districts 43 Properties Over Fifty Years in Age, Under Fifty Years in Significance 43 Requirement to Meet the Criteria, Regardless of Age 43 VIII. How to Evaluate the Integrity of a Property 44 Introduction 44 Understanding the Aspects of Integrity 44 Location 44 Design 44 Setting 44 Materials 45 Workmanship 45 Feeling 45 Association 45 Assessing Integrity in Properties 45 Defining the Essential Physical Features 46 Visibility of the Physical Features 46 Comparing Similar Properties 47 Determining the Relevant Aspects of Integrity 48 IX. Summary of the National Historic Landmarks Criteria for Evaluation 50 X. Glossary 53 XL List of National Register Bulletins 54 IV 227 I. INTRODUCTION The National Register is the nation's inventory of historic places and the national repository of docu- mentation on the variety of historic property types, significance, abun- dance, condition, ownership, needs, and other information. It is the begin- ning of a national census of historic properties. The National Register Cri- teria for Evaluation define the scope of the National Register of Historic Places; they identify the range of re- sources and kinds of significance that will qualify properties for listing in the National Register. The Criteria are written broadly to recognize the wide variety of historic properties as- sociated with our prehistory and his- tory. Decisions concerning the signifi- cance, historic integrity, documenta- tion, and treatment of properties can be made reliably only when the re- source is evaluated within its historic context. The historic context serves as the framework within which the Na- tional Register Criteria are applied to specific properties or property types. (See Part V for a brief discussion of historic contexts. Detailed guidance for developing and applying historic contexts is contained in National Reg- ister Bulletin: How to Complete the Na- tional Register Registration Form and National Register Bulletin: How to Com- plete the National Register Multiple Property Documentation Form ) The guidelines provided here are intended to help you understand the National Park Service's use of the Cri- teria for Evaluation, historic contexts, integrity, and Criteria Considerations, and how they apply to properties un- der consideration for listing in the National Register. Examples are pro- vided throughout, illustrating specific circumstances in which properties are and are not eligible for the National Register. This bulletin should be used by anyone who is: •Preparing to nominate a property to the National Register, • Seeking a determination of a property's eligibility, • Evaluating the comparable sig- nificance of a property to those listed in the National Register, or • Expecting to nominate a property as a National Historic Landmark in addition to nominating it to the National Register. This bulletin also contains a sum- mary of the National Historic Land- marks Criteria for Evaluation (see Part IX). National Historic Land- marks are those districts, sites, build- ings, structures, and objects desig- nated by the Secretary of the Interior as possessing national significance in American history, architecture, arche- ology, engineering, and culture. Al- though National Register documenta- tion includes a recommendation about whether a property is signifi- cant at the local, State, or national level, the only official designation of national significance is as a result of National Historic Landmark designa- tion by the Secretary of the Interior, National Monument designation by the President of the United States, or establishment as a unit of the National Park System by Congress. These properties are automatically listed in the National Register. 228 II. THE NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION:3 The quality of significance in American history, architecture, arche- ology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess in- tegrity of location, design, setting, ma- terials, workmanship, feeling, and as- sociation, and: A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribu- tion to the broad patterns of our history; or B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. CRITERIA CONSIDERATIONS: Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historical figures, proper- ties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original locations, reconstructed his- toric buildings, properties primarily commemorative in nature, and prop- erties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years shall not be considered eligible for the National Register. However, such properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within the following catego- ries: a. A religious property deriving primary significance from architec- tural or artistic distinction or historical importance; or b. A building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architec- tural value, or which is the surviv- ing structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event; or c. A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no appropriate site or building directly associated with his or her productive life; or d. A cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent impor- tance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events; or e. A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived; or f. A property primarily commemora- tive in intent if design, age, tradi- tion, or symbolic value has in- vested it with its own exceptional significance; or g. A property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance. 3The Criteria for Evaluation are found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Part 60, and are reprinted here in full.229 III. HOW TO USE THIS BULLETIN TO EVALUATE A PROPERTY For a property to qualify for the National Register it must meet one of the National Register Criteria for Evaluation by: • Being associated with an impor- tant historic context and • Retaining historic integrity of those features necessary to con- vey its significance. Information about the property based on physical examination and documentary research is necessary to evaluate a property's eligibility for the National Register. Evaluation of a property is most efficiently made when following this sequence: 1. Categorize the property (Part IV). A property must be classified as a district, site, building, structure, or object for inclusion in the National Register. 2. Determine which prehistoric or historic context(s) the property represents (Part V). A property must possess significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, or culture when evaluated within the historic context of a relevant geographic area. 3. Determine whether the property is significant under the National Register Criteria (Part VI). This is done by identifying the links to important events or persons, design or construction features, or information potential that make the property important. 4. Determine if the property repre- sents a type usually excluded from the National Register (Part VII). If so, determine if it meets any of the Criteria Considerations. 5. Determine whether the property retains integrity (Part VIII). Evaluate the aspects of location, design, setting, workmanship, ma- terials, feeling, and association that the property must retain to convey its historic significance. If, after completing these steps, the property appears to qualify for the Na- tional Register, the next step is to pre- pare a written nomination. (Refer to National Register Bulletin: How to Complete the National Register Registra- tion Form.) 230 IV. HOW TO DEFINE CATEGORIES OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES The National Register of Historic Places includes significant properties, classified as buildings, sites, districts, structures, or objects. It is not used to list intangible values, except in so far as they are associated with or re- flected by historic properties. The Na- tional Register does not list cultural events, or skilled or talented individu- als, as is done in some countries. Rather, the National Register is ori- ented to recognizing physically con- crete properties that are relatively fixed in location. For purposes of National Register nominations, small groups of proper- ties are listed under a single category, using the primary resource. For ex- ample, a city hall and fountain would be categorized by the city hall (build- ing), a farmhouse with two outbuild- ings would be categorized by the farmhouse (building), and a city park with a gazebo would be categorized by the park (site). Properties with large acreage or a number of re- sources are usually considered dis- tricts. Common sense and reason should dictate the selection of catego- ries. BUILDING A building, such as a house, barn, church, hotel, or similar construc- tion, is created principally to shelter any form of human activity. "Build- ing" may also be used to refer to a historically and functionally related unit, such as a courthouse and jail or a house and barn. Buildings eligible for the National Register must include all of their basic structural elements. Parts of build- ings, such as interiors, facades, or wings, are not eligible independent of the rest of the existing building. The whole building must be considered, and its significant features must be identified. If a building has lost any of its basic structural elements, it is usually con- sidered a "ruin" and is categorized as a site. Examples of buildings include: administration building carriage house church city or town hall courthouse detached kitchen, barn, and privy dormitory fort garage hotel house library mill building office building post office school social hall shed stable store theater train station STRUCTURE The term "structure" is used to distinguish from buildings those functional constructions made usu- ally for purposes other than creating human shelter. Structures nominated to the National Register must include all of the extant basic structural elements. Parts of structures can not be consid- ered eligible if the whole structure remains. For example, a truss bridge is composed of the metal or wooden truss, the abutments, and supporting piers, all of which, if extant, must be included when considering the property for eligibility. If a structure has lost its historic configuration or pattern of organiza- tion through deterioration or demoli- tion, it is usually considered a "ruin" and is categorized as a site. Examples of structures include: aircraft apiary automobile bandstand boats and ships bridge cairn canal carousel corner ib dam earthwork fence gazebo grain elevator highway irrigation system kiln lighthouse railroad grade silo trolley car tunnel windmill 231 OBJECT The term "object" is used to distinguish from buildings and structures those constructions that are primarily artistic in nature or are relatively small in scale and simply constructed. Although it may be, by nature or design, movable, an object is associated with a specific setting or environment. Small objects not designed for a specific location are normally not eligible. Such works include trans- portable sculpture, furniture, and other decorative arts that, unlike a fixed outdoor sculpture, do not possess association with a specific place. Objects should be in a setting appropriate to their significant historic use, roles, or character. Objects relocated to a museum are inappropriate for listing in the Na- tional Register. Examples of objects include: boundary marker fountain milepost monument scupture statuary SITE A site is the location of a signifi- cant event, a prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or a building or structure, whether standing, ruined, or vanished, where the location itself possesses historic, cultural, or archeological value regardless of the value of any exist- ing structure. A site can possess associative significance or information potential or both, and can be significant under any or all of the four criteria. A site need not be marked by physical remains if it is the location of a prehistoric or historic event or pattern of events and if no buildings, struc- tures, or objects marked it at the time of the events. However, when the location of a prehistoric or historic event cannot be conclusively deter- mined because no other cultural materials were present or survive, documentation must be carefully evaluated to determine whether the traditionally recognized or identified site is accurate. A site may be a natural landmark strongly associated with significant prehistoric or historic events or patterns of events, if the significance of the natural feature is well docu- mented through scholarly research. Generally, though, the National Register excludes from the definition of "site" natural waterways or bodies of water that served as determinants in the location of communities or were significant in the locality's subsequent economic development. While they may have been "avenues of exploration," the features most appropriate to document this signifi- cance are the properties built in association with the waterways. Examples of sites include: battlefield campsite cemeteries significant for information potential or historic association ceremonial site designed landscape habitation site natural feature (such as a rock formation) having cultural significance pet ro glyph rock carving rock shelter ruins of a building or structure shipwreck trail village site DISTRICT A district possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aes- thetically by plan or physical devel- opment. CONCENTRATION, LINKAGE, & CONTINUITY OF FEATURES A district derives its importance from being a unified entity, even though it is often composed of a wide variety of resources. The identity of a district results from the interrelation- ship of its resources, which can convey a visual sense of the overall historic environment or be an ar- rangement of historically or function- ally related properties. For example, a district can reflect one principal activity, such as a mill or a ranch, or it can encompass several interrelated activities, such as an area that in- cludes industrial, residential, or commercial buildings, sites, struc- tures, or objects. A district can also be a grouping of archeological sites related primarily by their common components; these types of districts often will not visually represent a specific historic environment. SIGNIFICANCE A district must be significant, as well as being an identifiable entity. It must be important for historical, architectural, archeological, engineer- ing, or cultural values. Therefore, districts that are significant will usually meet the last portion of Criterion C plus Criterion A, Criterion B, other portions of Criterion C, or Criterion D. TYPES OF FEATURES A district can comprise both features that lack individual distinc- tion and individually distinctive features that serve as focal points. It may even be considered eligible if all of the components lack individual distinction, provided that the group- ing achieves significance as a whole within its historic context. In either case, the majority of the components that add to the district's historic character, even if they are individu- ally undistinguished, must possess integrity, as must the district as a whole. A district can contain buildings, structures, sites, objects, or open spaces that do not contribute to the significance of the district. The number of noncontributing properties a district can contain yet still convey its sense of time and place and historical development depends on how these properties affect the district's integrity. In archeological districts, the primary factor to be considered is the effect of any distur- bances on the information potential of the district as a whole. 232 GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES A district must be a definable geographic area that can be distin- guished from surrounding properties by changes such as density, scale, type, age, style of sites, buildings, structures, and objects, or by docu- mented differences in patterns of historic development or associations. It is seldom defined, however, by the limits of current parcels of ownership, management, or planning boundaries. The boundaries must be based upon a shared relationship among the properties constituting the district. DISCONTIGUOUS DISTRICTS A district is usually a single geo- graphic area of contiguous historic properties; however, a district can also be composed of two or more definable significant areas separated by nonsignificant areas. A discontiguous district is most appro- priate where: • Elements are spatially discrete; • Space between the elements is not related to the significance of the district; and • Visual continuity is not a factor in the significance. In addition, a canal can be treated as a discontiguous district when the system consists of man-made sections of canal interspersed with sections of river navigation. For scattered archeological properties, a discontiguous district is appropriate when the deposits are related to each other through cultural affiliation, period of use, or site type. It is not appropriate to use the discontiguous district format to include an isolated resource or small group of resources which were once connected to the district, but have since been separated either through demolition or new construction. For example, do not use the discontiguous district format to nominate individual buildings of a downtown commerical district that have become isolated through demolition. Examples of districts include: business districts canal systems groups of habitation sites college campuses estates and farms with large acreage/ numerous properties industrial complexes irrigation systems residential areas rural villages transportation networks rural historic districts Ordeman-Shaw Historic District, Montgomery, Montgomery County, Alabama. Historic districts derive their identity from the interrationship of their resources. Part of the defining characteristics of this 19th century residential district in Montgomery, Alabama, is found in the rhythmic pattern of the rows of decorative porches. (Frank L. Thiermonge, III) 233 V. HOW TO EVALUATE A PROPERTY WITHIN ITS HISTORIC CONTEXT UNDERSTANDING HISTORIC CONTEXTS To qualify for the National Regis- ter, a property must be significant; that is, it must represent a significant part of the history, architecture, archeology, engineering, or culture of an area, and it must have the charac- teristics that make it a good represen- tative of properties associated with that aspect of the past. This section explains how to evaluate a property within its historic context.4 The significance of a historic property can be judged and explained only when it is evaluated within its historic context. Historic contexts are those patterns or trends in history by which a specific occurrence, property, or site is understood and its meaning (and ultimately its significance) within history or prehistory is made clear. Historians, architectural historians, folklorists, archeologists, and anthropologists use different words to describe this phenomena such as trend, pattern, theme, or cultural affiliation, but ultimately the concept is the same. The concept of historic context is not a new one; it has been fundamen- tal to the study of history since the 18th century and, arguably, earlier than that. Its core premise is that resources, properties, or happenings in history do not occur in a vacuum but rather are part of larger trends or patterns. In order to decide whether a property is significant within its historic context, the following five things must be determined: • The facet of prehistory or history of the local area, State, or the na- tion that the property represents; • Whether that facet of prehistory or history is significant; • Whether it is a type of property that has relevance and impor- tance in illustrating the historic context; • How the property illustrates that history; and finally • Whether the property possesses the physical features necessary to convey the aspect of prehistory or history with which it is associ- ated. These five steps are discussed in detail below. If the property being evaluated does represent an impor- tant aspect of the area's history or prehistory and possesses the requisite quality of integrity, then it qualifies for the National Register. HOW TO EVALUATE A PROPERTY WITHIN ITS HISTORIC CONTEXT Identify what the property repre- sents: the theme(s), geographical limits, and chronological period that provide a perspective from which to evaluate the property's significance. Historic contexts are historical patterns that can be identified through consideration of the history of the property and the history of the sur- rounding area. Historic contexts may have already been defined in your area by the State historic preservation office, Federal agencies, or local governments. In accordance with the National Regis- ter Criteria, the historic context may relate to one of the following: • An event, a series of events or ac- tivities, or patterns of an area's de- velopment (Criterion A); • Association with the life of an im- portant person (Criterion B); • A building form, architectural style, engineering technique, or artistic values, based on a stage of physical development, or the use of a mate- rial or method of construction that shaped the historic identity of an area (Criterion C); or • A research topic (Criterion D). 4 For a complete discussion of historic contexts, see National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Completing National Register of Historic Places Registration Forms.234 Determine how the theme of the context is significant in the history of the local area, the State, or the nation. A theme is a means of organizing properties into coherent patterns based on elements such as environ- ment, social/ethnic groups, transpor- tation networks, technology, or political developments that have influenced the development of an area during one or more periods of prehis- tory or history. A theme is considered significant if it can be demonstrated, through scholarly research, to be important in American history. Many significant themes can be found in the following list of Areas of Significance used by the National Register. AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE Agriculture Architecture Archeology Prehistoric Historic—Aboriginal Historic—Non-Aboriginal Art Commerce Communications Community Planning and Development Conservation Economics Education Engineering Entertainment/Recreation Ethnic Heritage Asian Black European Hispanic Native American Pacific Islander Other Exploration/Settlement Health/Medicine Industry Invention Landscape Architecture Law Literature Maritime History Military Performing Arts Philosophy Politics/Government Religion Science Social History Transportation Other Determine what the property type is and whether it is important in illustrating the historic context. A context may be represented by a variety of important property types. For example, the context of "Civil War Military Activity in Northern Virginia" might be represented by such properties as: a group of mid- 19th century fortification structures; an open field where a battle occurred; a knoll from which a general directed troop movements; a sunken transport ship; the residences or public build- ings that served as company head- quarters; a railroad bridge that served as a focal point for a battle; and earthworks exhibiting particular construction techniques. Because a historic context for a community can be based on a distinct period of development, it might include numerous property types. For example, the context "Era of Industrialization in Grand Bay, Michigan, 1875 -1900" could be represented by important property types as diverse as sawmills, paper mill sites, salt refining plants, flour mills, grain elevators, furniture factories, workers housing, commer- cial buildings, social halls, schools, churches, and transportation facilities. A historic context can also be based on a single important type of prop- erty. The context "Development of County Government in Georgia, 1777 -1861" might be represented solely by courthouses. Similarly, "Bridge Construction in Pittsburgh, 1870 - 1920" would probably only have one property type. Determine how the property represents the context through specific historic associations, archi- tectural or engineering values, or information potential (the Criteria for Evaluation). For example, the context of county government expansion is represented under Criterion A by historic districts or buildings that reflect population growth, development patterns, the role of government in that society, and political events in the history oi the State, as well as the impact of county government on the physical development of county seats. Under Criterion C, the context is represented by properties whose architectural treatments reflect their governmental functions, both practically and symbolically. (See Part VI: How to Identify the Type of Significance of a Property.) Determine what physical features the property must possess in order for it to reflect the significance of the historic context. These physical features can be determined after identifying the following: • Which types of properties are as- sociated with the historic context, • The ways in which properties can represent the theme, and • The applicable aspects of integ- rity. Properties that have the defined characteristics are eligible for listing. (See Part VIII: How to Evaluate the Integrity of a Property.) 235 PROPERTIES SIGNIFICANT WITHIN MORE THAN ONE HISTORIC CONTEXT A specific property can be signifi- cant within one or more historic contexts, and, if possible, all of these should be identified. For example, a public building constructed in the 1830s that is related to the historic context of Civil War campaigns in the area might also be related to the theme of political developments in the community during the 1880s. A property is only required, however, to be documented as significant in one context. COMPARING RELATED PROPERTIES Properties listed in the National Register must possess significance when evaluated in the perspective of their historic context. Once the historic context is established and the property type is determined, it is not necessary to evaluate the property in question against other properties if: • It is the sole example of a prop- erty type that is important in il- lustrating the historic context or • It clearly possesses the defined characteristics required to strongly represent the context. If these two conditions do not apply, then the property will have to be evaluated against other examples of the property type to determine its eligibility. The geographic level (local, State, or national) at which this evaluation is made is the same as the level of the historic context. (See Part V: How to Evaluate a Property Within Its Historic Context.) LOCAL, STATE, AND NATIONAL HISTORIC CONTEXTS Historic contexts are found at a variety of geographical levels or scales. The geographic scale selected may relate to a pattern of historical development, a political division, or a cultural area. Regardless of the scale, the historic context establishes the framework from which decisions about the significance of related properties can be made. LOCAL HISTORIC CONTEXTS A local historic context represents an aspect of the history of a town, city, county, cultural area, or region, or any portions thereof. It is defined by the importance of the property, not necessarily the physical location of the property. For instance, if a property is of a type found throughout a State, or its boundaries extend over two States, but its importance relates only to a particular county, the property would be considered of local signifi- cance. The level of context of archeologi- cal sites significant for their informa- tion potential depends on the scope of the applicable research design. For example, a Late Mississippian village site may yield information in a research design concerning one settlement system on a regional scale, while in another research design it may reveal information of local importance concerning a single group's stone tool manufacturing techniques or house forms. It is a question of how the available infor- mation potential is likely to be used. STATE HISTORIC CONTEXTS Properties are evaluated in a State context when they represent an aspect of the history of the State as a whole (or American Samoa, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands). These properties do not necessarily have to belong to property types found throughout the entire State: they can be located in only a portion of the State's present political bound- ary. It is the property's historic context that must be important statewide. For example, the "cotton belt" extends through only a portion of Georgia, yet its historical develop- ment in the antebellum period af- fected the entire State. These State historic contexts may have associated properties that are statewide or locally significant representations. A cotton gin in a small town might be a locally significant representation of this context, while one of the largest cotton producing plantations might be of State significance. A property whose historic associa- tions or information potential appears to extend beyond a single local area might be significant at the State level. A property can be significant to more than one community or local area, however, without having achieved State significance. A property that overlaps several State boundaries can possibly be significant to the State or local history of each of the States. Such a property is not necessarily of national signifi- cance, however, nor is it necessarily significant to all of the States in which it is located. Prehistoric sites are not often considered to have "State" signifi- cance, per se, largely because States are relatively recent political entities and usually do not correspond closely to Native American political territo- ries or cultural areas. Numerous sites, however, may be of significance to a large region that might geographi- cally encompass parts of one, or usually several, States. Prehistoric resources that might be of State significance include regional sites that provide a diagnostic assemblage of artifacts for a particular cultural group or time period or that provide chronological control (specific dates or relative order in time) for a series of cultural groups. 236 NATIONAL HISTORIC CONTEXTS Properties are evaluated in a national context when they represent an aspect of the history of the United States and its territories as a whole. These national historic contexts may have associated properties that are locally or statewide significant representations, as well as those of national significance. Properties designated as nationally significant and listed in the National Register are the prehistoric and historic units of the National Park System and those properties that have been designated National Historic Landmarks. The National Historic Landmark criteria are the standards for nationally significant properties; they are found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Part 65 and are summarized in this bulletin in Part IX: Summary of National Historic Land- marks Criteria for Evaluation. A property with national signifi- cance helps us understand the history of the nation by illustrating the nationwide impact of events or persons associated with the property, its architectural type or style, or information potential. It must be of exceptional value in representing or illustrating an important theme in the history of the nation. Nationally significant properties do not necessarily have to belong to a property type found throughout the entire country: they can be located in only a portion of the present political boundaries. It is their historic context that must be important nationwide. For example, the American Civil War was fought in only a portion of the United States, yet its impact was nationwide. The site of a small military skirmish might be a locally significant representation of this national context, while the capture of the State's largest city might be a statewide significant representation of the national context. When evaluating properties at the national level for designation as a National Historic Landmark, please refer to the National Historic Land- marks outline, History and Prehistory in the National Park System and the National Historic Landmarks Program 1987. (For more information about the National Historic Landmarks program, please write to the Depart- ment of the Interior, National Park Service, National Historic Land- marks, 1849 C Street, NW, NC400, Washington, DC 20240.) 10 237 VI. HOW TO IDENTIFY THE TYPE OF SIGNIFICANCE OF A PROPERTY INTRODUCTION When evaluated within its historic context, a property must be shown to be significant for one or more of the four Criteria for Evaluation - A, B, C, or D (listed earlier in Part U). The Criteria describe how properties are signifi- cant for their association with impor- tant events or persons, for their importance in design or construction, or for their information potential. The basis for judging a property's significance and, ultimately, its eligibility under the Criteria is historic context. The use of historic context allows a property to be properly evaluated in a nearly infinite number of capacities. For instance, Criterion C: Design/Construction can accom- modate properties representing construction types that are unusual or widely practiced, that are innovative or traditional, that are "high style" or vernacular, that are the work of a famous architect or an unknown master craftsman. The key to determin- ing whether the characteristics or associa- tions of a particular property are signifi- cant is to consider the property within its historic context. After identifying the relevant historic context(s) with which the property is associated, the four Criteria are applied to the property. Within the scope of the historic context, the National Register Criteria define the kind of significance that the properties represent. For example, within the context of "19th Century Gunpowder Produc- tion in the Brandywine Valley," Criterion A would apply to those properties associated with important events in the founding and develop- ment of the industry. Criterion B would apply to those properties associated with persons who are significant in the founding of the industry or associated with important inventions related to gunpowder manufacturing. Criterion C would apply to those buildings, structures, or objects whose architectural form or style reflect important design qualities integral to the industry. And Crite- rion D would apply to properties that can convey information important in our understanding of this industrial process. If a property qualifies under more than one of the Criteria, its significance under each should be considered, if possible, in order to identify all aspects of its historical value. NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION* The National Register Criteria recognize different types of values embodied in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects. These values fall into the following categories: Associative value (Criteria A and B): Properties significant for their association or linkage to events (Criterion A) or persons (Criterion B) important in the past. Design or Construction value (Criterion C): Properties significant as representatives of the manmade expression of culture or technology. Information value (Criterion D): Properties significant for their ability to yield important information about prehistory or history. ""For a complete listing of the Criteria for Evaluation, refer to Part II oi this bulletin. 11 238 CRITERION A: EVENT Properties can be eligible for the National Register if they are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. UNDERSTANDING CRITERION A: EVENT To be considered for listing under Criterion A, a property must be associated with one or more events important in the defined historic context. Criterion A recognizes properties associated with single events, such as the founding of a town, or with a pattern of events, repeated activities, or historic trends, such as the gradual rise of a port city's prominence in trade and commerce. The event or trends, however, must clearly be important within the associated context: settlement, in the case of the town, or development of a maritime economy, in the case of the port city. Moreover, the property must have an important association with the event or historic trends, and it must retain historic integrity. (See Part V: How to Evaluate a Property Within its Historic Context.) Several steps are involved in determining whether a property is significant for its associative values: • Determine the nature and origin of the property, • Identify the historic context with which it is associated, and • Evaluate the property's history to determine whether it is associ- ated with the historic context in any important way. APPLYING CRITERION A: EVENT TYPES OF EVENTS A property can be associated with either (or both) of two types of events: • A specific event marking an im- portant moment in American pre- history or history and • A pattern of events or a historic trend that made a significant con- tribution to the development of a community, a State, or the nation. Refer to the sidebar on the right for a list of specific examples. ASSOCIATION OF THE PROPERTY WITH THE EVENTS The property you are evaluating must be documented, through ac- cepted means of historical or archeo- logical research (including oral history), to have existed at the time of the event or pattern of events and to have been associated with those events. A property is not eligible if its associations are speculative. For archeological sites, well reasoned inferences drawn from data recovered at the site can be used to establish the association between the site and the events. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ASSOCIATION Mere association with historic events or trends is not enough, in and of itself, to qualify under Criterion A: the property's specific association must be considered important as well. For example, a building historically in commercial use must be shown to have been significant in commercial history. EXAMPLES OF PROPERTIES ASSOCIATED WITH EVENTS Properties associated with specific events: • The site of a battle. • The building in which an important invention was developed. • A factory district where a significant strike occurred. • An archeological site at which a ma- jor new aspect of prehistory was dis- covered, such as the first evidence of man and extinct Pleistocene animals being contemporaneous. • A site where an important facet of European exploration occurred. Properties associated with a pattern of events: • A trail associated with western mi- gration. • A railroad station that served as the focus of a community's transporta- tion system and commerce. • A mill district reflecting the impor- tance of textile manufacturing dur- ing a given period. • A building used by an important lo- cal social organization. • A site where prehistoric Native Americans annually gathered for seasonally available resources and for social interaction. • A downtown district representing a town's growth as the commercial fo- cus of the surrounding agricultural area. 12 239 TRADITIONAL CULTURAL VALUES Traditional cultural significance is derived from the role a property plays in a community's historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices. Properties may have significance under Criterion A if they are associ- ated with events, or series of events, significant to the cultural traditions of a community.5 Eligible • A hilltop associated in oral his- torical accounts with the founding of an Indian tribe or society is eligible. • A rural community can be eli- gible whose organization, buildings, or patterns of land use reflect the cultural traditions valued by its long- term residents. • An urban neighborhood can be eligible as the traditional home of a particular cultural group and as a reflection of its beliefs and practices. Not Eligible • A site viewed as sacred by a recently established Utopian or religious community does not have traditional cultural value and is not eligible. Criterion A - The Old Brulay Plantation, Brownsville vicinity, Cameron county, Texas. Historically significant for its association with the development of agriculture in southeast Texas, this complex of 10 brick buildings was constructed by George N. Brulay, a French immigrant who introduced commercial sugar production and irrigation to the Rio Grande Valley. (Photo by Texas Historical Commission). 5 For more information, refer to National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. 13240 CRITERION B: PERSON Properties may be eligible for the National Register if they are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. UNDERSTANDING CRITERION B: PERSON6 Criterion B applies to properties associated with individuals whose specific contributions to history can be identified and documented. Persons "significant in our past" refers to individuals whose activities are demonstrably important within a local, State, or national historic context. The criterion is generally restricted to those properties that illustrate (rather than commemorate) a person's important achievements. (The policy regarding commemora- tive properties, birthplaces, and graves is explained further in Part VIII: How to Apply the Criteria Consid- erations.) Several steps are involved in determining whether a property is significant for its associative values under Criterion B. First, determine the importance of the individual. Second, ascertain the length and nature of his/her association with the property under study and identify the other properties associated with the individual. Third, consider the property under Criterion B, as outlined below. EXAMPLES OF PROPERTIES ASSOCIATED WITH PERSONS Properties associated with a Significant Person: • The home of an important merchant or labor leader. • The studio of a significant artist. • The business headquarters of an im- portant industrialist. Criterion B - The William Whitney House, Hinsdale, DuPage County, Illinois. This building is locally significant for its historical association with William Whitney, the founder of the town of Hinsdale, Illinois. Whitney, a citizen of New York State, moved to Illinois, established the town, and while living here between 1870 and 1879 was a prominent local businessman and politician. (Photo by Frederick C. Cue). 'For further information on properties eligible under Criterion B, refer to National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Properties Associated with Significant Persons. 14 241 APPLYING CRITERION B: PERSON SIGNIFICANCE OF THE INDIVIDUAL The persons associated with the property must be individually signifi- cant within a historic context. A property is not eligible if its only justification for significance is that it was owned or used by a person who is a member of an identifiable profes- sion, class, or social or ethnic group. It must be shown that the person gained importance within his or her profession or group. Eligible • The residence of a doctor, a mayor, or a merchant is eli- gible under Criterion B if the person was significant in the field of medicine, politics, or commerce, respectively. Not Eligible • A property is not eligible un- der Criterion B if it is associ- ated with an individual about whom no scholarly judgement can be made because either re- search has not revealed spe- cific information about the person's activities and their impact, or there is insufficient perspective to determine whether those activities or contributions were historically important. ASSOCIATION WITH THE PROPERTY Properties eligible under Criterion B are usually those associated with a person's productive life, reflecting the time period when he or she achieved significance. In some instances this may be the person's home; in other cases, a person's business, office, laboratory, or studio may best repre- sent his or her contribution. Proper- ties that pre- or post-date an individual's significant accomplish- ments are usually not eligible. (See Comparison to Related Properties, below, for exceptions to this rule.) The individual's association with the property must be documented by accepted methods of historical or archeological research, including written or oral history. Speculative associations are not acceptable. For archeological sites, well reasoned inferences drawn from data recovered at the site are acceptable. COMPARISON TO RELATED PROPERTIES Each property associated with an important individual should be compared to other associated proper- ties to identify those that best repre- sent the person's historic contribu- tions. The best representatives usually are properties associated with the person's adult or productive life. Properties associated with an individual's formative or later years may also qualify if it can be demon- strated that the person's activities during this period were historically significant or if no properties from the person's productive years survives. Length of association is an important factor when assessing several proper- ties with similar associations. A community or State may contain several properties eligible for associa- tions with the same important person, if each represents a different aspect of the person's productive life. A property can also be eligible if it has brief but consequential associations with an important individual. (Such associations are often related to specific events that occurred at the property and, therefore, it may also be eligible under Criterion A.) ASSOCIATION WITH GROUPS For properties associated with several community leaders or with a prominent family, it is necessary to identify specific individuals and to explain their significant accomplish- ments. Eligible • A residential district in which a large number of prominent or influential merchants, profes- sionals, civic leaders, politi- cians, etc., lived will be eligible under Criterion B if the signifi- cance of one or more specific individual residents is explic- itly justified. • A building that served as the seat of an important family is eligible under Criterion B if the significant accomplishments of one or more individual family members is explicitly justified. Not Eligible • A residential district in which a large number of influential per- sons lived is not eligible under Criterion B if the accomplish- ments of a specific indivi- dual^) cannot be documented. If the significance of the district rests in the cumulative impor- tance of prominent residents, however, then the district might still be eligible under Criterion A. Eligibility, in this case, would be based on the broad pattern of community development, through which the neighborhood evolved into the primary residential area for this class of citizens. • A building that served as the seat of an important family will not be eligible under Criterion B if the significant accomplish- ments of individual family members cannot be docu- mented. In cases where a suc- cession of family members have lived in a house and col- lectively have had a demon- strably significant impact on the community, as a family, the house is more likely to be sig- nificant under Criterion A for association with a pattern of events. 15 242 ASSOCIATION WITH LIVING PERSONS Properties associated with living persons are usually not eligible for inclusion in the National Register. Sufficient time must have elapsed to assess both the person's field of endeavor and his/her contribution to that field. Generally, the person's active participation in the endeavor must be finished for this historic perspective to emerge. (See Criteria Considerations C and G in Part VII: How to Apply the Criteria Consider- ations.) ASSOCIATION WITH ARCHITECTS/ARTISANS Architects, artisans, artists, and engineers are often represented by their works, which are eligible under Criterion C. Their homes and studios, however, can be eligible for consider- ation under Criterion B, because these usually are the properties with which they are most personally associated. NATIVE AMERICAN SITES The known major villages of individual Native Americans who were important during the contact period or later can qualify under Criterion B. As with all Criterion B properties, the individual associated with the property must have made some specific important contribution to history. Examples include sites significantly associated with Chief Joseph and Geronimo.7 7 For more information, refer to National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. 16 243 CRITERION C: DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION Properties may be eligible for the National Register if they embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. Richland Plantation, East Feliciana Parish, Louisiana. Properties can qualify under Criterion C as examples of high style architecture. Built in the 1830s, Richland is a fine example of a Federal style residence with a Greek Revival style portico. (Photo by Dave Gleason). UNDERSTANDING CRITERION C: DESIGN/ CONSTRUCTION This criterion applies to properties significant for their physical design or construction, including such elements as architecture, landscape architec- ture, engineering, and artwork. To be eligible under Criterion C, a property must meet at least one of the following requirements: • Embody distinctive characteris- tics of a type, period, or method of construction. • Represent the work of a master. • Possess high artistic value. • Represent a significant and dis- tinguishable entity whose com- ponents may lack individual dis- tinction. The first requirement, that proper- ties "embody the distinctive charac- teristics of a type, period, or method of construction/' refers to the way in which a property was conceived, designed, or fabricated by a people or culture in past periods of history. "The work of a master" refers to the technical or aesthetic achievements of an architect or craftsman. "High artistic values" concerns the expres- sion of aesthetic ideals or preferences and applies to aesthetic achievement. Resources "that represent a signifi- cant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual dis- tinction" are called "districts." In the Criteria for Evaluation (as published in the Code of Federal Regulations and reprinted here in Part II), districts are defined within the context of Crite- rion C. Districts, however, can be con- sidered for eligibility under all the Crite- ria, individually or in any combina- tion, as is appropriate. For this rea- son, the full discussion of districts is contained in Part IV: How to Define Categories of Historic Properties. Throughout the bulletin, however, districts are mentioned within the context of a specific subject, such as an individual Criterion. Grant Family House, Saco vicinity, York County, Maine. Properties possessing high artistic value meet Criterion C through the expression of aesthetic ideals or preferences. The Grant Family House, a modest Federal style residence, is significant for its remarkably well-preserved stenciled wall decorative treatment in the entry hall and parlor. Painted by an unknown artist ca. 1825, this is a fine example of 19th century New England regional artistic expression. (Photo by Kirk F. Mohney). 17 244 EXAMPLES OF PROPERTIES ASSOCIATED WITH DESIGN/ CONSTRUCTION Properties associated with design and construction: • A house or commercial building rep- resenting a significant style of archi- tecture. • A designed park or garden associated with a particular landscape design philosophy. • A movie theater embodying high ar- tistic value in its decorative features. • A bridge or dam representing techno- logical advances. APPLYING CRITERION C: DESIGN/ CONSTRUCTION DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF TYPE, PERIOD, AND METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION This is the portion of Criterion C under which most properties are eligible, for it encompasses all archi- tectural styles and construction practices. To be eligible under this portion of the Criterion, a property must clearly illustrate, through "distinctive characteristics/' the following: • The pattern of features common to a particular class of resources, • The individuality or variation of features that occurs within the class, • The evolution of that class, or • The transition between classes of resources. Distinctive Characteristics: "Dis- tinctive characteristics" are the physi- cal features or traits that commonly recur in individual types, periods, or methods of construction. To be eligible, a property must clearly contain enough of those characteristics to be considered a true representative of a particular type, period, or method of construction. Characteristics can be expressed in terms such as form, proportion, struc- ture, plan, style, or materials. They can be general, referring to ideas of design and construction such as basic plan or form, or they can be specific, referring to precise ways of combining particular kinds of materials. Eligible • A building eligible under the theme of Gothic Revival archi- tecture must have the distinc- tive characteristics that make up the vertical and picturesque qualities of the style, such as pointed gables, steep roof pitch, board and batten siding, and ornamental bargeboard and veranda trim. • A late Mississippian village that illustrates the important concepts in prehistoric community design and plan- ning will qualify. • A designed historic landscape will qualify if it reflects a his- toric trend or school of theory and practice, such as the City Beautiful Movement, evidenc- ingdistinguished design, lay- out, and the work of skilled craftsmanship. Not Eligible • A commercial building with some Art Deco detailing is not eligible under Criterion C if the detailing was added merely as an afterthought, rather than fully integrated with overall lines and massing typical of the Art Deco style or the transition between that and another style. • A designed landscape that has had major changes to its his- toric design, vegetation, origi- nal boundary, topography/ grading, architectural features, and circulation system will not qualify. Type, Period, and Method of Construction: "Type, period, or method of construction" refers to the way certain properties are related to one another by cultural tradition or function, by dates of construction or style, or by choice or availability of materials and technology. A structure is eligible as a speci- men of its type or period of construc- tion if it is an important example (within its context) of building practices of a particular time in history. For properties that represent the variation, evolution, or transition of construction types, it must be demonstrated that the variation, etc., was an important phase of the archi- tectural development of: the area or community in that it had an impact as evidenced by later buildings. A property is not eligible, however, simply because it has been identified as the only such property ever fabri- cated; it must be demonstrated to be significant as well. Eligible • A building that has some char- acteristics of the Romanesque Revival style and some charac- teristics of the Commercial style can qualify if it illustrates the transition of architectural design and the transition itself is considered an important ar- chitectural development. • A Hopewellian mound, if it is an important example of mound building construction techniques, would qualify as a method or type of construc- tion. • A building which illustrates the early or the developing technology of particular structural systems, such as skeletal steel framing, is eli- gible as an example of a particular method of construc- tion. 18 245 Swan Falls Dam and Power Plant, Murphy vicinity, Ada County, Idaho. Significant works of engineering can qualify under Criterion C. Built between 1900- 1907 the Swan Falls Dam and Power Plant across the Snake River is one of the early hydroelectric plants in the State of Idaho. (Photo by H.L. Hough). HISTORIC ADAPTATION OF THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY A property can be significant not only for the way it was originally constructed or crafted, but also for the way it was adapted at a later period, or for the way it illustrates changing tastes, attitudes, and uses over a period of time. A district is eligible under this guideline if it illustrates the evolution of historic character of a place over a particular span of time. Looney House, Asheville vicinity, St. Clair County, Alabama. Examples of vernacular styles of architecture can qualify under Criterion C. Built ca. 1818, the Looney House is significant as possibly the State's oldest extant two-story dogtrot type of dwelling. The defining open center passage of the dogtrot was a regional building response to the southern climate. (Photo by Carolyn Scott). Eligible • A Native American irrigation system modified for use by Europeans could be eligible if it illustrates the technology of either or both periods of con- struction. • An early 19th century farm- house modified in the 1880s with Queen Anne style orna- mentation could be significant for the modification itself, if it represented a local variation or significant trend in building construction or remodelling, was the work of a local master (see Works of a Master on page 20), or reflected the tastes of an important person associated with the property at the time of its alteration. • A district encompassing the commercial development of a town between 1820 and 1910, characterized by buildings of various styles and eras, can be eligible. 19246 WORKS OF A MASTER A master is a figure of generally recognized greatness in a field, a known craftsman of consummate skill, or an anonymous craftsman whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality. The property must express a particular phase in the development of the master's career, an aspect of his or her work, or a particular idea or theme in his or her craft. A property is not eligible as the work of a master, however, simply because it was designed by a promi- nent architect. For example, not every building designed by Frank Lloyd Wright is eligible under this portion of Criterion C, although it might meet other portions of the Criterion, for instance as a representative of the Prairie style. The work of an unidentified craftsman is eligible if it rises above the level of workmanship of the other properties encompassed by the historic context. PROPERTIES POSSESSING HIGH ARTISTIC VALUES High artistic values may be ex- pressed in many ways, including areas as diverse as community design or planning, engineering, and sculp- ture. A property is eligible for its high artistic values if it so fully articulates a particular concept of design that it expresses an aesthetic ideal. A property is not eligible, however, if it does not express aesthetic ideals or design concepts more fully than other properties of its type. A Significant and Distinguishable Entity Whose Components May Lack Individual Distinction. This portion of Criterion C refers to districts. For detailed information on districts, refer to Part IV of this bulletin. Eligible • A sculpture in a town square that epitomizes the design principles of the Art Deco style is eligible. • A building that is a classic ex- pression of the design theories o^ the Craftsman Style, such as carefully detailed handwork, is eligible. • A landscaped park that syn- thesizes early 20th century principles of landscape archi- tecture and expresses an aes- thetic ideal of environment can be eligible. • Properties that are important representatives of the aesthetic values of a cultural group, such as petroglyphs and ground drawings by Native Americans, are eligible. Not Eligible • A sculpture in a town square that is a typical example of sculpture design during its pe- riod would not qualify for high artistic value, although it might be eligible if it were sig- nificant for other reasons. • A building that is a modest ex- ample (within its historic con- text) of the Craftsman Style of architecture, or a landscaped park that is characteristic of turn of the century landscape design would not qualify for high artistic value. 20 247 CRITERION D: INFORMATION POTENTIAL Properties may be eligible for the National Register if they have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information im- portant in prehistory or history. UNDERSTANDING CRITERION D: INFORMATION POTENTIAL Certain important research ques- tions about human history can only be answered by the actual physical material of cultural resources. Crite- rion D encompasses the properties that have the potential to answer, in whole or in part, those types of research questions. The most com- mon type of property nominated under this Criterion is the archeologi- cal site (or a district comprised of archeological sites). Buildings, objects, and structures (or districts comprised of these property types), however, can also be eligible for their information potential. Criterion D has two requirements, which must both be met for a property to qualify: • The property must have, or have had, information to contribute to our understanding of human his- tory or prehistory, and • The information must be consid- ered important. Under the first of these require- ments, a property is eligible if it has been used as a source oi data and contains more, as yet unretrieved data. A property is also eligible if it has not yet yielded information but, through testing or research, is deter- mined a likely source of data. Under the second requirement, the information must be carefully evalu- ated within an appropriate context to determine its importance. Informa- tion is considered "important" when it is shown to have a significant bearing on a research design that addresses such areas as: 1) current data gaps or alternative theories that challenge existing ones or 2) priority areas identified under a State or Federal agency management plan. APPLYING CRITERION D: INFORMATION POTENTIAL ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES Criterion D most commonly applies to properties that contain or are likely to contain information bearing on an important archeological research question. The property must have characteristics suggesting the likelihood that it possesses configura- tions of artifacts, soil strata, structural remains, or other natural or cultural features that make it possible to do the following: • Test a hypothesis or hypotheses about events, groups, or pro- cesses in the past that bear on im- portant research questions in the social or natural sciences or the humanities; or • Corroborate or amplify currently available information suggesting that a hypothesis is either true or false; or • Reconstruct the sequence of ar- cheological cultures for the pur- pose of identifying and explain- ing continuities and discontinu- ities in the archeological record for a particular area. BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, AND OBJECTS While most often applied to archeological districts and sites, Criterion D can also apply to build- ings, structures, and objects that contain important information. In order for these types of properties to be eligible under Criterion D, they themselves must be, or must have been, the principal source of the important information. Eligible • A building exhibiting a local variation on a standard design or construction technique can be eligible if study could yield important information, such as how local availability of mate- rials or construction expertise affected the evolution of local building development. Not Eligible • The ruins of a hacienda once contained murals that have since been destroyed. Histori- cal documentation, however, indicates that the murals were significant for their highly un- usual design. The ruins can not be eligible under Criterion D for the importance of the de- stroyed murals if the informa- tion is contained only in the documentation. 21 248 Criterion D - Chantpe-Frentont 1 Archeological Site, Omaha vicinity, Douglas County, Nebraska. This archeological site, dating from ca. 1100-1450 A.D., consists of pit houses and storage pits which have the potential to yield important information concerning the subsistence patterns, religious and mortuary practices, and social organization of the prehistoric residents of eastern Nebraska. (Nebraska State Historical Society) ASSOCIATION WITH HUMAN ACTIVITY A property must be associated with human activity and be critical for understanding a site's historic environ- ment in order to be eligible under Criterion D. A property can be linked to human activity through events, processes, institutions, design, con- struction, settlement, migration, ideals, beliefs, lifeways, and other facets of the development or maintenance of cultural systems. The natural environment associated with the properties was often very different from that of the present and strongly influenced cultural develop- ment. Aspects of the environment that are pertinent to human activities should be considered when evaluating properties under Criterion D. Natural features and paleontological (floral and faunal) sites are not usually eligible under Criterion D in and of themselves. They can be eligible, however, if they are either directly related to human activity or critical to understanding a site's historic environ- ment. In a few cases, a natural feature or site unmarked by cultural materials, that is primarily eligible under Crite- rion A, may also be eligible under Criterion D, if study of the feature, or its location, setting, etc. (usually in the context of data gained from other sources), will yield important informa- tion about the event or period with which it is associated. ESTABLISHING A HISTORIC CONTEXT The information that a property yields, or will yield, must be evalu- ated within an appropriate historic context. This will entail consulting the body of information already collected from similar properties or other pertinent sources, including modern and historic written records. The researcher must be able to anticipate if and how the potential information will affect the definition of the context. The information likely to be obtained from a particular property must confirm, refute, or supplement in an important way existing information. A property is not eligible if it cannot be related to a particular time period or cultural group and, as a result, lacks any historic context within which to evaluate the impor- tance of the information to be gained. DEVELOPING RESEARCH QUESTIONS Having established the importance of the information that may be recovered, it is necessary to be explicit in demonstrating the connection between the important information and a specific property. One ap- proach is to determine if specific important research questions can be answered by the data contained in the property. Research questions can be related to property-specific issues, to broader questions about a large geographic area, or to theoretical issues independent of any particular geographic location. These questions may be derived from the academic community or from preservation programs at the local, regional, State, or national level. Research questions are usually developed as part of a "research design," which specifies not only the questions to be asked, but also the types of data needed to supply the answers, and often the techniques needed to recover the data. Eligible • When a site consisting of a vil- lage occupation with midden deposits, hearths, ceramics, and stratified evidence of sev- eral occupations is being evaluated, three possible re- search topics could be: 1) the question of whether the site occupants were indigenous to the area prior to the time of oc- cupation or recent arrivals, 2) the investigation of the settle- ment-subsistence pattern of the occupants, 3) the question of whether the region was a center for the domestication of plants. Specific questions could include: A) Do the de- posits show a sequential de- velopment or sudden intro- duction of Ceramic Type X? B) Do the dates of the occupa- tions fit our expectations based on the current model for the reoccupation behavior of slash-and-burn agricultural- ists? C) Can any genetic changes in the food plant re- mains be detected? Not Eligible • A property is not eligible if so little can be understood about it that it is not possible to de- termine if specific important research questions can be an- swered by data contained in the property. 22 249 ESTABLISHING THE PRESENCE OF ADEQUATE DATA To support the assertion that a property has the data necessary to provide the important information, the property should be investigated with techniques sufficient to establish the presence of relevant data catego- ries. What constitutes appropriate investigation techniques would depend upon specific circumstances including the property's location, condition, and the research questions being addressed, and could range from surface survey (or photographic survey for buildings), to the applica- tion of remote sensing techniques or intensive subsurface testing. Justifica- tion of the research potential of a property may be based on analogy to another better known property if sufficient similarities exist to establish the appropriateness of the analogy. Eligible • Data requirements depend on the specific research topics and questions to be addressed. To continue the example in "De- veloping Research Questions" above, we might want to ascer- tain the following with refer- ence to questions A, B, and C: A) The site contains Ceramic Type X in one or more occupa- tion levels and we expect to be able to document the local evaluation of the type or its in- trusive nature. B) The hearths contain datable carbon deposits and are associated with more than one occupation. C) The midden deposits show good floral/faunal preservation, and we know enough about the physical evolution of food plants to interpret signs that suggest domestication. Not Eligible • Generally, if the applicable re- search design requires clearly stratified deposits, then subsur- face investigation techniques must be applied. A site com- posed only of surface materials can not be eligible for its poten- tial to yield information that could only be found in strati- fied deposits. INTEGRITY The assessment of integrity for properties considered for information potential depends on the data require- ments of the applicable research design. A property possessing information potential does not need to recall visually an event, person, process, or construction technique. It is important that the significant data contained in the property remain sufficiently intact to yield the ex- pected important information, if the appropriate study techniques are employed. Eligible • An irrigation system signifi- cant for the information it will yield on early engineering practices can still be eligible even though it is now filled in and no longer retains the ap- pearance of an open canal. Not Eligible • A plowed archeological site contains several superimposed components that have been mixed to the extent that arti- fact assemblages cannot be re- constructed. The site cannot be eligible if the data require- ments of the research design call for the study of artifacts specific to one component. PARTLY EXCAVATED OR DISTURBED PROPERTIES The current existence of appropri- ate physical remains must be ascer- tained in considering a property's ability to yield important information. Properties that have been partly excavated or otherwise disturbed and that are being considered for their potential to yield additional impor- tant information must be shown to retain that potential in their remaining portions. Eligible • A site that has been partially excavated but still retains sub- stantial intact deposits (or a site in which the remaining de- posits are small but contain critical information on a topic that is not well known) is eli- gible. Not Eligible • A totally collected surface site or a completely excavated bur- ied site is not eligible since the physical remains capable of yielding important informa- tion no longer exist at the site. (See Completely Excavated Sites, on page 24, for exception.) Likewise, a site that has been looted or otherwise disturbed to the extent that the remain- ing cultural materials have lost their important depositional context (horizontal or vertical location of deposits) is not eli- gible. • A reconstructed mound or other reconstructed site will generally not be considered eligible, because original cul- tural materials or context or both have been lost. 23 250 COMPLETELY EXCAVATED SITES Properties that have yielded important information in the past and that no longer retain additional research potential (such as completely excavated archeological sites) must be assessed essentially as historic sites under Criterion A. Such sites must be significant for associative values related to: 1) the importance of the data gained or 2) the impact of the property's role in the history of the development of anthropology/ archeology or other relevant disci- plines. Like other historic properties, the site must retain the ability to convey its association as the former repository of important information, the location of historic events, or the representative of important trends. Eligible • A property that has been exca- vated is eligible if the data re- covered was of such impor- tance that it influenced the di- rection of research in the disci- pline, as in a site that clearly established the antiquity of the human occupation of the New World. (See Criterion A in Part VI: How to Identify the Type of Significance of a Property and Criteria Consideration G in Part VII: How to Apply the Criteria Considerations.) Not Eligible • A totally excavated site that at one time yielded important in- formation but that no longer can convey either its historic/ prehistoric utilization or sig- nificant modern investigation is not eligible. 24 251 VII. HOW TO APPLY THE CRITERIA CONSIDERATIONS INTRODUCTION Certain kinds of properties are not usually considered for listing in the National Register: religious proper- ties, moved properties, birthplaces and graves, cemeteries, reconstructed properties, commemorative proper- ties, and properties achieving signifi- cance within the past fifty years. These properties can be eligible for listing, however, if they meet special requirements, called Criteria Consid- erations, in addition to meeting the regular requirements (that is, being eligible under one or more of the four Criteria and possessing integrity). Part VII provides guidelines for determining which properties must meet these special requirements and for applying each Criteria Consider- ation. The Criteria Considerations need to be applied only to individual proper- ties. Components of eligible districts do not have to meet the special requirements unless they make up the majority of the district or are the focal point of the district. These are the general steps to follow when applying the Criteria Considerations to your property: • Before looking at the Criteria Considerations, make sure your property meets one or more of the four Criteria for Evaluation and possesses integrity. • If it does, check the Criteria Con- siderations (next column) to see if the property is of a type that is usually excluded from the Na- tional Register. The sections that follow also list specific examples of properties of each type. If your property clearly does not fit one of these types, then it does not need to meet any special re- quirements. • If your property does fit one o^ these types, then it must meet the special requirements stipulated for that type in the Criteria Con- siderations. CRITERIA CONSIDERATIONS* Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historical figures, proper- ties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties prima- rily commemorative in nature, and properties that have achieved signifi- cance within the past fifty years shall not be considered eligible for the National Register. However, such properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within the following categories: a. a religious property deriving pri- mary significance from architec- tural or artistic distinction or his- torical importance; or b. a building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most im- portantly associated with a his- toric person or event; or c. a birthplace or grave of a histori- cal figure of outstanding impor- tance if there is no appropriate site or building directly associ- ated with his or her productive life; or d. a cemetery which derives its pri- mary significance from graves of persons of transcendent impor- tance, from age, from distinctive design features, from association with historic events; or e. a reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a res- toration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived; or f. a property primarily commemo- rative in intent if design, age, tra- dition, or symbolic value has in- vested it with its own exceptional significance; or, g. a property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance. *The Criteria Considerations are taken from the Criteria for Evaluation, found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Part 60. 25252 CRITERIA CONSIDERATION A: RELIGIOUS PROPERTIES A religious property is eligible if it derives its primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance. UNDERSTANDING CRITERIA CONSIDERATION A: RELIGIOUS PROPERTIES A religious property requires justification on architectural, artistic, or historic grounds to avoid any appearance of judgment by govern- ment about the validity of any reli- gion or belief. Historic significance for a religious property cannot be established on the merits of a reli- gious doctrine, but rather, for archi- tectural or artistic values or for important historic or cultural forces that the property represents. A religious property's significance under Criterion A, B, C, or D must be judged in purely secular terms. A religious group may, in some cases, be considered a cultural group whose activities are significant in areas broader than religious history. Criteria Consideration for Reli- gious Properties applies: • If the resource was constructed by a religious institution. • If the resource is presently owned by a religious institution or is used for religious purposes. • If the resource was owned by a religious institution or used for religious purposes during its Pe- riod of Significance. • If Religion is selected as an Area of Significance. Examples of Properties that MUST Meet Criteria Consideration A: Reli- gions Properties • A historic church where an inipor- tant non-religious event occurred, such as a speetfi by Patrick Henry. • A historic synagogue that is signifi- cant for architecture. • A private residence is the site of a meeting important to religious his- tory. • A commercial block that is currently owned as an investment property by a religious institution. • A historic district in which religion was either a predominant or signifi- cant function during the period of significance. Example of Properties that DO NOT Need to Meet Criteria Consideration A: Religious Properties • A residential or commercial district that currently contains a small num- ber of churches that are not a pre- dominant feature of the district. • A town meeting hall that serves as the center of community activity and houses a wide variety of public and private meetings, including reli- gious service. The resource is sig- nificant for architecture and politics, and the religious function is inciden- tal • A town hall, significant for politics from 1875 to 1925, that housed religious services during the 1950s. Since the religious function occurred after the Period of Significance, the Criteria Consideration does not ap- APPLYING CRITERIA CONSIDERATION A: RELIGIOUS PROPERTIES ELIGIBILITY FOR HISTORIC EVENTS A religious property can be eligible under Criterion A for any of three rea- sons: • It is significant under a theme in the history of religion having secular scholarly recognition; or • It is significant under another his- torical theme, such as explora- tion, settlement, social philan- thropy, or education; or • It is significantly associated with traditional cultural values. 26 253 RELIGIOUS HISTORY A religious property can be eligible if it is directly associated with either a specific event or a broad pattern in the history of religion. Eligible • The site of a convention at which a significant denomina- tional split occurred meets the requirements of Criteria Con- sideration A. Also eligible is a property that illustrates the broad impact of a religious in- stitution on the history of a lo- cal area. Not Eligible • A religious property cannot be eligible simply because was the place of religious services for a community, or was the oldest structure used by a reli- gious group in a local area. OTHER HISTORICAL THEMES A religious property can be eligible if it is directly associated with either a specific event or a broad pattern that is significant in another historic context. A religious property would also qualify if it were significant for its associations that illustrate the importance of a particular religious group in the social, cultural, eco- nomic, or political history of the area. Eligibility depends on the importance of the event or broad pattern and the role of the specific property. Eligible • A religious property can qualify for its important role as a temporary hospital during the Revolutionary War, or if its school was significant in the history of education in the community. Not Eligible • A religious property is not sig- nificant in the history of edu- cation in a community simply because it had occasionally served as a school. TRADITIONAL CULTURAL VALUES When evaluating properties associated with traditional cultures, it is important to recognize that often these cultures do not make clear distinctions between what is secular and what is sacred. Criteria Consider- ation A is not intended to exclude traditional cultural resources merely because they have religious uses or are considered sacred. A property or natural feature important to a tradi- tional culture's religion and mythol- ogy is eligible if its importance has been ethnohistorically documented and if the site can be clearly defined. It is critical, however, that the activi- ties be documented and that the associations not be so diffuse that the physical resource cannot be ad- equately defined.8 Eligible • A specific location or natural feature that an Indian tribe be- lieves to be its place of origin and that is adequately docu- mented qualifies under Crite- ria Consideration A. ELIGIBILITY FOR HISTORIC PERSONS A religious property can be eligible for association with a person impor- tant in religious history, if that significance has scholarly, secular recognition or is important in other historic contexts. Individuals who would likely be considered significant are those who formed or significantly influenced an important religious institution or movement, or who were important in the social, economic, or political history of the area. Proper- ties associated with individuals important only within the context of a single congregation and lacking importance in any other historic context would not be eligible under Criterion B. Eligible • A religious property strongly associated with a religious leader, such as George Whitefield or Joseph Smith, is eligible. 8 For more information on applying Criteria Consideration A to traditional cultural properties, refer to National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. 254 ELIGIBILITY FOR ARCHITECTURAL OR ARTISTIC DISTINCTION A religious property significant for its architectural design or construc- tion should be evaluated as are other properties under Criterion C; that is, it should be evaluated within an established architectural context and, if necessary, compared to other properties of its type, period, or method of construction. (See "Com- paring Related Properties" in Part V: How to Evaluate a Property Within Its Historic Context.) ELIGIBILITY FOR INFORMATION POTENTIAL A religious property, whether a district, site, building, structure, or object, is eligible if it can yield impor- tant information about the religious practices of a cultural group or other historic themes. This kind of property should be evaluated as are other properties under Criterion D, in relation to similar properties, other information sources, and existing data gaps. Eligible • A historic camp meeting dis- trict that meets the require- ments of Criterion C for its sig- nificance as a type of construc- tion is eligible. Eligible • A 19th century camp meeting site that could provide infor- mation about the length and intensity of site use during re- vivals of the Second Great Awakening is eligible. • Rock cairns or medicine wheels that had a historic reli- gious mythological function and can provide information about specific cultural beliefs are eligible. Criteria Consideration A - Religious Properties. A religious property can qualify as an exception to the Criteria if it is architecturally significant. The Church of the Navity in Rosedale, Iberville Parish, Louisiana, qualified as a rare example in the State of a 19th century small frame Gothic Revival style chapel. (Robert Obier) ABILITY TO REFLECT HISTORIC ASSOCIATIONS As with all eligible properties, religious properties must physically represent the period of time for which they are significance. For instance, a recent building that houses an older congregation cannot qualify based on the historic activities of the group because the current building does not convey the earlier history. Likewise, an older building that housed the historic activities of the congregation is eligible if it still physically repre- sents the period of the congregation's significance. However, if an older building has been remodeled to the extent that its appearance dates from the time of the remodeling, it can only be eligible if the period of significance corresponds with the period of the alterations. Eligible • A church built in the 18th cen- tury and altered beyond recog- nition in the 19th century is eligible only if the additions are important in themselves as an example of late 19th cen- tury architecture or as a reflec- tion of an important period of the congregation's growth. Not Eligible • A synagogue built in the 1920s cannot be eligible for the im- portant activities of its congre- gation in the 18th and 19th centuries. It can only be eli- gible for significance obtained after its construction date. • A rural 19th century frame church recently sheathed in brick is not eligible because it has lost its characteristic ap- pearance and therefore can no longer convey its 19th century significance, either for archi- tectural value or historic asso- ciation. 28 255 CRITERIA CONSIDERATION B: MOVED PROPERTIES A property removed from its original or historically significant location can be eligible if it is significant primarily for architectural value or it is the surviving property most importantly associated with a historic person or event. UNDERSTANDING CRITERIA CONSIDERATION B: MOVED PROPERTIES The National Register criteria limit the consideration of moved properties because significance is embodied in locations and settings as well as in the properties themselves. Moving a property destroys the relationships between the property and its sur- roundings and destroys associations with historic events and persons. A move may also cause the loss of historic features such as landscaping, foundations, and chimneys, as well as loss of the potential for associated archeological deposits. Properties that were moved before their period of significance do not need to meet the special requirements of Criteria Consideration B. One of the basic purposes of the National Register is to encourage the preservation of historic properties as living parts of their communities. In keeping with this purpose, it is not usual to list artificial groupings of buildings that have been created for purposes of interpretation, protection, or maintenance. Moving buildings to such a grouping destroys the integrity of location and setting, and can create a false sense of historic development. APPLYING CRITERIA CONSIDERATION B: MOVED PROPERTIES ELIGIBILITY FOR ARCHITECTURAL VALUE A moved property significant under Criterion C must retain enough historic features to convey its architec- tural values and retain integrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Examples of Properties that MUST Meet Criteria Consideration B: Moved Properties • A resource moved from one location on its original site to another loca- tion on the property, during or after its Period of Significance. • A district in which a significant number of resources have been moved from their original location. • A district which has one moved building that makes an especially significant contribution to the dis- trict. • A portable resource, such as a ship or railroad car, that is relocated to a place incompatible with its original function. • A portable resource, such as a ship or railroad car, whose importance is critically linked to its historic loca- tion or route and that is moved. Examples of Properties that DO NOT Need to Meet Criteria Consideration B: Moved Properties • A property that is moved prior to its Period of Significance. • A district in which only a small per- centage of typical buildings in a dis- trict are moved. • A moved building that is part of a complex but is of less significance than the remaining (unmoved) buildings. • A portable resource, such as a ship or railroad car, that is eligible under Criterion C and is moved within its natural setting (water, rails, etc.). • A property that is raised or lowered on its foundations. 29 256 ELIGIBILITY FOR HISTORIC ASSOCIATIONS A moved property significant under Criteria A or B must be demon- strated to be the surviving property most importantly associated with a particular historic event or an impor- tant aspect of a historic person's life. The phrase "most importantly associ- ated" means that it must be the single surviving property that is most closely associated with the event or with the part of the person's life for which he or she is significant. Eligible • A moved building occupied by an business woman during the majority of her productive ca- reer would be eligible if the other extant properties are a house she briefly inhabited prior to her period of signifi- cance and a commercial build- ing she owned after her retire- ment. Not Eligible • A moved building associated with the beginning of rail transportation in a community is not eligible if the original railroad station and ware- house remained intact on their original sites. SETTING AND ENVIRONMENT In addition to the requirements above, moved properties must still have an orientation, setting, and general environment that are compa- rable to those of the historic location and that are compatible with the property's significance. ASSOCIATION DEPENDENT ON THE SITE For a property whose design values or historical associations are directly dependent on its location, any move will cause the property to lose its integrity and prevent it from convey- ing its significance. Eligible • A property significant as an example of mid-19th century rural house type can be eli- gible after a move, provided that it is placed on a lot that is sufficient in size and character to recall the basic qualities of the historic environment and setting, and provided that the building is sited appropriately in relation to natural and manmade surroundings. Not Eligible • A rural house that is moved into an urban area and a bridge that is no longer situ- ated over a waterway are not eligible. Eligible • A farm structure significant only as an example of a method of construction pecu- liar to the local area is still eli- gible if it is moved within that local area and the new setting is similar to that of the original location. Not Eligible • A 19th century rural residence that was designed around par- ticular topographic features, reflecting that time period's ideals of environment, is not eligible if moved. 30 257 PROPERTIES DESIGNED TO BE MOVED A property designed to move or a property frequently moved during its historic use must be located in a historically appropriate setting in order to qualify, retaining its integrity of setting, design, feeling, and associa- tion. Such properties include automo- biles, railroad cars and engines, and ships. ARTIFICIALLY CREATED GROUPINGS An artificially created grouping of buildings, structures, or objects is not eligible unless it has achieved signifi- cance since the time of its assemblage. It cannot be considered as a reflection of the time period when the indi- vidual buildings were constructed. PORTIONS OF PROPERTIES A moved portion of a building, structure, or object is not eligible because, as a fragment of a larger resource, it has lost integrity of design, setting, materials, workman- ship, and location. Eligible • A ship docked in a harbor, a locomotive on tracks or in a railyard, and a bridge relo- cated from one body of water to another are eligible. Not Eligible • A ship on land in a park, a bridge placed in a pasture, or a locomotive displayed in an in- door museum are not eligible. Eligible • A grouping of moved historic buildings whose creation marked the beginning of a ma- jor concern with past lifestyles can qualify as an early attempt at historic preservation and as an illustration of that genera- tion's values. Not Eligible • A rural district composed of a farmhouse on its original site and a grouping oi historic barns recently moved onto the property is not eligible. 31258 CRITERIA CONSIDERATION C: BIRTHPLACES OR GRAVES A birthplace or grave of a historical figure is eligible if the person is of outstanding importance and if there is no other appropriate site or building directly associated with his or her productive life. UNDERSTANDING CRITERIA CONSIDERATION C: BIRTHPLACES AND GRAVES Birthplaces and graves often attain importance as reflections o( the origins of important persons or as lasting memorials to them. The lives of persons significant in our past nor- mally are recognized by the National Register through listing of properties illustrative of or associated with that person's productive life's work. Birthplaces and graves, as properties that represent the beginning and the end of the life of distinguished indi- viduals, may be temporally and geographically far removed from the person's significant activities, and therefore are not usually considered eligible. Examples of Properties that MUST Meet Criteria Consideration C: Birth- places and Graves • The birthplace of a significant person who lived elsewhere during his or her Period of Significance. • A grave that is nominated for its as- sociation with the significant person buried in it. • A grave that is nominated for infor- mation potential. Examples of Properties that DO NOT Need to Meet Criteria Consideration C: Birthplaces and Graves • A house that was inhabited by a sig- nificant person for his or her entire lifetime. • A grave located on the grounds of the house where a significant person spent his or her productive years. 32 APPLYING CRITERIA CONSIDERATION C: BIRTHPLACES AND GRAVES PERSONS OF OUTSTANDING IMPORTANCE The phrase "a historical figure of outstanding importance" means that in order for a birthplace or grave to qualify, it cannot be simply the birthplace or grave of a person significant in our past (Criterion B). It must be the birthplace or grave of an individual who was of outstanding importance in the history of the local area, State, or nation. The birthplace or grave of an individual who was one of several people active in some aspect of the history of a community, a state, or the Nation would not be eligible. LAST SURVIVING PROPERTY ASSOCIATED WITH A PERSON When an geographical area strongly associated with a person of outstanding importance has lost all other properties directly associated with his or her formative years or productive life, a birthplace or grave may be eligible. 259 ELIGIBILITY FOR OTHER ASSOCIATIONS A birthplace or grave can also be eligible if it is significant for reasons other than association with the productive life of the person in question. It can be eligible for signifi- cance under Criterion A for associa- tion with important events, under Criterion B for association with the productive lives of other important persons, or under Criterion C for architectural significance. A birth- place or grave can also be eligible in rare cases if, after the passage of time, it is significant for its commemorative value. (See Criteria Consideration F for a discussion of commemorative properties.) A birthplace or grave can also be eligible under Criterion D if it contains important information on research, e.g., demography, pathol- ogy, mortuary practices, socioeco- nomic status differentiation. Criteria Consideration C - Birthplaces. A birthplace of a historical figure is eligible if the person is of outstanding importance and there is no other appropriate site or building associated with his or her productive life. The Walter Reed Birthplace, Gloucester vicinity, Gloucester County, Virginia is the most appropriate remaining building associated with the life of the man who, in 1900, discovered the cause and mode of transmission of the great scourge of the tropics, yellow fever. (Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission) 33 260 CRITERIA CONSIDERATION D: CEMETERIES A cemetery is eligible if it derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events. UNDERSTANDING CRITERIA CONSIDERATION D: CEMETERIES A cemetery is a collection of graves that is marked by stones or other artifacts or that is unmarked but recognizable by features such as fencing or depressions, or through maps, or by means of testing. Cem- eteries serve as a primary means of an individual's recognition of family history and as expressions of collec- tive religious and/or ethnic identity. Because cemeteries may embody values beyond personal or family- specific emotions, the National Register criteria allow for listing of cemeteries under certain conditions. Examples of Properties that MUST Meet Criteria Consideration D: Cemeteries • A cemetery that is nominated indi- vidually for Criterion A, B, or C, Examples of Properties that DO NOT Need to Meet Criteria Consideration D: Cemeteries • A cemetery that is nominated along with its associated church, but the church is the main resource nomi- nated. • A cemetery that is nominated under Criterion D for information poten- tial. • A cemetery that is nominated as part of a district but is not the focal point of the district. Criteria Consideration D - Cemeteries. The Hancock Cemetery, Quincy, Norfolk County, Massachusetts meets the exception to the Criteria because it derives its primary significance from its great age (the earliest burials date from 1640) and from the distinctive design features found in its rich collection of late 17th and early 18th century funerary art. (N. Hobart Holly) 34 APPLYING CRITERIA CONSIDERATION D: CEMETERIES PERSONS OF TRANSCENDENT IMPORTANCE A cemetery containing the graves of persons of transcendent importance may be eligible. To be of transcendent importance the persons must have been of great eminence in their fields of endeavor or had a great impact upon the history of their community, State, or nation. (A single grave that is the burial place of an important person and is located in a larger cemetery that does not qualify under this Criteria Consideration should be treated under Criteria Consideration C: Birthplaces and Graves.) Eligible • A historic cemetery containing the graves of a number of per- sons who were exceptionally significant in determining the course of a State's political or economic history during a par- ticular period is eligible. Not Eligible • A cemetery containing graves of State legislators is not eli- gible if they simply performed the daily business of State gov- ernment and did not have an outstanding impact upon the nature and direction of the State's history. 261 ELIGIBILITY ON THE BASIS OF AGE Cemeteries can be eligible if they have achieved historic significance for their relative great age in a particular geographic or cultural context. Eligible • A cemetery dating from a community's original 1830s settlement can attain signifi- cance from its association with that very early period. ELIGIBILITY FOR DESIGN Cemeteries can qualify on the basis of distinctive design values. These values refer to the same design values addressed in Criterion C and can include aesthetic or technological achievement in the fields of city planning, architecture, landscape architecture, engineering, mortuary art, and sculpture. As for all other nominated properties, a cemetery must clearly express its design values and be able to convey its historic appearance. Eligible • A Victorian cemetery is eli- gible if it clearly expresses the aesthetic principlesrelated to funerary design for that pe- riod, through such features as the overall plan, landscaping, statuary, sculpture, fencing, buildings, and grave markers. Not Eligible • A cemetery cannot be eligible for design values if it no longer conveys its historic ap- pearance because of the intro- duction of new grave markers. ELIGIBILITY FOR ASSOCIATION WITH EVENTS Cemeteries may be associated with historic events including specific important events or general events that illustrate broad patterns. Eligible • A cemetery associated with an important Civil War battle is eligible. • A cemetery associated with the settlement of an area by an ethnic or cultural group is eli- gible if the movement of the group into the area had an im- portant impact, if other prop- erties associated with that group are rare, and if few documentary sources have survived to provide informa- tion about the group's history. Not Eligible • A cemetery associated with a battle in the Civil War does not qualify if the battle was not important in the history of the war. • A cemetery associated with an area's settlement by an ethnic or cultural group is not eli- gible if the impact of the group on the area cannot be estab- lished, if other extant historic properties better convey asso- ciation with the group, or if the information that the cem- etery can impart is available in documentary sources. ELIGIBILITY FOR INFORMATION POTENTIAL Cemeteries, both historic and prehistoric, can be eligible if they have the potential to yield important information. The information must be important within a specific context and the potential to yield information must be demonstrated. A cemetery can qualify if it has potential to yield important informa- tion provided that the information it contains is not available in extant documentary evidence. Eligible • A cemetery associated with the settlement of a particular cul- tural group will qualify if it has the potential to yield im- portant information about sub- jects such as demography, variations in mortuary prac- tices, or the study of the cause of death correlated with nutri- tion or other variables. 35 262 INTEGRITY Assessing the integrity of a historic cemetery entails evaluating principal design features such as plan, grave markers, and any related elements (such as fencing). Only that portion of a historic cemetery that retains its historic integrity can be eligible. If the overall integrity has been lost because of the number and size of recent grave markers, some features such as buildings, structures, or objects that retain integrity may be considered as individual properties if they are of such historic or artistic importance that they individually meet one or more of the requirements listed above. NATIONAL CEMETERIES National Cemeteries administered by the Veterans Administration are eligible because they have been designated by Congress as primary memorials to the military history of the United States. Those areas within a designated national cemetery that have been used or prepared for the reception of the remains of veterans and their dependents, as well as any landscaped areas that immediately surround the graves may qualify. Because these cemeteries draw their significance from the presence of the remains of military personnel who have served the country throughout its history, the age of the cemetery is not a factor in judging eligibility, although integrity must be present. A national cemetery or a portion of a national cemetery that has only been set aside for use in the future is not eligible. 36 263 CRITERIA CONSIDERATION E: RECONTRUCTED PROPERTIES A reconstructed property is eligible when it is accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dig- nified manner as part of a restoration master plan and when no other building or structure with the same associations has survived. All three of these requirements must be met. UNDERSTANDING CRITERIA CONSIDERATION E: RECONSTRUCTED PROPERTIES "Reconstruction" is defined as the reproduction of the exact form and detail of a vanished building, struc- ture, object, or a part thereof, as it appeared at a specific period of time. Reconstructed buildings fall into two categories: buildings wholly con- structed of new materials and build- ings reassembled from some historic and some new materials. BotH catego- ries of properties present problems in meeting the integrity requirements of the National Register criteria. Examples of Properties that MUST Meet Criteria Consideration E: Recon- structed Properties • A property in which most or all of the fabric is not original. • A district in which an important re- source or a significant number of re- sources are reconstructions. Examples of Properties that DO NOT Need to Meet Criteria Consideration E: Reconstructed Properties • A property that is remodeled or reno- vated and still has the majority of its original fabric. APPLYING CRITERIA CONSIDERATION E: RECONSTRUCTED PROPERTIES ACCURACY OF THE RECONSTRUCTION The phrase "accurately executed" means that the reconstruction must be based upon sound archeological, architectural, and historic data con- cerning the historic construction and appearance of the resource. That documentation should include both analysis of any above or below ground material and research in written and other records. SUITABLE ENVIRONMENT The phrase "suitable environment" refers to: 1) the physical context provided by the historic district and 2) any interpretive scheme, if the historic district is used for interpretive purposes. This means that the reconstructed property must be located at the same site as the original. It must also be situated in its original grouping of buildings, structures, and objects (as many as are extant), and that grouping must retain integrity. In addition, the reconstruction must not be misrepresented as an authentic historic property. Eligible • A reconstructed plantation manager's office building is considered eligible because it is located at its historic site, grouped with the remaining historic plantation buildings and structures, and the planta- tion as a whole retains integ- rity. Interpretation of the plantation district includes an explanation that the manager's office is not the original build- ing, but a reconstruction. Not Eligible • The same reconstructed plan- tation manager's office build- ing would not qualify if it were rebuilt at a location dif- ferent from that of the original building, or if the district as a whole no longer reflected the period for which it is signifi- cant, or if a misleading inter- pretive scheme were used for the district or for the recon- struction itself. 37 264 RESTORATION MASTER PLANS Being presented "as part of a restoration master plan" means that: 1) a reconstructed property is an essential component in a historic district and 2) the reconstruction is part of an overall restoration plan for an entire district. "Restoration" is defined as accurately recovering the form and details of a property and its setting as it appeared at a particular period by removing later work or by replacing missing earlier work (as opposed to completely rebuilding the property). The master plan for the entire property must emphasize restoration, not reconstruction. In other words, the master plan for the entire resource would not be accept- able under this consideration if it called for reconstruction of a majority of the resource. Eligible • A reconstructed plantation manager's office is eligible if the office were an important component of the plantation and if the reconstruction is one element in an overall plan for restoring the plantation and if no other building or structure with the same associations has survived. • The reconstruction of the plan- tation manager's office build- ing can be eligible only if the majority of buildings, struc- tures, and objects that com- prised the plantation are ex- tant and are being restored. For guidance regarding resto- ration see the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation Projects. LAST SURVIVING PROPERTY OF A TYPE This consideration also stipulates that a reconstruction can qualify if, in addition to the other requirements, no other building, object, or structure with the same association has sur- vived. A reconstruction that is part of a restoration master plan is appropri- ate only if: 1) the property is the only one in the district with which a particular important activity or event has been historically associated or 2) no other property with the same associative values has survived. RECONSTRUCTIONS OLDER THAN FIFTY YEARS After the passage of fifty years, a reconstruction may attain its own significance for what it reveals about the period in which it was built, rather than the historic period it was intended to depict. On that basis, a reconstruction can possibly qualify under any of the Criteria. 38 265 CRITERIA CONSIDERATION F: COMMEMORATIVE PROPERTIES A property primarily commemorative in intent can be eligible if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own historical significance. UNDERSTANDING CRITERIA CONSIDERATION F: COMMEMORATIVE PROPERTIES Commemorative properties are designed or constructed after the occurrence of an important historic event or after the life of an important person. They are not directly associ- ated with the event or with the person's productive life, but serve as evidence of a later generation's assess- ment of the past. Their significance comes from their value as cultural expressions at the date of their cre- ation. Therefore, a commemorative property generally must be over fifty years old and must possess signifi- cance based on its own value, not on the value of the event or person being memorialized. Examples of Properties that MUST Meet Criteria Consideration F: Commemorative Properties • A property whose sole or primary function is commemorative or in which the commemorative function is of primary significance. Examples of Properties that DO NOT Need to Meet Criteria Consideration F: Commemorative Properties • A resource that has a non- commemorative primary function or significance. • A single marker that is a component of a district (whether contributing or non-contributi ng). APPLYING CRITERIA CONSIDERATION F: COMMEMORATIVE PROPERTIES ELIGIBILITY FOR DESIGN A commemorative property derives its design from the aesthetic values of the period of its creation. A com- memorative property, therefore, may be significant for the architectural, artistic, or other design qualities of its own period in prehistory or history. Eligible • A commemorative statue situ- ated in a park or square is eli- gible if it expresses the aesthet- ics or craftsmanship of the pe- riod when it was made, meet- ing Criterion C. • A late 19th century statue erected on a courthouse square to commemorate Civil War vet- erans would qualify if it reflects that era's shared perception of the noble character and valor of the veterans and their cause. This was commonly conveyed by portraying idealized soldiers or allegorical figures of battle, victory, or sacrifice. 39 266 ELIGIBILITY FOR AGE, TRADITION, OR SYMBOLIC VALUE A commemorative property cannot qualify for association with the event or person it memorializes. A com- memorative property may, however, acquire significance after the time of its creation through age, tradition, or symbolic value. This significance must be documented by accepted methods of historical research, including written or oral history, and must meet one or more of the Criteria. Eligible • A commemorative marker erected by a cultural group that believed the place was the site of its origins is eligible if, for subsequent generations of the group, the marker itself be- came the focus of traditional association with the group's historic identity. • A building erected as a monu- ment to an important histori- cal figure will qualify if through the passage of time the property itself has come to symbolize the value placed upon the individual and is widely recognized as a re- minder of enduring principles or contributions valued by the generation that erected the monument. • A commemorative marker erected early in the settlement or development of an area will qualify if it is demonstrated that, because of its relative great age, the property has long been a part of the historic identity of the area. Not Eligible • A commemorative marker erected in the past by a cul- tural group at the site of an event in its history would not be eligible if the marker were significant only for association with the event, and it had not become significant itself through tradition. • A building erected as a monu- ment to an important histori- cal figure would not be eligible if its only value lay in its asso- ciation with the individual, and it has not come to symbol- ize values, ideas, or contribu- tions valued by the generation that erected the monument. • A commemorative marker erected to memorialize an event in the community's history would not qualify sim- ply for its association with the event it memorialized. INELIGIBILITY AS THE LAST REPRESENTATIVE OF AN EVENT OR PERSON The loss of properties directly associated with a significant event or person does not strengthen the case for consideration of a commemorative property. Unlike birthplaces and graves, a commemorative property usually has no direct historic associa- tion. The commemorative property can qualify for historic association only if it is clearly significant in its own right, as stipulated above. 40 267 CRITERIA CONSIDERATION G: PROPERTIES THAT HAVE ACHIEVED SIGNIFICANCE WITHIN THE LAST FIFTY YEARS A property achieving significance within the last fifty years is eligible if it is of exceptional importance. UNDERSTANDING CRITERIA CONSIDERATION G: PROPERTIES THAT HAVE ACHIEVED SIGNIFICANCE WITHIN THE LAST FIFTY YEARS The National Register Criteria for Evaluation exclude properties that achieved significance within the last fifty years unless they are of excep- tional importance. Fifty years is a general estimate of the time needed to develop historical perspective and to evaluate significance. This consider- ation guards against the listing of properties of passing contemporary interest and ensures that the National Register is a list of truly historic places. Examples of Properties that MUST Meet Criteria Consideration G: Prop- erties that Have Achieved Signifi- cance Within the Last Fifty Years • A property that is less than fifty years old. • A property that continues to achieve significance into a period less than fifty years before the nomination. • A property that has non-contiguous Periods of Significance, one of which is less than fifty years before the nomination. • A property that is more than fifty years old and had no significance until a period less than fifty years before the nomination. Examples of Properties that DO NOT Need to Meet Criteria Consideration G: Properties that Have Achieved Significance Within the Last Fifty Years • A resource whose construction be- gan over fifty years ago, but the completion overlaps the fifty year pe- riod by a few years or less. • A resource that is significant for its plan or design, which is over fifty years old, but the actual completion of the project overlaps the fifty year period by a few years. • A historic district in which a few properties are newer than fifty years old, but the majority of properties and the most important Period of Significance are greater than fifty years old. 9 For more information on Criteria Consideration G, refer to National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Nominating Properties that Have Achieved Significance Within the Last Fifty Years. 41 268 APPLYING CRITERIA CONSIDERATION G: PROPERTIES THAT HAVE ACHIEVED SIGNIFICANCE WITHIN THE PAST FIFTY YEARS ELIGIBILITY FOR EXCEPTIONAL IMPORTANCE The phrase "exceptional impor- tance" may be applied to the extraor- dinary importance of an event or to an entire category of resources so fragile that survivors of any age are unusual. Properties listed that had attained significance in less than fifty years include: the launch pad at Cape Canaveral from which men first traveled to the moon, the home of nationally prominent playwright Eugene O'Neill, and the Chrysler Building (New York) significant as the epitome of the "Style Moderne" architecture. Properties less than fifty years old that qualify as exceptional because the entire category of resources is fragile include a recent example of a tradi- tional sailing canoe in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, where because of rapid deterioration of materials, no working Micronesian canoes exist that are more than twenty years old. Properties that by their nature can last more than fifty years cannot be considered exceptionally important because of the fragility of the class of resources. The phrase "exceptional impor- tance" does not require that the property be of national significance. It is a measure of a property's impor- tance within the appropriate historic context, whether the scale of that context is local, State, or national. Eligible • The General Laundry Building in New Orleans, one of the few remaining Art Deco Style buildings in that city, was listed in the National Register when it was forty years old be- cause of its exceptional impor- tance as an example of that ar- chitectural style. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE A property that has achieved significance within the past fifty years can be evaluated only when sufficient historical perspective exists to deter- mine that the property is exception- ally important. The necessary per- spective can be provided by scholarly research and evaluation, and must consider both the historic context and the specific property's role in that context. In many communities, properties such as apartment buildings built in the 1950s cannot be evaluated because there is no scholarly research avail- able to provide an overview of the nature, role, and impact of that building type within the context of historical and architectural develop- ments of the 1950s. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE RUSTIC ARCHITECTURE Properties such as structures built in a rustic style by the National Park Service during the 1930s and 1940s can be evaluated because a broad study, National Park Service Rustic Architecture (1977), provides the context for evaluating properties of this type and style. Specific examples were listed in the National Register prior to reaching fifty years of age when documentation concerning the individual properties established their significance within the historical and architectural context of the type and style. VETERANS ADMINISTRATION HOSPITALS Hospitals less than fifty years old that were constructed by the Veterans Bureau and Veterans Administration can be evaluated because the collec- tion of forty-eight facilities built be- tween 1920 and 1946 has been ana- lyzed in a study prepared by the agency. The study provided a historic and architectural context for develop- ment of veteran's care within which hospitals could be evaluated. The ex- ceptional importance of specific indi- vidual facilities constructed within the past fifty years could therefore be de- termined based on their role and their present integrity. COMPARISON WITH RELATED PROPERTIES In justifying exceptional impor- tance, it is necessary to identify other properties within the geographical area that reflect the same significance or historic associations and to deter- mine which properties best represent the historic context in question. Several properties in the area could become eligible with the passage of time, but few will qualify now as exceptionally important. POST-WORLD WAR II PROPERTIES Properties associated with the post- World War II era must be identified and evaluated to determine which ones in an area could be judged exceptionally important. For ex- ample, a public housing complex may be eligible as an outstanding expres- sion of the nation's post-war urban policy. A military installation could be judged exceptionally important because of its contribution to the Cold War arms race. A church building in a Southern city may have served as the pivotal rallying point for the city's most famous civil rights protest. A post-war suburban subdivision may be the best reflection of contemporary siting and design tenets in a metro- politan area. In each case, the nomi- nation preparer must justify the exceptional importance of the property relative to similar properties in the community, State, or nation. 42 269 ELIGIBILITY FOR INFORMATION POTENTIAL A property that has achieved significance within the past fifty years can qualify under Criterion D only if it can be demonstrated that the information is of exceptional impor- tance within the appropriate context and that the property contains data superior to or different from those obtainable from other sources, includ- ing other culturally related sites. An archeological site less than fifty years old may be eligible if the former inhabitants are so poorly documented that information about their lifeways is best obtained from examination of the material remains. Eligible • Data such as the rate of adop- tion of modern technological innovations by rural tenant farmers in the 1950s may not be obtainable through inter- views with living persons but could be gained by examina- tion of homesites. Not Eligible • A recent archeological site such as the remains of a Navajo sheep corral used in the 1950s would not be consid- ered exceptionally significant for its information potential on animal husbandry if better in- formation on the same topic is available through ethno- graphic studies or living infor- mants. HISTORIC DISTRICTS Properties which have achieved significance within the past fifty years can be eligible for the National Register if they are an integral part of a district which qualifies for National Register listing. This is demonstrated by documenting that the property dates from within the district's defined Period of Significance and that it is associated with one or more of the district's defined Areas of Significance. Properties less than fifty years old may be an integral part of a district when there is sufficient perspective to consider the properties as historic. This is accomplished by demonstrat- ing that: 1) the district's Period of Significance is justified as a discrete period with a defined beginning and end, 2) the character of the district's historic resources is clearly defined and assessed, 3) specific resources in the district are demonstrated to date from that discrete era, and 4) the majority of district properties are over fifty years old. In these instances, it is not necessary to prove exceptional importance of either the district itself or the less-than-fifty-year-old proper- ties. Exceptional importance still must be demonstrated for district where the majority of properties or the major Period of Significance is less than fifty years old, and for less-than- fifty-year-old properties which are nominated individually. PROPERTIES MORE THAN FIFTY YEARS IN AGE, LESS THAN FIFTY YEARS IN SIGNIFICANCE Properties that are more than fifty years old, but whose significant associations or qualities are less than fifty years old, must be treated under the fifty year consideration. Eligible • A building constructed early in the twentieth century (and having no architectural impor- tance), but that was associated with an important person during the 1950s, must be evaluated under Criteria Con- sideration G because the Pe- riod of Significance is within the past fifty years. Such a property would qualify if the person was of exceptional im- portance. REQUIREMENT TO MEET THE CRITERIA, REGARDLESS OF AGE Properties that are less than fifty years old and are not exceptionally important will not automatically qualify for the National Register once they are fifty years old. In order to be listed in the National Register, all properties, regardless of age, must be demonstrated to meet the Criteria for Evaluation. 43 270 VIII. HOW TO EVALUATE THE INTEGRITY OF A PROPERTY INTRODUCTION Integrity is the ability of a prop- erty to convey its significance. To be listed in the National Register of Historic Places, a property must not only be shown to be significant under the National Register criteria, but it also must have integrity. The evalua- tion of integrity is sometimes a subjective judgment, but it must always be grounded in an under- standing of a property's physical features and how they relate to its significance. Historic properties either retain integrity (this is, convey their signifi- cance) or they do not. Within the concept of integrity, the National Register criteria recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity. To retain historic integrity a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the aspects. The retention of specific aspects of integ- rity is paramount for a property to convey its significance. Determining which of these aspects are most important to a particular property requires knowing why, where, and when the property is significant. The following sections define the seven aspects and explain how they com- bine to produce integrity. SEVEN ASPECTS OF INTEGRITY • Location • Design • Setting • Materials • Workmanship • Feeling • Association UNDERSTANDING THE ASPECTS OF INTEGRITY LOCATION Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. The relationship between the property and its location is often important to understanding why the property was created or why some- thing happened. The actual location of a historic property, complemented by its setting, is particularly important in recapturing the sense of historic events and persons. Except in rare cases, the relationship between a property and its historic associations is destroyed if the property is moved. (See Criteria Consideration B in Part VII: How to Apply the Criteria Consider- ations, for the conditions under which a moved property can be eligible.) DESIGN Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. It results from conscious decisions made during the original conception and planning of a prop- erty (or its significant alteration) and applies to activities as diverse as community planning, engineering, architecture, and landscape architec- ture. Design includes such elements as organization of space, proportion, scale, technology, ornamentation, and materials. A property's design reflects historic functions and technologies as well as aesthetics. It includes such consider- ations as the structural system; massing; arrangement of spaces; pattern of fenestration; textures and colors of surface materials; type, amount, and style of ornamental detailing; and arrangement and type of plantings in a designed landscape. Design can also apply to districts, whether they are important primarily for historic association, architectural value, information potential, or a combination thereof. For districts significant primarily for historic association or architectural value, design concerns more than just the individual buildings or structures located within the boundaries. It also applies to the way in which buildings, sites, or structures are related: for example, spatial relationships be- tween major features; visual rhythms in a streetscape or landscape plantings; the layout and materials of walkways and roads; and the relation- ship of other features, such as statues, water fountains, and archeological sites. 44 271 SETTING Setting is the physical environ- ment of a historic property. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a property was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place in which the property played its historical role. It involves how, not just where, the property is situated and its relationship to sur- rounding features and open space. Setting often reflects the basic physical conditions under which a property was built and the functions it was intended to serve. In addition, the way in which a property is posi- tioned in its environment can reflect the designer's concept of nature and aesthetic preferences. The physical features that constitute the setting of a historic property can be either natural or manmade, includ- ing such elements as: • Topographic features (a gorge or the crest of a hill); • Vegetation; • Simple manmade features (paths or fences); and • Relationships between buildings and other features or open space. These features and their relation- ships should be examined not only within the exact boundaries of the property, but also between the prop- erty and its surroundings. This is particularly important for districts. MATERIALS Materials are the physical ele- ments that were combined or depos- ited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. The choice and combination of materials reveal the preferences of those who created the property and indicate the availability of particular types of materials and technologies. Indigenous materials are often the focus of regional building traditions and thereby help define an area's sense of time and place. A property must retain the key exterior materials dating from the period of its historic significance. If the property has been rehabilitated, the historic materials and significant features must have been preserved. The property must also be an actual historic resource, not a recreation; a recent structure fabricated to look historic is not eligible. Likewise, a property whose historic features and materials have been lost and then reconstructed is usually not eligible. (See Criteria Consideration E in Part VII: How to Apply the Criteria Consider- ations for the conditions under which a reconstructed property can be eligible.) WORKMANSHIP Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure, object, or site. Workmanship can apply to the property as a whole or to its indi- vidual components. It can be ex- pressed in vernacular methods of construction and plain finishes or in highly sophisticated configurations and ornamental detailing. It can be based on common traditions or innovative period techniques. Workmanship is important because it can furnish evidence of the technol- ogy of a craft, illustrate the aesthetic principles of a historic or prehistoric period, and reveal individual, local, regional, or national applications of both technological practices and aesthetic principles. Examples of workmanship in historic buildings include tooling, carving, painting, graining, turning, and joinery. Ex- amples of workmanship in prehistoric contexts include Paleo-Indian clovis projectile points; Archaic period beveled adzes; Hopewellian birdstone pipes; copper earspools and worked bone pendants; and Iroquoian effigy pipes. FEELING Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property's historic character. For example, a rural historic district retaining original design, materials, workmanship, and setting will relate the feeling of agricultural life in the 19th century. A grouping of prehis- toric petroglyphs, unmarred by graffiti and intrusions and located on its original isolated bluff, can evoke a sense of tribal spiritual life. ASSOCIATION Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an ob- server. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property's historic character. For example, a Revolutionary War battlefield whose natural and manmade elements have remained intact since the 18th century will retain its quality of association with the battle. Because feeling and association depend on individual perceptions, their retention alone is never sufficient to support eligibility of a property for the National Register. ASSESSING INTEGRITY IN PROPERTIES Integrity is based on significance: why, where, and when a property is important. Only after significance is fully established can you proceed to the issue of integrity. The steps in assessing integrity are: • Define the essential physical fea- tures that must be present for a property to represent its signifi- cance. • Determine whether the essential physical features are visible enough to convey their signifi- cance. • Determine whether the property needs to be compared with simi- lar properties. And, • Determine, based on the signifi- cance and essential physical fea- tures, which aspects of integrity are particularly vital to the prop- erty being nominated and if they are present. Ultimately, the question of integ- rity is answered by whether or not the property retains the identity for which it is significant. 45 272 DEFINING THE ESSENTIAL PHYSICAL FEATURES All properties change over time. It is not necessary for a property to retain all its historic physical features or characteristics. The property must retain, however, the essential physical features that enable it to convey its historic identity. The essential physical features are those features that define both why a property is significant (Applicable Criteria and Areas of Significance) and when it was significant (Periods of Significance). They are the features without which a property can no longer be identified as, for instance, a late 19th century dairy barn or an early 20th century commercial district. CRITERIA A AND B A property that is significant for its historic association is eligible if it retains the essential physical features that made up its character or appear- ance during the period of its associa- tion with the important event, histori- cal pattern, or person(s). If the property is a site (such as a treaty site) where there are no material cultural remains, the setting must be intact. Archeological sites eligible under Criteria A and B must be in overall good condition with excellent preser- vation of features, artifacts, and spatial relationships to the extent that these remains are able to convey important associations with events or persons. CRITERION C A property important for illustrat- ing a particular architectural style or construction technique must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique. A property that has lost some historic materials or details can be eligible if it retains the majority of the features that illustrate its style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, propor- tion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamenta- tion. The property is not eligible, however, if it retains some basic features conveying massing but has lost the majority of the features that once characterized its style. Archeological sites eligible under Criterion C must be in overall good condition with excellent preservation of features, artifacts, and spatial relationships to the extent that these remains are able to illustrate a site type, time period, method of construc- tion, or work of a master. CRITERION D For properties eligible under Criterion D, including archeological sites and standing structures studied for their information potential, less attention is given to their overall condition, than it they were being considered under Criteria A, B, or C. Archeological sites, in particular, do not exist today exactly as they were formed. There are always cultural and natural processes that alter the deposited materials and their spatial relationships. For properties eligible under Criterion D, integrity is based upon the property's potential to yield specific data that addresses important research questions, such as those identified in the historic context documentation in the Statewide Comprehensive Preservation Plan or in the research design for projects meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Archeological Documenta- tion. INTERIORS Some historic buildings are virtu- ally defined by their exteriors, and their contribution to the built environ- ment can be appreciated even if their interiors are not accessible. Examples of this would include early examples of steel-framed skyscraper construc- tion. The great advance in American technology and engineering made by these buildings can be read from the outside. The change in American popular taste during the 19th century, from the symmetry and simplicity of architectural styles based on classical precedents, to the expressions of High Victorian styles, with their combina- tion of textures, colors, and asym- metrical forms, is readily apparent from the exteriors of these buildings. Other buildings "are" interiors. The Cleveland Arcade, that soaring 19th century glass-covered shopping area, can only be appreciated from the inside. Other buildings in this category would be the great covered train sheds of the 19th century. In some cases the loss of an interior will disqualify properties from listing in the National Register—a historic concert hall noted for the beauty of its auditorium and its fine acoustic qualities would be the type of prop- erty that if it were to lose its interior, it would lose its value as a historic resource. In other cases, the over- arching significance of a property's exterior can overcome the adverse effect of the loss of an interior. In borderline cases particular attention is paid to the significance of the property and the remaining historic features. HISTORIC DISTRICTS For a district to retain integrity as a whole, the majority of the compo- nents that make up the district's historic character must possess integrity even if they are individually undistinguished. In addition, the relationships among the district's components must be substantially unchanged since the period of signifi- cance. When evaluating the impact of intrusions upon the district's integ- rity, take into consideration the relative number, size, scale, design, and location of the components that do not contribute to the significance. A district is not eligible if it contains so many alterations or new intrusions that it no longer conveys the sense of a historic environment. A component of a district cannot contribute to the significance if: • it has been substantially altered since the period of the district's significance or • it does not share the historic asso- ciations of the district. VISIBILITY OF PHYSICAL FEATURES Properties eligible under Criteria A, B, and C must not only retain their essential physical features, but the features must be visible enough to convey their significance. This means that even if a property is physically intact, its integrity is questionable if its significant features are concealed under modern construction. Archeo- logical properties are often the exception to this; by nature they usually do not require visible features to convey their significance. 46 273 NON-HISTORIC EXTERIORS SUNKEN VESSELS If the historic exterior building material is covered by non-historic material (such as modern siding), the property can still be eligible if the significant form, features, and detail- ing are not obscured. If a property's exterior is covered by a non-historic false-front or curtain wall, the prop- erty will not qualify under Criteria A, B, or C, because it does not retain the visual quality necessary to convey historic or architectural significance. Such a property also cannot be considered a contributing element in a historic district, because it does not add to the district's sense of time and place. If the false front, curtain wall, or non-historic siding is removed and the original building materials are intact, then the property's integrity can be re-evaluated. PROPERTY CONTAINED WITHIN ANOTHER PROPERTY Some properties contain an earlier structure that formed the nucleus for later construction. The exterior property, if not eligible in its own right, can qualify on the basis of the interior property only if the interior property can yield significant infor- mation about a specific construction technique or material, such as rammed earth or tabby. The interior property cannot be used as the basis for eligibility if it has been so altered that it no longer contains the features that could provide important infor- mation, or if the presence of impor- tant information cannot be demon- strated. A sunken vessel can be eligible under Criterion C as embodying the distinctive characteristics of a method of construction if it is structurally intact. A deteriorated sunken vessel, no longer structurally intact, can be eligible under Criterion D if the remains of either the vessel or its contents is capable of yielding signifi- cant information. For further infor- mation, refer to National Register Bulletin: Nominating Historic Vessels and Shipwrecks to the National Register of Historic Places. Natural Features A natural feature that is associated with a historic event or trend, such as a rock formation that served as a trail marker during westward expansion, must retain its historic appearance, unobscured by modern construction or landfill. Otherwise it is not eli- gible, even though it remains intact. COMPARING SIMILAR PROPERTIES For some properties, comparison with similar properties should be considered during the evaluation of integrity. Such comparison may be important in deciding what physical features are essential to properties of that type. In instances where it has not been determined what physical features a property must possess in order for it to reflect the significance of a historic context, comparison with similar properties should be under- taken during the evaluation of integ- rity. This situation arises when scholarly work has not been done on a particular property type or when surviving examples of a property type are extremely rare. (See Comparing Related Properties in Part V: How to Evaluate a Property within its Historic Context.) RARE EXAMPLES OF A PROPERTY TYPE Comparative information is particularly important to consider when evaluating the integrity of a property that is a rare surviving example of its type. The property must have the essential physical features that enable it to convey its historic character or information. The rarity and poor condition, however, of other extant examples of the type may justify accepting a greater degree of alteration or fewer features, provided that enough of the property survives for it to be a significant resource. Eligible • A one-room schoolhouse that has had all original exterior siding replaced and a replace- ment roof that does not exactly replicate the original roof pro- file can be eligible if the other extant rare examples have re- ceived an even greater degree of alteration, such as the sub- division of the original one- room plan. Not Eligible • A mill site contains informa- tion on how site patterning re- flects historic functional re- quirements, but parts of the site have been destroyed. The site is not eligible for its infor- mation potential if a compari- son of other mill sites reveals more intact properties with complete information. 47 274 DETERMINING THE RELEVANT ASPECTS OF INTEGRITY Each type of property depends on certain aspects of integrity, more than others, to express its historic signifi- cance. Determining which of the aspects is most important to a particu- lar property requires an understand- ing of the property's significance and its essential physical features. CRITERIA A AND B A property important for associa- tion with an event, historical pattern, or person(s) ideally might retain some features of all seven aspects of integ- rity: location, design, setting, materi- als, workmanship, feeling, and association. Integrity of design and workmanship, however, might not be as important to the significance, and would not be relevant if the property were a site. A basic integrity test for a property associated with an important event or person is whether a historical contemporary would recognize the property as it exists today. For archeological sites that are eligible under Criteria A and B, the seven aspects of integrity can be applied in much the same way as they are to buildings, structures, or objects. It is important to note, however, that the site must have demonstrated its ability to convey its significance, as opposed to sites eligible under Crite- rion D where only the potential to yield information is required. Eligible A mid-19th century waterpowered mill important for its association with an area's industrial develop- ment is eligible if: • it is still on its original site (Location), and • the important features of its setting are intact (Setting), and • it retains most of its historic materials (Materials), and • it has the basic features expres- sive of its design and function, such as configuration, propor- tions, and window pattern (Design). Not Eligible A mid-19th century water- powered mill important for its association with an area's indus- trial development is not eligible if: • it has been moved (Location, Setting, Feeling, and Associa- tion), or • substantial amounts of new materials have been incorpo- rated (Materials, Workman- ship, and Feeling), or • it no longer retains basic de- sign features that convey its historic appearance or function (Design, Workman- ship, and Feeling). CRITERION C A property significant under Criterion C must retain those physi- cal features that characterize the type, period, or method of construction that the property represents. Retention of design, workmanship, and materials will usually be more important than location, setting, feeling, and associa- tion. Location and setting will be important, however, for those proper- ties whose design is a reflection of their immediate environment (such as designed landscapes and bridges). For archeological sites that are eligible under Criterion C, the seven aspects of integrity can be applied in much the same way as they are to buildings, structures, or objects. It is important to note, however, that the site must have demonstrated its ability to convey its significance, as opposed to sites eligible under Criterion D where only the potential to yield information is required. Eligible A 19th century wooden covered bridge, important for illustrating a construction type, is eligible if: • the essential features of its de- sign are intact, such as abut- ments, piers, roof configura- tion, and trusses (Design, Workmanship, and Feeling), and • most of the historic materials are present (Materials, Work- manship, and Feeling), and • evidence of the craft of wooden bridge technology re- mains, such as the form and assembly technique of the trusses (Workmanship). • Since the design of a bridge re- lates directly to its function as a transportation crossing, it is also important that the bridge still be situated over a water- way (Setting, Location, Feel- ing, and Association). Not Eligible For a 19th century wooden cov- ered bridge, important for its construction type, replacement of some materials of the flooring, siding, and roofing would not necessarily damage its integrity. Integrity would be lost, however, if: • the abutments, piers, or trusses were substantially altered (De- sign, Workmanship, and Feel- ing) or • considerable amounts of new materials were incorporated (Materials, Workmanship, and Feeling). • Because environment is a strong factor in the design of this property type, the bridge would also be ineligible if it no longer stood in a place that conveyed its function as a crossing (Setting, Location, Feeling, and Association). 48 275 CRITERION D For properties eligible under Criterion D, setting and feeling may not have direct bearing on the property's ability to yield important information. Evaluation of integrity probably will focus primarily on the location, design, materials, and perhaps workmanship. Eligible A multicomponent prehistoric site important for yielding data on changing subsistence patterns can be eligible if: • floral or faunal remains are found in clear association with cultural material (Materials and Association) and • the site exhibits stratigraphic separation of cultural compo- nents (Location). Not Eligible A multicomponent prehistoric site important for yielding data on changing subsistence patterns would not be eligible if: • floral or faunal remains were so badly decomposed as to make identification impossible (Materials), or • floral or faunal remains were disturbed in such a manner as to make their association with cultural remains ambiguous (Association), or • the site has lost its strati- graphic context due to subse- quent land alterations (Location). Eligible A lithic scatter site important for yielding data on lithic technology during the Late Archaic period can be eligible if: • the site contains lithic debitage, finished stone tools, hammerstones, or antler flakers (Material and Design), and • the site contains datable mate- rial (Association). Not Eligible A lithic scatter site important for yielding data on lithic technology during the Late Archaic period would not be eligible if: • the site contains natural de- posits of lithic materials that are impossible to distinguish from culturally modified lithic material (Design) or • the site does not contain any temporal diagnostic evidence that could link the site to the Late Archaic period (Associa- tion). 49 276 IX. SUMMARY OF THE NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARKS CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION A property being nominated to the National Register may also merit consideration for potential designa- tion as a National Historic Landmark. Such consideration is dependent upon the stringent application of the following distinct set of criteria (found in the Code of Federal Regula- tions, Title 36, Part 65). NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARKS CRITERIA The quality of national significance is ascribed to districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess exceptional value or quality in illus- trating or interpreting the heritage of the United States in history, architec- ture, archeology, engineering, and culture and that possess a high degree of integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and: 1. That are associated with events that have made a significant con- tribution to, and are identified with, or that outstandingly repre- sent, the broad national patterns of United States history and from which an understanding and ap- preciation of those patterns may be gained; or 2. That are associated importantly with the lives of persons nation- ally significant in the history of the United States; or 3. That represent some great idea or ideal of the American people; or 4. That embody the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type specimen exceptionally valuable for a study of a period, style or method of construction, or that represent a significant, distinctive and exceptional entity whose components may lack in- dividual distinction; or 5. That are composed of integral parts of the environment not suf- ficiently significant by reason of historical association or artistic merit to warrant individual rec- ognition but collectively compose an entity of exceptional historical or artistic significance, or out- standingly commemorate or il- lustrate a way of life or culture; or 6. That have yielded or may be likely to yield information of ma- jor scientific importance by re- vealing new cultures, or by shed- ding light upon periods of occu- pation over large areas of the United States. Such sites are those which have yielded, or which may reasonably be ex- pected to yield, data affecting theories, concepts and ideas to a major degree. NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK EXCLUSIONS Ordinarily, cemeteries, birthplaces, graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original locations, reconstructed his- toric buildings and properties that have achieved significance within the past fifty years are not eligible for des- ignation. If such properties fall within the following categories they may, nevertheless, be found to qualify: 1. A religious property deriving its primary national significance from architectural or artistic dis- tinction or historical importance; or 2. A building or structure removed from its original location but which is nationally significant primarily for its architectural merit, or for association with per- sons or events of transcendent importance in the nation's his- tory and the association conse- quential; or 3. A site of a building or structure no longer standing but the per- son or event associated with it is of transcendent importance in the nations's history and the associa- tion consequential; or 50 277 4. A birthplace, grave or burial if it is of a historical figure of tran- scendent national significance and no other appropriate site, building, or structure directly as- sociated with the productive life of that person exists; or 5. A cemetery that derives its pri- mary national significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, or from an exception- ally distinctive design or an ex- ceptionally significant event; or 6. A reconstructed building or en- semble o^ buildings of extraordi- nary national significance when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a res- toration master plan, and when no other buildings or structures with the same association have survived; or 7. A property primarily commemo- rative in intent if design, age, tra- dition, or symbolic value has in- vested it with its own national historical significance; or 8. A property achieving national significance within the past 50 years if it is of extraordinary na- tional importance. COMPARING THE NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARKS CRITERIA AND THE NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA In general, the instructions for preparing a National Register nomina- tion and the guidelines stated in this bulletin for applying the National Register Criteria also apply to Land- mark nominations and the use of the Landmark criteria. While there are specific distinctions discussed below, Parts IV and V of this bulletin apply equally to National Register listings and Landmark nominations. That is, the categories of historic properties are defined the same way; historic con- texts are identified similarly; and comparative evaluation is carried out on the same principles enumerated in Part V. There are some differences between National Register and National Historic Landmarks Criteria. The following is an explanation of how each Landmark Criterion compares with its National Register Criteria counterpart: CRITERION 1 This Criterion relates to National Register Criterion A. Both cover properties associated with events. The Landmark Criterion, however, requires that the events associated with the property be outstandingly represented by that property and that the property be related to the broad national patterns of U.S. history. Thus, the quality of the property to convey and interpret its meaning must be of a higher order and must relate to national themes rather than the narrower context of State or local themes. CRITERION 2 This Criterion relates to National Register Criterion B. Both cover properties associated with significant people. The Landmark Criterion differs in that it specifies that the association of a person to the property in question be an important one and that the person associated with the property be of national significance. CRITERION 3 This Criterion has no counterpart among the National Register Criteria. It is rarely, if ever, used alone. While not a landmark at present, the Liberty Bell is an object that might be consid- ered under this Criterion. The appli- cation of this Criterion obviously requires the most careful scrutiny and would apply only in rare instances involving ideas and ideals of the highest order. CRITERION 4 This Criterion relates to National Register Criterion C. Its intent is to qualify exceptionally important works of architecture or collective elements of architecture extraordinarily signifi- cant as an ensemble, such as a historic district. Note that the language is more restrictive than that of the National Register Criterion in requir- ing that a candidate in architecture be "a specimen exceptionally valuable for the study of a period, style, or method of construction" rather than simply embodying distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of con- struction. With regard to historic districts, the Landmarks Criterion requires an entity that is distinctive and exceptional. Unlike National Register Criterion C, this Criterion will not qualify the works of a master, per se, but only such works which are exceptional or extraordinary. Artistic value is considered only in the context of history's judgement in order to avoid current conflicts of taste. CRITERION 5 This Criterion does not have a strict counterpart among the National Register Criteria. It may seem redun- dant of the latter part of Landmark Criterion 4. It is meant to cover collective entities such as Greenfield Village and historic districts like New Bedford, Massachusetts, which qualify for their collective association with a nationally significant event, move- ment, or broad pattern of national development. CRITERION 6 The National Register counterpart of this is Criterion D. Criterion 6 was developed specifically to recognize archeological sites. All such sites must address this Criterion. The following are the qualifications that distinguish this Criterion from its National Regis- ter counterpart: the information yielded or likely to be yielded must be of major scientific importance by revealing new cultures, or by shedding light upon periods of occupation over large areas of the United States. Such sites should be expected to yield data affecting theories, concepts, and ideas to a major degree. The data recovered or expected to be recovered must make a major contribution to the existing corpus of information. Potentially recoverable data must be likely to revolutionize or substantially modify a major theme in history or prehistory, resolve a sub- stantial historical or anthropological debate, or close a serious gap in a major theme of U. S. history or prehis- tory. 51 278 EXCLUSIONS AND EXCEPTIONS TO THE EXCLUSIONS This section of the National His- toric Landmarks Criteria has its counterpart in the National Register's "Criteria Considerations/' The most abundant difference between them is the addition of the qualifiers "na- tional," "exceptional," or "extraordi- nary" before the word significance. Other than this, the following are the most notable distinctions: EXCLUSION 2 Buildings moved from their original location, qualify only if one of two conditions are met: 1) the build- ing is nationally significant for architecture, or 2) the persons or events with which they are associated are of transcendent national signifi- cance and the association is conse- quential. Transcendent significance means an order of importance higher than that which would ordinarily qualify a person or event to be nationally significant. A consequential associa- tion is a relationship to a building that had an evident impact on events, rather than a connection that was incidental and passing. EXCLUSION 3 This pertains to the site of a struc- ture no longer standing. There is no counterpart to this exclusion in the National Register Criteria. In order for such a property to qualify for Landmark designation it must meet the second condition cited for Exclu- sion 2. EXCLUSION 4 This exclusion relates to Criteria Consideration C of the National Register Criteria. The only difference is that a burial place qualifies for Landmark designation only if, in addition to other factors, the person buried is of transcendent national importance. When evaluating properties at the national level for designation as a National Historic Landmark, please refer to the National Historic Land- marks outline, History and Prehistory in the National Park System and the National Historic Landmarks Program, 1987. (For more information about the National Historic Landmarks program, please write to Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Historic Landmarks, 1849 C Street, NW, NC400, Washington, DC 20240.) 52 279 X. GLOSSARY Associative Qualities - An aspect of a property's history that links it with historic events, activities, or persons. Code of Federal Regulations - Commonly referred to as "CFR." The part containing the National Register Criteria is usually referred to as 36 CFR 60, and is available from the National Park Service. CLG - Certified Local Government. Culture - A group of people linked together by shared values, beliefs, and historical associations, together with the group's social institutions and physical objects necessary to the operation of the institution. Cultural Resource - See Historic Resource. Evaluation - Process by which the significance and integrity of a historic property are judged and eligibility for National Register listing is determined. Historic Context - An organizing structure for interpreting history that groups information about historic properties that share a common theme, common geo- graphical area, and a common time period. The development of historic contexts is a foundation for decisions about the planning, identification, evaluation, registra- tion, and treatment of historic properties, based upon compara- tive historic significance. Historic Integrity - The unimpaired ability of a property to convey its historical significance. Historic Property - See Historic Resource. Historic Resource - Building, site, district, object, or structure evalu- ated as historically significant. Identification - Process through which information is gathered about historic properties. Listing - The formal entry of a prop- erty in the National Register of Historic Places. See also, Registra- tion. Nomination - Official recommenda- tion for listing a property in the National Register of Historic Places. Property Type - A grouping o^ properties defined by common physical and associative attributes. Registration - Process by which a historic property is documented and nominated or determined eligible for listing in the National Register. Research Design - A statement of proposed identification, documen- tation, investigation, or other treatment of a historic property that identifies the project's goals, methods and techniques, expected results, and the relationship of the expected results to other proposed activities or treatments. 53 280 XL LIST OF NATIONAL REGISTER BULLETINS The Basics How to Apply National Register Criteria for Evaluation * Guidelines for Completing National Register of Historic Places Form Part A: How to Complete the National Register Form * Part B: How to Complete the National Register Multiple Property Documentation Form * Researching a Historic Property * Property Types Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Historic Aids to Navigation * Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating and Registering America's Historic Battlefields Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Historical Archeological Sites Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Historic Aviation Properties Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Cemeteries and Burial Places How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes * Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating and Registering Historic Mining Sites How to Apply National Register Criteria to Post Offices * Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Properties Associated with Significant Persons Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Properties That Have Achieved Significance Within the Last Fifty Years * Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes * Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties * Nominating Historic Vessels and Shipwrecks to the National Register of Historic Places Technical Assistance Defining Boundaries for National Register Properties* Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning * How to Improve the Quality of Photographs for National Register Nominations National Register Casebook: Examples of Documentation * Using the UTM Grid System to Record Historic Sites To order these publications, write to: National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St., NC 400, NW, Washington, D.C. 20240, or e-mail at: nr_reference@nps.gov. Publications marked with an asterisk (*) are also available in electronic form at www.cr.nps.gov/nr. ,_ . o U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 2005—717-788281