HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Historic Preservation Commission (135) AGENDA
ORO VALLEY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR SESSION
April 12, 2010
ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE
CALL TO ORDER AT OR AFTER 5:00 P.M. 5'.06 pork
ROLL CALL
CALL TO THE AUDIENCE 6`�C� �
1. Review and/or approval of the March 15, 2010, HPC minutes. 14'
�
2. Discussion and possible action regarding Phase II of the Cultural Resources Inventory.
3. Discussion and possible action regarding the Steam Pump Ranch Project Group.
a. Project Group update
b. Clarification of visitation and access protocol
c. Procedures for working with photos and documents 4 �
4o� � �cGNu -L_
d. Possible Centennial celebration at Steam Pump Ranch
e. Review of March 22, 2010 letter from Poster-Frost to Jim Garrison at SHPO
4. Discussion and possible action regarding HPC work plan.
5. Discussion and possible action regarding the Environmentally Sensitive Lands Ordinance.
6. Discussion and possible action regarding updating materials for the HPC books.
7. Discussion and possible action regarding an HPC student liaison.
8. Future items.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
ADJOURNMENT 6R41(4141\scoq VOALKA � �`,pi,',
POSTED: 04 09 10
9:00 a.m.
cp
When possible, a packet of agenda materials as listed above is available for public inspection at
least 24 hours prior to the Commission meeting in the office of the Town Clerk between the hours
of 8:00 a.m. —5:00p.m.
The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA). If any person
with a disability needs any type of accommodation, please notify the Town Clerk's Office at least
five days prior to the Commission meeting at 229-4700.
INSTRUCTIONS TO SPEAKERS
Members of the public have the right to speak during any posted public hearing. However,
those items not listed as a public hearing are for consideration and action by
the Commission during the course of their business meeting. Members of the public may
be allowed to speak on these topics at the discretion of the Chair.
If you wish to address the Commission on any item(s) on this agenda, please complete a speaker
card located on the Agenda table at the back of the room and give it to the Recording Secretary.
Please indicate on the speaker card which item number and topic you wish to speak on, or
if you wish to speak during "Call to Audience", please specify what you wish to discuss
when completing the blue speaker card.
Please step forward to the podium when the Chair announces the item(s) on the agenda which
you are interested in addressing.
1. Please state your name and whether or not you are a Town resident.
2. Speak only on the issue currently being discussed by Commission. Please organize your
speech, you will only be allowed to address the Commission once
regarding the topic being discussed.
3. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes.
4. During "Call to Audience" you may address the Commission on any issue you wish.
5. Any member of the public speaking must speak in a courteous and respectful manner to those
present.
Thank you for your cooperation.
"Notice of Possible Quorum of the Oro Valley Town Council, Boards, Commissions and
Committees: In accordance with Chapter 3, Title 38, Arizona Revised Statutes and Section 2-4-2
of the Oro Valley Town Code, a majority of the Town Council, Historic Preservation Commission,
Development Review Board, Planning &Zoning Commission and Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board may attend the above referenced meeting as a member of the audience only."
1
MINUTES
ORO VALLEY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
REGULAR SESSION
March 15, 2010
ORO VALLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE
CALL TO ORDER AT OR AFTER 5:00 P.M.
Chairman Zwiener called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Daniel Zwiener, Chairman
Lois Nagy, Vice-Chair
Bob Baughman, Commissioner
Ed Hannon, Commissioner
Sam McClung, Commissioner
Valerie Pullara, Commissioner
CALL TO THE AUDIENCE
Open and closed with no comments.
1. Review and/or approval of the February 8, 2010, HPC minutes.
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Baughman and seconded by
Commissioner McClung to approve the February 8, 2010, HPC minutes as
amended.
MOTION carried, 6-0.
2. Discussion and possible action on the Steam Pump Ranch Project Group.
Chairman Zwiener said the members that were recommended to Jerene Watson,
Town Manager, were accepted, but amended. New members were added as
follows: Bob Baughman, and Town Staff, Jose Rodriguez and Brian Garrity. The
main focus of the project group will be to formulate a work plan for construction at
the site.
Chairman Zwiener asked Scott Nelson, OV Special Projects Coordinator for an
update on the archaeological work plan that was submitted to the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO).
Mr. Nelson said SHPO would prefer the Town not conduct any archaeological
work on the pump house as it would have an adverse affect. There is no
alternative to SHPO and the Town has to maintain a balancing act on how to
proceed.
Mr. Nelson said the next meeting for the project group team is Thursday, March
18, 2010.
Matt Michels, OV Senior Planner, presented for review the Congressional
Briefing booklet that Jerene Watson, Town Manager, took on her trip to
Washington D.C.
Commissioner Baughman asked about getting an answer to the question he
asked at the last meeting regarding conducting a meeting by telephone.
Mr. Michels stated there is no prohibition in having a meeting by phone, but as a
body, the meeting needs to be available to the public with the recording
secretary. Commissioner Baughman requested staff to ask the Town Attorney if
it is legally possible to conduct a meeting by phone.
Vice Chair Nagy asked where the documents and photographs that were found
in the Leiber house were being stored. Mr. Nelson said items are being stored at
the Town Hall site.
Commissioner Baughman recommended the need for a Town's Historian
position to be placed on a future agenda.
Commissioner McClung said accurate restoration involves patience and time and
Steam Pump Ranch (SPR) may take a long time.
Commissioner Pullara said the public needs to be educated and we need to put
a work plan on the agenda.
Mr. Nelson excused himself at 5:50 p.m. due to previous commitment.
3. Discussion and possible action on the Cultural Resources section of the
Environmentally Sensitive Land Ordinance.
Chairman Zwiener said the subcommittee has made a lot of progress but work
still needs to be done.
Mr. Bill Adler, OV resident, suggested they think about encroachment and how is
it going to be regulated. We need to come up with language that is going to work
so that the ordinance makes it clear to the property owner what is permitted.
Commissioner Pullara suggested the subcommittee and the other group meet.
Mr. Michels said the Town staff that is assigned to the draft will give the
commission the level of direction they need.
4. Discussion and possible action on Phase II of the Cultural Resources
Inventory.
Mr. Michels said there will be a joint meeting with the HPC commission and Town
Council on April 14, 2010 to discuss recommendations on Phase II.
Chairman Zwiener said he was not comfortable entering a joint meeting on
Phase II until Phase I has gone to Town Council.
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Baughman and seconded by
Commissioner Hannon to authorize Chairman Zwiener to work with Town staff to
request that the Cultural Resources Inventory final report for Phase I be
presented to Town Council before any discussions begin on Phase II.
MOTION carried, 5-0 with Sam McClung, Commissioner abstained.
Chairman Zwiener asked if any progress had been made on the CLG grant
application.
Mr. Michels said no.
Chairman Zwiener said he would like to encourage staff to go forward with that
as soon as possible.
Mr. Michels indicated that he would contact SHPO and proceed with the CLG
grant application process.
5. Discussion and possible action regarding Honey Bee Village.
Chairman Zwiener asked the commission to discuss moving forward with
the Honey Bee Village master plan.
Commissioner Hannon said there is a master plan and understood funding has
been an issue.
Commissioner Baughman said it belongs to the county and until the Town pays
money owed and provides a qualified staff person to deal with this site, title
change will not take place.
Chairman Zwiener said there were one or two field trips to the site granted by the
Town that were unregulated, and until there are pathways and signage no one
should go out there.
Commissioner McClung said in order to proceed with this site, we need to know
what Pima County is requesting and where it stands as far as the budget is
concerned.
Discussion took place regarding the updating of each commissioner's notebooks.
6. Discussion and possible action on HPC members attending the Historic
Preservation Conference in Flagstaff.
Mr. Michels said Commissioner's McClung, Pullara, and Baughman have been
registered and accommodations have been made for the Flagstaff conference.
Commissioner McClung left the meeting at 7:04 p.m.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Vice Chair Nagy would like the proposed wildlife crossing across Oracle Road to
be listed as a future agenda item since it may lie in a known archaeological area.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: A motion was made by Commissioner Baughman and seconded by
Commissioner Pullara to adjourn the HPC meeting at 7:09 p.m.
MOTION carried, 5-0.
PAC and TAC Review
ESL Sections PAC Review TAC Review
Design 4-8 and 4-15
Hillside 4-8, 4-15, and
4-22
Cultural 4-29
Viewshed and 5-6 and 5-13
View Maps
ESL Maps 5-20 and 5-27 3-8
Maintenance 6-3
Enforcement 6-10
Final Staff 6-11 to 7/1 TAC Code Review:
Review of All Written Comments
Sections
Publish Draft for July 1
Public Comment
SAHBA, MPA, July 1-22
and Landowner
Input
Final PAC 7-22 and 7-23
Review
PAC, PZ Early August
Commission, and
TC Study
Session
PZ Commission September and
and TC Public October
Hearings
HPC Cultural Review
Cultural v HPC Task Agency PAC HPC
R p�ra»rcP_ tP11s
gfimii..„_ Review Review Review
1 2-22
2 3-11
3 4-9
4 4-19
(pending)
5 4-21 to 4-29
4-29
6 4-30 May
Study
Session
7 June
Public
Meeting
MINUTES
STEAM PUMP RANCH
PROJECT TEAM MEETING
KACHINA CONFERENCE ROOM
11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE
ORO VALLEY,ARIZONA 85737
MONDAY,MARCH 29,2010
9:00 A.M.
PRESENT:
Bob Baughman, Historic Preservation Commission
Brian Garrity, Oro Valley Procurement Administrator
James Gardner, Oro Valley Parks Manager
Drew Gorski, Poster Frost Mirto Project Architect /MLA
Mark Navarro, Oro Valley Civil Engineer Designer
Scott Nelson, Oro Valley Special Projects Coordinator
Corky Poster, Poster Frost Mirto, Principal Architect
Jose Rodriguez, Oro Valley Engineering Division Manager
Suzanne Smith, Oro Valley Building Official
Pat Spoerl, Oro Valley Town Council & President of Oro Valley Historical Society
Daniel Zwiener, Historic Preservation Commission Chairman
Pusch Ranch House—Interpretive Planning
The letter to SHPO was mailed out on March 25th. It included an interpretive argument about the
Pusch ranch house, an overview of the Procter Leiber house and steam pump building and drawings.
A response is expected to be received in 4-6 weeks. Council Member Spoerl recommended a follow-
up call requesting that the process be expedited, if possible.
Asbestos was previously discovered in the roof of the Procter Leiber house which needs to be
mediated. All samples from the Pusch house were negative but additional areas need to be tested. A
report will be available. Lead tested to be present but it is very minor and there is a lead report.
Potential Interpretive Themes:
There are five (5) options:
1) Focus of architecture and families. The SHPO letter focused on the need to remove the
additions in order to tell the architectural story of the building.
2) Pusch /Zellweger lives which would be a social theme.
3) Steam Pump Ranch stop-over on the way to PZ—Feldman Ranch.
4) Domestic life of the Pusch family and bringing their traditions to southern Arizona.
5) Evolution of the Procter/ Leiber family and changes in ranch house and site.
Further discussion followed regarding:
• The stop-over theme could be used for the pump house.
■ Comparing the commerce of downtown Tucson to this outpost.
Interpreting Architectural Traditions and Building Evolution
l
C:\Documents and Settings\snelson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKA\03-29-10.doc
1) How does proposed rehabilitation to remove the enclosed porches and bathrooms allow us to
more clearly articulate our interpretive vision for the building and site?
The de-construction plan includes:
• Removal of the adobe site walls.
• Interior doors to be removed.
• Floor levels to be removed.
• Removal of the chimney in the living room, stone facing was already removed.
The team discussed potential uses for the exterior:
• The main entrance should be the historic entrance.
• The porches should be used for general information.
• The site wall is not in good shape but a part should be kept.
• There should be diversification between room 100 and 104. Room 100 would show the
early settlement phase and room 104 could reflect statehood and the businesses.
• The porch material depends on the ground points and it will deal with accessibility.
2) What character-defining features are critical to telling the early history of this building and
its inhabitants?
Mr. Zwiener stated that more contrast in the architectural styles between the buildings is
preferable. This process should follow the Master Plan and the interpretive plan. He is sensitive to
the evolution of the house but it is better to select many of the earlier elements in the ranch house.
Council Member Spoerl expressed agreement and stated that regarding the interpretation inside,
there is so much material that can be included in the house which will make it much easier to relay
the era. It is also important to tell the story of what happened to the house. A model could be
placed in the large room that retains the least integrity. Rooms 100 and 104 have the most
integrity in terms of retaining the late 1800s appearance.
Council Member Spoerl suggested the following:
• Room 100 should be the entrance and create the feel of walking back in history from the
porch. It needs to have the most authentic work and it could include interpretation about
George Pusch settling in the area in the 1890s. The Historical Society has documents on
the constitutional convention and statehood which fits perfectly with the time period.
• Room 104 is similar to room 100 in terms of how it would be treated and it could tell the
story of the Pusch family. The room could also display the furniture.
• Room 103 (kitchen) could tell stories about the German heritage / mixing of cultures.
■ The big room could tell the story of how this house and other ranching houses changed.
• The back room may be an administrative meeting room.
■ Room 102 becomes the room for everything else and may also be used for interpretation
documents such as maps, photographs.
3) Which of these character-defining features of the early Ranch House are no longer present?
This was not discussed in detail.
4) What missing elements should we consider restoring or reconstructing? Do we have the
documentation or evidence to do this accurately without conjecture? What other
2
C:VDocuments and Settings\snelson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKA\03-29-10.doc
•
interpretive approaches are possible besides restoration or reconstruction?
The group reviewed items to be removed and items to be constructed:
■ The north portion of the site wall should remain and the rest be removed.
o The wall is in bad shape and it is inconsistent with the era of the house.
o The wall is a usable space but it obscures and changes the landscape.
o Native vegetation could be added to that space.
o The northwest corner has water damage.
■ Minor regrading will need to be done to make the house level with the courtyard.
■ The original wall treatment is exposed in room 100 and we could have an area where all
layers are exposed.
5) What elements from later renovations can remain and still allow us to interpret the early
architectural traditions of the building? These later renovations are an important
architectural tradition in their own right, especially for ranch houses.
Mr. Poster reported on the exterior finish of the walls which have a largely cement plaster finish
with little damage underneath. The choices are 1) tear it all up. examine the adobe underneath,
patch where necessary and apply a more authentic new plaster or 2) Identify the parts of cement
plaster that are in good shape and remove the portions that are not, fix the adobe underneath,
patch, plaster back to a finish and paint it tan. Poster Frost Mirto is reluctant to remove all of the
historical material and add new speculative plaster because once it is removed; it could change
things that are in good shape.
Further discussion followed regarding:
• There is termite damage.
• Flooding/ drainage around the site.
■ It has not been determined how much plaster will be removed. Poster Frost Mirto will
provide a document including unit costs and an estimated allowance of square footage.
They will request units per additional square feet.
• There are structural issues with rooms 103 and 102 and Poster Frost Mirto will work with
Brent to minimize the disturbance. The ceiling frame is different from the rest of building.
6) What stories are told around the Pusch Ranch House? What elements are required to tell
these stories? How does the outdoor space interface with the activities on the interior of the
building?
Additional considerations:
1)The Pump House, either preserved as a ruin or restored, can also be used to tell the early
architectural traditions of the site. The "raw" structure of the Pump House exhibits (and makes
more visible)the same building systems utilized in the construction of the Ranch House. This
includes stone foundations, unplastered mud adobe walls,wood ceiling joists and the tradition
of adding rooms over time. There may be reasons to take a lighter hand (i.e. leave the existing
cement plaster) to the Pusch House if we can use the Pump House to tell the story.
Design Development Items Needed Decisions:
1) Exterior finish of the building:
3
C:\Documents and Settings\snelson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKA\03-29-l 0.doc
The team agrees to preserve as much of the existing cement plaster as possible and repair or
refinish where it is in poor condition. Mr. Poster recommended a "truth window".
2) What measures should we take to protect the resource from water:
This item will be discussed at the next meeting.
3) What is the roofing material:
Poster Frost Mirto recommends metal due to maintenance and cost. The team agreed that the best
roofing would be rolled roofing over a good roof. Cedar shingles should be on the porches placed
above good roofs. Non-metal will have an implication on water harvesting.
4) Accessibility:
• Room 103 has concrete slabs and Saltillo tile and it is set higher. An exploratory removal will
be done in order to assess the lower level of concrete. The group will discuss the results at the
next meeting and determine treatment. This room may have a trap door to the cellar.
• Wood floors were recommended in the first two rooms which is consistent to the character.
Concrete floors should be in the two southeast rooms to level out the floor and tell the story.
• The accesses will be left as they are now.
• A trap door and handrail may be installed in room 101 to access the cellar for storage.
• The group decided that room 104 is fine with the existing slope.
■ Room 102 will be left the same.
■ One accessible entry is fine.
■ Accessibility is more important than ADA as long as we meet the intent.
• Porches will be left natural with a ramp to room 100.
• The historic remnant on the southeast corner will be kept.
5) Doors and windows:
■ There are no original doors to the outside. Six exterior doors are needed. The photo indicates
screen doors covering panel doors. There is little evidence of what they may have used.
• Four panel doors were recommended by the team, made of solid douglas fir wood.
• Can use existing exterior screen doors. Interior doors are less important.
■ The interior door between room 100 and 104 is in storage and could be used as an exhibit.
• There is the option of having no interior doors other than the research and office space.
■ Room 101 should be the entrance to room 102 and the entrance from 102 to 103 could be kept
• closed and/or locked.
■ A window could be added to room 102 on the south wall. Currently, there is an opening to a
porch. There could have been a window there but there is no evidence. The other option is to
infill it with adobe.
6) Fireplaces:
• The group determined that the fireplaces should not be made operable.
• The flues should be stabilized and used for interpretation.
• The fireplace in the meeting room is brick and structurally unsound and will be removed with
the flue in the corner left to illustrate how the home was heated.
• The group decided to expose all flues and repair for exhibit only.
7) Mechanical equipment:
• A split system was proposed. It would be contemporary with lighting, heating/cooling.
• The bunk house would be the restroom area.
4
C:\Documents and Settings\snelson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKA\03-29-10.doc
•
I •
• The lighting will be as unobtrusive as possible.
• Fan coils will be in the attic.
• There will be no special filtration.
8) Electrical and lighting:
This item was discussed concurrently with Item 7.
9) "Character" of interior:
• Character spaces will be left including floor slopes and some exposed plaster layers.
• Room 100 could have lighting to show mud plaster and possibly saguaro ribs on the ceiling.
10) Repairs to damaged wood lintels:
• The plan is to remove the non-structural beams in room 101. Cement should be left in rooms
101 and 102 to be patched and repaired. Ceilings in rooms 102 and 103 will be largely rebuilt.
Further discussion followed regarding:
• The plans must be complete by April 20th.
• Next meeting will be scheduled for April 12th from 9-1 1 a.m.
5
C:\Documents and Settings\snelson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKA\03-29-10.doc
r ,
..•.--
1,
1
co
-• ..i
l...,,
e \
L... ....,,.;
r',/ Cii GP cP e
p T
L--9-
1 1.0
•
:
0 ,,,
Ir- ,'
If
111, , i ----- ----- •..
s
...
I.... .
L--
z
0
, 0 a)
r—
0
,
m o _
-.
z i
•,,s, /
• ,
• i
1.____) I I ii-•---1______r-1- i i
j 1 .
1
1 '
._.,
f
fi.. ...®®.„77,,,y. .,'
ii•_.,.. , A
-..(. „ L__ t,i0,,
Ir .'.. I •.* ---------T-1,
:re' ' rir- -i,. .C • -1, ...
,....,..
-
6,1, r-, 10 " ••••••11-1 I)
J I
.--,-----
i 0
., . -.
-----
8 ma 3 ' E‘ "6 g 8 ie!'ib 'a! 8 8
A ° 'rn •,,.):E).'2
2 3 8 h 7r:.3
.2 li:2,3
;:,i
8
icg 2 g
z•A
sii3
1
I.. i
. =
1
:11 ii. 1 * ai - °
,..1
sli U
E e. Ae A f,i i x 0 fi
•
•
$
1.-- ' 'S
`-',* iW cci-,•m , , , . ,, ,--,
„,m i •,••____i--, q:i >
f:-
4
tr _—__ ..--,---_,,,,
I ....I , 4i r". I I •
4
--1 !iI 11111 1 1
-I
0 ... - 5 iT 1 r-,•-, 1::::i 1 \
z 4)
0. :.1 la)
Z
0 ,•• sti, :E...;]
Cf
,
,...1 0 , .1
si L.,.._J
.
Mm '
. o
I
• 1
0 -,,,,,,,,,, 1 o p
z ,;.,-;.=='.. • '1, z 10 4) -,
0 r_..1.,-,..- 1 ', 0 1
--I
—I r-tic,..-7.7.. . .i IT 7J
X ii
C1i .41 ...... ,
r 1
ri-•-i
9i 1. I, —I \ '.,
— I---.1.-----,,...,..j 0 , .1,
Z 1 Z , ,
{FET.iill
IP---‘-'
1 __,I.-' ' ..• ,
,
,=-...=.....-;.....-,„,.=...
4
El
,I ,
...k .1 !!It, LT
,N, •mil „,, „,,.....•-
, -.---,
•,9 :17.....,,,,,
i::c , “;,..
:h---,.i."
._.........,„„ ! ,,,,......—,, ,
I ,
, . . .
II I
.• . 4 . , ;
=77:-.11----Arni -• . , , I , icr,
•L 4 1 .1..; ..
il
,,„ i r-,-,,,,-1, j i i • ,,,,,
I. .•r i r •I,
T
• , ,____H...___,,
•,.... „ ,
cm
I—, 1,-•:::',1 .,-,
i___, __—L.L._,:_s ‘, •!:',17 1 ! .... I
--'LP -T 7 • i..........,..,..,,,. ...
-,-,-/--
1Q
cm
CD T (i)(5)
t, 0
N)
• 4. ',..s• ft I.1 t !it I 1 1 if 13111i! if I if X Irii ..:.. 're':
1 - . ,3V-1
E --a
smcli• 111'4 HI i i i'H Ii MAA !i
Is ' i
..... _ 0 2 2 3
i ill i 1 &i;it'!I-1i! gl i y
,1 r fr.,h ,7,F c if ,•-• i ,,--, - ;'''.''''a.,at”1 V i '-.3 ,
i-;,2 f, A is gi ! '11. ?;' , I§ .1 8 T.
-8Az.1, vi, i i[l' Ili g„ t F, — 0
I 2 z
Is •-, n '''g
z
Q
.-•-',
ri›
,
,
M ,
<
< II,
...._____,...,
0 lii '
z
o ii , ,, . o •-1,7. ,:li:
m 1,1, ' ..g.- ,
1 iii -•::
h . ',- ii 0 ..,: (4)
ii ! „ . „ , o
0 ..' :1-1,1
0 : 0 :: '',-.-,1 i-;;; • z 7.0'
Ct .1 flu
—1 ----It ; 1 —I a) OD 1.-•/.:1 '
c , s.,•..._ ,.
—I :',...:::::L7n 1 u , , -• i 1 , Hit ,...
-1, 1-='-'
•
Z u 'I,If I , i i MIIIIIIIII„ . • Z 1 Il
, , , 11111Iiill; , -. ,''11.11. T .
n 1 1 IN 1.1.""um i $
r II i
Cf) '--------111----- r : I, It ..,L--f ' ....--' '1 i! ,...,--,,
LI ..,,,,L___, Lri__,_,a) i
\—_—_,-_::_
Tr- -1, .'
/
:CD
i , itil s ir`"i 7 Ji ../ ..
, 1111 , 0
T.- 11-71 1,....e:•..... 11!!!!/ 11.I : Z iti 11111 i
T. ••••• I!!j il. li •,-: 1111 Hi
9
‘..........-,r- :,
ill i
..I..•"1,,®
lh
r i ii:t...1.11 e . ..•. , „,.
astib--
L_J N 1 Il .'•-.% ii: I I I-I
-- i-----1 . •• I 1„:----1..1---...i
7
___LJ I)
OTTIDOID0 ciD(V(E)Ti.:3'
1;.
4t— N.Cr) 3i2 i"''',..4.-' 1'•'rsI'% f 8 x,5„', I4I tii 1 t 8
!i1 g 1.,i ,I!i Gir
N)
) 1 i 1t0i lq ;8t8
8 Y A A,t 8 t 1 8 i 8 1 6
iI i ' ! i I 10g I *
<n
1 8 1 ?,.,f, 8 i :':, . p;.!1:.!ii. le ii i ;:,
A 8 z, E , ; i 5 is gi * 8 8* 8 '' 8- 1. i,-; 8 0. _ O
.
- 1 6 ,t* 1 qs I - 1- 1 ig l'• '; 18
” i • x i a $a C 8 !i,6 !ii , 6 x 0
I —I
(-) ' ,,,, - f . .. 8 e§ Z I,cil _i
, 5 8 ifl 5 1 'iis i i 11! li ,,, 'm
8 ' i - i
z
ic)
,:-0 0 0 0 0 . -,
0,
0 01
• ,
,....0
a
,0 Lir) ® ® ®
4,0 „._-
n, , ,
. 1 Eli . 01 1 , ,
® i -,,,D 0
0 ® Ti
a
a ® :.,-
m
r-12WWf4
..:- .•., • s,'
z
:;'; ® aa
II' .
a
.,.,, (7, a a ---; io 1® ® ,',, ci ® h' a
6
. . 0 0 . c.„. .
,
ia
.00 OC,00® ®®®®®00g liFf. i',•:',:,,
. 't li 11 gii gigisi i i ! 1 11 1 1 i .ii 1 il i hili, ."'il,
al
I i `;', 'zcz §st 1 WO !iii i i 8
f 3 gg 2 2 4 ii'it ;ill i i 1 iH f 1 2 I --',f)rn
8 a o‘-1
0 0
4>
J
..1,....--i _}.• 6 n
1
< , ._:%.21 z-,.„ .• < '
--I '
, ;nit •-72,----r\
- ;-,_1-
-=--r4 ,
-=22. i,.._-L.,-,-, •
.;-,-.1 _r-r-L, -0
1...-,.... 77,tgt -n-4_,_.-1_, XI , 'id. 1-4-t-r-- •.
x , , t*: 1-4-..--,=--;:---r__ o
iee31 -72-' ---L-t.,
7
7 , gleeR1 •-2.,--=-=--tm''. -
0
C,
cn :17--Z •Fa.-.===--::::=", , --= - ;,-_-_:--;_-:-__f___t__,-k
7 ® ,....._______7J u. ,
iiini --=----7--, 2 , - ... r--......,-,.
mla, n.--,--C-_;---
-• ..gk,e L--,--_-___- - a H•-....--,-• .----,
(6 7:1,-:_::t_-::: g:
- -254:1 __,----k,-__,-.... 14. ' ,--,_-_-ir----7.-
,Tetirs.
.
r,l) ,!.;.5..! — — -- ....
...le; ---,,-----,Da
iii 1,237,17. . --1..... --- - ....p:1 ,-- ,..:
,21.121 __,--,-- -- : — 4P. -..,-
ifia ,-,..-J--C---.7_, z:
--,--I_-4-- -.
i ".3-..7- c-_-:;-_,--, • -"!
6
i r------.....r.:Eg: '--,:-'-•_., .7--...7-: .. .....• 1-7:7---- ---1'-'1--J
1( , -.E_,__L--:i --_-_,----0
.,....7 ----- ,=-_
--m--im -
h.+)
:' 1-i
1• -2E1.-E.I •... ....7---. ,g-f. -- , .•
-rielr.
sea r
N'-"a' •Fai -'-'-'.
® ®cw,i,' 1‘,:',-• ,::',:.,
, A i
E •cirp:A ! 1 Ilp ',..
cg,..z..4,, ! i 1 H 0 gli mi5!
! -4.
rg
' '''''-' ‘j. ,,•'''
§ '-
2
z A i i, W 4131 _ o
A 01 li 1 ' p,,0
H
Pg Pg., 4
7 2 .•°.; 1 4" '
C 0
A 0 (.i) ® A 0 P ®
-c -x
•,,.-I ,,
.,-,-1 ,
, .
t 2.i '...i .
' ®
.,i m .
a
.m . )
, , .. „
m m ..
,
< <
> >
-1 --i
o 0 '
z z
r-LINI
'V® )... ,_,.....
1) "V
__, 7.1,,
m m 1 In ,t=2-- .., ,•
I. Poi h= _,----_,
,...., .
_:‘ m
t.............,......_... ...--,r_,-----,,, .
c • r,_ 1
0 .r-,----
.•
• ,_..,---..._,_,__, L.:, E,-
® .---.------73----1,...,
---1-,-......-------.--,,, L. -,---1
---_,-
•,,,,,,x,.;,. ---1-7-,--,- • ,--- ;--,-, ••.--.,
,--- - 7
\111
.._ ..,
-,--=---..
---:
4) .
@, •,"'"----7
r•-::::-.7
7."=-7=7.• ,-___.,7
--Li-, !=•;-.,
_, , i---.•
• 0
1--;
. .
, .
1 . 1
,,, ..s• '''
'.
® (..
> ®®® ®® ® 0 ®0;,', 1 W.
6 .9 CP
K) Sni i C :t f, i I g i g if Di gigiP. ; It':•%' ‘4,.:*
I i i l' .^.2. .. - a §
'--- 6
' f>-9 EiF)3
,:i(9 ;,-'m/
_ 2 opm (15O
0- 'zcz
mi zl'
,,,,,,,L
gzil
1 2 . wav
1 i i 5: 1 (25e, 1112.i.V1 '
. 'i
I
i ,
3 ,
1
K m 1
_x o
--1
--1,,
0H
/-/
I !1'!Dour
SCOTT &LS.0,0
Steam Pump Ranch Site Tour Protocol
The Town of Oro Valley recognizes that Steam Pump Ranch is an important historical asset and
that from time to time individuals or groups may desire to tour the site in order to learn more
about Oro Valley's history. To that end, the following protocol has been established for gaining
access to the site that protects the safety of visitors and the Town's restoration efforts.
Application Requirements:
The Town of Oro Valley is making the Steam Pump Ranch site available for tours on a limited
basis, before the Pre-Opening Phase of the Master Plan is complete. Those requesting access
must submit applications at least two weeks in advance of the anticipated tour. Examples of
eligible groups are:
• Schools/classes
• University study teams
• Town sanctioned studies
• Historical education groups
• Limited general public
Application Process:
Successful completion and approval of applications is required to visit the site. By submitting an
application the applicant agrees to abide by all conditions noted hereafter. Those interested in
visiting the site may access an application online or at the Town's Community Development
Building located at 11000 N. La Canada Drive, Oro Valley AZ 85737.
The application can be submitted by email to the Town Manager, or designee, or by hand
delivering or mailing the application to the Town of Oro Valley Community Development
Building. Applications must be received at least two weeks prior to the visit. Please allow five
(5) business days for approval.
Notification of approval or denial will be done by Email or standard mail. The Town reserves
the right to deny access for a specific tour date and time or to place reasonable restrictions on
scope of a site tour dependant upon, but not limited to, such factors as safety conditions on site
and conflicts with scheduled construction and/or maintenance. The Town Manager or designee
may deny an application, however an applicant may submit further applications for review and
consideration. A separate application must be submitted for each potential site visit.
Conditions of site visit:
All visitors to the site must be accompanied by a Town staff member. This staff member
reserves the right to cancel or reschedule a tour at any time.
The property will be available for tours with the exception of the interior of the buildings until
the completion of the restoration process. All visits will be restricted to the exterior of the
buildings only. There can be no ground disturbing activities or removal of any item from
the site. All guests must remain a reasonable distance away from all signs marked "No
Trespassing" or from construction tape marking an area off limits. This is in part due to the
ongoing construction and restoration process. Areas available for access will be at the sole
discretion of Town staff.
All members of a tour group must sign an individual waiver form in order to gain access to the
site.
Town of Oro Valley
Steam Pump Ranch Site Tour Application
Applicant Name: Date:
Last First M.I.
Organization:
Desired tour
date/Estimated
duration of tour
Purpose of Visit:
Number of persons in tour group: Phone: ( )
Address:
Street Address Suite#
City State ZIP Code
Email Address
Please submit all applications to: Town of Oro Valley, c/o Scott Nelson, 11000 N La Canada Drive
Oro Valley, AZ 85737, snelson(a�orovalleyaz.gov
Town of Oro Valley
Steam Pump Ranch Site Tour Application
Applicant Name: Date:
Last First M.I.
Organization:
Desired tour
date/Estimated
duration of tour:
Purpose of Visit:
Number of persons in tour group: Phone: (
Address:
Street Address Suite#
City State ZIP Code
Email Address
Please submit all applications to: Town of Oro Valley, c/o Scott Nelson, 11000 N La Canada Drive
Oro Valley, AZ 85737, snelsonRorovalleyaz.gov
HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT
Site Tour of Steam Pump Ranch
I am aware that in signing up and participating in the aforementioned tour, I agree to voluntarily
assume the full risk of any and all injuries, damage or loss, regardless of severity, that I may
sustain as a result of said participation.
I further agree to waive and relinquish all claims l may have (accrue to me) as a result of
participating in this tour against the Town of Oro Valley, including all its officials, agents,
volunteers and employees (hereafter collectively referred to as the "Town of Oro Valley").
I do hereby fully release and forever discharge The Town of Oro Valley from any and all claims
for injuries, damages and/or loss I may have which may accrue to me and arising out of,
connected with, or in any way associated with this tour.
I have read and fully understand the above Hold Harmless Agreement and waiver and release of
all claims.
I hereby accept all the terms and conditions of this Hold Harmless Agreement and wavier and
release of all claims.
Signed: Date:
(Signature of Individual)
Print Name:
Address:
Zip
Phone:
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY:
Date:
Special Projects Coordinator
Steam Pump Ranch Site Tour Guidelines
In order to protect the Steam Pump Ranch Site and the safety of all staff and tour participants,
the following guidelines should be read and followed while on the site. Failure to comply with
the guidelines listed below will result in the immediate cancellation of your tour. Please share
these guidelines with each of the members of your tour group.
1. All visitors to the Steam Pump Ranch Site must be accompanied by a Town of Oro
Valley staff member.
2. Each tour participant is required to follow the directions of the staff member while on the
site.
3. All tours are limited to external buildings only.
4. Tour participants will remain a reasonable distance away from all "No Trespassing" signs
or construction tape marking areas off limits.
5. There are no ground disturbing activities allowed on the site.
6. Tour participants may not remove any item from the site.
7. There is no food or drink, other than water, allowed on the site.
8. All garbage should be disposed of in proper trash receptacles.
3e
çLEY ,,1/?„
TOWN OF ORO VALLEY
4.r))
BUILDING SAFETY DEPARTMENT
11000 N.La Canada Drive,Oro Valley AZ 85737
(520)229-4800 Fax(520)742-1022
°OA;616
March 22, 2010
James Garrison
State Historic Preservation Officer
Arizona State Parks
1300 West Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Re: Steam Pump Ranch, Oro Valley, AZ
Dear Mr. Garrison:
On behalf of the Steam Pump Project Team Committee, the group charged by the Town of Oro
Valley with the oversight of the implementation of the Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan, I am
writing to formally request SHP° to undertake two reviews as follows:
1. Review of the Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan, May 2008, (attached) approved by
the Town of Oro Valley Council, to determine its conformance with the district's
listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
2. Review of the proposed first phase of the implementation of the Master Plan as
represented by the attached Design Development drawings, to determine if these
improvements wilt allow and enhance the continued listing of this property as a
district on the National Register of Historic Places. The focus of the first construction
efforts are the Pusch Ranch House and the Procter/Leiber House. The Steam Pump
Building wilt not be a part of the first construction efforts but will be protected in place
from the elements.
The Steam Pump Ranch was listed on the National Register of Historic Places on September 2,
2009. The National Register Nomination includes a period of significance for the Steam Pump
Ranch of 1874-1962, marked at the start by the establishment of the Ranch by George Pusch
and John Zellweger and marked at the end by the termination of John Procter's relationship to
the Pioneer Hotel in 1962. Explicit in the approved nomination is the fact that the period of
significance divides again into two sub-periods: the Pusch era (1874-1933) and the
Procter/Leiber era (1933-1962). The nomination makes clear that these two eras have much in
common (especially the tie-back relationship of the Steam Pump Ranch site to the business life
of downtown Tucson), but that they also have substantial differences (building materials and
styles, technology, approach to water use, and an approach to the design of the landscape).
It was this dual-era history of the site, how the Pusch family lived on the site and how the
Procter/Leiber families lived on the site that became the thematic and interpretive basis for the
decisions of the recommended Master Plan. It is also the interpretive basis for this first phase of
implementation.
The proposed construction for Phase I implementation consists of 1) Restoration of the Pusch
Ranch House exterior to its late-19th Century/early 20th Century appearance and the adaptive
re-use (Rehabilitation) of the interior and, 2) Emergency Stabilization and Repair for the
Procter/Leiber House. A more detailed discussion follows.
Pusch Ranch House
The Pusch Ranch House proposed construction follows the language of the Master Plan:
"The Pusch Ranch House was probably built within a few years of the Pump House,
circa 1880, as a retreat on the ranch for the Pusch family. The building is a good
example of a transitional Sonoran-style building, consisting of a high-walled thick adobe
core with a timber-framed hipped roof[note: 2010 evidence demonstrates that the roof
was almost certainty added around the turn of the century over a flat-roofed building].
Porches were enclosed and small shed additions were attached to the original six room
[note: 2010 evidence indicates it was five rooms, not six] core over time.
The Master Plan proposes removing later additions and restoring and rehabilitating the
building to its appearance in the late 19Th Century..."
We recognize that other approaches to this historic structure are possible. A lengthy Master
Plan public process selected the Restoration approach of bringing the building back to a specific
point in time and removing the myriad utilitarian additions. This approach is consistent with, and
driven by, the over-riding interpretive goal of showing the contrast between the architectural
building styles, traditions and technology of the two families on the site. Quoting from a recent
letter (March 12, 2010) on this project by David Jacobs,
"Our office believes that an interpretive plan should drive the treatment plan."
Again on 13 August 2008, James Garrison stated in a letter to Mayor Loomis (in reference to
the Steam Pump building),
"The permanent treatment need to be derived, first, on the specific interpretive use of the
building derived from the Master Plan. Buildings set aside for public visitation should be
treated in relationship to a specific interpretive plan."
The restoration of the Pusch Ranch House exterior to its late-19th Century/early 20th Century
appearance and the adaptive re-use (Rehabilitation) of the interior is the centerpiece venue for
telling the story of the Pusch family's early tenure on the site. Our Restoration approach is
derived, as you suggest, directly from the master plan for the site. While we recognize that the
Pusch Family made changes to the building as new technologies became available, and that
the Procter family made additional major modifications to the Pusch Ranch House after
acquiring the property, these changes hamper our ability to help the citizens of Oro Valley
understand what life might have been like in the early Pusch era and how it was different than
the life of the Procter family (as interpreted in the Procter/Leiber House).
Procter/Leiber House
As stated above, the work on the Procter/Leiber House is an Emergency Stabilization and
Repair approach, mainly making emergency repairs of dangerous conditions in the house. The
house was built by the Procter family soon after their purchase of the property from the Pusch
family in 1933. In the early 1970's, John Procter's grandson, John Leiber, and his wife, Cheryl,
made some major modifications to the original ranch house. Modifications included a kitchen
renovation, an unsafe second story addition, and an addition at the east end. Recently, the
fireplace built into the second story addition collapsed. The work proposed in Phase I consists
of repairs associated with the necessary removal of the second story after the collapse and a
variety of related repairs and water-proofing improvements. Quoting from the Master Plan,
'The Master Plan proposes removing the post-1970 additions and rehabilitating the core
of the building. The strong connection that exists between the formal living room, sun
porch, and outdoor courtyard should be preserved. The courtyard is an important
outdoor space that can be used for special events and receptions."
The Construction Documents that describe the details of these proposed repairs will be sent to
you in a few weeks.
Future Work
With respect to the Steam Pump Building, it is our intent to Restore the building to its early 20th
century condition following Phase I. This Restoration approach is consistent with the Master
Plan,
"The structure is currently a ruin, with only several adobe walls still intact. The master
planning process determined that it was desirable to restore the structure. The restored
building has the potential to serve as an icon for the site and to provide a context for
interpretation on historic building techniques and the changing technology used to
provide water to the site."
We understand and agree that there are valid alternative approaches. However, as stated in
the James Garrison letter of 13 August 2008,
"The two treatments most likely to be applied to the Pump House based on the
interpretive direction found in the Master Plan are permanent 'Stabilization' or accurate
'Restoration.' Either of these treatments is acceptable to this office if applied in a
'current state of the art historic reservation' approach. Either approach is complicated.
(Note that the Master Plan already refers to Restoration for the Pump House.)
To select restoration there needs to be adequate information available to accurately
restore the building to a specific point in time. Even though there appears to be enough
evidence to do this at the Pump House, will the building officials and/or the project
consultants allow 1 century building techniques to be used? And how much original
fabric will be lost in the name of restoration?"
The questions wisely raised in that letter are precisely our concerns as we move forward. We
are not submitting any drawings at this time because the work will not be done in Phase 1.
When we move to undertake that work, we will come back to your office for additional
consultation.
Please review the material enclosed and provide us with your determination. We are interested
in proceeding as outlined above, but want to ensure that we do not undertake work that would
jeopardize our National Register listing for the district. Thank you in advance for your efforts.
Sincerely,
Suzanne Smith, NA
Director, Building Safety
Cc: Jerene Watson, Interim Town Manager
Steam Pump Project Team Committee
O 0 H = Oa) -I CD ° 30T a3 - g
ED o O O 3 m (D Q (D < = il) ", C 9 CD o -
cn �. w N � ` D 3 0) CD 0 3 CD a) C r� o o•`< -0 g
. m . 3 CD4 Dom _ � � CD0 . '— —
° � ° < r+ a- CD — O O CD
O
70CD � vv a- C �'• o 0 o O v O (a D- o U) _...--.-
0
Z
°• rn -0 o o 3 ( - m u, D �' 13 (I- (°p ° ° o (, rn. D � -I
-� (D a) - S ea o (D a (D , W -I
-• CD r+ Q O O-ID N 7c -0 C D- (m/) 15' r+ O -0 O m
`v r+CD w (n (a J - U) -• `D c J -�
U) CDo (D (7,' O5 ° -1 ODaa) 0CD (D - 3 -1 (D m
CD -. o.�, a- (D n 2 =. a •cn N Q a- ° ° 0 c n. Z
ED O- co "' m Do - -a (D (D033"' a v r+ a• C Q -•1
rt a
o o � °Ca —0 C� cncOo3 cn. (Da C � ° Z CDS
o � a 0 (n ter..,. r+ 8
-I
, o• � 3oo• •-' CD g ° a_ CD _ 3 3 OCD ° 3 O
0 D 0 (D C. D 3 — N o ° (D ° 3 n - �' °
II) a v '� O C a ,� - a CD • 0 0 3 rt (D rt Z
cn CD a_ a- n' ^ O r+(^2. 5 u' (n 0- r..� T O r+ CD cm CD `� pT
(D °• CD z ° _ o CD U) CC (D ,< (D (D -
�' -97°,,-,• a C O 1JC°D _ a = < (D CD 0
a) (D oC cn ° 7a) a- 3 ° cn 3 w -a o cD a) (n 5 o• x
(D x p
0
O (D a_ C __
a) aP a) aO CD (D �. D rte+ o0 * CD NICD °' � <
to (D a) (a -, 3 ° (OD p . cn (D O ° O ° - D
I-
D < CI_ (j a o •
(D r_,* C I o ,=.:`< (n a) °
o o u) si)a ° — rn O ° (D v a _ ci) ca -<
° a a_ c a) -0 CW (3 (,) ° C CD. cn , N =
0 D cin CD 3 ° a" ° C C C a < can - —
(D (D C C — * ° O -, (D < p — U) r-+ (D
3 v N O Q C -, cn SD- n (D -0 a) D- r-� (D v (D "� r•� -A O 7j
0-00 cn < CD �. a CD (D O a- C p r+ N (D (D xi T
cD cD CD 0 - -, D r+ C - Da ° (n 0 a O-0 (n E (0 —3 gl-) gi (8 0 /�
- 0 CD i SI) - (D ."- -, a Z 17
�c ED a- CD cD a13
NN (D — ° ca ,..� _ 0 , x. � ca vr+ v r
o ° ° (n C a CO <CD cn a. (D (D N m D
r+ -. o Z
co .(CDn tib O -� CD O �, ° a -1 _, cn
P.- a T a E a-,< -, �n -• O ,p O = m
. QC Jo (a a r+� � a ° --fi St * � xi
• Q :• N (D ° O CO c 3 ea o o v a N <
`v `< O p -O ° O� O ° J (D a � 3 0
J (D� CO SC - O (a O0 � 3 (On D DJ o O < O -I
• (j a_ (D (gyp rt DJ D__ CD O 0 *. -• E0 CD O 0
O r* o (n• (D a In o C Z
LiJ
CD --�, (DD p (D N (D 5. r- () O 5' () < (OD ea °
o O a-Ca O - a -- 0°-' CaD (D CD O ca
-• ° ° DO 0 -� O � �S
ca � ig gy
. (D p , P ° 0 ea (D (7). v p
r+
� -. ' .
0 D-
0_ - 0 � p ° pp O
• C � * a <° a
ci) a
co r+ p•c r+ (D < (T, eaCD 3 (n T Z
a a) -t, ;Li: ci)--, g.Lv r-� O (D
lid
CD a 0 r+ 0 a_ (D 0 CD k< CD ' _ -p
3
CD (D C0 rte- Ca O .74. (�D `< : C
-� \V O CD D 3 ° : p 0- C r+ r+
O °' 0 ea ce , Da Q SD C,
ea : O -.10-0 CD o a a) ° O �
( cn a o °—+ n -� ea C a CD
<• 0 o cn D. 3 a_ a
u) O O CD O' O O (D
CT r+ al
0 0 -+, r, CD 7- N _ C
C (D `< O
r+
C °' O (D -� m D
: u)
--1 -o z a) O 0 -0 0 0
la COcii 0`0 0
Fi
,. cD o cD w 3 CD m i-
-IC
m
n C
a :
U)
(o
13
XI
N -, CEJN -, N W N 0
rn o 0 rn -0 -0 a -3 j C 0 n X
0
xrn 0 x � � cDNA- o o CD 0
o0 rirl *
-. - (D o cr. a
5 (D - vv adorn � � � > Z
a. - ocDo `0 (DD3 rn rn CI) O
� CD � R00 CD 0 o Q � m
La_ rn C� '{
ccnn = CD DCC cD -NC - - C � C 0
3 3 CD
O ‘ (D v OAC fl) C -0_ -0 Q (CD I -I /XI
ED (. CCDM CI) (D `° `° v = m O
'-� � rn o � � O CD CD CD o C
(00 � � w ° � D, cn ° � D
� cD a D �, _ (0Oo0 n5 -0 r
0_ a - cno � a) c - o o �3 3rn r
< C -, n O O O (an)
11 in
fl)
CD fl) H 0 a =,; ,--_ CD D D Q CD ()
r+ a O (D �' O 0 5 CD
r) 0 CO O fl) 5 a) a) N =
CD o3 o. m = U --, � � a a cDo � 0 -10
CD rn cn
a)D -) ov)" D -f, Cl D--- nO 3 3 DT
3 c� U'. O C O v CD X fl) Q) � n Q) O
O 0_ 0 can �_' �_ a o
N o r+ _ D a <' < '-- C v o 3 Z 0
p O a SD (O -• CD .rt = O Il•
ry N con 5. -0
o r �' �_': �. r
o �. o • D, rn o �(C)
, o N rn D
(0
5'- F o -0 g D o ED -0 _ � rn
, xiO �,. rn o
Oa) v 0 cn
N <
-o C (0 I o cn CD C 0 D
o
,� 13 D- o- D (D (1) (./)3 c -I
(D-* O C7 cn p a -1) -a C CD O
D rn o Fe, ° 0) Z
O (D
v 3 '� `< <_. D < CD cn 0
0
1 - CD 0) o CD o g
C 7 3 v 10 0
a) 0
0 `D a) 0
0- v U) Z
Th-
E)""0
0 0 00 0 0 0 0OJ 0 -I >
(Q (Q (a (n (0 (0 (0 (0
0 0 0 0 0 o O O O 5. o o m
�. j' � 5 N) N N D N 5' r 0
(0 (0 (0 (0 O O O co () O (0CI) -Z Z
N) N) -�-� ‘ m
N) r
o >
o Z
< 0 < r' (J) mm3J _
CD WW (3. 0CL = 00.....
n =. cEn 3 i (n.
N -T1 c1:1) C) D C 00
O
*. cam 20 '< 0 X
-IcET o? C7
-' �' 3
su 73
rn
co
„ N ; w ; rn
0 0 0 0 0 - 0 i,
00 0o CO CO CO O 1 D
I I I ' I 1 I imni
C3) O (3) O (3) O •
W W W W W W
0 0 0 --,:t0IO Co Z
O
U.. 2- -. Eigggic
DD •. fDCD CD CD (n
• Z
- - N •-t - - -
- w Cn .
W N CJS N � � 4...
.0 .0, * rn -� m o) IP
ZZG� O Z � Z •
0 0 FP 0 0
DJ -I CD 0 s 0
0 0 O CD CDD
0A- 7 (15- 2 -5
o
C 0-0
CD 0 0 n.
o . ° O
7 a i
CO 00 00 00 CO 00 00
cncn cn cn cn can cn
W W W O W Cn GJ •
-,1 N O -,1 N "..1
CO O CO O . " CO •
--.I -,1 -.1 CO N CO 11
1 1 1 1 1 I i •
N CO -P► Clt N -,1 -,1
-,I O CO - -P• Cr O
11111111
CO
I III CJt �
111111
C r CO CD
z ii.a; . . .-a
O
DJ = 33
X' 0 O W� 0 n
CDn �
CD n O o 0 CD n
0 , n CD 3
MP
3
CD
•
o
From: Michels, Matthew
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 1:49 PM
To: Po pe l ka, Paul
Cc: Molinar, Suzanne; Ruiz, Deanna
Subject: Request for additional HPC book materials
I'm not certain which of the following items are already in their books, but Mr. Zweiner wants the following
included in each HPC member's book. I know a number of these items are available online.He has placed a
discussion item on the 4/19 HPC agenda:
1. Past year's agendas and minutes
2. HPC rules
3. HPC ordinance
4. Cultural Resources Inventory
5. Steam Pump Ranch Master Plan
6. Steam Pump Ranch IGA w/Pima County
7. Steam Pump Ranch easement w/Pima County
8. HPC Work Plan
9. Historic Registry description/definition of treatments
10. Contact list for other commissioners and staff members w/notice to follow open meeting law
11. Archaeology Ordinance
12. Informatio on SHPO CLG program
13. Honey Bee Preserve work plan
14. Honey Bee Preserve IGA w/Pima County
15. Any Town codes/ordinances that pertain to HPC
04/12/2010
Page 1 of 1
Molinar, Suzanne
From: PNichels, Matthew
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 8:59 AM
To: Molinar, Suzanne
Subject: FW: DRAFT 4-12 HPC Agenda
Attachments: 4-12-10 HPC agenda DRAFT.doc
Please use the attached agenda. Also, can you ask Scott for the letter referred to below and see if we can find the
other materials Dan says he wants in the packet?
I also realized I had the wrong date on the agenda (4/19 vs. 4/12). oops.
Thanks,
Matt
From: Dan Zwiener [mai|to:ehzona @comcast.met]
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 8:14 PM
To: Michels, Matthew
Subject: RE: DRAFT 4-19 HPC Agenda
Make the following modifications:
-Take Item#2 out and include it as item 'e.' under the agenda item on Steam Pump Ranch.
-That makes the item on the Cultural Resources Inventory#2 and so on.
As for the meeting packet, all commissioners should get a copy of the letter to SHPO (Scott should have that) and
the list of materials for the new commission packet that we will go over. Our new commissioner will need a copy of
the Cultural Resources Inventory, a copy of the Visitation Protocol (Scott should have one,just the Visitation
Protocol) and a copy of the work plan. All commissioners should bring their copies of the work plan with them and
perhaps you could remind them in the email that sends out the agenda.
Thanks. Dan
From: Michels, Metthew [maUto:mm|che|s@orovaUeyaz.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 12:28 PM
To: 'Dan Zwiener'
Cc: Molinar, Suzanne
Subject: DRAFT 4-19 HPC Agenda
Please review attached draft agenda for the 4-19 meeting.
Thanka,
Matt Michels
Senior Planner
Town of Oro Valley, Arizona
Tel. 520.229.4822
Please,consider the environment before printing message.
04/08/2010