Historic Preservation Commission

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

AGENDA

REGULAR MEETING Wednesday, March 27, 2019 6:00 P.M.

CITY OF COTTONWOOD CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 826 N. MAIN STREET

1. CALL TO ORDER. 2. ROLL CALL. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF January 23, 2019 REGULAR MEETING.

4. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS AND UPDATES: A brief summary of current events by Chairperson Commission members, and/or staff. (The public body does not propose, discuss, deliberate, or take legal action on any matter brought up during this summary unless the matter is properly noticed for legal action.)

5. CALL TO THE PUBLIC: This is the time for the public to comment on any matter that does not appear on the agenda. Commission members may not discuss items not identified on the agenda. Action taken as a result of public comment will be limited to directing staff to study the matter, responding to criticism, or scheduling the matter for consideration at a later date. Comments are limited to five minutes for each person

6. OLD BUSINESS: The following items are for Discussion, Consideration and Possible Action by the Commission: a. Historic & Prehistoric Properties – Commissioner Turney

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.02(B) the Commission may vote to go into executive session on any agenda item for discussion and consultation for legal advice with the City Attorney.

The Cottonwood Council Chambers is accessible to the handicapped in accordance with Federal “504” and “ADA” laws. Those with needs for special typeface print or hearing devices may request these from the Planning Department at 634- 5505 (TDD 634-5526). All requests must be made at least 24 hours before the meeting.

7. NEW BUSINESS: The following items are for Discussion, Consideration and Possible Action: a. Riverfront Masterplan, Clubhouse Update and Grand Opening discussion, Brick Program and schedule for brick installation, Proscenium Paint Design – Hezekiah Allen

b. Discussion regarding possible uses and modifications to the old Catholic Church building located at 421 N. Willard Street – Richard Faust and Hezekiah Allen

c. Discussion with Jennifer Levstik from Logan/Simpson regarding final Draft of the Phase 1 Survey and plans and schedule for the Phase 2 Survey.

8. DISCUSSION ITEMS:

9. ADJOURNMENT.

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.02(B) the Commission may vote to go into executive session on any agenda item pursuant to A.R.S. § 38-431.03(A)(3) for discussion and consultation for legal advice with the City Attorney.

Page 1 of 5 HPC 1/23/2019

City of Cottonwood Historic Preservation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes January 23, 2019 6:00 P.M. Council Chambers 826 N. Main Street, Cottonwood, Arizona 86326

1. CALL TO ORDER

Chairman Vernosky called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

2. ROLL CALL

Historic Preservation Commission Members Present: Michael Mathews Jacob Mickle Kathryn Turney Marie Palowoda Christian Vernosky, Chairman

Historic Preservation Commission Members Absent: Tim Elinski, Vice Chairman

Staff Members Present: Berrin Nejad, Community Development Director Jim Padgett, Planner Christina Anderson, Planning Assistant/Code Enforcement Coordinator, Recorder

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 28, 2018 REGULAR MEETING

Motion: To approve the minutes for November 28, 2018

Made by: Commissioner Palowoda Second: Commissioner Matthews Vote: Unanimous

4. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR

Motion: To keep the current chair and vice chair

Made by: Commissioner Palowoda Second: Commissioner Mathews Vote: Unanimous

Page 2 of 5 HPC 1/23/2019

5. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS AND UPDATES

a. Status of Vacancy for the Historic Preservation Commission for review by City Council on Feb. 5, 2019.

b. New/Expiring seats for review by City Council on Feb. 19, 2019 for two terms set to expire on March 6, 2019.

c. HPC Annual Conference.

6. CALL TO THE PUBLIC

Floor was open to the public for comment, there was no comments, floor was closed.

New Business item 2 was moved up on the agenda

7. NEW BUSINESS: 2. Discussion with Eric Vondy from the State Historic Preservation Office regarding processes, plans, trends and conferences. Eric Vondy spoke to the commission regarding the upcoming annual conference specifically he mentioned that at last years, there seem to not be enough time allocated to the archeologist that was there, so this year they have brought that back so that more questions can be answered. Commissioner Turney along with other commission members asked about the Jerome houses that were brought (moved) to Cottonwood, it seems that they are not listed on the property inventory that was just done, and the commission believes that those homes are historic and wondered if they should be in the survey. Eric Vondy mentioned that rules and reality don’t always see eye to eye and that it is a grey area, those properties should be looked at to see if they do qualify. Chairman Vernosky mentioned that a couple of years ago when the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) had members come up to talk with the commission that there was a tutorial on the do’s and do not’s, wondering if they can come back up and do that presentation as there are new commissioners. Eric Vondy mentioned that they would have to get something together and come back up to do that, he too thought that was a good presentation. There was more discussion in regards to make properties that are historic structurally sound without damaging their historic status, along with what changes can make a property non- contributing, and what changes are acceptable. There also was a brief discussion regarding zoning overlays.

Page 3 of 5 HPC 1/23/2019

8. OLD BUSINESS: The following items are for Discussion, Consideration and Possible Action by the Commission: a. Historic & Prehistoric Properties- Continuation of Discussion- Commissioner Turney. This item to be brought back as changes need to be made due to the new information regarding zoning overlays.

b. Final Review of Sign Topper. Staff gave a brief background of the sign topper program and the previously approved sign topper. Commissioner Palowoda asked that instead of the sign topper saying “Old Town Cottonwood” that it would say “Cottonwood Commercial”. Commissioner Mathews stated that he did not have a problem with that. Overall the commission would like to see these signs be more distinctive in that different districts.

Motion: To approve the change of “Old Town Cottonwood” to “Cottonwood Commercial”

Made by: Commissioner Palowoda Second: Chairman Vernosky Vote: Unanimous

9. NEW BUSINESS:

1. Landmarking Applications a. 744 N. Main St – Tovrea Staff made a brief presentation regarding the landmarking of the property located at 744 N. Main St. The property owner was present and also summarized the property and the history that he knew regarding it. The Commission had a brief discussion on various parts of the home, especially in regards to the roof that the owner is looking to change. Motion: To approve this landmarking application with the roof and window replacements that the owner has presented.

Made by: Commissioner Turney Second: Commissioner Palowoda Vote: Unanimous

Page 4 of 5 HPC 1/23/2019

b. 748 N. Main St. – Quackenbush Staff made a brief presentation regarding the landmarking of the property located at 748 N. Main St. The property owner was not present to answer any questions. The commission had a brief discussion the historic integrity of the building as it was recently remodeled, Commissioner Turney mentioned that the architecture and bones keeps with the historic integrity. Motion: To accept 748 N. Main Street in Cottonwood for historic landmark status.

Made by: Commissioner Mathews Second: Commissioner Mickle Vote: Unanimous

c. 1428 E. Cochise – Turney Staff made a brief presentation regarding the landmarking of the property located at 1428 E. Cochise St. The property owner was present to answer any questions. The commission had a brief discussion the historic integrity of the building, there was talk about the BBQ pit in the rear of the property, and possibly restoring it, Commissioner Turney mentioned that it would not take much to do that, along with some other unique aspects. This property was on the Historic Home Tour and all commissioners were familiar with the home and its historic integrity. Motion: To accept 1428 E. Cochise Street in Cottonwood for historic landmark status.

Made by: Chairman Vernosky Second: Commissioner Palowoda Vote: Unanimous

10. DISCUSSION ITEMS:

a. February 27th Regular Meeting – Jennifer Levstik with Logan/Simpson. Request for questions, comments or clarification regarding Phase 1 of the Historic Resource Survey. Commissioner Turney along with other commissioners believe that the Jerome homes are historic and should be part of the survey.

b. Informational update for the Bocce Expansion Plans – 1042 N. Main St.

Page 5 of 5 HPC 1/23/2019

There was a discussion among the commissioners regarding this project, and why properties that are located within an existing district do not come to them for Design Review. Staff explained that the code is not written that way, and until they have approved historic districts (which the district the property is in is not a “historic district” it is the Cottonwood Commercial District) they are not subject to design review by this commission.

c. Informational update for the Van Horn Expansion Plans – 1037 N. Main St. There was a small presentation by Staff and Chairman Vernosky on this project in old town.

11. ADJOURNMENT

Motion: To adjourn

Made by: Commissioner Mathews Second: Chairman Vernosky Vote: Unanimous

The meeting was adjourned at 8:26 p.m.

Cottonwood Planning Office: Historic Preservation

Sections:

10-30.30.010 Purpose 10-30.30.020 Applicability 10-30.30.030 General Provisions 10-30.30.040 Designation of Landmark Properties or Historic Overlay Zones 10-30.30.050 Cultural Resources 10-30.30.060 Development of a Landmark Property and Property within a Historic Overlay Zone 10-30.30.070 Violations and Enforcement 10-30.30.080 Appeals

(Entire Division amended______)

10-30.30.010 Purpose

The purpose of this Division is to protect and enhance the cultural, historical, and archaeological heritage of the City of Cottonwood by recognizing, preserving, enhancing, and perpetuating the use of those objects, structures, sites, and landscape features that represent distinctive elements of the City’s cultural, political, architectural, and archaeological history. The Council finds and intends that preservation of the City’s heritage is in the interest of the health, economic prosperity, education, cultural enrichment, and general welfare of the public. This Division implements the City’s General Plan and is implemented pursuant to the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, the Certified Local Government program (16 U.S.C. 470a 101(c)(1)), and A.R.S. § 9- 462.01, providing the standards and procedures for heritage preservation. Information on the benefits to a property owner and the various incentive programs that are available to assist a property owner to preserve and protect cultural resources on their properties is available from the Historic Preservation Commission.

10-30.30.020 Applicability

A. In addition to all other development standards provided in this Zoning Code, compliance with the requirements of this Division, and review and approval pursuant to this Division is required for the following:

1. Designation of Landmark Properties or Historic Overlay Zones (Section 10-30.30.040);

2. Cultural Resource Studies (Section 10-30.30.050.A); and

City of Cottonwood Zoning Code 30.30-1

10-30.30.030 Heritage Preservation

3. Development of a Landmark Property and Property within a Historic Overlay Zone (Section 10-30.30.060).

B. Exceptions Compliance with the requirements of this Division is not required for the following:

1. Work that the Building Official certifies as correcting an imminent hazard, for which no temporary corrective measures will suffice in protecting the public safety;

2. Ordinary maintenance or repair of a property or structure, including public infrastructure, that does not involve a change in any element of design and that does not have an impact that is greater than that of the original construction; and,

3. Changes to the interior of structures that do not alter the exterior, the site, or the setting of the cultural resource.

10-30.30.030 General Provisions

A. Conflicting Provisions When the provisions of this Division conflict with any other laws, codes, or regulations, then the provisions of this Division shall govern, except for matters of life safety where the more restrictive of such laws, codes, or regulations shall apply.

B. Application Requirements In addition to any specific provisions, for all reviews, considerations, or approvals sought by this Division, an applicant shall submit a completed application on a form prescribed by the City in compliance with Section 10- 20.30.020 (Application Process). The application shall include the information and materials specified in the submittal checklist, together with the required fee established in Appendix 2, Planning Fee Schedule.

C. Consent Approval

1. Applicability The Historic Preservation Commission may review and approve or conditionally approve the following:

a. Cultural Resource Studies that are Letter Reports; and

b. Certificates of No Effect for minor work that has a limited impact in relation to the total cultural resource, including:

(1) Conforming signs excluding comprehensive sign programs;

30.30-2 City of Cottonwood Zoning Code

Historic Preservation 10-30.30.030

(2) A remodel, addition, deck or porch that does not expand the floor area or any outdoor activity area by more than 10 percent or 200 square feet;

(3) An accessory structure that is not more than the lesser of 10 percent of the main building’s footprint or 400 square feet;

(4) Minor alterations such as storefront windows or doors, other fenestration, awnings, shutters, gutters, porch rails, accessible features and facilities, paint colors, lighting, roofing, fencing, retaining walls, walkways, driveways, or landscaping;

(5) Demolition or removal of inappropriate features that are non- original , including additions, accessory structures, and structures that are not cultural resources; and

(6) Modifications to support systems (mechanical, electrical, satellite dishes, and so forth) that are properly sited and screened.

c. Any matter that the Cottonwood Planning Office is referred to the Historic Preservation Commission for approval.

2. Process Consent approval by the Historic Preservation Commission is an administrative review and approval that occurs outside of a public meeting.

a. Referral to Historic Preservation Commission The Cottonwood Planning Office may refer any matter to the Historic Preservation Commission for any reason, and shall refer any matter to the Historic Preservation Commission when a denial appears appropriate.

b. Historic Preservation Commission Oversight The Historic Preservation Commission shall regularly review consent matters with the Cottonwood Planning Office.

D. Concurrent Development Application Review At the applicant’s option, development proposals that require an approval pursuant to this Division may proceed concurrently with other development reviews and processes. However, no permit shall be granted, and no work shall commence, until an approval pursuant to this Division has been granted and mitigation measures have been incorporated into the final design and documentation of the development.

E. Expiration of Approvals

1. Any approval pursuant to this Division shall automatically expire if the plans are altered or construction proceeds in a manner such that the documentation submitted as the basis of the approval no longer

City of Cottonwood Zoning Code 30.30-3

10-30.30.040 Heritage Preservation

accurately represents the work. See also Section 10-30.30.070 (Violations and Enforcement).

2. Any approval pursuant to this Division automatically expires one year after the date of approval, unless the work associated with the approval is underway and due diligence toward completion of the work can be demonstrated.

F. Unknown or Undiscovered Conditions During the course of any work all work that could impact a cultural resource shall be stopped immediately and the Historic Preservation Commission shall be notified if;

1. A potential cultural resource is discovered which was previously unknown; or

2. Any conditions are discovered that prohibit conformance with any approval or conditional approval issued pursuant to this Division; or

3. Any conditions are discovered that warrant any deviation from plans that served as the basis of any approval or conditional approval issued pursuant to this Division.

The work shall remain stopped until the applicant has obtained new, additional, or revised approvals pursuant to this Division.

G. Cottonwood Register of Historic Places The Cottonwood Register of Historic Places identifies properties or zones designated by the Council as Landmark Properties or Historic Overlay Zones, which are depicted as such on the official Zoning Map of the City.

Supplemental to the Cottonwood Register of Historic Places, the Historic Preservation Commission shall maintain lists, maps and other data of areas likely to contain cultural, historic, or archaeological resources and properties believed to be eligible for designation as Landmark Properties or Historic Overlay Zones but not yet designated as such (Refer to Map 10- 90.30.010 (Cultural Resource Sensitivity Map)).

Information concerning the nature and/or location of any archaeological resource shall not be made available to the public, pursuant to Federal and State laws.

10-30.30.040 Designation of Landmark Properties or Historic Overlay Zones

A. Purpose Designation of a property as a Landmark Property or Historic Overlay Zone formally recognizes its significance, and the need to preserve its historic features.

30.30-4 City of Cottonwood Zoning Code

Heritage Preservation 10-30.30.040

B. Applicability

1. Landmark Property: An individual property, object, structure, site, sign, or landscape feature may be designated as a Landmark Property within the Landmark Overlay Zone if it is significant in accordance with the provisions of this Division.

2. Historic Overlay Zone: A group of properties may be designated as a Historic Overlay Zone if a majority of the properties are significant in accordance with the provisions of this Section or if they provide the necessary setting for a Landmark Property.

C. Process for Designation of a Landmark Property The designation of a Landmark Property shall follow the procedural steps represented in Figure A (Processes for Designation of a Landmark Property and Historic Overlay Zone) and described below:

1. An application for designation of a Landmark Property, or an amendment to a Landmark Property, shall be submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission through the Cottonwood Planning Office, and shall be reviewed and a recommendation prepared in compliance with the Review Schedule on file with the Planning Section. The designation of a Landmark Property requires submittal of the application requirements for a Small Scale Zoning Map amendment as specified in Division 10- 20.50 (Amendments to the Zoning Code Text or the Official Zoning Map) and as modified by the submittal requirements established for an application for designation of a Landmark Property.

2. The Historic Preservation Commission, or an owner of affected real property may initiate designation. Property owner consent is required for designation of a Landmark Property.

3. The Historic Preservation Commission recommendation shall be transmitted to the Cottonwood Planning Office in the form of a report prior to a scheduled public meeting. The report shall include the following:

a. An evaluation of the consistency and conformance of the proposed amendment with the goals of the General Plan and any applicable specific plans; and

b. A recommendation on whether the proposed Landmark Property designation should be granted, granted with conditions to mitigate any anticipated impacts, or denied.

4. A copy of the report shall be made available to the public and any applicant prior to the Historic Preservation Commission’s public meeting.

City of Cottonwood Zoning Code 30.30-5

10-30.30.040 Heritage Preservation

5. Prior to the Planning Commission public hearing as required in Section 10-20.50.040.H (Planning Commission Public Hearing), the Historic Preservation Commission shall conduct a public meeting which shall serve in lieu of the required neighborhood meeting pursuant to Section 10.20.30.060 (Neighborhood Meeting). Notice of the Historic Preservation Commission’s public meeting shall be in compliance with Section 10- 20.30.060 (Neighborhood Meeting).

6. The Historic Preservation Commission shall render its decision in the form of a written recommendation to the Planning Commission and Council. The Historic Preservation Commission may recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the Landmark Property request.

7. Public hearings of the Planning Commission and Council shall be noticed and conducted in accordance with Section 10.20.30.080 (Notice of Public Hearings). The Planning Commission and Council shall act on the Historic Preservation Commission’s recommendation in accordance with the procedures established in Section 10-20.50.040 (Procedures).

D. Process for Designation of a Historic Overlay Zone The designation of property or properties as a Historic Overlay Zone is represented in Figure A (Processes for Designation of a Landmark Property and Historic Overlay Zone) and shall follow the procedural steps described below:

a. An application for designation of property or properties as a Historic Overlay Zone, or an amendment to a Historic Overlay Zone, shall be submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission, and shall be reviewed and a recommendation prepared in compliance with the Review Schedule on file with the Planning Section. The designation of a Historic Overlay Zone requires submittal of the application requirements for a Small Scale Zoning Map amendment as specified in Division 10- 20.50 (Amendments to the Zoning Code Text or the Official Zoning Map) and as modified by the submittal requirements established for an application for designation of a Historic Overlay Zone.

b. The Council, Heritage Preservation Commission, or an owner of affected real property may initiate designation. If the proposal includes property other than that owned by the applicant, then, a petition in favor of the request, and on a form prescribed by the City, must be signed by affected property owners representing at least 51 percent of the included parcels.

30.30-6 City of Cottonwood Zoning Code

Heritage Preservation 10-30.30.040

Figure A. Processes for the Designation of a Landmark Property and Historic Overlay Zone

c. The Historic Preservation Commission recommendation shall be transmitted to the City Planning Office in the form of a report prior to a scheduled public meeting. The staff report shall include the following:

a. An evaluation of the consistency and conformance of the proposed amendment with the goals of the General Plan and any applicable specific plans; and

b. A recommendation on whether the text amendment or Zoning Map amendment should be granted, granted with conditions to mitigate anticipated impacts caused by the proposed development, or denied.

4. A copy of the report shall be made available to the public and any applicant prior to the Historic Preservation Commission’s public meeting.

City of Cottonwood Zoning Code 30.30-7

10-30.30.040 Heritage Preservation

5. Prior to the Historic Preservation Commission public meeting, the applicant shall conduct a neighborhood meeting pursuant to Section 10.20.30.060 (Neighborhood Meeting). The Historic Preservation Commission’s public meeting shall be noticed in compliance with Section 10-20.30.080 (Notice of Public Hearings).

8. In addition to the above procedures, new Historic Overlay Zones also require a text amendment to the Zoning Code to create the new zone following the procedures outlined in Section 10-20.50.040.B.2.

9. Modification(s) to the boundaries of designated Historic Overlay Zones by including or excluding properties shall be adopted in accordance with this process.

10. New Historic Overlay Zones require the adoption of development standards and design guidelines that are specific to the district.

a. Adoption of development standards and design guidelines associated with a new Historic Overlay Zone shall be a fully integrated part of the process for designation of the zone and adopted by an ordinance of the Council.

b. Modification(s) to adopted development standards and guidelines shall be adopted in accordance with the process for designation of a new zone, except that the application requirements exclude the need for all other documentation.

11. Interim Protection for Nominations Commencing with the Historic Preservation Commission making a recommendation for approval of a Historic Overlay Zone, Building or Demolition Permits for any property within the proposed Historic Overlay Zone shall not be issued until any one of the following occurs:

a. The Historic Preservation Commission has reviewed the proposed work and determined that the proposed work is not subject to the provisions of this Division, or will clearly not have a major impact on a significant resource.

30.30-8 City of Cottonwood Zoning Code

Heritage Preservation 10-30.30.050

b. The Council has approved or denied the proposed Historic Overlay Zone. In the case of zone approval, all work in the new Historic Overlay Zone shall be subject to the provisions of this Division.

c. Six months have transpired since the Historic Preservation Commission’s recommendation for approval of the Historic Overlay Zone with no approval or denial.

E. Individual Signs of Historic or Cultural Significance

1. Signs which may be unusual, significant, or meaningful to the City streetscape and the City’s history may be worthy of special recognition and may be designated as a Landmark Property in accordance with the provisions of this Division if they meet the following criteria:

a. The sign has been in continuous existence at its present location for not less than 50 years;

b. The sign is of exemplary technology, craftsmanship or design for the period in which it was constructed; uses historic sign materials or means of illumination; and/or is unique in that it demonstrates extraordinary aesthetic quality, creativity, or innovation;

c. The sign is structurally safe or is capable of being made so without substantially altering its historical character or significance;

d. If the sign has been altered, it must be restorable to its historic function and appearance; and

e. The sign complies with movement, bracing, and illumination requirements contained in Section 10-50.100.050.D (Structure and Installation).

2. Effect of Designation When a sign is found to be significant, designated as a Landmark Property (Section 10-30.30.040.C), and restored to its historic function and appearance, the sign shall not be subject to the provisions of Division 10- 50.100 (Sign Regulations).

10-30.30.050 Cultural Resources

Cultural Resources are an important consideration in an application for development. Professionally prepared Cultural Resource Studies are therefore a requirement of an application for development. The type and format of studies required are determined based on the particular circumstances of the property on which development is proposed. Cultural Resource Studies assess the significance and integrity of potential resources, major impacts that would result from the proposed work and mitigation measures that could eliminate or offset

City of Cottonwood Zoning Code 30.30-9

10-30.30.050 Heritage Preservation

any major impacts. This Section provides detailed requirements for Cultural Resource Studies and explains how such assessments are performed.

A. Cultural Resource Studies

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

2. Applicability

a. Cultural Resource Studies are required for all public and private developments involving:

(1) Properties listed on the Cottonwood Register of Landmarked Places; or

(2) Properties listed on the Arizona Register of Historic Places; or

(3) Properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places; or

(4) Undeveloped land; or

(5) Structures over 50 years old at the time of application.

b. When warranted by the specific conditions of the site or proposed work, the Historic Preservation Commission may determine that a Cultural Resource Study is not required based on the following conditions:

(1) The land, while undeveloped, is relatively small, surrounded by development, and unlikely to contain resources; or

(2) The structure is not significant or lacks integrity; or

(3) The proposed work is excepted from this Division pursuant to Section 10-30.30.020.C.1; or

(4) The proposed work does not have major impacts, diminish the significance or integrity of the resource, is reversible, or is temporary; or

(5) The structure is post World War II (1945) production housing; or

(6) Other circumstances under which it is reasonable to conclude that a Cultural Resource Study is not warranted.

c. The requirement to prepare a Cultural Resource Study does not in and of itself mean that the resources are significant (See Subsection B 30.30-10 City of Cottonwood Zoning Code

Heritage Preservation 10-30.30.050 below).

City of Cottonwood Zoning Code 30.30-11

10-30.30.050 Heritage Preservation

3. Specific Application Requirements

a. Types of Studies Upon consultation with the Historic Preservation Commission and based on the resources that are known or likely to be present, the applicant shall provide an Archeological Resource Study and/or a Historic Resource Study.

b. Preparation Cultural Resource Studies shall be prepared by professionals qualified in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (36 CFR 61 Appendix A) as currently amended and annotated by the National Park Service.

c. Report Format The Historic Preservation Officer will work with the professional conducting the study to determine which one of the following report formats is appropriate:

(1) Letter Reports A Letter Report is appropriate when;

(a) Site conditions, historic records, or previous research or studies indicate that cultural resources are not likely to be present; or

(b) The integrity of a cultural resource is already severely compromised; or

(d) When no mitigation measures are warranted.

The report need only demonstrate that one of these conditions exists.

(2) Phase 1 Cultural Resource Studies When a Letter Report is not appropriate, a Phase 1 Cultural Resource Study shall be prepared. A Phase 1 Cultural Resource Study shall;

(a) Identify the presence of cultural resources;

(b) Evaluate the potential for additional cultural resources being discovered:

30.30-12 City of Cottonwood Zoning Code

Heritage Preservation 10-30.30.050

(d) Assess the integrity of identified resources;

(e) Assess identified and potential impacts proposed;

(f) Provide measures to mitigate major impacts on cultural resources; and

(g) Advise whether Phase 2 or Phase 3 Cultural Resource Studies will be required.

(3) Phase 2 Cultural Resource Studies A Phase 2 Cultural Resource Study is required when major impacts are proposed for a significant resource that has integrity and when no other mitigation measures are proposed that would maintain the significance and integrity of the resource. A Phase 2 Cultural Resource Study includes all of the contents of a Phase 1 Cultural Resource Study plus complete text descriptions, as-built plans, and archival grade photography that fully document all physical aspects of the resource(s), including its setting. For Archeological Resource Studies, the required field research shall also include sampling subsurface exploration to the satisfaction of the State Historic Preservation Office and coordinated with an appropriate repository.

(4) Phase 3 Cultural Resource Studies A Phase 3 Cultural Resource Study is only used for archeological resources and requires complete data recovery, which must be systematically excavated, inventoried, recorded, and mapped. The planned recovery must be designed to the satisfaction of the State Historic Preservation Office and coordinated with an appropriate repository.

(5) National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Documentation Documentation prepared pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and approved by the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer may serve as one of the above report formats. This alternate format is appropriate when the level of review and content of the Section 106 documentation meets the requirements of this Division.

d. Content A Cultural Resource Study shall be submitted as a bound document and in an electronic format in a form as determined by the Historic Preservation Commission, and shall contain text, plans, photographs, and other appropriate documentation.

City of Cottonwood Zoning Code 30.30-13

10-30.30.050 Heritage Preservation

4. Process

a. Historic Preservation Commission Review The Historic Preservation Commission shall review and accept Cultural Resource Studies, and may approve or conditionally approve proposed mitigation measures. Alternatively, the Historic Preservation Commission may require additional research, documentation, or mitigation measures prior to acceptance. Letter Reports may be accepted by a consent approval process described in Section 10-30.30.030.C.

b. When a Cultural Resource Study has been accepted, it shall be offered for curation to the appropriate repository as directed by the Historic Preservation Commission or the State Historic Preservation Office, and in accordance with the standards set forth in 36 CFR 79.9 and 79.10.

c. The processes for consideration of cultural resources are provided in Figure B (Processes for Consideration of Cultural Resources).

Figure B. Processes for Consideration of Cultural Resources

30.30-14 City of Cottonwood Zoning Code

Heritage Preservation 10-30.30.050

5. Required Recommendations by the Report Preparer

a. A Phase 1 Cultural Resource Study shall include a recommendation for the preparation of a Phase 2 Cultural Resource Study when:

(1) The assessment of whether a cultural resource’s presence or significance is indeterminate; or

(2) Major impacts are proposed for a significant resource that has integrity and when no other mitigation measures are proposed that maintain the significance and integrity of the resource.

b. A Phase 2 Cultural Resource Study shall include a recommendation for the preparation of a Phase 3 Cultural Resource Study when:

(1) Significant archeological resources are present in the development area; and

(2) Actual or potential impacts are major impacts; and

(3) When no other mitigation measures are proposed that maintain the significance and integrity of the resource.

B. Determination of Significance of Cultural Resources The criteria for determining the significance of a cultural resource is based on the potential of the cultural resource to contribute to our understanding of the past.

1. A cultural resource is significant if:

a. It is listed or eligible as a National Historic Landmark, or for the National Register of Historic Places, or the Arizona Register of Historic Places; or

b. It is associated with events or persons in the architectural, engineering, archeological, scientific, technological, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of the City, the State of Arizona, or the United States of America; or

c. It represents the work of, or for, an important individual; or

d. It embodies distinctive characteristics of type, period, region, artistic values or methods of construction, including being the oldest of its type or the best example of its type; or

e. It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information needed for scientific research, such as important archaeological resources.

City of Cottonwood Zoning Code 30.30-15

10-30.30.050 Heritage Preservation

2. A resource is generally not significant if:

a. It is less than 50 years old at the time of application; or

b. The features, materials, patterns and relationships that contributed to its significance are no longer present or no longer have integrity.

3. Requirement to Meet the Criteria, Regardless of Age: Properties that are 50 years old are not automatically significant. In order to be significant, all resources, regardless of age, must be demonstrated to meet the criteria for determining the significance of a cultural resource.

C. Determination of Integrity Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance and is based on significance, i.e. why, where, and when a property is important. Integrity is the authenticity of a property’s physical identity clearly indicated by the retention of characteristics that existed during the property’s period of significance. Ultimately, the question of integrity is answered by whether or not the property retains the identity for which it is significant.

1. Historic properties either retain integrity (convey their significance) or they do not.

2. The historic physical features that represent the significance of a property must remain and must be visible enough to convey their significance. However, it is not necessary for a property to retain all its historic physical features or characteristics. The property must retain sufficient physical features, historic character, and appearance that enable it to convey its historic identity and the reasons for its significance.

3. To retain historic integrity a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the following seven aspects of integrity:

a. Location: The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred.

b. Design: The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. Design includes such elements as organization of space, proportion, scale, technology, ornamentation, and materials.

c. Setting: The physical environment 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.

d. Materials: The physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or

30.30-16 City of Cottonwood Zoning Code

Heritage Preservation 10-30.30.050

configuration to form a historic property. A property must retain the key exterior materials dating from the period of its historic significance.

e. Workmanship: The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.

f. Feeling: 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.

g. Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

4. Integrity is not the same as condition. Integrity relates to the presence or absence of historic materials and character defining features. Condition relates to the relative state of physical deterioration of the property. Integrity is generally more relevant to the significance of a property than condition. However, if a property is in such poor condition that original materials and features may no longer be salvageable, then the property’s integrity may be adversely impacted and compromised.

5. To be considered authentic, a property must incorporate a substantial amount of the original features and materials. While new material can exactly copy significant features, if too much historic material is replaced with new material, the integrity of the property is lost and integrity can never be re-created. The precise replication of features with new materials may produce a building that looks like a historic building, but without substantial retention of actual historic materials, the integrity of the property is lost.

D. Determination of Major Impacts to Cultural Resources Impacts to resources are major when they directly or indirectly alter or destroy any of the characteristics that make the resource significant, including when they may diminish the integrity of the resource including its location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling or association.

1. Major impacts include:

a. Physical destruction or damage to all or part of the resource;

b. Alteration to all or part of the resource that is not consistent with applicable standards and guidelines;

c. Relocation or isolation of the cultural resource from its setting;

d. Excessive replacement of original materials;

City of Cottonwood Zoning Code 30.30-17

10-30.30.050 Heritage Preservation

e. Alteration of the character of the cultural resource’s setting;

f. Introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that are out of character with the cultural resource or its setting; or

g. Neglect of a cultural resource resulting in its deterioration or destruction.

2. An impact is generally not major if:

a. It does not alter the resource; or,

b. It is reversible; or,

c. It is temporary.

E. Mitigation Measures

1. Purpose To the greatest extent feasible, mitigation measures minimize or offset major impacts on resources with a general threshold of reducing the impacts to a level that is less than a major impact.

2. Applicability All proposed work that will or may have a major impact on a significant cultural resource, as determined by an appropriate Cultural Resource Study, shall incorporate mitigation measures.

3. Professional Design Required The preparer of a Cultural Resource Study shall design the appropriate mitigation measures. These may include alternative projects, alternative designs, additional work, or other means. The appropriate type and scope of measures varies depending on the cultural resource and impacts, and shall be recommended based on the professional expertise of the preparer and the following:

a. For Potential Resources or Potential Impacts Construction monitoring by the report preparer is an acceptable mitigation measure. If monitoring indicates that the work will produce a major impact to a significant cultural resource, construction shall cease in the area of the resource and the report preparer, subject to approval pursuant to this Division, shall develop and apply appropriate mitigation measures.

b. For Identified Major Impacts The following mitigation measure designs are presented in order of general preference:

(1) Avoidance of significant cultural resources or impacts by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; 30.30-18 City of Cottonwood Zoning Code

Heritage Preservation 10-30.30.060

(2) Preservation of cultural resources in place;

(3) Minimizing major impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation;

(4) Allow other parties to acquire cultural resources, cultural resource sites, or conservation easements;

(5) Data recovery.

c. Human Remains Federal and State laws provide standards and regulations for the handling, care and removal of human remains.

F. Standards and Guidelines The following standards and guidelines apply to the preparation, review, and acceptance of Cultural Resource Studies pursuant to this Section;

1. Archeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines as currently amended and annotated by The National Park Service.

2. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings.

3. Preservation Briefs and other similar best practice documents published by the National Park Service

10-30.30.060 Development of a Landmark Property and Property within a Historic Overlay Zone

A. Purpose This Section provides standards and procedures for the preservation, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or restoration of designated Landmark Properties and properties within a Historic Overlay Zone.

B. General Applicability Except as provided in Section 10-30.30.020.B, all proposed work on a Landmark Property and within a Historic Overlay Zone, whether or not any other approval or permit is required, including demolition, shall be approved pursuant to this Division.

C. Process Except as provided in Section 10-30.30.030.B, prior to the granting of any required approvals or permits and prior to the commencement of any work on a Landmark Property or within a Historic Overlay Zone, the Heritage Preservation Commission or the Historic Preservation Officer shall review all work proposed and approve or conditionally approve the work in the form

City of Cottonwood Zoning Code 30.30-19

10-30.30.060 Heritage Preservation

of a Certificate of No Effect, Certificate of Appropriateness, or Certificate of Economic Hardship. The process for review and approval of work within a Historic Overlay Zone is represented in Figure C (Processes for Review of Development in a Landmark Property and Historic Overlay Zone).

Figure C. Processes for Review of Development in a Landmark Property and Historic Overlay Zone

D. Certification of No Effect

1. Applicability This approval is appropriate if the proposed work is compatible with the historic or archaeological character of a cultural resource, such that there will be no major impact on the resource, thereby not diminishing, eliminating, or adversely affecting the significance or integrity of the resource.

2. Criteria for Approval When approving a Certification of No Effect, the Historic Preservation Commission shall find that:

30.30-20 City of Cottonwood Zoning Code

Heritage Preservation 10-30.30.060

a. The proposed work is consistent with the purpose and intent of this Division;

b. The proposed work is compatible with its context:

(1) The appropriate context for a Landmark or a Historic Property is the property itself and to a much lesser extent, the surrounding properties, and neighborhood;

(2) The appropriate context of work in a Historic Overlay Zone is the significant portions of the property itself, the surrounding properties, and the neighborhood;

c. The cultural resources associated with the proposed work have been sufficiently identified and evaluated;

d. There are no major impacts to any on-site cultural resources; and

e. The proposed work is consistent with applicable Development Standards and Design Guidelines. See also Subsection G (Development Standards and Guidelines).

E. Certification of Appropriateness

1. Applicability This approval is appropriate if the proposed work alters a cultural resource, but does so in such a way that is compatible with the historic or archaeological character of the resource and all major impacts are mitigated such that the work does not diminish, eliminate, or adversely affect the significance or integrity of the resource.

2. Criteria for Approval When approving a Certification of Appropriateness, the Historic Preservation Commission shall find that:

a. The proposed work is consistent with the purpose and intent of this Division;

b. The proposed work is compatible with its context:

(1) The appropriate context for a Landmark or a Historic Property is the property itself and to a much lesser extent, the surrounding properties, and neighborhood;

(2) The appropriate context of work in a Historic Overlay Zone is the significant portions of the property itself, the surrounding properties, and the neighborhood;

c. The cultural resources associated with the proposed work have been sufficiently sought, identified, and evaluated;

City of Cottonwood Zoning Code 30.30-21

10-30.30.060 Heritage Preservation

d. Major impacts on cultural resources are sufficiently mitigated; and

e. The proposed work is consistent with applicable Development Standards and Design Guidelines. See also Subsection G (Development Standards and Guidelines).

F. Certification of Economic Hardship

1. Applicability This approval is appropriate if the proposed work, including demolition, and appropriate mitigation measures, will deprive the property owner of reasonable use of or a reasonable economic return on the property; or, will result in a substantial reduction in the economic value of the property; or, will result in a substantial economic burden on the property owner because the property owner cannot reasonably maintain the property in its current form.

2. Criteria for Approval When approving a Certification of Economic Hardship, the Heritage Preservation Commission shall find that:

a. The cultural resources associated with the proposed work have been sufficiently identified, and evaluated;

b. An economic hardship exists (a lack of reasonable use or return, a substantial reduction in the value, or a substantial burden);

c. Preservation is economically infeasible;

d. The economic hardship is not a self-created hardship;

e. Alternative development has been fully explored; and

f. Alternative financing has been fully explored.

3. Temporary Delay of Demolition If a Certificate of Economic Hardship is denied by the Historic Preservation Commission, no demolition shall be permitted for a period of one year from the date of the public meeting when the request was denied. During the temporary delay period, the applicant shall consult in good faith with the Historic Preservation Commission, state and local preservation groups, and interested parties in a diligent effort to seek an alternative that will result in the preservation or sale of the property. The property owner shall advertise the property for sale at a fair market value based on appraisals. Following the temporary delay period, if no other plan demonstrates a reasonable alternative, and no purchaser has been found, the proposed demolition will be allowed, subject to the issuance of the appropriate permit by the Building Official.

30.30-22 City of Cottonwood Zoning Code

Heritage Preservation 10-30.30.080

G. Development Standards and Guidelines The following standards and guidelines apply to all approvals granted pursuant to this Section:

1. City Code, Title 10 Zoning Code The Historic Preservation Commission and the Historic Preservation Officer shall apply the development standards and guidelines provided in Section 10-30.60.050 (Compatibility) as criteria for determining the appropriateness of a development proposal.

2. Industry Standards and Guidelines

a. The Archeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines as currently amended and annotated by The National Park Service.

b. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings.

c. Preservation Briefs and other similar best practice documents published by the National Park Service.

3. Zone Specific Development Standards and Guidelines These standards and guidelines are available from the Planning Section.

a. Design Handbook for City of Cottonwood (date);

b. Townsite Historic Overlay Zone Design Standards and Guidelines (June 2007);

c. Landmark Zone Design Standards and Guidelines (March 2008); and,

d. Others as may be adopted in association with any designation of a new Historic Overlay Zone.

10-30.30.070 Violations and Enforcement

A. All work authorized as a result of an approval granted pursuant to this Division shall conform to any requirements included with it. Deviations from the plans that served as the basis of the approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness, or from any conditions of approval, constitute a violation of the provisions of this Division. Violations shall be governed by the provisions of Division 10-20.110 (Enforcement).

B. It shall be the duty of the Historic Preservation Commission and/or the City Building Inspector to inspect periodically and assure compliance of any work performed pursuant to the provisions of this Division. Enforcement shall be governed by the provisions of Division 10-20.110 (Enforcement). City of Cottonwood Zoning Code 30.30-23

10-30.30.070 Heritage Preservation

10-30.30.080 Appeals

Any person, firm, or corporation aggrieved by a decision of the Historic Preservation Commission in interpreting, applying, or enforcing this Division, may file an appeal in accordance with the appeal provisions established in Section 10-20.80.030 (Appeals of Permits and Other Approvals).

30.30-24 City of Cottonwood Zoning Code CITY OF COTTONWOOD PHASE I HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEY, YAVAPAI COUNTY, ARIZONA

Prepared for: City of Cottonwood 111 N. Main Street Cottonwood, Arizona 86326

Prepared by: Jennifer Levstik, M.A. Grant Fahrni, M.A

Logan Simpson 177 N. Church Ave, Suite 607 Tucson, Arizona 85701

December 2018 Submittal #2 Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 185021

TABLE OF CONTENTS City of Cottonwood Phase I Historic Resources Survey, Yavapai County, Arizona ...... i Introduction ...... 2 Literature Review ...... 4 Historic Property Survey and Inventory ...... 4 NRHP Criteria for Evaluation ...... 5 Historic Context ...... 5 Historic Period Development of Cottonwood and Immediate Vicinity ...... 7 Jerome ...... 7 Clarkdale ...... 9 Cottonwood ...... 10 Pedestrian Survey Results ...... 12 Proposed Amendment to Cottonwood Commercial Historic District ...... 12 Proposed Willard Addition Residential Historic District ...... 17 Proposed Old Town Residential Historic District ...... 21 Recommendations ...... 26 References ...... 28

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Detail of 1878 General Land Office Survey Plat No. 00661 map showing sections 27, 26, 34, and 35 of Township 16N, Range 3E, which today make up the majority of the City of Cottonwood (the City extends south into T 15N, R 3E)...... 2 Figure 2. Location of the City of Cottonwood project area...... 3 Figure 3. Location of pedestrian-level survey area (encompassing 6 subdivisions)...... 6 Figure 4. Boundaries of existing and proposed NRHP historic districts...... 14 Figure 5. Boundaries of current Cottonwood Commercial Historic District and proposed addition...... 16 Figure 6. 1917 Willard Addition subdivision plat map (Note that many of the street names on this subdivision have been changed. For example, Mingus Street is currently Cactus Street [North is up on the map])...... 18 Figure 7. Proposed boundaries of Willard Addition Residential Historic District...... 19 Figure 8. Detail showing the location of the various subdivisions within the proposed Old Town Historic District (image courtesy of the City of Cottonwood 2018)...... 21 Figure 9. 1939 Sanborn Fire Insurance map showing much of the proposed Old Town Residential Historic District (Mason Addition, and Stewart and Hood Additions not shown)...... 23 Figure 10. Proposed boundaries of Old Town Residential Historic District...... 25

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHS Photograph 1. View of Jerome from United Verde Smelter (Logan Simpson 2018)...... 7 Photograph 2. View of downtown Clarkdale, ca. 1920s (image courtesy of the Arizona State Archives)...... 9 Photograph 3. Overview of Cottonwood looking towards the intersection of Pima and Main streets, ca. 1940s (image courtesy of the Arizona State Archives)...... 12 Photograph 4. Photograph of the auxiliary building at 796 North Main Street which fronts North Balboa Street and is currently outside of the Cottonwood Commercial Historic District (Logan Simpson 2018)...... 15 Photograph 5. Examples of a vernacular residential buildings within the Willard Addition (Logan Simpson 2018)...... 21 Photograph 6. Example of a vernacular home with bunglaw features within the proposed Old Town Residential Historic District (Logan Simpson 2018)...... 24

City of Cottonwood Historic Resources Survey Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 185021

i INTRODUCTION At the request of the City of Cottonwood (City), Logan Simpson performed the first phase of a two-phase historic property inventory and preliminary National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-eligibility assessment. Phase I included a historic property survey of residential neighborhoods and districts located within the municipal boundaries of the City in an effort to identify those resources that are potentially eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Phase I results presented herein will be incorporated into the City’s municipal planning, land use, and development processes.

The City of Cottonwood is one of nine small cities located within the Verde Valley, an area encompassing 714 square miles bounded by the Mogollon Rim to the north and east and the Black Hills and Mingus Mountain to the west and south respectively (Figures 1 and 2). Within the valley, the Verde River runs northwest-to-southeast, immediately east of Cottonwood. The City ranges in elevation from 3,300 feet (ft) above mean sea level (amsl) to 3,900 ft amsl. Today, the population hovers around 14,000 people living within a 16.65-square-mile area. The City has a long history of human activity from prehistoric Native American occupation by the Sinagua people to historic-period Yavapai and Apache camp sites to Euro- American farming and mining-related settlement and later incorporation as a town in 1960.

Figure 1. Detail of 1878 General Land Office Survey Plat No. 00661 map showing sections 27, 26, 34, and 35 of Township 16N, Range 3E, which today make up the majority of the City of Cottonwood (the City extends south into T 15N, R 3E).

City of Cottonwood Historic Resources Survey Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 185021

Figure 2. Location of the City of Cottonwood project area.

City of Cottonwood Historic Resources Survey Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 185021

3 LITERATURE REVIEW Prior to conducting fieldwork Logan Simpson completed a literature review of existing documentation, including early inventories and nominations, and reviewed Arizona State Historic Preservation Office files for previously evaluated and/or NRHP-listed properties, including a historic building inventory conducted in 1986 by Linda Laird and Associates, as well as the Cottonwood Commercial Historic District NRHP nomination (Stein 2000). Archival research was also conducted at the Arizona Historical Society library and special collections. The National Register Information System database, historic USGS 15' topographic maps, General Land Office maps, Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps, and Subdivision Plat maps were reviewed electronically. Records on file at the City, Cottonwood Historical Commission, and Yavapai County Assessor’s Office were reviewed to determine approximate construction dates for the City’s neighborhoods and potential historic districts.

HISTORIC PROPERTY SURVEY AND INVENTORY After completion of the literature review, Logan Simpson conducted a two-part field survey consisting of a reconnaissance-level windshield survey of the entire project area and subsequent pedestrian survey in selected areas. The project area is defined as those neighborhoods and/or districts within the City limits that were constructed prior to 1968. During the reconnaissance inventory, Logan Simpson conducted a windshield survey (driving survey) of 23 residential subdivisions within those neighborhoods and/or districts that were platted within the 50-year age criterion for historic designation. The pedestrian survey covered 6 subdivisions (see Figure 2 for extent of project area coverage).

Architectural styles of each neighborhood/district were noted during field inventory and their significant architectural features were also recorded. Attributes recorded during survey included, massing; number of stories; roof, wall and foundation materials; presence of alterations and/or additions; fenestration; ornamentation; number of associated outbuildings; overall condition of the buildings/structures. These characteristics provided the basis for an initial field assessment of the integrity and NRHP-eligibility of these neighborhoods/districts. Based on this initial survey, Logan Simpson was able to develop a preliminary assessment of the overall historical integrity of buildings within these neighborhood/districts that may be eligible for NRHP-listing. This assessment was further refined to look at individual subdivisions within said neighborhoods/districts. The majority of buildings in these subdivisions within the project area that were platted historically have undergone multiple changes; changes that are related to their ability to convey their historical significance. Per the Secretary of Interior, in order for a property (or properties) to be eligible for listing in the NRHP, it must meet most, if not all, of the following aspects of integrity: location, setting, feeling, design, materials, workmanship, and association (NPS 2002). While the subdivisions as a whole retained integrity of location and setting, most of the buildings within them were no longer able to adequately express integrity of design, materials, and workmanship, due in large part to exterior modifications resulting in the removal of historic fabric (e.g. windows, roofs, siding, etc.) or significant alterations (e.g., infill of porches and carports, additions to the fronts of buildings).

City of Cottonwood Historic Resources Survey Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 185021

4 A second pedestrian-level survey was completed within the 6 subdivisions that retained sufficient numbers of historic resources exhibiting integrity (Figure 3). These subdivisions encompass the final survey area: the Willard Addition, Cottonwood Addition, Mason Addition, Stewart and Hood Additions, and the existing Cottonwood Commercial Historic District (see Figure 3). The survey area corresponds to the same area surveyed in 1986 by Linda Laird and Associates as part of a historic building inventory (Laird 1986).

NRHP Criteria for Evaluation As stated above, the properties located within the survey area were evaluated for their eligibility to the NRHP. Under guidelines established by the National Park Service (NPS), it is essential that these resources possess three elements in order to determine eligibility: 1) integrity, meaning that the buildings/properties retain their essential form and construction and continue to exist in the setting they were intended to occupy; 2) historic significance, meaning that the buildings/properties meets one or more of the NRHP criteria below; and 3) historic significance derived from a historic context organized by theme, place, and time. In order for these buildings/properties to possess both integrity and historic significance, they must first meet one or more of the following criteria (NPS 2002):

The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, buildings, structures, sites, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and

(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 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 history or prehistory.

HISTORIC CONTEXT The town of Cottonwood began as a small farm settlement in 1875, and its proximity to the Verde River made it an appealing location for settlement. Over time, however, the most substantial source of influence on its expansion and future development was its location in between two smelter towns—Clarkdale and Clemenceau—and its proximity to the mining town of Jerome.

City of Cottonwood Historic Resources Survey Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 185021

Figure 3. Location of pedestrian-level survey area (encompassing 6 subdivisions).

City of Cottonwood Historic Resources Survey Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 185021

6 Historic Period Development of Cottonwood and Immediate Vicinity Jerome Just under six miles to the west of Cottonwood is the mining town of Jerome, Arizona (incorporated in 1899), which played a critical role in the development of Cottonwood. The first miners in the vicinity of Jerome were the local Native Americans who extracted azurite and pigments useful in decoration (Murbarger 1964; O’Brien 1991; Sherman and Sherman 1969). Subsequent to Native American use, Spanish explorers Antonio de Espejo (1583) and Marcos Farfan de los Godos (1598) investigated the area looking for gold, but only having only found copper ores, they moved on in search of more profitable regions (Murbarger 1964; O’Brien 1991; Sherman and Sherman). During the 1870s, prospectors tentatively worked in the area, but none of them possessed the finances to develop a large-scale mining operation (Murbarger 1964; O’Brien 1991; Sherman and Sherman 1969; Trimble 1986; Varney 1986, 1998).

In 1882, the arrival of the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad (A&P) in northern Arizona made large-scale development of the area possible for the first time. Prior to the arrival of the A&P in Flagstaff—located 60 miles to the north—the nearest railhead to Jerome was in Abilene, Kansas. While the A&P was laying tracks from Flagstaff to the west coast, Territorial Governor Frederick Augustus Tritle was busy assembling a group of investors to acquire and develop a mining claim in the Verde Valley that was owned by the McKinnon brothers (O’Brien 1991; Sherman and Sherman 1969; Varney 1998). Among these investors was attorney Eugene Murray Jerome, whose only stipulation for investing was that the resulting town be named after him. Together, the investors established the United Verde Copper Company (UVCC), an operation they eventually sold in 1888 to William Andrews Clark. Ownership of the mine proved to be a lucrative venture, making Clark a very wealthy man and resulting in a mining dynasty that would last well into the 1930s (O’Brien 1991; Sherman and Sherman 1969; Varney 1986, 1998) (Photograph 1).

Photograph 1. View of Jerome from United Verde Smelter (Logan Simpson 2018).

City of Cottonwood Historic Resources Survey Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 185021

7 Developing the town of Jerome was not without its challenges. The town was largely established along hillsides and undulating terrain, with the commercial strip sited on level ground parallel to the UVCC Smelter. The smelter emitted noxious clouds of smoke that choked and often sickened the inhabitants, and it killed the vegetation in its vicinity. In addition to acrid air, the residents also had to contend with incessant blasting, and accidents and deaths at the mine and smelter were frequent occurrences in Jerome (Trimble 1986; Varney 1986, 1998).

In 1894, a fire started in the upper levels of the UVCC, which burned almost constantly over decades. This necessitated the abandonment and dismantling of the smelter and a switch from underground to open-pit mining (Varney 1986, 1998). In 1899, a competing mine, organized by William Hull called the United Verde Extension Gold, Silver and Copper Company was also established in Jerome (later referred to as the United Verde Extension [UVX]).

By 1900, Jerome had a population of 2,861, making it the fourth largest city in the Arizona Territory. During its prime, Jerome attracted immigrants from around the world, including immigrants from Wales, France, Italy, Austria, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, England, Ireland, Mexico, China, Russia, Italy, Germany, and the former Yugoslavia (O’Brien 1991; Varney 1986). Many of these immigrants worked in Jerome but lived just outside Cottonwood, which was only a short distance away and could be traveled by foot. Cottonwood also offered ample flat land for homes and was removed from the noxious gas emitted by the UVCC Smelter (O’Brien 1991).

Between 1912 and 1914, Jerome transitioned to open-pit mining, and by 1914 the smelter in neighboring Clarkdale was in operation. During this period, additional large-scale mining operations began exploration of the Little Daisy Mine at the foot of Cleopatra Hill overlooking Jerome. Earnings were lean for the first few years, but in 1916 the miners discovered a five-foot thick vein of copper, one of the richest ever found in American mining. By 1916, the UVX excavated 10 million worth of gold, silver, and copper (O’Brien 1991).

Jerome’s most profitable years were from 1914 to 1918 when the demand for copper brought on by World War I caused copper prices to soar (O’Brien 1991; Trimble 1986; Varney 1986). During this same period however, union unrest was also on the rise, and mine workers began to demand better wages and treatment at the hands of their employers. In 1917, led by the Industrial Workers of the World (aka “Wobblies”), Jerome’s miners went on strike. The Wobblies and the striking miners were not well received, and in short order, the town organized a committee that rounded-up the strikers and shipped them out of town in a cattle car (Trimble 1986; Varney 1986).

With the stock market crash of 1929, coupled with plummeting copper prices, the UVCC was forced to shut down by 1932. In 1935, copper prices were on the rise, and the mine reopened, under the ownership of Phelps Dodge Corporation. By the 1940s, Phelps Dodge Corporation had acquired the three largest copper mines in Arizona—in Bisbee, Clifton-Morenci, and Jerome. During World War II, the economy of Jerome boomed with increased demand for copper (O’Brien 1991). The UVCC was permanently closed in 1953

City of Cottonwood Historic Resources Survey Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 185021

8 (O’Brien 1991; Trimble 1986; Varney 1986, 1998). In 1966, Jerome was listed in the NRHP. Today, Jerome’s economy is based on tourism and recreation, although old mining claims still exist.

Clarkdale By 1912, William A. Clark, owner of United Verde mine in Jerome, was forced to construct a new smelter to replace the one in Jerome. The fires in the underground workings in Jerome were making it unsafe to extract ore, and cave-ins caused by burning timber support posts were making continued operation of the smelter risky. In addition, the richest ore deposits were located beneath the smelter. The smelter was abandoned, and a new smelter was erected in Clarkdale, approximately three miles northeast of Jerome and about four miles to the northwest of Cottonwood (Peterson 2008; Wahmann 1999). Clark purchased 1,200 acres of land from the Jordan Ranch near Jerome on what would become the location of the new smelter and the city of Clarkdale (Photograph 2). Between 1914 and 1915, the smelter was fully operational (Barnes 1977; Peterson 2008).

Like many mining communities across the American Southwest, Clarkdale was a company town. It was planned, developed, and named after the owner of the UVCC, William A. Clark. Clark not only owned and regulated all the property in town but also set the standards of conduct, cultural mores, and social values. Individuals either submitted to the standards set by Clark or faced eviction or unemployment (Peterson 2008).

Photograph 2. View of downtown Clarkdale, ca. 1920s (image courtesy of the Arizona State Archives).

Clarkdale was divided into three districts: Upper Clarkdale, Lower Clarkdale, and Patio Park. Upper Clarkdale housed white-collar employees, such as smelter supervisors and professionals. Upper Clarkdale was also located farthest from the smelter and possessed an upscale business district and leisure amenities, including a swimming pool, two clubhouses, community playground, golf course, four tennis courts, horseshoe courts, and a baseball field with a grandstand (Peterson 2008).

City of Cottonwood Historic Resources Survey Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 185021

Lower Clarkdale contained a business district and housed smelter employees, mechanics, clerks, laborers, and other blue-collar workers. While the housing in Lower Clarkdale was not comparable with that of Upper Clarkdale, it was far superior to that found in Patio Park. Within Clarkdale, residential areas were divided along economic, racial, and ethnic lines (Peterson 2008). Patio Park, for example, largely housed the town’s Mexican and Mexican-American population. The district was situated outside the Clarkdale city limits on the far side of Bitter Creek and on the opposite side of the railroad tracks. The neighborhood was within direct view and proximity of the smelter, making Patio Park residents susceptible to air and ground-water contamination. The residents of Patio Park were largely employed in entry-level jobs at the mine, domestic services for residents of Upper Clarkdale, or in the food service industry within the town’s commercial district (Peterson 2008).

In 1931, the UVCC and its smelter closed. In 1935, Phelps Dodge Corporation acquired the property, and operations resumed. Phelps Dodge continued to run the smelter until lagging yields prompted them to cease operations. The smelter was formally closed in 1953 (Clarkdale 2009; Rickard 1987; Young 2000). Following its closure, the town of Clarkdale was bought and sold several times, and the community grew weary of corporate management. In 1957, the Clarkdale Community Betterment Association sought incorporation from the Yavapai County Board of Supervisors and was granted incorporation on July 1, 1957 (Clarkdale 2009).

In 1959, the establishment of the American Cement Company (later the Phoenix Cement Company) in Clarkdale brought new life to the local economy. The plant was the chief supplier of cement for the building of the Glen Canyon Dam in Page, Arizona, and eventually became the primary supplier of cement to the burgeoning metropolis of Phoenix. Until around 1999, the Phoenix Cement Company was the largest employer in Clarkdale and nearby Cottonwood. The company is currently owned by the Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community (Wahmann 1999). In 1998, the Upper and Lower Clarkdale districts were listed as NRHP Historic Districts.

Cottonwood Cottonwood was established in 1908 by Charles Stemmer and Alonzo Mason, who created the community’s first street—Main Street—by pulling a drag through the brush (Main Street was originally named 1st Street). In spite of their attempts at community building, it took several years before other businesses joined Mason’s store and post office on Main Street. In the 1910s, UVCC and the UVX—the competing mining companies operating in the nearby town of Jerome—began searching for locations where they could build new smelters.

The UVCC completed their smelter in 1914-15, and the town of Clarkdale developed around it. The UVX completed their smelter in 1917, resulting in the town of Verde, later known as Clemenceau and eventually subsumed into Cottonwood. Following the establishment of these two towns, Cottonwood began to expand. Clarkdale and Clemenceau, owned by the UVCC and the UVX, respectively, had very restrictive policies. For example, in Clarkdale and Clemenceau a person could not own a house or own a business. In addition, a person’s nationality could limit what occupations they were allowed to pursue or even prohibit them from

City of Cottonwood Historic Resources Survey Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 185021

10 entering town. Cottonwood, on the other hand, provided a place where home ownership was possible, and entrepreneurs were welcome, regardless of nationality (Stein 2000; Peterson 2008; Wahmann 1999).

The three towns—Cottonwood, Clarkdale, and Clemenceau—prospered during WWI, but the recession that followed the end of the war hit the mining industry hard, and hundreds of workers lost their jobs when the local smelters closed. Cottonwood weathered the recession better than neighboring towns. Although new construction was minimal between 1919 and 1921, Cottonwood was able to support many businesses without the economic support of the mining industry (Stein 2000).

Cottonwood was affected by devastating fires on several occasions. In 1917, the first fire started when a pile of rubbish ignited and destroyed five buildings along Main Street. The second fire in 1925 started in a restaurant that destroyed every building along the west side of Main Street, specifically between addresses 918 through 1024 North Main Street. Fifteen businesses and 10 neighboring residences were destroyed. The only human casualty of the fire was G. H. Brooks, a mentalist from Los Angeles, who was staying at the Cottonwood Hotel. The 1925 fire prompted the creation of new fire codes that banned the use of wood in new construction, including boardwalks. Boardwalks were replaced by concrete sidewalks that curiously led to a stilt-walking craze among young boys between the ages of six and 14. In 1927 and 1928, a series of fires erupted that authorities thought was the work of an arsonist. A female Cottonwood pioneer was apprehended on the suspicion of arson but was acquitted. She died two years after her acquittal and, coincidently, Cottonwood did not see another fire until 1933. In 1933, another Main Street fire was started by a coffee urn at the Eatmor Sandwich shop. Three businesses and two nearby residences were destroyed as well as the tents of a carnival that had set up at the town park (Stein 2000).

The 1920s was a relatively prosperous time in Arizona, and Cottonwood and the neighboring mines were no different. The effects of the stock market crash of October 1929 were not felt in Cottonwood until the summer of 1930 when the UVCC and UVX curtailed production and hundreds of smelter workers, and all the miners lost their jobs (Stein 2000).

Federal relief organizations arrived in the area in the winter of 1933. This included the Civilian Conservation Corp (CCC) and the Civil Works Administration (CWA), which was dissolved in 1934 and replaced by the Works Progress Administration (WPA) in 1935. An important CWA project, supervised by archaeologist Dr. Byron Cummings from the University of Arizona, was the Tuzigoot Project. This project lasted for several years, and employed many men from Cottonwood. A museum/visitors center was also built, and the project helped develop Cottonwood’s tourist industry. Although the mining industry never recovered from the effects of the Great Depression, Cottonwood and the Verde Valley area began catering to tourists who wanted to visit guest ranches and archaeological ruins (Stein 2000).

During WWII, Cottonwood residents contributed to the war effort by running a flight school at its airport. The Naval cadets learned how to fly in 16 biplanes manufactured by the Stearman Aircraft Company. The cadets stayed in Cottonwood using the community clubhouse for barracks and the Marianna Building across the street as the mess hall. After the war, a Quonset hut from the airfield was brought to the downtown area to

City of Cottonwood Historic Resources Survey Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 185021

11 serve as a store front for an automobile dealership (Stein 2000). As noted previously, in 1959, the American Cement Company (now Phoenix Cement Company) began operating in Clarkdale. The company remains one of the largest employers in the area (Stein 2000). Today, tourism plays a major economic role in Cottonwood and the Verde Valley, and the area recently was named one of the top ten US travel destination by the travel guide, Lonely Planet (Cottonwood Chamber of Commerce 2018) (Figure 3).

PEDESTRIAN SURVEY RESULTS The NRHP eligibility documentation resulted in a final survey area composed of the Willard Addition, Cottonwood Addition, Mason Addition, Hopkin’s Ranch Addition, Stewart and Hood Addition, and the existing Cottonwood Commercial Historic District. As noted previously the survey area was arrived upon after a reconnaissance survey of the entire City, and the areas noted above were found to retain the greatest number of contiguous properties expressing historic integrity. While individual NRHP-eligible properties were observed in other locations throughout the City, the scope of the project was to identify areas that could be potential historic districts or to identify existing historic districts that could be amended since their original designation (Figure 4).

Photograph 3. Overview of Cottonwood looking towards the intersection of Pima and Main streets, ca. 1940s (image courtesy of the Arizona State Archives).

Proposed Amendment to Cottonwood Commercial Historic District Currently, Cottonwood has one NRHP-listed historic district, the Cottonwood Commercial Historic District (district). The district currently contains 53 buildings and 4 structures, 37 of which contribute to the historic character of the district and 20 that are considered non-contributing based on a lack of integrity or age (Stein 2000). The current period of significance is 1917–1949. The district includes buildings and structures clustered along or directly fronting North Main Street and bounded to the north and south by bridges, a

City of Cottonwood Historic Resources Survey Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 185021

12 geographic area locally referred to as “bridge-to-bridge.” These resources are associated with local commerce, government, and religious activities; as well as residential, social, recreational, and cultural functions. Associated resource types include: restaurants, specialty and department stores, hotels/motels, a meeting hall, a jail, a post office, public works, churches, a theatre, and two bridges. The district is listed in the NRHP as locally significant under Criterion A (event) for its association with the commercial development of Cottonwood during the early-to-mid-20th century (Stein 2000).

At the time of the nomination in 2000, 20 properties were recommended as non-contributing. Now, with the passage of time, six additional buildings and one structure previously considered non-contributing based on age have reached the 50-year age threshold and may now be recommended eligible for inclusion as contributing resources to the existing district (Table 1). In order for these resources to be subsumed under the existing documentation, the period of significance will need to be amended to incorporate additional properties built after 1949 but before 1961 (1960 is the proposed end date to signify the year Cottonwood became an incorporated community). Table 1 provides a list of potentially eligible resources that are currently designated as non-contributing.

Table 1. Previously non-contributing resources in the existing Cottonwood Commercial Historic District that may now be potentially eligible as contributing resources. Historic Date of Condition per current NRHP Address Name/Use Current Name/Use Construction nomination (Stein 2000) 1045 N. Main Street APS Building Bueno Marketplace 1960 Was not 50 years old at time of survey, Windows have been added 901/903 N. Main Street Western Auto Red Rooster c. 1959 Was not 50 years old Parts Restaurant 827 N. Main Street Post Office City Hall 1959-1960 Was not 50 years old 817 N. Main Street Chamber of City Meeting Room c. 1956 Was not 50 years old. Commerce Office 816 N. Main Street Bank of Arizona City Finance 1954 Was not 50 years old 794 N. Main Street Richfield Service Bings Burgers Station c. 1952-1961 Was not 50 years old, Rehabilitation Station 1003 N. Main Street Shep’s Liquor Ledbetter Law Rehab, c. 1960 Example of mid-century design. sign “Welcome Old Town” Rehabilitation, not 50 years old

In addition to these seven resources within the existing district boundaries, additional commercial properties situated outside but adjacent to these boundaries dating between 1949 and 1960 could be potential contributing resources to an amended Cottonwood Commercial Historic District (Figure 4). Immediately to the east of Main Street, south of East Pima Street and west of North 3rd Street located at 817 North 2nd Street, stands the Boys and Girls Club building of Cottonwood and a baseball field (previously cited as a “plaza” on 1939 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps). This large lot was once part of the Al Strahan Homestead (of which all homestead-era buildings are gone). The homestead was later conveyed to the UVX, who provided the land to the Salvation Army followed by the American Legion and the Boys and Girls Club of America (personal communication with Glenda Farley, May 24, 2018). This building and ballfield are associated with Cottonwood’s civic development and its growth during the mid-to-latter half of the 20th century.

City of Cottonwood Historic Resources Survey Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 185021

Figure 4. Boundaries of existing and proposed NRHP historic districts.

City of Cottonwood Historic Resources Survey Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 185021

14 Farther south along the east side of North Main Street, outside the current historic district boundaries and immediately south of the wash and North 3rd Street, are four commercial properties, only one of which (777 North Main Street) is potentially eligible as a contributing element to an amended district. The remaining buildings are either not at least 50 years old or do not share enough other historical attributes to justify inclusion in the historic district (i.e., they were later additions in a residential area or should be included in a different potential district; Figure 5).

Abutting the west side of the district between West Pima Street and West Pinal Street, a section of formerly vacant land, and now site of the Tavern Hotel and parking lot, could also be pulled into the boundary (see Figure 5). Near the southwest corner of the district, the boundary should be also be extended to include 704 North Balboa Street and the auxiliary building at 796 North Main (within the district boundaries but not accounted for previously)—where North Main Street turns into North Balboa Street. Immediately south and west of these buildings is a residential area, and therefore this area serves as a logical linear boundary around the remaining commercial buildings at the southwestern edge of the district (Photograph 4).

Photograph 4. Photograph of the auxiliary building at 796 North Main Street which fronts North Balboa Street and is currently outside of the Cottonwood Commercial Historic District (Logan Simpson 2018).

City of Cottonwood Historic Resources Survey Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 185021

Figure 5. Boundaries of current Cottonwood Commercial Historic District and proposed addition.

City of Cottonwood Historic Resources Survey Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 185021

With these changes the commercial district would encompass additional resources within and adjacent to the existing district. The rationale for these recommended changes is largely related to refining the current boundaries, providing more contributing properties to bolster the district, and expand the period of significance to include the history of Cottonwood up until incorporation in 1960.

At present, the boundaries near the northwest section and the southeast corner of the district “thread the needle” around vacant lots or ineligible properties, and thus they appear somewhat gerrymandered. More recently, the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Keeper of the NRHP have expressed a preference for districts have clear and logical boundaries without undue finessing to avoid non-contributing or intrusive properties. In the proposed amendment, the boundaries will be “squared” to accommodate new, but thematically related properties and clarify the district’s footprint, thereby making it easier to 1) create design guidelines and future zoning overlays for areas with squared edges that adhere to the street grid versus those with jagged boundaries and 2) provide a clearer process for owners and developers to understand if their property is within an NRHP district and/or overlay zone with historic preservation design requirements. Other commercial properties share the same themes of significance and temporal affiliation, but these properties are recommended as non-contributing resources because either they are not contiguous with the existing district or because two or more character-defining features of their façade have been adversely altered (i.e. windows removed or filled in, roofline changed, additions on primary elevation, or non- historic sheathing).

In conclusion, as described earlier, the existing district’s period of significance is 1917–1949 and is listed in the NRHP under Criterion A for its association with the commercial development of Cottonwood during the early-to-mid 20th century (Stein 2000). Logan Simpson recommends that both the period of significance and district footprint be expanded to include additional historic contexts. It is recommended that the period of significance be changed to end in 1960 to include commercial postwar development following World War II. The same is true for expanding the developmental history of Cottonwood to include the City’s postwar period where modern public and commercial buildings were introduced and to chronicle the influence of tourism as an economic driver for the community. By expanding the period of significance, historic contexts, and boundaries, an additional 12 properties could be added to the district.

Proposed Willard Addition Residential Historic District Immediately west of and abutting North Cactus Street between East Pima Street and North Main Street lies a residential area nestled among an undulating hillside above the Cottonwood Commercial Historic District. The area is not currently listed in the NRHP, but Logan Simpson recommends that the subdivision be eligible for listing on the NRHP listing under Criterion A for the period 1917–1930. The Willard Addition, originally platted in 1917 as a gridded subdivision with six north-south and five east-west running streets, is now composed of two north-south running streets and one east-west running street (Figures 6 and 7). A portion of the subdivision includes the west side of North Main Street and is incorporated in the Cottonwood Commercial Historic District. Both the west side of Main Street and the south side of where Willard Avenue and Main Street merge was platted for commercial usage, and the rest of the subdivision was platted for

City of Cottonwood Historic Resources Survey Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 185021

Figure 6. 1917 Willard Addition subdivision plat map (Note that many of the street names on this subdivision have been changed. For example, Mingus Street is currently Cactus Street [North is up on the map]).

City of Cottonwood Historic Resources Survey Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 185021

Figure 7. Proposed boundaries of Willard Addition Residential Historic District.

City of Cottonwood Historic Resources Survey Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 185021

19 residential usage. The subdivision consists of modest single-family dwellings, the majority of which are vernacular in design and feature masonry or wood-framed walls, sash windows, front porches, low-pitched or gable roofs, and shallow setbacks from the street. The residences appear to represent workforce housing, similar to that seen in other mining communities in Arizona (excluding planned company towns like Clarkdale, for example) (see Figure 7).

The subdivision derives its name from its developer, Charles Douglas Willard. Willard was one of the town’s early pioneers and is often referred to as the “father of Cottonwood” (Stein 2000). In 1879, Willard and his brothers came to the area on a cattle drive from Nevada but ended up settling in what would become Clarkdale after the death of their father during the trip. In 1883, his mother joined them and began homesteading acreage west and north of today’s downtown Cottonwood (what is now part of the Willard Addition subdivision). Her holdings included a brick residence, multiple outbuildings, a vegetable garden, and pear orchard (Stein 2000). Around 1885, one of Mary Willard’s outbuildings became the Cottonwood Post Office, and her son George “Mack” Willard served as the postmaster until 1899. The Willard family capitalized on the proximity to Fort Verde (a nearby military fort that needed agricultural products) and the copper-mining camp at Jerome. Even after the fort was abandoned in 1881, Jerome’s success spilled over into Cottonwood, whose commercial district began to develop in response the success of the United Verde copper mine. In 1917—a boom year for the town—Charles Willard subdivided his land west of Main Street into the Willard Addition (Stein 2000). The build-out period for the subdivision was between 1917 and 1930, with some modern infill development in recent years.

The residences located along North Cactus Street (formerly Mingus street) represent the formal development of the subdivision, but for unknown reasons—perhaps in response to the topography and slope of the western half of the plat—the rest of the subdivision was largely undeveloped, and only the south side of West Pinal Street (formerly Mason Avenue) was developed. Portions of this subdivision were included in the original 1986 building survey, and inventory forms were completed only for residences located along North Cactus Street (Laird 1986). Based on the previously-completed inventory forms for these properties, most of the buildings continue to look as they did in the 1980s and retain the majority of their historic exterior fabric and character-defining features. The proposed district boundary depicted in Figure 6 surrounds the entirety of the subdivision, specifically areas of the subdivision that were part of the historic build out. Properties currently identified as non-contributing are either not of historic age (at least 50 years old), were constructed outside the build-out period (1917–1930), or have two or more exterior alterations.

In total, the proposed residential district includes 19 contributing resources and seven non-contributing resources built between 1917 and 1930. The contributing resources express most, if not all, aspects of integrity and are associated with historic themes related to the development of Cottonwood. The Willard Addition Historic District is recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP at the local level of significance under Criterion A based on its association with the initial settlement and establishment of Cottonwood, its role as a supply center for neighboring industries, and its association with the early-20th century growth of the town (Photograph 5).

City of Cottonwood Historic Resources Survey Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 185021

Photograph 5. Examples of a vernacular residential buildings within the Willard Addition (Logan Simpson 2018).

Proposed Old Town Residential Historic District Immediately east and southeast of the Cottonwood Commercial Historic District are four residential subdivisions that collectively make up the proposed Old Town Residential Historic District. The subdivisions include: the Cottonwood Addition (1917), Mason Addition (1918), Stewart and Hood Addition (1944), and Hopkins Ranch Addition (1926) (Figure 8). Logan Simpson recommends that these subdivisions be eligible for NRHP-listing under Criterion A, with a period of significance of 1917–1955.

Figure 8. Detail showing the location of the various subdivisions within the proposed Old Town Historic District (image courtesy of the City of Cottonwood 2018).

City of Cottonwood Historic Resources Survey Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 185021

The proposed district includes a cluster of abutting subdivisions composed of gridded north-south streets and east-west running avenues, with small, closely spaced lots immediately behind (east of) the commercial district. Lots sizes gradually grow larger and more widely spaced as the subdivisions expanded to the east and south. The northern and eastern boundary is marked by an early 1870s irrigation ditch fed by the Verde River.

The earliest of these subdivisions, the Cottonwood Addition, was platted in 1917 by the Verde Valley Improvement Company of Jerome, illustrating the shifting role of individual land speculators and real estate companies in the City’s development. Lands encompassing the Cottonwood Addition were acquired from Alonzo Mason. Mason, also the namesake of the adjoining Mason Addition, was considered one of the City’s pioneers, and until 1917 Mason operated the only business on Main Street. Lots within this addition sold quickly, and it was soon apparent that additional land was needed for residential development (Stein 2000). Mason himself subdivided his own land the following year, adding to the growing footprint of the City. At the time these two subdivisions were platted, much of what would later become residential areas were owned by UVX. By the 1920s, residential development extended south with the platting of the Hopkins Ranch Addition in 1926 (Figure 9). The City’s newest subdivision terminated just south of the U.S. Highway 79 (U.S. 79) frontage and abutted the Cottonwood ditch to the east. Lots were larger, and the frequency of recognized architectural styles—most notably bungalow architecture—began to increase through the 1920s.

Together, these four subdivisions consist of modest single- and multi-family dwellings, the majority of which are vernacular in design and feature masonry or wood-framed walls, sash windows, low masonry walls, front porches, low-pitched or gable roofs, varying set-backs from the street, and multiple placements on their lots. They appear to represent a mix of both owner-built homes and contractor-built homes. For example, in spite of the formal grid layout of these subdivisions, each lot was sold individually, allowing for a degree of variability between each residence in construction, siting and orientation, and materials. Where this pattern shifts, however, is along the US 89 (formerly 79) frontage where houses are evenly spaced and share similar heights, setbacks, and bungalow architecture. These homes would have historically fronted the entrance into the main commercial corridor and, based on their architecture and formality, suggest that wealthier individuals lived in these residences; blue collar workers and their families likely lived across the street in the southern part of the proposed district.

The four subdivisions included in the proposed Old Town Residential Historic District encompass an area larger in size than what is being recommended here. Based on field survey, less than half of the Hopkins Ranch Addition subdivision was built out during the period of significance for these four subdivisions (1917– 1955), is historic-age, and retains integrity sufficient for NRHP eligibility. Instead, and as is depicted in Figure 9, the suggested boundary is based on the sections within these residential areas that retain most aspects of integrity, share similar temporal and historical associations, and can readily speak to residential development in Cottonwood during its peak in the early-to-mid 20th century. The proposed district is bounded on the west by the alleyway directly west of North Main Street until it intersects with Pima Street, proceeding

City of Cottonwood Historic Resources Survey Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 185021

Figure 9. 1939 Sanborn Fire Insurance map showing much of the proposed Old Town Residential Historic District (Mason Addition, and Stewart and Hood Additions not shown).

City of Cottonwood Historic Resources Survey Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 185021

Photograph 6. Example of a vernacular home with bunglaw features within the proposed Old Town Residential Historic District (Logan Simpson 2018). south along the west side of the drainage across US 89, where it terminates at the edge of the highway frontage. The southern boundary follows the edge of the frontage on the south side of the highway and proceeds to head north, forming the eastern boundary along North 3rd Street where it reaches an irrigation ditch that borders the northern edge of the district (Figure 10). In this configuration, the residential district would include 40 contributing resources and 25 non-contributing resources built between 1917 and 1955, which marks the establishment of the earliest plats within this district to the year that the majority of lots in these subdivisions were built out.

These resources express most, if not all, aspects of integrity and are associated with historic themes related to the development of Cottonwood. On one hand, the residences located within the Mason Addition, Cottonwood Addition, and the section of the Hopkin’s Ranch Addition along 3rd street all share similar architectural feeling, materials, and scale. The rest of the subdivision east of 3rd street does not have enough contributing resources due to numerous incompatible alterations and infill; therefore the eastern boundary was established along 3rd street. On the other hand, the southern extent of the Hopkins Addition along US 89, although historically associated with the platting of the subdivision, reveals a formal layout, design, feeling, and association in comparison to its neighbors to the north and east. Therefore, another alternative would be that the Hopkins Ranch Addition be separated from the other subdivisions and designated as its own district.

City of Cottonwood Historic Resources Survey Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 185021

Figure 10. Proposed boundaries of Old Town Residential Historic District.

City of Cottonwood Historic Resources Survey Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 185021

The Old Town Historic District is recommended eligible at the local level of significance under Criterion A, based on its association with early-to-mid 20th Century development related to growth of Cottonwood, specifically as it relates to the formalization of Cottonwood residential development and population boom, and under Criterion C, as a physical representation of Cottonwood’s transition from vernacular building traditions to academic architectural styles.

RECOMMENDATIONS In consultation with City of Cottonwood Planning and Development Services staff and the Cottonwood Historical Commission, the scope of the project was to identify areas that could be potential historic districts and identify existing historic districts that could be amended since their original designation. As described above, the NRHP eligibility documentation resulted in a final survey area composed of the Willard Addition, Cottonwood Addition, Mason Addition, Stewart and Hood Addition, Hopkins Ranch Addition, and the existing Cottonwood Commercial Historic District. This survey area mirrors a similar building inventory completed in 1986 by Linda Laird and Associates. Since the 1986 survey, the two most notable changes that have taken place are that many buildings have aged into eligibility for listing in the NRHP, while other buildings have been altered to such a degree that they are not eligible for future designation. Based on these factors, interviews with City staff, reviewing existing design guidelines, ordinances, and designations, the inventory resulted in the following recommendations:

 Amend the existing Cottonwood Commercial Historic District nomination to include an expanded period of significance, reevaluate non-contributing resources, expand the southeastern and southwestern edges of the existing district, and smooth the western edge of the district boundary to connect buildings rather than omit vacant land (see Figures 4 and 5).  Revise and update existing design guidelines for the Cottonwood Commercial Historic District.  Once the existing district is amended and approved by SHPO and the Keeper’s office of the NRHP, use this revised boundary as the basis for developing a historic preservation overlay zone. The overlay will work in concert with the NRHP-designated properties and will guide existing and future development within this zone. By linking the overlay zone with the district, the City will be able to enforce design review and at the same time provide economic incentives associated with designation in the NRHP.  Establish new residential historic districts through preparation of NRHP nominations for the Old Town and Willard Addition residential districts.  Reach out to individuals who own property in these proposed historic districts by providing any or all of the following: community meeting, neighborhood meeting, or mailing describing the state property tax deduction program, what NRHP designation means, and description of other incentives associated with designated historic properties.  Complete an inventory of individually-eligible buildings within and outside existing and proposed NRHP districts that are not currently designated and provide the list to the Cottonwood Historical Commission and City. The inventory will help guide the City concerning which resources are worthy

City of Cottonwood Historic Resources Survey Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 185021

26 of designation and identify resources that are worthy of protection in advance of future development projects.

City of Cottonwood Historic Resources Survey Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 185021

27 REFERENCES

Barnes, W. C. 1977 Arizona Place Names. 6th ed. Revised and enlarged by Byrd. H. Granger. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona.

Clarkdale 2009 The History of Clarkdale. Updated October 5, 2009. Electronic document http://www.clarkdale.az.us/index.html.

Cottonwood Chamber of Commerce 2018 Visitors Guide: Cottonwood and Verde Valley 2017-2018. Electronic document http://www.visitcottonwoodaz.org/, accessed May 23, 2018.

Farley, Glenda. 2018 Personal communication with Jennifer Levstik.

Laird, Linda and Associates 1986 Cottonwood, Arizona, Historic Resources Inventory: Final Report. On File, State Historic Preservation Office, Phoenix.

National Park Service (NPS) 2002 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register of Historic Places, Washington D.C.

Murbarger, N. 1964 Ghosts of the Adobe Walls. Treasure Chest Publications, Inc., Tucson, Arizona.

O’Brien, C. A. 1991 Jerome: A Mining Legacy in the Black Hills of Central Arizona. In History of Mining in Arizona, Vol. 2, edited by J. M. Canty and M. N. Greeley, pp. 75-107. Mining Club of the Southwest Foundation, Tucson, Arizona.

Peterson, H. 2008 Clarkdale, Arizona: Built Environment, Social Order, and the City Beautiful Movement. The Journal of Arizona History 49(1):27-46.

Rickard, F. R. 1987 History of Smelting. In History of Mining in Arizona, Vol. 1, edited by J. M. Canty and M. N. Greeley, pp. 191-228. Mining Club of the Southwest Foundation, Tucson, Arizona.

Sherman, J. E. and B. H. Sherman 1969 Ghost Towns of Arizona. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Stein, P. 2000 Cottonwood Commercial Historic District National Register of Historic Places nomination form. On File with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office, Phoenix.

City of Cottonwood Historic Resources Survey Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 185021

Trimble, M. 1986 Roadside History of Arizona. Mountain Press Publishing Company, Missoula, Montana.

Varney, P. 1986 Arizona’s Best Ghost Towns. Northland Press, Flagstaff, Arizona

1998 Arizona Ghost Towns and Mining Camps. Arizona Highways Books, Phoenix, Arizona.

Wahmann, R. 1999 Verde Valley Railroads: Trestles, Tunnels, and Tracks. Third edition revised. Jerome Historical Society, Jerome, Arizona.

Young, H. V. 2000 They Came to Jerome: The Billion dollar Copper Camp. Fourth printing. Jerome Historical Society, Jerome, Arizona.

City of Cottonwood Historic Resources Survey Logan Simpson Technical Report No. 185021

March 5, 2019

City of Cottonwood Attn: Berrin Nejad 111 N Main St. Cottonwood, AZ 86326.

Re: Cottonwood Historic Resources Survey, Phase II

Dear Ms. Nejad: Logan Simpson is pleased to submit this Scope of Work and Cost Estimate for Phase II of the Cottonwood Historic Resources Survey that will include a National Register of Historic Places Nomination Amendment and update to existing historic design guidelines for the Cottonwood Historic District located in Cottonwood, Yavapai County, Arizona.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. I am available at (520) 884- 5500 or via e-mail at [email protected]. We look forward to working with you again on this project.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Levstik, M.A. Project Manager/Architectural Historian

Attachments: Scope of Work Fee Estimate

177 N Church Avenue Suite 607 Tucson, Arizona 85701 Phone: 520.884.5500 Fax: 520.620.0441 www.logansimpson.com

SCOPE OF WORK

NRHP NOMINATION AMENDMENT & DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR COTTONWOOD COMMERCIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT

INTRODUCTION The intent of the work under this cost proposal is for Logan Simpson to assist the City of Cottonwood (City) with a National Register of Historic Places Nomination Amendment for the Cottonwood Commercial Historic District and coordinate updates to the existing historic design guidelines for the same district. Logan Simpson recently performed the first phase of a two-phase historic property inventory and preliminary National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-eligibility assessment. Phase I included a historic property survey of residential neighborhoods and commercial districts located within the municipal boundaries of the City in an effort to identify those resources that are potentially eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. As a result of that initial survey, the Cottonwood Commercial NRHP Historic District was reevaluated, and 11 additional buildings and one structure may now be contributing properties. In order for these resources to be subsumed under the existing documentation, the nomination will need to be amended to extend the period of significance to 1960, the year Cottonwood became an incorporated community. Additionally, the original boundaries of the NRHP commercial district will be amended to include the entire commercial district and associated open spaces. In concert with amending the current period of significance and boundary, Logan Simpson will also help direct the revisions to the existing design guidelines for the Cottonwood Historic District to more closely align with the soon-to-be amended NRHP district. ARCHITECTURAL DOCUMENTATION Logan Simpson will inventory the additional 12 recommended-eligible properties identified during Phase I on State of Arizona Historic Property Inventory Forms (HPIFs). All field reporting will completed be in compliance with Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) documentation standards. Architectural documentation will include recordation of condition, function, design, building materials, significance, and be accompanied by exterior photographs. The photographic images will include 18–25 final photographs, with elevations of all buildings and structures, and representative overview photographs of landscape features. NRHP ELIGIBILITY LETTER REPORT After completion of architectural documentation, Logan Simpson will conduct archival research to support an NRHP Determination of Eligibility Letter Report for submission to SHPO. Utilizing the information gathered during the previous archival research efforts during Phase I and field documentation, Logan Simpson will prepare NRHP-eligibility recommendations for each of the 11 buildings, 1 structure, and any landscape features located within the proposed district expansion. The NRHP-eligibility evaluation will include a brief historic context, an evaluation of significance and integrity, a description of eligibility criteria, and an assessment of whether any of these resources may be potential contributors or non-contributors to the existing Cottonwood Commercial Historic District. NRHP NOMINATION After the SHPO determines that the buildings and structures are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, Logan Simpson will prepare an NRHP nomination amendment package that will include an amendment to the existing NRHP nomination that would expand the existing boundaries and contributing/non- contributing resources within the boundaries of the historic district as well as expand the period of

177 N Church Avenue Suite 607 Tucson, Arizona 85701 Phone: 520.884.5500 Fax: 520.620.0441 www.logansimpson.com

Logan Simpson Fee Estimate NRHP Nomination & Design Guidelines-Scope and Fee March 5, 2019 | Page 2

significance. The amendment will also provide a completed nomination form detailing the history, architecture, and significance of these additional buildings; a site map and a project location map; and photographs detailing the exterior of all buildings, landscape features, local environment, and topography. All materials will be provided to the City for review and approval prior to submission to the SHPO. In addition to hardcopies of the nomination form, maps, and photographs, all photographs will be saved as Tiff files; all files will be saved electronically on archival Gold DVDs. Ms. Levstik will attend and answer any questions during the Historic Sites Review Committee (HSRC) meeting held in Phoenix, which will review and make a formal vote to forward the amended nomination to the Keeper’s Office for listing. Following review of the nomination submission by HSRC, Logan Simpson will address all comments within 14 days of receipt. A revised nomination package will be submitted to SHPO upon approval of the City, and all files will be provided to the City in hard copy and electronic format. Finally, Logan Simpson will alert the City when the properties are officially listed in the NRHP, and an official letter of the listing will be mailed by the SHPO to the individual property owners associated with each newly listed property. DESIGN GUIDELINES In 2015, the City of Cottonwood, in collaboration with its Historical Commission, drafted design guidelines for the Cottonwood Commercial Historic District. With the proposed expansion of the district, the design guidelines will need to be reviewed and revised as necessary. Logan Simpson will work with City staff and the historical commission to update the guidelines and to provide the following: further direction on guidelines for new construction within the boundaries of the district; detailed descriptions and images for architectural styles and building materials within and appropriate to the district; draft public mailings to property owners who may be affected by these proposed changes; and help foster interest in implementation of these guidelines through the Historic Preservation Ordinance. PUBLIC OUTREACH Project Manager Jennifer Levstik will attend two in-person meetings with the City and Historical Commission during the course of the project. Meeting 1 will present the purpose of the project, and Meeting 2 will present the results of Part II. Logan Simpson will provide one double-sided 8½ x 11-inch page, color handout in English for up to 50 meeting attendees and will prepare from one to three presentation exhibits. The public meetings will be held in an open house format, consisting of a short presentation and presentation exhibits, followed by questions. Logan Simpson assumes a two-hour duration for the public meetings. The date and time for meetings will be determined in conjunction with the City and will occur before all billable work on the project ceases. SCHEDULE Logan Simpson is available to commence work immediately after receiving Notice to Proceed (NTP) from the City. Per the stipulations of the City’s Certified Local Government grant, the project deliverables must be completed by the end of October 2019. Assuming a start date of March 2019, Logan Simpson is committed to completing this project within a 7 month timeframe.

177 N Church Avenue Suite 607 Tucson, Arizona 85701 Phone: 520.884.5500 Fax: 520.620.0441 www.logansimpson.com

Logan Simpson Fee Estimate NRHP Nomination & Design Guidelines-Scope and Fee March 5, 2019 | Page 3

NOT-TO-EXCEED FEE

TASK FEE

Task 1: NRHP Nomination Amendment & Design Guidelines

Labor (fieldwork, consultation with City , Cottonwood Historical $18,598.00 Commission, and SHPO; archival research, mapping, photography, and report preparation[2])

Expenses (mileage to-and-from Cottonwood and Phoenix, and $1,395.00 mailing fees)

Not-to-Exceed Total Project Fee $19,993.00

177 N Church Avenue Suite 607 Tucson, Arizona 85701 Phone: 520.884.5500 Fax: 520.620.0441 www.logansimpson.com