State preservation official briefs Sedona commissioners on CLG role, ADU/infill laws and funding risks

A representative from the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office briefed the Sedona Historic Preservation Commission on the certified local government (CLG) program, recent state legislation affecting local design review and ADUs, and the current uncertainty in federal preservation funding.

Arianna (Arianna/Ariana) Urban, planner and CLG coordinator for the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), told commissioners that CLG status is intended to give municipalities tools to preserve locally significant resources while tailoring rules to local needs. "It's not about any sort of, you know, extra regulations or government imposing on private property...it really is a way for a local municipality with historic, you know, demonstrable historic resources to be able to not only make a commitment to preserving those historic resources, but doing it in a way that's specifically tailored for the best needs of that city," Urban said.

Urban reviewed why local design criteria matter and praised Sedona's ordinance and community plan, noting specific provisions that require landmark surveys and design guidelines. She highlighted one legal detail she called crucial in Sedona's code: the use of "shall" in approval criteria, which strengthens enforceability. "There is nothing more solid and secure than a 'shall'," she said, adding that clear, objective criteria make local decisions easier to defend.

Urban warned the commission about recent state laws that preempt local review in some circumstances. She summarized two developments: an ADU law that allows at least one accessory dwelling unit by right in residential zoning and generally restricts local design review for those ADUs, and an infill-housing bill that limits lot-size requirements (the bills' application depends on jurisdiction size). Urban said the ADU change "prohibits cities from doing any sort of design review on those ADUs, whether it's in a historic district or not," and noted an exception in the statute may exist for locally designated historic overlays with design criteria; she urged caution and said cities are still interpreting the laws.

Urban also described volatile federal funding for SHPO programs, explaining that federal grants underwrite much of the state's CLG assistance and that recent budgetary uncertainty has put matching grants and other supports at risk. She said the state office's funds were briefly impounded earlier in the year but were released and that SHPO is encouraging CLGs to pursue grant matches while funds are available. "Without that federal money, not only would the CLGs just be sort of left themselves because I wouldn't exist anymore, but there wouldn't be any funding to really back up the reason that you've that we become CLGs in the first place," Urban said.

Commissioners and staff discussed Sedona's 2014 historic resources survey and plans to update it. Chair Myers and staff confirmed the city has budgeted money to update the survey; commissioners present said several new properties surveyed this year could be candidates for landmarking. Urban encouraged submission of finalized survey documentation to the state database and noted that CLG matching grants are available when SHPO has funds to award.

Urban closed by offering technical assistance and examples of programs other CLGs use: historic home tours, "neighborhood college" homeowner education, adaptive reuse incentives, mitigation strategies when demolition is unavoidable, and outreach such as story maps. Commissioners asked questions about facade preservation and ADU conversions; Urban said facade retention is a last-resort preservation strategy and that ADU/infill decisions must be adjudicated case-by-case.

The commission agreed to continue survey work and to begin planning for Historic Preservation Month events, and staff said they would coordinate with SHPO on grant opportunities and documentation submissions.