Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Hidden Haven Estates study approved; commission requires searchable appendix and report edits
Loading...
Summary
The commission approved the Hidden Haven Estates Phase 1 cultural resource study and built‑environment assessment after consultants found no archaeological sites and recommended the property is not eligible for National Register listing; commissioners asked that the built‑environment appendix be resubmitted in searchable format and that buildings not be listed as isolated occurrences in the archaeological report.
The Heritage Preservation Commission approved the Phase 1 cultural resource study and a built‑environment assessment for the Hidden Haven Estates subdivision, with conditions that the applicants resubmit the built‑environment appendix in a searchable format and revise how buildings are classified in the archaeological report.
Consultants reported that the pedestrian archaeological survey recorded no archaeological sites and 23 isolated occurrences on the roughly 23‑acre property currently operating as Arizona Mountain and Cabins. "No archaeological sites were located during the pedestrian survey, and 23 isolated occurrences were documented," consultant Ace Overman said. A separate built‑environment assessment examined 14 structures older than 50 years and determined the property, while retaining integrity for many structures, did not demonstrate significance under National Register criteria and therefore was not recommended eligible as a historic district.
Commissioners raised concerns about classifying each historic building as an isolated occurrence (IO) rather than evaluating them as part of a potential district. Commissioner (speaker 5) argued that designation as IOs could obscure connections among structures; staff and consultants said the built‑environment assessment addressed significance and that the reports could be edited to remove redundant IO listings and submitted in a searchable format.
Commissioner (speaker 8) moved to approve the study with the conditions to remove the IO classification from the archaeological report and to provide a searchable built‑environment appendix; the motion was seconded and carried without recorded opposition.
Commissioners asked staff to pursue searchable documentation and suggested outreach options for owners of historic properties. Consultants recommended no further cultural resources work for this project given the survey results, but stated that any future changes to the project scope that might affect identified resources should return for commission review.
