Flagstaff Heritage Commission Rejects Economic Hardship Claim, Denies Demolition of Historic Downtown Office Building

and we really needed to clarify a lot of legal information. So, thank you for your patience. We're going to start the regular meeting now. It is the Heritage Preservation Commission of the City of Flagstaff on June 17th and we are starting at time is it? My watch is, you know, 5:18. Sounds good. Okay. Thank you all everybody. So, we will start with the call to order, which I just did. And we did recess into executive session, which we did first. So, now we have roll call. Duffy Westimer here.

Alec Overman Jesse Dominguez here. Emily Dale is excused. Alicia Hayes, present. Jeannie Stevens here. Caitlyn Stewart here. And we would someone please read the land acknowledgement. The Heritage Preservation Commission humbly acknowledges the ancestral homelands of this area's indigenous nations and original stewards. These lands still inhabited by native descendants border mountains sacred to indigenous peoples.

We honor them, their legacies, their traditions, and their continued contributions. We celebrate their past, present, and future generations who will forever know this place as home. Thank you. And I've asked to have our commission purpose added to our agenda. And I'm happy to read that.

The purpose of the Heritage Preservation Commission is to protect and enhance the cultural, historical, and archaeological heritage of the city of Flagstaff 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. The commission implements the city's general plan. It is implemented pursuant to the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and is as amended the certified local government program and Arizona State Statute providing the standards and procedures for heritage preservation.

So now we have our open call to the public. Is there anyone here today who would like to address the commission on an item that is not on the agenda? Yes, maybe we have someone before I talked um because I I noticed that the 19 West Birch is on the agenda, but it it doesn't mention when the open call uh for comments is. So, I just wanted to confirm uh if I have comments about the uh 19 West Birch, would I wait? Okay, there are two three really three agenda items relating to that address.

So, one is about the cultural resource study, one is about a request for a certificate of economic hardship and one is about a certificate of appropriateness. And if you want to do it, there are cards to fill out and put the agenda item. There should be the clerk can someone can help you find the right agenda item. Okay. Thank you. Now we have the approval of the minutes. Yeah. I think I'd know this by now. Hi everyone. My name is Ariana Urban.

I am the certified local government coordinator at the state historic preservation office. Um just a little quick shipo update. Uh we are our um Paul Brun Route 66 grants are going to be available for application extremely soon. Um and those are for um businesses and um commercial enterprises that need help with their buildings. And so I think building if you if you know of any businesses that that are in need um please let me know or Jessica in our office.

Uh we had an extremely successful youth summit a few weeks ago which was genuinely like the highlight of my whole year. Um we had about 40 kids uh uh once again sort of exploring and consulting with historic sites and cities and towns along along Route 66 which was wonderful. Um, and uh, as the uh, Arizona I'm sorry, the American Planning Association Arizona chapters conference is going to be here in November. Um, I'm going to be doing my annual CLG training in conjunction with that conference.

So, it's going to be on the Friday of that week. I believe it's November 11th. Um, and invite everyone here to attend. Thank you. Ariana, I have a question for you. Um, Commissioner Car. Oh, you you aren't allowed to respond to open call. Yeah, sorry. Moving on to u approval of the minutes. Does anyone have any comments or changes or anything? Or do we have a motion to approve? Jesse, I move that we accept the minutes as presented. We have a second. I second the motion.

All right, let's do our vote. All in favor say I. I. I. I. Any opposed? I hear none. It is approved. Okay. So, moving on to the public hearing item 7A, which is 19 West Birch Avenue, phase 2 cultural resource study. And this is Commissioner Stewart. I will be recusing myself and presenting on this item. Good evening, commission. Um, as real quick, sorry, chair, can you just make the statement that you're opening the public hearing? We are opening the public hearing. Thank you.

Uh, and unless the commission has any questions for me, I I'm going to turn it over um to the applicant and their consultant to answer questions about uh the resubmitt. This is the second time the commission is looking at the phase 2 cultural resource study. Last month, the commission asked for some specific changes to the documentation and now um Caitlyn Stewart representing Cornerstone is here to um answer those any questions about those changes and present. Thank you. So, I'm Caitlyn Stewart.

I am the owner and director of Cornerstone. I submitted to the commission um the specific changes requested for the elevation drawings. Um and I'm also going to give you a small update on the interpretive trail. And as requested by Commissioner Dale, who is not here, we I've brought the LAR for it's not for comment. It is just for looking at it, but I will show you what we found or what we came up with. Um, so before I do that, uh, any questions about the elevation drugs?

There were three requested changes. I have a question about them, but maybe those changes were addressed because um in the agenda packet, the amended one I downloaded, I don't see the drawings actually. Um and I think it has something to do with downloading, but the um floor plan labels were upside down and I think east is on two sides of the building. There were no requested changes to the floor plans, just to the elevations. Um, Kaitlin, did you hear that two of the elevations say east?

Okay, good. I just want to look because I'm not positive which Yeah. And the floor plan with the labels upside down is the one that is the um plan view that shows the rooms. So, the title is upright, but the interior rooms, a lot of the labels are upside down and crossing walls. you are stating that you are going to want additional changes because this is these are not changes that were requested that I'm presenting on right now. Those were just the elevation drawings.

It was add a north arrow, add the directions and then dimensionality. So, I'm um mentioning the uh what I saw in the packet that was sent us last Friday that the drawings had labels upside down and east is on two and this is the submitt. And is this Commissioner Hayes that two of these say say east and um it sounds like possibly a condition of approval is correcting one of the two that that says east. Yeah. Yeah. I see I see at the bottom of I see what you're saying.

So on the western elevation we have east twice or two east two east facing and one of the the western elevation possible condition of approval is to correct the western elevation to say um west. Yes. And can we look at the floor plan one? So I'm curious, these say revised. We didn't have any requests for revision to these. Uh the only requested revision to the floor plans was the north arrow. So that I think that's the So they were revised to include the north arrow.

That was the the requested change. Is there any comment? So maybe the labels were there last time and you just didn't notice them. They were upside down. But yes, then uh we'd be happy to change the west and the north arrows is on the floor plans in the correct orientation. continue with your presentation please. Uh so yes, we can take that change. The next thing is I'll show you um some of the LAR that we took.

These are not processed because that is not part of our contract but they do give you a good idea of the capabilities which I think is what Commissioner Dale was interested in. Um we do this as part of our process obviously not part of this process. Can I interrupt for one second? Um, would you please define LAR? I'm betting that's an acronym and it's also a bit of a misnomer to to be completely honest. What this is is it is measure drawings using light.

So a camera uh can make pretty accurate measurements using the light and distance bouncing off of it. And then these have the additional um component of photoggramometry which is where a photo is overlaid on top of that like skeleton that it's created. Um so it measures you know like if I was doing this wall it would measure the distance to this wall and then it would take a photo from that position and overlay it on it.

So you get a pretty you the goal is in our in this application to create a 3D model. Does that make sense? Yeah. Okay. Thank you. So we did this in two ways. One, we did um a two drone flights to do the exterior. And then I'm just going to give you a piece of the interior design or the interior later. So this was one of the drone flights.

And so this this this allows us to move the item and to not only get a good visual um of whatever object or building you're trying to get but also accurate measurements. Um one flaw that I have noticed with these and you'll see it more in the interior if this is ever like an application can be just that some of the photoggramometry can be slightly warped.

So you might have an accurate measurement but a slightly warped like walkth through which is what the processing would take care of but that's fairly time intensive. So on this one it's kind of interesting he took it early in the morning so you're seeing some of the haze in the photos which is why we don't have an accurate like a good visual of the front but it also takes into account some of these other buildings some of these much bigger buildings in the background.

Um, so you get kind of a scale which can be beneficial in our job and then unfortunately it does the cars too. Uh, so this is what an external drone flight load lightar would look like and it was being used for this application. For the interior, this got a little more complicated because it's a large building and because it's been remodeled so many times, there's many rooms with no light.

Uh many rooms that are weird shapes because they've been added half-hazardly here and there for whatever application. So, we had to do that in pieces um and then kind of stitch them together like a quilt. But so the interior ones we kind of get a floor plan type view. It does measure the entire wall and you can do a walk through but like I said the photoggramometry can be a little bit warped. So it's best application is at the floor plan. Um unless you get into standing LAR like where I put it.

I have a a tripod with a LAR camera or measuring tool. Um, and you would individually do each room. This is handheld, which is why it's also a little bit wonky. So, when we talk about doing the LAR for projects, this is the initial product. And then a lot of applications of these can be like doing a walkthrough. Realators use them a lot to do like a virtual tour of a house.

um which is very nice and you can do that but that requires some post-processing to get those really crisp lines like you are in the room. Can I answer anything about that? Can you make those available to Commissioner Dale? I said she wanted them and she's here tonight. Thank you. Yeah, I know she's the one who had question or was interested in seeing them. So, uh, but yeah. Yeah, I'm sure we can find a way to do that. Be happy to do that.

Uh, and then the last piece is just a slight update on the interpretive trail, which is just that we are currently working um with the indigenous commission as well as uh some a some professors at NAU trying to identify other locations. Um, like we said, we would expect the trail to be completed based on their input within 6 months. So, we're not we're not at that point. So, we're just having casual conversations at this point.

And we haven't identified any new places beyond the ones I reported on last though. We've opened it up to the community. So, we're hoping to get feedback or more real-time feedback in the coming month. Can you explain opening it up to the community because I've not seen anything but I don't do social media and I'm not alone in that. Uh so part of our last discussion with the indigenous commission was exactly how to do that and face Facebook was a a Facebook poll which has been being developed.

Um and we do have a Google form that we presented via QR code at the last two powows. Um, so we're opening it up to the the community that would be identifying these particular stops. Um, and then the the idea would be to promote that on Facebook, which is a we've been told would be a good outlet for that specifically, but we're largely going on the recommendations of the commission and community members. When you say com community members, you mean non-indigenous? I mean indigenous community.

At this point, we are taking our show our stop recommendations from the indigenous commission and community. Anyone else have any questions or comments about the phase 2 cultural resource study? Lauren? No. Okay. So, do we have a motion to approve or not? I was just going to make sure we checked if there was any public comment on this item. I don't have it here for 7B, not 7A. Thank you, chair. Okay, last call for public comment. Fill out your form quick. Oh, okay.

So, do we have a motion, please? I move that we accept the uh updated report. I second the motion. Any further discussion? I hear none. So, let's do our vote. All in favor say I. I. I. I. Any opposed say nay. None are opposed. So it passes. All right, I appreciate your time. Thank you. And I will let you move on to the next agenda item. Let me sign out of this first. There you go. U Mr. Chair, will you please close that public hearing?

We're going to have to open and close and open and close each one separately. Okay, we are closing the public hearing. Yeah, I should have told you that earlier. Thank you. We are opening the public hearing for item 7B. Is that okay? All right, let's move forward. That is 19 West Birch Avenue certificate of economic hardship request. Do we do the public hearing? The public can speak in the beginning or at the end. I don't see that on here. The process is you you want to go ahead Lauren?

I was usually Yeah. presentation um and then call for comment then discussion and then voting. Yeah. Okay. The council agenda would say presentation questions. If the council has any questions to clarify anything in the presentation, then at that point take public comment. Then you close the public hearing and then council would or sorry commission would deliberate and then make take an action. Oh okay. So let's have the presentation please.

I'm going to start with a quick staff presentation abbreviated um from the past month as I know you've you've already heard much of this information. Um so I'm not going to go through the entire history of the project as as we've been discussing it ongoing but just quickly review how we got here to economic hardship and then the um code applicability and criteria of approval.

Um, so the applicant request is to pro to approve a certificate of economic hardship for the demolition of the existing building at 19 West Birch Avenue. And at the last commission meeting um last month, May 20th, the commission reviewed a first submitt of the certificate of appropriateness which included demolition of this building. Um, and at that time the commission voted to require a certificate of economic hardship for the demolition. Um, and that is the item before us tonight.

And here is uh the applicability section for a certificate of economic hardship in our heritage preservation code.

This approval is appropriate if the proposed work, including demolition and appropriate mitigation measures, will deprive the property owner of reasonable use of or reasonable economic return on the property or will result in a substantial reduction 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. And here are the six criteria for approval.

Um A through F. And as you'll note um there is an and here not an or. So all six criteria of approval do need to be met to make this finding. The culture first is the cultural resources associated with the proposed work have been sufficiently identified and evaluated. Um and that um has been done through the phase one and phase two cultural resource studies that the commission has already approved. Uh B an economic hardship exists. C preservation is economically infeasible.

D the economic hardship is not a self-created hardship. E alternate development has been fully explored. And F alternate financing has been fully explored. Um, and as you saw in the staff report in your agenda packet, staff recommends that the commission approve a certificate of economic hardship for the demolition and the alternate actions or all of the actions.

So the commission can approve the commission can approve the certificate of economic hardship with conditions related to the standards and guidelines applicable to the case or the commission can deny the application and require completion of a temporary delay of demolition. And I'm happy to answer uh any more specific questions about each of these.

We can also call the applicant up um to present and to answer uh specific questions that you have and we can refer back to any of these slides as we did last month to go through the specific applicability criteria as the commission is evaluating. I have questions for the applicant. Okay, I will turn it over to the applicant and I'm just going to go ahead and pull up all your attachments. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Tyler Mark. I'm representing um Mr. Okonnell in this regard.

Happy to answer any questions you might have. Um so my first question is I would like a clarification just to make sure I'm understanding everything right here in the application. Um here in the application it says that applying a market capitalization rate of 7% the resulting value of the rehab rehabilitated building is just shy is a little over 1.9 million.

Does that mean that if the building were to be completely rehabilitated, the potential profit the property owner could receive from this property is just a little over $1.9 million? Um, no, not specifically. It actually refers to the value of the property once rehabilitated. That doesn't necessarily translate into a profit.

And then a follow-up question I have for that is when the property was originally purchased two years ago for $4 million, was the was the property owner when purchasing this property aware of this only max value of just shy of $2 million? Uh if you'll reference the appraise the appraisal that was presented um the highest and best use was the intent of the developer that highest and best use was a different property type.

Um, another question I have is what alterm developments were considered and explored for this property outside of the current hotel proposal. I'll also reference the the appraisal.

Um, initially this was looked at as an office building which it currently is and subsequently we investigated the costs associated with rehab rehabilitating that as an office building uh to try to preserve uh what is there and you'll see in the various documents the the calculations that are accompany that type of work. So the only alternative developments for this property have been exploring keeping it as an office or again turning it into the proposed hotel. Correct. Correct.

Uh based on the location of the property, the best use of the property, um various other, you know, establishments around town. This those appear to be the two best uses for the property. Okay. Thank you. Those are my questions at this time. Hi there. Um, can you describe uh your analysis and efforts, the work you did toward looking at preservation of the property?

Yes, we have actually had uh two independent uh studies done, one with a local architect and another with a locally uh local um property assessor um property investigation. Uh both of those are in the documents presented. We also provided a uh cost analysis of restoring the property to its current use. And uh there's various bits of information scattered about. I can go into each particular one if we'd like to review those individually.

Um but both independently have shown various deficiencies within the building. Um a substantial amount of rehabilitation that would be needed to even get it back up to its current use. It doesn't it's not ADA compliant. There's various issues structurally, plumbing, mechanical, uh lack of fire sprinklers. There's there's a litany of items that would have to be addressed to even occupy the building as a refurbished tenant improvement. Um, has the building been occupied with tenants?

Is it occupied now with tenants? It is not currently occupied. No, but it was occupied with tenants until I'm assuming their leases were renewed. Correct. So, was there any code violation with um the uh tenants occupying the building as it was at the time? Those were ongoing leases and they hadn't been renovated.

Um I'm not sure if there were code violations brought forward, but what we have seen since they've left are various uh numerous items that would need to be addressed in order to reestablish the new building. So, I have questions on your uh building reuse rehabilitation sheet that was itemized and submitted. Um, there aren't any requirements like a column for what's required. For instance, I have a question on the ADA restroom accessories, fixtures, six.

Is there a requirement of that building to have six ADA restrooms? No. But if you look at the uh Smith Architects report, it talks about accessibility throughout the throughout the property. And if we are going to rehabilitate the property, we would need to be uh provide ADA accessibility in various areas of the building. Would you need to have at minimum to meet code six ADA restrooms? Uh I am not u an architect.

Uh what I could tell you is there is code minimums that would be required and the current um status of all the bathrooms do not meet any of those requirements. So the reason I'm asking is I'm trying to get an idea when you compare the cost of the building, the investment, the income, and then the cost to rehabilit the rehabil rehabilitate the building in order to meet the um looking at preservation is economically um infeasible. I don't have anything to reference that this is a requirement.

Is this a complete modernization of the building to the extreme or is this actually meeting like you could preserve the building meet code and open it up as office space? So I kind of need those comparisons and understanding these. I can't compare the the uh total cost if there's inflated costs in there. Understood. If we subtracted out say five out of those six bathrooms, the net delta between the two would be minuscule compared to the remaining work that actually is needing.

So the I guess my point is the overall impact of the 88 bathrooms is not significant amongst the overall cost to rehabilitate the building. So then I I have to ask then is this throughout the whole cost sheet? So I would well then I'd need to have something as comparison. This is actually required for either preservation of the building or for complete modernization because it seems like there's some things that uh and I I'm not a financial person.

this is not my background and um so I'm looking at this and I have questions and this immediately um raises for me well if this is something I see right off the bat and I don't have a background at looking at this how much other is inflated or added in here and padded into the expense and therefore to increase this is my economic hardship so it makes me a little distrustful of the numbers un understood but at a minimum on each floor you would need 88 bath bathrooms.

So, um I understand where you're coming from. I couldn't specifically answer your question because this is one item amongst many on that list. Um but I understand where you're coming from. Well, um this is our opportunity to review this and this is the opportunity for the applicant to answer the questions. So, this is kind of hard to be able to make um you know an understanding or a basis um just looking at criteria.

Um, C, preservation is economically infeasible if there if there's other items that are kind of inflated in there that aren't actually needed to make the building rehabbed and usable. And yeah, I I was just going to ask for the specific criteria of approval and maybe um the commission could discuss if there is anything else. Um it does sound, you know, we could walk through the six criteria of approval.

Um see what is needed under each item or we could continue asking general questions and go back to that. But just in order to you were seem to be leaning towards asking for additional information. Um but maybe we can we can back up a step. Um continue asking questions and then go through the the criteria of approval. I I think we can continue asking questions, but this is something I thought that the questions would be able to be answered here um as we're here meeting.

Um it's it's sort of like we need to have the information now to be answered because we received this after 3:00 on Friday. That's 5 days to review a 728 day packet. And this isn't my area of specialty. I am not in construction. So, um, for me to try to get an understanding of this to be able to have a thoughtful review and make a decision, it's kind of difficult if I if I can't get like hard numbers or a comparison.

And I was really hoping to see a comparison of what, you know, the preservation cost to be able to make this building usable and towards like this is my ideal of rehabbing and modernizing the building. Are there any other commission questions for the applicant before we do open call or move into discussion of these items? I I do have a question. So, in the appraisal, it does identify the property as in the historic downtown and in a historic overlay.

Did the owner before purchasing explore what the implications of that would be? I'll answer for the uh for the applicant. Um I don't believe that that was a consideration one way or the other. Uh he looked at a property that was undervalued or underserved in a um a logical location for this type of property. So to follow up, a logical location is that um the income on ao hotel would be better in a historic district, an historic area than not in a historic area. Is that correct?

Um I can't draw that conclusion based off the question. The the reality is is this is downtown Flagstaff. Um it's a vibrant corner and uh the property was not performing as far as I can understand. Um you know that property had sat on the market multiple times over many years because of its inefficiency I would imagine but we were not the property seller. Anyone else have a question or anything to ask the applicant or his representative?

Uh, at the last meeting, um, there was a comment about $50 million uh, possibly being invested in downtown Flagstaff. Could you give me a breakdown as to what that $50 million represented and um the benefit for downtown Flagstaff? Absolutely. Um I believe there was a total cost of new construction for the garage and the hotel included in the packet. Um the overall value of the construction alone is $40 million.

Then there's the additional investment of um things like furniture, fixtures, equipment, um startup costs like that. So the raw cost that our client would be paying to get this this project moving and completed is $50 million. That doesn't count account account for future revenue, you know, income streams from hotel guests and whatnot. If you don't mind, can you walk me everything that has happened with this property since it was purchased by the current property owner in late 2023?

More so of like again when uh tenants were occupying it, tenants were no longer occupying it and any damages since then or repairs since then as well. So um I mean if we go back to when Jean Shoe Hospital was still there uh this property was partially occupied. You can see in the rent rolls that he had provided in in the packet. Um there has been short-term rentals over the years. Uh since then uh Jean Shu Hospital and and Deckers were demolished.

Um at that time I believe some of the occupants dropped out. Um I don't know for what specific reason, but um since that time there's been moveout damage. Damage happens when people leave. There's a lot of garbage in there. Uh we've done some investigation down into the basement on various levels. There's just deterioration overall.

That appears to be long-term deterioration, not uh caused by damage on the way out, but there's holes in walls, there's missing rails, there's missing fire extinguisher cabinets, you name it. Um caused possibly by the tenant moveouts, but couldn't be specific. It it wasn't monitored day day in and day out. And then um a little bit of follow question uh to one of my questions earlier.

Was the property owner aware of the current state, the potential cost to reab rehabilitate the building and the property prior to purchasing it? I I don't believe so. So, are you including the um rental income from Jean Shoe Hospital and the other building in that because you referenced Jean Shoe Hospital. I'm not quite sure why you did that. No, I was just as answer answering the commissioner's question about the evolution since the beginning and that's where Jean Shoe Hospital came from.

It is not part of any of the documentation that was provided for this particular property. If I misspoke, I was just trying to answer the whole history. Okay. So, what were the rents in the building um since the time of purchase and annually each year? I believe that's in the packet. I couldn't tell you offhand. Uh, this one. So, we're pulling that up right now.

But going back to um the economic feasibility of preservation, I know you referred to the packet, but for the benefit of us here, could you in plain language talk about it please? As far as what as far as what the scope was far as the efforts toward looking at preservation as an option. Okay. So um again we we brought out two consultants to walk the building gave their independent opinions on what at a basic minimum would be needed to rehabilitate it to a useful you know life.

And we took that those documents and used it for our estimate as far as scope to scope to scope specifically what was recommended and what was deficient. As an example the parking lot is draining towards the building. So we'd have to fix the parking lot to prevent the building from further deterioration. Uh the mechanical system is unders sized for current codes. There's no fire sprinklers. Um the list is fairly significant.

And we took each one of those items to create the estimate as as far as what it would would take to physically bring it back to useful life. When when you say at minimum, there are some things here that are not it doesn't seem like at minimum like eight bike racks. I'm all for biking, but I mean, you're talking about the minimums, and these are things that just stand out to me right away because I recognize those.

That that is a code requirement of the city of Flagstaff for tenant improvements to provide bike accessibility. So, that would be a minimum. Okay. I didn't realize they required eight because I don't think I've seen that in front of other businesses. Is that a requirement from the city that there's eight? I couldn't speak to the specific number without doing additional research.

Um but it may be in this case as it's not one business it would be serving multiple tenants um due to the maybe you can speak to this title due to the number of the different um occupancies in the building I assume the number is based off that that is correct. I have another follow-up question to one of my previous questions. Uh this is regarding an alternative development being fully explored for this property.

Earlier it stated again that based on the appraisal that you just looked at it being rehabilitated to be an efficient office building or again the current proposed hotel development. Why weren't I guess do you have a statement or response to as why other developments uh weren't fully explored? For example, as we know in Flagstaff, housing is very expensive, but so for rental couldn't make this a apartment of some sorts. Was that fully explored considered?

If and that's just an example off the top of my head, but if not, why so? I absolutely understand where you're coming from because I'm a big uh proponent of affordable housing. Um, you know, we also do apartment complexes. They're extremely expensive. When when you look at a piece of property that is constrained with the size that we have to work with and the requirements of certain uh like an apartment complex actually needs more parking than you would actually need for a hotel.

So we could explore nine different types of properties. We looked at the most costefficient which is the the office as it stands because you've got the structure there to put it back together or the proposed uh development which is the the hotel from a density standpoint and a parking and a um call it a revenue stream potential. Um the highest and best use is a hotel.

So, we we went baseline versus best use and proposed use as a baseline comparison to try to garner some information for you all to work with.

I understand that what you found was that the hotel would have been would generate the most revenue for the property, but in regards to it being a a national register historic place property in the overlay, the way I understand alternative development is like what can be what can the property be developed at not to preserve it and also deem economically feasible to preserve the building.

So again, like again, if you were to make it um for example, I'm for affordable housing, but hypothetically, if you were to make it like a high-scale apartment complex in downtown core downtown Flagstaff, that would, in my opinion, could generate a decent amount of revenue to make the building rehabitable over time and preserve it uh the exterior in its current state potentially. If I may, I actually participated in an experiment.

we'll we'll call it a cost analysis about se six or seven years ago for this specific property to put 32 apartments in this specific property and at that time it wasn't feasible. We all know what happened with COVID. Our costs went 40% through the roof. Um I can tell you right now it would be even more less feasible to accomplish that goal. Um that there's a lot of structural concerns like I mentioned earlier. There's you know various issues as to why that wouldn't work.

uh the previous developer, the previous owner actually looked into that and we were a part of that experiment. So for them to not be able to pull it off when times were better um to try and do that now would be even less likely. So I understand you know the economic opportunity of the location of the property for the developer and whatnot, but actually that's not in the preview of this commission.

And our commission is to look at the fact that what they're proposing is a significant is a major impact to a significant property and we have to go through the code and look at and that's our job and that's why we are sitting here.

It's not that necessarily, you know, our opinions on it don't really matter or not that, you know, maybe all of, you know, maybe everybody or nobody, I don't know, wants a hotel downtown, but we need to go through this to look at our historic properties because, as you mentioned, downtown is a vital area. It is the number one economic driver for Flagstaff, and that is a lot to do with its historic character.

So part of our mission for this commission is to look out for that historic character and to make sure that it's not diminished or destroyed when there are other alternatives. So it's kind of difficult if we're not seeing comparisons. I I kind of expected we'd see a PowerPoint presentation. I've heard several times now it's in the packet. Um that's that's kind of hard for comparison. Um it's it's hard for I'm not in construction.

So um you can understand that our struggle is is that we're looking at this and I'm looking at the criteria is see preservation is economically infeasible. And I'm not sure I'm convinced economic hardship is not self-created hardship. I mean, these are things that we have to see proof from the developer to us to be able to make an informed decision and a thoughtful decision about downtown, which is the number one economic driver for Flagstaff. Understood.

I just want to take a pause here and just um you know, say we do appreciate you're answering all these questions and we're asking for a lot of detail. Totally fine with it. No. So, thank you. Um to um to add on to what um was just stated by my fellow commissioner um the the starkness of the comparison of the hotel and then the current use like you referred to it you know there's a gulf of difference between the two.

So I just want to make a comment that that's something that some of us are struggling with. Understood. Um this is in regards to criteria B. Economic hardship exist. Uh does an economic hardship exist? A lack of usable use or return a substantial reduction value or substantial burden in and it may have said this in the appraisal. I have my notes about it, but I'm wondering if you can just answer it quicker for versus me searching for the exact awards that I want to see.

Um but in its current state again when the property was purchased again the general um net operating cost I believe was net operating income for the property was $136,80 with in its current state with the damages and stuff that needs to be made would I guess my question is would you say that that $136,000 could be sustained for the future in the building's current state. Um, I'm purely speculating, but if I was going to move into that office as a new tenant, I would look around and say no.

You'd have to spend more money to get me to actually want to move into the property. That's my personal opinion. Um, if you look at some of the photos of the existing condition, it's it's a scary building.

that facts the interiors but again you know the whole focus of this was the exteriors you know but we had to provide some information about the interiors as as it pertains to your question on on the return and the time of the return I think this is a kind of an important statement but if you look at um this is just the cost to put it back to a usable condition and an assumed revenue over a period of time it's 29 years that doesn't factor factor into the that doesn't take into account the cost that he paid for the building.

So, at that point, he he's not even breaking even. You got to add another $4 million worth of investment, which equals 58 years to actually recoup the cost of purchasing the building, rehabilitating it, and stabilizing it. That's a long time. Do you know how long the tent the previous tenants had been in that building? I personally do not know. Okay.

cuz that because if they've been there a long time in those conditions again again your personal opinion of like oh if I was a tenant I wouldn't want to go in there which is understandable but again there were tenants in there and I do understand it was for a while I just don't know the exact timeline that were fine with the current conditions and paying the price of it I do know that uh when the previous landowner building owner moved out his law firm moved with it.

So since that time it's been a transient type facility for lack of a better word. Um different tenants at different times. It's been sort of like an incubator space has it not? It's had small businesses that are sort of getting started. Sure. It's also got a barber in it. So I mean I I I don't know if that's an incubator or not, but I mean I can understand where you're coming from.

with office space and call it a transient lease agreement, you're you're going to see a lot of ins and outs of of companies. That's just the nature of the beast. Is that the um tenants request that they be transient or the landlords? I couldn't tell you. They It could be that they started up and then went out of business. It could be that they started up and moved out of Flag. Could be that they start up and found a different place on the other side of town, but I'm just speculating.

I I'm not the business owner. Not the business owner, but there was someone managing the building. So, were they requesting short-term leases? So that would encourage not people I would encourage people to try something and if it didn't work out then they're it's easy for them to leave. So was there ever any intent to have this be an ongoing effort for using the building at all as it pertains to a short-term lease? No. Was there I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.

Was there ever any intent to use this building for you know long term? Yes. Because it says in the appraisal, it says in the appraisal from the start it was going to be torn down for a hotel.

So it I believe as previously stated the current owner purchased it with that intent as said it stated in the appraisal was the highest and best use and that was the intent and the the documents you know the attachments do include um all of the I believe the lease terms and and tenants at the time of purchase.

So that has some of that background information in terms of um the existing leases was provided in the packet and then um there is I don't know all of that without pulling it up but the other document that uh Tyler had pulled up here it has um tenants over you know a year and a half or two year period each month what the tenants were and what they were paying um if you needed historical data on that. I this was one of my first questions.

I'm still wrestling the explanation a little bit and so I was wondering if you can maybe break it down for me because again I'm not an economic economic I don't do economics. I do archaeology. I don't do real estate. So this property was purchased for $4 million back in end of 2023. But we have the current if it were fully rehabilitated, it would be near just a little under $2 million for the property value. Correct.

Based on an assumed rent rate and assumed these are industry standards as far as rates and occupancy and delinquency, I guess. And why is there the difference again? Like again, it was purchased for $4 million and that's like as I guess explain the difference of like again it was purchased for $4 million but it's valued $2 million less.

I believe it's that it the highest and best use in the appraisal was not preservation of the existing building and preservation of the existing building devalues the current value and that's the difference as um submitted in the documentation by the applicant that they're um attempting to show that it would devalue the property if they were to resell it. That is correct. and yet the location was chosen to be in the historic area.

So there's like a disconnect there where you want the benefits of being in the historic areas and in an overlay because it will be a more successful business, but at the same time you want to tear down or demolish a sign a a building that has significant history. it has significant architectural value and it helps define Flagstaff and our history. So, there's like a disconnect there that you're willing to pay more but you want all the benefits of being in the historic area.

And so, to me, it's like a self-imposed hardship. That's what I that would be my feeling about it. It's that you made a decision to take the risk that you would be able to tear down this building and build something else and yet you want all the benefits of being in that location. And so I'm struggling with that. So it's not that I want the project to go away. I'm just feeling like and thinking that it's um it was a gamble that the developer made and that's the choice the developer makes.

But is it in the best interest of Flagstaff? Is it in the best interest of preserving history? Is it what the people of Flagstaff want? Are we going to end up with what the downtown business people want? Are we going to end up what the Flagstaff residents want? What the tourists want? Like I think people value seeing authentic history and being around it. So to me, this was a gamble that the person made when they purchased the property.

Um, this is going back to what I just said before chair spoke. Um, so I guess I'm just trying to understand it. So the property owner purchased the property again for $4 million and that was with that $4 million was set that oh this per that purchase price was put there because the it was intended that the person buying this property would demolish it and get a much greater return out of it. Is that correct? That's the what the appraisal says.

I, you know, I'm not going to speculate for the client, but that's what the appraisal says. Okay. I just, I guess, like I don't want to I'm just trying to debate like did hypothetically the property owner potentially pay $2 million extra dollars for this property because again, it was appraised at $4 million. They bought it for $4 million.

But again, I when I think of buying a property, you buy it for what it is at that current state and all the stuff you have to do with it, which would include the demolition. But again, the property is fully rehabilitated. It only has again just shy of a $2 million value. So again, that's like why wouldn't it have been purchased for around $2 million? I can't answer that question.

I take that as a statement, but So when you evaluate a property, it's a negotiations between the owner and the seller. The owner wanted $4 million of the building. Did I try to negotiate? Yes. Did I make any difference? No. So if I wanted the building, I paid 4 million. If I didn't pay four million, I wouldn't get the building. It's as simple as that.

And your answer to the question on so if we spend four million to rehab the building and it's going to go down in value, it's based on a building's based on a cap rate or a percentage of what you're getting for an income. So if that building sells at a seven cap rate or a 7% return on equity, that's how they base a building. I can build a $50 million hotel and if it's not making what I project it to be, it's not going to be worth what I spent on it.

It's going to be if I had to sell it, it's based on a cap rate or occupancy or a room rate. So every every building you build, office building, it's a gamble that you're able to fill it up or occupy it. That's what makes a building work. Were you um I guess uh and thank you for that explanation. That was very helpful. I appreciate it. At the time when you purchased the building, were you aware of the again three almost $4 million to rehab to improve the building uh completely?

And were you aware that like at that point it would only be worth $2 million? Again, this is when you purchased it. Were you aware of all this? When I purchased the building, I walked through it. I've been in office buildings. I've built construction for 37 years. The building was in bad shape. I did not go and say, "Well, it's going to cost me three million. It's only going to make $2 million." I had no idea at the time what it would cost to rehabilitate it.

I had no idea I'd be in this situation. The intent was to buy the building, follow what the appraisal said, and turn it into the highest and best use and which at the time is a hotel. You that answered my question fully. Thank you. So I guess we move on from here. So we'll close the No, no, you can take the public comment. Public? Yes, but I did I meant move on to the next thing we would do. So now we'll hold public comment.

The first one that was received was Julie Pastor, Chairman Duffy and Commission. Hi, I'm so happy to be in front of you. Julie Pastro, president and CEO of the Greater Flagstaff Chamber. We've been a long uh trusted community partner and in fact we're celebrating 135 years this year in building business and building community.

So I we're not only uh helping existing businesses and and the success of a few but we look at this corridor downtown too as very vibrant and we love to look at creating new opportunities that will continue that vibrancy. Um, however, I want to be clear. I'm not uh speaking on behalf of the chamber board of directors.

They have not made an opinion on this, but uh what I want to do is give you my personal opinion as someone who's lived in the community for 35 plus years and absolutely treasures downtown like thousands of others do. And I can say that because our parades attract 15 to 20,000 at a time and everybody just loves what happens downtown.

and you're you're you've got this focus and I respect your responsibility to evaluate the historic value of this structure, but I really do not feel the building at 19 West Birch is a building whose preservation should be held. It has a very mixed bag uh history to it. The current building would serve little to no value as it is and it's nearly dilapidated. a major renovation could be very very expensive.

I know that because I priced that for the Chambers building just a block down at 101 West Route 66. it gets so costroductive uh cost um prohibitive that we haven't been able to do some of the renovations and additions that we've wanted and to add more rooms I believe would uh really significantly uptick foot traffic in downtown in a good way for all the small businesses there and bolster uh our economic vital v vitality.

So, I feel like this uh project represents our downtown genuinely needs more economic activity that supports all of our local businesses, all the wonderful events down there and people that make thous thousands of people that make downtown Flagstaff what is so special. So I'm asking with all due respect that as a commissioner you approve the economic hardship and certificate of appropriateness and knowing that this developer clearly has engaged a great team to meet all the city's requirements.

He has spent over a year documenting the history adjusting design to meet code in my opinion has will produce an asset that could be phenomenal for F staff. our future character, our reputation as one of the most desirable downtowns in the whole state and a place where we love to work, live, and play. I want to apologize. I cannot stay for the rest of the meeting, but I'm honored to have been able to present before you, and thank you very much. Thank you. Am I allowed to ask a question? Okay.

Um, I have a question for you. If two parts, first part is to what degree do the tourists come to see authentic Flagstaff history. To what extent? Is that what tourists come for? They come to Flagstaff for our overall character, our climate, and what we offer. Uh, for example, the the Flagstaff Fourth of July parade that the chamber puts on uh was by Flagstaff uh um what's it called? Leisure Travel and Leisure Magazine as the best one of the best parades in the entire nation.

And I think it's just because it's been going on since 1896 and then all of the other things like the symphony concert and the um the great downtown Mile is part of why people come. Uh, I don't think Duffy, with all due respect, I can say they come just because of buildings, but the character of local boutiques and things downtown is definitely uh very attractive when people come and we enhance shop local efforts. Can I make a comment? I hope I can answer.

Are you familiar with uh place economics? Are you familiar with the advisory council's guidance on revitalization in downtown? Are you uh familiar with the statistics that show that historic downtowns are the economic drivers in their communities and that when communities communities who have that it it they should treasure that and cherish it and be very very careful.

So there's a lot of analysis and statistics out there that show that historic buildings are typically um occupied by local businesses and not generic commercial. And it's those boutiques that you mentioned that people like. It's that bespoke kind of item they can buy in those stores. It has character. It's not what you find say in any big big box store. And that usually is tied together with a historic downtown.

I believe that the um the hotel that is proposed would have great character and have assets that we don't have right now. I'm 1,000% uh in in aware of historic downtowns. The greater Flagstaff Chamber uh helped craft the downtown improve improvement building district. We were on the ground floor and the lawmakers asked us to write it and approve it or they would not consider passing it. We are in the downtown district and we pay tax too.

Uh the district goes um it ends at Beaver but then it extends to Phoenix Avenue to include the chamber and those businesses. And I feel that much of downtown has been preserved. this particular parcel. Uh I think what we could get out of it could be an asset that we can't pass because there has to be in my opinion and I've seen this at the chamber where we represent more than a thousand businesses.

Businesses come and go, but we also have to be aware of how we can reinvest in a real um uh honorable manner. And I view this development as an honorable development. It it won't I don't feel like it personally I don't feel like it's going to change our character. It would enhance our character. People like the character overall of Flagstaff and the fact that the peaks are right behind downtown Flagstaff too. I hope I answered that okay for you. Yes.

And I I do have I just pulled it up the January 2024 Flagstaff plan and vision and they highlight number one thing is historic character. Okay. And and so the other part of my question is what do you think will be the impact if we keep in the in the areas that are identified as historic either in the National Register or as a local overlay district. If we keep removing buildings from these areas, what will be the ultimate impact? Because this may only be the first, right?

Do we want to set this as a precedent for our community that it's okay to keep removing our historic resources that are in these districts? That's a tough one, Chairwoman. I'm not sure I can answer it like city staff has delved into it, but because they have really worked so handinand on the design and build and the codes and going back and forth, I feel confident that the process has been more than thorough and it can be it can sit there in a really great way, not in an obtrusive way.

my building, excuse me, the Chamber of Commerce building looks out at uh the across from here, the Marriott, and it's it's never been no one says it's an isore and that property every inch was used so that we can have that foot traffic downtown. Here here's the difference though, that Marriott is not in an overlay district.

So it has not been identified and chair it is just to correct it is within the downtown historic overlay zone and did have to meet the design guidelines and be approved by the commission. Um but I I just want to refocus on the economic hardship conversation. I know these are very important conversations but um a lot of it does not have to do with the decision that the commission is discussing tonight.

So despite the importance of some of these issues, um they don't have bearing on whether or not the applicant has an economic hardship. Thank you very much, Miss Thank you so much. And I'm happy to see you all tonight. And please, I don't mean to be rude, but I do have to leave. Thank you. Hey, so now we have Ashley Mazar. Forgive me if I didn't get it right. Hi, I'm Ash Mazgar. You were close. Um, so I am a local community member. I've lived here almost a decade.

Um, which is not very long in the grand scheme of things, but is my entire adult life and almost a third of my personal life. Um, and I've become an adult here. um not just my current career as uh working in historic preservation, but I've also held three separate jobs here uh in Flagstaff downtown specifically, mostly restaurants. Um and so I'd kind of like to speak on kind of combining historic preservation with the needs um of the community economically.

Um, having worked here in town, I know how important uh the parking structure would be for the economic development of our downtown. Uh, employee parking is incredibly limited uh for downtown employees and having a public structure would greatly relieve that.

I also as a younger member of the community downtown is the night life and it's only the night life because we are investing in it and I historic preservation is is very very important but it's only funded and promoted by the community because it's helping the community and I think this hotel prevent or presents a great opportunity for economic development over uh its historic character.

Um, I also kind of uh going on what Lauren had said previously, I I feel like the uh developer and owner has proven that this would create economic hardship um for the development. um the renovations. Um kind of going back to the ADA compliance stuff, I also believe it's important to not just hit the bare minimum of ADA compliance. I think we should be striving for as supportive and um we want to think about all the members of the community.

Um and I think ADA compliance is really important in that matter, not just the bare minimum. Um, I also think it's important to note that a lot of the small boutiques that would take up those spaces if this building were renovated, it would likely require renovations higher than what the projected amount was because the cute boutiques, they want a cute space. Um, I don't know if you guys are aware, but this building was voted one of the ugliest buildings in America.

cute boutiques do not want to put their stuff in that building. Um they they want something nicel looking, but thank you for listening to me. Um yeah, thank you. Um I have a question. Where did you get that? What What's the source for this being one of the ugliest buildings in America? I can't remember. I think it was an article. I can look it up. It it was like a like a a public news article kind of thing like uh one of those opinion piece things. Okay, that's it. Thank you.

Yeah, I saw an article once that called this building the ugliest. It's, you know, people can say anything. The comment was less to say that it actually is the ugliest building, but more that the the cute boutiques that generate a lot of income that could potentially be put in uh probably don't want to be put in this building or don't want to rent out. Thank you. All right, then we have a card from Gail Jackson. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Gail Jackson.

I'm the president and CEO of Eona, where the economic collaborative collaborative of Northern Arizona. So tonight, I just want to start by recognizing that historic preservation and economic development that they don't have opposing goals. When they work together, they complement downtowns. They complement everything that we do. So, our history gives us our identity while thoughtful investment ensures our downtown remains vibrant well into the future. This project does exactly that.

The applicant has worked through the process and compi complied with the historic preservation code, responded to staff recommendations, and made the modifications requested throughout this review. At some point, we have to recognize when an applicant has met the standards that have been established.

If we continue to move the goal po goalposts after those standards have been um addressed, we create uncertainty and that discourages development not just for this project but for projects in the future. We spend an enormous time at Eona trying to recruit um time, energy, and resources to recruit developers to be a part of what we do here in Northern Arizona. We're not just looking for anyone that wants to come and build here.

We're looking for someone that wants to be a part of the fabric of Northern Arizona, one that respects our communities, embraces our values, and invests in the long term. This developer has actually demonstrated that commitment. They've listed, collaborated, and adapted their plans. This project not only provides economic vitality, it also helps address one of the most persistent challenges downtown parking.

Anyone who spends time downtown knows that additional parking is not simply just a convenience. It supports our local businesses. Um, it improves the economic vitality of our downtown, not just for residents, but also for our five million visitors. Solving one community challenge while creating a new investment is exactly the type of thoughtful development that we should want to see here in Flagstaff. I also learned today that this development team was responsible for the Hotel Eddie in Tucson.

For those who have not visited, it's an example of honoring both local history while creating a successful modern destination. The hotel thoughtfully celebrates the legacy of Eddie's bread through its architecture, exhibits historic artifacts and storytelling that preserves the site's heritage rather than erasing it. It demonstrates that preservation is more than just retaining a building. It's about preserving the story's culture and character.

And I believe that that is what they are trying to do here with this particular hotel. Flagstaff is a community that values both historic preservation and a fair process. I strongly encourage you to approve this economic hardship and certificate of appropriateness. Thank you. I have a question. Can you name the standards in which the design meets for the historic preservation code? You said the developer has met met the standards for the historic preservation code.

Um would you for the for instance the garage how how how how is the develop how is the design met that? Mr. Chair, Madam Chair, do you mind um first of all we're talking about the certificate of economic hardship and I don't want to get ahead to the certificate of appropriateness. I also want to let public commenters make their comment. I don't think it's appropriate to challenge every comment they make. that's their opportunity to make their comment.

I think if you have a question to clarify something maybe said, but I think your question goes more to the appropriateness rather than the hardship question. So I wouldn't pose that here. Okay. She she mentioned the standards and I was curious which ones I understand. Okay. Thank you very much. the end of the public comment portion of agenda item 7B my microphone on. Now is the appropriate time to close the public hearing prior to deliberation by the commission. Thank you.

Okay, we are closing the public hearing on agenda item 7B and now we'll have discussion. Thank you. And I have pulled up the six criteria of approval that all have to be met um in order to approve this item. Um and as discussed earlier, you know, as they all have to be met, um one path forward for the discussion could be, you know, taking them one at a time. Um you had a slide previous with three things identified. Could you return to that one please?

Because I wanted to ask a question about the second one. Are you asking sorry about the commission options? So could you explain the second option more clearly please because it asks conditions related to the standards and guidelines applicable to the case. So could you clarify that for us please?

Um if as the all of the standards and guidelines that are related to this section of code, if there is a condition of approval related in the code um that you wanted to place on this item um you know maybe as discussed um with the last item for example the culture resource study um uh you know you disal motion you did not put any conditions of approval on it, but you discussed um making some conditions that the applicant correct um in their application or in their report.

Um and there would be conditions of approval which would um you know related to the code and we can pull up you know all of the code language if if needed. Thank you. So would we like to go through these A through F and discuss or is there other discussion people would like to have prior? That seems reasonable to me to start at the top and go through. Agree. I guess I'll start off then.

um for criteria for approval um under a the cultural resource associated to postwork have been sufficient sufficiently identified and evaluated. I do believe that has been met by everything that we've seen in the phase one and phase 2 cultural resource studies. Um the building plans have been well documented and then the history of the building and um it and events have been documented.

It's been recommended as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and Flagstaff Register of Historical Places uh for its history and architecture. So, I believe that has been very much met. And so, thank you to Cornerstone for all the work you did on that. I agree. I think criteria um A has been met and that's been covered sufficiently and actually really pretty deep actually. Well, there's a lot of history there. It'll be it's a nice reference. I agree with that.

Cornerstone did an excellent job. Thank you. It became a significant building. All right. Then we move on to B. An economic hardship exists, which is a lack of reasonable use or return, a substantial reduction in the value, or a substantial burden. Discussion. I don't feel that I have been convinced that B has been met. Um I haven't seen enough um scenarios that a substantial reduction in the value or is a substantial burden.

looking at the value of the building, the income of the the tenants before. I'm not um I am not convinced that an economic hardship exists. The appraisal detail really helped me in this regard. Like I understand it a lot more than I did. um none of us being experts in that area. Um I'm also not sure. Um so I don't really know what else to say about that. I'm kind of with you, Commissioner Stevens.

I I'm kind of viewing this like with all these recommendations that we have to be pro kind of like a little bit like a jury. we have to be proven by with a un with with no reasonable doubt that they meet all these qualifications. And for B, I don't know if I've been totally convinced again because in the property's current state deteriorated state of some of the offices and damages.

Prior to the tenants uh moving out, the property was making a net operating income of $136,000 a year, which I think that is a reasonable use or return for a simple office space. Again, I'm not economics, so it would be I agree with Commissioner Hayes. It would have been nice to see some comparisons like what does a typical office space in Flagstaff make in its income to really judge if they are making a reasonable use or return on this building on this property.

Um, so again, I would that evidence would seeing that again like I work in an office building. If it were to make $500,000 based on the same amount of spaces, then yeah, one could argue that this building isn't having reasonable use of return, but we don't have that information in front of us today. So, it's hard for me to really judge if $136,000 is not reasonable. sounds reasonable to me, but again, I'm not an economicist.

I don't know what office buildings make here in Flagstaff or the surrounding area. And so, I can't make that comparison today. And that I need that comparison to provide evidence that it's not making a reasonable return. Madam Chair, can I just make one quick comment? And and I appreciate your comments and I'm sorry, but I'm the attorney, so I have to respond to the reasonable doubt comment. I I would not apply that as the standard.

I think as Commissioner Hayes says, she just had I think hasn't been convinced or is not seen in the information provided, she does not believe there's an economic hardship. I just don't think it's a reasonable doubt. That's a pretty high standard. So that's why I jump in. So um but I appreciate your comments. I thought your comments were great, but for the commission's knowledge, we let's not apply the reasonable doubt standard. Um So can you expand on that?

What can you refer to like reasonable doubt? I'm I'm confused. I I just want reasonable doubt is a pretty high legal standard. It's what is used in criminal law to convict somebody. So it's it just it just I don't want the community or the developer thinking we are putting too high of a standard on your decision. I think your comments were fair. You explained exactly why you couldn't find the economic hardship.

I just want to remove that piece about um reasonable doubt from your statement so there isn't some misunderstanding that we're applying too high of a standard that isn't referenced in the code. Yes. So do not use the term reasonable doubt again. Correct. Thank you. All right. Understood. Thank you. You know, $136,000 sound a lot, but $4 million, you make $136,000, that's 034% return in your money. That's less than what you would get in a money market or a savings bond or anything like that.

So, I'm just not arguing with you. I'm just comparing it the return on 4 million at 136 uh what it actually equates to in in real life. Thank you.

I would just like to add that, you know, having a presentation a little bit of that and going through it would have been really helpful in in this um in this meeting because this is the applicant's opportunity to provide us information and um I give presentations all the time talking about my field to people who know nothing about it and I usually take a lot of time to explain everything, set it up. um if we're using specialty tools, I have a picture of it, that kind of thing.

And so this was our opportunity to kind of, you know, this was the opportunity to kind of like lay it out for us and and make your case. And we're basing it on the packet and uh there's just not enough for me to feel that this has been met. And could I ask the commission? So there's, you know, three examples of different types of economic hardship. And I know we've discussed the first one, but do you want to discuss whether either of the other two have been met?

Because this is an or, so you don't have to prove all three. Yeah, I'll I'll go into those two real quick. Um, so a substantial reduction in the value. Um I know if I recall the packet correctly um the appraisal packet it did say like something around the effects that it I'm actually not going to quote because I can't remember off the top of my head. I can't remember if I actually am remembering it right or not. So, but again, the applicant did not provide.

Again, everything I saw in the packet, there was no stating that in the two years they've owned this property, there was a substantial reduction in its value or that prior to purchasing the property, there was a substantial reduction in the value. Uh, as I understand, a lot of properties in Flagstaff have seen their value risen. It's why property taxes have been going up for a lot of properties across the city.

uh because Flagstaff is becoming a more and more desirable place to live as we see people from Phoenix and Tucson moving up here uh more so than ever before. So again, there was no evidence of a substantial reduction in the value uh since the property owner current property owner has owned the property and the previous again we didn't see anything from the previous property owner showing that they lost value in the property. Um and then a substantial burden.

Again, there is the cost of rehabilitating the whole entire building, but in the two years of owning it, the property owner is still been again when they had tenants been able to make over $100,000 net operating income and has also not sought to do any repairs. So if it was a burden, I feel like they would have made repairs. Well, I'll take my turn on this one. Um, I am not convinced that it's not a a self-created hardship.

real estate, you know, you you make bets and you try and do what you want to do, but um it's our job to do to preserve historic flag staff to the benefit of everybody for every reason that we named in the beginning. And I think there are a lot of problems with our process. And I don't I'm really sorry that this is a yes or no decision based on six criteria.

I just think that that's not the best way to be handling this and it puts a great strain on all of us sitting up here who don't um we're not saying we don't want to have the hotel. or just saying it's I think it's in the wrong location and it's diminishing the historic resources that we are here to preserve and that's a very hard position to be in.

So we it's not that we have a problem with the project, we probably have a problem with the location and the impacts of tearing down a third building has on the whole downtown. the feeling and the character of our largest revenue generator in the city that brings so many people who decide to move here who love this place. So, I have a really hard time with this and I'm not convinced that it wasn't a self-imposed hardship. Should we move on to seed?

And if the commission feels ready to vote again I meant like C of the criteria for approval. Although as it's all six have to be met if the commission is already decided ready to decide that B has not been met and you're ready you can vote now if there's you know you feel like you already have a consensus. All right.

You can also yeah keep keep discussing if you have other I think it's important to lay it all out again while one criteria there I think it's important to lay out what what criteria was approved and what criteria is met and what criteria isn't meant I do for C I am pretty again I don't know but I think that preservation could be economically techally infeasible. Again, the complete rehabitation is nearly $4 million.

Again, some of that expenses could be debated, could be see as inflated, but still it is quite a bit and they can be um from alternative financing, $1.8 $8 million is available to help preservation, but again, it would take multiple years of a net operating income of $136,000 to get to that 4 million. So, I do see that as kind of infeasible. Again, taking 10 years to repair a building w uh to its best use state. So, that's my uh comment on C. Does any other commissioner have a comment on C?

Um I agree with Commissioner Duffy uh regarding deed economic hardship is I do see it as a self-created hardship. Um because the property owner did was not aware of that the property was in historic overlay district. Excuse me. But it is in the appraisal. Okay.

Well, let me restate that then that they that they didn't that they did not take it into consideration of all that goes into place of demolishing a building within a historic overlay district and that they very much did take a gamble when purchasing this property and they didn't do again the property owner stated that they went through the building saw that I needed repairs but didn't get an estimate on what those repairs would cost and what the value of the building would potentially only be if all those repairs were done to rehabilitate the building.

And so that's my comment on D. E. Alternative development has been fully explored. I believe that criteria was not met because they really um there was some past research into a hotel I mean into apartment complex development, but that we didn't receive documentation on that.

Um, we've only again received thorough documentation on an office space and a hotel and I believe there's potentially a bunch of other um potentially a bunch of other alternative developments that could have been more fully in depth explored. Again, the hotel thing was for um six, seven years ago, I believe.

And so that the hope the housing market rental market has changed a lot in the last six to seven years again since co so I don't believe that has been alternative developments have been fully explored to see if again turning into an apartment complex for example would have been econom made the property more economically feasible and then for f alternative financing has been fully explored. I believe yes that that criteria was met.

They gave us a list of all the potential um financing options, grants, uh funding. Again, with this being an uh eligible site, they could receive money from Shipo, the federal government, and that was listed in the application. Uh so that criteria, I believe, has been met. And that is my comments for all the crit for for all the criterias. I am having problems with G. Um, you buy a building for $4 million and now it's $2 million. Somehow they're just I just can't see that one.

Uh, I'm just having an issue with uh with with number D. The economic hardship is not a self created hardship. If you expect I mean if you buy something for $4 million and all of a sudden it's worth $2 million and somehow you know that's going to happen. I'm just having a hard time that that that's it's just not it's just not working for me.

I would like to make a comment that um not related to the criteria but a general comment in the process and I think that there is a lot that needs to be revisited in um the process with the city and our inventories and whatnot. So if we had been up on our inventories and they were not 1979 and 1982, it would have been clear right off the bat that that building was historic and I I think that making it clear and that information is available right away when people are looking at development.

I think that's on the city. We the downtown historic area is the biggest economic driver. We should be putting some of that money back to be prepared whenever there's something happening. So right now the process is we have to make a decision at the economic hardship which is hard for all of us. This is not in our area and the thing is we're all kind of confused. How did it get here? You know and why weren't we included from the concept?

We could have said something before they spent any money on design or anything. We should see when there's a large development we should see a developer come and propose something to us for the concept so we can give feedback early on what the obstacles are likely to be. I think the applicant wants to speak to say something for for you both. Um what you just what you just spoke about is something that wasn't in place when this process was started.

So it's kind of a little bit irrelevant to today. And my ask would be is you everyone the application laid out what they wanted. I answered all those questions. Nothing was phonied. Nothing was overlaid. If anything, if a tenant comes in there, a tenant may want oak. They may want something more expensive than what we've done.

But the real question is is did you hear the Chamber of Commerce or you can feel in your heart that that building sitting there as an office building brings people to downtown brings people to walk around that corner? I don't believe so. I believe that if that is changed into a hotel and a parking garage that will bring people to Flag Staff because they'll have a place to stay. I tried to show the commission last time what was inside that building.

It's an honor to to uh flag staff and we got shut down. That was unfortunate because that whole building inside I don't you don't care about the inside but that whole building reflects all of Flagstaff's history for years which anybody that comes there will know more about Flag Staff than walking by what's an empty office building. So yeah, it's a hard decision. I understand that. But nobody walks by that building. That building does not bring people to Flagstaff.

So I'm trying to bring something that will bring people to Flagstaff, bring people to downtown, bring jobs, bring parking. All that is 100% better than in my opinion, maybe not yours. I You asked for Malipi. I put Malipi all over the front of it. You heard people in the audience say they want it gone. You heard that uh the Indigenous Commission wanted it gone. Just for some reason there's five, six people that don't want it gone.

And I have a hard time understanding that when it's unfortunate a lot of the community can't speak up, the downtown business association and those guys because they can't be involved in political decisions. But you know, I'll have to live by your decision. But uh I would just hope you would think of the future and what the project could bring. Thank you. I'd just like to clarify that it's not just those of us sitting here.

There were petitions online of people people Flagstaff I don't know if it's unique, but people in Flagstaff love this community and the history and they love the feeling of our place. And there were a lot there were like 400 people and it was not a pushed petition um who said no we love that building. It represents our experiences here, our history here. Um I understand the indigenous community did not ask for it to be raised. So we're representing people that we know.

We're representing people who signed that petition that would like to have that building preserved because it is part of our historic downtown that we identify with as our place and you don't live here. So maybe you don't have that feeling for Flagstaff. I get your business part. I understand all that and I don't have a problem with you wanting to build a hotel or the parking garage. I have a problem with continuing to lose the historic resources that identify this place.

And if you chose to pay a lot, and that's a lot of money for that property, um, since you didn't get to come to us early to find out more about the how the historic part works, the process set up this difficult situation. And had you understood more about these things, perhaps this would have gone a little differently. But um this is a place that people we love our community and we don't like seeing it disappear.

And you might not know that we continue to see buildings disappear and it's disheartening for us. Those of us who have lived here a long time and people who haven't lived here a long time, they don't like seeing our history disappearing because it is our identity. and Flagstaff has fabulous history. So, it's our job to protect that. And it's not about what you want to do. We I don't know that my colleagues here are against what you want to do or don't see the need for it.

It's about what we're losing that makes this place unique and that we value. So, that's our, as I see it, our very difficult position that we're being put in. I just wanted to state for the record that a petition has not been formally submitted to the city or come before the commission and is not part of tonight's agenda um and and is not part of the public record. It is part of the public record because um Gwen Growth got up and spoke about it at a previous meeting.

So it has been spoken about in the chamber. Okay. But the the actual petition materials and signatures have have never been submitted and the commission has not reviewed them apart from a public comment at the last meeting. I would like to make a general comment to what the project owner said uh the developer said. I I understand the difficulty of this process. We are not as stated multiple times by I think every commissioner tonight. We're not a fan of the process either.

We're just doing our role here on the commission and our role as the commission is to evaluate historic preservation, not economic viability for Flag Staff. We're not economic condition. We're not a real estate commission. We are a historic preservation commission. And so when we look at our criteria, we have to take historic preservation into consideration, not the economics of Flagstaff.

For example, you could, I'm sure, I mean, not exactly sure, but you could bulldoze several parts of Flagstaff in the downtown area and build these nice expensive condos that you see in downtown Phoenix and Tempe. And that would generate a lot of revenue in parts of Flagstaff. But again, that is not our priority role here on the commission and it's not in our codes to consider that our what we're supposed to consider is the historic preservation.

And I do want to say I appreciate the interior design that was brought up to include the history of Flagstaff. I was very grateful for that and glad to see it. Unfortunately, all we can consider is the exterior when it comes to renderings of the building. So that's why we asked to move on because unfortunately we have no say in that and cannot take into consideration.

And um as the one who pointed out Mali Stone in the last commission meeting, I really do appreciate uh the great the how much more you added on to the renderings of the building. Um again, I know that's more appropriateness and we're on economic hardship, but I just wanted to make those comments because they were brought up. But again, we are supposed to consider historic preservation, not economic feasibility for the city of Flagstaff and how much a project could bring into it.

Again, our job is to protect history here in the city of Flagstaff and that is our role. Um, again, this process again, this should have brought been brought to us much earlier. We don't control when things get brought to us.

says again this I think this whole process has been a great lesson for the city of how to pro possibly reform this whole process again it's not our role as the commission to reform this process it is up to city staff and city code and so we have no say in that so again I think this is a great lesson to show that hey there needs to be reform in this process so that we can be brought in earlier and so that you don't have to waste all this time and money on designs, consultants, and waste a bunch of time because again, we don't like doing it either.

So, thank you. Okay, so where are we? Anyone have any more comments on A through F? I think you're at a motion. The Are we at a motion? No more discussion. Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion? I make a motion to vote on the certificate of economic hardship for the property at 19 West Birch Avenue. You are you motion to approve or deny? Oh, um motion to deny. Any more discussion? Any revisions to the motion? I second the motion. Any more discussion? I hear none. Okay. So, we'll vote.

So, the motion is to deny the certificate of economic hardship. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? I hear none. So, there we have the decision. Thank you. And um so with that being denied, I'm sorry, Lauren, I'll just I'll just step in here. So the next item on the agenda was a certificate of appropriateness, but now that the certificate of economic hardship has been denied, I think that that issue or that item becomes moot now. So you can move beyond that item.

So that takes us to general business. Item 8A, signs and facades grant information update. Note that Commissioner Stewart has uh rejoined uh the commission. All right. 8A, historic U science and facades grant tracking. Um there is no uh substantial update um in what was in the agenda packet from last month. Just the grant approval from last month was updated on the spreadsheet.

Um I have however since then completed the grant inspection and submitted all the reimbursement paperwork today for the 822 West Grand Canyon Avenue grant. So, next month, um, we'll show I will be able to include the photos from the grant inspection, um, and showed that as a paid, um, grant on the tracking spreadsheet. Any questions about that item?

Um and let's see several meetings ago um we had had a discussion on the let's see 8B commission outreach and education um program discussion and the commission had left that meeting in April um with a homework assignment for everyone to think about and reflect on that item and bring their top three ideas for outreach and education um as well as their personal time commitment um and be prepared to discuss them at the May meeting.

This item was tabled last month through the length of the meeting to tonight um to discuss. And this uh is a refresher. These are um outreach and discussion um as related to the commission's powers and duties and the commission's enacting authority. Um and they're they're listed here in the background and history. Lauren, I have a question.

And um I I recently joined the National Association of Historic Preservation Commissions um because I'm a student right now on the side and I get a really discounted it was $25 for the year. So I joined and um they have a lot of issues to do with certain things like there'll be an issue about public outreach and it might be like 15 or 20 pages or there's another one about appropriate windows or something.

If I sent it to you, the one on public outreach ideas and things and things that have worked, could you distribute it to the rest of the commission? Yes. Okay. I would like to wait until um Commissioner Dale is back to have this discussion so when we have everyone here because it would involve everybody. I wanted to know if it makes sense for this topic to like form a subcommittee to look into what's existing. Um, so I went to the library, had some fun.

There's some guide books out there and there's some guide books at the visitor center. And so I think that there's a lot maybe that's existing that we can promote or elevate in some ways um and maybe partner with some groups that are doing that type of things. Um anyway, I just wanted to know if maybe um rather than continue to delay, maybe we want to start to work on this um with a group that's interested on the side.

When I brought this up, I was less thinking of historic tours around town, but more about, for example, Eona might benefit from understanding preservation better. So that kind of thing to educate council and some of the downtown business organizations, some of the organizations, architects for example, um, who have an interest in the areas where we want to preserve so that they understand when they come to the commission what it's all about. That was really what I was aiming for.

Just to respond, I totally get it. Um the tours are one aspect of it. But I think partly I was wondering what the city has that they give out to own you know property owners like I just don't have a good understanding and so if we understand what's existing we'll understand how to promote it or build upon it. So I just need to learn what we're offering. I actually that's a really good point. It would be nice to see what business owners are are given.

So they have, you know, what are they given for maintaining their building? I know it talks a little bit about that in the design guidelines, but what else do they do they get about being in historic overlay or something? Um, I don't know if it's too late to do this potentially, but again, this we're on the discussion of commission outreach and education program.

So, I think a great way to where um raise public awareness, especially with businesses here in downtown Flagstaff about historic preservation and how it can be more economically feasible and the economics of it of like how his preserving their building historically can bring them money um and bring people's attention.

I know there's a conference next month um that I will be attending uh here at the Orium about downtown matters where you're going to have a bunch of people speaking about why historical downtowns matter and um there's a lot of great speakers there and I hope that one they talk about historic preservation. Um it's July 16th and the 17th.

Um, but I think it would be great, again, I don't know if it's too late for this because they already have an agenda and stuff, but to see city staff there talking about all the potential grants and benefits to historic preservation on buildings. So, I have one too far.

One concern that I think before we did any outreach that I would like to hear from the HBO is because we are promoting we would be promoting outreach which I think is a phenomenal idea but for as the commission and not as individuals what the parameters of that would look like since we are not promoting all parts of historic preservation.

we are doing the what we as the commission I would assume we would have limitations based on what the commission can promote not what we feel we want to promote. Um, yeah, interesting question. I mean, I do think, uh, you know, part of that would be one way it could be handled as Commissioner Stevens mentioned, you know, forming a subcommittee that wants to work on this. Does sound like there's some disagreement and differing ideas on what could be done.

So, developing a consensus as a commission. Um, either doing that in the meetings if this was, you know, established as a regular or periodic item. Um that could be one um you know one way to develop consessence or a different model of doing it as a subcommittee to decide what you'd want to work on. I mean one thing we discussed at the previous meeting is you know this is not coming with a budget. So there is also that consideration in terms of like what can you produce?

Um it's also you know not necessarily coming with staff time um for me to um you know be developing new resources for the commission to do. So just additional considerations.

I think those would be two of the big ones is that you know developing pamphlets um you know going to conferences and doing presentations it does come with time and money implications um and those have to be weighed in the grand scheme of all of the other things that we've talked about tonight right like we want staff to update the design guidelines we want staff to do new historic inventories and so those also come with my time and money so those I think the time and money are the biggest considerations um and you know in terms of um but just you know what message are you promoting um if if that part of the question I think yeah developing the consensus amongst the commission I think would be good and of course you know grounding it in what is in our heritage preservation code um and our CLG agreement and our the actual you know the the requirements right um you know this is what is in our design guidelines this is what is in our code and is required of property owners to know um you know versus necessarily some of the the other things or educational programs like you mentioned right like um we discussed the previous meeting that there are a lot of um guides and things that exist for commercial properties but not for as many for the residential properties um so things you know other ways to um to do those sort of educational things I don't think would be particularly controversial and did you would you like to add to that Michelle no I was just thinking I kind of from the I think that to I kind of heard two parts of kind of like the consistent messaging but also like the rules of engagement as a commission.

Um I don't know if that was part I kind of thought maybe that was part of it. I just maybe to confirm before you spoke to that. Yeah that is we are as individuals some of us are here for various different reasons but we are representatives of the city of Flagstaff and of the code specifically and so I see that as limitation or like a concern.

I I think it'd be nice to um c talk to the city clerk about that and kind of I mean obviously the rule the com the rules of the commission would continue to apply but it may be more nuanced as you break out and kind of go out to the public.

So, I think it would be worthwhile that if you pursue this and there is a subcommittee or as a commission you choose to do this that maybe we bring in the um the clerk's office just to to kind of hear what those nuances are and to give you you further guidance in that way as well. Yeah, I think I think it was a fantastic idea but I as as we all work in with regulations etc.

I do see some potential issues with whatever messages we choose and I I would think it would be great to get that nailed down before we get super into it. And of course any you know workshop event that you hosted where there could be a potential quorum will have to be noticed as a formal public meeting and potential quorum. So it'll have to be advertised in that way. I'll h you know have to advertise that work with the clerk's office.

So another another consideration and then it would would be officially sort of on the record as a potential city um advertised thing.

But if I could add um we have to it would make sense to have a committee to just sort of first identify what's already being done but we could also identify what would make the processes in the city work better in terms of educating the public and the decision makers because we might find that if we can explain these things to our decision makers they might say wow this has a lot value and our historic preservation position is very underresourced and that they would put more toward it instead of overloading any one person.

They might say, "Oh my gosh, we're so behind on this, this, this, and this. It's creating problems when developers come to town or whatever." um that it really they might find it's a priority, but everything moves so slowly when we meet once a month that it would make sense to just start the conversation and see where we can make things better and where education for architects and other people like Eona and the Chamber of Commerce.

help them understand the values that historic preservation brings because I think people don't in the public don't really understand it. So that's what I'm thinking is just a committee would be a great place to start to have the conversation to identify what's being done already and start identifying where there are gaps that could be filled and then if we need to ask for more resources from council we can do that.

we can explain it and they may say yay or nay we'll find out but if we don't identify the needs there's no reason to ask and I would just say that yeah with that model there are I think there two ways you could go if you did want to have a group there is a working group which I don't think comes with all the formal requirements of a sub of a of a formal subcommittee that then has to be staffed and we have to post all of meeting minutes and agendas so additional things to consider.

Uh informal working group um which I think could be you know three of you that wouldn't be a quorum um could could be an easier way to go that would be less intensive. Um and then and another and it sounds like I know uh Chair Westimer mentioned possibly throwing some ideas out today and waiting until Commissioner Dale is back next month if you wanted to wait to do that to form a subcommittee.

Um but another potential direction this could go to um or it could be both is uh some other commission some other boards and commissions do one of their meetings once a year as like an annual retreat where they talk about you know larger things that they're going to do throughout the year um and kind of build build out a schedule for how they're they're going to plan things. So that could be um another option for the commission to consider um is something like that.

I mean there usually that is in itself and I know last month or two months ago the time commitment was raised um by um some of you and that would be it usually looks like an all day retreat all day working day for the commission that they would take a whole day off work or whatever it is and and do and talk about these bigger things. And so that in addition to possibly like a working group, that's also going to be a bigger time commitment.

So other things to consider, they all of it comes with the time commitment. I know those concerns were expressed before and that was part of why the um homework request was to come with hey like which of us are actually willing to commit the time because maybe you know that that could change the answer. Um so do we want to continue put this item next month? Um, okay. Any specific thing or just continue as is on the agenda with just carry it over?

I'm good with carrying it over and I think it would be good if like we just kind of threw a bunch of ideas together whoever's in the working group and then bring it to the whole commission and then the commission can go I you know everybody can vote on it see what and then prioritize too because we probably come up with a hundred ideas but we probably only could do two maybe to start with and they could have multiple working groups so like if you each if there's like a couple priorities you could have smaller working groups right so or different interests right like someone Who's right?

Yes. I I like the idea of that. I would and particularly of it coming to the commission because as appointed people, we would all want to agree and make sure it's within the parameters of and scope of our role. Um that would be my I would also say that I uh while working groups are great I have also found that you doing just a little bit of time here and there stuff can sometimes never actually happen.

So I would I would actually suggest and I hate to say this also as somebody who you know runs a business has has things um that a regular longer discussion might be more productive as opposed to a working session here and there that we then need to bring to the commission because I don't want to anything to you know and I'm sure everybody feels that way where they don't want to be represented by something without input Right. Right. So like Yeah. Like an annual retreat once a year. Yeah.

And having the longer. So I do think Commissioner Dale would want to be here for this. So I'm all for like waiting. Um one question I have though is would it be possible and not too much work to pull together what's provided to homeowners or property owners about like what's being provided right now to them if that could be included. Um, I mean, if you mean by staff, it's it's really me and the other staff answering questions daily.

You know, we've got the planner of the day who answers in-depth questions about the zoning code and development applications and we've got um the same level in building safety. So, we have, you know, 40 hours a week. We've got staff available to answer in-depth questions and they are mostly one by one. And then I of course also provide um all of the the code information, all the design guidelines. Um we have we've discussed last time we've got um promotional material on our grant program.

So I've got that that I send out to people. I have language that I send to people on the state tax credit program on you know the federal tax credit program. So it's not that there's like a packet that that is prepared. Um it's really individual. You know, I hear from property owners, potential property owners, realators daily who've like, I want to do X, Y, and Z with my property. What can I do? And they're all custom answers that staff work on every day.

Would it be helpful to you to have something that you can say, just let me send you this document, and then get back to me if you have more questions? Would that be helpful to you? I maybe, but for the most part, I I am still going to have to do because it is, hey, I live at this specific house. What is I'm going to go look up the status of the house. Has it been inventoried? Here's your inventory form. Yes or no. This is what you can do in the code. Um, and then it's like, I want to do this.

I want to put this specific addition here, or I want a demo, or I, you know, want to change the interior. So I so so maybe some like FAQ type guide could be helpful, but I do think the the specific property to property is still going to happen. Um and then and having to refer to the specific code language is still going to happen. And a lot of it is um I'm sure you know is it's not a straight they are all case by case, right?

Like whether or not it's exempt from a cultural resource study is case by case. And so they do need to talk to me individually to get those answers. I can't just, you know, I could get I can send them the code and they can read the language, but they're still going to have to ask those questions. We might need to go back as far as saying what a cultural resource stud study is and why it is required.

I'm just thinking to educate these people in our community to the process could eliminate misunderstandings or um anger. Nobody wants the anger and the frustration. And if we can head it off with education, it seems worthwhile. There may be resources already out there.

I mean, I'm thinking there's probably a good recording that talks about what the seven aspects of integrity are or something like that that could be if somebody's looking at something wanted more, they could be pointed to maybe we keep like a list of that with some links or something and probably something maybe with Arizona Preservation Foundation or the Shipo that they might have some things that are already recorded and useful.

So, should we leave it there and keep moving on and we'll when Commissioner Dale's here, we'll decide if we're going to do a committee or not, an informal committee. All right. And now we're into um the approval items, uh, which I believe this month are, um, primarily re-roofing and new sign permits in the town site and downtown. Um and uh one letter report cultural resource study. Um are there any specific questions about any of the approval items? Great.

Then that takes us um toformational to from commission members and staff. Um and I will start with one announcement which is um the El PBLO grant opportunity that I mentioned at the last meeting. We um haven't gotten the formal notice but we did not receive the grant funding. So one followup on on that. Yes. I would just like to announce that Lauren Clementino is our interim comprehensive neighborhood planning manager. So really excited to have her step into that position.

She'll still continue to be the historic preservation officer, but um very excited to see her take on that as well. Congratulations. But it sounds like just double the work. We'll see. Hopefully not quite double, but yes. And we had announced last time um that Sarah Doctor was leaving and um last Friday was her last day. So, but I have question on her. She she's Sarah went to Mountain Line.

She said, "Is Mountain Line not part of the city or is that part of the county or is that a partnership?" Neither. Yeah, it's its own agency partner. Yeah. I just always assumed it was part of the city. You and I think the rest of Flag Staff. Yeah. But yes, they're their own their own agency. So, thank you. So, I have two things.

One is I learned that although we um I I download things because we lose our internet and we lose our electricity, it's much more efficient to look at our agenda from the online version. Otherwise, you get a 700 and whatever page PDF which is almost impossible to deal with. So although it's nice to have that as a backup, I highly recommend that we just go in through what looks like that. Right. And yeah, I'll demonstrate as we discuss this.

If you download the whole packet, it puts everything together. If you look at them online, they're all labeled individually and then it's easier to go straight to what you need. So, that was just an FYI because I learned that the hard way. But I still download because we do lose internet and electricity. And you can if you open them, you can download them individually, but more work. So, okay.

The other thing is what I wanted to ask the shipo representative is that route 66 grant I did want to clarify that it does not it flag staff's not eligible in the grant guidelines it says only cities under 50,000 people. So unfortunately we are I think probably the only section of Route 66 in Arizona that is not able to apply for that grant opportunity. So encourage your friends and along the rest of Route 66, but um we are not eligible unfortunately. Thank you.

That's what I thought was the case. I have uh one thing I kind of mentioned it earlier, but so next month, July 16th through 17th at the RVM, there is a conference of downtown uh matters uh particularly about Flagstaff and why downtowns matter in general throughout the nation. And I think it's like a great opportunity to network, talk, learn about historic preservation, especially of buildings and overlays and districts. So yeah, I'd like to add something to that if I may. Is that okay?

Um David Stevens has some complimentary well some extra tickets that he purchased. So if someone would like to go but they can't afford, it's pretty expensive. It's like $200. Yeah. So, if there's someone on the commission who would appreciate that assistance, contact David Stevens and see if he has and see if he has any of his tickets still. I would I would just caution the commission about accepting gifts.

Um, so as that, you know, again would be inappropriate for city staff or the commission to accept gifts. Um so consider that as in your prof you know capacity as a commissioner or if there was a way that um DBA you know could offer them as some kind of scholarship program or something that people could apply for and then it would not a direct gift. Anything else from anyone?

No, I have a I have a question about next steps for something that was on the agenda today and just questions about the next steps and procedures for it. Yes. Okay.

So I'm cur so if we denied the certificate of economic hardship is there I guess like can it be put on the next agenda the a discussion about writing a formal statement to city council explaining our denial just in case that and we can decide if we want to do that but have a discussion about it and a decision about it just in case again he decides to appeal it to city council and that way we're not rushing to have something prepared for city council of our reasoning.

I would say I can um review and see, but if an appeal is filed, it um would need to be filed within 10 days and it is likely that council will would take the appeal um before your next meeting. And so if you do have, you know, individual comments that you want to send um to council, you could do so. There may not be, yeah, a formal time for the commission to um work together in the next meeting on a statement.

I mean, of course, if the that timeline doesn't add up or there's no appeal at all, then of course we wouldn't put it on the agenda, but maybe we can if it's going to be something that happens later on in the year. But I would guess as um council would be going on break um for the period right after your next meeting. I I would and just the timeline of the appeal process. I would anticipate that it'll be before your meeting.

Can we get um can we ask the clerk about this and send the commission a formal kind of I guess response of what they can and cannot do? Um, as long as they don't respond to it. Yes. Yeah, I can ask the clerk's office because I would say too, right, that the as you did vote on the item and and all of that will be on the record.

So we wouldn't, you know, would encourage the commission not to contradict what's already on the record, of course, but if and and so I imagine it may be something that um the recommendation may be if you have individual comments to provide um as there wouldn't be time necessarily to but it could be something I'll ask maybe there's an option if somebody wanted to if it was gonna if the clerk's office approved to draft something there. There is the special meeting.

That's what I was going to ask about next. If if it is going to if council has to hear about it or make a decision before our next meeting, is it possible that we could call a special meeting to possibly um discuss and draft a letter to be submitted to council in response to the appeal?

Um based on our discussions earlier this year about special meetings, um I would have to double check, but I do not think that that meets the like the criteria for um especially as this is already an item that the commission has discussed and voted on and all of this that record is going to council already. I don't know um that a special meeting would meet the definitions outlined. like to make a comment on that and say I think we've discussed it quite thoroughly.

Um I appreciate that but I just don't know that there's anything left to say. Um but maybe you feel differently. I just want to make the comment that I think we really we beat that dead horse.

It wasn't it wasn't like um to change anything necessarily say but more draft like a condensed summary of our feelings and reasonings why again like a paragraph or two just a formal submission on top of it to council but again that that's all I was thinking again as a possibility again a broader discussion and wouldn't add anything would just summarize a probably lawn report and I will have to do that and and they will and they do in these cases.

They will review the minutes which will also summarize and they will also um watch the video um which I know from our regional plan experience they did go and watch the planning and zoning um public hearings before it went to council. So they they do their homework. So I would anticipate that they were are going to have watched the recording at least of that section of the meeting tonight and probably last month's as well. I have a one more question about this again.

If the appeal is made, the staff in their report make a recommend recommend recommendation action to council on like their decision of what the appeal should be or whether or not to grant it. Yes, I believe that is the process established in the code for appeals is that when it gets filed then under your commission I'm responsible for it and I'm not I'm not saying you're going to or anything but hypothetically could you contradict our Yes. Okay.

If I I you know again it would all go back to the code but I can recommend um findings in the code that disagree with the commission and it will also depend on you know exactly what they're appealing but I I think I will have to evaluate that and if they file an appeal that you know meets the criteria and is valid. Yes. Thank you. Okay. So, we're not as long as the previous meeting by an hour. So, let's celebrate. That was a long one. So, anyone else have anything? No. Okay. I thank you all.

So, we're going to bring this meeting to an end at whatever time it is. Oh, 7:36 p.m. It's right there on June 17th. I'm reading it right there with the official logo of Flagstaff. Close enough for government work. I don't know. Okay. Thank you all. I think we're done here.