Flagstaff approves Crown Motel cultural study, restricts replica neon signage after unpermitted 2024 removal

Crown Motel's Lost Neon Forces Harsh Reckoning on Route 66 Historic Integrity; Commission Approves Mitigation but Grapples with Permanence of Damage

On April 16, 2025, the Flagstaff Heritage Preservation Commission spent more than an hour debating how to mitigate the irreversible loss of the Crown Motel's iconic red neon signage—removed without permit in 2024—ultimately approving a cultural resource study that declares the property no longer eligible for National Register listing. The vote, which split on the sign mitigation design, exposed deep disagreement about whether a business operator should be allowed any signage benefit after removing the very signs that defined the building's historic character.

The Crown Motel, a mid-century motor lodge on Route 66 adjacent to the Museum Club and bowling alley, had been determined eligible for National Register listing in 2023 during efforts by Flagstaff Shelter Services to pursue historic tax credits for restoration. In 2024, the current restaurant operator Los Tapatillos and building management removed the restaurant's neon signage, the restaurant building itself, and the Crown Motel sign—unpermitted work that triggered code violation investigations and a comprehensive study to assess what remained.

Key Speeches

"The cumulative impact of changes outside of the period of significance have resulted in a different property than existed during the mid-twentieth century. And the former crown motel no longer expresses its association with its original context and period of use." — Josh Edwards, Cornerstone cultural resource consultant, presenting Phase 1 findings.

"I don't view this as like revenge or punishment, but rather this is without the los tapatios how it looked before. And so now we're adding additional things to it that doesn't necessarily mitigate the fact that the sign was removed. It would be more in keeping with the way that the historic building looked to just have it say restaurant with the name of the restaurant placed elsewhere on the building." — Commission member, opposing placement of restaurant operator name on the replica neon.

"I apologize for not remembering from the previous discussion, but could the scale of restaurant be returned to what it was before? No, unfortunately not... we can't recreate what was there originally." — Lauren Morgan, Historic Preservation Officer, explaining sign code constraints that prevent full restoration.

"The only place that was open at 3:00 in the morning was the Crown Railroad with that big red sign. I seen a lady die in that parking lot. Had a heart attack... it's sort of a shame that we lost that." — Public commenter and former Flagstaff city snow-plow operator, recounting personal memories of the Crown's role as sole late-night restaurant on Route 66.

Timeline

• Applicant presentation (Josh Edwards, Cornerstone): Edwards walked through a detailed architectural history of the Crown Motel complex, tracing changes from 1963 postcards showing the restaurant building with pillar-mounted neon sign, through 1988 addition of building two and swimming pool outside the property's period of significance (ending 1968), to 2024 unpermitted removal of neon signage and Port-Cochere signage. Edwards noted that over 50 years the neon and restaurant signs "were beacons to travelers on Route 66" and that their removal, combined with cumulative alterations, severed the property's association with mid-twentieth century Route 66 commerce.

• Staff recommendation: Lauren Morgan, HBO, noted that the determination of eligibility in 2023 was "borderline" and made informally with Susan Lawson at SHIPO for grant-funding purposes. Morgan confirmed that SHIPO consulted informally did not recommend restoration of neon or replica signage as restoring integrity. The city would be accepting the Phase 1 report and making a local determination of ineligibility, with no requirement for state or federal concurrence on a property not currently listed.

• Public comment: Three speakers. A Flagstaff snow-plow operator recounted using the Crown as the sole 24-hour restaurant during 3 a.m. snow-plowing shifts and witnessed a medical emergency in the parking lot; expressed frustration that "a part of our history is gone and never to be replaced." Morgan responded that city staff had voluntarily searched the landfill and metal recyclers for the removed sign and that the building had appeared in a recent New York Times article on Route 66 diners—evidence of its regional significance. A second commenter raised the possibility of requiring the owner to fund an educational program on historic preservation for property owners with significant cultural resources; Morgan and Commission Chair Duffy declined, citing budget constraints, staff capacity limits, and concerns about enforceability and nexus to the specific impact.

• Council discussion: Commissioners debated the sign mitigation for approximately 45 minutes, centering on whether Los Tapatillos (the restaurant operator) should be permitted to display its business name on the replica neon sign replacing the historic "restaurant" signage. Commissioner Westimer and others argued that allowing the operator's name rewarded the violation and departed from historical precedent—the building had historically shown only "restaurant" in neon, with business names placed elsewhere (awnings, parking-lot signs, building sides). Commissioner Dominguez advocated for not "punishing" the business, noting its financial support for the Shelter and the loss of income due to permitting delays. The commission eventually reached a compromise: the east facade (primary historic view, hotel entrance) would display only "restaurant" in neon; the west facade (restaurant entrance) could include "Los Tapatillos" but must be separable and removable. All agreed a mural of the 1967 postcard plus a historical plaque inside the restaurant would serve as mitigation.

• Vote: The motion to approve the Phase 1 cultural resource study and both mitigation measures (sign and mural/plaque) passed unanimously after Commissioner Horn moved to divide the question, allowing separate votes on the sign and mural mitigations. The sign mitigation passed 4–2 (Commissioner Horn and one other voted no, objecting to any business name on the facade); the mural/plaque mitigation passed unanimously.

Opposition

Number of speakers against: Commissioner Horn (voting against the sign mitigation allowing business name anywhere on the facade); no organized public opposition.

Main concerns:

1. Allowing Los Tapatillos to display its name on a replica historic sign rewards the unpermitted removal that caused the ineligibility.
2. Historical precedent shows the restaurant building displayed only "restaurant," not business names, in neon.
3. Placing business signage on the facade creates incentive structures that could encourage future tenants to remove it (if a restaurant closes, the name remains but restaurant no longer applies).
4. Replica signage that includes non-original elements (business name) blurs the line between historic restoration and new construction, potentially compromising educational value.
5. The sign code prevents scaling the replica "restaurant" text to its original size; adding a business name compounds that loss by further departing from the original aesthetic.
6. Code enforcement failures allowed unpermitted removal; educational mitigation—training property owners on historic preservation law—should be part of the remedy.

Most compelling arguments:

• Commissioner Horn's point that neither the Crown Railroad Cafe (1996) nor any prior operator displayed business name in neon on that facade, and that historical precedent should govern mitigation design.
• The observation that any mitigation is inherently imperfect given sign-code constraints, but departing further from the historic appearance (by adding a name) compounds rather than reduces the loss.
• The public commenter's emotional account of the sign as a lifeline for late-night Route 66 travelers and the irreplaceable nature of that cultural role.

Organized groups: None identified; Flagstaff Shelter Services representatives (David Schaefer and others) present but primarily in support role given the property's connection to their mission.

Support

Number of speakers in favor: Commissioner Dominguez and others emphasizing the need to support the current business operator.

Main concerns and arguments:

1. Los Tapatillos has suffered financially from permitting delays and should not be further penalized by restriction of business signage.
2. The restaurant operator is a valued partner of Flagstaff Shelter Services and provides important revenue for the shelter; punitive mitigation measures would unfairly burden the shelter's mission.
3. Restaurants require visible signage to function; a business cannot operate if customers cannot identify it, and placing all signage elsewhere (awnings, parking lot, building sides) is impractical and ineffective.
4. The mitigation (replica sign, mural, plaque) is already substantial; adding signage restrictions goes beyond mitigating the damage to effectively punishing the operator for a violation they did not plan.
5. People dining at night particularly depend on clear signage; non-illuminated business-name signage was proposed as a compromise, making the neon "restaurant" stand out while allowing the business to be identified.

Project Details

• Case number / item: A1, A2 (cultural resource study approval and mitigation measures for Crown Motel; separate from demolition approvals for North Larrabee properties).
• Applicant / developer / property owner: Flagstaff Shelter Services (with Los Tapatillos restaurant operator and current development partner); consultant Cornerstone (Josh Edwards).
• Location / address: 3300 East Route 66, Flagstaff, Arizona (Crown Motel complex).
• Current zoning / proposed: Not specified in transcript; property is within the Route 66 Overlay District and downtown cultural resource review jurisdiction.
• Period of significance: 1962–1968 (ending when I-40 bypass opened).
• Key structural elements: Building 1 (restaurant building with neon signage mounting pillars, ca. 1963–1967); Building 2 (motel rooms, constructed 1988, outside period of significance); swimming pool (1988); Port-Cochere (original ca. 1962, enlarged ca. 1992, fully removed 2024).
• Changes from 2023 eligibility determination: In 2023, the property was found eligible for National Register listing (informally by SHIPO consultant Bill Collins, for purposes of tax-credit pursuit). Between 2023 and 2024, unpermitted removal of neon restaurant signage, Crown Motel sign, Port-Cochere, and exterior lighting rendered the property ineligible due to cumulative loss of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

Vote Breakdown

• Final (Phase 1 study approval): Unanimous (7-0).
• Sign mitigation (neon "restaurant" only east facade; separable Los Tapatillos on west facade): 4–2 (Commissioner Horn and one other voted no).
• Mural and plaque mitigation: Unanimous (7-0).

Named votes: Individual votes not consistently named in transcript; Commissioner Horn explicitly voted no on the sign mitigation due to objection to any business name on the facade.

Outcome & Next Steps

The Heritage Preservation Commission approved the Phase 1 cultural resource study of the Crown Motel, concluding that unpermitted removal of neon signage in 2024 rendered the property ineligible for National Register listing at the state and national level. The property remains under local jurisdiction and subject to Heritage Preservation Code requirements.

Mitigation measures approved:

1. Sign replacement: Replica neon reading "restaurant" on the east (primary historic) facade; neon "restaurant" plus separable, back-lit "Los Tapatillos" signage on the west facade, with the condition that the business name be removable while the "restaurant" sign remains (allowing for future tenant changes).
2. Mural and historical plaque: A painted mural replicating the 1967 postcard image of the Crown Motel restaurant will be installed inside the restaurant's new front entrance (entrance location was moved from original to reduce conflict with affordable-housing component of the mixed-use project). A permanent historical plaque detailing the building's history and significance will be placed alongside the mural, subject to HBO approval of the final design.

Permitting status: Los Tapatillos and Flagstaff Shelter Services remain unable to finalize permitting and open the restaurant until the mitigation measures are designed and installed. Approval of this motion clears the path for final design and installation.

Next steps:

• Josh Edwards and David Schaefer will develop final designs for the neon sign, mural, and historical plaque in consultation with Lauren Morgan (HBO) for review and approval.
• The sign and mural designs will not require additional commission review (per a motion to streamline the process, similar to prior approvals for the Ly building).
• Once designs are approved by the HBO, permits may be finalized and Los Tapatillos may open.
• The presentation of the May Hicks Curtis Khara House relocation and Crown Motel mitigation projects is planned for a future preservation conference, updating progress over three years of work.
• Code enforcement review: Lauren Morgan and City Building Official will meet with the Development Coordination Committee to discuss the uptick in code violations (two violations under Code 10-30-30 in six months, after none for five years) and improve internal processes and public notice of historic preservation requirements.

Controversies & Context

The unpermitted removal and code enforcement gap: The neon signage and restaurant signs were removed without permits in 2024, likely by non-professional removal (not a sign company). Kevin Dunlap from code compliance voluntarily searched the landfill and metal recyclers in an effort to locate salvageable pieces but the sign had already been taken for recycling. Building safety had noted concerns about electrocution risk given the improper removal. The removal triggered code violation investigations under Heritage Preservation Code § 10-30-30, marking only the second such violation in six months after a five-year gap with no violations.

Loss of National Register eligibility in one year: The property was determined eligible for National Register listing in 2023 (informally by SHIPO consultant Bill Collins, to support a grant application for restoration funding via historic tax credits). By 2024, after unpermitted removal of the neon and signage, the property was no longer eligible. Josh Edwards' Phase 1 study notes that the restaurant signs and neon "were the most damaging thing that had happened" to the property's integrity and were "the really were the changes between then to now."

Eligibility determination authority: A significant procedural issue emerged regarding whether SHIPO must formally concur with a local finding of ineligibility. Lauren Morgan clarified that the city (via the HBO and Commission) has independent local authority to make eligibility determinations on properties not currently listed at the state or national level. SHIPO's role is advisory and informal at the local level. The city had informally consulted SHIPO (Josh Edwards spoke with Susan Lawson at SHIPO), but no formal nexus required state concurrence. Commissioner Hayes questioned this, asking whether SHIPO should formally weigh in; Morgan and staff maintained that such a formal process applies only when a property is already listed.

The mitigation-as-punishment debate: Commissioners struggled with whether mitigation should effectively penalize Los Tapatillos for the removal (which may not have been authorized by the building owner). Commissioner Dominguez argued that further restrictions on signage would unfairly harm the business and Flagstaff Shelter Services (which relies on Los Tapatillos revenue). Others countered that allowing business-name signage on a replica historic sign rewards the operator for violating code and departing from historical precedent. The final compromise—business name on the west facade only, and separable—was designed to allow for future tenant changes without leaving a blank "restaurant" sign.

Educational mitigation rejected: Commissioner Hayes proposed that mitigation include funding for a brochure or educational outreach to property owners with significant cultural resources, arguing that code violations stem from lack of owner awareness. Lauren Morgan and Sarah (staff liaison) objected, noting that such a mitigation would lack nexus to the Crown Motel impact and would impose city-staff work on private funding. Morgan noted the city has requested budget funding for historic-preservation outreach for years without success; requiring property owners to fund such education falls outside the city's enforceable mitigation authority and would set a problematic precedent.

Route 66 cultural significance: The commission and staff emphasized the regional significance of this stretch of Route 66, citing a New York Times article published the week of the meeting featuring the Crown Motel (pre-damage) on the front page of the culture section. The building's loss of integrity represents a loss to national Route 66 heritage. The fact that 2026 marks the 100-year anniversary of Route 66 was noted as a potential opportunity for public education around the mitigation project.

The sign-code problem: A persistent tension in the discussion was that the sign code prevents scaling the replica "restaurant" text to its original size (due to height and 20% buffer requirements). This means no mitigation via signage can ever fully restore the visual impact of the original neon beacon. As Lauren Morgan noted, "It won't... be a permanent solution for this property" regardless of design choices. The code constrains what is possible, limiting options.

Duration

• This item (Crown Motel cultural resource study and mitigation): Approximately 60–75 minutes of discussion and debate, plus public comment.
• Total meeting: Approximately 120 minutes. The Crown Motel item consumed the majority of the meeting; later items (downtown demolition letters, grant extensions, house relocation update) moved more quickly.

Other Notable Items

Downtown demolition approvals (111 North Larrabee and 123 North Larrabee): The HBO approved two letter reports finding the Shoe Hospital (111 North Larrabee) and former bank building (123 North Larrabee) not eligible as historic resources. Both properties received administrative demolition permits and certificates of no effect. The same owner (working with a new development partner, distinct from a prior mixed-use development proposal in the early 2020s that failed due to inability to stage construction materials) proposes to demolish both buildings before submitting concept plans for new mixed-use development. A Phase 1 cultural resource study of a third property (19 West Birch) has been requested and is pending applicant submission. The commission and staff noted a previous development attempt on 111 North Larrabee had proposed both demolition and new building designs before the property turned 50 years old; those designs were never built. The current owner seeks demolition flexibility before unveiling final development plans.

614 West Santa Fe Avenue (Khara House) historic signs and facades grant extension: The commission approved a $20,000 historic-signs-and-facades grant extension for restoration of the Khara House, splitting the award into $15,000 to be completed by June 30, 2025 (end of fiscal year) and $5,000 for a six-month extension to allow the contractor additional time to collect and organize receipts and billing documentation. The property owner and contractor had initially sought a full $20,000 extension but agreed to accept $15,000 this fiscal year, with $5,000 spillover to next fiscal year. The vote was unanimous. This grant appears to be one of four heritage-preservation grants currently being tracked, with approximately $15,000 remaining in the annual allocation.

May Hicks Curtis Khara House relocation: Lauren Morgan reported that the historic May Hicks Curtis Khara House was successfully lifted and relocated from the developer's parcel to a city staging area using professional house mover Garrett Denny; the move took approximately one minute. The city is working to finalize a bill of sale and official city property status. A move to the MURF (Museum of University of Research Facilities or similar repository) is anticipated within approximately one month, pending coordination with the Butler Avenue construction project. Morgan is preparing a web page to track the project and is planning to present a three-year project update at a future preservation conference. Adrian Scabland (now with K&U) had expressed interest in discussing the project further; Morgan indicated she would schedule a conversation once city property status is finalized.

Youth Historic Preservation Summit (June 2–5, 2025): Lauren Morgan gauged commission interest in participating in a youth summit on historic preservation to be held in early June (likely in Williams, with some programming in Flagstaff or Flagstaff-area venues). The summit organizers requested Heritage Preservation Commission participation in a "meet and greet" format where commissioners could discuss their work and answer questions. No formal quorum is required if fewer than three commissioners participate. At least Commissioner Dominguez indicated willingness to attend if scheduling permits; other commissioners noted potential conflicts due to work travel and field schools. Morgan indicated she would coordinate specific dates and times with interested members.