Flagstaff approves Phase 2 cultural study of 1939 immigrant home; continues contentious ADU case
FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA — November 21, 2025

Flagstaff approves Phase 2 cultural study of 1939 immigrant home; continues contentious ADU case

Heritage Preservation Commission approved a comprehensive Phase 2 cultural study of a significant Southside immigrant family home (418 South Laroo) and continued a contentious ADU case (402 West Birch) to December due to subservience and scale concerns in the historic district.

Commission Approves Historic Immigrant Study, Splits ADU Vote Over Subservience Dispute

The Flagstaff Heritage Preservation Commission on November 19, 2025, approved a comprehensive Phase 2 cultural resource study of a significant Southside bungalow occupied by Hispanic and Basque immigrant families from 1939 onward, while dividing and continuing a high-stakes accessory dwelling unit case over concerns that a 25-foot-tall carriage house violates historic district overlay standards requiring secondary structures remain "subservient" to primary residences. The dual decisions—one celebrating working-class heritage preservation, the other exposing the Commission's struggle to define and enforce design subservience against state law—dominated a 4.5-hour meeting that included a training on city planning processes and a debate over ADU parking requirements.

418 South Laroo Street: Phase 2 Cultural Resource Study Approved

The 1939 bungalow and auxiliary wooden building at 418 South Laroo Street, located in the Southside Historic District south of NAU, represent the home of the Lopez and Yabara families, working-class Mexican and New Mexican immigrants who labored in lumber and hospitality industries. Cornerstone Environmental, contracted by Hope Construction, completed a phase 2 historic research study prior to proposed demolition and redevelopment.

Key Speeches

"We spent a pretty good time talking about the individuals who lived there, where they worked, where they came from, who was in the family. We mentioned things that they did in the community. We talk in length about both individuals. The Babot Investment Company and the Babits get a very small mention because ultimately they developed and built the property, but they didn't live there. They didn't raise their families there." — Sam Hemsley, Cornerstone Environmental

"I want to make sure that we don't lose that history. We're just trying to preserve what we've had. The best rock mason in Flagstaff was Alonso Lopez who lived on Humphrey Street. If you go to Flagstaff Community Hospital, rock. If you go to Our Lady of Walnut's church, there's a good example of rock. Mr. Lopez lived right behind the church. I've seen Flagstaff become 10,000 people and I knew Mr. Lopez. I want you to talk to the Southside Community Neighborhood Association and there's a lot of people that are still around that know the history of this house." — Commissioner Duffy Westimer

Timeline

Opposition

None stated. Staff and Commissioners uniformly supported the study and mitigation measures (LiDAR scanning and 3D model creation).

Support

Commissioners (all supportive):

Project Details

Vote Breakdown

Outcome & Next Steps

The Commission approved the Phase 2 Cultural Resource Study and LiDAR mitigation measures with the following conditions:

  1. Editorial corrections to the written report: clarify Basque cultural distinctions (Basque speakers do not speak Spanish; revise "Hispanic" to "Hispanic and Basque" where appropriate); correct photo captions to match descriptions; correct name (Gary J. Novak and Mara A. Novak CPWS [community property with right of survivorship], not CPWS as a name); define "Flagstaff building style" clearly in text.

  2. Community outreach: Cornerstone Environmental to contact and consult with (a) Southside Neighborhood Association, (b) Plasava Neighborhood Association, (c) Hispanic cultural organizations (Cuidado/Caucus), and (d) consider potential partnership with NAU's Rayos oral history collection.

  3. Administrative approval: Lauren (heritage preservation officer) to review and approve editorial corrections, community outreach results, and final 3D interactive model without requiring resubmission to full Commission, though a final report/model presentation may be brought back to Commission for information.

  4. Mitigation deliverables: Cornerstone to complete LiDAR scans and produce interactive 3D model including clickable architectural and material documentation, walkthrough capability, and contextual narratives on Southside ethnic and cultural significance; model to be archived by City of Flagstaff and made available to public (website hosting discussed; digital preservation standards to be determined by city GIS staff).

402 West Birch Avenue: ADU Certificate of Appropriateness – Continued to December

The second major item, a proposal to construct a one-bedroom, one-bath accessory dwelling unit (ADU) with a two-car garage on a small downtown lot and modify the existing non-contributing single-family home with a front porch addition, exposed a fundamental tension between Arizona state law (permitting 25-foot ADUs) and the Flagstaff townsite historic district overlay (requiring secondary dwellings "subservient in bulk, size, scale, design, and materials" to primary structures). The Commission ultimately divided the motion—approving the front porch but continuing the ADU to December with specific design modification requests.

Key Speeches

"I know that the state law says people can go to 25 ft, but that doesn't mean you have to. It really would look better if it weren't 25 ft because it will stand out like a tower in the neighborhood. On the images that you provided, there are no other two-story buildings like that in the adjacent blocks. So it really doesn't fit the context. Within an overlay we can look at the context. So if it could be brought down to a one and a half story it would look a thousand times better because it is not at all subservient to the historic house which by the overlay does need to remain primary." — Commissioner Amy Horn

"I in my time on the commission, I think prior to last year, we saw no ADUs, and now we've seen what, seven or eight of them in the past year and a half. And so this is trying to maintain the integrity and feeling of a district where we are required to assess things like subservience of a building with no actual measurable guidelines for that is something that we are navigating. Um and I think it's a conversation that unfortunately just as the one who's brought us a couple of these we're having with you. And other lots it's been a lot easier. You know, they're alley lots and they're in the backyard and so no one sees them, but this one is it's right on the street. So, it's going to be a lot more obvious. And so, this is why we are having this discussion here is the commission because some of these are kind of litmus tests for what, you know, we may allow later." — Commissioner Alicia Hayes

"Are there ways to make a 25-foot ADU feel subservient without actually being any shorter is probably the direction staff would recommend that you investigate in your discussion." — Sarah (staff), citing state statute constraints on maximum height

Timeline

Opposition

Number of speakers against: Not explicitly stated; Commissioners Hayes, Horn, Westimer, and Dominguez expressed concerns; property owner and architect present but not framed as "opposition."

Main concerns (detailed objections from Commission):

  1. Height exceeds neighborhood context: Multiple commissioners noted no other two-story buildings in the adjacent blocks; 25 feet is 5–7 feet taller than primary residence; visually dominates despite being pushed to back of lot.

  2. Combined mass (footprint + height) makes building appear disproportionate: The two-car garage footprint (~20 ft wide) combined with the upper ADU (75% of primary residence square footage) creates ~30% larger total square footage than existing house, making the structure "chunky" and non-subservient despite staff assertions that individual components are reasonable.

  3. State law allows but does not mandate maximum height: Commissioners noted that 25 ft is the maximum, not a requirement; precedent in similar historic districts suggests one-and-a-half-story designs are more compatible with "subservience."

  4. Elevated outdoor deck intrusive: Commissioner Westimer objected to the second-floor elevated deck as creating privacy impacts on neighbors and lacking precedent in the densely-developed neighborhood; recommended removal.

  5. Gas line conflict constrains design flexibility: The applicant disclosed that Unisource gas meter and line occupy the alley, requiring the garage to face Sith Grieves Street and precluding front-alley loading (which would reduce apparent mass); attempting to relocate utilities is costly and uncertain.

  6. Parking code inadequacy: Commissioner Westimer criticized state law requiring only ADU-by-right without parking mandates, arguing this exacerbates chronic street parking on Sith Grieves and may force residents to use private yards; staff and Lauren responded that state statute is binding and not a "discussion item" the Commission can override.

  7. Precedent concern: Commissioner Hayes emphasized that this is among the first full ADU applications in the townsite overlay and the Commission is "setting standards going forward"—some projects are easier (alley-facing, screened from view), but this corner-lot visibility makes it a "litmus test" for future approvals.

Most compelling arguments:

Commissioner Horn's observation that no formal measurable standard for "subservience" exists and that breaking the roof pitch (from 8:12 to 6:12, as staff suggested) might reduce visual mass without requiring height reduction—staff confirmed the Commission has authority to grant such exemptions. Commissioner Westimer's contextual concern about working-class neighborhood character and his personal memory of the 1972 original garage, plus his emphasis on documenting immigrant contributions to Flagstaff's architecture, lent moral weight to preservation-first arguments.

Organized groups: None noted.

Support

Number of speakers in favor: Architect Ann and property owner Holly Averbeck.

Main themes:

  1. Carriage-house style compatible with neighborhood character: Architect emphasized wraparound porch, matching roof pitch, lap-siding and stucco mix, and brackets under eaves as design elements echoing the primary residence and bungalow-era aesthetics.

  2. Lot placement minimizes visibility: Building pushed to back corner; 3D model analysis showed ADU not visible from Birch Avenue street-facing vantage; visible only from Sith Grieves alley.

  3. Design modifications from October submission show responsiveness: Applicant changed roof dormer style from shed to gable (per prior feedback), incorporated architectural compatibility features, and reduced upper-story profile where feasible.

  4. State law permits 25-foot height; non-contributing property could otherwise add full second story: Applicant (via architect) noted that because the primary residence is non-contributing, they could legally rip off the roof and add a full second story to the primary residence, making both structures the same height (and thus technically meeting "subservience" by literal reading). The ADU proposal is a more thoughtful alternative that includes off-street parking and preserves the front house.

  5. Owner occupancy / personal investment: Applicant noted that property owners intend to occupy primary residence, showing personal stake in neighborhood quality and long-term community ties.

Most compelling arguments: The "by-right" demolition comparison (if they can add a second story to the front house by right, why can't they add an ADU?) was legally correct but ultimately unconvincing to Commissioners concerned with overlay intent rather than minimum code compliance.

Project Details

Vote Breakdown

Motion 1: Front porch and fencing modifications

Motion 2: ADU construction and garage

Outcome & Next Steps

Approved: Front porch addition (with existing pillars retained for historic continuity) and fencing modifications to primary residence approved without conditions.

Continued to December meeting: ADU and garage design continued with the following Commission recommendations for applicant modification:

  1. Garage door design: Explore split (two smaller) garage doors (~8-ft doors) instead of single oversized door to break up front facade and reduce apparent bulk.

  2. Roof pitch exemption: Commission indicated openness to granting exemption from townsite 8:12 roof pitch requirement if applicant proposes 6:12 pitch; this would reduce perceived height without reducing actual height (staff noted 16-inch reduction in plate height is not feasible for habitable space but noted applicant can propose alternative).

  3. Shed dormer vs. gable: Consider shed dormer on façade facing Sith Grieves (northeast elevation) instead of gable to reduce perceived mass; precedent cited (Gioavali property on Birch, discussed in prior meetings).

  4. Second-story reduction: Explore reducing second-story height or bulk through design modifications (e.g., half-story finish with reduced ceiling heights on perimeter vs. center, dormers set back more).

  5. Elevated deck removal: Remove elevated outdoor deck on shared yard (southeastern side); privacy concerns on neighbors and lack of precedent in dense neighborhood.

  6. Possible rotation / gas line: Staff to explore whether Unisource would permit relocation of gas meter and line to allow alley-loading of garage (would reduce street-front mass); applicant noted prior inquiries suggested high cost and uncertain approval.

Resubmission timeline: Applicant not required to meet Monday noon deadline for December agenda (standard cutoff); Lauren to provide firm deadline via email after full agenda routing is determined. Applicant requested to submit revised drawings by Friday, December 12 (before December meeting) to allow Commission review time; no new staff report required if designs address recommendations discussed. Applicant and staff agreed verbal discussion at December meeting would clarify direction sufficiently without formal staff re-review.

Next meeting: December 2025 (date to be confirmed in agenda routing).

Controversies & Context

ADU Subservience Standards and State Preemption

The core tension in the 402 West Birch case reflects a statewide and national historic preservation challenge: Arizona's 2020–2023 ADU enabling legislation (and similar statutes nationwide) mandate that cities allow residential ADUs as-of-right up to specific heights and densities, regardless of local zoning or historic district overlays. Flagstaff's townsite overlay requires secondary structures be "subservient in bulk, size, scale, design, and materials" to primary structures—a qualitative standard with no numerical threshold.

Commission members, particularly Hayes and Horn, noted that this is the Commission's first year managing multiple ADU applications (7–8 in 18 months, up from zero prior to 2024) and that no formal guidance on "subservience measurement" exists. Staff (Sarah and Lauren) acknowledged the Commission has discretion to define subservience through design review but noted that state law ceiling (25 feet for ADUs) cannot be lowered by local overlay. State parking minimums also cannot be increased, leading to the paradoxical outcome that parking-constrained neighborhoods may have worse parking because ADUs do not require associated parking.

Westimer made a provocative point: the non-contributing property owner could legally demolish the primary residence and build a full second story matching the ADU height, rendering the "subservience" requirement moot on a technicality. This reveals the statute's intent to enable housing while local historic preservationists argue that form and character merit consideration beyond density and use.

Precedent-Setting in Emerging ADU Market

Commissioner Hayes explicitly stated that the Commission is "setting standards going forward" and that this corner-lot, street-visible ADU is a "litmus test." Future applications may cite this approval (or denial) as precedent. This pressure was tangible: the applicant was characterized as the "guinea pig," and architectural choices now will constrain future approvals.

Southside Immigrant Heritage and Erasure Risk

The 418 South Laroo approval was animated by Commissioner Westimer's passionate testimony about the Lopez family stonemason, Alonso Lopez, whose basalt masonry appears throughout Flagstaff (church, hospital, private homes). Westimer's concern—that without intentional documentation and outreach, the contributions of working-class immigrant families will be forgotten—drove the Commission's insistence on community engagement with the Southside Neighborhood Association and Hispanic organizations.

Cornerstone Environmental's use of LiDAR 3D modeling and commitment to interactive digital preservation was framed as a best-practice response to imminent demolition. The discussion of "not losing history" and the connection between immigrant labor, architectural legacy, and neighborhood identity underscored the stakes of heritage preservation in a gentrifying urban context.

Training: Current Planning Development Applications (Item 7A)

A 30-minute training by Alexandra Puchelli (city of Flagstaff Current Planning Manager) outlined the sequence of development review: concept plan review → site plan review → conditional use permits / zoning map amendments → permits. Heritage preservation officer Lauren reviews all applications and determines whether cultural resource studies (phase 1, phase 2) or certificates of no effect are required. The Commission noted that the intersection of development review and heritage preservation is complex and nonlinear; applications can enter at multiple points (building permits, civil plans, public works projects) and may require retrofitting heritage preservation review mid-process.

Puchelli clarified that undeveloped land and buildings 50+ years old trigger cultural resource study requirements unless exempt. Commissioner Hayes asked whether inventory data older than 20 years (per SHPO guidance) should trigger re-evaluation; Puchelli and Lauren confirmed that they conduct outreach to older inventory records and may require new studies if buildings were not previously identified or if conditions have changed.

Grants, Minutiae, and Administrative Items

Historic signs and facades grants: Two recent grants paid out: Flagstaff Christian Fellowship (windows and trim, ~$X; photos showed high-quality restoration); Lumberjack Pizza (re-roofing in kind). Staff (Lauren) noted she has conducted three formal presentations to business groups (downtown alliance, Discover Flagstaff) promoting available Route 66 and historic preservation grants. Commission members agreed interest is high; risk is that too many applications will arrive.

Appointments: Vice Chair Hayes reappointed; new appointments Alec Overman (anthropologist, ETD consulting firm) and Jeanie Stevens; Commissioner Horn departing (not reapplying); Commissioner Westimer's property-owner seat up for City Council reapproval in December.

Chair/vice chair elections: Required in December; Chair Dale termed out (ineligible for chair re-election); new chair and vice chair to be nominated.

National Historic Preservation Fund: City of Flagstaff signing letter of support; Mayor to sign; item added to City Council consent agenda.

Flagstaff Historic Theme Project: Follow-up to September public comment from Charlie Silver / John Westerland about themed historic markers. City Beautification & Public Art Commission (BPAC) process requires proposals in June–August; next available window June 2026. Noted that two-year project pipeline already full; smaller individual projects (murals via Beautification Action Grants, up to $8,000, deadlines March 15 and September 15) and rotating sculpture opportunities (Heritage Square, Fourth Street Roundabout, Sawmill multicultural exhibition) are more feasible entry points.

Duration

Other Notable Items

Minutes approval (September 17): Approved unanimously without objection.

Starlight Trail Letter Report: Approved (on administrative consent); prior survey conducted by Arizona State Land Department before property transfer; Lyn Neil literature review submitted in lieu of new full survey.

Certificates of No Effect (townsite, re-roofing in kind): Two approved.

Walnut Canyon Road cultural resource survey: Approved; survey of vacant land (with sinkhole/bottomless pit) for pending sale; no significant cultural resources identified; Commissioner Hayes noted sadness that survey did not include photograph of the pit itself.