Flagstaff Heritage Commission approves ADU modifications, confronts unauthorized demolition and enforcement gaps
FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA — August 21, 2025

Flagstaff Heritage Commission approves ADU modifications, confronts unauthorized demolition and enforcement gaps

Heritage Preservation Commission approved two ADU modifications, addressed unauthorized demolition enforcement issues, and extensively discussed authority, code interpretation, and preservation challenges amid growing community concern over historic property loss.

Flagstaff Heritage Commission Grapples with Demolition Penalties, Authority Limits, and Historic Property Loss

The Heritage Preservation Commission met for 2 hours and 26 minutes on August 20, 2025, approving two ADU modifications but spending the majority of its time confronting a pattern of unauthorized demolitions, weak enforcement mechanisms, and confusion over the commission's own decision-making authority under a patchwork of 50-year-old local code, state statute, and CLG agreement obligations.

Two issues dominated: the discovery of an unpermitted demolition at 624 North Laroo that appears to financially reward property owners for rule-breaking, and persistent questions about whether the commission can initiate landmark designation to halt demolition of culturally significant buildings—a power commissioners believed they held but may not.

Historic Property Loss: The Former City Hall Case

During the open call to the public, Gwen Grath testified passionately on behalf of the former City Hall at Birch and Beaver, a 1972 site of an American Indian Movement protest and a structure built from local Malpai stone.

"The former city hall at Burch and Beaver is facing likely demolition. But it's not just a structure. It's the location of a pivotal 1972 protest led by the American Indian Movement. It's a part of our civic history, our civic story, and a tangible piece of the movement for indigenous rights." — Gwen Grath, public commenter

Grath noted that a revised cultural resource study commissioned by the Heritage Preservation Commission has since confirmed the building meets historic significance criteria at both local and national levels—a reversal from its earlier designation as insignificant. She argued for creative reuse and adaptive preservation rather than demolition.

"Instead of sending this building to the landfill, imagine the recognition Flagstaff could receive by creatively reusing its materials and incorporating its story into new construction. Adaptive reuse isn't preservation. It's it's progress with purpose." — Gwen Grath

The commission received her testimony but took no action. Staff later noted only that the building remains at risk and a new historic survey is needed.

Unauthorized Demolition at 624 North Laroo

Commissioner Duffy Westimer reported discovering the complete demolition of 624 North Laroo, a historic non-contributing property in a historic district, without a permit. The incident triggered the most heated discussion of the meeting.

Lauren Clementino, heritage preservation officer, confirmed the demolition was reported last week as a building violation. The property owners had previously filed approved plans for an interior remodel with an addition—not a complete demolition. A neighbor reported the violation, and the city issued a stop work order. The owners must now completely redesign their project.

When asked about penalties, Clementino explained the city's primary enforcement tool: double permit fees. The permit cost is calculated based on lot or building size, so the exact financial penalty was not stated in the meeting. Clementino noted the owners would also bear the cost of having their architect redo all plans.

However, Commissioner Jesse Dominguez raised a critical point: the incentive structure appears backwards.

"Is it are we giving the property owner an incentive? And the reason I'm saying this, so it cost $100 versus $50 for a permit. So, they can knock down a building and you know, I'm talking about the house at 300 South Park." — Commissioner Jesse Dominguez referenced three identical workforce-housing buildings in the Plavada neighborhood—one that burned down with a fatality, and two others demolished. He questioned whether the modest penalty created a perverse incentive: developers pay a small fine, demolish without permit, eliminate the historic structure, and unlock new development entitlements worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

"They paid $950,000 for it. the entitlements have been increased and now they can probably build two houses or a duplex or whatever and make a ton of money. And that's why we're going to lose our historic properties is because the values and the entitlements are encouraging people to replace our history." — Commissioner Jesse Dominguez also documented loss through community memory. The Plavada neighborhood has a Facebook group where residents are reconstructing local history. A photo of Chavez Market—lost to time—was recovered through community members' recollections. Dominguez noted that David Gonzalez, a U.S. Marshal for Arizona, reached out asking about old photos of the neighborhood.

Clementino said she has plans underway to require a cultural resource study for the 300 South Park property (which also faced unauthorized demolition) and will withhold the certificate of occupancy until heritage preservation code requirements are met. In that case, the consultant's delay in submitting the study will itself hold up the owners' final inspection.

The Commission's Own Authority Problem

A significant undercurrent running through the meeting was confusion over what the commission can actually do. When the question of the former City Hall arose, Commissioner Amy Horn asked whether the commission could have initiated landmark designation for the property to halt demolition.

"Could we have initiated the process and could we have initiated the process at any time? Because by initiating the process then it has to be reviewed and therefore it cannot be demolished. So is that not something within our ability and our powers as a commission to be able to recommend that?" — Commissioner Amy Horn

Lauren Clementino was uncertain. She noted that a single-property landmark designation requires 51% owner consent—meaning in that case, the one owner would have to agree. For a district overlay or other designation mechanisms, property owner signatures are required before the process can even be formally initiated. Clementino said: "I will say with an individual property, you could [recommend it]. However, if it's a property, the owner will have to agree to it. So, you could have asked for that to initiate the process. Um, same with El PBLO and others we've talked about in the past, but because the it 51% of property owners need to agree, which in the case of a single property is the one owner, um, it would not move forward."

Sarah (last name not provided in transcript), a senior staffer, added that the commission could direct staff to work on initiating the process, "but it wouldn't actually get initiated." She suggested the code may require that a completed application—including property owner petitions—be submitted before any temporary protections trigger.

This left the commission uncertain whether they had missed a procedural window to protect the former City Hall. Commissioner Dominguez noted:

"I feel like we're straying a bit far from the purpose of this item." — Commissioner Jesse Dominguez (responding to the extended discussion)

Sarah agreed but acknowledged the point was important:

"Yeah, but I think we want it if it's Amy um Commissioner Horn's uh request of like the limits of what you can decide because sometimes when you read one sentence in the code, you don't see the three other places or the related state statute that might constrain us." — Sarah, staff

She explained that the Heritage Preservation Code itself spans decades—parts written in 1972, others in the 1990s, and still others in the mid-2000s—overlaid with state statutes and ballot initiatives. Without digging into all cross-references, commissioners can easily misread their own authority.

Training and Authority Review

This confusion prompted an extended discussion about commissoner training. Emily Dale, chair, summarized the requests:

Several commissioners asked for training on:

Commissioner Dominguez requested a simple "citizen's perspective" flowchart:

"I'd like it to keep it simple and I would like training from a resident or citizen's perspective. In other words, I come in the front door and I want to put a window in my 1901 house. What do I need to do and how it gets to you and then how it gets to us? I just want to keep it simple. I want to know the flowchart." — Commissioner Jesse Dominguez

Commissioner Duffy Westimer raised a concern about the city council's understanding of the CLG agreement:

"I think we can lose our certified local government standing. So, um, shouldn't those ultimately responsible council understand the benefits to make sure that things are going right?" — Commissioner Duffy Westimer

Sarah explained that city council is the appeal body for commission decisions but not the primary review body for CLG compliance; the state historic preservation office (SHIPO) supervises the CLG agreement. However, Westimer's point remained: if the city council does not understand what CLG status means and what it requires, they may inadvertently fail to support the policies that maintain it.

Clementino offered to compile a training plan and suggested Ariana Urban, the newly hired CLG coordinator, could help lead sessions. The commission tentatively scheduled training for September or October, though two external presentations are already booked in October, so the timeline may slip to November or require a separate session.

ADU Modifications: Two Unanimous Approvals

The commission approved two modified certificates of appropriateness, both for accessory dwelling units (ADUs). These items moved quickly, with minimal discussion.

603 West Birch Avenue

Austin Piner, the designer, presented changes to a previously approved ADU. The existing structure was reclassified as a single-family dwelling with an internal ADU. The detached ADU was redesigned:

Commissioner Duffy Westimer noted that the new windows matched the historic structure, but preservation principle typically dictates that replacement windows should differ to show they were not original. Austin Piner responded that the windows had already been replaced and approved in a separate project last fall and were chosen to match original photographs.

Commissioner Dominguez asked whether the street elevation change (from a city sidewalk project) was a common problem. Westimer confirmed it happens frequently when the city resurfaces streets without grinding the center, thus raising the crown and pushing water to the curb and into yards.

The commission moved to approve with the condition that the existing duplex be reclassified as a single-family dwelling with an interior ADU—a condition that had been previously required but not yet completed. The vote was unanimous (individual votes not stated in transcript).

15 North Park Street

Ann (last name not provided) from Updesign presented the third iteration of a project for a triplex with a detached accessory unit. The project had been to the commission twice already—once in September 2024 and again last year. The previous design included an addition attached to the main building; it came in at nearly $1 million, prompting value engineering.

The new design:

Ann noted: "so yeah, I think that, you know, overall we've reduced the footprint, we reduced the square footage, we reduced the height, we reduced any requirements for the compliance with the secretar's standards since it is now detached."

Commissioner Hayes observed that the detachment made the new unit much more subservient to the historic building and addressed the commission's earlier concerns about scale and visibility from the street. The project had previously eaten most of the yard space; the redesign expanded interior yard area.

The commission moved to approve with the condition that interior yard requirements be demonstrated on all plan sets (a carryover from the previous certificate). The vote was unanimous.

Training Updates and Board/Commission Manual Changes

Ariana Urban, the newly hired CLG coordinator, reported that Flagstaff has received federal CLG funding for 2025. Up to $20,000 is available in matching grants (40% match acceptable in staff time). The commission can use these grants for historic preservation planning, surveying, or documentation projects. Urban offered her availability for trainings and in-depth discussions.

Lauren Clementino also reported three housekeeping changes to the board and commission manual, following a recent staff liaison training:

  1. Terminology change: "Public comment" is now called "Open call to the public" for standardization across city boards.
  2. Minutes signature: No longer required; July 2025 will be the last set of minutes requiring a physical signature.
  3. Abstention voting rule: Per Flagstaff City Charter, abstentions without a conflict of interest do not exist. If a commissioner attempts to abstain without a conflict, that vote counts as affirmative. Commissioners should only abstain if they declare a conflict of interest. Sarah emphasized this rule comes directly from the city charter and overrides the board and commission manual if there is any conflict.

Historic Signs and Facades Grant Tracking

Lauren Clementino reported on the $130,000 remaining in grant funds for the current fiscal year. Three projects are on track:

Three applications for new signs and facade work were approved as part of standard staff approvals (not requiring full commission vote):

Commissioner Hayes asked why the property was labeled "non-contributing." Clementino explained it is listed in the National Register as part of the district but does not contribute to the district's historic character due to "previous unsympathetic alterations."

Commissioner Westimer noted that the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation released guidance last year stating solar panels are reversible and should be encouraged; the commission's approach aligns with this.

Southside Historic District Overlay Zone Initiative

A neighborhood group within the Southside Historic District (not the entire district) has submitted design standards for a new historic overlay zone. These have been reviewed and are now in legal review. The process requires 51% of property owner signatures within the proposed area before the commission can formally hear the proposal.

"you probably won't see it till next summer" — Lauren Clementino

The timeline is long: legal review, neighborhood petition collection, community meetings, and commission hearing. Staff expects the earliest presentation to the commission in summer 2026.

Commissioner Dominguez noted that Plavada tried to create an overlay and was surprised to learn of a 75% ownership threshold. Clementino clarified: the heritage preservation code requires 51% of owners to agree to a historic overlay zone, but a "character overlay" (a different mechanism in the zoning code) requires 75%, which is why Plavada faced such a steep hurdle. The Southside effort is using the 51% heritage overlay path.

19 West Birch Avenue: Ongoing Mitigation Work

Lauren Clementino provided an update on the 19 West Birch Avenue project, which underwent significant archaeological and cultural resource review. Cornerstone (the development's cultural resource consultant) is working on Phase 1 and Phase 2 assessments in coordination with the Indigenous Commission and Indigenous Circle of Flagstaff.

"I don't expect it to come back to the commission. I don't think it's possible to come back before November and that would be at the fastest possible timeline." — Lauren Clementino

Staff met with the Indigenous Circle of Flagstaff; Clementino and Caitlyn Stewart of Cornerstone attended the Indigenous Commission meeting in August and plan to return in September with further mitigation proposals. Clementino will report back at the next Heritage Preservation Commission meeting.

Staff and Commissioner Changes

Bernardet Buckham has resigned from the commission. The city is recruiting for a new at-large member (no professional or property-owner requirement). At least one application is already in queue, but staff prefer multiple candidates before presenting to council.

Three additional commissioners have terms expiring December 1st:

All three will need to reapply if they wish to continue. Staff asked them to submit applications by October to meet council's preference for a decision before Thanksgiving. Sarah noted that council prefers to see multiple applications, even for reappointments, and that the city expects at least two professional members and at least two property owners on the 7-member commission.

Chair Emily Dale asked whether the commission would like to arrange a farewell lunch for Buckham and a welcome lunch for Commissioner Dominguez (who joined during the pandemic and never had a formal welcome). Commissioners Horn and Dominguez expressed interest in both.

Project Details

624 North Laroo — Unauthorized Demolition:

19 West Birch Avenue — Ongoing Mitigation:

303 South Park Street — Unauthorized Demolition (Referenced):

Former City Hall (Birch and Beaver):

Southside Historic District Overlay Zone (in planning):

Duration

Controversies and Context

The demolition of 624 North Laroo exposed a fundamental problem: the city's financial penalty (doubled permit fees) is modest compared to the financial benefit of unauthorized demolition followed by new development on the released site. Commissioner Dominguez's example of the Plavada neighborhood illustrated the loss: three identical workforce-housing buildings, one destroyed by fire with a fatality, two demolished without adequate mitigation. The Chavez Market, a neighborhood landmark, was documented only through a community Facebook group where residents reconstructed its history.

The commission's uncertainty about its own authority—specifically whether it can initiate landmark designation to halt demolition—reflects a deeper issue: the code is fragmented across 50 years of amendments, state statutes, CLG agreements, and ballot initiatives. No single source clearly maps out what the commission can do and what requires owner consent or other conditions.

Commissioner Westimer's concern about city council's understanding of CLG standing is prescient. As community concern over the former City Hall mounts (and the meeting was attended by at least one vocal advocate), council members are likely to face pressure to intervene. But if they do not understand the CLG agreement, their interference could jeopardize the city's certified local government status and associated federal funding and grant eligibility.

The broader context is demographic and economic: Flagstaff is experiencing development pressure as Phoenix's urban boundary expands northward. Property values are rising. A demolished historic property can be replaced with higher-density or higher-value new construction, incentivizing owners to demolish. The commission's grant funding ($130,000 this year) is modest relative to this pressure, and staff capacity (two people, plus the new CLG coordinator) is stretched thin managing current projects, enforcement, and training.