Heritage commission finds former City Hall at 19 West Birch eligible; requires architectural documentation, Indigenous-led interpretation and Malpais stone in‑k

The Heritage Preservation Commission on Wednesday accepted a revised Phase 1 cultural resource study that finds the former City Hall at 19 West Birch Avenue eligible for local and National Register consideration and required additional mitigation and documentation before any demolition is approved.

The commission’s motion—approved unanimously—accepted the consultant Cornerstone Environmental’s revised report with minor corrections, and required a Phase 2-level architectural documentation package (measured drawings, archival‑grade photography, as‑built/elevation drawings), interpretive mitigation developed in coordination with the City’s Indigenous Commission, and proposals for incorporating Malpais stone (preferably exterior and, if feasible, salvaged) into the replacement design. The commission also directed that the Phase 1 and any Phase 2 reports be archived for public access (city library and/or city website).

Cornerstone said its follow‑up research tied the building to mid‑20th‑century civic functions and to social‑history events involving early American Indian Movement protests and related local civil‑rights inquiries. Caitlin Stewart, Cornerstone’s owner and director, told the commission, “Historic preservation is an iterative and collaborative process of research, field work, law and city code, and implementation with many varied stakeholders,” and presented the firm’s recommendation that the property be considered significant under City of Flagstaff criterion B (associations with social and government history) and criterion D (architectural significance at the local level), and eligible under National Register criterion A for its association with social‑history events.

Cornerstone presented architectural findings as well: the exterior retains a recognizable mid‑century civic design despite later changes (filled fire‑bay openings, removed tower), but interior remodeling weakens National Register integrity for interior spaces. Cornerstone recommended the documentation package and suggested interpretive measures—a commemorative plaque, historic photographs in a public lobby area and reuse of Malpais stone as an element of the new design—so that the building’s history is preserved even if the structure is removed.

Several commissioners and members of the public asked for stronger mitigations than the basic interpretive items Cornerstone proposed. Commissioner Duffy Westheimer and others pressed for measured drawings and archival photography so that the architectural form would be preserved in records; Commissioner Amy Horn and multiple speakers said plaques alone feel insufficient when a whole facade is removed. The commission’s motion reflects those concerns by requiring archival documentation and by asking the applicant to show how Indigenous perspectives and the building’s social‑history associations will be interpreted.

Anthony Garcia, who identified himself as a longtime Flagstaff resident (and noted his role as a city council member but said he was speaking as a citizen), urged the commission to require retention of the building’s facades where feasible, or at least careful incorporation of original exterior elements into any new construction so the downtown streetscape retains recognizable features. Several public commenters repeated a wider community concern about losing downtown fabric and asked the developer to explore reuse or facade retention before demolition.

Developer representative Jim O’Connell (participating remotely) said the existing structure cannot support a five‑story hotel and that extensive floodplain and building code constraints limit reuse options. O’Connell said his design team is developing a project that will reference Flagstaff themes throughout interior and exterior design; he told the commission that salvaged Malpais stone and a commemorative plaque were already under consideration and that the team planned a formal presentation to the commission at the certificate of appropriateness step.

Bill Collins, a State Historic Preservation Office representative who attended the meeting, told the commission he had reviewed the revised report and did not contradict Cornerstone’s eligibility recommendation. The commission also invited the city’s Indigenous Affairs staff to participate in crafting the interpretive materials; Rose Lehi, Indigenous Affairs Administrator and liaison to the Indigenous Commission, said the Indigenous Commission would be willing to serve as an advising body.

The commission’s action accepts the Phase 1 study with corrections and directs that the follow‑up documentation and interpretive materials be prepared and returned for review as part of the later certificate of appropriateness and Phase 2 submissions. The commission noted that approving the Phase 1 study does not grant demolition or permit a certificate of appropriateness; any demolition would require a future formal certificate decision and applicable permits.

What happens next: the developer must complete site plan reviews and, if appropriate, submit a certificate of appropriateness application that includes the design for the replacement building. The commission said it expects to review the mandated architectural documentation and the proposed interpretive work (including how the Indigenous Commission was consulted) during the certificate review process.

The motion carried unanimously.