Flagstaff heritage panel denies developer's economic-hardship request for 19 West Birch

The Heritage Preservation Commission of the City of Flagstaff voted on June 17, 2026, to deny a developer's request for a certificate of economic hardship that would have permitted demolition of the building at 19 West Birch Avenue.

Staff opened the public hearing by reviewing the heritage-preservation code and the six statutory criteria (A–F) that must all be met to find an economic hardship. Staff noted it had recommended approval with conditions based on materials in the agenda packet.

Tyler Mark, representing the property owner identified in materials as Mr. Okonnell, told commissioners the applicant's consultants had produced appraisal and cost estimates showing the property's rehabilitated value would be substantially lower than acquisition plus rehab costs. "It actually refers to the value of the property once rehabilitated. That doesn't necessarily translate into a profit," Mark said in response to a commissioner question about a market-capitalization calculation showing a post‑rehabilitation value near $1.9 million.

Commissioners pressed the applicant for comparable scenarios, rent-roll history and line‑item justification for several rehabilitation-cost assumptions. Commissioners noted the property had produced net operating income when previously tenanted and questioned whether the applicant had adequately explored alternate development types and financing. Several commissioners described a concern that any hardship might be self‑created by purchasing the property with plans to demolish and redevelop in a historic overlay district.

Members of the public and local organizations gave contrasting views. Julie Pastro, president and CEO of the Greater Flagstaff Chamber, urged approval, saying the proposed hotel and garage would bolster downtown vibrancy and parking. Gail Jackson, president and CEO of Eona (Economic Collaborative of Northern Arizona), also urged approval and said the applicant had worked through staff recommendations. Other commenters and a petition referenced by speakers urged preservation of the building and worried that demolition would erode downtown historic character.

After deliberating the six statutory criteria, commissioners agreed criterion A (that cultural resources had been identified and evaluated) was met, but a majority said the applicant had not met criterion B (that an economic hardship exists) and expressed doubt about D (that the hardship was not self‑created). A motion to deny the certificate of economic hardship carried by voice vote; the chair announced the commission's decision (all in favor, none opposed).

With the certificate of economic hardship denied, staff advised the related certificate-of-appropriateness item would be moot. Staff also noted that the applicant may file an appeal to the City Council (the code requires a timely appeal filing) and that council typically reviews the commission record, minutes and meeting recordings in appeal proceedings.

Next steps: the denial will be included in the commission minutes and the applicant may pursue appeal rights under the code. If an appeal is filed, City Council will set the review date and staff will prepare the record and a staff recommendation for the council hearing.

— Reporting by the Heritage Preservation Commission meeting record.