Appellant 01_Written_Notice_of_Appeal_and_Narrative_Redacted

WRITTEN NOTICE OF APPEAL AND PROJECT NARRATIVE
Certificate of Appropriateness Appeal to the Mesa Historic Preservation Board
Appellant: Alicia Rodriguez, Owner
Property: 260 N. Center Street, Mesa, AZ 85201  (APN/Parcel 138-59-045)
Case appealed: ADM26-00657  (Certificate of Appropriateness, denied August 10, 2026)
Related permit: PMT26-01976
District: West Second Street Historic District  (Downtown Core with Historic District overlay)
Part 1 — Written Notice of Appeal
Submitted pursuant to Mesa Zoning Ordinance Section 11-77-4(B). The information required under that 
section is provided below.
a)  Date of the appeal:  August 11, 2026.
b)  Appellant and representative:  Alicia Rodriguez, owner of the Subject Property. I am representing 
myself; there is no separate representative.
c)  Address to which notices should be sent:  250 N. Center Street, Mesa, AZ 85201.
d)  Contact information:  Telephone 
gmail.com.
e)  Action or decision being appealed, and its date:  The denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness for 
the proposed exterior alterations at 260 N. Center Street, Case ADM26-00657, issued by the Historic 
Preservation Officer on August 10, 2026.
f)  Requested outcome if the appeal is granted:  That the Historic Preservation Board reverse the denial 
and approve the three proposed exterior details described in Part 2 below.
g)  Grounds for the appeal:  The three proposed details are consistent with the Secretary of the 
Interior's Standards and with the City's own Certificate of Appropriateness for this property. In 
particular, the City's August 10, 2026 decision itself marks Standards 9 and 10 “Consistent,” 
confirming that the new work is differentiated, compatible, and fully reversible. The detailed 
grounds, responding to each of Standards 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, are set out in the accompanying Appeal 
Letter and Exhibit A, which are incorporated here by reference.
h)  Address and case number associated with the appeal:  260 N. Center Street, Mesa, AZ 85201; Case 
ADM26-00657; APN/Parcel 138-59-045; related permit PMT26-01976.

Part 2 — Detailed Narrative of the Proposed Work
We are appealing the denial of three small, non-structural, and fully reversible exterior details. None of 
the three changes the footprint, the roofline, or any character-defining historic feature of the house. The 
City's own decision identifies the character-defining elements of this Ranch-style home as the shallow 
front porch and the broad front façade; none of the three items alters either. Each item is described 
below, with its material and dimension.
1.  Gable ends finished in durable stucco, where the removed dog-ear trim was.
The decorative dog-eared wood trim in the gables could not be salvaged. It was removed out of 
necessity — not preference — as part of the remediation this home required to be safe and habitable. 
The property was abated for asbestos and lead-based paint, and the structure suffered termite damage 
and water intrusion. These conditions are documented both in the City’s own approved Certificate of 
Appropriateness and in the independent inspection and appraisal report commissioned by the prior 
owner, 
 as part of her sale of the property to us — a neutral, third-party record prepared 
before we took ownership. There was nothing to preserve; leaving deteriorated, pest- and moisture-
damaged wood in place would have been neither safe nor consistent with the home’s rehabilitation. We 
are not reinstalling or “finishing” a wood gable. The wood gable elements were removed entirely, and 
the smooth/sand-finish stucco already approved for the home’s walls is carried up the wall to cover the 
full area where the gable elements had been — so the wall reads as one continuous, durable stucco 
surface with no wood gable elements remaining. This is the material the approved Certificate of 
Appropriateness expressly authorizes for these elements (“retained or replaced in-kind or with a similar 
more durable material”) and the same “new smooth/sand finish stucco” the COA approves across the 
rest of the home and that is used on our adjacent home at 250 N. Center Street. Reinstalling exterior 
wood here would be inappropriate: wood fails repeatedly in Arizona’s extreme heat, re-invites termites, 
and imposes unnecessary ongoing maintenance and expense on any future occupant. Material: 
smooth/sand-finish stucco (as approved for the home’s walls), carried up to cover the entire former 
gable area; no wood gable elements remain.
2.  Low pony wall — 34 inches tall, 13 feet 6 inches long.
A low wall along the front porch, thirty-four inches tall (under three feet) and thirteen feet six inches 
long. It is attached to the new porch posts — not to the original 1945 structure — and can be removed 
in the future without affecting the historic building. It does not enclose the porch. It provides basic 
safety and privacy from the street, which has changed substantially since 1945; the City's own record 
describes the district's transformation “from a rural community to suburban estates,” and Center Street 
today is a high-traffic route into downtown Mesa. Dimensions: 34 inches tall, 13 feet 6 inches long. 
Attachment: fixed to the new porch posts; fully reversible.
3.  Softly rounded porch edges.
A soft, rounded edge — a radius of only a few inches — at the top corners of the porch openings, tucked 
beneath the porch beam. These are not an ornate archway; they are a subtle detail that echoes the 
arched openings already inside the home, giving the house one coherent design language inside and 
out. They are built onto the new porch framing and are fully reversible. Dimension: a few-inch radius at 
each opening. Attachment: part of the new porch framing; fully reversible.
Reversibility (Standards 9 and 10). All three items are new work built onto new framing, not alterations 
of the original 1945 fabric. If any were removed in the future, the historic structure would be

unimpaired. The City's August 10, 2026 decision marks both Standard 9 (new work differentiated and 
compatible) and Standard 10 (reversibility) “Consistent” — confirming this point in the City's own 
findings.
Part 3 — Summary of Grounds
The denial rests on Standards 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, each of which assumes these features are original, 
essential, Ranch-style character. They are not:
•  The City classifies the home as a “modest example of the Ranch style,” a style defined by minimal 
ornamentation; the character-defining elements the City identifies are the shallow porch and broad 
façade, not decorative gable trim.
•  The City’s support for treating the gable trim as “original” rests on a photograph from the 2002 
National Register nomination. As the Historic Preservation Officer himself noted in his June 10, 2025 
email transmitting that photograph, it is “a photo of the home from the National Register 
nomination (2002).” A 2002 photograph establishes only that the trim was present in 2002 — not 
that it was original to the home’s 1945 construction. The City’s own evidence therefore does not 
establish that the removed trim was historic fabric. (That email is included as Appendix A.)
•  The dog-ear trim could not be salvaged and was removed out of necessity, as part of the 
documented remediation of termites, water intrusion, and asbestos and lead-paint abatement. 
Stucco — the durable material the approved COA authorizes and approves across the home — now 
finishes the gable, and a return to exterior wood would be unreasonable in this climate. The 
condition is documented by the City's own COA and by the prior owner's independent appraisal.
•  Arched and rounded openings are established throughout this district on contributing homes the 
City itself classifies as Spanish Eclectic, Mission Revival, and similar styles — so they cannot be 
“conjectural” here — and the same features were approved at our adjacent home, 250 N. Center 
Street.
•  All three items are reversible new work, which the City's own decision marks “Consistent” under 
Standards 9 and 10.
The full, standard-by-standard grounds are set out in the accompanying Appeal Letter and Exhibit A.
Part 4 — Materials Submitted with This Appeal
1.  This Written Notice of Appeal and Project Narrative.
2.  Appeal Letter with Exhibit A (detailed grounds responding to Standards 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6).
3.  Appeal Presentation (16 pages). All photographs of the building and site — including detail 
photographs of the deteriorated dog-ear trim, the 34-inch wall measurement, the porch openings, 
and the comparison home at 250 N. Center — are included within this presentation.
4.  Independent inspection and appraisal report (File 296141133), commissioned by the prior owner, 
, as part of the sale of the property to us. It contains additional photographs of the 
property's original condition and documents the “damaged wood trim” and “damaged eaves” and 
the deteriorated conditions that required remediation.
5.  Front elevation marked to identify the material and dimension of each of the three proposed 
alterations.

6.  West Second Street Historic District Contributing Property List (City document).
7.  Appendix A — the Historic Preservation Officer’s June 10, 2025 email transmitting the 2002 
National Register nomination photograph, in which he identifies the image as “a photo of the home 
from the National Register nomination (2002).”
Photographs. All required photographs of the building and site, including detail photographs, are 
contained within the Appeal Presentation and the inspection/appraisal report identified above; they are 
not attached as separate files.
Construction drawings. The three appealed alterations are fully identified — with materials and 
dimensions — on the marked front elevation provided. We are not submitting the full field construction 
drawing set, as the three items at issue in this appeal are limited in scope and are completely depicted 
on the marked elevation.
Respectfully submitted,
Alicia Rodriguez
Owner, 260 N. Center Street  |
gmail.com