Appellant 03_Appeal_Presentation_Redacted

APPEAL OF CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS DENIAL

260 N. Center Street

Mesa, Arizona 85201 | West Second Street Historic District | Built 1945

Permit Record PMT26-01976 | Appeal of COA Case ADM26-00657
Presented to the Historic Preservation Board ¢ September 1, 2026

Appellant: Alicia Rodriguez, Owner

[@gmail.com

WHAT WE ARE ASKING THE BOARD TO DO

One fair request

We are appealing the denial of three small, non-structural, fully reversible details on our home at 260 N. Center. Measured against the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards and the City’s own Certificate of Appropriateness for this property, none of the three should have been denied. We ask the Board to
reverse the denial on all three.

The dog-ear gable trim. Approve durable stucco in place of failure-prone wood — exactly the “similar more durable material” the COA
already permits.

The low pony wall. Approve the wall — 34 inches tall (under three feet) and 13 ft 6 in long, fixed to the new posts, not the original home,
and fully reversible. It provides the safety and privacy our family needs from the street. The COA itself notes the district’s shift “from a rural
community to suburban estates”; today Center Street is a high-traffic route into downtown Mesa. The wall answers the traffic of 2026, not
the quiet 1945 frontage that no longer exists.

The rounded porch edges. Approve the couple-inch curves that echo the home’s own interior arches — differentiated, compatible, and
reversible.

Three small, reversible details — each consistent with the Standards, the City’s own COA, and the character of this district.

260 N. Center St | PMT26-01976 | HPO Appeal | Historic Preservation Board | September 1, 2026

PURPOSE OF REQUEST

Three small details — see how modest they are

Wood gables removed Low pony wall Softly rounded porch edges
Removed entirely out of necessity — unsalvageable Just 34 inches tall (under three feet) and 13 ft 6 in long A radius of only a few inches on the porch openings —
per the prior owner’s appraisal (termites, water, — fixed to the new posts, not the original home, and not an ornate archway. They echo the arches inside
abatement). The approved wall stucco is carried up to fully reversible. Safety and privacy from the street. the home.

cover the whole area — no wood gables remain.
Matches 250 next door.

Approved wall stucco carried up where the wood gables were. Measured: 34 inches — hip height, under three feet. The curve spans only a few inches — subtle by design.

None changes the footprint, the roofline, or any character-defining historic feature of the house.

260N. Center St | PMT26-01976 | HPO Appeal | Historic Preservation Board | September 1, 2026

From derelict and dangerous to restored

IN PROGRESS

Sealed for asbestos abatement. Failed stucco, rotted gable trim, and a home the Abated, reframed, new windows, new porch. The three items in dispute are visible here: the
appraisal flagged as hazardous and unlivable. porch with its rounded openings, and the low pony wall beneath the right window.

260 N. Center St | PMT26-01976 | HPO Appeal | Historic Preservation Board | September 1, 2026

Summary of staff concerns and our responses

Each of the three items, measured against the City's own approvals and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards.

THE STANDARDS THE DENIAL RELIES ON

The cited standards do not hold

f ‘ f
STAFF POSITION OUR RESPONSE
The denial rests on Mesa Zoning Ordinance 11-74-3(C) and five Every one turns on a single assumption: that these features are original, essential,
Secretary of the Interior's Standards — 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 — applied to Ranch-style character. They are not. The porch elements are new work — and the
all three items. June 2025 COA already marked Standards 9 and 10 “Consistent” for this project. The
dog-ear trim is atypical of the Ranch style the City itself assigned. Read correctly,
these standards do not prohibit this work — the next slide answers each in tum.
\ J \

ON THE RECORD: The 260 COA (June 11, 2025) marked Standard 3 "Consistent" for this very project. The April denial reverses the City's own finding on the same permit.

@ Source: Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation — U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Technical Preservation Services; Mesa Zoning Ordinance § 11-74-3(C)

Applied in the City's own record: the same Standards are reproduced and checked in the City's Certificate of Appropriateness for 260 N. Center, June 11, 2025.

260N. Center St | PMT26-01976 | HPO Appeal | Historic Preservation Board | September 1, 2026

ANSWERING EACH STANDARD STAFF CITED

The five standards, answered

Staff cited Standards 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 (August 5). Here is our answer to each — grounded in the City's own records and the Standards’ own text.

Std 1 — continued use

Std 2 — retain character

Std 3 — no conjectural features

Std 5 — preserve craftsmanship

Std 6 — repair vs. replace

Staff: Says the porch's simple design is defining, so it can't change.

Staff: Says the dog-ears and simple porch characterize the property.

Staff: Says arches/wall create a false sense of history.

Staff: Says the dog-ear trim is distinctive craftsmanship.

Staff: Says deteriorated features should be repaired or matched in-kind.

Us: Standard 1 is about keeping the home in livable use. Staff themselves wrote the porch
extension 'ensures continued use.' Our safety wall and porch serve that exact purpose.

Us: A Ranch home's character is minimal ornamentation — not applied trim. The porch
elements are new work, and the trim is atypical of the style the City assigned.

Us: The City marked Standard 3 'Consistent' on this same permit in June 2025. Arches are
pervasive district contributors (City's own list). A couple-inch curve misleads no one.

Us: Rotted, termite-eaten trim of questionable origin, absent elsewhere in the district, is
not the distinctive craftsmanship this standard protects.

Us: Standard 6 permits replacement where deterioration requires it — and the COA itself
allows ‘a similar more durable material.' The wood was beyond repair; the appraisal
documents it.

Key point: in June 2025 the City marked Standards 3, 9, and 10 “Consistent” for this very project. The April denial reverses the City’s own findings on the same permit.

260 N. Center St | PM126-01976 | HPO Appeal | Historic Preservation Board | September 1, 2026

THE RECORD CONTRADICTS THE DENIAL
The City already approved major new work here

On this exact house, the June 11, 2025 Certificate of Appropriateness — signed by the Historic Preservation Officer — approved substantial NEW
construction:

AEEREES 6-foot front porch extension, extended north across the AES joeeuese cane bes ae

facade
APPROVED New sliding glass door cut into the north elevation APPROVED Complete replacement of every window
APPROVED Complete replacement of all exterior stucco APPROVED New front door

The question staff has not answered: If all of that is compatible new construction — and the City approved it as such — how are the profile of that

same porch's edges, and a low wall at the property line, suddenly "conjectural"? The City cannot approve building the porch and then deny the shape
of its openings.

260N. Center St | PMT26-01976 | HPO Appeal | Historic Preservation Board | September 1, 2026

THE BENCHMARK — NEXT DOOR, SAME ERA, ALREADY APPROVED
250 N. Center: the City's own precedent

We own 250 N. Center, immediately adjacent. The City approved its Certificate of Appropriateness (Case ADM23 -00081) on April 5, 2023. Same 1945 build, same block,
same district — with the arched porch openings and low front wall the City is now denying at 260.

i

D

Arched porch openings at 250 — the same softly rounded form proposed at 260.

250 (approved) 260 (denied)

Year built 1945 1945
District West Second St. West Second St.
Status Contributor Contributor
250 N. Center — front elevation. Arched porch openings and alow front wall, both City-
approved. Arched openings + low wall Approved Denied

260N. Center St | PM126-01976 | HPO Appeal | Historic Preservation Board | September 1, 2026

THE LOW PONY WALL — SAFETY

A Safety wall at a public edge that has changed

i ‘ f
STAFF POSITION OUR RESPONSE
Staff directed removal of the pony wall as inconsistent with the historic 34 inches tall (under three feet) and 13 ft 6 in long; hip height, does not enclose the porch. It is
character of the property. fixed to the new porch posts, not the original 1945 wal ls — fully removable without touching the
historic structure. The street this house faced in 1945 is not the street of 2026: it now carries
heavy foot traffic to downtown and the Mesa Amphitheatre, feet from our windows. The wall —
with the porch — restores basic safety and privacy for the people inside.
N /S \

1945 vs. 2026: the COA itself describes the district’s transformation “from a rural community to suburban estates.” Center Street is now a high-traffic route into downtown Mesa, feet
from our windows. A modest safety wall answers the 2026 street, not the quiet 1945 frontage that no longer exists.

DOCUMENTED SAFETY INCIDENTS AT 260 N. CENTER

CITY OF MESA SWAT — AT OUR WALL - = THE POINT

—_ The safety of this home has been repeatedly

compromised. 250 N. Center — same 1945
block — already has a City-approved low
wall. We ask only for the same protection

next door.
A person is walking in the yard % A person is walking in the yard
TODAY 12:28:24 PM TODAY 12:28:22 PM ® Watch the footage
: : L
Trespasser our camera caught inside the property — who then defecated on our yard. Sources: Built 1945; district period of significance 1883-1959 (City of Mesa COA, 260 N. Center, ADM25-00154, June 11, 2025). Mesa Amphitheatre, 263 N. Center St. — across
Timestamped 12:28 PM. from the property — capacity 4,950, on the City-owned Mesa Convention Center campus (visitmesa.com). Center/Main St. light rail opened one block away, 2015 (Valley Metro).

260N. Center St | PMT26-01976 | HPO Appeal | Historic Preservation Board | September 1, 2026

THE GABLE DOG-EARS

Wood gables removed — approved stucco carried up

4 ~
STAFF POSITION OUR RESPONSE
Staff calls the dog-ear gable trima defining, likely-original feature The wood gable elements could not be salvaged — removed out of necessity to remediate termites, water

Standards 2, 5, 6 clahaais hela (Siva inttag intrusion, and asbestos/lead, per the prior owner’s appraisal and the City’s own COA. We did not “finish” a

( naards 2, 9, ) an ire It be retained or replac In-kind — wood gable: the wood was removed entirely and the approved wall stucco is carried up to cover the whole
reading “in-kind” to require reinstalling wood. area — no wood gables remain. Wood here would fail again in the heat and burden any future occupant.

\ /
THE COA ALREADY ANSWERS THIS: the same COA approves “new smooth/sand finish stucco” across the home AND permits the gables in “a similar more durable material.” And staff’s “original” claim rests on a 2002 National
Register photo — which the HP Officer’ s own June 10, 2025 email calls “a photo from the National Register nomination (2002)” — proving presence in 2002, not originin 1945.

1 — Atypical for the style 2 — Removed out of necessity 3 — Wood fails; stucco endures

The City's own COA classifies 260 as "a modest example of the The wood was unsalvageable. It was removed to remediate The City’s own COA documents this structure suffered “water
Ranch style." Ranch architecture is defined nationally by clean documented termites, water intrusion, and asbestos/lead infiltration and termite damage.” Exposed wood lasts only 3-7
lines and minimal exterior ornamentation. Decorative dog-ear abatement — required to make the home safe and habitable. years here. Stucco — approved across this home in the same
gable trim is not characteristic of a 1945 Ranch home — and in A neutral third-party appraisal (prior owner Heather Kearns) COA, and used at 250 next door — is the durable material that
walking our district, we found no other home with this detail. documents the damage. There was nothing to preserve. survives our climate.

The unsalvageable trim we had to remove — documented as
"DAMAGED WOOD TRIM" by the prior owner's independent
appraisal (Heather Kearns, File 296141133), obtained as part of
the sale. This is what exposed desert wood becomes.

Sources: The City’s own COA (Attachment 1) states the structure suffered “water infiltration and termite damage.” 260 classified "Rand style" — City of Mesa COA ADM25-00154 (June 11, 2025). Ranch style defined by minimal omamentation — National Park Service and state historic-
preservation design guidelines. Untreated exterior wood lasts 3—7 years in hot, dry climates; UV, checking, and termites are primary failure modes — building-science literature.

260N. Center St | PMT26-01976 | HPO Appeal | Historic Preservation Board | September 1, 2026 11

THE ROUNDED PORCH EDGES

A restrained detail, drawn from the home itself

STAFF POSITION OUR RESPONSE

Staff treated the rounded porch edges as conjectural — an invented They are a couple of inches of curve — not an archway — deliberately echoing the large

historic feature. arched openings already inside the home. It is one coherent design language, inside and out.
No observer would mistake them for an original 1940s feature, which is exactly why Standard
3 does not apply.

TRULY REVERSIBLE (STANDARD 10): the rounded openings and the low wall are fixed to the new porch posts, not the original 1945 walls. If ever removed, the historic structure is untouched —
the exact test Standards 9 & 10 set for new work.

INSIDE — large arched openings OUTSIDE — a subtle echo

Bold, sweeping arches — the home's defining interior character. The porch: only a small rounded corner at each opening — plus the low wall and the shared arched gate
to 250. Restrained by design.

260N. Center St | PMT26-01976 | HPO Appeal | Historic Preservation Board | September 1, 2026 12

COMPARABLE PROPERTIES — MAPPED ACROSS THE DISTRICT

Arches surround 260 N. Center

—
University Dr W University Dr W University Dr- EL
o c so What the map shows
‘<c ro} ir]
o 2 c
Ss W-3rd Pl ° Ao} 260 N. Center is not an outlier. Contributing homes
2 a rs) with arches sit on every surrounding block —
LI =z s Macdonald, Robson, and 2nd Street — a short walk in
~ . .
3 z 2 every direction.
7H ®
8 fe} & e IS
cs ro < *
oO b
rics : °W2nd Sts (
2 = The point
o ®
s & M oO . oo ;
sa Police Department ed A feature this common across the district — including
3k 260 N Center (subject) on our own home next door — is part of the district's
@ arch eee ° character, not a "conjectural" invention on ours.
rches confirme: photo
@ Arch-defining style (City list)
West Second Street Historic District
1 = -W-1st'St Wlst'St= -E1 L
eae

Base map: Google Maps. Markers plotted by the appellant; green = arches confirmed by photo,
gold = City-classified arch-defining style.
260 N. Center St | PMT26-01976 | HPO Appeal | Historic Preservation Board | September 1, 2026

COMPARABLE PROPERTIES — ARCHES ACROSS THE DISTRICT

Arches are established in this district

Arched openings appear throughout the West Second Street Historic District — on contributing homes the City itself classifies as Mission Revival, Spanish Eclectic, and Tudor

Revival, and on our own home. A feature the City recognizes across the district cannot be "conjectural" on ours.

ARCHES 4

148 N Macdonald 136 W 2nd St 216 N Macdonald
Mission Revival contributor (ID 191) Spanish Eclectic contributor (ID 153) Tudor Revival contributor (ID 158)

260N. Center St | PM126-01976 | HPO Appeal | Historic Preservation Board | September 1, 2026

250 N Center (ours)
City-approved arches + wall (slide 9)

14

THE CITY'S OWN CONTRIBUTING-PROPERTY LIST

An eclectic district built on arches

This is not our characterization — it is the City's. Its official West Second Street list classifies these contributors as Spanish Eclectic, Mission, Pueblo, and Spanish Revival:

styles defined by the arch. The City has already recognized these features as appropriate to the district.

National Register iP Architectural Style

148 N Macdonald 1906 Mission Revival
153 136 W 2nd St 1940-1946 Spanish Eclectic
150 215 N Robson St 1932 Spanish Eclectic
156 204 N Macdonald 1931 Spanish Eclectic
190 128 N Macdonald 1915 Spanish Revival
165 46 W 2nd St 1928 Pueblo Revival
158 216 N Macdonald 1935-1940 Tudor Revival
178 250 N Center (ours) ¢.1945 National Folk — arches + wall approved

Source: City of Mesa Historic Preservation, West Second Street Historic District Contributing & Non-Contributing Property List (updated 11/07/2024). All properties above are City-designated contributors to the district.

260 N. Center St | PM126-01976 | HPO Appeal | Historic Preservation Board | September 1, 2026

15

Our request, in one sentence

Read correctly, the Standards and the City’s own COA support all three
details. Apply them as consistently here as you did next door — and
approve our three small, reversible items.

We are not asking for special treatment — only a clear rule, applied to us the way it is applied to everyone else, including at our own home

next door.

We restored two 1945 homes on this block at our own expense. We want to finish 260 safely and keep it in the district we love.

Thank you.