Extracted text (via pymupdf)
28835 characters
Historic Preservation Board Report
CASE No.: ADM26-00657 CASE NAME: 260 N Center St (COA Appeal)
Appellant:
Alicia Rodriguez
Appellant Legal Counsel:
N/A
Location of Request:
260 N Center St
Site Size:
0.174 acres (7579.44 sq. ft.)
Existing Zoning District:
DC – Downtown Core with HD – Historic District Overlay
General Plan Designation:
Downtown
Council District:
District 4
City Staff:
Matthew Kriegl, Historic Preservation Officer
Hearing Date / Time:
September 1, 2026 / 5:00 p.m.
Request:
Consider an appeal of a Decision of the Historic
Preservation Officer issued on August 10, 2026, regarding
the denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness (“COA”) for
the installation of unpermitted gable and porch details
Staff Recommendation:
DENY the appeal and UPHOLD the Historic Preservation
Officer’s Decision
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Board deny the appeal and uphold the Historic
Preservation Officer's decision to deny the requested modifications to the 2025 Certificate of
Appropriateness (ADM26-00657).
A. Factual Background
The Subject Property is located at 260 N Center St within the West Second Street Historic
District (the “District”) which has a period of significance from 1883 to 1959. The zoning
designation for the Subject Property is Downtown Core (“DC”) with an Historic District
(“HD”) overlay. This house was constructed in 1945 and is classified as contributing to the
District.
The request by the applicant includes alterations to a COA approved in June 2025
(described below), including the installation of arches on the front porch, construction of
2
a small pony wall along the front porch, and complete removal of the dog-ear trim from
the gables.
On June 11, 2025, the applicant received a COA to rehabilitate the original structure and
construct a small, one-story rear addition (Exhibit 01). The approved work included
replacing the roof, front door, damaged windows, and other elements that were damaged
beyond repair.
The applicant was also approved to extend the front porch to six feet in depth and extend
it north along the façade. New wood porch columns, matching the existing square posts,
were approved to support the revised porch design. All other existing materials were to
be retained and, if damaged beyond repair, replaced in-kind, including the dog-ear trim in
the gables and the gable vents.
In conjunction with the work approved through the 2025 COA, the applicant also planned
for interior and exterior abatement of the entire home, including the removal of asbestos
and lead-based paint and plumbing work.
Over the past several months, the applicant was in contact with staff regarding proposed
revisions to the 2025 COA. Below is a summary of discussions between the applicant and
staff, regarding the 2025 COA and the request to modify it, wherein staff explained that
the proposed alterations were not appropriate, would not comply with the Secretary of
the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (the “Standards”), and therefore did not meet
the criteria for administrative approval.
1. May 28, 2025: Staff received an application from the applicant’s husband for the 2025
COA at 260 North Center.
2. June 9, 2025: Based on previous conversations with the applicant, staff sent
correspondence to the applicant regarding the proposed scope of work and project
description for the 2025 COA (Exhibit 04). Staff proposed all the following: (a) the
then-entire home be abated for lead and asbestos, (b) the existing rear addition be
removed and replaced with a new addition at roughly the same location, (c) the roof
be repaired as needed and the shingles replaced, (d) the decorative dog-eared wood
elements in gables be retained or replaced in-kind, (e) other wood trim be repaired or
replaced in-kind, (f) damaged stucco be replaced with smooth stucco, (g) windows (all
either damaged or not original) be replaced, (h) front porch be extended and
deepened (for continued functionality), (i) new porch columns be installed on the
extended porch to match existing (square posts), (j) new sliding glass door be installed
at the side of the house, and (k) new door be installed to replace the existing
nonoriginal front door.
The applicant responded with their own proposal that was substantially the same as
staff’s but noted: “The decorative dog-eared wood elements in the gables will be
3
possibly replaced in-kind, if they can be found to be made with material that will be
weatherproof” (Exhibit 04).
Staff responded by noting the need to “ensure that that gable treatment either
remains intact or is replaced appropriately,” to which the applicant responded that
they would “prefer not to have the gables as they serve no purpose other than
aesthetics [sic] but if we have to replace every few years due to weathering that is an
expense we do not want to incur,” and questioned the gables originality to the house
(Exhibit 04).
3. June 10, 2025: Staff responded to the applicant by indicating, “There will always be a
need to strike a balance with buildings located within historic districts. No two
buildings are the same and each is therefore treated based on its own specific merits
(design, integrity, location, etc.) and specific situation. The balance here is to weigh
the continued use of the building with retention of historic character defining features
and material with overall impacts to the historic district as a whole.” Staff also noted
that “In this case, the extension of the porch will ensure that the building will have
continued use and functionality. However, since so much of the other decorative
features on this building have deteriorated beyond repair, the intact historic
features/material of the home (such as decorative features in the gables) have
achieved greater importance and should not be removed or altered” (Exhibit 04).
Staff then let the applicant know that the wholesale removal of the gable treatments
did not meet several of the Standards (1, 2, or 3), essentially to retain character
defining materials and features and to repair rather than replace (or remove
completely) materials and features that have been damaged. And that the applicant
was free to replace the damaged material with a more durable material as long as the
look remained the same (Exhibit 04). Staff also noted that in 2002, despite all the
previous alterations, the house was determined to be contributing to the Historic
District as part of the National Register nomination inventory form (Exhibit 07).
Staff then told the applicant that the project would be administratively approved on
the stipulations outlined in the 2025 COA. Staff followed with, “Staff understands that
during the renovation/remodel of a historic building, unforeseen issues may arise. If
there are questions about the details of the COA and/or the materials, please let me
know and I would be happy to help you find a solution that is both historically
appropriate and compatible as we work through this project” (Exhibit 04).
The applicant responded: “Thanks Matt, Looking forward to receiving the CoA and
getting started. I appreciate all your help” (Exhibit 04).
4. June 11, 2025: An approved COA was granted to the applicant (Exhibit 01) based on
the approved plans submitted by the applicant (Exhibit 02).
4
Upon receiving the approved COA, the applicant responded with: “Thank you Matt !
This process was so much enjoyable than my last experience so I’m really appreciative
!” (Exhibit 08).
5. March 31, 2026: The applicant reached out to staff to request to add arches and
permanently remove the “dog ear decorations” (Exhibit 04).
6. April 6, 2026: Staff was appreciative of the update, but noted that, “Unfortunately, as
previously discussed, the wholesale removal of historic material and the addition of
unsubstantiated architectural features/design is inappropriate and does not meet our
review criteria for approval” (Exhibit 04).
Staff then indicated that “We may be able to work with you on some of the issues, but
arches will not remedy what you have described and the short wall may make things
worse. Regardless, these changes are too significant for just a simple sign off. You will
need to submit a new application highlighting the proposed changes. But based on
what I noted above, unless your project meets criteria, we will not be able to approve
it. As always, we are open to discuss your project further so that we may come up with
a solution that works for you and that stays within the confines of the review criteria”
(Exhibit 04).
Staff also listed out five Standards the proposed alterations did not meet:
• A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires
minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial
relationships
• The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The
removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial
relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.
• Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use.
Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding
conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be
undertaken.
• Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or
examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
• Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the
severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new
feature will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible,
materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by
documentary and physical evidence.
The applicant responded with: “You got it Matt” (Exhibit 04).
7. July 9, 2026: Historic Preservation staff noticed that unauthorized work that exceeded
the COA may be underway. A few days later, Historic Preservation staff visited the site
to confirm if any unauthorized work was taking place. Upon confirmation, Historic
5
Preservation staff sent an email to the Building Official indicating that the project at
260 N Center St was not following the approved plans or COA (Exhibit 06).
8. July 13, 2026: Staff was told an inspector would visit the site and follow up with any
questions (Exhibit 06).
9. July 22, 2026: The applicant sent a letter to the Planning Director and Development
Services Department Director disagreeing with staff’s feedback on the proposed
project and requesting modifications to the 2025 COA (Exhibit 09). The applicant also
included requests outside the jurisdiction of this Board and the City is processing these
through its standard process (Exhibit 09).
August 4, 2026: Staff conducted an in-person meeting with the applicant lasting
approximately one hour. During the meeting, the applicant and staff discussed the
proposed modifications to the 2025 COA. The meeting concluded with an
understanding of the two available paths forward:
Option 1: The applicant may submit a new COA application. However, if the scope
of work remains unchanged from the current proposal, staff will issue a denial,
which the applicant may then appeal to the Historic Preservation Board.
Option 2: The applicant may attempt to remove her properties from the Historic
District.
Staff committed to providing the applicant with the necessary documentation and
procedural instructions for both options (Exhibit 05).
Following the meeting, the applicant sent an email to staff requesting additional
information.
10. August 5, 2026: Staff responded to the applicant’s email providing all of the requested
information and again indicating that the new proposed alterations did not meet
Standard 1, 2, 3, 5, or 6 (Exhibit 5). Furthermore, staff described in detail the reason
why each element did not meet the particular Standard(s). As possible alternatives
for the applicant, Staff also indicated the COA submission requirements and the
chapters in the Mesa Zoning Ordinance detailing the process for removing a property
from a historic district. Lastly, staff clarified that all building inspections would
continue on all permitted portions of the project (Exhibit 05).
11. August 10, 2026 at 4:17 PM: The applicant followed up with an additional email
requesting further clarification for appealing (Exhibit 05). At this point, however, a
formal decision had not yet been issued.
12. August 10, 2026 at 7:40 PM: Staff responded to the applicant with the official decision
letter of the denial of the requested modifications to the COA (ADM26-00657) (the
“Decision Letter”) (Exhibit 03). Staff also responded to the applicant’s requests for
information received earlier that day, regarding the appeal process. As stated in the
6
Decision Letter and analyzed in more detail below, the proposal to modify the 2025
COA was denied because it does not meet Standards 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6.
13. August 12, 2026: The applicant submitted her formal appeal of the Decision Letter for
ADM26-00657 (Exhibit 05). The applicant also supplied a folder of documents as
supporting materials. The appeal and materials submitted by the applicant to staff on
August 12 are available to the Board with its agenda for this meeting.
B. City Regulations and Mesa Zoning Ordinance
Section 11-74-3(C) of the MZO outlines the City’s review procedures for Certificates of
Appropriateness. Section 11-74-3(C)(1) states, “the decision of the HPO shall be based
upon compliance of the request with the United States Secretary of the Interior’s
“Standards for Rehabilitation” appearing in 36 CFR Part 68 (Exhibit 10). Additional
guidelines, as proposed by the Historic Preservation Board and approved by the City
Council, may also be used by the HPO, provided the guidelines are not inconsistent with
the Secretary’s Standards.”
C. Summary of the Applicant’s Request
As indicated in the COA for project ADM26-00657, the applicant requests to modify the
2025 COA to do all the following:
a) Front Porch Arches: Installation of framed arched features at each porch column
to create arched openings across the front porch.
b) Front Porch Pony Wall: Construction of a 34-inch-tall pony wall situated between
the columns along the front porch.
c) Gable Trim Removal: Removal of the existing wood dog-ear trim from the gables,
and replacement with the previously approved smooth/sand-finish stucco to
match the rest of the exterior.
D. US Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Staff Analysis
The previously approved rehabilitation work with the 2025 COA allows for substantial
replacement of deteriorated and damaged materials where necessary to make the
structure safe, habitable, and structurally sound. Staff has not required that all existing
historic materials be retained regardless of their condition. Rather, the approved work
permits damaged or deteriorated exterior materials to be replaced in-kind or with a
similar, more durable material, while maintaining the historic exterior design and
architectural character of the residence.
The distinction is important. Replacement of deteriorated materials is not the same as
altering the historic design or introducing architectural features that were not present
historically. The proposed arches, pony wall, and complete removal of the dog-ear gable
trim are not necessary replacements resulting from deterioration. Instead, they
7
constitute changes to the building's exterior design and architectural character. As a
result, these alterations must be evaluated based on whether they retain the property's
historic character and are consistent with the Standards.
• Standard 1 provides that a property shall be used as it was historically or be given a
new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces,
and spatial relationships.
The proposed alterations are inconsistent with Standard 1 because they introduce
additional changes to the property's distinctive features and spatial relationships that are
not required to accommodate its continued residential use. The previously approved COA
already provides for substantial rehabilitation necessary to make the residence safe,
habitable, and functional. The proposed arches and pony wall would further alter the
configuration and character of the front porch, while removal of the dog-ear gable trim
would eliminate an existing distinctive feature. These additional changes are not
necessary to accommodate the property's continued residential use and therefore do not
represent the minimal change contemplated by Standard 1.
The existing front porch was historically designed with simple square posts and an open
character. Adding arches and a pony wall would change the porch's existing configuration
and spatial relationship without a demonstrated functional need related to the property's
continued residential use. Similarly, removing the dog-ear gable trim would alter the
historic exterior design without being required to accommodate the residence's use.
While the approved rehabilitation work under the 2025 COA represents the type of
intervention contemplated by Standard 1, the proposed additional alterations go beyond
what is necessary to maintain or adapt the residence for continued use. For these
reasons, the proposed alterations are inconsistent with Standard 1 and were therefore
denied.
• Standard 2 provides that the historic character of a property shall be retained and
preserved and that the removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features,
spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property shall be avoided.
The house is a modest 1945 Minimal Traditional/Ranch residence whose character is
derived largely from its simple form, modest scale, restrained detailing, and
straightforward front porch. Unlike a highly ornamented residence with numerous
decorative elements, this house has relatively few exterior features that provide
architectural distinction.
The existing dog-eared gable trim treatments are therefore particularly important to the
building's historic character. Their complete removal would eliminate an original
architectural feature that contributes to the visual identity of the residence.
8
The proposed arches and pony wall would have the opposite effect: rather than removing
an existing feature, they would introduce new architectural elements that change the
historic appearance of the porch. The simple square porch posts would no longer read as
the primary architectural treatment of the porch, and the pony wall would change the
open relationship between the porch and front yard.
The cumulative effect would be a significant change to the character of the primary
façade: an original decorative feature would be removed, while new decorative and
architectural features would be introduced.
This is fundamentally different from replacing rotted siding, trim, or other deteriorated
materials. Replacement restores the building's existing architectural character; the
proposed work changes that character. For these reasons, the proposed project is
inconsistent with Standard 2 and was therefore denied.
• Standard 3 provides that each property shall be recognized as a physical record
of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical
development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other
historic properties, shall not be undertaken.
The proposed arches and pony wall are inconsistent with Standard 3 because there is no
evidence that these features were historically present on this residence.
Staff understands that similar features may exist on other historic houses in Mesa or
within the same general architectural period. However, the presence of a feature on
another historic property does not establish that it was historically appropriate for this
particular property.
The house should be understood and rehabilitated based upon its own historic design and
physical evidence, rather than by incorporating architectural elements that may be
associated generally with other houses.
Adding arches to a porch that historically consisted of simple square posts would give the
residence an architectural expression that it did not historically possess. Likewise,
constructing a pony wall where the historic porch was open would introduce a feature
that is not supported by the property's known historic configuration.
The same principle applies to the proposed removal of the dog-ear gable trim. Removing
an original feature and replacing the resulting simplified gables with a different
architectural treatment, or otherwise altering the gable design, would obscure the
physical evidence of how the house was originally designed.
Standard 3 is particularly relevant here because the proposed changes are based on what
may be found on other houses rather than evidence that the features existed on this
9
house. Historic rehabilitation should not reconstruct or modify a building based on what
might have been there when the available physical evidence demonstrates otherwise.
For these reasons, the proposed project is inconsistent with Standard 3 and was therefore
denied.
• Standard 5 provides that distinctive materials, features, finishes, and
construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a
property shall be preserved.
Again, the dog-ear gable trim treatments are particularly important under Standard 5.
Staff is not asserting that every piece of original exterior material must remain in place
regardless of condition. The previously approved rehabilitation specifically allows
damaged and deteriorated materials to be replaced. Standard 5 instead addresses the
features that contribute to the property's architectural character.
The dog-ear gable trim treatments are one of the few intentional decorative features of
this otherwise restrained residence. Their complete removal would eliminate an
identifiable element of the original architectural design.
The porch is similarly characterized by its simple square posts and open configuration.
While the square posts themselves may be repaired or replaced if deteriorated, their basic
design and relationship to the porch should remain. Installing arches changes the
character of those posts, while adding a pony wall changes the character of the porch as
a whole.
Consequently, the issue is not whether the applicant may replace deteriorated materials.
The issue is whether the replacement or rehabilitation retains the historic feature's design
and character. Replacing a deteriorated square post with a new square post is consistent
with that approach. Replacing or modifying the porch with an arched treatment is not.
For these reasons, the proposed project is inconsistent with Standard 5 and was therefore
denied.
• Standard 6 provides that deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather
than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a
distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture,
and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be
substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
Standard 6 is particularly important because the applicant's proposed changes would not
replace deteriorated features with matching features.
Where exterior materials are damaged or deteriorated, the previously approved approach
is to replace those materials with in-kind or similar, more durable materials. For example,
10
deteriorated siding may be replaced with compatible siding, or deteriorated trim may be
replaced with matching trim. The objective is to restore the existing architectural design
while allowing the building to remain functional and durable.
The proposed work instead involves changing the design itself. For example:
•
A deteriorated square porch post may be replaced with a new square post of
compatible material.
•
A deteriorated portion of dog-ear gable trim may be repaired or replaced to match
the existing design.
•
Deteriorated porch components may be replaced with similar components that
retain the original porch configuration.
Those approaches are consistent with Standard 6. Conversely:
•
Replacing the simple square-post porch with arched openings does not match the
historic feature in design.
•
Adding a pony wall changes the historic porch configuration rather than replacing
a deteriorated component.
•
Completely removing the dog-ear gable trim does not repair or replicate a
deteriorated feature; it eliminates a distinctive historic feature altogether.
Furthermore, if the applicant's position is that the proposed arches or pony wall represent
an historic or historically appropriate feature, Standard 6 requires documentary and
physical evidence to substantiate replacement of missing features. General examples of
similar features on other houses would not, by themselves, establish that these features
existed on this particular property.
For these reasons, the proposed project is inconsistent with Standard 6 and was therefore
denied.
E. Conclusion
Staff has invested substantial time collaborating with the applicant to identify strategies
that align with the established review Standards. This collaborative process originally
resulted in the approval of the 2025 COA (ADM25-00154). Compliance with that approved
scope of work would have averted the current dispute.
Instead, the applicant sought to incorporate architectural elements that fall outside the
approved 2025 COA and conflict with review Standards. Staff’s position on these changes
has remained unchanged since March 2026, when the applicant initially inquired about
the modifications and was notified of their non-compliance. Over the subsequent five
months, staff engaged in extensive email correspondence and hosted an in-person
meeting to offer compliant alternatives. Despite this continuous feedback, the applicant
chose to move forward with the unapproved alterations without authorization.
11
In July 2026, staff discovered non-compliant construction in progress and reported it to
building inspections. Subsequently, all unpermitted portions of the project were stopped.
Rather than returning to the approved plans, the applicant has elected to pursue this
appeal.
The Historic Preservation Officer’s decision adheres to the COA review criteria set forth in
the Mesa Zoning Ordinance. The proposed installation of front porch arches, the
construction of a porch pony wall, and the removal of the dog-ear gable trim treatment
are fundamentally inconsistent with the Standards for the reasons detailed herein and in
the official Decision Letter.
When considered cumulatively, these alterations would eliminate the property's few
remaining distinctive historic features while introducing contradictory architectural
elements unsupported by its historic design. The proposed work would result in a
substantial, inappropriate alteration to the architectural character of the primary
elevation.
Consequently, staff finds that the project fails to meet Standards 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6. Staff
continues to emphasize that this determination does not mandate the retention of all
original materials but rather enforces the requirement to preserve the historic design and
character of the residence during repair or replacement.
Should the applicant abandon the proposed modifications and resume work under the
originally approved 2025 COA, the project would return to compliance.
Based on the findings contained in this report, staff recommends that the Historic
Preservation Board deny the appeal and uphold the Historic Preservation Officer's
decision to deny the requested modifications to the 2025 Certificate of Appropriateness
(ADM26-00657).
Exhibits
Exhibit 01 – ADM25-00154 COA (260 N Center St) - Approved COA
Exhibit 02 – Approved Plans
Exhibit 03 – ADM26-00657 COA (260 N Center St) - Denied COA
Exhibit 04 – 260 N Center St (ADM25-00154 COA) Email Correspondence
Exhibit 05 – Request to Resolve; Formal Letter Attached Correspondence
Exhibit 06 – Unpermitted work (ADM25-00154) Historic Preservation Office
Exhibit 07 – Inventory Form -260 N Center St
Exhibit 08 – 260 N Center St (ADM25-00154) Approved COA Correspondence
Exhibit 09 – Rodriguez Formal Complaint (260 N Center)
Exhibit 10 – The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation