City EXHIBITS - ADM26-00657 Appeal - REDACTED
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
103473 characters
EXHIBIT 01
ADM25-00154 COA (260 N Center St) -
Approved COA
Historic Preservation Office
City of Mesa, Arizona
City of Mesa Historic Preservation Office
480-644-4726 | historicpreservation@mesaaz.gov
June 11, 2025
Applicant: Sean Rodriguez
Email:
@gmail.com
Phone:
Subject:
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS (Historic Clearance)
260 N Center St (the “Subject Property”)
Case Number ADM25-00154; APN/Parcel #138-59-045
West Second Street Historic District
Dear applicant,
The City of Mesa Historic Preservation Office has reviewed your request for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for the proposed exterior alterations at the Subject Property.
The City Historic Preservation Officer has determined the proposed project does comply with the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. In addition, the
modifications are consistent with City’s historic standards and guidelines. The Historic Preservation
Officer has therefore APPROVED the Certificate of Appropriateness request based on the analysis
completed on Attachments 1 and 2 of this decision letter.
When applying for any required associated City of Mesa building permits, please include a copy of
this letter with your submittal documents.
If you have additional questions, please feel free to contact Matthew Kriegl, Historic Preservation
Officer, at matthew.kriegl@mesaaz.gov or 480-644-2214.
Sincerely,
Matthew Kriegl
Historic Preservation Officer
City of Mesa
cc: Kellie Rorex, Senior Planner
Enclosures:
1) Attachment 1 – Background and Project Description
2) Attachment 2 – Certificate of Appropriateness Standards
Historic Preservation Office
City of Mesa, Arizona
City of Mesa Historic Preservation Office
480-644-4726 | historicpreservation@mesaaz.gov
ATTACHMENT 1
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.
This building is a modest example of the Ranch style of architecture. Character-defining elements
include the shallow front porch and broad front façade. The proportion of the windows is more
characteristic of earlier style buildings. This building contributes to the historic character of the
neighborhood.
Encompassing portions of five blocks from the original townsite, the District showcases the early
transformation of Mesa from a rural community to suburban estates. Unlike the formal replatting
of entire blocks into residential subdivisions, the original "City of Zion" garden blocks were divided
into individual lots through gradual lot splits. This process allowed for a more organic, incremental
development of the area.
A defining feature of the district is its wide public rights-of-way, which were improved and
narrowed through the introduction of tree-lined, grassy medians. These landscaped medians are
significant character-defining elements that contribute to the district's unique charm.
While the slow, informal development process gives the West Second Street Historic District its
eclectic and diverse architectural character. The majority of homes in the district are Bungalows,
which were popular in the 1920s. During this period, Period Revival styles--drawing on European
architectural traditions--began to emerge in Mesa. Notable among these are the Mission Revival
and Colonial Revival styles, which can be found in several homes within the district. The few Ranch-
style homes on the edges of the district reflect the resurgence of residential construction in Mesa
following the Great Depression.
Project Description:
Proposed work for this Certificate of Appropriateness request includes abatement of the entire
home (interior – asbestos and lead paint). The existing concrete flooring where rear addition will
be built is to be removed; a new one-story addition will be constructed in roughly the same
location. This addition will include a second bathroom and third bedroom/office at the back of the
home. This rear addition will have rolled roofing with a very slight pitch. The existing roof shingles
will be replaced with similar materials and structural elements of the roof will also be repaired, as
needed. The decorative dog-eared wood elements in the gables will be retained or replaced in-
kind or with a similar more durable material. Gable vents may be installed in the gable ends to help
with air circulation. The other existing wood trim has not been properly maintained, is damaged,
and will be replaced in-kind. The existing stucco is damaged and will be removed and replaced with
new smooth/sand finish stucco. The existing windows are not original and/or are damaged beyond
repair. This has allowed water infiltration and termite damage and caused damage to the
structure. These existing window openings will be retained, repaired, and reframed. New 1-over-
Historic Preservation Office
City of Mesa, Arizona
City of Mesa Historic Preservation Office
480-644-4726 | historicpreservation@mesaaz.gov
1 sash windows will then be installed in the original openings. New awning windows will be
installed in locations when the use of sash windows is not feasible, mainly in the addition and at
the rear. The front porch will be retained, but extended out to 6 feet in depth and extended to the
north among the façade. New wood porch columns, to match the existing (square posts), will be
installed to support the revised porch design. A sliding glass door will be installed on the north side
elevation of the original portion of the building. The front door will also be replaced with a new
wood door with the same size and a similar look as existing. See drawings for additional detail.
Note: In working with staff, the owner has agreed to the proposed scope of work outlined above.
The drawings may not always accurately reflect the outcome of these discussions (such as details
involving, but not limited to, window material, door material/design, other decorative features,
etc.), but this document will take precedent over any inconsistency. 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 reach out to the Historic Preservation
Office for clarification and guidance.
EXHIBIT 02
Approved Plans (ADM25-00154)
EXHIBIT 03
ADM26-00657 COA (260 N Center St)
Denied COA
Historic Preservation Office
City of Mesa, Arizona
City of Mesa Historic Preservation Office
480-644-2214 | historicpreservation@mesaaz.gov
Certificate of
Appropriatness
August 10, 2026
Applicant: Alicia Rodriguez
Email:
@gmail.com
Phone:
Subject:
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS (Historic Clearance)
260 N Center St (the “Subject Property”)
Case Number ADM26-00657; APN/Parcel #138-59-045
West Second Street Historic District
Dear Ms. Rodriquez,
The City of Mesa Historic Preservation Office has reviewed your request for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for the proposed exterior alterations at the Subject Property.
The City Historic Preservation Officer has determined the proposed project does not
comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties. In addition, the modifications are not consistent with City’s historic standards
and guidelines. The Historic Preservation Officer has therefore DENIED the Certificate of
Appropriateness request based on the analysis found in Attachments 1 and 2 of this
decision letter.
The newly proposed alterations submitted through various email correspondence and
building permit applications do not meet Standards 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 of the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Specifically, the proposed changes will alter the
historic character-defining features of the property and introduce new architectural
elements that are not compatible with the building’s historic character:
The proposed porch arches and pony wall would change the building’s original
design, proportions, and visual relationships, and lead to a false sense of history.
The removal of the remaining dog-ear trim would result in the loss of historic
materials and architectural details that should be preserved.
Collectively, the proposed work would diminish the property’s historic integrity by
removing or altering original features rather than preserving, repairing, or replacing
them in a manner that maintains the building’s historic character.
Historic Preservation Office
City of Mesa, Arizona
City of Mesa Historic Preservation Office
480-644-2214 | historicpreservation@mesaaz.gov
Certificate of
Appropriatness
If you have additional questions, please feel free to contact Matthew Kriegl, Historic
Preservation Officer, at matthew.kriegl@mesaaz.gov or 480-644-2214.
Sincerely,
Matthew Kriegl
Historic Preservation Officer
City of Mesa
cc: Marc Heirshberg, Assistant City Manager
Nana Appiah, DSD Director
Mary Kopaskie-Brown, Planning Director
John Sheffer, City Building Official
Priscilla Gutierrez, City Council District 4 Coordinator
Kellie Rorex, Senior Planner
Meg Eaton, City Archaeologist
Enclosures:
1) Attachment 1 – Background and Project Description
2) Attachment 2 – Certificate of Appropriateness Standards
Historic Preservation Office
City of Mesa, Arizona
City of Mesa Historic Preservation Office
480-644-2214 | historicpreservation@mesaaz.gov
Certificate of
Appropriatness
ATTACHMENT 1
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.
This building is a modest example of the Ranch style of architecture. Character-defining
elements include the shallow front porch and broad front façade. The proportion of the
windows is more characteristic of earlier style buildings. This building contributes to the
historic character of the neighborhood.
Encompassing portions of five blocks from the original townsite, the District showcases the
early transformation of Mesa from a rural community to suburban estates. Unlike the
formal replatting of entire blocks into residential subdivisions, the original "City of Zion"
garden blocks were divided into individual lots through gradual lot splits. This process
allowed for a more organic, incremental development of the area.
A defining feature of the district is its wide public rights-of-way, which were improved and
narrowed through the introduction of tree-lined, grassy medians. These landscaped
medians are significant character-defining elements that contribute to the district's unique
charm.
While the slow, informal development process gives the West Second Street Historic
District its eclectic and diverse architectural character. The majority of homes in the district
are Bungalows, which were popular in the 1920s. During this period, Period Revival styles-
-drawing on European architectural traditions--began to emerge in Mesa. Notable among
these are the Mission Revival and Colonial Revival styles, which can be found in several
homes within the district. The few Ranch-style homes on the edges of the district reflect
the resurgence of residential construction in Mesa following the Great Depression.
Project Description:
On June 11, 2025, the applicant, Sean Rodriguez, received a Certificate of Appropriateness
(COA) to rehabilitate the original structure and construct a small, one-story rear addition.
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
Historic Preservation Office
City of Mesa, Arizona
City of Mesa Historic Preservation Office
480-644-2214 | historicpreservation@mesaaz.gov
Certificate of
Appropriatness
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 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.
The applicant is now requesting additional alterations to the approved COA, including the
installation of arches on the front porch, construction of a small pony wall along the front
porch, and complete removal of the dog-ear trim from the gables. Over the past several
months, staff has discussed the proposed revisions with the applicant and explained that
the proposed alterations were not appropriate, would not comply with the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and therefore did not meet the criteria for approval.
Staff ultimately advised the applicant to submit a revised COA application for the proposed
alterations; however, staff has not received a formal application for the revisions currently
being proposed.
Staff's review of the proposed alterations is based on the plans, drawings, and revisions
provided by the applicant through email correspondence and building permit materials.
These materials have been submitted at various times and in different formats and have
been considered together in evaluating the scope of the proposed work and its potential
impact on the historic resource.
EXHIBIT 04
260 N Center St (ADM25-00154 COA) Email
Correspondence
substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns.
Thank you,
Matt
Matthew Kriegl
Historic Preservation Officer
City of Mesa | 480-644-2214
From: Sean Derek <
@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 6, 2026 9:21 AM
To: Matthew Kriegl <matthew.kriegl@mesaaz.gov>
Cc: Kellie Rorex <Kellie.Rorex@mesaaz.gov>
Subject: Re: 260 N Center St (Approved COA)
Sorry Matt but the current house did not have anything safe - it had lead paint internally and
externally , asbestos , all wood was moldy because of no fans in bathroom , termites in the
entire house , galvanized pipes , window framing and dogeared gables all rotted - while the
house may have looked pretty when it was built, the material used is beyond dangerous.
The house is unlivable - would the city prefer the house just fall into shambles ? There are
plenty of homes in the historic area that have arches and some even have 2 floor casitas -
and if we ‘re talking about the city trying to maintain asthetics than none of these would
have been approved . I’m extremely disappointed in the logic behind this . I had to deal
with the Historic Office on another property and I was given the runaround of 8 months,
seems like this is the case again
On Apr 6, 2026, at 8:58 AM, Matthew Kriegl <matthew.kriegl@mesaaz.gov>
wrote:
Good morning Sean,
Thanks for the update on your project. I appreciate the detailed explanation of
concerns that you have with the property. 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.
The current house retains much of the original material, fabric, and character.
Although some of this material is damaged beyond repair, its current existence
allows us to understand the original condition. As with the windows, when
aspects of the house are damaged beyond repair, they may be replaced either in-
kind or with a similar material. Adding features to the house that were not
originally present, based on either conjecture or preference, is not appropriate.
The house, like many others constructed during this time throughout Mesa,
were modest and did not feature many adornments, and where they did occur,
such as the dogeared siding in the gables, these were usually simple.
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.
Thank you and let me know if you have any questions,
Matt
Matthew Kriegl
Historic Preservation Officer
City of Mesa | 480-644-2214
From: Sean Derek <
@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2026 7:31 AM
To: Matthew Kriegl <matthew.kriegl@mesaaz.gov>
Subject: Re: 260 N Center St (Approved COA)
Good morning Matt,
Sorry I sent the wrong blueprint file - not much has changed other than
a word needing to be consistent on all pages (DF wood beams rather
than
GLB’s.)
Site plans are attached.
I appreciate it
Sean
On Tue, Mar 31, 2026 at 5:04 PM Sean Derek <
@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi Matt
I hope all is going well with you. I'm moving along with my
renovation however I am running into issues with the house plans and
the arches I decided to have put back in plans due to several incidents
that occurred both at home and the home we're working on in the
past 3 months.
Can you please review and with all hope of approval.
We had 2 individuals on the property who were setting up a living
squatter situation right against the larger window (east elevation) of
the house. We also found several beer cans thrown by the front door
as well as a broken box cutter and excrement.
In addition someone was standing in the courtyard area and just
walking around. I also saw a woman walking thru the property from
the back yard and coming up to the door in front , trying to pry the
door and looking through its window . This was a major concern of
ours which is why we implemented the arches and porch in the front
in the beginning.
In addition the porch will add an extra buffer from the crowd and car
noise of the convention center / amphitheater events where crowds
walk back and forth with several people looking into our windows - I
believe I also mentioned this during one of our earlier meetings. The
dog ear decorations were completely rotted and several had termites
still present. I have discarded them and I do not want to put them
back on again due to its inevitable damage and inviting nature for
termites as well as damage from weather(which I will have to replace
again in the future)
The plans are attached with the arches. Again can you please review
so I can move forward with this project. I'm only trying to improve
Downtown Mesa. Abatement was complete. Electrical relocation has
been approved as well as gar sleeving.
Thanks
Sean
On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 2:43 PM Matthew Kriegl
<matthew.kriegl@mesaaz.gov> wrote:
Good afternoon Sean,
Attached is your approved COA letter. The approval documents have also
been uploaded into the digital permitting system (DIMES) as well. Be sure
to include this letter when applying for any City permits pertaining to this
project. Please let me know if you have any questions or need any
assistance.
Thank you,
Matt
Matthew Kriegl
Historic Preservation Officer
City of Mesa | 480-644-2214
From: DJ Sean Derek <
@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 5:35 PM
To: Matthew Kriegl <matthew.kriegl@mesaaz.gov>
Cc: Kellie Rorex <Kellie.Rorex@mesaaz.gov>
Subject: Re: 260 N Center St (Project Description)
Thanks Matt ,
Looking forward to receiving the CoA and getting started . I appreciate all
your help
Thanks,
Sean Derek
On Jun 10, 2025, at 5:15 PM, Matthew Kriegl
<matthew.kriegl@mesaaz.gov> wrote:
Thank you Sean,
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.
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. In any case, when historic features are
damaged beyond repair, they should be replaced in-kind, as
these features help identify the structure with a particular
architectural style in history.
It is also important to ensure that the criteria, by which
projects in historic districts are evaluated, are equally applied
and observed. See the selected relevant criteria below:
1. 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.
2. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and
construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property will be
preserved.
3. 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.
You have asserted that the material is damaged beyond repair
and needs to be replaced, and after our site visit, staff agrees.
Based on staff’s interpretation of in-kind, other (sometimes
more durable) materials are allowed to be used if the look is
essentially the same as what is being replaced. This will
ensure that, at a minimum, the historical look/feel of the
building is retained, despite any loss of historic material.
Below is a photo of the home from the National Register
nomination (2002); the decorative gable feature is present and
even with the other previous alterations, the building was still
determined to contribute to the overall historic district.
Your project will be administratively approved on the
stipulations outlined within the Certificate of Appropriateness
(COA). 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.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Matt
<image001.png>
Matthew Kriegl
Historic Preservation Officer
City of Mesa | 480-644-2214
From: DJ Sean Derek <
@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 5:57 PM
To: Matthew Kriegl <matthew.kriegl@mesaaz.gov>
Subject: Re: 260 N Center St (Project Description)
We would prefer not to have the gables as they serve no
purpose other than asthetics but if we have to replace every
few years due to weathering that is an expense we do not want
to incur - we’re not even sure they were fro been original build
and weeee later added on just like the windows
Thanks,
Sean Derek
On Jun 9, 2025, at 5:30 PM, Matthew Kriegl
<matthew.kriegl@mesaaz.gov> wrote:
Thank you Sean!
This is helpful. We need to ensure that that gable
treatment either remains intact or is replaced
appropriately. I will write it into the COA. Could
you please have the drawings updated to reflect
these alterations (and note that the new materials
will be replaced in-kind)? I will finish writing up
the COA and the civil engineers will review the
project as well, so the must accurate plans are
necessary.
Thanks again!
Matt
Matthew Kriegl
Historic Preservation Officer
City of Mesa | 480-644-2214
From: Sean Derek
@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 4:38 PM
To: Matthew Kriegl <Matthew.Kriegl@mesaaz.gov>
Subject: Re: 260 N Center St (Project Description)
Hi Matt ,
Thanks for sending - please review and use my
revision
Proposed work for this Certificate of
Appropriateness request includes abatement of
the entire home ( interior – asbestos and lead
paint). The existing concrete flooring where
rear addition will be built is to be removed
(with a new addition built in roughly the same
location). This addition will include a second
bathroom and third bedroom/office at the back
of the home. The existing roof shingles will be
replaced and structural elements of the roof
will also be repaired, as needed. The
decorative dog-eared wood elements in the
gables will be possibly replaced in-kind, if they
can be found to be made with material that will
be weatherproof. The other existing wood trim
has not been properly maintained, is damaged,
and will be replaced in-kind. The existing
stucco is damaged and will be removed and
replaced with new smooth/ sand finish stucco.
The existing windows are not original and/or
are damaged beyond repair. This has allowed
water infiltration and termite damage and
caused damage to the structure. These existing
window openings will be retained, repaired,
and reframed. New 1-over-1 sash windows
will then be installed in the original openings.
New awning windows will be installed in
locations when sash windows are not feasible,
mainly in the addition and at the rear. The
front porch will be retained, but extended out
to 6 feet in depth and extended to the north
among the façade. New wood porch columns,
to match existing (square posts), will be
installed to support the revised porch design.
A sliding glass door will be installed on the
north side elevation of the original portion of
the building. The front door will also be
replaced with a new wood door with the same
size and a similar look as existing. See
drawings for additional detail.
Hoping this will close out this process to
receive our CoA
Thanks for your help
Sean
On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 4:30 PM Matthew Kriegl
<Matthew.Kriegl@mesaaz.gov> wrote:
Hi Sean,
Below is the revised project description based
on our conversation last week. Please review
and let me know if this is accurate based on
your plans. If it all looks good, your plans may
have to be updated for accuracy and to reflect
the true nature of the work. Please let me know
if you have any questions.
Proposed work for this Certificate of
Appropriateness request includes
abatement of the entire home (exterior
and interior – asbestos and lead paint).
The existing rear addition will be
removed and a new addition will be
constructed in roughly the same
location. This addition will include a
second bathroom and third
bedroom/office at the back of the home.
The existing roof shingles will be
replaced and structural elements of the
roof will also be repaired, as needed.
The decorative dog-eared wood
elements in the gables will be retained
or replaced in-kind, if damaged beyond
repair. The other existing wood trim has
not been properly maintained, is
damaged, and will be replaced in-kind.
The existing stucco is damaged and will
be removed and replaced with new
smooth stucco. The existing windows
are not original and/or are damaged
beyond repair. This has allowed water
infiltration and caused damage to the
structure. These existing window
openings will be retained, repaired, and
reframed. New 1-over-1 sash windows
will then be installed in the original
openings. New awning windows will be
installed in locations when sash
windows are not feasible, mainly in the
addition and at the rear. The front porch
will be retained, but extended out to 6
feet in depth and extended to the north
among the façade. New wood porch
columns, to match existing (square
posts), will be installed to support the
revised porch design. A sliding glass
door will be installed on the north side
elevation of the original portion of the
building. The front door will also be
replaced with a new wood door with the
same size and a similar look as existing.
See drawings for additional detail.
Thanks,
Matt
Matthew Kriegl
Historic Preservation Officer
City of Mesa | 480-644-2214
Monday – Thursday, 7am – 6pm
<image001.png>
--
Thank you ,
--
Thank you ,
EXHIBIT 05
Request to Resolve; Formal Letter Attached
Correspondence
From:
Matthew Kriegl
To:
Alicia
Cc:
Nana Appiah; John Sheffer; Mary Kopaskie-Brown; Councilmember Duff; Priscilla Gutierrez; Marc Heirshberg;
Kellie Rorex; Meg Eaton
Subject:
RE: 260 N. Center St (PMT26-01976) — Request to Resolve; Formal Letter Attached
Date:
Wednesday, August 12, 2026 6:27:00 PM
Attachments:
image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image011.png
Good afternoon Ms. Rodriguez
Thank you for your email. Staff will review your submittal and contact you with any questions.
In response to your questions below:
1. The appeal of the denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness in case ADM26-00657,
dated August 10, 2026, has been received as of August 12, 2026.
2. Your submitted letter fulfills the application requirements, and the application is being
reviewed as an addendum to the original project, of which the which the fees were
previously paid.
3. Staff will review the submitted information and coordinate with the City Clerk’s office to
schedule the appeal to the Historic Preservation Board. During our review, staff will
reach out to you with any questions regarding your submitted documentation.
4. Staff typically posts all materials online by the Thursday prior to the scheduled Board
meeting. Staff will send a link to you (through the email address listed in the application)
when all materials have been uploaded.
5. As mentioned in previous emails below, information on appeals to the Historic
Preservation Board can be found in Chapter 74 (11-47-5) and Chapter 77 of the Meza
Zoning Ordinance (Title 11).
Please reach out to us if there are any questions or concerns.
Thank you,
Matt Kriegl
Matthew Kriegl
Historic Preservation Officer
City of Mesa | 480-644-2214
From: Alicia
@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2026 4:58 PM
To: Matthew Kriegl <Matthew.Kriegl@mesaaz.gov>
Cc: Nana Appiah <Nana.Appiah@mesaaz.gov>; John Sheffer <John.Sheffer@mesaaz.gov>; Mary
Everything is attached in a single compressed folder titled 260_N_Center_Appeal_ADM26-
00657. It contains an index at 00_Index_of_Submitted_Documents.pdf listing the contents in
the same order shown below. If your system blocks compressed attachments, please tell me
and I will resend the documents individually.
Appeal documents:
00_Index_of_Submitted_Documents.pdf, index of this submittal, 2 pages
01_Written_Notice_of_Appeal_and_Narrative.pdf, Written Notice of Appeal and Project
Narrative, 4 pages
02_Appeal_Letter_and_Exhibit_A.pdf, Appeal Letter to the Historic Preservation Board with
Exhibit A responding to each cited Standard, 6 pages
03_Appeal_Presentation.pdf, Appeal Presentation for the September 1, 2026 hearing, 16
pages
04_Marked_Front_Elevation.pdf, Marked Front Elevation identifying the material and
dimension of each of the three appealed items, marked on Sheet 8 of the approved drawing
set, 2 pages
05_Materials_and_Color_Schedule.pdf, Materials and Color Schedule for the three appealed
items, 2 pages
Appendices, in the folder titled Appendices:
Appendix_A_Kriegl_Email_June_10_2025.pdf, your email of June 10, 2025 transmitting the
2002 National Register nomination photograph, 4 pages
Appendix_B_COA_ADM25-00154_June_11_2025.pdf, Certificate of Appropriateness for 260
N. Center Street, Case ADM25-00154, issued June 11, 2025, with Attachment 1 and
Attachment 2, 7 pages
Appendix_C_West_Second_Street_Property_List.pdf, West Second Street Historic District
Contributing and Non-Contributing Property List, City of Mesa Historic Preservation, updated
November 7, 2024, 5 pages
Appendix_D_Appraisal_296141133_Oct_2024.pdf, appraisal report File 296141133, PS
Appraisals and Consulting, effective October 22, 2024, commissioned by the prior owner
before the sale, 19 pages
Appendix_E_Interior_Arch_Photographs.pdf, photograph addendum excerpt from appraisal
File 1231732B, effective April 3, 2025, showing the original interior arched openings, 4 pages
Appendix_F_COA_ADM23-00081_250_N_Center_April_5_2023.pdf, Certificate of
Appropriateness for 250 N. Center Street, Case ADM23-00081, issued April 5, 2023, 6 pages
Three notes on the submittal, also set out in the index. No signage is proposed, so no signage
drawings are included. The complete approved construction drawing set prepared by Right
Angle Drafting, including the site plan, floor plans, and all elevations, is already on file with the
City under PMT26-01976 and Case ADM25-00154 and is incorporated here by reference; I
request that Sheet 8 and the site plan be included in the Board packet, and I will resubmit the
full set if you would prefer it filed with this appeal. Appendix D contains the prior owner's
residential address and email address on its transmittal and certification pages, and I ask that
this personal information be redacted before the report is placed in the public Board packet.
I would appreciate written confirmation of the following:
1. That the appeal has been received and is timely as of August 12, 2026.
2. Whether any application fee is due and, if so, the amount and the method of payment,
together with any City application form you would like completed.
3. That the matter has been placed on the September 1, 2026 Historic Preservation Board
agenda.
4. The date on which the staff report and Board packet will be available to me.
5. The ordinance section governing this appeal and the Board's standard of review, so that I can
prepare my presentation accordingly.
Please direct all correspondence on this matter to me at this email address and at 480-452-
4999. I am the sole point of contact for the property.
Thank you for your time.
Alicia Romero Rodriguez
Owner, 260 N. Center Street
Current resident at 250 N. Center Street, Mesa, Arizona 85201
|
On Mon, Aug 10, 2026 at 7:40 PM Matthew Kriegl <Matthew.Kriegl@mesaaz.gov> wrote:
Good evening Ms. Rodriguez,
Thank you for your emails requesting clarification on the appeals process. Below is the
information on the required submittal documents for a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA)
appeal. Please note that some of the information was previously provided in the email on
August 5 (see below).
In addition, I’ve attached your revised COA, which has been denied as it does not meet
Standards 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
That determination was made by staff upon review of the proposed alterations based on the
plans, drawings, and revisions provided through email correspondence and building permit
materials.
As we also discussed on Wednesday, please review and confirm that these are the changes
being proposed.
Appeal Documents;
1. Submission Method
Please email the appeal packet to me at matthew.kriegl@mesaaz.gov. We will upload
all submitted materials into DIMES on your behalf. Once the information has been
uploaded, we will provide you with the application number.
2. Application Form
Pursuant to Section 11-77-4(B), please include the following information in your
written notice of appeal:
a) Date of the appeal;
b) Name of the person filing the appeal (appellant) and any individual
representing the appellant;
c) Address to which notices should be sent;
d) Contact information, such as a telephone number and/or email address,
for the appellant or representative;
e) The action or decision being appealed and the date of the action or
decision;
f) A description of the requested outcome if the appeal is granted;
g) Grounds for the appeal; and
h) Address and case number associated with the appeal.
3. Drawings/Photos/Narrative
Thank you for providing the updated drawings. We have previous versions of the
drawings you provided through email correspondence and building permit materials;
however, those plans do not match the materials you recently submitted on August 8,
2026. Please provide updated drawings that identify the materials and dimensions for
all proposed alterations. You may submit the construction drawings currently being
used in the field, as those would likely provide the most accurate information
regarding the work. Additionally, include photos of the building and site, including
detail photos. Please also provide a detailed narrative of the work you are proposing
and/or would like approval for.
4. Deadline and Historic Preservation Board Meeting
Once you have submitted all required documentation, along with any additional
supporting information you wish to include, staff will upload the materials. Please
note that this new project will be the subject of the appeal, as the timeframe to appeal
the previously approved project has expired.
If all required application materials are received by August 12, the project will be placed on
the September 1 Historic Preservation Board agenda. We will confirm receipt of the
required materials and let you know once the project has been scheduled.
The Historic Preservation Board meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 1, at 5:00
p.m. in Mesa City Hall, located at 20 E. Main St. Please allow sufficient time to check in
with security before the meeting. Once the agenda has been finalized, we will provide you
with a copy.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns.
Thank you,
Matt Kriegl
Matthew Kriegl
Historic Preservation Officer
City of Mesa | 480-644-2214
From: Alicia <
@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2026 4:17 PM
To: Matthew Kriegl <Matthew.Kriegl@mesaaz.gov>
Cc: Nana Appiah <Nana.Appiah@mesaaz.gov>; John Sheffer <John.Sheffer@mesaaz.gov>; Mary
Kopaskie-Brown <Mary.Kopaskie-Brown@mesaaz.gov>; Councilmember Duff
<Councilmember.Duff@mesaaz.gov>; Priscilla Gutierrez <Priscilla.Gutierrez@mesaaz.gov>; Marc
Heirshberg <Marc.Heirshberg@mesaaz.gov>
Subject: Re: 260 N. Center St (PMT26-01976) — Request to Resolve; Formal Letter Attached
Hello all,
I am writing at the end of the business day on Monday, August 10, to document that I still
have not received a response identifying where or how to file our appeal. With the deadline
on Wednesday, August 12, this leaves me less than two business days to submit,
through no fault of my own.
To be clear about where things stand: I asked for the specific filing instructions, the
application form, and the fee at our August 4 meeting, and again in writing afterward. I have
not received them. I have also reviewed the City of Mesa website and can find no information
about the appeal process for the Historic Preservation Office or Development Services.
This is another instance of the unclear guidance and lack of support I raised in my original
formal complaint, and it is once again compressing the time our family has to prepare and
file. I want to be fair and I am not trying to be adversarial — I simply need the basic
information required to exercise our right to appeal on time.
Please provide, today if at all possible:
1. The exact method for submitting the appeal (email or a specific upload location).
2. The required appeal application form and the fee, with payment instructions.
3. Review of the PDF I submitted of the changes to the front elevation of my home (see
my prior email dated on 8/6 at 4:23P)
4. Written confirmation of the final submission deadline to be heard on September 1
(with details of location and time).
I will continue to document the status in writing until we receive clear direction. I
remain hopeful we can get this resolved quickly so the appeal can be filed on time.
Thank you,
Alicia Rodriguez
Owner, 260 N. Center Street & 250 N. Center Street
@gmail.com
On Sat, Aug 8, 2026 at 4:23 PM Alicia
@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. Kriegl,
This is our formal appeal of the denial under Permit Record PMT26-01976 / Case
ADM25-00154, for consideration at the September 1, 2026 Historic Preservation
Board hearing. We are appealing the three exterior details at issue: the gable finish, the
low pony wall, and the softly rounded porch edges.
I am preparing our appeal packet now and want to be sure I submit it correctly and
completely before the August 12 deadline. So that I have everything in order, could you
please confirm the following in writing:
1. Submission method. Should the appeal packet be emailed to you directly, or
uploaded to a specific location in the DIMES portal? If DIMES, please point me to
the exact upload location for this case. Also please provide a clear checklist of what
to submit so I can verify it against what I have prepared.
2. Application form and fee. At our meeting at City Hall on August 4, I clearly asked
to be provided with the specific application form and fee required to file this appeal,
and I reiterated that request in my written follow-up. That information was not
provided in your August 5 correspondence, and there is no clear link to the appeal
application on the City's website. Section 11-74-3(B), which you cited, requires a
completed application on the applicable City form with any required fees. Please
send me the correct form and the fee amount and payment method now, as the
August 12 deadline is approaching and I cannot complete the application without it.
3. Drawings. You noted that staff will use the plans I previously submitted. The City's
delayed responses and lack of clear guidance, as documented throughout this
correspondence, have left me without enough time to engage a professional to
modify the original drawings before the deadline. I have therefore attached a copy of
the front elevation, electronically modified to show the gable finished in stucco, the
thirty-four-inch pony wall, and the rounded porch edges. Please confirm that this
scanned, marked-up elevation will suffice for the appeal. If anything further is
required, I need to know immediately given the very limited time the City has left me
to prepare.
4. Deadline. Please confirm the final submission deadline to be heard on September
1.
In addition to the required materials, I will be submitting a written appeal letter with a
detailed exhibit and a presentation for the Board's consideration.
Once my packet is submitted, I would appreciate written confirmation of receipt and
that the appeal is scheduled for the September 1, 2026 Historic Preservation
Board meeting, along with the exact time and location (building, room, and check-
in) of the hearing.
Thank you for your prompt attention. Given the deadline, I would appreciate a response
as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
establishes the criteria for evaluating proposed changes to
properties located within historic districts. These criteria include
compliance with the United States Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
Based on those standards, staff has determined that the following
proposed alterations do not comply:
1. Removal of the dog-ear gable trim;
2. Construction of a pony wall along the porch; and
3. Addition of small, rounded edges or arched features to
the porch.
The proposed alterations are inconsistent with the following
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards:
Standard 1:
A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be
placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the
defining characteristics of the building and its site and
environment.
The dog-ear trim and the porch’s simple design, including its
square posts, are defining characteristics of the house and of
this architectural style generally. Accordingly, these features
should not be substantially altered.
Standard 2:
The historic character of a property shall be retained and
preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration
of features and spaces that characterize a property shall
be avoided.
The distinctive dog-ear gable trim and simple porch design
are visible in the property’s 2002 historic inventory
photograph and appear to be original to the structure. Their
removal or substantial alteration should therefore be
avoided. When historic materials are deteriorated beyond
repair and must be removed, replacement materials and
features should replicate the historic design and appearance
as closely as possible.
Staff previously approved replacement of these elements
with in-kind materials in the approval letter issued to you on
June 11, 2025, which is attached.
Standard 3:
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 architectural elements from other
buildings, shall not be undertaken.
Changing the configuration of the dog-ear gable trim, or
removing it entirely, could create an inaccurate
representation of the property’s historical design. Similarly,
adding wider porch columns, a pony wall, or rounded or
arched porch features would be atypical of the house’s
architectural style and could create a false sense of history.
Applying design elements taken from houses of different
architectural styles would also be inconsistent with this
standard.
Standard 5:
Distinctive features, finishes, and construction
techniques or examples of craftsmanship that
characterize a historic property shall be preserved.
The dog-ear gable trim and simple porch design are
distinctive architectural features and examples of
craftsmanship associated with this house and its
architectural style. Removal of these features, or
replacement with a substantially different design, would
therefore be inconsistent with this standard.
Standard 6:
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
other visual qualities and, where possible, materials.
Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated
by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
Historic features should be repaired whenever feasible.
Where deterioration makes repair impracticable,
replacement features should match the original features in
design, color, texture, visual appearance, and, where
possible, material.
Although the house retains many of its original historic
elements, several were in significant disrepair. Certain
elements, including windows, doors, trim, roofing, portions of
the porch, and the dog-ear gable trim, were determined to
require replacement. Staff’s June 11, 2025, approval
authorized replacement of specified features with in-kind
materials and designs.
2. Appeal requirements and September 1, 2026, hearing deadline
Section 11-74-3(B) of the City of Mesa Zoning Ordinance identifies
the submission requirements for a Certificate of Appropriateness.
The required materials include:
1. A completed application on the applicable City form,
accompanied by any required fees;
2. Photographs of the existing property;
3. Drawings, prepared to an approximate scale, showing the
site plan, floor plans, and elevations of the proposed work,
including proposed materials and color schemes;
4. If signage is included, drawings prepared to an
approximate scale showing the size and location of the
proposed signage, the type of lettering, the proposed colors,
and the type of illumination, if any; and
5. Any additional information the Historic Preservation
Officer reasonably determines is necessary to review the
proposed work.
To schedule your appeal for consideration at the September 1,
2026, Historic Preservation Board meeting, all required materials
must be submitted to staff no later than August 12, 2026.
Staff will use the materials you previously submitted for the
Certificate of Appropriateness and building permit applications to
begin preparing the appeal. You may submit any additional plans,
photographs, written statements, or other supporting information
that you would like the Historic Preservation Board to consider.
3. Process for removing the property from the historic district
Removal of a property from an adopted City of Mesa Historic
District is considered a rezoning action and must follow the
procedures established in the following provisions of the Mesa
Zoning Ordinance:
· Chapter 23 — Historic and Landmark Overlay Districts;
· Chapter 74 — Historic District and Historic Landmark
Procedures; and
· Chapter 76 — Amendments to the Zoning Map.
In general, the process requires submission of a rezoning
application and all supporting materials. These materials may
include:
· A completed application;
· A project narrative explaining the request;
· A legal description and map of the property;
· Written property-owner authorization;
· Required public-notification materials;
· Applicable application and processing fees; and
· Any additional documents required by the Planning
Division.
Following submission, the application would undergo staff review
and proceed through the applicable public-notification, public-
hearing, recommendation, and decision-making processes required
for a zoning-map amendment.
You may pursue this process concurrently with the Historic
Preservation Board appeal. The two requests, however, are
separate processes, and initiating a rezoning request does not
suspend or modify the requirements that currently apply to the
property.
4. Continuation of construction and inspections
After confirming with City Building Official John Sheffer, who
attended the August 4 meeting, building inspections may continue
for work that is permitted, approved, and
included in the applicable approved construction documents.
Inspections cannot be conducted or approved for work that has not
been permitted, has not received the necessary historic
preservation approval, or is not included in the approved
construction documents.
Accordingly, permitted and approved work, including electrical and
safety-related work, may continue. The three contested design
elements, the dog-ear gable trim alteration, the porch pony wall,
and the rounded or arched porch-edge features, should not
proceed unless and until they are authorized through a revised
Certificate of Appropriateness or approved through the applicable
appeal process.
I have also attached our previous correspondence and project’s approval
for your consideration.
Please contact me with any questions or requests for additional
clarification.
Sincerely,
Matt Kriegl
Matthew Kriegl
Historic Preservation Officer
City of Mesa | 480-644-2214
From: Nana Appiah <Nana.Appiah@mesaaz.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2026 11:35 AM
To: Matthew Kriegl <Matthew.Kriegl@mesaaz.gov>
Subject: FW: 260 N. Center St (PMT26-01976) — Request to Resolve; Formal Letter Attached
FYI
Nana Appiah, PHD, AICP│Development Services Department
Director
Tel: (480) 644-2181
Nana.appiah@mesaaz.gov
55 N. Center St │ Mesa │ AZ │ 85201
Office Hours: M-Th 7am to 6pm | Closed Fridays & Holidays
From: Alicia <
@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2026 6:02 PM
To: Mary Kopaskie-Brown <Mary.Kopaskie-Brown@mesaaz.gov>; Nana Appiah
<Nana.Appiah@mesaaz.gov>
Cc: Heather Omta <Heather.Omta@mesaaz.gov>; Councilmember Duff
<councilmember.duff@mesaaz.gov>; John Sheffer <John.Sheffer@mesaaz.gov>
Subject: Re: 260 N. Center St (PMT26-01976) — Request to Resolve; Formal Letter Attached
Dear Mr. Appiah,
Thank you for meeting with me today on August 4 at 4PM. I am following up in writing
to summarize what was discussed, to confirm the next steps, and to be candid
about my disappointment with how the meeting went. I am copying
Councilmember Jenn Duff. I will be honest about why: through this entire
process, I have not felt that I have an ally in you, in Matthew, or in your team. I
am bringing Councilmember Duff into this correspondence in the hope of having
someone at the City who will help me get to an actual solution, rather than another
restatement of process.
I will be direct: I took time away from work to attend in person, and the meeting
could have been an email. What I hoped for was partnership -- a clear explanation of
the specific standard I am said to be violating, a benchmark I could actually look at, or a
good-faith effort to find middle ground on three small details. None of that was
provided. What I received instead was a restatement of process and two options:
file an appeal, or remove my property from the historic district. Both of those
could have been communicated in a message, without my taking a day away
from work.
That is the heart of my frustration, and I want it on the record. During the meeting I
asked repeatedly, in plain terms, to be shown the written standard that
prohibits the three items at issue -- the dog-ear gable trim, a sub-three-foot
pony wall for safety, and two small rounded porch edges that echo the interior
arches of the home. I was told that standards exist, that they live in the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards and in a section of the zoning ordinance
governing alterations, and that they would be sent to me. But at no point in the
meeting was I shown the specific provision, the benchmark, or the citation that
these three modest, non-structural, aesthetic details actually violate. When I
asked what a workable solution for my family's safety would look like, no
alternative was offered.
That is precisely the problem I came in with, and I left with it unresolved. I do not
understand how three small aesthetic choices -- trim that was rotted and termite-
infested, a hip-height safety wall on a home that fronts a busy public street, and soft
rounded edges drawn from the home's own interior -- have escalated to this point, with
no one able to point to the clear, written standard they offend. A standard that cannot
be shown, cited, or explained in person, and that appears to rest on individual
discretion rather than a published benchmark applied consistently to every
property owner, is the core issue I have raised from the beginning.
I also want to note, respectfully, that this meeting followed my formal letter of July 22.
Had the substance of the meeting -- appeal or opt-out -- simply been sent to me
promptly in response to that letter, together with the appeal paperwork and the
September 1 Historic Preservation Board hearing date, I would have had ample time to
prepare. Instead, that information was provided verbally at the last hour, with a
submission deadline that leaves very little runway before the hearing.
So that we have a shared, accurate record of what was discussed and committed to, I
would ask that the following now be sent to me in writing, as was committed in the
meeting:
1. The specific written standards and code provisions that the dog-ear trim, the
pony wall, and the rounded porch edges are each said to violate, with citations.
2. The complete appeal packet and submission requirements for the September
1 Historic Preservation Board hearing, including the exact submission deadline.
3. The written process and timeline for removing the property from the historic
district, which I asked to be able to pursue concurrently so as not to lose time -- while
noting, as I stated in the meeting and in my letter, that this is not my preferred outcome.
4. Written confirmation of what was clarified by the inspections supervisor in
the meeting (John Sheffer, copied): that construction and inspections may continue
on all work other than the three contested items, including electrical and safety-related
work.
For my part, I have kept a detailed contemporaneous record of this meeting and of the
correspondence throughout this matter, which I am retaining alongside my July 22
letter.
To be clear about where I stand: I remain a Mesa resident and taxpayer who has
taken two abandoned, hazardous homes and restored them at my own
expense. I asked for collaboration and a clear standard. I received neither in
that room today from your team. What I am asking for is not special treatment -- only
a clear, consistent standard and a genuine effort to solve a problem together. A city
exists to serve its community; residents should not have to fight their own city
to make a home safe and beautiful. That is the spirit in which I have brought
Councilmember Duff into this conversation, and it is the spirit in which I hope we can
move forward.
I am proceeding to the September 1 appeal, and I want the items above in writing so
that I can prepare properly and so that the City and I are working from the same
understanding of what was said and agreed. I look forward to receiving these promptly
along with all the other items noted in my July 22 official letter of complaint.
Sincerely,
Alicia Rodriguez
Phone:
Email:
@gmail.com
250 N. Center Street, Mesa, AZ 85201
On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 9:48 AM Alicia <
@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Ms. Kopaskie-Brown and Mr. Appiah,
Thank you, Ms. Kopaskie-Brown, for your note on July 23 letting me know the matter
would be reviewed. I'm writing to confirm the meeting and to raise one point for the
record.
First, the meeting. I understand from Heather Omta's email that Mr. Appiah asked to
schedule an in-person meeting to discuss 260 N. Center Street. I confirm that I will
attend on Monday, August 3 at 3:30 p.m., and I will be attending on my
own. Could you please send me the exact address and meeting location -- including
the building, floor or suite, and where I should check in when I arrive? I want to be
sure I come to the right place and on time. I have copied Heather Omta so the
location can be confirmed to me directly.
Second, the point for the record, which I raise without any wish to make it
contentious. That meeting request was sent to my husband, Sean, rather than to me.
Sean was intentionally left off my complaint and all related correspondence,
for the reasons I set out in Section VIII of my letter. I'll be candid that I was
disappointed to see the request routed to him. I am the sole author of this
complaint and its sole point of contact, and that was a deliberate choice. I
respectfully ask that all further correspondence on this matter, whether
scheduling or substantive, be directed to me at this email address, and not to
my husband. I will be the only person representing our household in this
matter.
I would also like to gently reiterate one item from my letter. My formal complaint and
request for a written response were sent on July 22, and I requested a written
response within fifteen business days, which falls on August 12. I note the date only
so that we are working from a shared understanding of the timeline. I remain hopeful
the August 3 meeting will move us well ahead of it.
I am looking forward to a productive, solutions-oriented conversation. As I mentioned
in my email, each week the inspection remains on hold carries a real cost for our
family, and my sincere hope is that we can use this meeting to find a path forward
together.
Thank you both. I will look for the meeting location and will see you on August 3.
Sincerely,
Alicia Rodriguez
Phone:
Email:
@gmail.com
250 N. Center Street, Mesa, AZ 85201
On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 7:32 AM Mary Kopaskie-Brown <Mary.Kopaskie-
Brown@mesaaz.gov> wrote:
Good morning Alicia
Thank you for your email.
We will have a look at this and get back to you.
Appreciate you reaching out!
Mary Kopaskie-Brown, AICP, OPPI, CIP│Planning Director
Tel: (480) 644-3850
55 N. Center St │ Mesa │ AZ │ 85201
Office Hours: M-Th 7am to 6pm | Closed Fridays & Holidays
The City of Mesa is located on the traditional lands of the O’Odham (Pima) and the Piipaash
(Maricopa)
need this resolved, and because I believe other residents are experiencing
the same difficulties we are.
I look forward to speaking with you soon, and I hope we can work this out together.
Sincerely,
Alicia Rodriguez
Phone:
Email:
@gmail.com
250 N. Center Street, Mesa, AZ 85201
Attachments:
- Formal letter re: 260 N. Center St (PMT26-01976) with and without signatures,
- Photographs of original property condition
- Latest version of front elevation submitted with direct view of newly proposed
porch
- Current photo of construction of front of house with new porch and pony wall
Front Elevation
Current Photo of the Home Under Construction
Prior State of the home with interior arches- details pulled through with the porch
for continuity inside and out
Rotted "Dog Ears"
Photo of the home rotted and abandoned for decades full of termites and asbestos
EXHIBIT 06
Unpermitted work (ADM25-00154) Historic
Preservation Office
From:
Matthew Kriegl
To:
John Sheffer
Subject:
RE: 260 N Center St - unpermitted work (ADM25-00154) Historic Preservation Office
Date:
Monday, July 13, 2026 3:07:00 PM
Attachments:
image001.png
image002.png
Thank you. Please let me know if you have any questions.
Matt
Matthew Kriegl
Historic Preservation Officer
City of Mesa | 480-644-2214
From: John Sheffer <John.Sheffer@MesaAZ.gov>
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2026 2:56 PM
To: Matthew Kriegl <Matthew.Kriegl@mesaaz.gov>
Cc: Kellie Rorex <Kellie.Rorex@MesaAZ.gov>; Meg Eaton <Meg.Eaton@mesaaz.gov>
Subject: RE: 260 N Center St - unpermitted work (ADM25-00154) Historic Preservation Office
Thanks, Matt. The inspector will follow up and verify the construction is per plan.
John Sheffer, PE, CBO │Deputy Director | Building Official
Tel: (480) 644-5879
john.sheffer@mesaaz.gov
55 N. Center St │ Mesa │ AZ │ 85201
Office Hours: M-Th 7am to 6pm | Closed Fridays & Holidays
From: Matthew Kriegl <Matthew.Kriegl@mesaaz.gov>
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2026 5:30 PM
To: John Sheffer <John.Sheffer@MesaAZ.gov>
Cc: Kellie Rorex <Kellie.Rorex@MesaAZ.gov>; Meg Eaton <Meg.Eaton@mesaaz.gov>
Subject: 260 N Center St - unpermitted work (ADM25-00154) Historic Preservation Office
Hi John,
It has come to our attention that the alterations at this residence are not following the
approved plans or Certificate of Appropriateness (COA). We have also had several
discussions with the owner that the newly proposed changes are not appropriate and would
not be approved. The owner has tried to get permits for work that was in violation of the COA,
but has been turned away. Mainly, these unapproved alterations include arches on the porch,
a wall along the front of the porch, and inappropriate trim in the gables. I visited the site and
saw the violations earlier this week. Please let me know if you have any questions of need any
additional information.
Thanks,
Matt
Matthew Kriegl
Historic Preservation Officer
City of Mesa | 480-644-2214
Monday – Thursday, 7am – 6pm
EXHIBIT 07
Inventory Form - 260 N Center St
EXHIBIT 08
260 N Center St (ADM25-00154) Approved
COA Correspondence
Looking forward to receiving the CoA and getting started . I appreciate all your
help
Thanks,
Sean Derek
On Jun 10, 2025, at 5:15 PM, Matthew Kriegl
<matthew.kriegl@mesaaz.gov> wrote:
Thank you Sean,
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.
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. In any case, when
historic features are damaged beyond repair, they should be replaced
in-kind, as these features help identify the structure with a particular
architectural style in history.
It is also important to ensure that the criteria, by which projects in
historic districts are evaluated, are equally applied and observed. See
the selected relevant criteria below:
<!--[if !supportLists]-->1. <!--[endif]-->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.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->2. <!--[endif]-->Distinctive
materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques
or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property
will be preserved.
<!--[if !supportLists]-->3. <!--[endif]-->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.
You have asserted that the material is damaged beyond repair and
needs to be replaced, and after our site visit, staff agrees. Based on
staff’s interpretation of in-kind, other (sometimes more durable)
materials are allowed to be used if the look is essentially the same as
what is being replaced. This will ensure that, at a minimum, the
historical look/feel of the building is retained, despite any loss of
historic material. Below is a photo of the home from the National
Register nomination (2002); the decorative gable feature is present
and even with the other previous alterations, the building was still
determined to contribute to the overall historic district.
Your project will be administratively approved on the stipulations
outlined within the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA). 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.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Matt
<image001.png>
Matthew Kriegl
Historic Preservation Officer
City of Mesa | 480-644-2214
From: DJ Sean Derek <
@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 5:57 PM
To: Matthew Kriegl <matthew.kriegl@mesaaz.gov>
Subject: Re: 260 N Center St (Project Description)
We would prefer not to have the gables as they serve no purpose
other than asthetics but if we have to replace every few years due to
weathering that is an expense we do not want to incur - we’re not
even sure they were fro been original build and weeee later added on
just like the windows
Thanks,
Sean Derek
On Jun 9, 2025, at 5:30 PM, Matthew Kriegl
<matthew.kriegl@mesaaz.gov> wrote:
Thank you Sean!
This is helpful. We need to ensure that that gable
treatment either remains intact or is replaced
appropriately. I will write it into the COA. Could you
please have the drawings updated to reflect these
alterations (and note that the new materials will be
replaced in-kind)? I will finish writing up the COA and the
civil engineers will review the project as well, so the must
accurate plans are necessary.
Thanks again!
Matt
Matthew Kriegl
Historic Preservation Officer
City of Mesa | 480-644-2214
From: Sean Derek
@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2025 4:38 PM
To: Matthew Kriegl <Matthew.Kriegl@mesaaz.gov>
Subject: Re: 260 N Center St (Project Description)
Hi Matt ,
Thanks for sending - please review and use my revision
Proposed work for this Certificate of Appropriateness
request includes abatement of the entire home (
interior – asbestos and lead paint). The existing
concrete flooring where rear addition will be built is
to be removed (with a new addition built in roughly
the same location). This addition will include a
second bathroom and third bedroom/office at the
back of the home. The existing roof shingles will be
replaced and structural elements of the roof will also
be repaired, as needed. The decorative dog-eared
wood elements in the gables will be possibly replaced
in-kind, if they can be found to be made with material
that will be weatherproof. The other existing wood
trim has not been properly maintained, is damaged,
and will be replaced in-kind. The existing stucco is
damaged and will be removed and replaced with new
smooth/ sand finish stucco. The existing windows
are not original and/or are damaged beyond repair.
This has allowed water infiltration and termite
damage and caused damage to the structure. These
existing window openings will be retained, repaired,
and reframed. New 1-over-1 sash windows will then
be installed in the original openings. New awning
windows will be installed in locations when sash
windows are not feasible, mainly in the addition and
at the rear. The front porch will be retained, but
extended out to 6 feet in depth and extended to the
north among the façade. New wood porch columns,
to match existing (square posts), will be installed to
support the revised porch design. A sliding glass
door will be installed on the north side elevation of
the original portion of the building. The front door
will also be replaced with a new wood door with the
same size and a similar look as existing. See
drawings for additional detail.
Hoping this will close out this process to receive our
CoA
Thanks for your help
Sean
On Mon, Jun 9, 2025 at 4:30 PM Matthew Kriegl
<Matthew.Kriegl@mesaaz.gov> wrote:
Hi Sean,
Below is the revised project description based on our
conversation last week. Please review and let me
know if this is accurate based on your plans. If it all
looks good, your plans may have to be updated for
accuracy and to reflect the true nature of the work.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Proposed work for this Certificate of
Appropriateness request includes abatement
of the entire home (exterior and interior –
asbestos and lead paint). The existing rear
addition will be removed and a new addition
will be constructed in roughly the same
location. This addition will include a second
bathroom and third bedroom/office at the back
of the home. The existing roof shingles will be
replaced and structural elements of the roof
will also be repaired, as needed. The
decorative dog-eared wood elements in the
gables will be retained or replaced in-kind, if
damaged beyond repair. The other existing
wood trim has not been properly maintained, is
damaged, and will be replaced in-kind. The
existing stucco is damaged and will be
removed and replaced with new smooth
stucco. The existing windows are not original
and/or are damaged beyond repair. This has
allowed water infiltration and caused damage
to the structure. These existing window
openings will be retained, repaired, and
reframed. New 1-over-1 sash windows will
then be installed in the original openings. New
awning windows will be installed in locations
when sash windows are not feasible, mainly in
the addition and at the rear. The front porch
will be retained, but extended out to 6 feet in
depth and extended to the north among the
façade. New wood porch columns, to match
existing (square posts), will be installed to
support the revised porch design. A sliding
glass door will be installed on the north side
elevation of the original portion of the building.
The front door will also be replaced with a new
wood door with the same size and a similar
look as existing. See drawings for additional
detail.
Thanks,
Matt
Matthew Kriegl
Historic Preservation Officer
City of Mesa | 480-644-2214
Monday – Thursday, 7am – 6pm
<image001.png>
<ADM25-00154 COA (260 N Center St).pdf>
EXHIBIT 09
Rodriguez Formal Complaint (260 N Center)
1
Alicia and Sean Rodriguez
250 N. Center Street, Mesa, Arizona 85201
Phone: 480-452-4999 | Email: Alicia.C.Romero@gmail.com
July 22, 2026
Mary Kopaskie-Brown, Planning Director
Nana Appiah, Director, Development Services Department
City of Mesa
55 N. Center Street, Mesa, Arizona 85201
RE: Formal complaint regarding the administration of the Certificate of Appropriateness process at 260 N. Center
Street, Mesa, AZ 85201 (Parcel 138-59-045); Permit Record PMT26-01976. Request for supervisory review,
comparative disparate-treatment analysis, and production of public records.
I. Why we are writing
We are Alicia and Sean Rodriguez. We own and live at 250 N. Center Street. We also own 260 N. Center Street, the
property immediately adjacent to our home. Over the past several years we have taken two deteriorated, hazardous,
and effectively abandoned structures in this district and invested our own capital, labor, and time restoring them. We
are not speculators. We live on this block. We have a direct and permanent stake in how it looks, how it functions,
and how safe it is.
Sean is also a proud City of Mesa employee. His commitment to this city is not limited to the two houses he has
restored on Center Street; he serves Mesa in his working life as well. We raise it here for two reasons: because it is
part of who we are and why we chose to invest where we live, and because it bears on Section VIII of this letter. To be
unambiguous: both of us submit this complaint solely in our private capacity as property owners and residents of
Mesa. It is prepared on our own time, without the use of any City resource, system, or work hour, and Sean's
employment has no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the permit application at issue.
This city is our home in the deepest sense. Alicia grew up in Mesa. Her mother has been a Mesa resident for more
than thirty years. We are raising our two daughters here. When we chose to take on two failing properties on Center
Street, we did it because this is where our roots are and where our family's future is -- not as a transaction, but as a
commitment to the place that raised us. That is what makes the treatment described in this letter so painful. We
came to this process expecting a partner in improving our own community. Instead, what we have experienced has
come to feel like harassment by the very city we are working to make better -- for our family, and for our two
daughters.
We are writing because the Historic Preservation Office's administration of our Certificate of Appropriateness has, in
our experience, been adversarial rather than collaborative; internally inconsistent with the City's own prior written
approvals; and, we believe, applied to us more restrictively than it has been applied to comparable properties owned
by others in Mesa's historic districts. We are among the few Latino families who own property in this district. We do
not make that observation lightly, and we are not asking you to take our word for it. We are asking the City to
produce the comparative record that will either substantiate our concern or refute it.
2
We want to be direct about what this letter is. It is a formal complaint. It is also a request that the City engage with us
on the merits, in writing, within a defined timeframe. We would strongly prefer to resolve this at your level.
II. The record
The following is drawn from the City's own correspondence, which we have retained in full and will provide on
request or in response to any proceeding.
June 9-10, 2025 -- Following a site visit, Historic Preservation staff agreed in writing that material at 260 N. Center
was damaged beyond repair. Staff further wrote that, under the Office's own interpretation of "in-kind," other
and sometimes more durable materials are permitted where the resulting appearance is essentially the same as
what is being replaced. Staff also wrote that extending the front porch would ensure the building's continued use
and functionality.
June 11, 2025 -- The City issued an approved Certificate of Appropriateness. That COA approved substantial new
work, including: extending the front porch to six feet in depth and extending it northward across the facade; new
wood porch columns; a new sliding glass door on the north elevation; complete replacement of all windows;
complete removal and replacement of the stucco; and a new front door.
Through late 2025 and early 2026 -- Abatement of asbestos and lead paint was completed. Termite infestation,
mold from the absence of bathroom ventilation, galvanized supply piping, and rotted framing were documented
and remediated. Electrical relocation and gas sleeving were approved.
January-March 2026 -- We documented repeated security incidents at the property: two individuals establishing
an encampment against the east elevation window; discarded beer cans, a broken box cutter, and human waste
at the front door; an individual standing in and walking through the courtyard; and a woman who entered from
the rear of the property, came to the front door, attempted to pry it open, and looked through its window. The
property sits directly across Center Street from the Mesa Convention Center and Amphitheatre, a City-owned
venue whose events generate substantial pedestrian traffic past and against our facade.
March 31 and April 2, 2026 -- We submitted revised plans incorporating a porch arcade and a low front wall, and
explained the security basis for both.
April 6, 2026 -- Staff denied the revision. Staff stated that adding features not originally present, based on
conjecture or preference, is inappropriate, and cited criteria drawn from the Secretary of the Interior's Standards
for Rehabilitation. Staff also directed that the dog-eared gable elements -- which were rotted through and
actively termite-infested, and which we had removed and discarded -- be reinstalled.
We are now being required to redraw and resubmit plans for a third time, at additional cost and delay, on a project
whose scope the City has already twice reviewed.
III. Where this review departs from the City's own criteria
The City's published Certificate of Appropriateness process states that staff review applications for consistency with
the Historic Preservation Ordinance, the design guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation. We have reviewed all three. We believe the denial misapplies them in four specific ways.
A. The "conjectural features" criterion has been applied to new construction it does not govern.
The criterion staff invoked -- that changes creating a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural
features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken -- is Standard 3. Standard 3 addresses
3
restoration: it prohibits fabricating features that a viewer would mistake for original historic fabric. It is not a
prohibition on new work.
New work is governed by Standards 9 and 10. Standard 9 requires that new additions and alterations be
differentiated from the old while remaining compatible in massing, size, scale, and architectural features. Standard 10
requires that new work be undertaken so that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the
historic property would be unimpaired.
A porch arcade and a low front wall, executed as visibly contemporary elements, are differentiated from the historic
fabric, compatible in scale with a modest 1940s bungalow, and fully reversible. They are precisely the category of
work Standards 9 and 10 contemplate. Treating them under Standard 3 collapses two distinct provisions of the
Standards and produces a denial the Standards do not require.
We would also correct a characterization. The exterior element in dispute is not an ornate archway. It is a set of
small, softly rounded edges on the porch openings -- a restrained, low-radius detail. Its purpose is architectural
continuity: it deliberately echoes the arched openings inside the home, giving the house a single coherent design
language from the street through to the interior. That is a considered design decision, not a conjectural historic
feature. A subtle rounded edge that no reasonable observer would mistake for an original 1940s element cannot
fairly be denied under a standard whose entire purpose is to keep viewers from being misled about what is and is not
historic.
B. The denial is inconsistent with the City's own approved COA on this same property.
The June 2025 COA approved extending the front porch six feet outward and northward across the facade, installing
new columns, cutting a new sliding glass door into the north elevation, replacing every window, and replacing all
exterior stucco. Every one of those is new work that did not exist on the 1940s structure.
If that work is compatible new construction -- and the City approved it as such -- then the profile of the openings on
that same new porch, and a low wall at the property line, fall in the identical category. The City cannot approve the
construction of a porch and then deny the shape of its openings as conjectural. We have asked for a reasoned
explanation of that distinction and have not received one.
C. The "in-kind" standard has been applied asymmetrically.
In June 2025, staff wrote that in-kind replacement permits other and sometimes more durable materials where the
look is essentially the same. We relied on that written interpretation. The gable elements were rotted through and
termite-infested; we removed them because they were a structural and pest liability, and because in this climate
they will fail again.
Requiring reinstallation of that same failure-prone detail, in the same vulnerable configuration, contradicts the
Office's own stated interpretation and guarantees a recurring maintenance and infestation cost that no reasonable
owner should be ordered to absorb. We have offered to execute the detail in a durable material at the same
appearance. That is what staff told us in writing was permitted.
D. Continued use and habitability -- the purpose the Standards exist to serve -- have been disregarded.
Standard 1 addresses the continued or new use of a property. Staff themselves wrote in June 2025 that the porch
extension would ensure the building's continued use and functionality. The security conditions we have documented
go directly to whether this house can be safely occupied.
We would add a point the City is well positioned to appreciate: the pedestrian volume against our facade is generated
in significant part by a City-owned event venue directly across the street. The City created the condition. We are
4
asking to mitigate it at our own expense, reversibly, with design that is compatible with the district. Denying that
mitigation while offering no alternative is not preservation. It is a refusal to problem-solve.
At no point in this process has the Historic Preservation Office proposed an alternative design that would satisfy
both our security needs and the review criteria. Staff have written that they are open to discussion. In practice, we
have received denials and citations to criteria, not solutions.
IV. Procedural concerns
1. Interference with the building inspection of 260 N. Center Street.
The assigned building inspector for 260 N. Center Street, Tyler Sessions, has been a constructive and professional
partner throughout this project. When issues arose, he worked with us in good faith to keep the work moving safely
and in compliance with code.
We understand that after Mr. Sessions engaged constructively on the project, the matter was escalated to his
manager, and the Historic Preservation team then directed that construction on our home be stopped and that our
scheduled inspection be cancelled. The stated reason was the porch -- specifically, the small pony wall we added for
security and the small rounded edges described above.
We want to be precise about why this concerns us. The Certificate of Appropriateness review authority, as
published by the City, is limited to the appropriateness of exterior alterations to designated historic resources. It is
not a building-safety or inspection function. Directing a building inspector to halt construction and cancel a code
inspection over an unresolved design disagreement appears to reach well beyond the scope of that authority, and
converts a design-review process into a work-stoppage tool. That is the definition of an abuse of process, and it has
caused us real financial harm through delay.
We have emails and communications documenting this sequence, and we will provide them. We are separately
requesting, in Section VI, the City's own records of every communication between the Historic Preservation Office and
building inspection staff regarding this property.
To be clear, we raise this in defense of the process, and not against Mr. Sessions, who acted properly and helpfully
throughout. Our concern is with the decision to use the inspection and code-enforcement function as leverage in a
design dispute.
2. Review timelines.
The City's published process commits staff to written comments within ten working days of application acceptance.
We ask for a written accounting of the elapsed review time on each of our submittals against that standard.
3. Absence of a written, applicable standard.
We have been told, in substance, that the presence of a given feature elsewhere in the district does not make it
appropriate here, because each property is evaluated individually. We accept that principle. But a standard applied
case by case, with no published criteria governing porches, walls, fencing, or security elements, and with no written
explanation of why a neighboring property received a different outcome, is not a standard. It is discretion. Discretion
without a documented basis is exactly the condition under which disparate treatment occurs, whether or not
anyone intends it.
We note that a former Mesa City Council member who was directly involved in establishing this office and its mission
has advised us that there is no single prescriptive design template for downtown Mesa, that the housing stock here
was never uniform, and that contacting an inspector's supervisor over a design disagreement would be improper.
5
V. Disparate treatment
We believe we are being held to a stricter and less flexible standard than other property owners in Mesa's historic
districts. We are stating that plainly because we believe it, and because we have now experienced it across two
separate properties and two separate multi-month permitting processes on this same block.
We are aware of properties within Mesa's historic districts that have arched porch openings, front walls, and two-
story accessory structures. We have attended public meetings on historic preservation matters and have heard other
property owners describe the same pattern: unclear criteria, shifting requirements, an inability to obtain a straight
answer, and a process in which the resident works for the department rather than the department serving the
resident.
We are not asking you to accept our conclusion. We are asking the City to produce the record. If the data show that
our applications have been treated consistently with everyone else's, we will say so. If the City declines to produce
the data, we will draw our own conclusions, and so will others.
Accordingly, we request that the Development Services Department conduct and provide in writing a comparative
review of Certificate of Appropriateness decisions in Mesa's historic districts over the past ten years, identifying: (a)
applications involving porches, arcades, arched openings, front or perimeter walls, fencing, and accessory
structures; (b) the disposition of each; (c) the stated basis for each approval or denial; and (d) the number of review
cycles and elapsed time to final decision for each.
VI. Public records request
Pursuant to A.R.S. section 39-121 et seq., we request copies of the following. We ask that these be produced in
electronic form and that any claimed exemption be identified with the specific statutory basis.
1. All Certificate of Appropriateness applications, staff comment letters, approvals, approvals with conditions,
and denials issued in any Mesa historic district or landmark overlay from January 1, 2016 to the present, including
property address and disposition.
2. All records reflecting approvals or denials of arched porch openings, arcades, front or perimeter walls, pony
walls, fencing, and detached two-story accessory structures within Mesa's historic districts during that period.
3. All internal and external communications, including email, text messages, and notes, referencing 250 N. Center
Street, 260 N. Center Street, parcel 138-59-045, permit record PMT26-01976, or either of our names.
4. All communications between the Historic Preservation Office and any building inspector, inspection
supervisor, or plan reviewer concerning either property.
5. Any written policy, guideline, training material, or internal guidance used by the Historic Preservation Office to
evaluate the features described in item 2.
6. All complaints, appeals, or grievances submitted to the City regarding the administration of the Certificate of
Appropriateness process during that period, together with their dispositions.
VII. What we are asking for
1. Supervisory review of the April 6, 2026 determination by someone other than the deciding staff member, with a
written decision addressing each of the four points in Section III.
6
2. A written explanation of the distinction between the new construction approved in the June 2025 COA and the
elements denied in April 2026.
3. Approval of the low front wall, or, if denied, a specific written alternative that provides equivalent separation
between our facade and the public sidewalk.
4. Confirmation in writing that the gable detail may be executed in a durable material at matching appearance,
consistent with the Office's own June 2025 interpretation of in-kind replacement.
5. Written confirmation of our appeal rights and, if we elect to exercise them, docketing of our appeal before the
Historic Preservation Board at the earliest available meeting.
6. Immediate rescission of any Historic Preservation directive to halt construction or withhold inspection at 260 N.
Center Street, prompt rescheduling of the cancelled inspection, and a written accounting of every communication
between Historic Preservation staff and building inspection staff regarding this property.
7. Reimbursement or waiver of the redesign and resubmittal costs occasioned by the reversal of a previously
approved scope.
We request a written response within fifteen (15) business days of the date of this letter.
VIII. Preservation of rights
We would prefer to resolve this with your department. We are also going to be candid about what follows if we
cannot.
Mesa's Non-Discrimination Ordinance, Title 6, Chapter 14 of the City Code, prohibits discrimination on the basis of
race, color, ethnicity, and national origin, and applies by its terms to City of Mesa facilities and employees.
Complaints are filed with the Office of the City Clerk within ninety days of the alleged act.
Separately, the City of Mesa participates in the Certified Local Government program and receives federal Historic
Preservation Fund monies passed through the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office -- including, we understand,
grant funding directed at the very ordinance revisions now before the Historic Preservation Board. Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. section 2000d, prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in
any program receiving federal financial assistance. The Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. sections 3604 and 3617, reaches
discriminatory land use and permitting decisions that affect housing; section 3617 independently makes it unlawful to
coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any person for having exercised a right protected by that Act, or for
having assisted others in doing so.
We are prepared to pursue each of these avenues. We have retained the complete documentary record of this
project -- every email, every plan set, every approval and every reversal -- and we will present it in full wherever it
needs to be presented.
One matter requires its own paragraph. Sean is a City of Mesa employee. This complaint is a written disclosure to a
public body, made in his private capacity as a resident and property owner, alleging what he reasonably believes to be
an abuse of authority and unequal application of the law by a City department. Under Arizona law, A.R.S. section 38-
532, it is a prohibited personnel practice for the City to take reprisal against an employee for such a disclosure, and
adverse action need not rise to termination -- a reprimand, a transfer, a change in duties, a negative review, or any
other adverse employment action taken in connection with this complaint would qualify. Should Sean experience any
adverse change in his employment following the submission of this letter, we will regard it as unlawful retaliation
and pursue every remedy available, including reinstatement, back pay, damages, and attorney fees. We would
7
prefer never to have cause to write that sentence again. We are stating it once, clearly, so that there is no ambiguity
on the record.
We also note that the City is at this moment revising both its Historic Preservation Code and its Design Guidelines,
with Historic Preservation Board consideration scheduled for August 4, 2026 and Planning and Zoning Board
consideration scheduled for August 26, 2026. We intend to participate in that process and to place this experience on
the public record there. We would much rather participate as constructive contributors than as complainants.
IX. Closing
We took two houses on this block that had been rotting for years -- unoccupied, unsafe, full of termites, lead paint,
and asbestos, the kind of properties that pull an entire street down with them -- and we brought them back. We
spent our own money. We did the work ourselves. Center Street is a more beautiful place to come home to
because of it, and the value we created did not stop at our property lines. It went to every neighbor on this block.
That is what makes this so difficult to accept. We did precisely what a city says it wants residents to do. The response
from this office has not been partnership. It has been obstruction, reversal, and a standard that appears to move each
time we meet it.
We are going to say the next part plainly, because we are past the point of softening it.
We believe we are being pushed out. These homes were not wanted by anyone when they were derelict. They are
very much wanted now that they are not. We are among the very few Latino families who own property in this
district, and we have now been through this same process twice, on two adjacent properties, with the same office,
and reached the same result both times: months of delay, shifting requirements, no alternatives offered, and
previously granted approvals reversed after we had already relied on them and spent the money.
If this is not resolved, we will take it through every part of this city that will hear it -- the Historic Preservation Board,
the Planning and Zoning Board, the City Council, the Human Relations Advisory Board, the public comment period on
the ordinance revisions now underway, and every neighborhood and community meeting we can reach. Alicia has
media relationships built over two decades of professional work, and she will use them. Not to settle a score, but
to ensure that what has happened to us is documented in public, and that the next family of color who buys a
home in a Mesa historic district does not walk into this process alone and unwarned.
And if it comes to that, we will sell. We will take two fully restored, highly desirable homes off this block, and we will
be direct with everyone who asks -- buyers, reporters, neighbors, and this Council -- about exactly why. The City of
Mesa should understand clearly what it stands to lose here, and the reason it would be losing it.
We do not want that outcome. We want to keep building here. We want Mesa -- the city that raised Alicia, the city
her mother has called home for more than thirty years, the city our two daughters are growing up in -- to be a place
our family is proud of, and we have spent years and a great deal of our own money trying to make that true on this
street. Instead, this process has made it a source of sustained stress, of unequal treatment, and of an exhaustion no
resident should feel as the reward for restoring two houses nobody else wanted.
We are asking the City of Mesa to do what it says it does: work with residents to preserve this history. We are
residents. We are asking.
We look forward to your written response.
Respectfully,
8
Alicia Rodriguez
Sean Rodriguez
cc:
Scott Butler, City Manager
Councilmember Jenn Duff, District 4
Mayor Mark Freeman and Members of the Mesa City Council
Office of the City Clerk, City of Mesa
Mesa Historic Preservation Board
Matthew Kriegl, Historic Preservation Officer
File
EXHIBIT 10
The Secretary of the Interior Standards for
Rehabilitation
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation
The Standards for Rehabilitation provide direction in making appropriate choices in
planning the repairs, alterations, and additions that may be part of a rehabilitation project.
The accompanying Guidelines apply the Standards and describe specific treatments that
do and do not meet the Standards. The Standards for Rehabilitation are codified in 36 CFR
Part 67, are regulatory for the Historic Preservation Tax Incentives program, and are the
Standards most often used by local historic district commissions nationwide.
The Standards for Rehabilitation are the criteria used to determine if a rehabilitation project
qualifies as a certified rehabilitation. The intent of the Standards is to assist the long-term
preservation of a property’s significance through the preservation of historic materials and
features. The Standards pertain to historic buildings of all materials, construction types,
sizes, and occupancy and encompass the exterior and the interior of historic buildings. The
Standards also encompass related landscape features and the building’s site and
environment, as well as attached, adjacent, or related new construction. To be certified, a
rehabilitation project must be determined by the Secretary to be consistent with the
historic character of the structure(s) and, where applicable, the district in which it is
located. The following Standards are to be applied to specific rehabilitation projects in a
reasonable manner, taking into consideration economic and technical feasibility.
1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that
requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site
and environment.
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of
historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property
shall be avoided.
3. 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 architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be
undertaken.
4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic
significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.
5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a historic property shall be preserved.
6. 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 other visual qualities and,
where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated
by documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to
historic materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if
appropriate, shall be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.
8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and
preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be
undertaken.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy
historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be
differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale,
and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its
environment.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in
such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the
historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation - Historic Preservation Tax
Incentives (U.S. National Park Service)