09 01 2026 Historic Preservation Board Meeting Minutes with presentation materials

HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD
MEETING MINUTES
September 1, 2026
The Historic Preservation Board of the City of Mesa met in the Study Session room at City Hall, 20 East
Main Street, on September 1, 2026, at 5:03 p.m.
BOARD PRESENT BOARD ABSENT STAFF PRESENT
James Babos, Chairperson None Meg Eaton
Sarah Prince, Vice Chairperson* Matthew Kriegl
Jason Ludwig Kellie Rorex
Bruce Nelson Kelly Whittemore
Jocelyn Skogebo*
Jeff Welker
(*Participated in the meeting through the use of video conference equipment)
Chairperson Babos conducted a roll call. Boardmember Ludwig arrived at 5:05 pm.
1. Approval of minutes of previous meetings as written.
Minutes from the Historic Preservation Board meeting held on July 7, 2026.
It was moved by Boardmember Nelson, seconded by Boardmember Welker, that the minutes from
July 7, 2026 Historic Preservation meeting be approved.
Upon tabulation of votes, it showed:
AYES – Babos–Prince–Nelson-Skogebo-Welker
NAYS – None
ABSENT–Ludwig
Chairperson Babos declared the motion carried unanimously.
2. Take action on the following case:
Appeal of a Denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness” (District 4). 260 N Center St., Appellant
is Alicia Rodriguez.
Chair Babos set presentation times to 10 minutes for staff, as well as the appellant.
Historic Preservation Officer, Matthew Kriegl presented staff’s recommendation to deny the
appeal for Case ADM26-00657 at 260 N Center St, a 1945 contributing resource in the West
Second Street Historic District. He stated the added porch arches, 34-inch pony wall, and
removal of dog-ear gable trim conflicted with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 1, 2, 3, 5,
and 6. These changes also alter the house’s early ranch-style character. (see attachment 1)

Historic Preservation Board Meeting
September 1, 2026
Page 2
In response to questions from Boardmember Welker, Mr. Kriegl replied that the approved
building permit showed the decorative dog-eared trim, batten gable, and the square porch
columns (attachment 1, page 6). He also confirmed the work is not consistent with either the
issued Certificate of Appropriateness or building permit.
Chairperson Babos inquired if the original house was stucco. Mr. Kriegl stated it was and the
applicant is now proposing to continue the stucco into the gable instead of replacing the
decorative dog-eared trim .
Mr. Kriegl confirmed for Boardmember Nelson that there is a variety of different styles of homes
scattered throughout this neighborhood and district. There is documented evidence that this was
a simple early ranch-style house. Staff feel it will be inappropriate to approve the requested
changes.
In response to Boardmember Nelson’s inquiry as to why staff denied the applicant’s request, Mr.
Kriegl shared that staff reviewed the original project by balancing historic appropriateness with
the building’s functional needs and allowed repairs to damaged areas. The owners requested an
extension of the porch because the original porch was too narrow and short to be functional, and
staff approved an extension that maintained the original simple wood-post character. However,
the owners later changed the porch design by adding arched features and a pony wall, altering
the historic character of the house. Staff noted that these changes make the early ranch-style
home resemble a Spanish Colonial or Mission Revival-style house, which is not historically
consistent with the original design.
Chairperson Babos inquired if the owner applied to get the additional changes approved. Mr.
Kriegl stated the original project was approved in June 2025, without these alterations. In July it
was noticed they had begun the additional alterations. The owner did eventually apply, and the
request was reviewed and denied as staff did not feel the additional changes were appropriate.
In response to Boardmember Welker’s question voting options for the Board, Deputy City
Attorney, Kelly Whittemore explained the voting process.
The appellant, Alicia Rodriguez Romero then presented her case for appeal of the denial of three
exterior details on her property, arguing they comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.
Stating that the gable features, low pony wall, and rounded porch edges do not alter the home’s
footprint or character-defining features and were all built to be fully reversible. The original gable wood
was removed during abatement, leaving no historic material, and the wall and rounded edges attach
only to new framing previously approved by the city in 2025. She explained that many of the standards
cited by staff apply only to historic material, but the elements in question are new construction governed
by Standards 9 and 10, which the city previously marked consistent. Ms. Rodriguez Romero
emphasized that the city approved substantial new exterior work on this house in 2025, making the
disputed features part of that modern construction rather than historic fabric. She also noted that the
city’s assumption about original trim is based solely on one photo from 2002 without evidence it existed
in 1945. The rounded edges are drawn from original interior arch shapes documented in a third-party
appraisal, making them consistent with the home’s existing character and with similar forms in the
neighborhood. Ms. Rodriguez Romero stressed the family’s safety concerns and the need for the small
wall to provide privacy on a busy, modernized street. She concluded that the standards should be
applied consistently with the approvals allowed on her neighboring 1945 home and asks the Board to
reverse the denial. (see attachment 2)

Historic Preservation Board Meeting
September 1, 2026
Page 3
In response to Boardmember Welker’s questions, Ms. Rodriguez Romero explained she added
the pony wall to help with safety concerns due to previous SWAT visits. She went on to explain
that the front gable was removed due to asbestos, mold and termites. The gable is completely
bare and prepared for the next stages. Her request is to continue the stucco all the way up the
front of the home and not to replace with like for like.
Chairperson Babos compared the home in question with the home next door, also owned by the
appellant. He suggested using synthetic materials to replicate the dog-eared trim which would be
low maintenance. He felt the requested stucco would completely change the character as the
dog-eared trim is a defining feature of this home. He felt two homes should look different
because they have different aesthetics .
In response to Chairperson Babos’ suggestion of a fence rather than the added pony wall, Ms.
Rodriguez Romero stated the home currently has a fence near the sidewalk.
Ms. Rodriguez Romero presented her closing comments stating she is not seeking special
treatment, but rather consistent application of the city’s Historic Preservation standards. She
questioned the city’s reliance on a 2002 photograph to establish that the gable trim was
historically original and pointed to the neighboring house, built the same year, as an example of
different treatment under similar standards. Ms. Rodriguez Romero also argued that the
proposed materials are appropriate because the house has documented termite damage and the
city’s standards require consideration of economic and technical feasibility. Regarding the wall
and porch, she maintained that these are new construction rather than historic features and that
the city previously found the applicable standards consistent, without fully analyzing them in the
staff report. The wall is needed for safety and privacy concerns, including traffic and trespassing
on Center Street. Ms. Rodriguez Romero asked the city to create clearer guidance for future
homeowners restoring historic properties and emphasized her family’s history in Mesa and
previous successful restoration of a neighboring historic home. She respectfully asked the Board
to reverse the denial and approve all three requested items.
The Board discussed preservation standards and the property’s character ultimately focusing on
preserving the house’s specific historic character rather than matching the neighboring property.
It was moved by Boardmember Welker, seconded by Boardmember Ludwig to deny the Appeal
and uphold the decision of the Historic Preservation Officer.
Upon Tabulation of votes, it showed:
AYES – Babos–Prince–Ludwig-Skogebo-Welker
NAYS – Nelson
ABSENT–None
Chairperson Babos declared the motion carried 5 -1.
3. Discuss and make recommendations to City Council regarding the following amendments:
3-a. Amendments to Chapters 23, 44, 66, 74, and 87 of Title 11, Zoning Ordinance, of the Mesa
City Code, pertaining to Historic Preservation Overlays, Historic Signs, the Historic
Preservation Board, and Historic District and Historic Landmark procedures. The
amendments include, but are not limited to: repealing in its entirety Chapter 23 (Historic and
Landmark Overlay Districts), Chapter 74 (Historic District and Historic Landmark
Procedures), and Chapter 44 (Historic Signs) and replacing these three chapters with a new
Chapter 74 (Historic Preservation Procedures); modifying Section 11-66-4 (Historic
Preservation Board); and modifying Chapter 87 (Definitions) by adding a definitions for

Historic Preservation Board Meeting
September 1, 2026
Page 4
Certificate of Appropriateness, Historic District, Historic Landmark, Historic Preservation
Overlay, Historic Resource, Historically Designated Sign, State of Disrepair.
Mr. Kriegl presented proposed text amendments for historic preservation chapters of the
Mesa Zoning Ordinance, including consolidation into a comprehensive Chapter 74, clarified
review procedures, historically designated signs, and archaeological resource provision. (see
attachment 3)
In response to Boardmember Welker, Mr. Kriegl confirmed prior public feedback has been
incorporated.
It was moved by Boardmember Nelson, seconded by Boardmember Ludwig to approve a
recommendation that the City Council adopt the proposed Mesa Zoning Ordinance text
amendments.
Upon Tabulation of votes, it showed:
AYES – Babos–Prince–Ludwig-Nelson-Skogebo-Welker
NAYS – None
ABSENT–None
Chairperson Babos declared the motion carried unanimously.
3-b. Amendments to the Mesa Historic Preservation Design Guidelines that include but are not
limited to Certificates of Appropriateness; Restoration, Rehabilitation, Additions, and New
Construction Projects; Historic Districts and Landmarks; and Historic Building Types and
Architectural Styles.
Mr. Kriegl presented updates to the Mesa Historic Preservation Design Guidelines originally
created in 1996 and updated in 2001. The draft covers certificates of appropriateness,
preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, additions, new construction, signage, and
architectural styles. Mr. Kriegl explained that staff feel the changes will modernize the
document, align it with Mesa’s expanded preservation program, and make it searchable as a
digital resource. He explained that staff is requesting flexibility to continue to revise historical
context language in Chapter 7 and Appendix E, including tribal and heritage neighborhood
content before City Council review. (see attachment 4)
In response to Boardmember Nelson’s statements regarding the importance of events, not
just architecture when considering preservation, Mr. Kriegl stated there has been a shift in
what people consider historic and cultural heritage now.
Chairperson Babos inquired if there is a timeline for making revisions. Mr. Kriegl explained
staff will be regrouping to figure out the schedule for the requested revisions to the Historical
context language, many of which are related to tribal history. He also clarified the actual
Design Guidelines will not be changing as part of requested revisions.
It was moved by Chairperson Babos, seconded by Boardmember Welker to approve a
recommendation that the City Council adopt the updated Mesa Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines with additional historical context and Heritage Neighborhood language that will be
added to Chapter 7 and Appendix E.
Upon Tabulation of votes, it showed:

Historic Preservation Board Meeting
September 1, 2026
Page 5
AYES – Babos–Prince–Ludwig-Nelson-Skogebo-Welker
NAYS – None
ABSENT–None
Chairperson Babos declared the motion carried unanimously.
4. Hear reports from Board Members of current events and education topics related to historic
preservation*:
There were no updates on this item from Board members.
5. Items from citizens present**:
No citizens requested to speak.
6. Historic Preservation Officer’s Updates*:
Mr. Kriegl shared the following items:
• Staff is currently reviewing applications for a new board member to replace Boardmember
Parsons who recently needed to resign as she moved out of Mesa. Please direct any potential
candidates to the City Clerk’s office.
• The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) voted on July 24, 2026, to advance a
proposed sweeping rewrite of the regulations (36 CFR Part 800) implementing Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act. Mr. Kriegl then shared a summary of the proposed changes,
proposed timeline, and the potential impact.
• The 2027 Historic Preservation Student Art & Essay Contest will take place on Saturday May 1,
2027, and will be held at Falcon Field Airport. The Board was encouraged to start thinking about
potential topics revolving around Mesa and its contribution to aviation. Topics are expected to be
discussed and voted upon at the October 6, 2026 HPB meeting.
7. Adjourned.
Without objection, the Historic Preservation Board adjourned at 6:51 p.m.
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Historic
Preservation Board meeting of the City of Mesa, Arizona, held on 1st day of September, 2026. I
further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present.
JAMES BABOS, CHAIRPERSON
DMD
(Attachments – X)

Agenda Item: 2-a
Meeting
Board Historic Preservation Board
Preservation 2026 1, 1 Consider an appeal of the Historic
Historic September Attachment 22 of 1 Preservation Officer’s denial of a
Page Certificate of Appropriateness at
260 N Center St. (ADM26-00657)
HPB – September 01, 2026

Appeal of ADM26-00657
260 N Center St
Meeting
Property & Project Background
Board
2026 260 N Center St. is located within the West Second Street
Preservation 1, 1 22 Historic District
September Attachment of 2 Constructed in 1945, this Early Ranch house is a contributing
Historic Page resource to the District
The applicant received a Certificate of Appropriateness
(COA) for a substantial rehabilitation in June 2025

Appeal of ADM26-00657
260 N Center St
Meeting Location Map
Board
Preservation 2026 1, 1 22
Historic September Attachment of 3 Page

Appeal of ADM26-00657
260 N Center St
Meeting
Board
Preservation 2026 1, 1
22 of
Historic September Attachment 4 Page
Original Condition of House

Appeal of ADM26-00657
260 N Center St
Meeting
What Was Originally Approved?
Board
2026 2025 Certificate of Appropriateness approval included:
Preservation 1, 1 22 Substantial rehabilitation to make the residence safe,
September Attachment of 5 habitable, and functional
Historic Page
Replacement of damaged or deteriorated materials where
necessary
Extension and deepening of the front porch
New square wood columns matching the existing posts
Retention and repair or replacement of character-defining
features, including the dog-ear gable trim

Appeal of ADM26-00657
260 N Center St
Meeting
Board
Preservation 2026 1, 1 22
Historic September Attachment of 6 Page

Appeal of ADM26-00657
260 N Center St
Meeting
Review Process & Appeal
Board
2026 March 2026: Staff began discussing the proposed modifications
Preservation 1, 1 with the applicant and explained that a new COA would be
22 of required.
Historic September Attachment 7
Page July 2026: Staff became aware that work beyond the approved
COA was underway and notified building officials.
August 2026: The applicant submitted an application seeking to
retain the unpermitted work, which was denied by the Historic
Preservation Officer on August 10.
August 12, 2026: The applicant appealed the decision.

Appeal of ADM26-00657
260 N Center St
Meeting
Proposed Modifications
Board
2026 The applicant proposes to:
Preservation 1, 1 22 Add framed arches between the front porch columns
Historic September Attachment of 8 Construct a 34-inch-tall pony wall between the porch
Page
columns
Remove the existing dog-ear gable trim and replace it
with stucco
These changes go beyond repair or replacement of
deteriorated material and alter the building’s exterior design

Appeal of ADM26-00657
260 N Center St
Meeting
Applicable Review Criteria
Board
2026 Mesa Zoning Ordinance requires COA decisions to be based
Preservation 1, 1 on compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s
22 of Standards for Rehabilitation
Historic September Attachment 9
Page The proposal was determined to be inconsistent with
Standards 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6
The City’s Historic Preservation Design Guidelines also
provide applicable guidance for evaluating alterations to
historic properties

Appeal of ADM26-00657
260 N Center St
Meeting
Board
Preservation 2026 1, 1 22
September Attachment of 10 The Secretary of Interior Standards
Historic Page for Rehabilitation

Appeal of ADM26-00657
260 N Center St
Meeting
Standard 1 : Minimal Change
Board
2026 The proposed alterations introduce additional changes to distinctive
Preservation 1, 1 22 features and spatial relationships that are not required for continued
September Attachment of 11 residential use
Historic Page The approved 2025 COA already provides for substantial rehabilitation
needed to make the residence safe, habitable, and functional
Arches and a pony wall would alter the configuration and character of
the front porch
Removing the dog-ear gable trim eliminates an existing distinctive
feature
These changes go beyond the minimal change contemplated by Standard 1

Appeal of ADM26-00657
260 N Center St
Meeting
Standard 2 : Historic Character
Board
2026 The house derives much of its character from:
Preservation 1, 1 22 Its simple form and modest scale
of
Historic September Attachment 12 Restrained architectural detailing
Page
Its straightforward, open front porch
Distinctive gable detailing
The proposed arches, pony wall, and removal of the dog-ear
gable trim would collectively alter the character of the primary
elevation.

Appeal of ADM26-00657
260 N Center St
Meeting
Standards 3 and 5 : Historic Features and Design
Board
2026 Standard 3 : The proposed arches and pony wall are not supported by
Preservation 1, 1 22 evidence that these features historically existed on this property.
of
Historic September Attachment 13 Page Standard 5 : Distinctive features and craftsmanship that characterize the
property should be preserved.
The dog-ear gable trim is an existing distinctive feature
The simple porch design is also an important element of the
property's character

Appeal of ADM26-00657
260 N Center St
Meeting
Standard 6 : Repair & Replacement
Board
Standard 6 : Deteriorated features may be repaired or replaced, but
Preservation 2026 1, 1 22 replacement should retain the historic feature's design and character
September Attachment of 14 Dog-ear gable trim: Replacing the existing dog-ear trim with flat
Historic Page stucco eliminates the existing architectural feature rather than
replacing it with a matching feature
Porch columns/posts: Replacing a deteriorated square post with a
compatible square post is consistent with Standard 6; changing the
porch design to incorporate arched openings is not simply material
replacement
The approved COA allows deteriorated materials to be replaced with
compatible materials

Appeal of ADM26-00657
260 N Center St
Meeting
Board
Preservation 2026 1, 1 22
Historic September Attachment of 15
Page
Current Condition of House

Appeal of ADM26-00657
260 N Center St
Meeting Dog-Eared Trim
Removed
Board
Preservation 2026 1, 1 22
of
Historic September Attachment 16
Page
Newly
Constructed
Pony wall

Appeal of ADM26-00657
260 N Center St
Meeting
Board
Preservation 2026 1, 1 22
of
Historic September Attachment 17
Page
Newly Installed
Arches at Porch
Columns
Current Condition of House

Appeal of ADM26-00657
260 N Center St
Meeting
The 2025 COA Already Allows Substantial Change
Board
Approved:
Preservation 2026 1, 1 22 Substantial rehabilitation
of Replacement of deteriorated materials
Historic September Attachment 18 Page New windows and doors
Expanded front porch
Rear addition
Additional changes now proposed:
Removal of dog-ear gable trim
Addition of pony wall
Arched porch openings

Appeal of ADM26-00657
260 N Center St
Meeting
Board
Preservation 2026 1, 1 22
of
Historic September Attachment 19
Page
Original Condition of House Current Condition of House

Appeal of ADM26-00657
260 N Center St
Meeting
Staff Recommendation
Board
The proposed arches, pony wall, and removal of the dog-ear
Preservation 2026 1, 1 22 gable trim are inconsistent with MZO and Secretary of the
of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6
Historic September Attachment 20
Page The proposed modifications would substantially alter the
architectural character of the primary elevation
Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Board DENY
the appeal and UPHOLD the decision of the Historic
Preservation Officer

Appeal of ADM26-00657
260 N Center St
Meeting
Board
Preservation 2026 1, 1 22 of Questions & Discussion
Historic September Attachment 21 Page

Appeal of ADM26-00657
260 N Center St
Meeting
Board
Preservation 2026 1, 1 22
of
Historic September Attachment 22
Page
250 N Center St (2002) 260 N Center St (2002)

APPEAL OF CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS DENIAL
260 N. Center Street
Mesa, Arizona 85201 I West Second Street Historic District I Built 1945
Permit Record PMT26-01976 I Appeal of COA Case ADM26-006S7
Presented to the Historic Preservation Board • September 1, 2026
Appellant: Alicia Rodriguez, Owner
@gmail.com

WHAT WE ARE ASKING THE BOARD TO DO
One fair request
We are appealing the denial of three small, non-structural, fully reversible details on our home at 260 N. Center. Measured against the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards and the City's own Certificate of Appropriateness for this property, none of the three should have been denied. We ask the Board to
reverse the denial on all three .
• The dog-ear gable trim. Approve durable stucco in place of failure-prone wood - exactly the "similar more durable material" the COA
already permits.
The low pony wall. Approve the wall - 34 inches tall (under three feet) and 13 ft 6 in long, fixed to the new posts, not the original home,
• and fully reversible. It provides the safety and privacy our family needs from the street. The COA itself notes the district's shift "from a rural
community to suburban estates"; today Center Street is a h igh-traffic route into downtown Mesa. The wall answers the traffic of 2026, not
the quiet 1945 frontage that no longer exists .
• The rounded porch edges. Approve the couple-inch curves that echo the home's own interior arches - differentiated, compatible, and
reversible.
Three small, reversible details - each cons istent with the Standards, the City's own COA, and the character of this district.
260 N. Center St I PM126-01976 I HPO Appeal I Historic Preservation Board I September 1, 2026 2

PURPOSE OF REQUEST
Three sillall details - see how Illodest they are
Wood gables removed Low pony wall Softly rounded porch edges
Removed entirely out of necessity - unsalvageable Just 34 inches tall (under three feet) and 13 ft 6 in long A radius of only a few inches on the porch openings -
per the prior owner's appraisal (termites, water, - fixed to the new posts, not the original home, and not an ornate archway. They echo the arches inside
abatement). The approved wall stucco is carried up to fully reversible. Safe ty and privacy from the street. the home.
cover the whole area - no wood gables remain.
Matches 250 next door.
Approved wall stucro carried up where the wood gables were. Measured: 34 inches - hip height, under three feet. The curve spans only a few inches- subtle by design.
None changes the footprint, the roofline, or any character-defining historic feature of the house.
260 N. Center St I PM126-01976 I HPO Appeal I Historic Preservation Board I September 1, 2026 3

PURPOSE OF REQUEST
Froill derelict and dangerous to restored
IN PROGRESS
I
Sealed for asbestos abatement. Failed stucco, rotted gable trim, and a home the Abated, reframed, new windows, new porch. The three items in dispute are visible here: the
appraisal flagged as hazardous and unlivable. porch with its rounded openings, and the low pony wall beneath the right window.
260 N. Center St I PM126-01976 I HPO Appeal I Historic Preservation Board I September 1, 2026 4

Summary of staff concerns and our responses
Each of the three items, measured against the City's own approvals and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards.

THE STANDARDS THE DENIAL RELIES ON
The cited standards do not hold
STAFF POSITION OUR RESPONSE
The denial rests on Mesa Zoning Ordinance 11-74-3(() and five Every one turns on a single assumption: that these features are original, essential,
Secretary of the Interior's Standards - 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 - applied to Ranch-style character. They are not. The porch elements are new work - and the
all three items. June 2025 COA already marked Standards 9 and 10 "Consistent" for this project. The
dog-ear trim is atypical of the Ranch style the City itself assigned. Read correctly,
these standards do not prohibit this work - the next slide answers each in tum.
ON THE RECORD: The 260 COA (June 11, 2025) marked Standard 3 "Consistent" for this very project. The April denial reverses the City's own finding on the same permit.
Source: Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation - U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Technical Preservation Services: Mesa Zoning Ordinance§ 11-74-3/C)
Applied in the City's own record: the same Standards are reproduced and checked in the City"s Certificate of Appropriateness for 260 N. Center, June 11, 2025.
260 N. Center St I PM126-01976 I HPO Appeal I Historic Preservation Board I September 1, 2026 6

ANSWERING EACH STANDARD STAFF CITED
The five standards, answered
Staff cited Standards 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 (August 5). Here is our answer to each - grounded in the City's own records and the Standards' own text.
Us: Standard 1 is about keeping the home in livable use. Staff themselves wrote the porch
Std 1 - continued use Staff: Says the porch's simple design is defining, so it can't change.
extension 'ensures continued use.' Our safety wall and porch serve that exact purpose.
Us: A Ranch home's character is minimal or namentation - not applied trim. The porch
Std 2 - retain character Staff: Says the dog-ears and simple porch characterize the property.
elements are new work, and the trim is atypical of the style the City assigned.
Us: The City marked Standard 3 'Consistent' on this same permit in June 2025. Arches are
Std 3 - no conjectural features Staff: Says arches/wall create a false sense of history.
pervasive district contributors (City's own list). A couple-inch curve misleads no one.
Us: Rotted, termite-eaten trim of questionable origin, absent elsewhere in the district, is
Std 5 - preserve craftsmanship Staff: Says the dog-ear trim is distinctive craftsmanship.
not the distinctive craftsmanship this standard protects.
Us: Standard 6 perm its replacement where deterioration requires it - and the COA itself
Std 6 - repair vs. replace Staff: Says deteriorated features should be repaired or matched in-kind. allows 'a similar more durable material.' The wood was beyond repair; the appraisal
documents it.
Key point: in June 2025 the City marked Sta ndards 3, 9, and 10 "Consistent'' for this very project. The April denial reverses the City's own findings on the same permit.
260 N. Center St I PM126-01976 I HPO Appeal I Historic Preservation Board I September 1, 2026 7

THE RECORD CONTRADICTS THE DENIAL
The City already approved Illajor new work here
On this exact house, the June 11, 2025 Certificate of Appropriateness - signed by the Historic Preservation Officer - approved substantial NEW
construction:
APPROVED 6-foot front porch extension, extended north across the APPROVED New wood porch columns
fa,;:ade
APPROVED New sliding glass door cut into the north elevation APPROVED Complete replacement of every window
APPROVED Complete replacement of all exterior stucco APPROVED New front door
The question staff has not answered: If all of that is compatible new construction - and the City approved it as such - how are the profile of that
same porch's edges, and a low wall at the property line, suddenly "conjectural"? The City cannot approve building the porch and then deny the shape
of its openings.
260 N. Center St I PM126-01976 I HPO Appeal I Historic Preservation Board I September 1, 2026 8

THE BENCHMARK - NEXT DOOR, SAME ERA, ALREADY APPROVED
250 N. Center: the City's own precedent
We own 250 N. Center, immediately adjacent. The City approved its Certificate of Appropriateness (Case ADM23-00081) on April 5, 2023. Same 1945 build, same block,
same district - with the arched porch openings and low front wall the City is now denying at 260.
Arched porch openings at 250 - the same softly rounded form proposed at 260.
250 (approved) 260 (denied)
Year built 1945 1945
District West Second St. West Second St.
Status Contributor Contributor
250 N. Center -front eleva tion. Arched porch openings and a low front wall, both City­
approved. Arched openings+ low wall Approved Denied
260 N. Center St I PM126-01976 I HPO Appeal I Historic Preservation Board I September 1, 2026 9

THE LOW PONY WALL - SAFETY
A safety wall at a public edge that has changed
STAFF POSITION OUR RESPONSE
Staff directed removal of the pony wall as inconsistent with the historic 34 inches tall (under three feet) and 13 ft 6 in long; hip height, does not enclose the porch. It is
character of the property. fixed to the new porch posts, not the original 1945 wal Is - fully removable without touching the
historic structure. The street this house faced in 1945 is not the street of 2026: it now carries
heavy foot traffic to downtown and the Mesa Amphitheatre, feet from our windows. The wall -
with the porch - restores basic safety and privacy for the people inside.
1945 vs. 2026: the COA itself describes the district's transformation "from a rural community to suburban estates." Center Street is now a high-traffic route into downtown Mesa, feet
[
from our windows. A modest safety wall answers the 2026 street, not the quiet 1945 frontage that no longer exists.
DOCUMENTED SAFETY INCIDENTS AT 260 N. CENTER
THE POINT
The safety of this home has been repeatedly
compromised. 250 N. Center - same 1945
block - already has a City-approved low
wall. We ask only for the same protection
next door.
Trespasser our camera caught inside the property - who then defecated on our yard. Sources: Built 1945; district period of significance 1883-19S9 (City of Mesa COA, 260 N. Center, AOM25-00154, June 11, 2025). Mesa Amphitheatre, 263 N. Center st. - across
Timestamped 12:28 PM. from the property - copocity4,950, on the aty-owned Mesa Convention Center campus (visitmeso.cam). center/Main st. light roil opened one block away, 2015 (Valley Metro).
260 N. Center St I PM126-01976 I HPO Appeal I Historic Preservation Board I September 1, 2026 10

THE GABLE DOG-EARS
Wood gables reilloved - approved stucco carried up
STAFF POSITION OUR RESPONSE
Staff calls the dog-ear gable t rim a defining, likely-original feature The wood gable elements could not be salvaged - removed out of necessity to remediate termites, water
intrusion, and asbestos/lead, per the prior owner's appraisa I and the City's own COA. We did not "finish" a
(Standards 2, 5, 6) and directs it be retained or replaced in-kind - wood gable: the wood was removed entirely and the approved wa II stucco is carried up to cover the whole
reading "in-kind" to require reinstalling wood. area - no wood gables remain. Wood here would fail again in the heat and burden any future occupant.
THE COA ALREADY ANSWERS THIS: the same COA approves "new smooth/sand finish stucco" across the home AND permits the gables in "a similar more durable material." And staffs "original" claim rests on a 2002 National
Register photo - which the HP Officer's own June 10, 2025 email calls "a photo from the National Register nomination (2002)" - proving presence in 2002, not origin in 1945.
1 - Atypical for the style 2 - Removed out of necessity 3 - Wood fails; stucco endures
The City's own COA classifies 260 as "a modest example of the The wood was unsalvageable. It was removed to remediate The City's own COA documents this structure suffered "water
Ranch style." Ranch architecture is defined nationally by clean documented termites, water intrusion, and asbestos/lead infiltration and termite damage." Exposed wood lasts only 3-7
lines and minimal exterior ornamentation. Decorative dog-ear abatement - required to make the home safe and habitable. years here. Stucco - approved across this home in the same
gable trim is not characteristic of a 1945 Ranch home - and in A neutral third-party appraisal (prior owner Heather Kearns) COA, and used at 250 next door- is the durable material that
walking our district, we found no other home with this detail. documents the damage. There was nothing to preserve. survives our climate.
The unsalvageable trim we had to remove - documented as
"DAMAGED WOOD TRIM" by the prior owner's independent
appraisal (Heather Kearns, File 296141133), obtained as part of
the sale. This is what exposed desert wood becomes.
Sources: The City's own COA {Attachment 1} states the structure suffered •water infiltration and termite damage.• 260 classified "RantJstyle" - aty of Mesa COA ADM2 5 -00154 (lune 11, 2025). Ranch style defined by minimal ornamentation - National Park Service and state historic­
preservation design guidelines. Untreated exterior wood lasts 3-7 years in hot, dry climates; UV, checking, and termites are primary failure modes - building-science literature.
260 N. Center St I PM126-01976 I HPO Appeal I Historic Preservation Board I September 1, 2026 11

THE ROUNDED PORCH EDGES
A restrained detail, drawn froill the hoille itself
STAFF POS IT ION O U R R ESPONSE
Staff treated the rounded porch edges as conjectural - an inven ted They are a couple of inches of curve - not an archway - deliberately echoing the large
historic feature. arched openings already inside the home. It is one coherent design language, inside and out.
No observer would mistake them for an original 1940s feature, which is exactly why Standard
3 does not apply.
[TR ULY REVERSIBLE (STANDARD 10): the rounded openings and the low wall are fixed to the new porch posts, not the original 1945 walls. If ever removed, the historic structure is untouched -
the exact test Standards 9 & 10 set for new work.
INSIDE - large arched openings OUTSIDE - a subtle echo
Bold, sweeping arches - the home's defining interior character. The porch: only a small rounded corner at each opening - plus the low wall and the shared arched gate
to 250. Restrained by design.
260 N. Center St I PM126-01976 I HPO Appeal I Historic Preservation Board I September 1, 2026 12

COMPARABLE PROPERTIES - MAPPED ACROSS THE DISTRICT
Arches surround 260 N. Center
.a;..
University Dr W University D W University D EL
"' C: ""C What the map shows
'i: 0 "' «s
0 _Q C:
W 3rd Pl 0 0 ' 260 N. Center is not an outlier. Contributing homes
z 0:: with arches sit on every surrounding block -
z
Macdonald, Robson, and 2nd Street - a short walk in
C:
0 every direction.
'­ca
_Q
...I a, 0 t
z
....
2nd St 0 W2nd St
...
"i: C The point
r... 0 Cl)
_ ,,,---- - ---"-=---____._.._L',,sa Po I ice Department z A feature this common across the district - including
* 260 N Center (subject) on our own home next door - is part of the district's
0 character, not a "conjectural" invention on ours.
• Arches confirmed (photo)
Q Arch-defining style (City list)
West Second Street Historic District
, _________ ___., W 1st St W 1st St El
Base map: Google Maps. Markers plotted by the appelfont; green =arches confirmed by photo,
gold= aty-cfassified arch-defining style.
260 N. Center St I PM126-01976 I HPO Appeal I Historic Preservation Board I September 1, 2026 13

COMPARABLE PROPERTIES - ARCHES ACROSS THE DISTRICT
Arches are established in this district
Arched openings appear throughout the West Second Street Historic District - on contributing homes the City itself classifies as Mission Revival, Spanish Eclectic, and Tudor
Revival, and on our own home. A feature the City recognizes across the district cannot be "conjectural" on ours.
148 N Macdonald 136 W2nd St 216 N Macdonald 250 N Center (ours)
Mission Revival contributor (ID 191) Spanish Eclectic contributor (ID 153) Tudor Revival contributor (ID 158) City-approved arches+ wall (slide 9)
260 N. Center St I PM126-01976 I HPO Appeal I Historic Preservation Board I September 1, 2026 14

THE CITY'S OWN CONTRIBUTING-PROPERTY LIST
An eclectic district built on arches
This is not our characterization - it is the City's. Its official West Second Street list classifies these contributors as Spanish Eclectic, Mission, Pueblo, and Spanish Revival:
styles defined by the arch. The City has already recognized these features as appropriate to the district.
National Register ID Address Built Architectural Style
191 148 N Macdonald 1906 Mission Revival
153 136 W 2nd St 1940-1946 Spanish Eclectic
150 215 N Robson St 1932 Spanish Eclectic
156 204 N Macdonald 1931 Spanish Eclectic
190 128 N Macdonald 1915 Spanish Revival
165 46 W 2nd St 1928 Pue blo Revival
158 216 N Macdonald 1935-1940 Tudor Revival
178 250 N Center (ours) c.1945 National Folk - arches+ wall approved
Source: City of Mesa Historic Preservation, West Second Street Historic District Contributing & Non-Contributing Property List (updated 11/07/2024). All properties above are City-designated contributors to the district.
260 N. Center St I PM126-01976 I HPO Appeal I Historic Preservation Board I September 1, 2026 15

Our request, in one sentence
Read correctly, the Standards and the City's own COA support all three
details. Apply them as consistently here as you did next door - and
approve our three small, reversible items.
We are not asking for special treatment - only a clear rule, applied to us the way it is applied to everyone else, including at our own home
next door.
We restored two 1945 homes on this block at our own expense. We want to finish 260 safely and keep it in the district we love.
Tha11kyou.
260 N. Center St I PMTI.6--01976 I HPO Appeal I Historic Preservatjon Board I September 1, 2026

Agenda Item: 3-a
Meeting
Board Historic Preservation Board
Preservation 2026 Discuss and make a recommendation
1, 3 10 of to City Council regarding the
Historic September Attachment 1 Page proposed Historic Preservation text
amendments to Chapters 23, 44, 66,
74, and 87 of Title 11, Zoning
Ordinance, of the Mesa City Code
HPB – September 01, 2026

Historic Preservation
Text Amendments
Meeting
Board Purpose of the Amendments
Preservation 2026 The proposed amendments are intended to improve the City's
1, 3 10 Historic Preservation regulations by:
September Attachment of 2  Improving clarity and organization
Historic Page  Simplifying and streamlining procedures
 Increasing consistency throughout the ordinance
 Aligning with current state and federal requirements

Historic Preservation
Text Amendments
Meeting
Board Streamlined Historic Preservation Ordinance
Preservation 2026 Reorganizes Historic Preservation regulations by:
1, 3 10 Consolidating related provisions into a new Chapter 74
September Attachment of 3 Repealing Chapters 23, 44, and the existing Chapter 74
Historic Page Creating one comprehensive chapter covering:
• Historic Preservation Overlay
• Certificate of Appropriateness
• Historically Designated Signs
• Archaeological Resources
• Appeals
• Mesa Historic Property Register

Historic Preservation
Text Amendments
Meeting
Board Improving the Historic Preservation Process
Preservation 2026 The Amendments:
1, 3 10 Clarify application and review procedures
September Attachment of 4 Remove redundant and outdated language
Historic Page Standardize terminology throughout the ordinance
Reference the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and City
Design Guidelines
Update public notice and review procedures
Improve consistency with current zoning processes

Historic Preservation
Text Amendments
Meeting
Board Additional Amendments
Preservation 2026 The proposed amendments introduce or clarify:
1, 3 10 Supplemental Inventory List
September Attachment of 5 Duty to Maintain requirements
Historic Page Emergency repair procedures
Clearer demolition review process
Historically Designated Signs procedures
Updated Historic Preservation Board procedures
Historic Preservation definitions

Historic Preservation
Text Amendments
Meeting
Board New Archaeological Resource Requirements
Preservation 2026 The ordinance now includes a dedicated section addressing:
1, 3 10 Archaeological resources on public and private land
September Attachment of 6 Compliance with applicable state and federal laws
Historic Page Resource assessments, when appropriate
Coordination with SHPO, Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, and
qualified professionals

Historic Preservation
Text Amendments
Meeting
Board Summary of Amendments
Preservation 2026 The proposal will:
1, 3 10 Replace three existing Historic Preservation chapters with one
Historic September Attachment of 7 comprehensive chapter
Page Improve organization and readability
Clarify existing procedures
Add archaeological resource provisions
Update Historic Preservation Board procedures
Add Historic Preservation definitions

Historic Preservation
Text Amendments
Meeting
Board Public Review Process
Preservation 2026 Extensive Outreach Included:
1, 3 10 Historic Preservation Board meetings
September Attachment of 8 Community public meetings
Historic Page Consultation with SHPO
Consultation with SRPMIC Tribal Historic Preservation Office
Consultation with GRIC Tribal Historic Preservation Office
Review by preservation stakeholders
Upcoming Hearings
Planning & Zoning Board
City Council

Historic Preservation
Text Amendments
Meeting
Board Staff Recommendation
Preservation 2026 Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Board
1, 3 10 provide a recommendation that the City Council adopt
September Attachment of 9 the proposed Mesa Zoning Ordinance text amendments
Historic Page (Historic Preservation Procedures).

Historic Preservation
Text Amendments
Meeting
Board For additional information, please visit:
Preservation 2026 mesaaz.gov/hp
1, 3 10 of
Historic September Attachment 10 Page
Questions & Discussion

Agenda Item: 3-b
Meeting
Board Historic Preservation Board
Preservation 2026 Discuss and make a
1, 4 12 of recommendation to City Council
Historic September Attachment 1 Page regarding the Proposed
amendments to the Mesa Historic
Preservation Design Guidelines
HPB – September 01, 2026

Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines
Meeting Why Update the Design Guidelines?
Board
Existing guidelines were first created in 1996
Preservation 2026 and then updated in 2001
1, 4 12 Mesa's Historic Preservation program has
Historic September Attachment of 2 grown significantly since then
Page New document is easier to use, search, and
update Supports consistent decision-making
while protecting Mesa's historic character

Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines
Meeting Modernizing the Existing Guidelines
Board
The updated guidelines:
Preservation 2026 Reflect Mesa's expanded Historic Preservation
1, 4 12 program
Historic September Attachment of 3 Address additional Historic Districts and Historic
Page Landmarks designated since original document
Transition from a primarily printed document to a
searchable digital resource
Improve accessibility through hyperlinks and
keyword searches
Better align with current preservation practices

Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines
Meeting How the Guidelines Are Used
Board
The Design Guidelines are intended to:
Preservation 2026 Assist property owners, architects, designers, and
1, 4 12 contractors
Historic September Attachment of 4 Guide appropriate improvements to historic
Page properties
Support Historic Preservation Board and staff review
Provide consistent evaluation of Certificate of
Appropriateness applications
Encourage compatible development while preserving
historic character

Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines
Meeting Comprehensive Yet Easy to Use
Board
The document is organized into major sections covering:
Preservation 2026 Certificates of Appropriateness
1, 4 12 Preservation, Restoration, and Rehabilitation
Historic September Attachment of 5 Additions to Historic Buildings
Page New Construction
Historic Signage
Historic Building Types and Architectural Styles
Supporting appendices provide:
Program overview
Character-defining features
Heritage Neighborhood details

Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines
Meeting What the Guidelines Address
Board
The guidelines provide recommendations for:
Preservation 2026 Character-defining features
1, 4 12 Building materials and architectural details
Historic September Attachment of 6 Windows, doors, roofs, porches, and foundations
Page Additions and new construction
Building height, scale, setbacks, and compatibility
Landscaping, fences, signage, and mechanical equipment
Goal: Preserve historic character while
allowing thoughtful investment and change.

Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines
Meeting Preserving What Makes Historic Places Unique
Board
The guidelines emphasize:
Preservation 2026 Identifying and preserving character-defining features
1, 4 12 Retaining original materials and craftsmanship whenever
Historic September Attachment of 7 possible
Page Designing additions and new construction that are
compatible—but not imitative
Respecting the scale, massing, and character of historic
neighborhoods

Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines
Meeting More Than Design Standards
Board
The updated guidelines also include:
Preservation 2026 Overview of Mesa's Historic Preservation Program
1, 4 12 Certificate of Appropriateness review standards/process
Historic September Attachment of 8 Mesa’s cultural setting and historic development context
Page Historic Districts and Historic Landmarks
Heritage Neighborhood Program
Architectural styles and building types unique to Mesa
Character defining features and definitions

Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines
Meeting Public Review Process
Board
Extensive Outreach Included:
Preservation 2026 Historic Preservation Board meetings
1, 4 12 Community public meetings
Historic September Attachment of 9 Consultation with SHPO
Page Consultation with SRPMIC Tribal Historic Preservation Office
Consultation with GRIC Tribal Historic Preservation Office
Review by preservation stakeholders
Upcoming Hearings
Planning & Zoning Board
City Council

Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines
Meeting Public Review Process
Board
2026 Based on Board comments and after further consultation
Preservation 1, 4 12 with the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community THPO
Attachment of 10 and the Gila River Indian Community THPO, staff needs
Historic September Page additional time to revise the historical context portions of:
Chapter 7: Mesa's Historic & Architectural Context
Appendix E - Heritage Neighborhoods & Other Heritage
Places
These portions will be completed prior to being presented
to City Council.

Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines
Meeting Staff Recommendation
Board
Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Board
Preservation 2026 provides a recommendation that the City Council adopt the
1, 4 12 of Updated Mesa Historic Preservation Design Guidelines with
Historic September Attachment 11 the additional Mesa historical context and Heritage
Page Neighborhood language that will be added to Chapter 7 and
Appendix E.

Historic Preservation
Design Guidelines
Meeting
Board For additional information, please visit:
Preservation 2026 mesaaz.gov/hp
1, 4 12 of
Historic September Attachment 12 Page
Questions & Discussion