121025_HPCMINUTES_DRAFT.PDF

Minutes of the regular hearing of the Historic Preservation commission, of the City of Tempe, which was held in hybrid 
format in person at City Council Chambers, 31 East 5th Street, Tempe, AZ, and virtually through WebEx. 
 
Present: 
        Staff: 
Mariah Justice 
Jeff Tamulevich, Comm Development Director 
Dave Fackler 
Ryan Levesque, Deputy Director, Comm Development 
Kriste Melcher 
Zachary Lechner, Historic Preservation Officer 
Erin Davis 
Jennifer Daniels, Administrative Assist, Comm Dev 
Reylynne Williams 
 
Evan Senat 
 
Shereen Lerner 
 
 
 
Absent: Kathleen Lamp and Kiyomi Kurooka 
 
 
 
Native Land Acknowledgement Statement:  We acknowledge that Tempe lies in the ancestral land of the Native 
people who have lived here since time immemorial. The ancestral land of the O’odham and Piipaash stretches far 
and beyond the boundaries of our city. The landscape is scared to them, embodying cultural values that are integral 
to their identity and a way of life. The O’odham and Piipaash continue to maintain a deep spiritual connection to this 
land. We embrace the responsibility of caring for these places and vow to uphold this commitment in all our actions.  
 
 
 
1) Call to Order  
By Chair Justice at 6:01PM 
 
2) Native Land Acknowledgment Statement 
 
3) Call to Audience 
Persons wishing to address the Commission on any matter may do so at the discretion of the Chair. 
However, Arizona Open Meeting Law Limits Commission discussion to matters listed on the posted agenda. 
Other topics may be placed on a future agenda for discussion. 
 
Chair Justice requested that speakers speak during the agenda item they are requesting to speak on.  
 
4) Consideration of Meeting Minutes  
 
5A) Historic Preservation Commission – Regular Meeting 10/22/25 
 
Commissioner Williams stated that on page 1, item #4, and page 2, under the motion, her last name was 
spelled incorrectly.  
 
Motion by Vice Chair Fackler to approve Meeting Minutes for 10/22/25 with corrections stated; second by 
Commissioner Senat. Motion passed on 6-0 vote. 
Ayes: Chair Justice, Vice Chair Fackler, Commissioners Melcher, Davis, Williams and Senat    
Nays: None 
Abstain: None (Commissioner Lerner was not present for the vote) 
MINUTES 
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION 
December 10, 2025

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES 
December 10, 2025 
 
2 
 
 
Absent: Commissioners Lamp and Kurooka 
 
5) Certificate of Appropriateness – None  
 
6) Classification – None  
 
7) Designation – None  
 
8) Update(s) and Presentation(s)  
 
Chair Justice suggested that the agenda items be reordered.   
 
8B)  8A) Presentation on the Downtown Tempe Historic Core Plan. The presenters are Steven Davidovas of 
MIG, Corky Poster of PMM, and Jennifer Levstik of Westland Engineering & Environmental Services.  
 
Mr. Steven Davidovas, Mr. Corky Poster and Ms. Jennifer Levstik gave a presentation on the Downtown 
Historic Core Plan and what they have been working on since the last time they met with the HPC. They 
discussed the feedback they have received from stakeholders as well as plan goals. Mr. Poster and Ms. 
Levstik have put together a Tempe Historic Core Inventory Matrix. It includes 30 properties. 
 
Public Comment: 
 
David Sokolowski, Tempe, AZ. Mr. Sokolowski stated his concern with how the Plan could impact 
development in the city, since Tempe has a severe housing crisis. The city needs to increase construction 
by 50% just to keep up with population growth. We will need more than that to reduce our housing shortage. 
The state has taken away local control to increase the housing supply. It is important that our historical plan 
does not include any height or density restrictions in the downtown area. The study area covers a significant 
portion of the city’s high-density land and nearly all of the City Center zoning. Any properties outside of the 
historic area are incompatible with high-rise development. That means the downtown area would be 
incompatible with high-rise development. As a Transportation Commissioner, I know the Downtown Core is 
important for our mission to build housing, improve land use, support public transit, improve accessibility 
and reduce congestion. Any historic plan that includes density or height restrictions would be catastrophic to 
our mission. The HPC has proven that it is possible to marry high-rise development with historic 
preservation. The Downtown Tempe Historic Core Plan needs to focus on what made those projects 
possible. Any policy that impedes development will likely be overruled by state intervention. Height or 
density restrictions placed in our downtown would be unacceptable because of the severity of our housing 
crisis.  
 
Rob Moore, Tempe, AZ. Mr. Moore stated that housing is a critical topic in Tempe. This was discussed 
during the 2050 General Plan process. It is as much about how we do it as the construction of the 
conversation: history versus housing. I would ask that we have that conversation. There is a lot of division 
and people are using the division to make it into a black-and-white conversation. There is so many 
opportunities to have a better understanding of options. This is an incredible opportunity to show our 
community and show others what the possibilities are and to educate our community. Tempe has stumbled 
with historic preservation. We should have had this as part of our General Plan decades ago. Very few 
people know or understand what historic preservation is. This plan can help people understand what 
preservation is and why the boundary is important.  
 
 
Commissioner Discussion: 
 
Commissioner Lerner stated, when we try and understand why historic preservation is important and why 
it’s useful to create protected zones, recreation studies have shown when people travel, they look for unique 
places or places that have character. If you look at where people visit, they go to places that have a lot of 
history. If we create an environment that is high-rise, historic building, high-rise, we lose all character and

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES 
December 10, 2025 
 
3 
 
 
context. I urge you to look at those things when looking at what can and cannot be done. I know that the 
boundary goes to University; it looks like it is only going to the northern part of University. If you go to places 
to the south, you have the Farmer Goodwin House. Are you looking at the southern portion of University as 
well? Mr. Poster stated, as far as the plan boundary, they have only included things on the north side of 
University. We were trying to keep this to what everyone perceives as the downtown core. Commissioner 
Lerner stated she was talking about the area the west of Mill Ave. Mr. Poster stated he would look into that 
area. Commissioner Lerner asked if the Commission could receive a copy of the presentation. Dr. Lechner 
said he would email the presentation to the Commission. Commissioner Lerner stated that she encourages 
the consultants to take a closer look at the buffer area as part of the study. If we keep the study too narrow, 
it may be hard to preserve those areas.  
 
Vice Chair Fackler asked if Mr. Poster was in contact with the owner of Tempe Mission Palms. Mr. Poster 
stated that when they were organizing the stakeholder meetings, they received addresses for all downtown 
businesses. We sent out about 75 invites to the meetings, and only one business attended. We have 
another round of outreach scheduled and can look at different strategies for getting businesses involved. 
Vice Chair Fackler stated that the reason contacting Mission Palms is important is that the owner owns 2 
blocks of Mill Ave frontage within the core area. If we start to put together design standards, it could 
potentially impact the high-rise value of their property. I am pro-Tempe Butte, he said. I think it is a huge 
mistake if it is not included within the primary boundary. I would also like to see the properties to the west on 
Rio Salado, just north of the Depot, including the Gonzales-Martinez House site, added to the primary 
district. Dr. Lechner stated that Gonzales-Martinez House will eventually be owned, according to a 
development agreement with the City, by First and Farmer LLC. Mr. Poster stated that both him and Ms. 
Levstik are on the consulting team for RSP Architects, which is working with the City of Tempe on a 
proposal for improvements to the Mill to get it ready for future development. We were on a call discussing 
the Tempe Butte and how the viewshed of the Butte may impact potential development of the Mill site. All of 
the frontage on the east side of Mill Ave is very important to the viewshed of the Tempe Butte.  
 
Commissioner Senat asked, if the businesses were not responsive to you next time, what would be your 
course of action? What would you pitch to them to become more engrossed in the plan? Mr. Poster stated 
that maybe better contact was needed. Possibly an email was not sufficient to get their involvement. Early in 
the process it can be hard to get businesses involved. Next time we will reach out more carefully and make 
the point that this plan may affect their business in the future. Commissioner Senat asked about how they 
discussed making the core more walkable and adding more shade. Can you expand on that? Mr. Davidovas 
stated that in terms of the DHC. it is not just for private properties; it is for public space as well. The 
Downtown Refresh has just happened. We’re looking at ways to better connect on the public street east and 
west from and to what we are calling the Historic Core, the Butte and surrounding elements, in addition to 
weaving in how to get to different historic resources wherever you are in downtown Tempe. Commissioner 
Senat said, I am personally impacted by walkability. I ride my bike everywhere or take public transportation. 
Mill Avenue is very congested and hard to get through during the school semester. Do you see these plans 
assisting with that and elevating that pressure rather than adding to it. Mr. Davidovas stated that could be a 
goal and one of the things we look at. Mr. Poster stated that we do not have that many historic resources in 
the DHC. The buildings alone may not be strong enough to create a sense of location. But if the open 
spaces between them become clearer and more vibrant, then there becomes an opportunity to have the 
open space matrix around the buildings hold everything together. The Refresh has done a lot for that. 
Commissioner Senat stated that combining with ASU’s historic buildings is another issue but right across 
the street from the recommended DHC boundary is ASU’s core, including the three oldest buildings on 
campus. Would it be possible to add in the stories of those buildings and tie together Tempe’s and ASU’s 
histories? Mr. Poster stated that they have had two conversations with ASU’s architect and head of 
Planning. They are all on board and interested in continuing the conversation. 
 
Commissioner Lerner stated, I would like to support what was said about viewshed. It is really important. 
San Diego has been really careful about combining walkability and not putting the high-rises right there. You 
can walk around and they did not make the new buildings too high so that you still feel like you are in the 
historic town. It is a good example of how people can walk through a community and feel the historic 
character by dealing with things like viewshed. I want to support the concept of that. I also wanted to follow

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES 
December 10, 2025 
 
4 
 
 
up on the [Harrington-]Birchett House: that is a very significant property. It is outside of the study boundary 
and one of the few remaining homes. Mr. Poster stated that the property is on the matrix of 30 historic 
properties. We had a conversation with the ASU architect about that property. They are committed to not 
touching that building. Commissioner Lerner asked if there was anything that could be done from the 
archaeological standpoint, mentioning Tempe Butte. Ms. Levstik stated that the highest concentration of 
archaeological resources are in and around Tempe Butte. There are more historic-era sites, not native sites, 
where there are opportunities to expose things like rail lines. Those are things that we would want Tribal 
input on, in terms of what does or does not get displayed. We did a review to see what archeological sites 
are in this area. It is culturally sensitive information, and we are unable to disseminate it. There are 
opportunities for interpretive materials.  
 
Vice Chair Fackler stated that when looking at the boundary between 4th Street and 5th Street, there are only 
two properties with historic structures. There are another 4 properties there that are close to meeting the 50-
year cut-off or were historic and burned down and rebuilt. They were rebuilt with attention to what was there 
before and have 90% of the previous character. It might be valuable if you started to fill in gaps. There are 
many buildings that are 10-15 years from being historic. It might help to identify future resources.  
 
Chair Justice asked about Tribal engagement. Mr. Davidovas stated they had a focus group meeting on 
preservation separately just to partner with both Gila River Indian Community and Salt River Pima-Maricopa 
Indian Community. We plan to keep those conversations going throughout the process, he said. There will 
probably be another three or four meetings to receive feedback on where we should go next. Chair Justice 
asked what some of the items discussed were. Mr. Davidovas stated that a lot of what they found out is 
included in the “What are we Hearing” section. The cultural importance of sites like the Butte were big 
topics. Telling the cultural history of the area and weaving it into the history of Tempe were also discussed. 
Chair Justice asked Mr. Davidovas to explain the different two boundaries shown on the slides. Mr. Poster 
stated the outer boundary is our charge. We are looking for recommendations for all of that. The inner core 
is the Tempe Historic Core, not just historic resources in and around the core. We imagine that the Historic 
Core might be a place where there are some regulatory elements, such as standards that deal with height 
and walkability. Whereas the outer section is more about providing general recommendations. We do not 
know what the difference in recommendations between the two boundaries will be. Chair Justice stated that 
the Butte is part of the Historic Core due to its cultural significance. At the beginning of each meeting, we 
read a pledge that we will steward Tribal resources that are not ours in our meetings and decisions. I highly 
suggest you include the Butte in core area. What does the City currently define as the DHC? Mr. Ryan 
Levesque said there are many different plans that define the “downtown, with many similarities and 
overlaps. For the most part, we have defined our downtown as University Drive to the south, College 
Avenue to the east, Farmer Avenue to the west, and Rio Salado Parkway to the north. Chair Justice stated 
that if that is what Tempe defines as downtown, then I think that is the boundary we should be using 
consistently. I think having two boundaries is confusing.  What kind of incentives or recommendations are 
you starting to formulate? That is going to be a fast process to bring to the public, Tribes, and HPC. Mr. 
Poster stated, we can talk about examples like the 4th Avenue District in Tucson. The zoning in that area is 
C3, which includes a maximum 60-foot height. Ms. Levstik and I wrote the National Register of Historic 
Places District nomination for the 4th Avenue business district and then we came up with what polices could 
save the character. We developed an option overlay zone, which allowed any property owner to choose the 
underlying zoning or the optional zoning. The optional zoning had no parking requirement for commercial 
properties. 90% of new development has opted for the overlay zoning instead of the underlying zoning. We 
also required development to hold the height back from 4th Avenue. Buildings were able to get taller behind 
that. Chair Justice asked that as the consultant formulates these incentives if they could be bounced off the 
HPC prior to the March meeting so it could provide some input. I would like to request you do the same 
thing for our Tribal neighbors and not just present them with the incentives you have come up with but treat 
it as a collaborative process. I know that public art is a component of this project. Are you looking to employ 
more public art pieces, murals, types of artists. Where is that going? Mr. Davidovas that is all on the table as 
of now. We do have a public art specialist on our team at MIG. She will get more involved in the coming 
weeks. Chair Justice stated it would be special if we invited some Tribal artists. What are your current 
recommendations for archaeological mitigation for new development beyond what is currently in our 
ordinance? Ms. Levstik stated that it would depend on what is getting built. Any time there is ground

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES 
December 10, 2025 
 
5 
 
 
disturbance, there is monitoring. There is no construction currently planned. This plan does not encourage 
ground disturbance. This is more about design guidelines and recommendations. Dr. Lechner stated that 
under state law any City project and projects on “state” land that are within archaeological sites have to 
undergo monitoring. Projects outside of archeological sites and within 250 feet as well as within 50 feet of 
prehistoric canals—the City considers those archaeologically sensitive. Monitoring is also required in those 
areas. In addition, staff may recommend Council requiring archaeological mitigation for zoning map 
amendment requests. Mr. Poster stated archaeological agreements can be added to development 
agreements. Chair Justice asked to please include the Butte in the boundary.  
 
8A)  8B) Request for approval of HPC Annual Report  
 
 
Dr. Lechner gave a presentation on the Annual Report.  
 
Commissioner Senat stated she was recently volunteering at the Niels Petersen House, and she learned 
there will be a renovation happening on the outside patio in the next year. Will the HPC be involved? Dr. 
Lechner stated next month he will be discussing how the 2024 voter-approved bond money will be utilized. 
That renovation is bond-funded. The replacement would not require review by the HPC. I am happy to 
provide information or plans if you would like to review them and answer questions at a future meeting. 
Commissioner Senat stated she would be interested.  
 
Motion by Vice Chair Fackler to approve 2025 HPC Annual Report; second by Commissioner Senat. Motion 
passed on 6-0 vote. 
Ayes: Chair Justice, Vice Chair Fackler, Commissioners Melcher, Davis, Williams and Senat    
Nays: None 
Abstain: None (Commissioner Lerner was not present for the vote) 
Absent: Commissioners Lamp and Kurooka 
 
9) Chair/Staff Updates and Announcements  
 
Chair Announcements: None 
 
City Staff Announcements: Dr. Lechner stated that a potential agenda item for January will be an update 
from park staff about three historical sites. The next meeting will also include a presentation on use of 2024 
bond money for historic preservation projects.  
 
10) Adjournment: There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:27 pm.  
        
Prepared by: Jennifer Daniels, Administrative Assistant 
Reviewed by: Zachary Lechner, Historic Preservation Officer