031126_HPCMINUTES.PDF

City of Tempe — Historic Preservation Commission Meeting (2026-04-15)

Extracted text (via pymupdf) 28764 characters

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 Teams.

Present:
Staff:
Mariah Justice
Jeff Tamulevich, Comm Development Director
Dave Fackler
Ryan Levesque, Deputy Director, Comm Development
Kiyomi Kurooka
April Kroner, Deputy Director, Economic Development
Reylynne Williams
Zachary Lechner, Historic Preservation Officer
Kathleen Lamp
Jen Sweeney – Arts & Culture Coordinator
Evan Senat
Jennifer Daniels, Administrative Assist, Comm Dev
Shereen Lerner

Kriste Melcher

Erin Davis

**No audio or video recording for the first 35 minutes of the meeting**

1) Call to Order
By Chair Justice at 6:07 pm.

2) Native Land Acknowledgment Statement

3) Public Appearances -
The Tempe Historic Preservation Commission welcomes public comment at this time that fall within the
Commission’s purview, as described in City Code, Chapter 14A-3. The Commission may respond to public
comments only if the topic has been placed on the agenda and only during the corresponding agenda item.
There is a three-minute time limit per citizen.

Chair Justice read two public comments into the record. Comments were received online before the 2pm
cutoff time.

Ms. Lisa Zyriek, Tempe resident. There are a number of important issues facing Tempe that need your input
and involvement. You should be a key player in the development of the Downtown Historic Plan. Tempe has
not preserved many buildings and spaces in the past and they now have a chance to help save what little is
left. Please fight to expand the proposed core. Please be involved in the improvements at the Double Butte
Cemetery. We also need your input on the Middle Housing Bill.

Mr. Stuart Siefer, Tempe resident. I am disappointed that the consultants did not reach out to many of the
key stakeholders in downtown before going so far into their detailed plan. I am in general support of their
recommendations. I would recommend a different approach to their boundary maps and change the name
to “Downtown Tempe Historic Zone”. I identify the areas along Mill Ave, from 3rd to 6th Street as something
like “Mill Avenue Historic District”. The two areas should have different guidelines and other regulations.

Mr. Rob Moore, Tempe resident. Mr. Moore expressed concern that some stakeholders have not been
engaged with the process so far. He noted that at two public meetings and a property owner and business
MINUTES
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
March 11, 2026

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES
March 11, 2026

owners’ meeting on March 4, participants raised concerns about outreach and engagement. He said
obviously community engagement is challenging, and I sincerely appreciate all the work that's been
invested, but it appears that there is a critical issue on how this process is being handled that is being raised
by diverse stakeholders. It's not the number of feedback sessions that matters, it's the quality and
effectiveness of the outreach and engagement that is core to success of this initiative.

Mr. David Sokoloski, Tempe resident. Mr. Sokoloski stated his opposition to any height limitations in the
Downtown Historic Core, stating that limiting building height there would result in the construction of taller
buildings in neighborhoods like Maple-Ash. He also stated that the City needs to be building more housing,
not imposing more restrictions.

4) Consideration of Meeting Minutes

4A) Historic Preservation Commission – Regular Meeting 02/11/26

Motion by Vice Chair Fackler to approve Meeting Minutes for 02/11/26; second by Commissioner Lerner.
Motion passed on 9-0 vote.
Ayes: Chair Justice, Vice Chair Fackler, Commissioners Kurooka, Williams, Lamp, Senat, Lerner, Melcher
and Davis
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None

5) Certificate of Appropriateness – None

6) Classification / Designation – None

7) Update(s) and Presentation(s)

7A) Update on the Downtown Tempe Historic Core Plan. The presenters are Rick Barrett of MIG and
Jennifer Levstik of Westland Engineering.

Mr. Rick Barrett and Ms. Jennifer Levstik gave a presentation on the Downtown Tempe Historic Core Plan.
This presentation covered the background, schedule, participation, plan area, draft plan recommendations,
guidelines and next steps for the Core Plan.

Commissioner Lerner expressed concern that the Commission was not integrated into the process because
they are only getting presentations. I would like to see us have a round-table session that allows us to talk
through everything. I would also like to invite the Tempe Historic Preservation Foundation. This would allow
us to work through the concerns. One example is the boundaries. We have been talking about the
boundaries and given feedback two or three times and nothing changes. If it is not going to change I would
like to know why. In terms of art. I think that it’s great to have the Four Southern Tribes as part of it, but we
are missing San Pablo. I would like to see recognition of that community. Ms. Levstik stated it is included in
our historic context but not included in the draft you have. Commissioner Lerner stated she would like to see
San Pablo recognized in the art design elements. I think it would be helpful to have members of the
landowners and business community participate in a workshop.

Commissioner Senat stated that in regard to the parking and traffic building up on Mill Avenue, I would
encourage public transportation be used to enter downtown. Something like park and rides or diverting
traffic to the outside open lots around Rio Salado Parkway. Utilizing the light rail and streetcar is a good
way to lessen the traffic and congestion. I think the light rail stop for Mill Avenue is doing a great job with the
natural tree coverage. I would encourage that as a way of highlighting greenery around the area with native
plant life. What was the term you used, incubator? Mr. Barrett stated that incubator is the term we use to
describe helping startup companies to get started in an area where there might be some vacant storefronts,

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES
March 11, 2026

vacant buildings, or low rent. Once they take hold, these businesses typically will stay in the core area as
they grow.

Vice Chair Fackler stated he would like some clarification. In the timeline in the presentation, you showed
several stakeholder meetings and seven more coming up. In your presentations, we hear “this is what we
have heard from the community.” It seems that there are a group of comments that you have received from
the community that is defining 90% of your process. I would like to know who those stakeholders are, what
properties or businesses they represent, the dates of the meetings, and if they were in person or via Zoom?
Was there an opportunity in the meetings for the stakeholders to interact with each other? I am not seeing
the type of large-scale community outreach that the City did in the past years with staff and stakeholders in
the Downtown Historic Core Plan process.

Commissioner Lerner stated she agrees with everything Vice Chair Fackler has said. I don’t know how we
can move forward if we keep doing this where you present and then we only have an hour and half meeting.
Ms. Levstik stated that the concerns you both are expressing—we hear you and that’s been one of the
conversations that we recently had with City staff. One of the challenges we have is that when we’ve
reached out to people they don’t respond. Their response was “you can’t trust me to check my emails.” I
agree with you, and the team agrees with you. The plan is to get people to sit down at the table together.
We know you will sit down at the table. One of the challenges is to get the developers to sit down. As far as
having a list of who was at the meeting, we will get that information to you. Commissioner Lerner stated that
her concern is that you could never pull everybody together. At the very minimum, get the Commission and
Foundation together.

Chair Jones stated that we cannot expect people to come to us. I feel like this project missed two huge
opportunities here in Tempe with the Flower Festival and Festival of the Arts. Why was there not a table for
this project to meet the public. We have so many events where we could be telling the public about what is
going on. I think there needs to be a more intentional approach for developers, land-use attorneys and
preservation advocates. More of asking what you think rather than telling you what we think.

Vice Chair Fackler stated he was disturbed that they are not seeing any listings for near term or potentially
Historic-Eligible properties. There are 15 properties I have identified on Mill Avenue that are not historic yet
because they have not met all the guidelines. The near-term properties are invisible on the current boundary
map. Tempe Mission Palms across the street will be historic in another decade. It’s a huge piece of
property. Were the owners contacted directly to see what their future plans are for the street frontage? Ms.
Levstik stated they did attend meetings and let us know a little bit. Vice Chair Fackler stated that they need
to know what the plans are, and the plans need to be integrated. Please make sure that all contributing
resources are represented on the maps we are taking out to the community.

Commissioner Kurooka asked, who decided on the boundaries and height? I went to the public meeting last
week and heard everybody’s comments but I don’t know how it was decided. For the general public, when
they see this map, it will be difficult to understand the impact. They need to see it three dimensionally or
they will not know what 100 feet means. A range of 50-100 feet is quite different. Who will decide how many
feet will be permitted? I keep hearing that the only solution for affordable housing is high-rise buildings. I
don’t know where that idea came from. I am not against density. There are some appropriate areas for more
density, like along Tempe Town Lake. High rises are not the only solutions for affordable housing.

Chair Jones stated that she is disappointed that the first thing we’ve seen of a draft is our agenda packet for
tonight’s meeting. I specifically asked the last time you were doing a presentation that you would reach out
to the Commission when forming recommendations and guidelines so that we could be part of that process
and not see it once it’s already in a draft state. I have asked for formal updates in our monthly meetings and
have not received them. I think you have a good understanding on where community engagement needs to
go from here. I would like to reinforce the importance of Tribal engagement. Have you done an analysis for
views of the Butte and where can we get the best ones? Where can we do TDRs to preserve the viewshed
and things of that nature? I don’t know all of the Tribes’ concerns. I would like to see specifically what the
Tribes have said and how it has been incorporated. When I read through the draft to me it doesn’t have any

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES
March 11, 2026

guidance for the Hackett House adjacent site RFP (request for proposals) should it go out tomorrow. How
are we looking at things beyond the two blocks of Mill Avenue? Right now, it reads as a downtown plan, not
a downtown historic core plan. I would like to see how historic resources can be incorporated and
leveraged. I would like to see more specificity in the recommendations, the designs guidelines and
responsible parties. We need to be creative in how we’re going to leverage our historic resources here in
Tempe. I would like to see the existing conditions analysis in the main part of the report. I don’t want to see
it in the appendix, it gets lost.

Commissioner Lerner stated she would like to see more about heritage tourism. People will be attached to
downtown if there is something to offer besides a glass front high-rise. Other cities around us have found a
way to balance growth and preservation.

7B) Presentation on rehabilitation plan for the Harry Walker House, a City-owned property located at 25
East 5th Street. The presenter is Robert Graham of Motley Design Group.

Mr. Robert Graham gave a presentation on the rehabilitation plan for the Harry Walker house. He said we
are at the 60% stage and hope to have more complete plans by the end of this month.

Commissioner Lerner asked, what are you going to do about the interior with the adobe? Are you going to
stucco? What are you going to do about the exposed adobe? It sounds like a unique thing to see. Dr. Zach
Lechner stated that the City has contracted Builders Guild, BGI who is subcontracted with Reggie Mackay of
Adobe Technology. He will repair the adobe and the replaster it. It is unstabilized adobe. It will not be
exposed. Commissioner Lerner asked if there was any way to leave it exposed. Mr. Graham stated that is
something Ms. Mackay may do. Commissioner Lerner stated that the house was originally facing south and
now it is facing north. Is there anything that could be done with the exterior to have it connected with the
past? Is there anything you are doing to bring the sense of place back? Mr. Graham stated there is not. By
the time this was handed to me, the move was complete. We are doing the best we can by the architecture.
I have not seen any photos older than 1970. We are limited; I cannot move the house. Commissioner Lerner
asked, will this house be in the National Register of Historic Places? Mr. Graham stated that the house does
have high architectural integrity with the exception of the missing back porch. I would not hesitate to give it a
nomination.

7C) Discussion of Commissioners' January HPC meeting queries about Double Butte Cemetery, Hayden
Flour Mill, Gonzales-Martinez House, historic building acquisition, and 2024 bond funding for historic
preservation. The presenter is Zachary J. Lechner, City of Tempe Historic Preservation Officer.

Dr. Lechner gave an updated presentation related to previous HPC questions on the Double Butte
Cemetery, Hayden Flour Mill, Gonzales-Martinez House, historic building acquisitions by the City, and the
2024 bond funding for historic preservation. This item was postponed from the February HPC Meeting. Dr.
Lechner clarified that Historic Preservation CIP project funding in the 24/25 CIP ($3.3 million) was combined
with approximately $9 million in bond funding to arrive at the $12.3 million amount cited as being allocated
for historic preservation projects.

Ms. April Kroner, Deputy Director for Economic Development, gave a presentation on the plans for the
future development of the Hayden Flour Mill and the purchase of the Tempe Bank Building and the Tempe
Hardware Building. The City currently does not have a funding source for improvements to the Hayden Flour
Mill. We started looking to see what it would take to get the main structure to a warm shell (putting in place
essential systems). The purchase of the Bank Building and Hardware Building by the City was done
because the opportunity was there, and the City determined it would result in the long-term preservation of
the properties.

Vice Chair Fackler stated that he assumes First and Farmer LLC are in a position to be defaulted out of its
Development and Disposition Agreement with the City. I would like to know what the status is and how the
City is going to continue to move forward with that group or look for alternatives. Ms. Kroner stated that her
team was reviewing the development agreement, including items that the City must complete and items the

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES
March 11, 2026

developer must complete. Vice Chair Fackler asked if the developer wants to move forward with this project.
Ms. Kroner stated she has not spoke with the developer. Economic Development must first understand the
development agreement and the facts. Until we do that, our team will not be reaching out to the developer.
Vice Chair Fackler stated that monsoon season will be upon us soon, and I don’t know whether the building
can stand another season. Find out who is going to do what and when and bring it back to the table as soon
as possible.

Chair Jones asked what prompted the City to look into the development agreement? Was it our discussion?
Dr. Lechner stated that the development agreement started in Community Development. Typically, in this
kind of situation, it will have a point person or go to Economic Development, and they will have someone
review it to verify benchmarks are being reached by the developer and the City. There were various
circumstances as to why that did not happen. We didn’t realize we did not have active monitoring going on.
It was recently assigned to Economic Development. Chair Jones stated that there is an exhibit A
rehabilitation plan that is a component of the development agreement. Has that been completed, and if so,
can that be sent to the Commission? Dr. Lechner stated it has not been completed at this point. There is no
rehabilitation plan at this point.

Commissioner Lerner stated that the Commission keeps getting plans that are 60% or more done without
having any input. I would say for the Gonzales-Martinez House, since there isn’t one yet it would be nice for
us to have some input on that prior to it being almost completed. I would also urge that something happens
very quickly. If the City isn’t going to be able to do much maybe put a protective shell on it of some kind to
ensure the property does not continue to deteriorate. Could we please get a follow-up at the next meeting? I
am concerned about the way the $12.3 million bond funds are being assigned. When we voted for it, we
thought it was $12.3 million in bond funding. This goes to my concern of the City taking on historic
properties and maintaining them properly. We are $3 million short of what we as the public voted for. I would
like to see that addressed. Dr. Lechner stated that he does not believe the bond specifically stated $12.3
million was allotted for historic preservation. Mr. Duensing was pretty clear in his presentation that the $12.3
million did include the $3.3 million of existing money. Commissioner Lerner stated we need to go back and
look at what the bond specifically said. I would love to see a copy of the original bond. Dr. Lechner stated he
will track down a copy. Commissioner Lerner stated that she has concerns about the maintenance of the
Bank Building and Hardware Building. You have to have a dedicated fund for historic properties because of
the challenge of caring for them. The City does not always set aside those funds. We discussed the idea of
placing an easement on the property and then selling the property to preserve the historic character of the
building. You can sell to a developer who is then required to preserve that building and then you’re not
putting the City in the position of being a property owner or renter. I would like to find out if there is any way
to do that. Dr. Lechner stated he will look into it. Commissioner Lerner stated she understands that there
were no requirements by Mr. Brock in terms of his donation for restoration of Double Butte Cemetery, but
again when we were voting on the bond, we included the cemetery, and I was thinking those funds would be
stipulated for historic areas. The bond funds are going to be dedicated to the historic components of the
City, correct? Dr. Lechner stated that is correct. The money that was specific to the HP bond is for historic
preservation. Commissioner Lerner stated that we just heard the plan for the Hayden Flour Mill will be at
60% version done by April. We are not being consulted at all. I have a concern about that. I would ask that
you ask the Commission for input at the beginning of a design phase for a historic property rather than at
the completion of the 60% design. I understand wanting to do something to make the Hayden Flour Mill look
more desirable. Can we have volunteers help paint it?

Vice Chair Fackler stated that the last time we had a presentation on the Hayden Flour Mill, we had a
developer that was negotiating a development agreement with the City. We have never been told that the
development agreement fell through. We are now hearing that the developer is out of the picture and the
City is moving forward to create a green space. It would have been nice to know that we weren’t sitting here
waiting for a developer to finish his plans. Dr. Lechner stated yes, the development agreement fell through. I
can only communicate things that I am authorized to communicate. If certain information is not public, then I
can’t add the information to a public meeting. Venue Projects and Sunbelt Holdings had a plan that a lot of
people were excited about. They had difficulty pulling together the funding. City Council had already

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES
March 11, 2026

extended their deadline for certain benchmarks. Venue/Sunbelt asked for a second extension. Council
declined and decided to go a different way.

Commissioner Kurooka stated she would like updates on any projects that are presented to the HPC. For
example, the Penny Saver building project (250 Rio).

Chair Jones stated that the Commission is finding out about things way too late in the process. We are
appointed because we have expertise in this field and we’re an asset to these projects. Our input is an
asset. We would like to be treated as such. We would like to be a part of projects and not just find out about
them and just be presented to but actually be involved. Dr. Lechner stated that we want to make sure we
are consulting with the Commission and we will certainly take a look at opportunities to do that more when
it’s appropriate. It can be challenging sometimes to anticipate exactly when and how the Commission might
want to be consulted on certain matters. There have been comments that the Commission wants to be able
to consult on development agreements for historic provisions before it is negotiated and unfortunately that
cannot happen. It is not within the purview of the HPC. Development agreements are between the City
Manager and developer. We are certainly happy to show you the development agreement. I am happy to
talk to you and figure out ways that staff can be doing better and trying to make sure you’re informed of
projects and provide feedback. There will be certain things that the Commission will not be able to be
involved in. Chair Jones stated that the Commission is aware of what is written in the Ordinance and what
their duties are. Our concern is work that is happening to designated properties on the Tempe Historic
Property Register. Projects happening in or around those are not being brought towards the Commission
until 60%-80%. We are asking to be notified when a developer is no longer able to complete the project on
a designated property that we were told they were completing.

7D) Discussion of strategies to encourage property owners to request designating their properties in the
Tempe Historic Property Register.

Chair Jones proposed this item be moved to the next HPC Meeting on 4/15/26. Chair Jones asked for a
motion to move this agenda item to the next HPC Meeting on 4/15/26.

Motion by Commissioner Lerner to move agenda item 7D to the HPC Meeting on 4/15/26; second by Vice
Chair Fackler. Motion passed on 9-0 vote.
Ayes: Chair Justice, Vice Chair Fackler, Commissioners Kurooka, Williams, Lamp, Senat, Lerner, Melcher
and Davis
Nays: None
Abstain: None
Absent: None

7E) Discussion of possible agenda items for the April 15, 2026, Historic Preservation Commission-Tempe
Historic Preservation Foundation Joint Meeting.

Chair Jones invited Mr. Rob Moore to discuss possible agenda items for the meeting with the Foundation in
April.

Mr. Rob Moore stated that since the Foundation is a community-based organization, it might be an
opportunity to discuss more about community engagement in the context of historic preservation goals and
initiatives. What is the relationship between HPC and the community? What is the HPC’s relationship with
staff and City Council? Progress on the new Historic Preservation Plan and Downtown Tempe Historic Core
Plan could be discussed.

Chair Jones stated some of the topics of discussion so far are: how do we encourage property owners to list
their historic properties, progress on bond-funded historic preservation-oriented project, and opportunities to
engage the community with these things, along with the Downtown Historic Core Plan. We could also
discuss the relationship between the HPC, the Foundation, City Council, and the community.

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES
March 11, 2026

Vice Chair Fackler stated that from what we’ve heard this evening we have at least two projects that
everyone thought was going forward to final solutions for preservation: the Hayden Flour Mill and Gonzales-
Martinez House. It might be good to talk about how we get community support for a bond election. What
other projects are essentially unfunded?

Commissioner Lerner stated she would like to add the World War II barracks from Camp Papago Park for
discussion. Maybe the Foundation can give us a report on what is going on with the barracks and the friends
group they established for Double Butte Cemetery. I like the community engagement piece. I would like to
work on what we can be doing to better engage our community. There are things we are limited in doing as
a Commission but that the Foundation can do. We can discuss pocket parks that will benefit the downtown
area.

Vice Chair Fackler stated when we are talking about things for future bonds in regard to historic
preservation, it’s worth having a discussion about the overall process for the property owned by Tempe
Mission Palms between the Flour Mill and 3rd Street.

Chair Jones stated that she would like to discuss the cemetery, friends group, and WWII barracks and other
projects the Foundation is doing. What are the goals and priorities of the Foundation so the HPC can align
with them in the future, and what is the role that we all play in making our community a better place?

8) Chair/Staff Updates and Announcements

Chair Announcements: None

City Staff Announcements: Dr. Lechner stated that there was a question earlier about the old Penny
Saver site, which is part of the upcoming 250 Rio project. This project came before the Commission about
four years ago. At the time, it was supposed to be office space. The applicant is doing a redesign on the
whole project. It will be coming back through the HPC for another Certificate of Appropriateness. There was
also a comment earlier about seeing plans as early as possible. Sometimes a 60% plan is the earliest. What
you saw from Mr. Bob Graham with the Walker House is the first time we saw it as well.

Commissioner Lerner stated that she would have liked to have provided input as soon as Bob Graham was
hired for the project, before he started on his plan. She said it is the fact that we are not getting input before
they put pen to paper that concerns me.

Chair Jones stated that she would take a staff update on what is going on. We don’t even know what is
going on with our buildings that are in the Tempe Historic Property Register. Dr. Lechner stated that the
Walker house is not on that list. Chair Jones asked how it works with the Walker House now sitting on the
City Hall parcel. Dr. Lechner said he will clarify that later.

Dr. Lechner stated that the HPC and City Council joint meeting will be March 30 at 5 pm at the Tempe
History Museum. Staff has expressed interest in making that a yearly event. Commissioner Davis is finishing
her term with the HPC on March 31st. I want to thank Commissioner Davis for her three years of service.

Chair Jones stated that if there are any thoughts on agenda items from the Commission, please email Dr.
Lechner and her to discuss them.

9) Adjournment: There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:16 pm.

Prepared by: Jennifer Daniels, Administrative Assistant
Reviewed by: Zachary Lechner, Historic Preservation Officer