Mesa P&Z Board Unanimously Recommends Historic Preservation Ordinance Overhaul, Consolidating Three Chapters Into Unified Framework
Mesa Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended comprehensive amendments to historic preservation procedures and design guidelines to City Council.
Mesa P&Z Board Unanimously Recommends Historic Preservation Ordinance Overhaul, Consolidating Three Chapters Into Unified Framework
The Mesa Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously on September 9, 2026, to recommend comprehensive amendments to the City's historic preservation ordinance and design guidelines to the City Council. The amendments consolidate and modernize Title 11 of the Mesa City Code, repealing three existing chapters and replacing them with a unified regulatory structure governing certificate of appropriateness, historic overlays, design standards, and landmark procedures citywide.
The sweeping revision addresses historic preservation procedures, overlays, signs, and landmark regulations that have historically been scattered across multiple chapters, replacing the patchwork with a cohesive framework intended to streamline the approval process while strengthening design consistency across Mesa's historic districts.
Key Speeches
"We just want to clarify in your vote that the conditions of approval for the historic preservation board are included in the planning and zoning board's recommendations." — Staff member addressing the Board after unanimous vote
The statement ensured formal incorporation of Historic Preservation Board conditions of approval into the P&Z Board's final recommendation, establishing a clear audit trail that both boards' requirements would advance to City Council.
Timeline
- Staff presentation: Evan Balmer read the consent agenda for the record, outlining items 3A and 3B—amendments to five chapters of Title 11 and the design guidelines.
- Staff recommendation: Items presented as part of the consent agenda, having been reviewed in a study session immediately prior to the public hearing. No separate staff presentation or debate occurred during the public session.
- Public comment: Zero public speakers; no blue cards (requests to pull items from consent for full discussion) were filed.
- Council discussion: No substantive discussion on the merits; Board members proceeded directly to a vote upon Chairperson Peterson's call for motion.
- Vote: Unanimous approval. Board member Hulse and Board member Montes responded verbally to a malfunctioning electronic voting interface; all remaining board members voted "Aye."
Opposition
No opposition was recorded. The meeting transcript contains no public comments, objections, or contrary statements from any speaker. The unanimous vote and zero public comment cards suggest either strong community consensus or minimal public awareness of the amendments at the P&Z Board stage.
Support
No organized support testimony was provided during the public hearing. The unanimous vote indicates all board members present endorsed the amendments without recorded dissent.
Project Details
- Case number: Not assigned in transcript; items labeled as item 3A (ordinance amendments) and item 3B (design guidelines).
- Applicant / developer: Not applicable; amendments are City-initiated regulatory updates.
- Sponsoring department: City of Mesa Planning and Development Services; presentation coordinated by Evan Balmer and Matthew (referenced by staff regarding design guidelines presentation to Historic Preservation Board).
- Geographic scope: Citywide; amendments apply to all historic districts, historic landmarks, and properties designated under historic preservation overlays within Mesa.
- Current framework → Proposed framework:
- Repeals: Chapter 23 (Historic Landmark Overlay Districts), Chapter 74 (Historic District and Historic Landmark Procedures), Chapter 44 (Historic Signs)
- Replaces with: New Chapter 74 (Historic Preservation Board Procedures), modified Chapter 66 (Historic Preservation Board), modified Chapter 87 (Definitions)
- Key regulatory additions:
- New definition of "certificate of appropriateness" (COA)
- New definitions: historic district, historic landmark, historic preservation overlay, historic resource, historically designated sign, state of disrepair
- Updated design guidelines covering restoration, rehabilitation, additions, new construction, historic building types and architectural styles
Vote Breakdown
- Final: Unanimous approval (verbal vote, electronic voting function unavailable)
- Yes: Chairperson Peterson (presumed, as presiding officer); Board member Montes (verbally confirmed "Aye"); Board member Carpenter (verbally confirmed "Aye"); Board member Wagner (verbally confirmed "Aye"); Board member Hulse (verbally confirmed "Yes"); Board member Cluff (verbally confirmed "Aye"); Board member Thomas (verbally confirmed "Aye")
- No: None recorded
- Abstentions / absences: Vice Chairperson Petcher absent
Outcome & Next Steps
The Planning and Zoning Board approved the consent agenda—which included the historic preservation amendments—and forwarded a formal recommendation to the City Council for adoption of both the ordinance amendments (items 3A) and the updated design guidelines (item 3B). The amendments incorporate conditions of approval established by the Historic Preservation Board during its prior review.
The amendments now advance to City Council for final legislative action. Once adopted, the new unified framework will govern all future requests for certificates of appropriateness, design review in historic districts, landmark designations, and related preservation decisions across Mesa. The consolidation is intended to reduce regulatory ambiguity and accelerate the approval timeline for compatible projects within historic areas.
Controversies & Context
No controversies or objections were recorded during the September 9 meeting. The unanimous vote and absence of public comment suggest broad internal alignment among city staff and the P&Z Board on the direction of the reforms.
The consolidation of three chapters into a unified structure reflects a national trend among municipalities to modernize historic preservation ordinances and reduce administrative fragmentation. Mesa's amendments appear designed to improve clarity for applicants and streamline the review process—particularly for routine certificates of appropriateness—while maintaining design standards. The explicit addition of definitions (e.g., "state of disrepair") suggests an intent to reduce interpretive disputes and create objective criteria for eligibility determinations.
The fact that the Historic Preservation Board's conditions of approval were explicitly affirmed in the vote indicates collaboration between the two advisory bodies and suggests the design guidelines revisions (item 3B) incorporate that board's substantive input on architectural standards.
Duration
- This item: Approximately 3 minutes (consent agenda vote; no separate discussion)
- Total meeting: Approximately 8 minutes (entire session consisted of roll call, one consent agenda item, unanimous vote, and adjournment)
Other Notable Items
No other substantive agenda items were heard at this meeting. The meeting was devoted entirely to the historic preservation amendments on the consent agenda.
View source transcript ▼
Source: Planning and Zoning Meeting - 9/9/2026 — September 15, 2026. Auto-generated YouTube transcript; may contain transcription errors.
Welcome everyone to the September 9th, 2026 City of Mesa Planning and Zoning Board public hearing. We're ready to begin our meeting. Will everyone please unmute your microphones? I will begin by taking roll call. Chairperson Peterson is here. Vice Chairperson Petcher is absent. Board member Montes? Here. Sorry, finding the mute button. You're good. Board member Carpenter? Here. Board member Wagner? Here. Board member Hulse? Here. Board member Cluff? Here. And board member Thomas? Here.
With a quorum present, we'll call this meeting to order uh 4:02 p.m. As part of today's agenda, we have um a consent agenda. And the items on the consent agenda were reviewed just before this meeting in the study session. Those items will all be voted on at one time unless a member of the public would like any of those items pulled from the consent agenda for a full presentation. Uh and from Danica, there are no blue cards, right? For Chair Peterson, board members, there are no blue cards.
Okay, thank you. We will now ask Evan Balmer to read the consent agenda for the record. Thank you, Chair board members. Um items on your consent agenda, item 2A is approval of the Planning and Zoning minutes from the August 26th, 2026 Planning and Zoning Board meeting. Item number three is to discuss and make a recommendation to the City Council on the following amendments.
Item 3A is 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.
These amendments include, but are not limited to, repealing in its entirety chapter 23, historic 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 board proceed Excuse me, historic preservation procedures, modifying section 11-66-4, historic preservation board, and modifying chapter 87 definitions by adding a definition for certificate of appropriateness, historic district, historic landmark, historic preservation overlay, historic resource, historically designated sign, and state of disrepair.
Item 3B is amendments to the Mesa historic preservation design guidelines that include, but are not limited to, certificate of appropriateness, restoration rehabilitation additions and new construction projects, historic districts and landmarks, and historic building types and architectural styles, and these are the items on the consent agenda. Thank you, Evan, for reading that.
And to clarify, approval of the consent agenda as read will include a recommendation to the city council for adoption of items 3A and 3B. Is there any discussion on the consent agenda items? Hearing none, is there a motion to approve? Motion to approve. Is there a second? Second. All in favor, please vote. I'm not getting a voting function on my touch screen. so we'll take we'll take a verbal from board member Hales is a vote and then board member Montes. Yes. Okay, thank you.
Uh the consent agenda has passed unanimously. The historic preservation board actually had a couple of conditions of approval that they had added to um if you remember the presentation that Matthew had given to the design guidelines. So we just want to clarify in your vote that the conditions of approval for the historic preservation board are included in the planning and zoning board's recommendations. Yes, that is accurate. Do we need to formalize that?
No, I think that's sufficient for the record. Okay. Thank you. All right, those are the items on our agenda for today. Is there a motion to adjourn? I motion to adjourn. All right, a second. Second. All in favor? Aye. Board member Montes? Aye. Thank you. I guess we're Aye. All right, thank you. The uh the motion carries. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you.