Historic Districts Review Board Meeting
Tue, Jan 13, 2026 · Historic Districts Review Board
https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/1159

== Topics ==
- Building Height & Design
- Land Use Code Update
- Shelby Street Bridge Project
- Meeting Minutes Accuracy
- Public Comment Access (Zoom)
- Neighborhood Character
- Window Replacement Appeal
- Lot Size & Subdivision
- Hardship Argument

== Full Transcript ==
Motion to approve the agenda as just amended.

**Chair:** So moved. Second. All those in favor of the changes of the approved agenda, say "aye."

**Board Members:** Aye.

**Chair:** Anyone that doesn't want this approved, say "no." Thank you. We have two sets of minutes: October 14th, 2025. Changes to these minutes, October 14th, 2025. Anybody wanting to make corrections? Member Benu.

**Member Benu:** Thank you, Madam Chair. So, beginning on page seven, there is a lengthy recitation of the discussion the board had regarding the update to the land use code that I wanted to see if we could make a little bit less confusing. So, I'm going to start under board action on page seven. Let's see, the paragraph two-thirds of the way down that begins, "Miss Lamboy noted." I believe that that paragraph, the next paragraph, the third paragraph, the fourth paragraph, stopping there, are all comments from Miss Lamboy. And I'm not sure how we indicate that these were from her. And this is going to be an ongoing theme throughout these minutes. Is the court reporter here? You're not the court reporter, are you, Mariah? No.

**Chair Rios:** Yeah, Member Benu, we don't have a court reporter. We are using Minute Solutions, which is a third-party minute-taking operation.

**Member Benu:** And so, how does that service then decide how to distill the comments made into this document?

**Chair Rios:** Thank you. Yeah, Chair Rios and Member Benu, the service provides a draft of the meeting minutes to staff, and staff reviews it and then presents it to you.

**Member Benu:** Okay. So, maybe I can just direct this to staff then. I think there are two ways this could be clarified. One would be to put all of those separate paragraphs into one, beginning with Miss Lamboy. So that would make it clear that these were all her comments. The alternative would be to add in the beginning of every one of those paragraphs, "Ms. Lamboy noted," or something to that effect. Would you have any preference, staff? In that case, I would just make all of those one paragraph so it would be clear that those are Miss Lamboy's comments.

And then turning to page eight, halfway down the page, this is a substantive change. It says, "Member Venbundu acknowledged the significant undertaking of the project but noted that he believed the changes were minor." Add the word "not" before "minor," so it states, "he believed the changes were not minor." Then, the next one, two, three, four, five, six paragraphs are all, I believe, summaries of comments made by that same member, myself. So, I would put those all in one paragraph. And then on page nine, where it begins, "Member Beachside," there is a second and third paragraph following that that I believe are also her comments. So, I would incorporate all of those, all three paragraphs, into one.

Then on page 11, halfway down, after summarizing comments from a number of members of the public, comments of Miss Stephanie Benonato are indicated, and then there are one, two, three, four paragraphs following that initial paragraph. Those should all be incorporated into one. I believe those are all her comments. And then on page 14, just before the paragraph that begins "Staff Communications," the very end of the paragraph beginning "Member Cherry," I would, where it concludes, "now reading the board supports the code period." I would change that to read, "The board supports the rest of the proposed code revisions." Those are my suggested amendments. Thank you.

**Chair:** Are there any other changes to the minutes of October 14th, board members or staff? If not, I will entertain a motion to approve these minutes as just amended.

**Board Member:** So moved.

**Chair:** Do I hear a second?

**Board Member:** Second. Megan.

**Chair:** All those in favor of the motion, say "aye."

**Board Members:** Aye.

**Chair:** Say "no." Thank you. Are there any changes to the minutes of October 28th, 2025? No changes. I will entertain a motion to approve these minutes.

**Board Member:** I move to approve the minutes from October 28th, 2025.

**Board Member:** Madron seconds.

**Chair:** All those in favor, say "aye."

**Board Members:** Aye.

**Chair:** Oppose, say "no." Thank you. Those minutes have been adopted. We have eight findings of fact and conclusions of law. Two of these are from May 13th, 2025, and six of them are for May 27th, 2025. Changes to any of these, please so indicate. No changes. I will entertain a motion to approve all eight of these findings and conclusions.

**Board Member:** Then move approval of all eight aforementioned cases.

**Chair:** Do I hear a second?

**Board Member:** Second.

**Chair:** All those in favor, say "aye."

**Board Members:** Aye.

**Chair:** Oppose, say "no." We have staff communications, and under staff communications, we have an update, our informational session on the Shelby Street Bridge project. And may we hear that? I see the TV's working. There we go. Thank you.

**Staff:** Okay. So, I wanted to share the outcome of the details regarding the Shelby Street Bridge. The applicant's team, city staff, and Chair Rios and Member Cherry, who was our subcommittee, met over the details of the bridge and to look at the design and details that met the requirements of the board. The existing footbridge was approved for demolition in 2025. The subcommittee was designated by the board to work out some final details for the replacement bridge. The board approved the length and width of the bridge, as well as the required height of the railing. So, the bridge dimensions will be changing to six feet wide, and then 42 inches for the height of the railings. The new bridge will accommodate the ADA regulations for access to the bridge. The walkways around the bridge will be reestablished to match the existing walkways. The main concerns at the hearing were that the stone match what is on the existing bridge and where those stones would come from, the layout of the stone, as well as the arch details.

So, the first thing we had to address was the accommodation. This is because of the flood analysis done by the engineer. So, in order to meet the flood requirements, the number in change must be a negative number under the right column labeled "change" down here on the lower right. You can see here that this would mean no arch on this analysis sheet. The subcommittee, specifically Member Cherry, requested a new analysis to find the least change in the arch with a negative number. The analysis later found that a middle ground between the no-arch option and the half-arch option could accommodate this. We are referring to that as a camber arch, which is not shown on the analysis sheet but will be between the red and green lines in this drawing. The bridge will have the stones as requested by the board. The applicant brought in samples from several suppliers, and the subcommittee shared its preference with the applicant. The applicant will be using actual stone as requested, and the stones will match those currently on the bridge. The intent is to mimic the existing spacing of the stones and to reuse as much of the existing stone as possible. Removing and replacing the bridge will disturb a little bit of the channel, but the applicant will be managing the process to minimize the disturbance and fortify any rock that is loosened in the channel. The walkways will be reestablished in the red brick, and the concrete will be in an oatmeal color. The railing will have a powder color coat similar to the one shown on the sample in the lower right. Approval for the bridge design on details was issued by staff on November 21st, 2025. So, that's the... Do we have any questions?

**Chair:** Landy, did you indicate when they are going to start the construction of the bridge?

**Staff:** I don't actually know the date of the start of construction. I know that they have already been working on getting the form for the base of the bridge. That's already been ordered. I just don't know when they're actually going to do the work.

**Chair:** Thank you. And I do want to say that this bridge is not... We wanted it to look as closely as we could to the old bridge, but due to the flood requirements, the arch that was very significant in the old bridge will no longer be in existence. There will be an arch, but not as significant. And the bridge is going to change. It's going to be a longer bridge, and it's going to be a different bridge. Member Cherry, did you have any further, any other comments?

**Member Cherry:** No, I don't.

**Chair:** Any other board members' comments? Okay. Now we have reached the portion of the meeting to see whether the technical difficulties have been fixed. And Maggie, can you let me know if that's... It says they're not done yet.

**Maggie:** We have not.

**Chair Rios:** Yeah. So, Chair Rios, I believe, yeah, the Zoom functionality has not been fixed. It has not. Oh dear. We're in a situation because it is important for us to get public comment if people are not within this room. It is important for us to get public comment through Zoom, and that's the only way that they can communicate. So, I'm going to ask the city attorney and Maggie, what do we do?

**Maggie:** Thank you. Yeah. We may be able to direct anyone on Zoom to call in by phone, but I would want to check with IT if that is also, if that's functioning. So, we can inquire about that. I don't know, Frank. Other than that,

**Chair:** We could also postpone this to later on in the... say we'll take it up at 7:00 or something like that.

**Zoom Participant:** Testing. Can you hear me? I was just going to test for you. I'm here on Zoom.

**Chair:** I mean,

**Zoom Participant:** Testing.

**Chair:** So, one of the board members is asking if people can see this on Zoom. They can see it and they can hear it. They just cannot participate.

**Maggie:** That is my understanding. Yeah, I can check with someone who's on Zoom and just verify.

**Zoom Participant:** I'm on Zoom and I'm speaking right now. Are you able to hear me? Test one, two. Can you hear me? New testing. Test one, two, can you hear me?

**Chair:** Yeah, I can't hear you.

**Zoom Participant:** Mike, can you hear me? Can you hear me now? No. Can't hear me. So, it's just through the phone. You can't hear me at all through the system.

**Chair:** No, not at all through the system.

**Zoom Participant:** Well, when we, when we were here,

**Chair:** Wait, talk.

**Maggie:** That's actually coming. Sorry. We've consulted and

**Zoom Participant:** Two test.

**Maggie:** Our best recommendation right now is to adjourn for 30 minutes and reconvene at 6:30.

**Chair:** Recess. Recess. Oh, thank you. Sorry. Not adjourn. Right. Recess for 30 minutes and reconvene here at 6:30. And reassess. Everybody heard that we will have a recess until 6:30. And I mean, you have all come here for a purpose, and we want to continue with the meeting. And so, sorry about this. And so, we'll see you at 6:30.

**Zoom Participant:** Test one, two. Can you hear me? It's coming through the actual desktop. Okay.

**Chair:** Yeah, you're coming through this desktop.

**Board Member:** Where are the most common renderings for the state project? The most current renderings for the state project. Well, they're not in, they're not in our packet now. So, yeah.

**Board Member:** Our first show was out on a place called La Tierra, and it was one of the first developments. When why we were drawn to it was that it was just what it was. It had none of the fancies. It was next door to Los Pinos, and

**Board Member:** It's been fine.

**Board Member:** Yeah. And we have, this is wild. We spent one year coming out here. Took six trips out here in a year to find a home. Our sixth trip, we find it. An agent calls us up and she says, "We found it. I've got your house." And she goes on about a swimming pool. And I said, "I don't want a swimming pool." "What do you want a swimming pool?" She said, "Well, fill it in." It was the only swimming pool in the entire edition. Of course, it cost less to punish. They changed all that, but I mean there. So, it turned out that the couple we bought it from, who had it built, and he was with the Boy Scouts, and he used to use these big entertainment, like all the scouts. So, he probably did well with that.

Anyway, test one, two, test. He loved it. He just loved it. But it was so far out, 13 minutes. See, that's so far deeper in than what you are. Yeah. But that part of the world is so beautiful. The views are incredible. And that's cute. Nice. Is your husband a professional? What's he? Financial. Well, good. Every family needs one. Yeah. The only way in our finances is to manage. [laughter] It's so great. Oh, that's good. Morgan Stanley, the manager that, um, that, oh, no, he's already, he's already on his own. Test one, two, test. Mike, can you hear me? Yeah. Loud and clear. I can hear you. All right, we're good. We should be fully up and functional. We are not yet reconvening since we said 6:30, that's when we will reconvene. However, I do want to tell people that are on Zoom, they probably have been wondering what is going on. We were having technical difficulties and now everything has been fixed and hopefully it'll continue this way throughout the meeting. We will reconvene at 6:30 and, uh, people on Zoom, you can, you will be able to, uh, make your comments. The meeting is reconvened and I will now entertain matters from the public. If there is anyone in this room that wishes to come forward to the podium and speak of anything related to H-Board matters, not related to cases this evening that are on the agenda, but something, uh, that you have on your mind related to H-Board matters. It appears no one in this room is wanting to come forward, but is there anyone on Zoom?

Yes, thank you, Chair Rios. Um, we do have one hand raised, a Mr. Anthony Guida. Let me make sure that we can, hold on, Anthony. I'm just trying to figure out how I can unmute you. And if anybody else, um, is on Zoom that would like to provide comment. There we go. Okay. All right. Um, Mr. Guida. Yeah. Could you, um, you should be unmuted. You can hear me. We can hear you. Thank you. Great. Thank you, Maggie. Um, uh, I'm Anthony Guida. I'm the former architect member of this board. I'm speaking again to address the makeup of the Historic Districts Review Board and concerns that I and others have with it. Uh, over the past year, uh, myself and other architects have voiced concern that the board is out of compliance with Chapter 14 and having no architect seated on the board. It's one of the required positions, required seats. Um, when I left the board in January of last year, um, the mayor then appointed a non-architect to the board, uh, which still has full, a full, full seven members. At the last hearing, the Land Use Director confirmed that Madeline Aguilar Madrono is serving in the architect's seat, um, and that, um, Miss Lamboy's interpretation is that a landscape architect is, quote, a kind of architect. Um, not only is this contrary to the definition of architect per New Mexico's or any other state board that regulates the profession of architecture, uh, I'm wondering if the Land Use Division is actively accepting submissions of stamped building plans from, say, a landscape architect or an information architect or a naval architect, as those would also be types of architects per the Land Use Director's definition. Um, the issue here is not only legal compliance, and I'm surprised that we're not in compliance. Uh, legal matters seem to be a very big deal to this board with nearly every case and procedure in front of it, um, except this one. Um, you know, the bigger problem is the spirit of the law, as there is no professional design or preservation training represented by any current board members or HPD staff. There are other issues with the makeup of the board that are highly, highly problematic. The domination of five of seven seats by members of the Old Santa Fe Association when they only have one designated seat. The absences of actual, the absence of actual representation for the downtown businesses because that seat has been occupied by the same person for 30 plus years and the chair does not vote. I could go on, but I do think serious reform is needed. Um, the architect issue is the paramount one. It's the most urgent and should be corrected immediately. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else on Zoom? Yes. Um, Chair Rios, um, Jordan Young is, um, their hand raised and so we go. Okay. Hi there. Yes, please. We can hear you. Thank you. Um, I would like to echo Anthony Guida's comment that HGB is still operating without a licensed architect. Um, I would also like to point out the multiple seats held by the Old Santa Fe Association in a town full of talent like ours and many architecture firms with young talent in them, um, and many professionals. It seems like we have wasted a lot of time and not filling these seats and there's opportunities to get professionals, um, who maybe aren't involved with the Old Santa Fe Association involved in HDRB, and I think this matter needs to be remedied urgently. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else? Chair Rios, I don't see any additional hands raised. Thank you very much. We will move on to old business. And old business, we have case 2025-011586 HDRB. And this is the executive office building, the proposed executive office building located at 130 South Capitol. Uh, it's important to indicate this evening that there are several deadlines that need to be met. We are operating under, um, statute 3-22-6 and there are certain provisions that must be met. And one of them is that, uh, within this period of, uh, speaking or, um, this design period of the state and the city working collaboratively, uh, we have come to the end of the 60-day period. We are coming to that end and that is going to be February the 6th. And so we must resolve the design issues if there are any. There was a subcommittee that was appointed, not the State Review Committee, but a subcommittee that was appointed made up of myself and, uh, Vice Chair, uh, John Benvvenu. And this evening we have numerous suggestions, recommendations that we want to make to the state and, uh, those are being made to you in writing and I'm going to ask member Benvvenu to read them at this point.

Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, [clears throat] yeah, I would, I guess I would just, um, by way of background, say that the, the document that has been circulated to the other board members, um, the, to the state, I believe, and hopefully to the public, is really just, uh, perhaps at this point more a set of talking points that was developed, um, just over the last few days given the very, very tight deadlines that we're facing and the holidays that just took place after the last board meeting. Um, we're under, uh, where we understand ourselves to be in the process, as Chair Rios stated, is that the last board meeting, uh, constituted the date wherein the state presented its proposed plans to the board. Uh, the board at the same time, confusingly perhaps, also had separate case numbers that it considered at that same board meeting with relationship to the demolition of the four small houses on the street. So really, um, even though plans were presented at that last meeting, there was almost no board discussion about the plans themselves. Um, the board discussion and I think most of the, uh, public discussion was really directed at the demolition issue. Um, and so it may have appeared as if the, um, the plans were going to be represented, um, for the public and the board to comment on, but that really is not the case. I just want to emphasize that where we understand ourselves to be in the process is those plans have already been presented and that means that under our ordinance and under the state statute, there a 60-day period, um, was triggered that began running on the date of that last board meeting in which the city has the right to submit written recommendations and comments to the state, 60 days. And that's the deadline that, uh, Chair Rios just indicated, which is February 6th. And, uh, members of the public and also have the right to submit written recommendations and comments to the state within that same period of time. The procedure further provides that if at the end of that 60-day period, well, at the end of that 60-day period, another 5-day period begins to run in which, um, the city makes a decision as to whether or not its comments and concerns have been adequately addressed by the state. And in the event that the city determines they have not been adequately addressed, then it has the right to, uh, require the convening of a joint state city, uh, commission that will ultimately decide the issue of the design. So that's where we're at right now. So it's, it's an odd procedure. It's not a procedure that we go, go through with any other, um, uh, applications that are before us except for, uh, the state and, um, I believe maybe also the city and, uh, county school district, um, projects. And it's a procedure that was worked out between the state and the city in order to, um, reach compromise between the state's position that they, they were not even under the, the, um, that they didn't need to abide by the regulations of the city and the city's view that they, they were required to so abide. So this is the compromised procedure that was worked out. It's the trick for us is that it's a very short period of time to be working out any kind of design details. Um, and then there's an extremely short period of time to decide whether or not we have worked them out after, after that 60-day period expires. So what we want to do today, what we tried to do is just have the ad hoc committee in conjunction with staff, uh, staff's, um, analysis of the project and recommendations as to what does not and what does and does not conform to our ordinance, um, put together just kind of some more bullet points at this point in my mind than actual formal recommendations so that the board has some structure for a discussion on how to adopt ultimate final recommendations that will then be submitted to the state. If that can be done tonight, uh, that would give us more time, uh, to work with the state before those deadlines expire. But if we cannot reach that point tonight, um, we could, we still have enough time that we could reach a final decision at the next board meeting. So that's just basically a summary of where we're at. So I'm going to with that go over the bullet points, uh, just to set up the discussion for the board. Did you have something you wanted to add?

I was just going to reiterate that after you read all, uh, the recommendations or the bullet points and then we, uh, board members, you have, uh, an opportunity to also, uh, comment on these, on what we have recommended or make your own, uh, recommendations. And per the statute, we also have to entertain public comment. And, uh, in specific, the statute indicates that, uh, preservation groups should be involved and you preservation groups should submit your written comments as well to the state. So with that being said, uh, John, can you, uh, Sure. And so, yes, I, I'll reiterate what Chair Rios just said, which is these are not intended to be final recommendations, but really just discussion items. And we hope that the board all weighs in on these and that the public does as well so that we can reach a consensus hopefully. So, um, there's first of all, a set of 11 general comments, um, which actually some of which are extremely general, some of which are quite specific. So, I'll go over them quickly. Number one is, um, that breaking up the mass, this is an extremely general comment, breaking up massing is important and, um, and also bringing the building down to a pedestrian scale. Um, the building will be larger than the Capitol building and other buildings of the streetscape. Therefore, uh, the HDRB, here it says recommends, um, I would say more appropriately the HDRB, um, that we wish to have a discussion as to whether the HDRB would recommend that the east and north elevations have additional setbacks on the upper floors in order to, um, uh, break up that massing.

It goes on to say there should be more one-story sections of the building. Again, I would actually rephrase that just to say discussion should be had as to whether more one-story sections of the building would or would not be appropriate. Number two, only one stucco color. Right now, the building does have multiple different colors. It's actually just two, I think, separate colors, but they appear variously throughout the massing of the building. That's something that actually is not normally allowed except under portales under our ordinance. It's not the norm with any of the other state buildings. It's something that has been previously brought up by the board, a decided preference for a single stucco color.

Number three references the pedimented window frames. As we all know, this is a territorial-style building, perhaps neo-territorial. Number three currently states, "Unlike other state buildings, there's no pedimented window frames." I think that it's not entirely accurate. They do appear to have some pediments. I think the question is whether they're triangular pediments or not. Some buildings in the state complex do have triangular pediments, others do not. But again, in my mind, it's just a discussion item for the board as to what their preference is and their recommendations on the pediments. And it refers to similar scale to pediments on adjacent state buildings. Of course, that refers to the desire to have harmony amongst the buildings in the complex.

Number four addresses the height. Some discussion has been had as to what exactly the appropriate height that would be allowed under our ordinance would be for this particular building and whether or not the building meets that standard. Staff has recalculated, or at least looked again at their calculations, and their view is that the permitted height under the ordinance would be 57 feet 6 inches. Their calculation of the proposed height of the main mass of the building is below that. They say approximately 50 feet. I think they have an exact calculation, but it is below the 57 feet and 6 inches that would be allowed. What is higher than that is the tower, which is one element of the building. This paragraph states 78 feet 7 inches of the tower. Board members during the break had some discussion as to whether that is accurate since that would make the tower 21 feet. That's something that we could clarify. The point of this entire paragraph, though, is just to say that the one item that actually is outside of our permitted height would be the tower. I think that everyone would agree there are good arguments to be made that the tower is actually beneficial to the style of the building because it does harmonize with other buildings in the area and it certainly helps visually overcome some of the massing that would be quite potentially overwhelming without that vertical element. But again, contrary to the way it's phrased here, which suggests that the board wants it to be reduced, either the building or the tower removed altogether, I would say that the real question here is just the board should consider, is the height of the tower, is the existence of the tower, which is higher than the allowable height, something that they approve of or disagree with?

Number five states, "All windows should be recessed and not flat on the facade." I think that actually is addressed in the design and that that is the case, but that can be made a condition.

Number six is, "Provide a reason that is acceptable to the board why other design alternatives, including site design and placement and potential use of some of the right-of-way on South Capitol Place, which the city has agreed could be dedicated to the state, are not being considered. This could help to lower the overall height." Again, that's obviously directed at the issue of the fact that the overall massing of this building is based on the state's view that this is the bare minimum of the square footage that they need to meet their needs. The city has tried to offer additional potential footprint land for them in order to mitigate the height. The state has rejected that, and this paragraph is intended to ask for a final justification as to why that alternative would not be acceptable to the state, a justification that the board would approve.

Seven: "Materials should have a sense of substance and permanence." That's obviously a very general statement. It's actually part of our ordinance that state buildings should have a sense of substance. So that is critical to the board. I do believe that that generally is the case with this building in my opinion, but that is something for the board to consider whether they agree.

Number eight provides another general statement that maximum window and door area may not exceed 40% except under a portal if a building mass is offset by 4 feet or more is considered a separate facade. And then it raises the question, "Does the northwest facade of the building meet the 40% standard?" That's a factual question that we need an answer to.

Nine is a suggestion for the board to consider whether it wants to recommend that a courtyard be created at the northeast corner of the building to further break up the mass and to provide an opportunity for interpretive signage and street furniture.

Number 10 addresses the divided light patterning and recommends that horizontal patterning should not be on the building. Instead, the patterning should be vertical or square, again for the board's consideration.

And number 11 is that portals on the ground should have roofs, especially the lower portals, specifically with regard to the north elevation. Again, the first bullet point or paragraph is just questioning the design rationale for the tower. This is not to say that the board rejects the tower. I think there could be, as I said before, very good reasons for wanting the tower to be in place. But this is intended to be a discussion item to see whether the board has a consensus agreement on that point.

Number two, "Windows under the portal shouldn't go all the way to the ground." It does look to us in the renderings, and we can go over them if the board desires to see more specifically. It appears that some of the windows under the portal are basically storefront-style windows that go all the way to the ground, which is not something that we ever approve under our ordinance. And we are pointing out that the State Capitol Building, the Roundhouse, provides a potential solution because their doors and windows have built into them not stucco, but a lower opaque material to prevent the glass from proceeding all the way to ground level.

Number three questions whether the small windows on the second story, as pointed out on the north facade, are out of scale and relate well to the rest of the facade. That's really again just a question. My own personal opinion looking at them is that they may be completely acceptable, but that's something for the board to make sure they agree with. And number four is that the windows at the east corner of the north elevation may be out of scale. Again, a question for the board.

East elevation, number one, is to incorporate more one-story masses. Again, that actually should just say query whether more one-story masses should or should not be incorporated and query whether the building should be stepped to make it more pedestrian-friendly.

Number two again addresses the possibility of creating a courtyard at the northeast corner to make it more pedestrian-friendly and an opportunity for gathering space and signage.

Number three addresses the mass at the southeast corner and questions whether it is out of scale and whether or not there is too much fenestration on that facade and whether it meets the 40% rule because if looking at the rendering, there does appear, I think, the board just needs to discuss whether or not that appears to be something that, as our ordinance requires, could be built out of adobe as structured with that amount of fenestration on both the ground level and then the two next stories. And I think that those were the specific comments and recommendations. Again, not so much recommendations for conditions of approval as recommendations for board discussion, and I would ask the board to go ahead and have discussion on those items.

So, board member, I know this was a lot for all of any of us to digest at this moment, but board members at this point, do any of you have additional comments or do you have comments in reference to what John just read? I will entertain that at this moment.

Member Beach: Yeah, just quickly, I thought I would just offer up that I appreciate all the work that everyone's done on this. It's nice to have this laid out, and I understand the purpose to be just to make sure we go through and consider all the things we would consider in a normal application process so that we don't leave anything out. But the only, there's only two things that I feel would make this a better design. One is the single stucco color. I'm in favor of that. And the other is that the windows are recessed and not flat against the facade, which might already be the case. The other is, I feel like there's, I'm willing to compromise, if that's the right word, with respect to the code because I think the design is consistent with what surrounds the building. I feel like the scale is appropriate for the large space that it's filling. And so, yeah, I don't have any other objections to the design as is.

Thank you. Any other comments at this point?

Yeah, I can make some comments.

Member Cherry: So I agree with number one. I agree with number two, so stucco color being the same. And then on number three, "Unlike other state buildings, there's no pediment window frames." There seems to be some type of pediment window frame on this rendering, although I don't have, I don't have access to a full set of, I haven't been able to find this full set of renderings in this packet or in the previous packet. So, it's a little hard to see exactly what's going on. However, it appears like there's some sort of territorial trim, which would in my mind be considered a pediment. And then regarding the, I think that regarding the window recess, I think that's contradictory to having a pediment. If you've got a window trim, a territorial window trim, that's typically on the facade. So those two things contradict each other. If we're wanting to see pediments, but we're also wanting the windows recessed, or we wanting the window pediments recessed, or we want, like, there's two different distinct details there. I think we should offer some clarity, and a recommendation for that would be my comment. And I personally like the pediment and like the window further out toward the outside facade of the building.

Excuse me for interrupting you, but if you look at the windows that are being shown here, those do not actually have a pediment, but those should be recessed.

Yeah, I would agree with that. I mean, there's, and they are, right? You're talking about the lower windows because there's upper windows, too, right?

I was looking at the upper windows.

Yeah. So, the upper windows are recessed but within the trim.

So if you're considering the pediment part of the window, I think we need to define whether or not the pediment is actually a part of the window. If we're saying we want the windows recessed, are there certain windows, like the windows that don't have pediments on the sides? We want those recessed because that's emulating a lintel over the window, the window on the bottom, the opening, the fenestration on the bottom, but the one on the top is not. I think it would be out of character to make a blanket statement that they should all be recessed when clearly there's an architectural style that we should separate those two out. That would be my comment.

And I think that's important to indicate those types of comments at this point.

Yeah, okay. So, moving down through here, number four, the height should not exceed the average height of institutional buildings. There's a little bit of confusion here in the comments that are written here to me because it's saying that the permitted height is 57, but the proposed height is approximately 50, which I think we should have an exact proposed height. However, then it's saying that the proposed tower is 78. So that would make the tower 28 feet higher than, according to the text here, 28 feet higher than the building. However, in the rendering, it certainly doesn't look 28 feet higher. And the comment here is to state that we should recommend lowering the building to make the tower look even higher. So I think there's some...

We can get that clarification.

Yeah, there's some, there's some differences in the text here versus what it appears in the rendering, just scaling.

We can get that clarification from the state.

And then I already spoke about number five, which was, I find it somewhat contradictory here. It needs to be separated out regarding the window recesses. I'm curious to know if the windows have an applied lattice on the front, or if they're a true divided light, or simulated divided light, or what some more detail on the window is based on the district code. And then the only other comment I have regarding the windows is, clearly it's a modern building. It's not. So we're striking this balance between having it fit into this historic neighborhood, but it not mimic a historic building, right? However, one thing that just draws my eye from a design standpoint is in what looks like the north facade, the windows aren't stacked. So the third story windows are offset from the second story windows, where, yeah, where you can see that. So in a, in this sort of traditional architecture, my experience is that those windows would be stacked so that all the column areas between the windows. I think that's a subtle design thing, but I think it's something that makes buildings in the historic district fit in. It's, you know, we overcome those load path issues with modern construction, but you see them on truly historic buildings, and I think that that subtle detail would make this building fit into the district better. And let's see. Moving on to the east elevation, I agree with number one, and I also agree with number three, that there should be less glass there in this fenestration, as well as the comment regarding the windows going all the way to the ground. I think it would just be a better, more in keeping design if the windows that go all the way to the ground, go all the way to the ground. And those are my comments.

Thank you. Other board members? Thank you, Scott. Other board members have comments at this point? Okay. Yes, Jennifer, you can come forward.

Will you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record.

It's 130 Grant Avenue.

Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury?

Yeah.

Thank you, ma'am. Bring you, just bring those up. Okay. Good evening, Chair Rios, board members. It's lovely to see you again. I'm Jennifer Jenkins with Jenkins Gavin, here this evening on behalf of the state of New Mexico regarding the executive office building. First of all, I want to thank the subcommittee for a very thoughtful, thorough consideration of the design, and we have spent the last 24 hours digesting the comments to the best of our ability. And so I'm just going to touch on a few things, and we do have, I think, some points of clarity that I think have already been touched on a little bit, and then I'm going to ask Art Tatum with FBT Architects to also come up and speak to a couple, a couple of items.

So first of all, with respect to the commentary about, can we incorporate more single-story elements on the perimeter? It's something that we're, we've [clears throat] already started the process to look at. It is, in terms of preserving the essential functionality of the building relative to the square footage needs of the state, that presents some challenges. But jumping ahead to the issue of the single-story portals, we actually have looked at this, and we are proposing to roof this portal, the single-level portal that you see right here on the east facade, which we think is actually a really great suggestion. So we would roof that, which does sort of have that impact of creating more of a single-story mass on that facade. So we think it could potentially be a really good compromise. And then wrapping around the corner back to the north facade, there is, oh yes, so never mind. So we, with respect to the upper level, kind of pergola portal, we would prefer to keep them open because they provide so much natural light into the building, but we do appreciate just the kind of the historic nature of a traditional roofed portal on the ground floor. So in those two areas, on the east facade, as well as on the kind of east end of the north facade, we can roof both of those, and we're absolutely willing to do that. We're fine with one stucco color, not a problem at all.

The, we can confirm that all the windows are recessed, and so if it's not evident from the renderings, that was absolutely the intent of the design. Happy to incorporate pediments in those, into those windows, not a problem at all. So with respect to the height, I can confirm that the parapet height, the building tops out at 50 feet, with a 57.6 maximum permissible height. And the, so if you look at the tower, I'm going to, I'll repeat what I say over here, over here, so it gets captured. I'm just wondering, do you have a mic that she can take so it can, so everything that she's saying can be picked up? Can you please reiterate those numbers? I was just pointing out that with the tower element, the stuccoed elements of the tower, before you get to the open framed element, tops out at 57 feet, and then the top of the tower itself is at around 77, 78 feet. The parapet height, thank you, J. The, oh god, that's really good. Okay. But the overall parapet height of the building is at 50 feet. So, we, and I'm going to have Mr. Tatum speak to this, but we would love, you know, there, it was a tad contradictory in the comments in terms of, can you make the building shorter to make the tower more pronounced, or can you get rid of the tower? So, we would, so would love to understand kind of the general thoughts on the tower. We feel that it's an important architectural element to the building, and like I said, I'm going to have Mr. Tatum speak a little further to that, but we're happy to, you know, have the, have the conversation. It does, it is a functional space. It is accommodating our vertical circulation in terms of our elevator overrun access to the roof. So there, there is definitely a functionality to it. And with respect to the overall building height, getting below 50 is going to be very, very difficult. We're already well below the maximum permissible height. We have 15-foot floor to floor, and with the mechanical needs, and this is a Class A executive office building, we want these spaces to feel generous. So, we have 10-foot ceiling heights interiorly in the interior. So, and with a building of this size, flopping a couple of feet off the top is honestly, it's not going to do a thing in terms of how I think the building is experienced. So we are, so I don't believe that that is achievable with the other needs of the building relative to the experience of the space, air circulation, and the mechanical systems. And of course, we already talked about the recessed windows. So, whoever's driving the visuals, can you pull up kind of the, the kind of zoomed out plan that shows the surrounding area, kind of the vicinity map, sort of site plan? There's that aerial where the site plan is dropped into the aerial that kind of shows the surrounding neighborhood. Little, little further. Keep going backward. There's one that's zoomed out a little more. Probably earlier. Yeah, keep going. I think it's pretty, it's, it's, oh, is that your then? Just leave that. That's fine. We can make that work. Just go back to the site plan.

Okay. So, the question was raised regarding South Capitol. So, early on in our process, so you've addressed this a lot, so I'm hopeful that we can kind of put this discussion to bed this evening. So, the idea was floated early on in our process of, wow, would the city of Santa Fe vacate South Capitol Place, give that land to the state of New Mexico, and then basically turn this into some sort of pedestrian corridor, allowing the footprint of this building to expand? It's bigger on the ground. It doesn't have to be as tall, right? So, we had this discussion. The state went back, and we looked at it very carefully, and there were several considerations. One of which, the existing parking here, we, the General Services Department spoke with the users in the Baton building and the surrounding users. There was zero willingness to give up that parking. It was like, it was a non-starter with the users in this area, in the South Capitol State Capitol complex. Secondly, from a circulation standpoint, and how traffic flow works here, very critical point. So, this is the entrance to our parking lot. Galisteo is one way going north. As we know, Don Gaspar is one way going south back to the PO. So, you exit the parking garage, and you just want to get back to the De Peralta. What are you going to do? You're going to come up here. You're going to hang a right, and you're going to go down this far. You're going to hang a right, and you're going to be out on the PO. If this is closed to vehicles, you're going to force every car into the downtown core, try to navigate on Montezuma Avenue over to Sandoval or over to Guadalupe Street unnecessarily. When we are surrounded with one-way streets, this piece of circulation is critical. It is critical. So, we explored it. We spoke to the users who are already here, and when we analyze this relative to how the vehicular circulation is going to function, it is in the best interests of the downtown in terms of how vehicles are maneuvering to maintain this vehicles. So, I'm happy to answer any questions about that point, but we've looked at it, and it is not something that the state is willing to pursue.

Let's see. Material should have a sense of substance and permanence. We could not agree more. On the 40% rule, we're going through and kind of reassessing just to make sure that we haven't missed the mark, but we are completely willing and understand our obligation to comply with that.

So, not a problem at all, but we are doing a once-through to make sure we didn't miss anything there. We do want to, with respect to the courtyard at the northeast, can we pull up a site plan again, just the drawing we were just on? We would like to understand a little more about what, in the board's view, that achieves. We have spent a lot of time today discussing that as far as the pedestrian experience. Our focus has really been pulling the building back and getting these nice, very gracious plaza areas for seating, potentially for gathering, but just having a really gracious streetscape and pedestrian experience. Carving something out of the corner here, I'm not quite sure how a space like that, how much that's going to get, quote unquote, used. But we would like to understand, we're very open to the conversation about what we think that achieves.

One of the things that feels important to us is to really anchor this corner, especially relative to our relationship to the Capitol across the street. So, we really like that strong presence at the corner of the building. Again, I think Mr. Tatum is going to speak to that a little bit as well. There are some structural challenges potentially presented there, but we're happy to have the dialogue.

Let's see, the horizontal mullions, we're happy to look at that and make those modifications there. And then we talked about the ground floor portals that we are happy to roof those. Again, we think that was actually a really, really great suggestion. And then Mr. Tatum is going to speak a little more to the tower and what really drove that as a design choice for the building. We're happy to pull the windows up so we don't have any windows going all the way to the ground, and whether we kind of replicate a treatment similar to what was pointed out that is utilized at the State Capitol, something of that nature, but we're happy to accommodate that. We could discuss more about those small windows on the third floor of the north facade. That is a relatively simple modification if it's the board's desire to modify that.

Let's see. And then back to the east elevation again, this concept of incorporating more one-story mass. We're studying that right now, but there are potential, not insignificant, implications to that approach. And then we talked about the courtyard. And then, yes, on the south side of the east facade, where we have that vertical circulation coming out of the garage, we're happy to look at the fenestrations and potentially reduce the fenestrations there, double-check the 40% rule, but we're happy to do that. And that element of the building actually is, we realized we had a little bit of a setback encroachment right there that kind of after the fact. So that's actually been pulled back. So it's a little further, it's not as deep of an element. So, it's been pulled back a little bit away from the street, which I think will have a really positive impact. And I think that's it.

So, the bottom line is we don't see anything here that is insurmountable at all. And we really look forward to continuing to work with the board. I am going to ask Mr. Tatum if he would like to come up and be sworn in, and he can offer a little more color relative to the tower as well as the proposed courtyard.

Speaker: Hello. Will you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record.

Speaker: Our Tatum address is 13131 Sunrise Trail Place Northeast Albuquerque 87111.

Speaker: Thank you. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury?

Speaker: I do.

Speaker: Thank you very much. Chair, he's sworn in.

Speaker: Chair Rios, board members, thank you for having us back here tonight. Hopefully, you won't see us many more times and we can get this resolved. I think it's a really good start. I think Jennifer pretty much covered most of the bullet points that you brought up. I will hit on a couple more. I won't beat the horse to death though. I think we have responded to your question number one with the breaking up of the massing and the pedestrian scale by putting a roof on the lower portals. What that really does is create that sense of pedestrian that you're under that enclosed element. So, you don't really sense the height of the building. So it really brings the building down to the ground. And we've done that on the east and the north facades. So I think that's a thing that we can do very well and will complement the building very well.

Let's see. Of course, the stucco color. We can go with one stucco color. That's not an issue at all. With the pedimented windows, we do have a pediment, but it's not triangular. So, we did that purposely because it is a new building. So, we did the square top. That doesn't mean we can't do the triangular pediment. We can. Typically on buildings of multiple stories in territorial style, a lot of times the top floor is triangular and the other ones are not. So, it's a combination of what you can do and we're willing to do that. We can work with you to do that.

The tower, the reason for the tower is to really complement the territorial viable style building, to really put it at the entry of the building, to really suggest where the entry is. There's no question where the entry is going to be. Of course, it's not a fake tower either. It is highly functional. It has our elevators, elevator core, stairs, mechanical overrun, everything that goes up to the roof. So there is a reason for it. The size, the proportions of it is based on height of it versus width, and it's just, you know, proportion works out to what it should be. The cupola on top, which is about 20 feet tall, is open. So, it's not a solid structure. So, we wanted to do that purposely. That addresses the tower.

Let's see. Northeast corner. I really wanted to know what you were asking too when you were talking about cutting the corner back and making it a courtyard. In our mind, it's very important for a building to address not only the street and the sidewalk, but the corner of a building. Good architecture does that. So by cutting away the corner, we didn't see how that would help the character of the building. We do have a few issues. Not that we couldn't overcome them, but the parking structure, which is below grade, actually goes out past the line of the building itself. So it could be above grade at that point. So we're really, really working hard to integrate the parking structure into the site design. As you know, anytime you put plantings and things on top of a parking structure, it's not as nice as natural grade with no natural vegetation. So we're being very conscious of that. Let's see. Does that answer your question on that?

Okay. Windows not exceeding 40%. Of course, we're going to work with, look at that to make sure that we don't exceed that in any areas of the building itself. Let's see on the north elevation, I think we've already talked about the tower and the rationale behind it. The small windows on the third floor on the north elevation, those were there to help set off the entry element of the building. It was very important to the users that because this is an executive office building, that that entry is very prominent, very executive. That is a gallery on the third floor behind those windows. It doesn't mean we can't play with the size of them or the number of them. We can certainly do that. But that's the reason why it was done that way.

Speaker: Yes.

Speaker: And then of course on the east elevation, we think we've addressed the single-story concerns with covering of the portals themselves because they do then become really a single-story element. The kind of tower element that you see on the very southeast corner, we have pushed that back some and reduced that. But we will also look at the windows as you have addressed there to make sure that we're in compliance with that. And with that, I believe I have all of my comments.

Speaker: Well, thank you. I have a question for either one of you. Can you please reiterate the dimensions of the tower?

Speaker: Yeah, the height is 78 feet to the top, and that is the top of the cupola, which is open. I believe this is 57 feet.

Speaker: Yeah. But just the dimensions of the, if it was just, if they had pulled that portion that you are speaking about and put it on the ground. I know that it's 78 feet to the top.

Speaker: From the bottom to, from the bottom of the ground to the top.

Speaker: But I just want to know what the dimensions are of the tower itself.

Speaker: Of the width.

Speaker: Of the width and the height.

Speaker: I'm going to have to ask my team back here to see if they can help me. I don't have that exactly. We're talking about the width.

Speaker: And also, is it common to have open, a tower with open space, an open area like that?

Speaker: Yes. You know, a lot of times it was used for a bell tower, but it's just a, it caps, it caps it. It's just a design element that caps the tower. It's territorial. That's a territorial treatment. If you look at the Bataan building or just about any tower on a...

Speaker: Is the Bataan building's tower, is that enclosed?

Speaker: No, it's got an open cupola on it.

Speaker: But is a portion of it enclosed? Do you know?

Speaker: Is the what?

Speaker: Is a portion of it enclosed?

Speaker: It is right.

Speaker: Of the tower itself.

Speaker: Yeah. I don't know what.

Speaker: Yeah. The tower, the Bataan tower doesn't have any windows or anything in it. It's not an entry. It doesn't really have a function behind it. So, it's really an architectural element. We tried to make this a functional piece of the building. So if the tower went away, what happens to the elevator?

Speaker: Oh, it stays.

Speaker: It just stays. It just doesn't.

Speaker: Yes. This is a, this is just, this is an architectural expression. We wanted it to be functional. We didn't want to put a tower that had no use. Can you treat it differently? You bet you can. But this is, we wanted it to be a territorial design tower. The wood element at the top, although that wouldn't be wood, it implies wood. That's typical of territorial towers.

Speaker: Okay. I don't know. I'm not seeing it as a tower right at the moment. I've seen it, it's as an elephant. It's more like a...

Speaker: Towers on territorial buildings are used at entries.

Speaker: Entry and at corners typically where you see them to, as I mentioned earlier, a building wants to address the corner. So a lot of times you drive around Santa Fe, and I know you have many times. There are several of these around town and they're used in, you know, different, different ways, but...

Speaker: I'll be anxious to hear what other board members have to say in reference to this particular tower. We've been going kind of back and forth on it.

Speaker: Okay. Well, we think the tower is very important to the character of the building itself. Can we live without it? Can we live without the cupola on top? Yes. I don't think it will be as successful a design, but we can do that and it will work functionally. It's just architecturally we don't think so strong.

Speaker: Let me see if other board members have okay comments or questions.

Anybody else have comments or questions? Yes, member Chair.

I guess, first of all, I'm at a disadvantage. I'm looking at a photo of the Baton Tower, and it's got a lot of windows on it. Not that I think this one needs windows, but I think my comment on this is I personally like the tower and the scale. I don't have a problem with the scale. Now, in looking at the comparative of the Baton Tower, I think the one thing that doesn't look so appealing to me with this tower is just that from the beams going across, it appears to be just flat underneath. I'm not referencing the Baton Tower because I think it should look like the Baton Tower. I'm just noticing that this is a different feature that to me works on the Baton Tower, is that beam is lower than the ceiling of the tower. So it gives some more dimension up underneath there, so it's not just such a big flat plane. Something about that big flat plane to me makes it look more Greek, you know, like they're Mediterranean. I don't know, you're eating figs and grapes up there or something. But I think the scale and everything to me looks really nice. That would be just one little subtle detail of a change that could be made that might make it look more territorial because that's how you would build a territorial structure, is with post and beams, and the ceiling would be sort of more recessed up above the beams perimetering it.

Well, we certainly want to finish the design of the tower itself.

Gotcha. Yeah, that's my only comment on it, looking at that other tower for reference. So that's all I got to say about that.

Anybody else at this point?

No. Member Benu.

Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, so before I was just sort of presenting the subcommittee's thoughts, and a lot of that was generated in conjunction with staff because, as you know, normally when projects come before us, we've had very, very thorough staff review, and the staff has worked very carefully with the applicant before we even see a project and tried to work out all the detailing, and that really had never been done here. So, a lot of this was brainstorming from staff as well as the committee to make sure that we're just highlighting a few things that the board needed to consider. But I will just say now, my personal opinion is, you know, just ticking through some of the points. The tower, I'm in favor of. I think without that, the building would be much more nondescript. I think the tower both makes it part of the complex. I think it's helpful for really adding to the sort of substantial institutional context of the building. I think it highlights where the entrance is. I think it's a nice feature. I really like member Cher's last comment, though, because you will be looking from ground level up at the tower, and that does make the tower look a little fake to see a flat ceiling on the inside if that's how it's designed. And so I think that if it was a ceiling that was consistent with the outside shape of the roof, that would make more sense because, of course, if it were really a bell tower or something like that, it would not be a flat ceiling. So I think that that was, that's a great suggestion. And just generally speaking, I think that's what I would like to see in new renderings is a little bit more information about the details because I'm very, very comfortable with, with one exception that I'll mention, the basic design, and to me, it really now is just a question of making sure the detailing is right. I know you are in complete sync with that concept, so that does not give me concern. But it would be nice to see the final chart of sort of exactly what materials will those doors be made out of, for example. That's very critical. The exactly a really fine detail of the brick coping would be very useful to see because if it's just a series of nondescript bricks across the top, that's just not going to work. But if it's a, you know, if you're really picking up on some of the really beautiful territorial style brick coping that you see on some of the older buildings, I think that would be highly important and would really also cap off literally this building. So I would like to see that. The bell, coming back to the bell tower on that, you know, one of the nice things about the Baton Building bell tower and a lot of these older ones is they also have some really nice detailing when you actually stop and look at them. I think the Baton might even have double posting and some corbels and things like that. But I'm not really saying we don't want to imitate that tower, but it would be nice to see the same level of attention being put on this so that if you actually stopped and looked at that bell tower, you'd say, "Wow, that's, that's really beautiful workmanship and design." I'd like to see exactly how you would pull off that because that's going to be an important element. The that breaking up of the corner on the north, that concept of breaking off the northeast corner, that was a staff's suggestion. I'm not, I'm, I'm sort of persuaded that that's probably, you know, would not really be a meaningful addition based on the comments that you've been, that you've made. So I'm fine with that. To me, you've adequately answered the issue about the South Capitol parking area, why that's not really an acceptable option. So, that brings me to the only thing that I really still have some discomfort with, and that's that element that we're not seeing here, but the element on the north, southeast corner that has, that we've talked a little bit about, is that the 40% rule. I, I just feel it's, there's something off about that element to me. It just doesn't look right. And that's going to be an extremely prominent facade because that's what you're going to look at directly from the steps of the Cap.

Look at that elevation. Yeah. Yeah. So, it's far on the far left there. I, you know, I'm not an architect. I'm not a designer, so I can't explain why. I think, I think it has to do with the fact that there's too much fenestration relative to the, you know, opaque material, the actual facade. And I, I worry that even if it managed to squeeze in at 40%, it's still not going to look proportionately correct. So, I would just ask that that really be given some serious attention because that looks different to me than every other aspect of the building in terms of rhythm and proportion. So, and again, that is going to be a very prominent feature of this building from the Capitol. That's really it. Otherwise, you know, I've said it before, I'll tell you again. I think it's a very nice building. I think it's going to be a very handsome addition to the campus.

Well, thank you, John. If there are no further comments from Hboard members. Yes, Amanda.

Oh, member Beach.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll just offer final comments. I just wanted to thank the state for being so gracious and taking our comments into consideration. I think in this interactive way, we're, we're meeting the spirit of the collaborative effort that we're, we have a rule to follow. I agree with the state's proposed incorporation of the comments and also the, the ones that you reject. And I, with respect to the tower, I, I, I appreciate the architect's comments about that, about the design origin and intent. And I think that my advice to the, to the board and in especially with the vacant architect position, we should really, you know, heed those comments. I think that that, that we should give a little bit more weight to the architect before us providing those comments. And I, and just a simplistic view, I think the tower relates really nicely to the Baton Building and identifies this as another state office building. I think that is very consistent feature in the area. Thank you.

Any other comments, board members? Yes.

Thank you, ma'am. Sorry to keep talking, but I did have one other comment that I forgot to make, which was I thought member Cherry also made a good point about the stacking of the windows. Is that something you have any comments on? Because it, there is something a little bit odd about the way they're offset, and I think if they, the point I think is well made that structurally there's a reason it may look off because it questions whether, you know, what's underneath.

We'll fix that.

Okay. I mean, do you agree with that? Okay. I don't know why they look badly.

Is what? Yeah. Okay, great.

Okay. Well, I'm very anxious to hear. Amanda, did you have something I wanted to add? Chair Rios and members of the board, in regards to the east side portal, we were mentioning that to have the story and of the bungalows, and we had formally discussed it to have that inside, but staff is requesting under that portal to have that there on the east, under the east side portal. So that way there is, that's not going to be changed, and it's part of the exterior, a permanent fixture instead of something that.

Right, and the public can, the public can enjoy it from the outside.

Thank you.

What exactly is going to happen there in honor of the bungalows? Are you indicating that?

Bungalows? It was talked to in our meeting that the state was willing to do a sort of revisitive time, and they were considering putting that in the interior for the public and to, to be memorialized of the existing bungalows. So staff is asking if they were going to do that memorial, if they could do it on the exterior under that portal for the public to enjoy.

And what exactly is happening exteriorly? That is not, that we don't know. That is the process that the state.

But something that the staff wants, something to happen and to work with the state to memorialize the bungalows.

Yes. If I may, I know we've got to move on to the public hearing, but I would ask before, while this case is still being, being considered, some clarity on next steps. We have our, the 60 days deadline is coming up on February 6th. And so I'm wondering if it makes sense, and we can reach out to staff, that as we have a chance to continue to work on some of these elements, that maybe there is another meeting with the state and the subcommittee and staff that we could, you know, talk through and say, "This is how we've addressed this comment. Does this, does this accomplish what you really saw, what you were seeing?"

I think that has to happen.

I, I kind of agree. So, I just wanted to make sure I didn't want to leave this meeting without having some consensus around those next steps. And then if there's an opportunity, and I don't know if that's adequate for the subcommittee to, you know, to make the assessment that, per the statute, that the issues have, quote unquote, been addressed by the state, or if there's a desire for us to come back to the whole board one more time because I know this is not common territory that we're all swimming in right now. Right. So, I would love to kind of understand what we're all envisioning as the next steps to kind of get us to a point where we can move forward.

Yes, Amanda.

Thank you. I do, according to M, so I do believe it's a great idea that we meet again prior to, I would say, the next board hearing because I think the whole board needs to be able to say this is the final comments and vote on it. I don't think that it's the subcommittee to vote. And then also, the members of the public still are going to be giving you comments for the 60 days, and we want to see that those comments are addressed as well before the final, it's done because this has a lot been between the state and the city, and I think the public also needs to be able to have their written comments is going to happen next.

Anyone here from the public wishing to comment on this particular project, please come forward and get sworn in.

Hello. Will you please raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record?

Rad Actton, 1206 Canyon Road.

Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury?

Yes, I do.

Thank you, Chair. He's sworn in.

Good evening.

Good evening, Brad.

This process has been one that has brought about many fruits, which we can celebrate, and some which I think still need to ripen. I would say that some of the more broad site issues have been allowed to be disregarded, particularly regarding the configuration of South Capitol Avenue. The angle of that road and the arrangement of the parking and the redundant lanes on either side of that parking seems to be an inefficient use of space. It's unfortunate that there wasn't an initial appreciation of how that space could be more well used, particularly as a way of expanding the footprint of the building into some of that new area.

I'm looking at the north elevation of the building where the structure, actually along what would be that west side, has a maximum height of almost four stories because of the slope of the site. What's actually successful is how they stepped that massing back. They did not repeat that along the east side of the building, which was curious given the valid approach of maximizing symmetry in these institutional buildings. So once you look at the succession of decisions that were made, you can see how the three-story mass that extends from the tower all the way over to the east elevation had to happen. One of the least wonderful aspects of this building's massing is how it does that. It seems a shame that that was not explored because if you looked at the west elevation of this building where you have this beautiful stepping going on all the way up to that third story, none of that approach was utilized on the east side. I was sad about that. As you look at how that third-story elevation progresses all the way east, right up across the street of the Capitol, it does seem to compete with the Capitol building's massing, and that is another concern.

So this elevation, as we all, I think, have conceded, is the one that would warrant the most attention. One of the ways to consider that is perhaps an additional request for exploring the straightening out of South Capitol Avenue. You could even convert that to one one-way lane with parking up against the sidewalk that is abutting this building. Then you could not utilize that entire street edge for parking, but you could pull out a section of that to the north, which would then give you that courtyard space for the use of pedestrians and people having lunch at the Capitol building. I think staff, I'm not a mind reader, but I imagine they saw that as a wonderful place where you could have shade trees and benches and people could have their lunch there. Could be a food truck maybe parked off there, and it would be a pleasant place to be because what's really interesting is there's not necessarily a specific gathering place against this building. You're kind of moving across it and going in and not necessarily hanging out.

There's a lot of north exposure on this building. If there was a repeat of the massing on the west side brought over to the massing on the east side, that could create a wonderful one-story wing on this building that would mirror the other side. So to do one, you have to do the other, of course, but it's not too much to ask at this early phase, and it might resolve some of the misgivings that the state has about asking the city for anything in terms of street property. But it would clean up South Capitol. It would introduce symmetry to this. It would remove that third-story element entirely back to where it would make sense, stopping over the entry portal area of the building. So if we could go to that north elevation of the building very quickly.

North elevation, please.

Yeah. So you see how that long wing just sort of like a railroad set of massings extends all the way over to the east. It would terminate just east of the entry portal, and that entire east wing of the building would be two stories over to that point. That square footage would be added to the one-story section off to the north and into the new area gained from the realignment of South Capitol. So those things are all related.

That's time, just so that way you know if you want to stop it. It's entirely up to you.

No, I think that is very important to hear.

Okay. Okay. And I didn't indicate a two-minute limit, and I do feel that I want to hear all the comments that people have to make.

Got it.

I mean, the idea of a roofed portal on the east side is wonderful. Again, as we all know, we've got ice on the roads. We've got hazards which this will protect the pedestrian from. It's possible to memorialize the casitas by making that portal reflect the facade dimensions of the casitas and just have those blocks repeat themselves in that portal. It would be a nice way to do it without challenging the overall virtue of making that facade more deferential to the State Capitol, which is kind of what I'm thinking. That's all I have to add about that.

Well, thank you.

Thank you, Brad, for your comments. Hello. Will you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record.

My address is [redacted] Santa Fe.

Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury?

Yes, I do.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair, board members, and thanks to the applicant for allowing this dialogue to take place. I think it's very helpful. I just want to talk about a couple of details. We all know the devil's in the details, but the devil really exists in the lack of details, and what has been identified by members BMU and Cherry are very interesting about the cupola. I think that, and I think as a carpenter, because I've lived my life as a carpenter, so when I look at a design, what tweaks me is seeing that the carpentry is not visible on the cupola. If the cupola goes forward, I think that the idea of being able to see up into the ceiling of it is very helpful. As member BMU has mentioned, I think the double-hipped roof on that cupola would add very much. The fact that it appears flat is what throws everybody. There's no character to it. Straight, flat, square. The other thing that could help there is dental work around the top of that roof structure, which would again mimic and help this read as a territorial building. So, I'll leave that alone.

What essentially look like lintels on the windows, I think are fine. But again, a lintel in New Mexico needs to read as overlapping onto the wall beyond the opening of the aperture because that's how lintels are constructed. So, if they bring those lintels out onto the wall, even if it's two inches or three inches, that's going to help soften that facade. I also think that a pediment on top, I can't tell from these renderings whether there is a pediment on top of those window features that projects out away from the building to help shed the water as well to give dimension and setback to that window. It's the fact that there's no setback in the windows that's throwing everybody. The last suggestion I have, I like the idea of roofing over the portales, but I also think that they're shooting themselves in the foot if they don't let sunlight through them. So at the least, I would suppose that there could be skylights in those which are not visible or translucent material on the roofs of those which would allow the sunlight to get down into that lower story as it is now. These porticos allow that sunlight in, which is a very healthy thing for everyone. So that's just another little. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Thank you very much. Hello. Please raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record.

My name is Edward Archeletta. PO Box 2952, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Thank you. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth? And do this under the penalties of perjury?

I do.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Chair, board members. I'm again Edward Archeletta with the Old Santa Fe Association. I'm the co-director. As you can imagine, we've been very concerned about this building for a number of years, ever since we heard about it. There's a lot of concerns we've had about the height, different things. I'm, we haven't, the board has not seen this yet, and I'm sure once they do see it, they're going to be encouraged. I'm encouraged because a lot of the things that we were concerned about are being addressed here. So, I want to thank the ad hoc committee for bringing these up. I want to thank Ms. Jenkins and the architects for agreeing to some of the things that we were very concerned about.

However, there's two main things that I think are going to be a point of contention with us. One of them is the height. We're still concerned about 57 feet or the 50 feet. We had an independent architect look at this, and she looked at all the buildings in the neighborhood, immediate buildings in the state area, and she said that the average height is about 35 feet. So that's something we're going to bring up in our comments when we submit them to you. The other thing too, which has been brought up again, is the number of windows. It looks like they're exceeding the 40%. That's just eyeballing it, but I think we want to look at that a little bit closer. But I do want to thank everybody for bringing this forward, and we will definitely get written comments to you by February 6th. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Will you please state your name and address for the record?

Yes. My name is Elizabeth West. I live at 318 Senna Street in the South Capitol. So I walk by this area a lot.

Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury?

Yes, I do.

Thank you very much.

I would like to echo a little bit about what Mr. Archeletta said. It's really nice to be part of a process, and sometimes when these kind of things happen, I feel as if we're being humored, but I actually think in this case, I feel invited. So thank you. The tower seems to me kind of wonderful and yet too big for its boots. It makes you wonder why is it so square? And of course, the angles that we are looking at it from are kind of up in the air and on from the ground. I think some of the ideas of making more details is a good idea. And maybe make it a little bit narrower, make it a little bit smaller. I can see why you want to have it there. The main reason, first of all, I like that it has something to do with something that's necessary for the building, the elevator, etc. And it kind of sits on top of that and announces it and says, "See, we're doing a good thing here." It also is very important in a way to have it, otherwise it's just a long straight building looking at it from, I believe it's the east, and I think it is member Benvanu who made a comment about that corner, is it the southeast? I mean, excuse me, southeast corner. It's a kind of funny looking thing. I, anyway, the windows look like filigree almost.

They're too repetitive, they're too fussy, and they're too delicate for the massing of the building, in my opinion. I think it's something to consider, and I don't think it would be tremendously complicated. I don't have experience. Yeah, I think I can see that. I do agree also with Mr. Acton, who said the west side of the building does invite a lot of variety. It invites you to look up and say, "I wonder what's going around the corner. What are those windows doing there?" It's, I do that all the time. And I think you're trying to make bigger rooms 10 feet tall, and I know that does feel better and it's grander. It just feels as if it's too big still and too repetitive. And I guess that's what we're going to be stuck with. So then, therefore, a little more detail and a little more variety where it is permissible. I'm very interested in a variety of heights, a variety of setbacks, and but this will be improved, and I really appreciate this particular architectural team. I think they've really paid attention to things.

One thing that came up in the previous meeting, which I attended, was the interest in history, and I believe that they have a team member who is particularly focused on that, and I appreciate that. What I was wondering is how, and I see that staff is recommending having some of the interest that is inside be able to be seen from the outside. But I still feel a little bit excluded from the building. Is there any way that some of that idea of maybe one day a week it could be open up and there could be guards to make sure nobody does anything naughty, and people don't have to go upstairs, but you could go into the building? The fun of living in a relatively small city is that you can be inside and outside. So that's part of the reason you have portals and why you have windows, and at the same time, why you don't have windows. Thank heavens you're going to deal with that. You're going to deal with that. They go all the way to the floor, all the way to the ground. And what a mistake on the plaza with those windows that were allowed to go in like that. Pretty awful. So I think that's all I have to say, and that long, long, long line. Let's make sure, Mr. Ben Veninu, you had a good idea of saying, "We're going to want to look at the details. We're going to be hungry for details on this massive building." Thank you.

Thank you, Elizabeth.

Hello. Will you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record.

My name is Kathy Rivera, and I'm at PO Box 363 in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Thank you. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury?

I do.

Thank you very much.

Madam Chair and members of the board, I am encouraged by this process. I understand we are swimming in uncharted waters for many of these projects, and for a mere mortal like myself who can't really comment and debate the finer points of some of these design elements, it is interesting to me that the basic element of this is that the state wants to build something and needs to get permission from the city. So I would ask, specific to number four, all of these issues about the height, questions about the height for someone like me who is an average citizen, I think it's incumbent as we come to the final design that we get clarity on whose standards are being used, how they were measured, whether it's the state standards, the city standards, and whether or not we're asking for exceptions in either of these cases. So whatever the final design comes out to be, I think for prosperity and post-prosperity, we need to have that noted for future designs and future cooperation with the state. And regarding the city ordinances, what is being used, what are the standards, and whether there's exceptions being granted. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in this building wishing to comment in reference to this particular project? Oh, Peter, don't go fall. Will you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record.

Sir, do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Thank you very much.

Madame Chairwoman and board members, good evening. I just have a few comments about some of the architectural elements. My suggestion is that the south facade penetration does get reduced. It seems a little too institutional in the sizing of the windows in relation to the extension of the facade. And then I have another recommendation that the exterior port tile on the third floor, which I think is on the south facade, be set back maybe two to three feet from where it is right now in order to be more in proportion with the sizing of the building. I think it's a little too, it extends out too far from the rear walls. And then I have an idea that there's a time limitation, I know, on the hearing process. So I was wondering if there was time enough for any submittal of the tower designs to the committee so that you'd have a choice of a selection of various towers that have been built on territorial buildings. I can't recall that many are done that way, but we do have a few examples in town. And I remember that's very useful to have some visual comparisons if you have this as a major issue. And then I would suggest if there is a time flexibility that instead of a general meeting, that you have a special meeting for the hearing of this case because it is very interesting for the public and it does take up a lot of time, and I so I appreciate this opportunity. Thank you.

Thank you, Peter. Appreciate your comments. Anyone else come forward, please? No one else in this room. Is there anyone online?

Yes, Chair. It looks like we have one hand up. Two. Okay, there's a few more coming up. So Jordan Young, if you would like to provide your comments.

Hi there.

Jordan, can you hear me?

Yes.

Will you please state your name and address for the record?

Jordan Young. I live at 652 Galasto Street.

Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury?

Yes. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. It is a little bit odd to me that the state has to bow down to the city's bureaucracy, and they have managed to thread a design needle and come up with a beautiful, harmonious, conforming design, and now we have new concerns. We're down the rabbit hole, participating in a horrific design by committee process and hashing out the particulars. In a city that claims to love and respect artists, we sure do love to nitpick architects' visions into even more conformity. How is 60 or 30 more days not enough time to review something that conforms? Has HDRB and OSA not been delaying this project already for years over their nostalgic attachment to the vacant casitas? Does anyone on the board respect that time is literally money when it comes to project management and development? I personally have already attended two meetings to discuss this design, and I saw beautiful renderings. OSA, after failing to preserve the crumbling casitas, is now piecemealing the design along with HDRB committee members in this design by committee mayhem. Is there no respect for the architect who has spent time designing this building? Is he not a professional? With every month of delay and added period of public comment, costs continue to go up. Perhaps if we had as much respect for our current workers and our future economy and our unhealthy housing market, we wouldn't waste so much time and so many resources rehashing a perfectly beautiful conforming building that is harmonious with its surroundings. What's the point of even having a code and rules if everything comes down to neighborhood complaints and a building-by-building, case-by-case, super slow process? We have tons of data to support that community input through hearings such as these privilege the complainers, often the wealthy and privileged who have extra time to sit through meetings on weeknights without childcare. Not only does the HDRB process pit neighbors against one another, and in this case, the city pitted against the state, it undermines the rules set forth in the code. Why even have a code if we are going to scrutinize every project individually? What if historic city staff reviewed applications and provided administrative approval for projects that conformed to style rules, and if they relied on qualified professional architects on HDRB for guidance and advice? What if the process was transparent enough that this could be possible? What is the point of creating a huge design application packet that follows the rules if they are up for reinterpretation over and over again? HCRB and all of its processes need to be streamlined and overhauled to support actual people living and actual people who work in these buildings. The city needs to be equipped with reasonable staff who see their job as helping people rather than hindering development. Why is there not a set of criteria that can be met, boxes that can be checked, and administrative approval granted without making every fence or pergola or beautiful conforming building a controversy? To me, the process of building this new necessary state building is a clear sign that preservation is not doing its job. Preservation should be about people and culture. In our current processes are an endless pit of bureaucratic woe. HDRB should celebrate beautiful designs and support architects and contractors in executing their projects. They should come prepared to meetings with an adequate understanding of the presented projects so that it doesn't become a design free-for-all by committee and an extremely expensive compromise. Thank you.

Thank you.

Inappropriate for the clapping. Is there anyone else?

Yes, Chair. We have Anthony Guida who has his hands raised. Please, be sworn in before your testimony. Thanks.

1711 Second Street, Santa Fe.

You solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury?

I do indeed.

Thank you.

I thank you, board members. I am in agreement with the comments of Jordan Young. I think they're really on point. I'm also happy that the applicants tonight are putting some of the board's comments and concerns to bed, and doing so with incredible grace and patience. I'm wondering, can we do the same with this egregious public review process over state and county projects? This project has been in design and review and redesign for the better part of four years. There has already been a meeting with preservation stakeholders, in fact, several. The site and massing strategy of this project have both been justified over and over again. I'm not suggesting that no improvements are possible, but this is already a building that has been compromised by having to conform with our incredibly and overly prescriptive and contradictory code. I agree that the board's comments are vague and contradictory. For instance, more differentiated in mass, but more uniform in stucco. The tower is too tall, but not tall enough. It should look more like mediocre buildings from 75 years ago, but not the same as those buildings. It's both too detailed and not detailed enough.

I highly doubt that non-expert design by committee or redesign by the public is likely to result in a better building. Back to this process, are we really dragging this out another 35 days? Was the public made aware that they have a 60-day review period to comment on this project, or do we have to start the clock all over again? I strongly support this project and the current design. The massing is fine. It responds to the context around it. It doesn't need to be shorter or more symmetrical or more 1940s or have more carpentry. It is a 21st-century steel office building in the Territorial Revival style, not a house. It conforms with our code. It is perfectly suited for its site. Time and informed feedback do make better buildings. More rules and more opinions, particularly when they only come from a very specific subset of our city's residents, do not make better buildings. We've seen that time and again. I love the idea that this building will bring more people to our transit-connected downtown other than just tourists and shopkeepers. I also strongly support a definitive action by the board tonight and not dragging this out any further than it needs to be. I also support making a reform of this absurd, time-consuming, and unproductive process over capital outlay projects a priority early in the Phase 2 rewrites of the zoning code. Let's put this project to bed. Let's all of us go to bed. Thank you.

Mayor: Thank you. Is there anyone else online?

Chair: Thank you, Chair Rios. I do not see any other hands raised.

Mayor: Thank you. I personally want to thank all of you who have been involved in this process. I'm going to tell you, Santa Fe would, hearing the number of comments that were made this evening, Santa Fe would not be what it is today if we didn't have involved, engaged citizens such as the ones that we heard this evening. And this board, we are a volunteer board and we are doing our job. And the reason that we are collaborating with the state, there's a reason for that. There was a law passed by the legislature that felt that it was imperative that the state work with the city so that we could come together and make the best possible project out of capital outlay projects. And I think that this team of architects has worked with the subcommittee and with the board, and we are trying our darnest to make the best building possible. Not only this building, but if we have smaller buildings. This is a huge building and it needs the scrutinizing of the citizens and this board in order to come up with the best project. And I thank you citizens that come out here every time and come and take time from your schedules to come and give your opinions here. So everyone that spoke this evening, you are appreciated. And with that being said, I would say that really for what we really need to do, I think John, and I can run it through you all, is that we really do need to meet again with the subcommittee to solidify things so that probably for the upcoming next board meeting, that we have things more solidified. And I would, I mean, I don't think it should be done in the, I don't know if we need to do it in the form of a motion necessarily or just indicate that we need to have, that we need to meet again with the, because there were a lot of things that need to be addressed and we need to make solid decisions on it so that we can meet the deadlines that are coming up. And I think that the people from the public actually had some good suggestions. And I would ask the people that spoke this evening if they don't mind doing a little bit of homework, if you could do some bullet points and indicate so that we can see it before our next meeting. And I don't know when that's going to be so that we can see what you said to see if what you said was important enough to include in this final design.

Jennifer: Yes, Jennifer. So in looking at the schedule, and I really do appreciate dialogue, so again, we're all really clear on our next steps. So, the deadline for us receiving comments, we've received yours, which we so appreciate how promptly those were issued to us, so we can jump into these corrections right away. But the comment period lasts until February 6th. So, I think that I will reach out to the subcommittee and staff about finding a time to meet here within the next few weeks, so we can show our progress and get your feedback. But I'm imagining that as far as the next hearing before the full board, we're probably looking at February 10th because to be meeting, if we meet at the next meeting this month in two weeks, but yet more comments trickle in up to February 6th, that is going to be, you know, that's going to be potentially problematic. So, you know, we are anxious to, you know, get this resolved and move forward. But we also don't want to get into a start-stop situation where we think we're good and then all of a sudden more comments trickle in and then we have to, we have to circle back. So, I'm sort of thinking that we get together with the subcommittee here. Like I said, we'll find a mutually convenient time here over the next few weeks, and I need to get with my team so I make sure they have adequate time to do some meaningful work here. But I think it would make sense if we could plan on an agenda item under old business for February 10th would probably make the most sense. And I do for the folks here, you know, the sooner the better that those comments, those written comments could be issued, we would greatly appreciate, you know, because if stuff starts trickling in on February 6th, then we're going to be scrambling. So,

Mayor: Yeah.

Jennifer: I would say do it ASAP.

Mayor: Yeah, that would be much appreciated.

Jennifer: Thank you.

Mayor: Madam Chair.

Member Bman: Yes, Member Bman. So, thank you, Madam Chair. So, I guess I, I, I understand what, what you're trying to, how you're trying to thread the needle. I'm just not, I don't think it actually works. And here's what I, here's why. You haven't actually received yet written comments from, from the board. You've really, all you've received is a, is sort of a preliminary document that the ad hoc committee prepared for the board to discuss to decide whether or not they wanted to make any of those as recommendations. But we didn't reach a consensus on that just yet. We had a very fruitful discussion about it. And my own view is that you, I think it's highly probable that the city and the state are going to be able to reach an agreement. And if they are able to reach an agreement before February 6th, then that means that the, the city does not need to submit any formal written recommendations and comments to you. The 60-day period will expire. The five-day period to appeal will be irrelevant and the process is basically complete at that stage other than the fact that members of the public still have the right to make their own comments and the, the state can choose to take those into account or not. So what I think needs to be done because of the strange way this process has been written into the code and the statute is we still, the board still needs to make a formal decision as to what, whether to issue formal written recommendations and comments to the state and if so, what, what exactly they are. I personally don't think we can do that tonight. I think that we could do that at the next meeting and what would be necessary, I think, in order to do that would be to have the state come back to us between now and then with a revised plan proposal on the design that incorporates all the discussion that we had tonight and then based on that revised plan, I think that the board could then have a vote as to whether or not they still believe there are unresolved issues that they want to issue a written recommendation. So that's the way I think the procedure has to work. But the question for me would be, is the state able to pull that together between now and the next meeting two weeks from now?

Jennifer: Right, to confer with my team. We can move forward in that fashion. So, but I need to circle back and I, I don't want to make promises we can't keep and that's, that's a lot to do to prepare, meet with the subcommittee and and

Member Bman: I'm not even sure that you need to meet with the subcommittee if you have a revised proposal that addresses the concerns of the entire board and perhaps however you want to take into account concerns are expressed by the public as well. I don't know that the subcommittee part of the process is needed.

Jennifer: Submit revisions that then could be considered at the next meeting. I mean, when's your staff report deadline?

Member Bman: Well, I, it's, it's old business. So there doesn't need to be any, you know, doesn't need to be a new agenda item. I don't even know it needs to have a staff report. I just think it, we just continued this discussion based on the new revised proposal.

Jennifer: Because what has been solidified?

Member Bman: What has the board, what has the board acted upon or

Jennifer: We haven't, that's the, that's why I don't think we can resolve anything tonight, but I think that, I think that a fairly clear consensus has been conveyed and the state has indicated a willingness to take into account virtually every concern that was expressed.

Member Bman: So that was just a question of seeing it in a design.

Jennifer: I, I do think it's beneficial if the subcommittee meets with you all. I really do before you come back to the full board.

Mayor: Yes. Member B.

Member B: Thank you, Madam Chair. So my understanding of the process is that the board doesn't require, is not required to take any action other than to decide if we have major concerns that require a written recommendation to the state, formal resolution, and that could prompt the formation of the, the big committee. So I haven't heard anything along those lines tonight. You know, we, we provided some recommendations for discussion. Those were well received by the state. There's no major issues unless I'm not hearing them. I think the state has agreed to consider everything that we've put on the table. The state has also heard the public comments and can consider those at their discretion. I don't know why this meeting can't serve as as evidence of the resolution of any issues the board would have. And I'm not sure if this is allowed, but maybe the next proposal from, or the next meeting could be a list or some, some commitments from the state to consider things in a certain way from this, from this discussion. It could just be a summary of, here's the things we heard you say, here's the things that we are planning to address or, or, or not. And that could satisfy the board's need for some sort of final description of the details in lieu of a completely revised set of plans. I don't, we're not approving this project. We don't have to see that in, in the way that we see other cases. We don't need a staff report. So I'm just wondering if that's a possibility. Because I, I don't, I mean, the objective is to determine if it's going to go to the, the large state city committee and I, I don't see any evidence for the, for the fact that we might be headed there. We're, we're going to reach a resolution here like we have compromise on both sides. I think. So yeah, is there another option that doesn't just delay this unnecessarily? We're not going to get any more assurance than the state telling us that they're going to consider these design recommendations.

Mayor: So, I'm a bit confused. So, you indicated that this board does not have to see the finalized project.

Member B: We're not approving it.

I mean, we're providing recommendations. If we have a serious objection, it goes to the committee process. Unless I'm misunderstanding something, please correct me if I'm wrong. We don't have approval authority here, and so a final design is not something we can really demand. We can ask for it, and the state seems pretty willing to try to entertain our request, but I don't think that that's required.

The way you understand?

Thank you. Not exactly. I think that, I mean, it's true that in a way we don't finally approve them, but we do indirectly because we have the right if there are unresolved issues at the end of the 60-day, 65-day period, then we can demand the formation of this committee. And so that in essence means we have to decide whether there's still unresolved issues.

We want to get this resolved.

And I think we will. So I don't say that this is delaying things. I think it would actually speed things up by just taking off the table the formation of the committee if we just agreed that we're not going to, that we've reached agreement.

Member Cherry: Yeah. What I heard in Member Benevides' proposal was it sounds like a little bit of a fast track as opposed to the subcommittee, you know, basically writing down all these sort of conclusions that were made and then giving back to you guys and you saying, "Yes, we agree with it." It just fast tracks it to say you've heard all this, revise the plan and bring that back as the result, and it just kind of makes it into a one-step process for the next hearing. Is that?

Yeah. And then, and then the board could decide, "Okay, that's acceptable. This ACE is closed as far as we're concerned," or, "No, we still have unresolved issues."

Yeah. And if there's, if they're not severe unresolved issues, it could just be stated there's some minor tweaks and those would just be added to.

Thank you again, Madam Chair. I don't, what are the unresolved issues? Like we can resolve them all tonight. I think we've, I haven't heard anyone say, "I absolutely cannot accept any design detail that we've been presented with." I don't know why we wouldn't just.

I don't think there are any unresolved issues.

That's what I mean. This could be the final meeting on this, but perhaps we could have a summary of what the state understood us to say tonight. I don't think that the meeting with the subcommittee again to rehash what we've already have here is necessary, but unless the state feels that what the public indicated, the different things that the public indicated might come into play into what you want as the to incorporate into this project.

Chair, board members, I've been taking copious notes all evening. So, I don't feel as the state needs another kind of written record of this. You know, this is all being recorded. You know, we can access it at our leisure. And as far as the public comment, I think most of the comments were echoing essentially some of the comments that the board has shared relative, you know, whether it's the 40% rule or more detail and different treatment of the Koopa, which we think is well taken. And so I didn't really hear anything from the public that was a significant deviation from the discussion that we have had this evening. But again, I wrote everything down and we will take it all under consideration. So, with that being said, are you willing to do what several board members have indicated, that you all review the plans again and then incorporate the main points that were brought out this evening and then bring it, bring us the new architectural drawings at the next meeting?

May I confer with my team before I commit them to something that is, this is unfortunately, this does not rest with me. So if I may, indulge me for one moment.

Can I make a comment while that's going on? I think we should just be specific about what we're asking because when you say revised plans, it's like, I think what we're wanting is just revised renderings that just show. We're not looking for, yeah, just we should, we should be specific about what we're asking for. So it's not ambiguous, could be anything.

And you might also incorporate some of, if you felt that some of the public, the comments that the public made are legitimate or improve the project, those really need to be taken into consideration.

Yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a, I just want to make, I think an obvious comment. It's obvious for me. Excuse me. When we request of an applicant all that we have talked about this evening, and I am very impressed with their willingness to listen to comments and let us be part of the process. But when we make these comments and recommendations, they are not obliged to honor them. I mean, they are going to do in good faith what we're asking, but their design elements might be limiting them. I mean, there are things that they need to talk about. So, we do need to see this again. I'm sorry. I mean, that's my thinking. Now, whether it's in a small committee or I don't care about that. I'm not on that committee anyway. But what I'm saying is.

We're making recommendations and they're being kind and listening and saying they'll take them into consideration, but they are not obliged to honor them specifically. So what do you do with that?

If we're going to approve a project or make a or disapprove, depends. I'm not sure we're going to do that. I think we're all very pleased with the process as it's working. And I agree, we can belabor things and drag them out, but this is a pretty important piece of Santa Fe and appreciate your willingness to entertain our queries and requests. That's our job.

That's all I want to say. Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sorry to belabor the point, but just, just so we're clear, I just want to make sure everyone understands we don't, we don't approve of this. It's not like a regular case. We, we can, we can delay the process further by forming a very serious subcommittee between the state and the city, which I understand is reserved for serious disagreements about the design, which I don't think we have. I think unless somebody disagrees with that, all we, all we are charged with doing is, is making a decision about whether or not that some, some design element requires that level of additional scrutiny and compromise. I don't think we're there. So, even if we get a revised design back, the state is under no obligation to, to build that design. It's not contingent on our approval. This is just an opportunity for us to work together to get the best design possible from both, both sides of that, of the equation.

Thank you for that, Jennifer. I understand and agree with that completely. That's not what I'm saying. We have a, we have a duty here to respond to an application and by our lights, whatever our lights are and our experience and background. It's just what it is. We're just one element to consider what is being proposed for our city. And all I'm saying is to say tonight we're not going to vote. Maybe I don't know whether we're voting tonight to tell you the truth. I guess we're not. But to again thank the applicants for their efforts and their willingness to work with us. We appreciate that. By saying token, we want to make sure that our work and what we think we do is of helpful in the community is meaningful as well. Long way of saying, and I don't want to belabor this any more than I have. I just think we need to have a further review somehow of what the reaction is to our recommendations. I mean, that makes sense to me. Maybe I'm the only one that thinks it does, but.

I appreciate that. I, I just feel like we've received that tonight. I feel like the state has been really receptive to the comments we've made so far, and I don't think we have additional comments. I just don't, I don't see the point in continuing this beyond tonight, just based on the way things have been received in this public forum.

Well, I think that I agree with Member Cherry that we do have to reiterate what specifically, because we're working with you. We need to reiterate, even though you have taken notes and you're taking everything under advisement, but the board needs to reiterate what we feel is important. And then I think for the next meeting that the state will come and present the hopefully the final product. That's the way I view it. We can get the work done so we can get it to staff the end of next week. So it can be turned around in time to be in your packet. So you would have the drawing.

For the meeting on the 27th.

I love it. I, I really like it. I think it's really cool and I like that it's like, it's different, you know? It doesn't look like everybody else's table.

Well, that's what I think.

That is a, a staff is good with that.

So, if someone here on the board is willing to now indicate what those specific recommendations are. Well, do we, do we just need a motion to have it to not, not to state what, what need, like the criteria is, but just in, and this would be a question for you to to bring it back as old business next meeting. Is that how you would see that happening?

The way I read the process, which is found in NMSA 3-22-6, the board needs to vote to, to on some recommendations. I think it should be the collective vote of the board. Now, if you think that the recommendations that have been presented tonight can be revised a little bit according to the comments that everybody's made and the comments that Miss Jenkins and the architects have made. Perhaps you, we can have another meeting of the subcommittee. You can revise them and vote on them. You're still within the time limit to vote on them on the 27th, but I do believe that they will not be binding and we will sacrifice an important part of that process if you don't follow through on that.

And Frank, that's made in the form of, of a motion.

Well, I would suggest.

Or a statement.

Well, my recommendation is that the subcommittee meet one more time, make some revisions in accordance with what the comments have been tonight, submit the final recommendations to the board and to the state prior to the 27th, and then vote to approve those recommendations on the 27th. I, I think there should be some collective decision to the board, some set of recommendations.

Can I make a comment on that? See, I, that's just not the way I see it. I think that's making extra work for everybody. I really, I do agree completely with your premise that the board, anything the subcommittee does is not following this procedure because it's not, it's not formally adopted by the board in terms of recommendations. I don't think though that recommendations are necessarily going to even be need to be made in this case. We, this is still part of a discussion process. This is back and forth. It sounds to me like it's very possible that at the next meeting based on the discussions that have been taking place that the state is going to present a proposed revised plan that the board may just say we have no issue, no more issues, and then they won't need to issue any formal written recommendations at that point because the process is complete. Okay.

The only reason to issue the written recommendations and comments is to preserve your right to appeal to this committee. Otherwise, there's no purpose to be served in it. And if there was a reason to do it, it could be as simple as saying, "Our comments are, we accept this prop, we accept your revised plans as being consistent with our design ordinances, and we have no objections."

So, what are you suggesting happen?

That would happen at tonight?

We just basically defer any further consideration of the matter to the next board meeting. It's put on the agenda as...

No motion, I think.

I don't think there even needs to be a motion. We're just deferring to the next meeting, continuing the discussion. If you need a motion, it would be to reconsider this matter at the next board meeting based on revised plans made consistent with the discussion that took place tonight.

Second.

Yeah, I don't know if that's needed, but Madam Chair and Member Bianu, then what is to stop the state from deciding we don't need to follow these recommendations?

There's no recommendations been made. That's my whole point.

Well, if you... Okay. Well, what is to stop the state from deciding we're not going to follow any of the suggestions that the board or the public has made? We would find that out at the next board meeting, and then we would say that we're going to issue formal written recommendations, comments that we don't accept the proposal, and five days later we would ask to have the committee formed. Well, I believe that since this is a legal matter, that it would be appropriate to bring it up at another subcommittee meeting. I mean, we can argue about this and iron this out.

Oh, you mean just to decide the legality of the procedure?

Right. I mean, my position is the board should vote to make recommendations. But whether you do that tonight or whether you do that on the 27th, since we're still within the timeframe...

Right.

But I believe for those recommendations to carry any weight, the board has to vote on them.

Exactly. If we're making recommendations, we have to have a board vote. That's why we're going to have to have another meeting to decide whether that's going to take place or not.

Okay.

Completely agree with that. Okay, thank you.

Yeah, I agree with that too. I guess my non-lawyer brain on this is thinking, if we're making the recommendations, it's on us to compile the recommendations to make. And what I'm hearing, the proposal for them to take everything they've heard here tonight and distill it down to a new plan, is really putting the burden on them to take everything that was heard here tonight and bring what we want our recommendations to them back to us. So I actually see it as if we're going to, if we don't have clarity on the recommendations for tonight, that's fine. But in the next two weeks, it should be on us to rewrite those recommendations in a revised document and then approve those at the next meeting. It should be our responsibility to write up the recommendations for them and not their responsibility to hear what we've said in a conversation tonight and then bring that back to us as a recommendation. It just doesn't make sense to me. It makes more sense to me for us to take what we've heard tonight, write them as recommendations, and say, "Here's our recommendations," and we vote on it, yay or nay, and then the process continues on.

But for what it's worth, Madam Chair, the state is willing to concede that we have heard your comments. We feel we're not lacking much clarity on our side. We asked, there were a few points we needed more clarity, and you provided that to us. So, although I appreciate Board Member Cherry where you're going with that, I'm not sure the statute requires that. There's nowhere in the statute that even says the HDRB shall make a motion to do anything. It says the HDRB shall issue their written comments. You did that, and as far as we're concerned, you've done that. We had a very robust, useful discussion this evening. We feel like we are armed with adequate information to go back, make the adjustments that we've discussed this evening, and present something to you on the 27th.

Madam Chair and members of the board, since this is an area of the law and these are statutes that have not been tested in the courts of appeals, I believe the board should do everything it can to follow every step, to engage every benefit that is given to the board under the statute. You can, if you decide to sacrifice some element of the statute that protects the board's interests, you may find out that the court of appeals has decided you didn't follow the statute. So, what's required, respectfully, Miss Jenkins, what's required and what's a good idea are two different things, right? Again, we can discuss this some more. We can discuss these legalities in a subcommittee meeting that is...

Thank you, Madam Chair. A bit of a separate issue, but I want to just propose the idea of perhaps, if it sounds like this case may be coming back to the board, perhaps holding a special session for it. I'm just really feeling for the public right now. I mean, it's 9:00, and we still have a lot of cases, and I think it's already hard enough to ask people to come to this board after they've just gotten off work and skipping dinner and time with their family, and we haven't even started our standard cases at 9:00. I think this is the second time this has happened with this case, and I think it just... and all this conversation is warranted, but I think it almost deserves its own separate session just so that we can make sure we're hearing everyone else's cases in a timely manner and getting them to work in the morning, not super exhausted. So that would be my proposal if we do hear this case again.

Madame Trey Rios, we also have Heather Lamboy on Zoom.

Oh, okay. I want to hear from Heather. Heather.

Good evening, Chair and members of the board. I'm sorry I couldn't be present this evening. I just want to address Miss Jenkins' comment about the board having issued written comments. And while there are written comments that are out there, they only represent the views of the subcommittee, not necessarily the views of the board. And so, certainly, I think that's what Vice Chair Venu is trying to get at, and a lot of folks are trying to find a common ground, and I see there's a lot of consensus that has been built between the city and the state. So I certainly hear Miss Aguilar Madrono's concern and desire to set a special meeting, and we will endeavor to do that so that everybody will have sufficient time. So, at this point, maybe we can just work on setting a special meeting and then providing for public notice at the end of January. And hopefully that might provide for opportunity for the state to regroup and for the city to officially submit comments, in a written manner, representing the points of view of the entire board.

Thank you, Heather. Okay, I'm still a bit confused. I'm getting different directions from the city attorney and from board members. And I feel that the state listened to what we had to say this evening. And I think that we at least should make a statement that the state should take under advisement the comments that the board made. Nothing is being restated, and also the comments that were made from the public. And so that for the next meeting, and it might be a... it looks like it's going to be a special meeting, not at the date of the next H board meeting, but at another date. But I feel that we need to make some kind of a statement in reference to that, or I think that would be appropriate. I don't know if Frank agrees or disagrees.

I would have to discuss with Miss Lamboy the idea of having a special meeting. I think we've covered everything we need to cover tonight. [clears throat] And if you want to vote to approve those recommendations tonight, you can. If you want to take them and revise them according to the comments that have been made, and then present them at the next meeting, but I don't know that you have to reopen the next meeting to public comment and comments from the applicant because I think you've covered all that.

Comments, but the Chair has a lot of discretion in that regard.

Yeah, Member B.

I'm just wondering, I understand the subcommittee put this together and the staff assisted with that. So is there a way for this to be revised for presentation at the next hearing for a board vote so that we have consensus on our... if we want to call them recommendations, we can do that.

Yes, we'd be happy to do that.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. I think, and I don't know that we... my opinion is we don't need to see a full revised set of plans from the applicant. I think they're willing to do that. I'll leave that to your discretion. But I think what the board needs to do is be clear on what we agree is an issue or not. And so if we could revise this based on tonight's discussion so that the board can review it as part of the packet and then vote on whether or not we all agree these are our final comments on the project, that would probably avoid another conversation just like the one tonight next time.

And what is your timeline in terms of...

With the next hearing on the 20th, you think that this should be revised by the next hearing?

As a set of final comments from the board rather than just talking points that we could vote on. But I'm happy to hear other people's opinions on that. I just...

I don't know. I'm just thinking...

I don't want to have this discussion again. I feel like...

Feeling the same thing.

I'm not sure, but I'll just weigh in. I think we're going a little bit in circles because we're all repeating our positions, but I really just think this could be a very simple matter where...

But to get to resolution, I think we need to see what the state has and has not taken into consideration in the comments. That's the only thing left to do in my mind.

Other than that...

I disagree though. We haven't... we haven't given them any comments. We've had a conversation that had a lot of comments in...

We haven't given... I agree. We haven't given the formal comments yet, but we've had a robust discussion. Everybody has had a chance to have their say. The public has as well. The state has took that in and responded to almost every single one of them. And almost every single one of them said they would do and meet those concerns. Now, the only question is just seeing that and seeing which ones they didn't. But the result that we need to come up with out of this process is we need to have... am I incorrect that my understanding of the result is that we need to issue as a board, not as a subcommittee, recommendations? No. So no, we don't have to issue recommendations. If they present us a plan, all we have to say is our comment is we agree, it's fine, and we're done. No more recommendations. I think it's a waste of time to go through the ones that have already been done because those were just discussion points. It's... and to me, we're going to very likely end up in a place where the board's just going to say, "Okay, we approve this proposal," and then the process is over as far as the board's concerned.

So all we need to see are the revised plans. I think we could have a very quick discussion about that at the next board meeting, and then we can...

We do at that moment need to make that final decision, as the city attorney is emphasizing, whether or not we are going to issue formal written recommendations and comments because we have to decide to do that by the deadline if that's our plan.

So are you for or against having a special meeting?

I don't think a special meeting is necessary. I think we can just resolve this in a 10-minute discussion at the next meeting.

I think that we need to revise. I'm not objecting. If the board wants to have a special meeting, I think we need to revise what was said this evening and submitted to the, because as the state has said, they took copious notes. They understand all of our concerns. The board elaborated on them as individual members. They responded to them. We had discussion. I don't think there's any purpose to be served in revising.

Chair, you may wish to just place on the record when will the board receive the revised plans?

Before the Friday deadline to have this posted.

Okay. But will it be before the 27th?

Staff have spoken with the applicant and we advise them that packets go out on the 22nd of January and they will have revised plans to us prior to that date so it can make it into the packet for the 27th, the hearing on, I'm sorry, the 28th.

And the applicant.

27th and the applicant.

The applicant agrees with that. Is that correct, Ms. Jenkins?

And just to be clear, by plans, we don't mean anything more elaborate than we've seen, just renderings.

Yes, that is correct. So this evening, do we have to make some kind of a statement?

I don't think so. Or just.

This is the end of it.

Yeah. I think.

And for the record.

I would agree more that the public, we really need to move on to the next agenda.

Yeah. And I would just say I would agree with either way. I think the result is the same either way. In other words, we're either writing the recommendations and it's a 10-minute conversation at the next meeting to approve them, or we're asking them to do them. They've agreed to do them. So let's just get going.

Is everybody clear on that?

Staff is clear. City staff is clear.

All right. I just wanted to clarify for staff that my suggestion to revise, it does not need to happen. We're happy to get the revised renderings from the applicant and staff does not need to rework this document. I just wanted you guys to think there was extra work if you misunderstood that. Thanks.

Thank you.

The majority of the board feels that the state took copious notes and is taking everything under consideration that was said not only by the board, but perhaps even the members at large, the members of the public, and will apply what they feel is important to the outcome of the next project and will present that to us at the next meeting, not having to have a special meeting. Okay. Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Now we only have nine cases. Okay. First case this evening is Lanny. Okay. Well, we'll do it quickly. Okay. Lanny, is the applicant here for 123 Camino Santiago?

Oh. Oh, there you are, John.

Right behind me.

Okay. Okay. So these, this is actually two cases in one. This is 2025-011770 and 2025-11771 HDR boy, and that's for the quadruplex structure at 123 and 125 Camino Santiago for status review. Plaza del Monte is a historic compound that's related to the Clark and Register buildings. It's a Spanish, I'm sorry, I'm trying to cut this down a little bit. It's Plaza del Monte. It's terrible.

So the quad apartments at 123 and 125 Camino Santiago were constructed as part of the Plaza del Monte compound in 1970 and are currently listed as non-contributing to the downtown and east side historic district. The structure is rectangular and designed with bilateral symmetry, having block massing at the north and south ends of the structure and a block mass in the center. The center block holds a large single square opening. The block massing bookends of port tall on each of the south and north ends of the elevation. The doors and windows on the east street facing elevation are in a uniform pattern. The entry doors are wood with light patterns panels. The windows are standard multi-light steel casements. The north and south elevations contain three aluminum casement windows. The west elevation holds four patios sheltered by shallow overhangs and sliding door entries. The structure is 3,500 square feet and is divided into four apartments. A concrete and stone retaining wall separates the structure from the northern neighboring property. All structures in Plaza del Monte were assigned statuses under case H17098A and H1919019 in 2018 and 2019. Under the case H817098, the property at 123 and 125 Camino Santiago was designated as non-contributing due to its age. No yard walls were considered for status except for those located at 126 Camino Santiago, which were designated as contributing. The applicant is requesting status review with primary facade designation if applicable for the property located at 123 and 125 Camino Santiago. Staff finds the structure to be a contributing structure due to its association with Clark and Register's master plan community and historic compound Plaza del Monte, and the association with the Presbyterian Church. The structure is a good example of mid-century modern Santa Fe style character defining features, including the massing blocks at either end and the blocking mass in the center of the structure and the portal on the east elevation. So staff is recommending the historic status of the residential structure be upgraded to contributing with the east facade, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 in the facade diagram, designated as the primary facades, including the portal, but excluding any non-historic materials, and the north property line retaining wall be designated as non-contributing per section 14-5.2c to see. I stand for questions.

Thank you, Lanny. Any questions for Lanny? Questions for Lanny? Mr. Padilla, could you come forward?

Will you please raise your right hand, state your name and address for the record?

John Padilla, PO Box 22986, Santa Fe 87502.

Thank you. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury?

I do.

Thank you, sir.

Hi, John.

Madam Chair, members of the board, good evening. There is also the owner is on Zoom, I believe, and at some point during this testimony, I'd like him to be able to join. I'd like to open with his comments this evening if we might. There should be a Larry Luhan.

Do you agree with staff's recommendation?

I'll let.

Are you going to?

Yeah, I'd like to make my presentation after the owner.

I think, Chair, I see someone named Larry's iPhone. So Larry, you should be able to unmute yourself and please you can provide testimony after you've been sworn in. Chair, it appears that he's having some issues unmuting himself. So maybe John, you can proceed. First, I want to apologize. I got the case numbers wrong on my presentation. It's 11700 and 1177. No, 11701.

Has he been unmuted?

He has permission to unmute himself, but he is not. Okay, I'll let him attempt to mute himself and confirm with me when he is ready so that he can be sworn in at that time.

Well, we can start.

Yes. Can you please?

Madam Chair, good evening, members of the board. Good evening. I'd like to start with a review of the case information and I'll try to make this quick with respect to the rest of the people that are in the house behind me today. I'd like to start with the staff report and utilize the original HICP that was presented in 2018. The pages are not numbered there, but that original HICP was presented, was developed or surveyed on January 18th, 2018. It was revised on May 21st, 2018, and the survey was performed by John Murphy. So that first page, so I'd like to refer to the second page, which identifies no status at that time and the recommendation on that sheet, page two of the HICP, states that it is non-contributing structure is what has been recommended in 2018. On page three, it states, identifies modifications were made. It refers specifically to replaced windows and doors for 125. At this time, it was 125 Camino Santiago. Subsequent to this meeting, it was subdivided and created into the development that now exists as 123 and 125. Page five of that states in the evaluation of the historic status that in essence, it did not meet the age threshold or consideration of contributing status. So in 2018, it was 48 years old and therefore not eligible by our code to be able to be considered for contributing status. And then in the staff report, it shows and was shown this evening during the presentation by staff that there's the images of 123, images of 125, and north, south, east, and west images. So if you look at those images, you're seeing the same building today as it exists right now. As you saw on your site visit, the building has not changed. The retaining wall has been referenced that is references itself as 121 and 125. It is currently addressed as 123. So to the north of 123 is the retaining wall, the stone wall that is pretty consistent throughout the development. And the one thing that I'd like to do is mention, I use the word development because the staff report specifically refers to this as a historic compound. It has not, it does not carry the designation of historic compound. So as you review this, I'd like for you to keep that in mind. The developer looks at this as a unique development to Santa Fe, especially with this proximity and location near the downtown in the downtown and historic east side. We look at it as trying to maintain a consistency throughout the development and upgrading as we go through and upgrade the property. I'd like to refer now to the staff report. The staff report on page four of nine, again identifying that the retaining wall that is between unit 123 and 125 will be maintained. There is no desire to remove, to modify, to revise that wall at all. In the comment with previous case summary, it states, the statement is made that 125 and 123 was designated as non-contributing because of its age and also it was stated in the review comments from the approval that night that because of its age and its lack of character defining features, and that was from the findings of H17-098A where status was designated for all the properties, 30 properties, one is empty, so it's actually 29 properties within the Plaza del Monte subdivision. So the other thing I'd like to mention is as the staff report was written, it appears to me that one, the use of compound is in there. This is not a designated compound. So I'd like for us to keep that in mind as we go through in our deliberation this evening. It also states on page 50 of nine that the structure is a good example of mid-century modern Santa Fe style character defining features, including massing blocks at either end and the block mass in the center of the structure, which is the original common laundry area for the four units that were there and the portal on the east elevations. So my question is, this is now an example of style. When in 2018, when the case was heard, there was nothing unique about the style that warranted a designation of contributing structure, even though it didn't have the age, it couldn't be considered. But I just want to make sure you understand that between now, which makes it 56 years old as of 2026, it makes it, it makes it eligible for contributing status.

However, nothing has changed since the Historic Design District Review Board originally reviewed this case. So, on behalf of the owner of 123 and 125, Mr. Larry Luhan, I would like to really request that the board consider this unchanged and the decision that was made by the board in 2018 stand as non-contributing. That is the request that we are bringing forward to be considered by the board this evening. I'd like Mr. Larry Luhan to go ahead and join the meeting and let him address the board with his comments.

**Mr. John:** Can you all hear me now?

**Speaker:** Yes, Mr. Luhan, you are clear.

**Mr. Luhan:** Okay.

**Speaker:** You need to get sworn in.

**Mr. Luhan:** All right.

**Speaker:** Hi, Larry. Can you please state your name and address for the record?

**Mr. Luhan:** Larry Luhan, and I'm representing 123 and 125 Camino Santiago.

**Speaker:** Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury?

**Mr. Luhan:** I do.

**Speaker:** Thank you, sir.

**Mr. Luhan:** Madam Chair and board, my name is Larry Luhan. I'm the managing partner of Plaza Delonte and of 123 and 125 Camino Santiago, which is part of Plaza Delonte. I was born and raised in Santa Fe, lived there for a long time. I currently live in Albuquerque and have a lot of family there. In fact, my grandfather was Manuel Luhan Senior, who was a three-term mayor there in Santa Fe. And in fact, he and John Gamm have a lot to do with what is now the historic board. They didn't start it, but they did get started in understanding while he was mayor that there was a huge need to preserve the buildings in our amazing city, but at the same time there had to be some upgrades with electrical and plumbing, etc., and that was something that they actually did. I applaud all of you for serving. I know it's volunteer work. The reason that I was approached and was able to buy Plaza Delonte was because of my roots there in Santa Fe, and I felt like I wanted to be able to stay connected to Santa Fe. 123 and 125 are going to be mine and my family's place that we're going to have there in Santa Fe. And I just wanted you to know that the reason that we did that is to keep that place as beautiful as it possibly can be. It's one of the gems of Santa Fe. Its proximity to downtown is amazing. And rather than having somebody from out of state get it, I took the interest in being a part of it and ultimately buying it. And I stand by what John just represented on our behalf.

**Speaker:** Thank you, Mr. Luhan. Is there anyone else wanting to speak on this project?

**Mr. John:** As far as the owners or the agent for the owners, we are the only two that will be presenting this evening to you.

**Speaker:** Thank you, John. So, at this, if I could conclude, what we would really like is for the board again to take into consideration the work you've done in the past, the work you did in 2018, or the work that the HDRB did in 2016 and 2018, and uphold the decision at that time to designate this, continue its designation as non-contributing.

**Speaker:** Thank you, John. Board members, any questions for John or Mr. Luhan at this time or comments? Nothing. Member Bianu.

**Member Bianu:** Madam Chair, just a question for staff. Are there any structures in this subdivision or compound, depending on what we're going to call it, that are contributing? Are they all non-contributing?

**Staff:** So, at this time, there's only two structures that are considered non-contributing. Both of them were due to age. This is one of them. All of the rest are contributing.

**Member Bianu:** Well, all the rest are contributing. So, this one was only kept out of that designation because of its age, in your opinion?

**Staff:** And all the others were older. Is that the... Yes, this one and the other one were the two youngest buildings in the compound.

**Member Bianu:** So, they just did... It was a compound back then. The designation, according to the minutes, John is correct that that was due to age and non-character. Are these two buildings any different than the character of all the other buildings? They all look the same to me. They tell me...

**Mr. Luhan:** I think this fits in with the other characters, the other buildings, and the character of the compound as a whole.

**Member Bianu:** Is there any respect in which they don't fit in? Is there any aspect of these two buildings that are different than the character of all the other buildings in the subdivision?

**Staff:** Not according to staff.

**Member Bianu:** Okay. That's what I meant, in your personal opinion. Yeah, for your staff opinion. Okay, thanks.

**Speaker:** Other questions? Anyone in this audience wishing to comment on this project? Come forward. Elizabeth, you've already been sworn. I know you're going to make your comments quick.

**Elizabeth:** Yes. I love this compound. I prefer Colony Compound because ever since 1966, I've prowled around there and I've seen it and been aware of it. And I think preserving compounds in general in Santa Fe, we don't get very many opportunities to do that. And here's an opportunity that is incredibly wonderful. I don't know why somebody would want to not consider these contributing. Perhaps there's a reason, but if it has to do with, I'm speculating now, but if it has to do with some renovations that you want to do, probably you find an exception to get them done. I don't know why somebody would not want to honor this compound. Thank you.

**Speaker:** Thank you. Anyone else? No one else. Anyone on Zoom?

**Chair Rios:** I do not see any hands up.

**Speaker:** So, no one. Okay. Thank you. Board members, if you have no questions, I will entertain a motion. And these are two separate cases. Someone, anyone, you need to move right along. Member Beachite.

**Member Beachite:** I'll make a motion. Can I make a single motion for both cases? Is that okay?

**Speaker:** Yes, as long as you... No. We have to make two separate motions. I would think so.

**Member Beachite:** Since they have two separate case numbers, I think I need to issue two separate fact. Okay. Sure. The conclusion of the work in case number 2025-011700 HDRB at 123 Camino Santiago. I move to adopt staff's recommendation that the historic status be upgraded to contributing with the east facade designated as primary, including the portal and excluding the non-historic materials. Is there a second to this motion?

**Speaker:** Second.

**Speaker:** Roll call vote, please.

**Member Bianu:** Yes.

**Member Aguilar Madra:** Yes.

**Member Cherry:** Yes.

**Member Beachite:** Yes.

**Member Dagnen:** Yes.

**Speaker:** Motion has passed. Thank you.

**Member Beachite:** Next case. In case number 2025-011701 HDRB at 125 Camino Santiago, I move that the board approve staff's recommendation to upgrade the status from non-contributing to contributing with the east facade designated as primary, including the portal and excluding non-historic materials. And second call.

**Member Dagnen:** Yes.

**Member Beachite:** Yes.

**Member Cherry:** Yes.

**Member Aguilar Madrona:** Yes.

**Member Bianu:** Yes.

**Speaker:** The motion has passed. Thank you, Mr. Padilla. Good evening. Next is located at 521 Calle Corvo. Is that applicant here? Is the applicant here for 521 Calle Corvo?

**Staff:** He was going to be online. Not here.

**Speaker:** Madam Chair, members of the board, can you hear me?

**Staff:** Yes. Is the applicant... Do we need the applicant? That was... Yes, Chair Rios. Raj Paul Duran, case planner, will be presenting, and Raja Bose is on also. Yes. We'll go forward with the case. Paul.

**Paul:** Hello, Madam Chair. I am working on sharing screen currently.

**Maggie:** Chair Rios and Paul, I have the presentation up, so I can share it for you here.

**Paul:** Oh, great. Thank you, Maggie. Okay. In case number 2025-011537 HDRB, 521 Calle Corvo. 521 Calle Corvo was built in 1946 in the Territorial Revival architectural design style, as seen by the red brick coping on top of the parapet, recessed wooden framed picture windows, and terracotta tile on the entry portal, commonly observed on the Calle Corvo streetscape. In September of 2025, Mr. John Murphy conducted a historical cultural property inventory survey of the property and concluded that the main residential structure has maintained its original footprint since 1958. The structure should remain contributing, and further that the south facade should be designated as primary, excluding the yard wall that was constructed in 1984 and non-historic doors and windows that can be observed on that facade as we move through. Thank you, Maggie. This is our west facade. The windows, the window openings maintain their original inception. Maggie, if you may, to the next. Here is a great aerial photograph that Mr. Murphy was able to provide in his 2025 HCPI survey form, showing that the original footprint, which stands today, currently is what was then in 1955. The vegetation that borders the property boundaries on Calle Corvo now is the low-hanging CMU stucco yard wall. So, it was at once vegetation prior to the yard wall. So, that is why the yard wall is not being taken into consideration this evening. Maggie, may you go to the next one? Thank you, ma'am. Here is the proposed facade diagram that staff is presenting, that south facade design designated as primary, the entire structure designated as contributing, and the facades 1 through 4 as your primary. So, in that, staff recommends the historic status of the main residential structure be maintained as contributing, the south facades numbered 1, 2, 3, and 4, including the portal and excluding non-historic doors and windows, be designated as primary per 14-5.2c, designation of significant and contributing structures. Thank you, board. Staff stands for questions.

**Speaker:** Thank you very much. Paul, on the south facade, are you indicating that any of those windows and doors are non-historic, or are you indicating that non-historic windows and doors are other facades?

**Paul:** Madam Chair, members of the board, that's a great question. I find that the garage door, given that it's an aluminum clad, more modern garage door, would be something recently added. So, it would not meet the criteria of 50 years or older and not be historic. However, we would need further information of an architectural historian to give us more detailed information on those doors and windows.

**Speaker:** Okay, thank you. But the windows and doors on that facade that you are indicating should be primary are historic. Correct.

**Paul:** That is correct, Madam Chair.

**Speaker:** Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? No more questions or comments? So, is the applicant wanting to comment on this?

**Applicant:** Yes, certainly. Please.

**Speaker:** Hello. Can you please state your name and address for the record?

**Raja Bose:** Yeah. Raja Bose, 212 Lorenzo Lane, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

**Speaker:** Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury?

**Raja Bose:** Yes.

**Speaker:** Thank you very much.

**Raja Bose:** Thank you. I would just like to, I appreciate Paul's comments, and we completely agree with what's been said. I'm more so going off the actual memo that's in the PDF on page 1,127 than what Paul actually said tonight, in the sense that I just want to make sure that the outcome is exacting, just so that we can get a, we can know exactly what the board decision really was. So, I think it's clear from the image on the screen. Actually, could you go back? Whoever's in control, to the site plan diagram.

**Paul:** Maggie, that might be the facade diagram. It would be the last...

**Raja Bose:** Or sorry. Yeah, that colored. Yeah, this one.

**Paul:** Yes.

**Raja Bose:** So, thank you. We obviously agree that the one, two, three, and four facades are of the building are the primary, or would be the primary if we were to have to redesignate it, which we're doing.

The one question for me is more about the actual nature of the openings. I think Madam Chair Rios was asking the right question, and Paul, I think your answer of just yes, I just wanted to dig into it one step deeper. Could we flip back to that front southern facade photo that we were actually on just before this?

So, for instance, the garage, that's one question, but Paul already addressed that. The next window over, let's call it the kitchen window. Yes. Thank you. That window is clearly, first of all, probably done out of permit and out of compliance with the neighborhood, the district guide, you know, layout guide. But not only that, I think the materials are no longer primary in that sense. And then one step beyond that, I would even say, is that I'm not sure that the opening size wasn't modified at some point. We may have to look at the HIP stuff from Mr. Murphy to determine that. But I would just question, I would, if the board were amenable to excluding that opening from the primary designation, basically, is what I would ask for. And obviously, the replacement window would still have to comply with a primary facade-like set of guidelines, right? But the opening itself, I just question.

And then, ultimately, or I guess in conclusion, the other windows on this set of facades on the south, I do think they are mostly original. I also question the kind of living room big plate one, how original? I think in that case, the opening is the original authentic primary opening, but I don't know that the actual piece of glass in there. So, I don't know how you guys see that. And then lastly, the most western. Yeah, that one, number one. Thank you. I think that is historic material, but then it has other kind of a secondary window system that was added at some point with, I think it's aluminum. You can kind of see in the photo actually, there's like that double shadow. You can see it's like a double hung in front of a divided light and the divided light behind. Excuse me. Like a storm window. Yeah, exactly.

So again, I'm not sure you have to defer to your code, speaking to the board directly, of how you allocate these things. But again, as you can see, the story of this southern facade is certainly more complicated than, "Oh yeah, that's all original authentic, you know, more than 50-year-old material," whatever. So, I would just, we're not questioning the primary designation facade-wise, but I would like to kind of request that the openings themselves be excluded to the extent possible, or the extent that the board thinks is appropriate. And I don't know if Paul, you back me up, but certainly express if you do back me up on that.

Madam Chair Rios, members of the board, Raja, with consideration of the openings on that southern facade, we know that that aluminum clad garage door is modern. So, we know that that is modern and non-historic. The opening is most likely historic. The material is not though. On the picture windows and the door, those most likely are historic openings. However, to what extent those windows and doors are original to the structure is unknown without a window and door assessment from an architectural historian. So, without further information, we could not, we would need more information in order to make a better judgment on those features. And with the divided light window, most likely historic with the storm window over it, but that's probably most likely a historic opening that has been, windows have been replaced previously because you've got a picture window and then divided light windows and then a picture window with divided light windows. So you've kind of got a mixture of all three elements on that one south facade, right? Yes.

Okay. We have a board member that wants to make a comment. Member Sher Cherry.

Yeah. I have a question for Paul. Paul, you just said, "We know that garage door is modern and non-historic." What evidence do you have of that? How do you know this?

Madam Chair, Member Cherry. The aluminum clad, the aluminum clad wooden garage doors would most likely not have been built in 1946 when this house was originally constructed. However, the wooden, the wooden elements that surround that aluminum clad garage door were most likely set in when it was originally constructed. Most likely a wooden garage door, carriage door, something along that on that Kyio Corvo streetscape was most likely there. We see a lot of garage doors that have been replaced that are aluminum clad on that streetscape. We don't see too many wooden garage doors on that streetscape anymore because they've all been replaced. So the material type at that time during World War II, most likely they didn't have that material type, not really until post 1960s. And that door doesn't look like it's a post 1960 garage door. It looks like a 2021 Home Depot special.

Okay. Well, I disagree with you. That's fine. I think I don't think the door is original, but I don't think it's aluminum clad. I think it's just an aluminum door. And the question becomes, did the door exist there prior to 50 years ago, which would make it historic? So that's just the thing that would need to be considered with all these openings is, you know, we need to differentiate between historic and original. So my opinion, being at the site today, is there's just a mix of original and non-historic and historic windows and doors on those facades and as well as the west facade. But exactly what, you know, how each of those components would be dated, you'd have to do a little more digging to figure that out exactly. However, that being said, and maybe this is premature, but I think the way that this could be statused is, if it were to be statused as contributing with the recommendations of staff, is with those facades being contributing, excluding non-historic material, and then non-historic material can be designated with further investigation later on. And that would give guidance for any modifications in the future. That would probably be the clearest way to, if somebody decided to make a motion to make the building contributing and those facades primary, to exclude the material that's non-historic.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, Member Cherry.

Yeah, that's very eloquently spoken. I would agree with that. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

I'm prepared to make a motion, but do you need to do public comment?

I didn't. Anybody in the public wanting to comment? I think you said no. Anybody on Zoom? I'm curious. I don't see any hands. Nobody, Member Bianu.

So yes, I completely agree with Member Cherry's comments about how to approach this, and that is how we've handled this same exact situation in the past. So in case 202011537 HDRB 521 KA Corvo, move to adopt staff's recommendation, maintain the contributing status, maintain the status of the house as contributing with south facades 1, 2, 3, and 4, including the port tall as primary, excluding doors and windows that are demonstrated to the satisfaction of the board as being non-historic. And that would apply as well to window openings and door openings. Staff also adopting staff's recommendation that the garage structure be designated as non-contributing due to age, and that the yard wall be designating non-contributing for the same reason.

Is there a second? Each side.

Is there anything further? Nothing further. Roll call vote. Member Bianu.

Yes.

Member Aguilar Madrona.

Yes.

Member Cherry.

Yes.

Member Beach.

Yes.

Member DNA.

Yes.

The motion has passed. Chair.

Thank you very much. Is the applicant for 665 West San Francisco here?

Can I make one clarification on that?

Yes. I said doors and windows, but I just want to be clear that would include the garage door as well. So that's also subject to being designated, subject to being non-contributing if sufficient evidence was provided that it's not historic. Is Dominic online? Hello. Yes, Chair Rios. Is Dominic Verani, the owner of 665 West San Francisco Street, online? I don't see anyone by that name.

Proceed with the case, Lanny?

I don't. No, I don't. Oh, you don't see him? I don't know. That's why I'm asking. I see John Murphy raising his hand at that.

Oh, John may be representing him.

Okay. Okay. So what's the story? Hi, John. Can you speak to the presence of Dominic Bertanni, the owner of 665 West San Francisco Street?

Sure. Tara Woodruff was supposed to be there, and I think she left because the meeting went on too long, and I'm also representing him as well.

Okay. Lanny, you can go forward.

Okay. So this is case 2025 011702 HDRB for 665 West San Francisco Street. The gabled residence is listed as non-contributing to the downtown and east side historic district. The south-facing vernacular style structure is a mix of adobe and concrete blocks with a raised concrete foundation and gabled roof. The windows consist of vinyl and aluminum units. Portions of the building date from the 1940s. These original structures were flat-roofed. However, in 1984, the original units were expanded and unified under a pitched roof. The 1984 renovation provided new windows, doors, and a deep front porch. According to the 1978 aerial, the south street-facing elevation comprised of a projecting two-a-cube with a flat roof portal. The 1984 remodel removed the portal and moved the roofed area out to align with the original projecting area and created a large porch with a concrete floor and textured plaster ceiling. There is an indication that the entry door was relocated from the south elevation to the east elevation under the porch. The 1978 aerial photograph shows the east elevation as having three-stepped wall planes, while after 1984, these were consolidated into a single uniform wall plane. The northeast corner holds a triangular cutout with no known purpose, and the east elevation is not altered by the 1984 renovation except for the obvious roof change. A curving stucco concrete masonry unit yard wall with a steel gate runs along the south property line. The wall appears to have been constructed post-1984. To the north of the residence sits a small pitched roof carport which was not present in 1984. While no information is found regarding the structure, it does not meet the requirements of the code and is not for consideration for designation. The applicant is requesting a status review with primary facade designation if applicable. Staff is recommending the historic status of the structure be maintained as non-contributing due to the extensive alterations per section 14-5.2c. Stand for questions. Thank you.

Questions for Lanny? Looks like no questions. And John, you need to get sworn in.

Yes.

Hi, John. Can you please state your name and address for the record?

Sure. John Murphy, 2833 Plaza Verde.

Thank you. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury?

Sure, I do.

Thank you.

Just quickly, Lanny presented a very good case for non-contributing status. And you'll see in your board packet very quickly there was an HBI form prepared by Henry Harry Weiss in 1985, and some other photographs appear to be a couple years later. I didn't have access to those at the time, but I think those present even better, at least a visual representation, how this building has lost all of its apparent historic integrity prior to that consolidation and addition of the gabled roof.

Okay. Thank you, John. Thank you. Anyone in this audience wanting to speak on this project? No. And I'm going to guess there's no one online.

Chair Rios, I see no hands raised.

Thank you. Motion, please, board members.

Member Vilona: Case number 2025-011702 HDRB at 665 West San Francisco Street. I move to adopt staff's recommendation and maintain the status of non-contributing.

I hear a second.

Second.

Roll call vote, please.

Member Bianu: Yes.

Member Egular Madona: Yes.

Member Cherry: Yes.

Member B: Yes.

Member Dagnet: Yes.

The motion has passed.

Thank you. 424 San Antonio. Is the applicant here online? Oh, there's Chris. Okay, Ms. Lanny, go for it.

Okay, this is case 2025-011703 for 424 San Antonio Street for a status review. Let's see. So, sitting near the center of the lot, the small Pueblo Revival style residence is one of four houses constructed by the Dennis Coutin family along San Antonio Street. I apologize if I slaughtered that pronunciation. It was constructed around 1931, primarily of adobe, and features an inset portal centered on the front east-facing facade. A frame addition was constructed in 1995 on the southwest corner. The single-story residence is flat-roofed with parapets and is stuccoed in a pale brown color. The windows are older wood casement windows that are inset by about 14 inches with top-mounted projecting steel hinges with large exposed knuckles. In front of each window is a wood frame that once held screens and now holds metal storm units. The doors are wood with lights above panels. The front portal has an exposed viga ceiling. The west end of the north elevation holds a single viga projection. The configuration of the windows on the north elevation indicates that the interior has had alterations that resulted in a different use of space. The west elevation holds the 1995 addition, which stands out from the rest of the house due to the window inset of only 4 inches, smoother wall plane, and the more modern doors and windows.

A 365-foot single-vehicle garage was constructed in the northwest corner of the lot around the same time as the residence. The garage is constructed of adobe and finished in stucco that matches the residence. The garage door is a white carriage-style door. The south elevation houses a single window and a post-1978 addition of the utility room. There are no other fenestrations. A low 21-inch high adobe wall topped with a white picket fence with four-sided conical tops that raised to the height of another 21 inches sits on the east property line. The picket fence turns to run along the driveway. While the yard wall holds layers of stucco, the fencing has a single layer of paint, suggesting it is a newer addition to the yard wall. The property is a part of the 1926 Penet Penas subdivision, which was created by Ava Scott Penes and her daughter Lenora Scott Curtain and her daughter Lenora Francis Curtain on strips of previous farmland in a 1922 5-acre purchase of the Acequia Madre tract. The houses along this tract were previously addressed on Acequia Madre but were changed to San Antonio as the subdivision developed. The residence at 424 San Antonio was previously known as the NES residence and the house of the three wise women.

The residence at 424 San Antonio is listed as non-status on the GIS map, as contributing in a 1991 Hickby, and as significant in the staff report from case H95071. That same case approved an addition to the southwest corner of the structure. The garage unit, yard wall, and picket fence are non-statused in any of the documents. According to the 1991 Hickpi, the residence is listed on both the National Register of Historic Places and the State Register of Cultural Properties. However, as of 2025, this property is no longer listed on either register. Therefore, a status review is required to reconcile the inconsistencies in the record and to determine the status of the garage, yard wall, and picket fence. Staff recommends the historic status of the residential structure be designated as contributing with the east elevation or R1, including the interior of the portal, north elevation R6, and south elevation R2, excluding the 1995 addition as the primary facades, and designate the accessory structure as contributing with the east or G1 as the primary facade, and designate the yard wall, excluding the picket fence, as contributing for section 14-5.2C.

Thank you. And you were also indicating that the garage is contributing.

Yes.

And what's the primary on that?

Primary would be the east.

Okay. Anything else for Lanny?

Yes, Member Ben.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a clarification. I believe Lanny, on page four, the staff report indicates that this residence at 424 San Antonio was previously known as the Fenu's residence and the house of the three wise women, but I don't think that's correct. I think that's referring to the Acequia Madre House that's directly to the west. And I think that's important because that would make this, in my mind, clearly a significant property, but this seems to just be a property that those same individuals developed, built, and rented out.

Which house are you saying?

Is the actual house of the three wise women is what we all call the Acequia Madre house directly to, it's that large territorial building set back from Acequia Madre, directly across the street from Acequia Madre School Corbo.

It's possible I misunderstood that.

Yeah, I think so. That is Chops.

Oh. Anybody? So, applicants, please forward.

Hello. Can you please state your name and address for the record?

518 sign.

Thank you. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury?

I do.

Thank you, sir.

Madam Chair, members of the board.

I hear you, sir. Could you speak in?

I agree with everything Lanny just said.

Oh, great.

Thank you. Any questions for Chris? No questions for Chris. Anyone in this audience wanting to talk about this project? No. Anybody on?

I have one clarification.

Yes.

We agree with the status. I think Lanny made reference to aluminum storm windows. We don't think those are historic in the motion. Say something about that. We'll fix them.

Anyone online wanting to public comment?

Chair Rios, I do not see any hands raised online.

One question.

Member Chair, maybe I missed it, but what's the date of the wall? Not the fence, but the wall.

I don't know the answer to that. Doesn't Lanny?

Sorry, it's not in my staff report, but I'm pretty sure it was in the HCPI. Yeah, I'm looking at that now and it just says historic aerial photographs indicate that the wall existed in this location. But the picket fence appears to have been replaced. So, it just doesn't have a date, but it's indicating here that it's more than likely historic, whether or not it's original or not. That's.

Okay. That was all I had. So, any further questions? Sir Khan, I entertain a motion, please.

Yes. Case 2025011703 HDR at 424 San Antonio Street. I move to adopt staff's recommendation. The historic status of the residential structure be designated as contributing with the east elevation, including the interior of the portal, that's designated R1, the north elevation R6, and the south elevation R2, excluding the 1995 addition as the primary facades. Designate the accessory structure to the east as contributing, no, the accessory structure as contributing with the east G1 as the primary. Designate the yard wall, excluding the picket fence, as contributing.

Second.

I second.

Anything further?

Nothing further. Roll call vote, please.

Member Bianu: Yes.

Member Aguilar Madrono: Yes.

Member Cherry: Yes.

Member Beach: Yes.

Member Den: Yes.

The motion has passed.

Thank you, Chris. Next case is located at 800 Gildersleeve. Paul, may we hear the case?

Madam Chair, members of the board, is Gabe Ripple in attendance?

Yes.

Yes.

Oh, great. Thank you, Chair. In case 2025011538 HDRB 800 Gildersleeve, the single-family residence and detached garage at 800 Gildersleeve are listed as contributing to the Don Gaspar area Historic District. The primary facades designated on the main structure are the east and south facades and the garage's east facade. The main structure and garage were constructed sometime between 1928 in the Spanish Pueblo Revival design style as seen by the battered walls, stepped parapets, recessed openings, projecting viga tails, historic wood windows, and sculpted chimney. The subject property is located in the southwest corner of the Gildersleeve Street and Burger Street intersection. The proposed pergola will be located in front of the house on the northeastern portion of the site. It will be constructed of stained cedar wood with a metal trellis. Although the applicant's letter states that it may optionally include a roof, the drawings illustrate no roof. If the applicant chooses to add a roof to the pergola structure, the project will need to be reviewed and approved by the board as part of a separate case in the future. Maggie, would you go to the next photo? To the next site, please. Thank you, ma'am. Here's the 800 Gildersleeve Street site plan and the proposed location of the pergola. Next slide, please. Thank you. Here's the proposed pergola location and the height, 7 feet 8 inches, approximately 120 square feet in total. Next slide, please. Here is the 800 Gildersleeve Street proposed elevations of the pergola. And we all saw the pergola today at the site. It's in the back of the property in the western corner. Next slide, please. Here is a photograph of that pergola with the metal trellis roof, the cedar wood frame, and on the site plan, the proposed location. Next slide, please. Now, at the site visit, there were several questions that had come up on a previously approval, I believe it was in August 26, 2025, of a previous case. And so I brought this before the board after I did some more research. They did get approval for some handrails but not for all the proposed work. So I did attach some of the approved work, and then we'll discuss further at the end of this presentation what was added without approval, and the applicant can address those concerns. So they did get approval for a handrail on the north elevation and on the south elevation. Next slide, please. On the floor plan here, on the proposed floor plan that was approved, it shows the handrails on both the north and south elevation, excluding the wall gates, the metal gates that are attached to the walls that were not approved or proposed. Next slide, please. Here we have the north elevation. It doesn't really show the handrails or those proposed elements that we saw today. So that raised some concerns. The applicant will need to address this evening. Next slide, please. Here's the existing east elevation. It does show the new step steps and railing on that val on the south facade that were present today but not on that gate. Next slide, please. Here we have that south facade, which is the primary facade and the middle railing. There were some middle implements in the HVAC unit that were approved. Next slide, please. And the west elevation where they have the HVAC unit that was approved. Next slide, please. So, here's the applicant's request that was approved on August 26, 2025. Replace historic windows on the south primary facade, which was approved, and which two exceptions were requested.

the mini HVAC system on the west facade, exterior lighting, and infill on the exterior door on the garage and the garage door. They didn't request any metal gates or metal elements on that north facade, which we had some concerns about.

So, on 800 Gildersleeve Street, not approved architectural elements that we observed today were the metal gate on the north elevation wall, the metal gate on the east elevation wall, metal architectural railings on the north elevation of a structure, and then I noticed some of the windows weren't all colored the same color. So, all the windows need to be colored in the approved earth tone color. Several of the windows were currently white, and the concrete that is currently there needs to be colored in earth-tone brown, tan, terracotta, red, something of that sort. But the applicant will be able to address that further this evening.

So, with that being said, staff recommends approval of the proposed project with no roof structure and finds that the application complies with Section 14-5.2D 2D general design standards for all historic districts and 14-5.2H Dongaspar area design standards. Thank you. Staff stands for questions.

Board Member: Thank you, Paul. Any questions for board members?

Board Member: Not any at this.

Board Member: Yeah, I have a question.

Board Member: Oh, yes. So, the approval, what considerations did you have for the materials of that proposed pergola? The wooden elements, the metal trellis, some of those elements can be mimicked on that property that we saw today and along the streetscape. But staff defers to the board to make the determination if it complies with the district standards, as well as staff considers it does apply to the district standards for the Dongaspar Area Historic District, and so we're recommending approval. It's for the board to consider if it does as well. Okay. So,

Board Member: Wooden elements, the

Board Member: Based on the materials themselves, not the specificity of them. Just that it's wood and metal, not any particular kind of wood and metal or finish. Am I understanding you correctly?

Paul: Madam Chair, Member Cherry, yes, sir.

Board Member: Okay. Thanks.

Board Member: And Paul, is the pergola proposed to be put on the south elevation?

Paul: It's proposed to be put on that northeast corner of the property lot.

Board Member: Oh, north. That is north. Sorry, I meant to say north, not south.

Board Member: Okay. Any other questions? No. Applicant or applicants, please come forward. Hello. Will you please state your name and address for the record?

Applicant: Okay.

Board Member: Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury?

Applicant: Thank you.

Board Member: What do you have to add?

Applicant: The only thing I would add, I do agree with Paul as part of the pergola. I would add in, I didn't bring it with me, and Paul, I know at some point you had it, but before I purchased this property, the previous owner had gone through the H-Board, and they had approved the gates, railings, actually they approved the driveway gate, which didn't install the side, but there's a whole set of plans that was approved previously. My understanding was that because we were doing the project, I had that set, and then we've added since then, so that's why we went back and asked windows, and then now gone back. So, I don't know if I misunderstood that that's the way I. They were, sorry, and to answer your question, Mr. Perry, they were approved aluminum.

Board Member: All the gates, that was what it was.

Board Member: I didn't have a question about the gates.

Applicant: No, you, but you had a question about material as far as the pergola goes.

Board Member: Yeah.

Applicant: Thought I was.

Board Member: The pergola is the same material. Do you know when the previously approved plans were approved?

Applicant: I did not bring it with me because I.

Board Member: Paul, do you know when those were approved?

Paul: Madam Chair Rios, Member Cherry, can you state your question again?

Board Member: Yeah, the applicant has stated that there were previously approved gates and railings, and my understanding is you're saying that's what's been installed was previous, was gates and railings that were approved prior to their possession of the property.

Paul: You know, if you got a moment, Member Cherry, I'll read through. So, I shared with you in this presentation the August 26, 2025 board approval. On May 24th, 2020, in 2016, the board approved the installation of foam insulation on the main structure and garage and to repair the chimney on the main structure. On October 13, 2015, the board approved the addition on the south primary facade, an addition less than 10 feet set back from the east primary facade. Create an opening on the south primary facade. Increase the maximum allowable height. Increase the 50% historic footprint standard with conditions to the existing stairs on the south elevation. An entry portal be extended in width to match the same opening as the doors leading into the portal. And then on August 25, 2015, the board designated contributing status to the main residential structure and detached garage and designated the east and south facades as primary on the main structure and the east facade on the garage. On October 24th, 2004, the board approved the replacement of non-historic windows in an enclosed porch on a contributing structure using windows that the applicant now owns. So, as far as staff understands that some of those elements were not approved, now I will go back and do further research and see if those wood metal gates were approved and those architectural elements, the wrought iron elements were approved. But as far as staff knows currently, there's nothing stating that that was approved at any given time.

Board Member: Share the plan.

Paul: And then if they were approved in 2016, then those approvals would have expired. Is that correct?

Paul: Madam Chair, Member Cherry, that is correct. And they would have to, after there's a three-year time period followed by two years of exception request, five years in total. If they don't meet it and it requests those exception time requests and it expires, they would have to come back for the board for reapproval. That was lack of. That's, those are my only questions now. Yeah, that's all I have.

Board Member: Beachside.

Board Member: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just, I'm a little confused. Are you, are you telling us that you have prior approval from the H-Board for all of the changes presented here tonight?

Applicant: I thought I was that a plan. And is that?

Board Member: I understand that they.

Board Member: Oh, well, even if they have expired, it would be helpful information for us to know that a previous board approved these elements, and then we would want to be consistent with past board decisions. So, Paul, if there's any chance that that was inadvertently left out of the packet, I feel like we should postpone until we have a complete understanding about what was previously approved. Yeah, of course.

Paul: Madam Chair, Member Beachside, I don't believe the pergola is what's being requested for approval by the applicant tonight. During our site visit today, we found several items that staff and the board had concerns about, such as the metal gates, some of the metal architectural features on the property, the windows, and the concrete. These were just elements that we noticed during the site visit that are outside of what the request is this evening.

Board Member: Yeah. And I think the staff has to deal with that. And this evening, we're just dealing with the pergola.

Board Member: Okay. And there's no past approval for the pergola.

Board Member: That's a new, that's a new thing. Okay.

Applicant: That is a new. And I apologize for that. That's why anything else because I thought I would.

Board Member: That makes sense. Yeah. I think we should only address the pergola tonight then.

Board Member: So, board members, do you have questions only about the pergola this evening? It appears not at this point. And anyone in this audience wishing to comment on the pergola? Nobody. And I'm going to guess no one online.

Chair: Yes, Chair. I see no hands raised. Thank you. I will entertain a motion. Don't be shy. And it's late. I'll make a motion. So, I'll just preface this by if I, if I'm recognized.

Board Member: Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I'll just preface this by saying that I'm in looking at the pergola, which is actually already built and on site. It to me, it is not harmonious with the district. It's, it looks like a kit. It's sort of made of cheap wood and no discernible style with a black frame metal roofing system above it. That's also in my mind not consistent with district standards, or at least not harmonious with the district character. And the proposed placement is a very, very prominent corner and very visible on this particular lot. So, with those comments, my motion would be in case 2025011538 HDRB800 Gildersleeve Street to deny the application on the basis that the proposed pergola, as it exists now and particularly as proposed in its location, is not harmonious with the streetscape or the district standards.

Chair: Is there a second? Yes. Roll call vote, please.

Clerk: Member Tagnan.

Board Member: Yes.

Clerk: Member Bich.

Board Member: Yes.

Clerk: Member Cherry.

Board Member: Yes.

Clerk: Member Agular Madrono.

Board Member: Yes.

Clerk: Member Bianu.

Board Member: Yes.

Clerk: The motion has passed.

Chair: Thank you very much. You do have the option to resubmit a different pergola, or you can appeal to the SID council. Thank you. Next case is the applicant here for 412. I meant to, but I never did. John. The applicant case number 2025 011244 HDRB 412 Camino Cabra. The structure at 412 Camino Cabra is a single-family residence listed as contributing to the Downtown and East Side Historic District with the east facade designated as primary. The structure was built in 1950 on a 0.147 acre lot, which comprised of 734 square feet of roofed area. The structure was built in a modest Santa Fe vernacular style with an L-shaped form constructed of masonry block, metal casement windows, and a wooden flat roof. The portal wraps around the northeastern facade comprised of wooden vigas, beams, and corbels. Two alterations occurred after 1978, which include the addition of the portal on the east elevation and a closet addition on the west elevation, but much of the core of the structure remains intact. As at its November 14th, 2023 meeting, the H-Board found that the structure should be designated as contributing to the Downtown and East Side Historic District, noting the characteristics of vernacular construction during the 1950s. The board designated the east elevation to the south of the portal as a primary facade as the large steel casement window is character-defining to the window materials available at the time of construction. The applicant is requesting an exception to replace the steel casement window with an aluminum clad window. The rationale provided by the applicant for the replacement of the window not in kind is related to cost, which is not a consideration when reviewing an exception request. This is perfect. Thank you, Maggie. Can you cite back to that last one? Thank you. So, the current request by the applicant is, could you go back to the one? Yes, perfect. Thank you. Is the primary facade is this east facade on the above elevation of the existing east elevation that would where the 40 over 4 steel casement window is is the primary facade, and the applicant is proposing to do a wholesale window and a window replacement on the property and has requested two exceptions to remove this steel casement window and replace it with something not in kind. Similar, but not in kind. They're also proposing to do some work, a new railing system, remodel the stairway and the wraparound on the portal with coyote fencing.

And so, given that, staff recommends denial of the proposed project and finds that the exception criteria have not been met for the primary facade window replacement. Staff recommends approval of the other elements.

Is that it, Paul?

Yes, ma'am. But one moment. I have a—

Are you cut out there, Paul? So, staff recommends approval of all the other elements of the application as they comply with Section 14-5.2D, general design standards for all historic districts, and 14-5.2E, downtown and east side design standards. Thank you. Staff stands for questions.

Okay. Thanks, Paul. Any questions for Paul? We don't have any questions for right now, Paul. Applicant, would you get sworn in, please, sir? Or applicants.

Hello. Will you please raise your right hand, state your name and address for the record?

Jutton, 1219 Road, 87501.

Thank you. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury?

Yes.

Thank you. Madame Chair, board members, thank you for hearing, please. We just want to submit a couple of other things in support of our application for the exception for that window on the east facade. One is, according to the staff report, there was a lack of information about our proposed windows. So, I'd like to submit some details to you. I'll hand those out to you. I'd also like to, the owner has also managed to get basically consent statements from a whole bunch of neighbors, as well as the Canyon Road neighborhood association for their proposed works. So, let me just hand those out to you first. Okay. I also have just three copies of, basically, a colored brochure of the windows that we're proposing, and I flagged just a few pages so that you can see how they look, the divided likes.

So, basically, what we're trying to do, because we do, according to the window assessment, all the windows, except the two small windows under the portal, are not repairable, according to the window assessment, and need to be replaced. I've solicited, I've tried to get products that can give us in-kind steel windows like that, and have really run into a dead end. Nobody seems to be able to tell me where I can get windows like that. I've asked window manufacturers. So, it's really difficult to find in-kind windows that are also kind of thermally, kind of broken. So, we've also, but we've studied the cost of various other kinds of steel windows, but the sections, not only is the cost prohibitive, but the sections and the way they look, they don't look like these windows at all. The closest I can find at this point really are these windows that we are proposing, the Kobe Vistilux windows, which, according to the window assessor, Ray Patterson, he often recommends this line of product as a steel replica model, to replicate the look of steel. They are a wood-clad aluminum product, but it's got a thinner profile. So, that is what we're trying to propose. And I hope that you might agree with us. Yeah, that's, I think that's all I have to add right now. The owner's here.

Board members, do you have any questions for Mr. Tan at this point?

Looks like they do not have any questions or comments right at the moment. So, I— Yes, Member B.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have a comment. I think what the applicant is saying is very reminiscent of what happened on to the Crystal Ray office building on Camino Delora. They, we approved the replacement of all of their steel cam windows with a similar product, a wood-clad window with a thinner profile, because the same reason, it was very difficult for them to find a replacement window, very cost prohibitive. And so, I think we, we have a precedent for allowing this in a— Camino Delores is just like one street behind this house. So, and, and, and also, I recall on Canyon Road, we allowed the replacement of all windows on on a house on Canyon Road just west of here. So, I think, yeah, that's the kind of, there's some logic to this. I think it is very difficult to replicate in kind these kind of windows. And I know they're, they're not very—

Yeah. One, one other little comment, kind of early on the process, I did consult Paul about this situation, and he did mention to look into Graham architectural products, because it had been, that product had been approved by the board on previous projects. I looked into it, and after a few rounds of communications and quotations, they actually determined that the project was too small for them to quote, and they were almost apologetic that the cost would just be crazy for them to provide a product for us. So,

Thank you, Madam Chair. If I, if the board were to decide to approve one of these alternative products, do you have a first choice out of the ones you flagged for us that you're proposing, or would—

The, the one that we would like to use is the one that I just gave you, basically, is the Colby Pilux WT product.

Yeah. Which is that colored brochure.

Do you happen to— Oh, but there are multiple models flagged in here.

Oh. Oh, I see. Do you have—

Just so we could be specific.

Oh, I see. Motion.

I believe there is one that is called the accent, right? Which has a bit more of a protrusion for the, for the mullion. It's, it's not as flat. So, there are, there are two main lines, I believe. Not seeing one called accent. I'm seeing the Vista Lux collection. There, they, some of them are—

So, there are, yeah, there are, there are two main, the Vista collection has a WD and an AL. So, the AL is an all aluminum, but the, we're opting for the WD, which has a wood interior, wood, aluminum clad on the outside. Okay. So, it, I'm looking at the one, the WD line, the Beast Deluxe collection. So, those would be, because some of these do have quite different pane configurations and patterns.

Is there a certain criteria for the, you know, that you would prefer, you feel?

Yeah. I mean, I think if we, if we went this direction, we would be trying to mimic the square pattern that's there. Some of these that are flagged, like the crank-out casements, those are really more of a horizontal painting.

Oh, I see. In terms of the pattern of them, basically, like right now, if we, if we go back to the east facade, we can see that it's, there is a transom. The existing has a transom, four across, and then the windows itself is casements, one over three, one over three, and then in the middle, it's two over three. So, altogether, it's four, it's four over four, altogether. So,

You split the, excuse me for interrupting, the east elevation up.

The east elevation.

Maggie.

Look at that.

I apologize. I think I stopped sh— If, if it's possible, impossible at all to zoom into those windows that you see it more, maybe a little slow there.

Okay. Yeah. Well, that, that, that window over there. Yeah, this one. So, the top is the existing, and what we're proposing, proposing is the one below. So, what we're proposing does not have the fixed transom. The primary reason for that is because, you know, if we do mull units together, the lines, there just becomes more, more lines, and that transom becomes separation becomes much thicker, and, you know, in kind of studying that in design, the proportions of the lights become more different if I introduce that transom. Hence, I just kept it to just casements on the side, fixed in the middle. Altogether, it's four over four, similar to the existing.

Any other questions or comments? Member Terry.

Yeah. What, what window brands did you look into regarding steel windows?

Well, initially, we looked at, you know, we looked at a just a regular wood-clad windows, various brands, you know, Sierra Pacific, you know, KBY even. And then, we looked into, let's see, I, boy, Prestige, Graham, Pope's windows. This bunch of void aluminum, Jeld-Wen, Windsor, oops, Panda windows, Prestige. I mean, I listed six here, but I actually looked into maybe eight or nine altogether.

And, and Hopes, for instance, didn't have anything that would work.

No, they, they would not even, I tried to get a, it would, I believe I did get a quote from Hopes. Yeah, cost was the main reason for us to kind of go back to this proposal. I mean—

Okay. But they were, but they, but they were available.

They were available.

Yeah, they were available. Okay.

Any other questions? Member Benu.

Um, thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sorry, I was reading, and I missed that last part. So, what was available exactly?

Hopes windows.

And Hopes windows would be what exactly? Would they be exact—

Steel. No, they're, they're not exactly, but they're steel windows. Yeah.

And how, so, just to be clear on our discussion, I think the, at least from my perspective, the only window we're really talking about is on primary facade. Everything else is a whole different question, right?

Right.

So, when we talk about cost, for example, we're really just talking about the cost of that one window. And I think I just assumed that when you threw $50,000, threw out $50,000, that that was for every window, maybe.

That was, yeah, that was kind of like the base cost for the window package for the entire house.

Okay. So, what would be, do you know what the cost would be for just this one window, replacing it in steel?

I, yeah, I believe it's in the order of about $14,000.

$14,000.

Like that.

Compared to what for the ones that you're proposing?

Two. No, no, I, I have to, I have to look back. So, I, I can't—

Okay.

You know, but I, I think in the order of some three to five, I, I think. Okay.

Yeah.

So, you know, even for the Hopes, I'm not exactly sure, because a lot of these steel window manufacturers, when they came back to me, they, they always presented a caveat. It's like, okay, but we've got to look at your [clears throat] project more closely. And, and again, this was six months ago. I don't know where Windows prices are today.

Yeah. Right. They're, they're going up day by day for sure. Um, yes. So, I, I guess just to take a step back, um, steel windows. This is, you know, we've had this conversation many times about replacing windows. Um, and I always say this is, to me, the one, this is the hardest issue that the board that frequently faces, that is hardest for the public to understand. The public just often believes that the, um, our board and almost any preservation board is acting irrationally when they don't allow old windows to be replaced with nice new energy-efficient windows. And that's just a reality. It's always been the case, and it always will be. But, you know, we, but good preservation practice, as I'm have no doubt you know, is that windows are extremely important parts of the historic character of a building, and that they are, by all preservation standards, when they are character-defining, they are always considered to be something that needs to be preserved. And the only exception to that is if they can't be, because there's no way to repair them or make them continue to function. And in that case, then they are to be replaced in kind, meaning exact duplicates. So, that's the basic preservation standard. And, you know, honestly, there's very good reasons for that. And one is that they, they have such a huge impact on the character of a historic building when they're historic. Both the panes of glass, the style, and then the materials of the framing and the, the mullions and so forth. Steel windows are always, you know, even harder for a lot of people to understand the why they should be preserved, because they think of them as drafty and energy inefficient and not necessarily attractive.

But again, all preservationists highly respect the era of steel frame windows, and they are very characteristic in Santa Fe, just like in every other place in the country, as representative of a certain historic era. So then you come to the question, so that's the reason we preserve them and protect them. Then the question is, can they still function well in our modern-day environment? And again, the National Park Service has frequently addressed this issue, they being the gold standard of preservation practice, and have consistently issued multiple reports and statements saying yes, not only can they be repaired, they're more easily repaired in many cases than older wooden windows. They have great longevity. They can be made energy efficient. They are repairable, and at all costs, when they are significant, they should be preserved if at all possible.

So with that background, we come to this house, and as I recall, and I think it's stated in the report, the very reason the board designated the primary facade was the window. It was specifically called out as being the character-defining feature of the entire contributing structure. So any change to that window, in my mind, would immediately cause it to lose its contributing status, which we're not allowed to do. So the way I perceive this is we're really looking at trying to figure out a way to keep that window in place if at all possible. And that brings me to Ray Patterson's report, which is just not clear to me. He says it's repairable and it's in fair condition.

Actually.

But then he implies that somehow if you remove it, that would destroy it, which I guess that presupposes, first of all, that you have to remove it in order to keep it. And then it's not clear to me if it couldn't be removed without somehow saving it. So I guess I'm not clear, factually, just on the fact, I'm not 100% over the hump in thinking this. It's clear that this has to be removed and replaced. And then secondly, if it is, I think it's just essential that if that is the reality, that it needs to have the closest possible match it could have. And I'm sorry that that might be difficult, but I really don't see a way of getting around that. When I look at any of the proposed metal replacements, they're all very contemporary looking and would completely change the character of the house in my mind.

Can I add, please? That was all. I had some gaps. So, Hopes is a good example of a company that makes windows that replace windows like the one we're talking about in kind. So, they will, yeah, they have products that are, I would consider, in kind to those products and that are also thermally perform well, so they're energy efficient. They are costly. That's the reality of that window. But we are talking about one, like the other windows could be replaced with the windows you're specking.

And so then to speak a little bit to member Benvvenu's points about the National Park Service standard and that type of window, and also how we see it, which is a little ambiguous too, regarding window assessment. You know, typically we're looking at degradation as the criteria for replacement as opposed to repair. And so we would look at, you know, if that window had, say, saltwater exposure and the material was degraded beyond repair, that would be the criteria to replace it. Those windows, as member Benvvenu pointed out, from the Park Service literature, are typically very repairable. Parts are very readily accessible. And in regard to whether it needs to come out or whether it can stay and be done in situ, it sort of depends on the installation, but normally when they're stuccoed in, it can happen either way. The notion that you have to destroy a window like that to get it out is too vague. It's generally not the case.

So, do you recommend getting a second opinion on the window assessment, or because according to Ray Patterson's window assessment, he did describe that, you know, in order to repair the window, you would have to remove it, and when you remove it, you basically have to replace it.

So those windows, the way that they're removed, they do not have any exterior, or the way that they're installed, I would say, they don't have any kind of flange. Exactly. So,

Float.

Yeah. So, well, no, it doesn't float. It's attached. It's attached through the frame under the glazing. So the way that it gets removed, if it needs to be removed, is that the glazing comes out in situ, and then the fasteners that hold the window in place come out, and then the window can be taken out. If layers of plaster encroached on that, so that it's sort of plastered in, then the plaster would need to be removed, but that generally can all be done. However, those windows are also, you know, they're from a different era. Those and also historic wood windows were made in an era when we took things apart and repaired them, and we didn't just replace them when they went bad. So, so they're also the, you know, the operators, and there's only three components on those windows: the hinges, the operators, and the latches, right? And so generally those, those, those windows were so prevalently widespread made that you could get another opinion. I suppose that would be an option. I mean, the other, the other piece of knowledge that I would bring to it is that, you know, typically repairing something's a lot less money than replacing it, whether or not it's with a less expensive window or more expensive. That's, that's all I would have to offer.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So this window assessment that the applicant paid for, probably suggested by our staff to get, it's from a qualified window assessor that the city has listed as an approved assessor, states that the window is in fair condition, which means it's 30 to 40% deteriorated, which is our typical threshold for allowing window replacement. And he recommends that it has a new window. I do not, I feel very strongly that we should not be second-guessing the window assessments we get at the city's request. I mean, a suggestion to get another assessment is not a good one. We should, you know, this, that's, that's for the staff to say, I think. I know we have some expertise on this board, but I think we should learn from a recent appeal to the city that this is not a productive way to approach cases. So I would, I would suggest we go with the assessment we have in place. We have precedent for replacing steel windows. We're replacing windows on the rest of this house. I think a consistent window type for the entire house would be far more harmonious than having one steel window and the rest something else. And the applicant has gone to a lot of trouble to research what is the closest match and pattern, if not in material. And I, I think that that's a valid justification for a pretty difficult situation. And I think if it was easy to replace these, that that would be the recommendation. Two cents. Thank you.

Member Griffin, when you've read the assessment of Ray Patterson on that particular window, on the window of that primary facade, wasn't there some ambivalence?

Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, I think that they're always a little tricky to interpret. Let me see if I can just find it. People can reach their own decision as to whether it's, basically his report is that it's in fair condition, and I can read what he defines as fair. It says it is historic. It is set out of plumb, won't close correctly, and hinges buried in the stucco. To restore the window, it would need to be removed in order to reset the window plumb and level. Waterproofing will be necessary because the window is leaking around the frame. However, removing the window will cause frame damage and a new window will be needed.

So, I have some comments if I may, regarding member's comments. I mean, I think it's definitely a longer conversation for the session that we've talked about having. However, my quick comments on it are, I think if we're just going to rubber stamp what every window assessor says about everything, then we're, I'm not, I think, I think we, we're here to observe what we see when we go to the site visits and when we see things on the ground, and we're here to assess evidence. So, if a window assessor is saying, "Hey, this is it," I'd like to see them back up what they're saying with some evidence in the assessment, rather than just, "Hey, it's, uh, here's what I think about it," or see some evidence regarding what the national standard is, following some kind of standard, because the standard the city has is quite vague. So I, I, I don't think we should just rubber stamp what any window assessor, including myself, would say about anything. I think we should, we should, that, that it's okay for us to seek evidence, and it's okay for us to observe what's really going on. And in regard to this one, okay, if that window is needing to be replaced, I, I think then my assessment of, not of the window, but of this situation, would be there are windows that could replace it more in kind than what's being proposed.

Thank you. Yeah, just, just, just because we're trying to clarify our positions here. I mean, I, I guess I'm still, you know, we're still making the assumption it, it, it needs to be repaired or replaced. I mean, this window apparently, I guess he said it's out of, set out of plumb, which I guess implies it was not installed correctly, but it's been there for, I don't know, well over 50 years, 70, 75 years, and people have been living in the house with that window there. So I'm not sure that something has happened just recently that has made it that the house is no longer habitable without the, or, you know, functional in any acceptable manner without taking out that window and replacing it.

The building could have settled. That could be it. It could.

It could have, yeah, it's possible, but that would, that's why I say, did that just happen, or did it settle 40 years ago? So if you're going to, if, if for this case we were to say yes, we're going to use the window assessment, I think my opinion would be then there's still windows that are out there that can replace this window more in kind than what's been.

Yeah, I mean, that's the second part of the same issue. Okay, that's all. Thank you.

Anyone in this audience wanting to comment on the window? Make it quick. Oh, yes. You're part of the, you are, are you the owner?

The owner.

Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record.

Well, here.

Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Thank you.

Very much. I'll try to be brief. I know it's very late. I appreciate everyone's thoughtful consideration of the matter. As far as evidence goes, in terms of the nature of the window, I'd like to just tell you what we did this morning. My wife, in the audience sitting back here, pinned various hair clips to the drapes adjacent to the metal casing in the window because the cold air was blasting in so much. That's our morning routine because we sit right next to it. Because I want to emphasize this is a 750T house.

We have one bedroom, one bathroom. We have nowhere to go to get out of the cold. That's the biggest window. It's the one that's generating all the thermal loss in the house. When it rains from the mountainside, water comes in through the window and runs down our wall every time. You're seeking evidence. I'm trying to provide you the testimonial facts that will hopefully persuade you as to what the nature of these windows are in place today. They're warped. I went to Big R this weekend and bought a whole strand of insulation tape that I could put all up through the interior portions to try to get the seal to shut. It's doing okay, but it constantly falls off, so I'm constantly replacing. Hopefully, you will view this testimonial evidence as somewhat persuasive from the folks who are living there now.

I don't know what it was like 50 years ago or 70 years ago. I do know that we believed and we interpreted the window assessment to recommend replacement. My instruction to Mr. Ton as the owner was, "Find the closest thing he could that was realistic considering our budget." And I know that you don't necessarily take that into account, and I understand why. But please understand that when you suggest that something should be done at all costs, it's really not a choice of doing it or not, doing it one way or another. It's a choice of not doing it. So, we will continue, if you vote against this, to live the way we are currently living with clips on the drapes and foam in the windows and water probably coming down on a regular basis. That's just reality.

I also want to emphasize the fact that we really tried to go above and beyond public notice. We went with every single adjacent landowner, invited them into the house. They've all seen it. They've all experienced it. All of them who are immediately adjacent to us have signed letters of support. These are the folks that look at this window more than anyone else in the community every day. Last night, I also appeared before the Canyon Neighborhood Association seeking their support, trying to explain to them the nature of the project and why we felt we needed to do it. The chair of that organization, I believe, submitted a letter not only acknowledging they had no objection, but also supporting the replacement of the window for various reasons, including energy efficiency, which I know is consistent with another city requirement. So, I hope that you'll take those things into consideration.

I understand that there are much larger citywide issues that require resolution that involve this issue, and there may be many big policy decisions that need to be made. But I would like to impress upon you the very specific factual situation that we are living in and the consequences of your decision. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your testimony. Anybody else? I've been looking at the image up there, and it really is rather wonderful looking, and I'm sympathetic with the problems that the owner is talking about. But I would, and I don't know what the ideas that have been presented to you, but the little bit I could see from back there didn't seem to be very much of a good replacement to honor what Mr. Patterson actually started out by saying was a fair condition. Not quite sure. It doesn't make sense to me. So, I'm going to leave that up to you guys. But I do think that there should be an effort made to find a replacement, if that's what has to happen, that is really similar to what's there. It's quite charming, and I think Member Benvvenu said this, and several of you, I hope you can find a solution that's similar and not a change.

Thank you, Elizabeth. Anybody else? And no one on Zoom. No one on Zoom. Okay, friends and neighbors, board members. Motion please.

Can I make a comment?

Make a motion.

No, I want to make a comment. I know it's late. I should get to the motion.

Yeah, okay. So, difficult issue. I just want to respond a little bit to the applicant. It was very good that you testified wherever you are. I can't see you now, but there you are. And I, it felt a little bit like you're approaching as if you were being forced to prove something to us. But I just like to say that should have been in the application. That really is important information. I'm just telling you all that you've got to get that in front of us. So, to just bring it at the very end is not extremely helpful. What would be helpful is to make that something that you describe exactly how these windows are functioning because that is clearly an element of a factor that we have to take into account. So, you're having testified to the condition of the window and as it how it impacts the occupants of the house is to me very important. So, for all of you listening, please, please make that part of your application and don't just rely on window assessment.

It does still bring us to a hard issue. And I also want to add one more thing. As much as I agree with staff's report, I don't actually agree that cost is not a factor. Cost is a factor because one of our criteria for granting an exception is hardship. And to me, that's kind of the whole point of the hardship exception is we want people to be able to continue to live in the historic districts, whether they can afford all of the best preservation type of materials and renovations that are available. That's just not what we demand of people. I think that's the whole reason we have a hardship exception. It's not the only factor that needs to be established by an applicant, but I do think it's an important one, and I think cost directly relates to that.

So, based on the testimony, the evidence that we have before us, I am largely persuaded that it sounds as if these, this one window, needs some kind of intervention for the house to be livable. I think in an ideal world, there are, not just an ideal world, in our own world, I think there are ways that can be dealt with. There are storm windows, there are interior drapes, there are interior secondary windows, there are other things to help with drafts and leaks. But I know that you've been considering those options and don't think that they work well within this particular home, which leads us then, if that does lead us to think that, okay, this, we're not going to be able to repair this window. It does lead to the question of replacement in kind. The only evidence we have tonight is that that would be a highly significant extra expense. It sounds like it could be done, but I think in the context of this particular home, if those numbers are accurate, that extra $10,000 potentially to replace it exactly in kind might be more than could be reasonably asked. So, I'm kind of thinking out loud here, but I am coming around to the idea, based on the evidence that's now been presented, that it may need to be replaced in as close to in kind as possible, but I do believe that will cause a downgrade. In my opinion, this will no longer be a contributing house. So, we, I just think that that's something the board needs to take into account.

In the form of?

No, I'm just giving general thoughts for no good reason.

So, I would, can I piggyback on that? And I know it's late, but five more minutes. Humor me.

Oh, do not go five more minutes. One minute.

A minute and a half.

I agree with Member Benvvenu. I think the testimony is powerful. I think, and that's, that's, I think one important point to bring up is having more evidence than just an assessment, which is not evidentiary. It's just, it's just really like a table and an opinion, and it's subjective and open to interpretation by whoever's doing it, what resources and knowledge they have. So, other evidence, I think, is critical moving forward. I mean, one thing, and I'm just trying to be pragmatic about this because hopefully the idea here is that we have code and we have precedent that we can make consistent decisions that are predictable, and people can bring in information, and we can make the right informed decision. And I think there's a little too much ambiguity right now. But, but in regard to this case, you know, as, and, and what I've heard also in that testimony is like, this is the single biggest energy losing window. So, my presumption would be, and if the applicant wants to step forward and participate in this, that might be helpful, but that if, if they had to replace that one window in kind with an in kind window, which they do exist, and it was 15K, that you might forego or phase the other window replacement rather than the, the, the more extreme solution that you suggested in your testimony, where if this one window can't be replaced with the wood aluminum clad wood window, that none of the work would happen. If that window's that bad, would you just replace that window in kind and either phase or, or wait on the replacement of the other windows? Because I could see that as an alternate, you know, path where we're not preventing, you know, perpetuating the hardship. If that one window is the hardship, and the scope of the whole work that's being presented is a, you know, a much more extensive, expensive window replacement of, you know, full scale. So,

He is making a comment, and he's wanted.

Yeah, just, just a quick comment. Yeah, I mean, we thought about phasing the windows. Also, maybe only replacing that window and living with a different east window. I think phasing is probably going to cost more than spending the $10,000, if we could, you know, the $10,000 to $15,000 extra, you know, on, on a single window. We all know, you know, getting contractors to do a phase and then come back to do something else is just going to cost a lot. So, you know, we would like to do everything at one time and try to keep things consistent. Don't have one special. They're all steel single.

I'll go right into that mic.

They're all steel single pane. The whole reason we want to do this project is to make them more energy efficient. When we do the dishes, there's a window in front of the sink. Every single night doing the dishes, the hot water fogs the window up. I have to take a rag and wipe it off. When we sleep at night, there's a window behind our bed. Her breath fogs that window in the morning. Every morning, every window, the window in the bathroom is probably one of the worst windows. The wind comes through every morning. The dirt, the bugs in the summer. I mean, phasing is a hardship, but you making us wait, and, and we started this process when, in May. Yeah. I mean, it's been almost a year. We tried to do everything right, and, and we just are asking for understanding in the, in the context of this particular house. Did I answer the question?

Thank you. Board members, I will entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion.

Yes.

Surprise, surprise. So, okay, I'll give it a try. 2025011244 HDRB for 12 Camino Cabra. I would move to find that under the unique, well, under the special circumstances of this case, as proven by the testimony given, that the exception criteria have been met for the primary facade window replacement, provided that the window is replaced with the product as close to the existing windows that are being proposed to replace as economically feasible, to be approved by staff. And I would also find that all other aspects of the application may be approved as recommended by staff. And I would note that the contributing status of the structure is potentially affected by the replacement of that window, and to the extent a determination is made that it should be downgraded because of the replacement of the window, that the board finds that the exception criteria for approving it nonetheless are met.

Chair Rios and Member Bianu, you're just indicating that perhaps, yeah, I don't think we can, I'm not saying we, I don't think we can do a status review right now, but I do think it's incumbent on the board to...

I just wanted to make sure.

No, but I do think it's incumbent on the board to know that there's the possibility.

That there's the possibility, and we're going forward knowing that there is the possibility that it will be downgraded as a consequence. And the ordinance is we cannot approve a project that would cause a downgrade. And I'm saying that we are also finding that the exception criteria have been met to approve it despite that in this particular case.

Roll call vote, please.

Excuse me. Chair Rios and Member Bianu have seen in the past the board approved findings of fact that the alteration that is approved on a contributing building will not cause a downgrade.

I believe...

Okay.

That is one board member's opinion and we're not discussing that tonight. He's just, he's just stating that...

I am discussing that. I'm saying...

Part of my motion is that it may cause a downgrade and we are still, we know that, and we're still approving it.

But it's a possibility.

Yes, because we believe that the exception criteria for that approval are met. That makes sense to everybody. We're not, we're not overlooking that aspect of our approval. Yes.

Rya Roa.

Member Dagnen.

Yes.

Member Bich.

Yes.

Member Cherry.

No.

Member Aguilera Madana.

No. Member Bianu.

Yes.

The motion passes.

Thank you all. The next case is located at 527 Agua Fria Street, units one, two, and three. And let the record show that Member Aguilar Madrron is leaving at this point. He's got an early day tomorrow in reference to her work. So, Lenny, this is your case. So, this is case 2025-011230 HDRB at 527 Agua Fria Street for a remodel. I'm going to skip the streetscape. Sorry.

The 30,000 square foot multifamily residence at 527 Agua Fria Street sits on a 0.4 acre lot and was constructed by 1908 and is listed as contributing to the Westside Guadalupe Historic District with the south and east elevations designated as the primary facades. The residence was constructed in a vernacular style architecture with thick stucco plastered walls, red tiled roofs, and ornate archways with large symmetrical facades designed for warmth and indoor living. The roof is a red metal roof with gables of various heights, gable horns, and exposed rafters. The roof heights vary with the lowest at 7 feet 10 and the highest at just under 20 feet. According to the 1997 HCPI, the roof was changed to the existing tile roof in 1920 to 1925. And according to the 2025 HCPI, the original roof was a flat roof with drainage to the north. The walls are concrete and stucco in light tan. Most windows are eight-light wood casements in pairs and trios and a few picture windows. The doors are wood with the front south door being curved to match the curve in the portal. The south portal has a gable roof with a round arched opening. The southeast corner portal has a shed roof and stucco piers. The yard wall along the street is low stucco with a wood pedestrian gate and the rear fencing is a 6-foot high plank wood fence. The diamond vents had glass installed behind them at an unknown time. The previous garage was connected to the main structure with an addition which was constructed around 1984.

The roof was approved to be replaced in 2024. The residence is currently a three-unit structure that is being converted to a main residence with guest house. It currently has an interior-only construction permit for the conversion work that is in progress. The addressing from multifamily to single family will be changed after the conversion is complete. The applicant is currently proposing to replace windows and doors with divided light windows and an exception is requested to section 14-5.2D5A for replacement of windows on primary facades. It's quite a lengthy little section of windows to view requests, so I'm going to kind of skip over that.

They're going to raise the roof of the lower section of the north elevation, which is currently at 7 feet 10, to a height of 9 feet 8, and re-roof to match the existing. The slope of the roof will be lessened to minimize the overall height change, and this portion of the roof is not located on a primary facade. They want to construct a 36 square foot addition to a height of 11 feet 2 where the maximum allowable is 17 feet 8 on the north elevation. The addition will have a prefinished metal gutter, downspout, and rain barrel. The addition is not on a primary facade, nor is it within 10 feet of any primary. We want to replace the chimney to meet current fire code and remove the metal flue for the wood stove that is currently on the northwest roof area. The chimney and flue are not located on primary facades. Construct a 6-foot high coyote fence with 6-foot pedestrian gates on the north of the residence to replace the existing wood plank fencing. And repair and stucco the unstaged front yard wall and replace the pedestrian gate with a new wood gate with solid wood rails and a flat wood panel painted to match the existing fascia. The stucco shall be cementitious and will match the existing color. The existing color will need to be tested for confirmation and install flagstone pathway from the front gate to the front door and replace the flagstone on the floor of the portal and install exterior steps with handrails at the exterior doors on the north elevation and stucco the residence and cementitious stucco to match the existing color. Existing color again will need to be confirmed and the fascia will be painted in white.

Staff finds that the exception criteria have not been met and recommends denial of the exception to section 14-5.2D5A for replacement of historic windows on primary facades. That includes items 1A, 1G, 1H, and 1L would be an I. Otherwise, staff recommends approval of the other elements of the application: items 1B, C, D, E, F, I, J, K, and then items 2 through 9 as they comply with 14-5.2D general design standards for all historic districts and 5.2I for Westside Guadalupe Historic District Design Standards. For clarification, the diamond pattern vents are part of the staff's recommendation for denial as they are listed under the window replacement details. So, thank you, Lenny. Would you identify the primary facades by elevation? I didn't happen to put a drawing in here. Let's see. So it would be the south facade of the, which is the larger section, not the section that sets back, just the larger section of the northern, sorry, south elevation and then the entire east elevation. Any other questions for Lenny? No. Applicant, if you'll come forward.

May you please raise your right hand, state your name and address for the record?

Thank you. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury?

I do.

Thank you. Yes, sir.

No. I will make this presentation short. The owner would like...

It would be a good idea if you speak right into that mic. You're a tall gentleman. Just bring it up a little bit closer to your mouth. Again, in quick summary, at the last meeting in December, the status of this project was downgraded from contributing to, or from significant to contributing. And I think that speaks to the evolution of architecture. What I've noticed throughout Santa Fe is people as they've lived in homes over the years, they change, they modify, they add, they do things to them to make it the most comfortable house that they have available to them. And again, that's what we're trying to do on this project.

Regarding the exception requests, which are basically the window replacement on the two primary facades, we would like to replace those, you know, essentially all the windows on those facades and also on the non-primary facades. And part of the reason is we know that wood windows can be repaired. However, I've noticed in my past experience on jobs, you think you have one piece that needs to be repaired. When you start getting into the window, you realize more and more is damaged. Before you know it, you're essentially crafting stick by stick a brand new custom window that is no more original than what we're requesting when we're asking for complete replacement. You know, I kind of like to use the old car analogy. You've got a car that's got 300,000 miles on it, needs a new engine. Sure, you can rebuild it. You can rebore the block. You could put in new pistons and valves, but at some point it's actually better for the car just to replace the engine. Well, that's what we're looking.

The other aspect of the project is reworking the northern facade. The original structure had a lean-to added to it over various years as shown in the, you know, the historic assessment presented at the last meeting. And it's hard to tell exactly what was done when, but it looks like it may have been a lean-to porch. They did some infill work. They infilled this. It was just a, like I said, it's the evolution of architecture and we have done work on the inside. We received a demolition permit and that actually exposed the framing of the existing structure and in many cases it's rotten, would have to be replaced in any case and the ceiling heights are very, very low. So, we'd like to bring up the lean-to to modern comfort. And in the case of doing that, I think the north facade would end up getting cleaned up, more harmonious, have some more architectural logic to it, and just ultimately make the structure look better. And then Lenny also described all the additional items we're looking at. Restucco, new yard walls, new chimneys. To me that doesn't seem terribly, you know, controversial. So hopefully we'll get approval on all those items. Any questions for me before I, before I introduce the owner? Any questions for the applicant? We have no questions at this point.

So, Steve is one of the two owners. He should be on Zoom. He should have his hand raised.

Yes. Steve, please state your name for the and be sworn in for the record, please.

Steven Vieira.

Thank you, Stephen. Can you also please state your address for the record?

That's 24 Calle Sanasia, Santa Fe 6.

Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury?

I do.

Thank you.

Good evening, Madame Chair and members of the board. As mentioned, I'm Steven Vieira and my business partner Tim Skarn and I are the owners of 527 Agua. We appreciate you allowing us to join by Zoom today. We'd like to be there in person, but we both have young children and we really do appreciate the flexibility. We are locals and we love this home and we love the character of the Westside Guadalupe neighborhood and we really value the work you guys are doing to preserve Santa Fe's history. We just want to make our intention clear. We like, we want to stabilize and restore the house so that it can last another hundred years while staying respectful of the neighborhood and the aesthetic of Santa Fe. This house has undergone many major alterations over the past century, multiple additions, roof changes, mixed era elements. We feel it no longer really represents a single historic period or embodies a clear intact architectural style. On top of that, there are lots of wood elements of the structure as well as the windows and doors that are old and rotting.

Could some of them be restored? It's highly debatable, as we've heard some people making that case tonight as well. But really, it's a short-term solution. What we're trying to do is create a consistent look that's energy efficient, that kind of peels things back to a more original state in restoration, and something that's in line with the character of the neighborhood and in line with what's been approved by the board in the past. Color style, we're not looking to reinvent the wheel here. We just want a structure that's going to last. So we appreciate you guys hearing us out and hope that we can make our case tonight.

Thank you, Mr. Padilla. Any questions for Mr. Padilla? Looks like they're barely awake and have no question. Anyone in this audience wishing to comment on this project? No one. Anyone further on Zoom?

>> No hands raised.

Board members, you don't have any comments or questions. If not, I'm ready to hear a motion.

>> Yes, Member Beach.

>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Do we ask for public comment? We're fine.

>> Yeah. Okay, we do. In case number 2025-011230 HDRB at 527 Agua Fria Street, it's one, two, and three. I move to adopt staff's recommendation, which is consistent with the window assessment report, which finds that the exception criteria have not been met for the replacement of windows on the primary facades on the south and east, and will require the repair of the historic windows on those two primary facades, which are windows F, G, H, I, and J. Otherwise, the remaining elements of the application are approved as submitted.

>> Second.

>> Yes.

>> Is there a second?

>> Second.

>> Is there something further?

>> Can I clarify something? So, is it just because it was somewhat, Lanny brought it up, but does that include not approving the replacement of the vents and the front door?

>> Yeah, if you have a suggestion on that, I'm not really clear what that is. The gable vent.

>> So they're in the elevation.

>> No, no, I see them. But do you want to deny them or...

>> I think staff, that's, I just wanted to clarify with staff. That was what staff recommended and that's what I would recommend. Yeah. I'll accept that as friendly. Thanks.

>> Anything further?

>> That include the doors? I think that was the other.

>> The entry door. There's that change. What was your recommendation on that, Lanny?

>> I think J is a door, I believe. Is that right?

>> The entry door was, we were recommending it be replaced in kind rather than squaring it off.

>> Okay. So, just we should clarify that the motion then because...

>> If I could make a comment as the applicant.

>> Hold on. We're in the middle of it. Let me hear this.

>> Sorry, Lanny. Which door is it?

>> It's the door on the south elevation. The entry door.

>> It's the actual front entry door. So, it's the one under the portal.

>> Okay. Yeah. So that's the, that's the existing.

>> Amend the motion to require the replacement in kind of the front entry door on the south facade.

>> Sorry, exterior door, right?

>> Let me see. Prior to the vote, I think the applicant has something to say, even though it's unusual in the middle of a motion.

>> Well, I'd like to give some clarification. There's one item that needs to be discussed. First of all, the diamond gable vents certainly can be repaired, which is what your motion is. At the front, there are two door locations currently, because it had been divided into several living units. We were proposing to change the door to the right, which is to the east on the south facade, to a window, and we were requesting replacing the middle door with a wood panel door with lights on it. So, it'd be helpful for all of us to be clarified exactly what we are being allowed to replace, what we need to repair in kind or repair. Thank you.

>> Lanny, what is your recommendation? Okay. So, the window replacements of windows to the doors, windows F, G, H, I, J, and L are the ones on the primary. Okay. And then the front door is the...

>> It's door number two is the arch top door.

>> So the arch door number two. Thank you. Member Jerry. We're recommending it be replaced in kind to continue with the arch. The door to the right that they're wanting to make into a window was part of the exception, which we were requesting to be denied.

>> Member McCauley, on door number two, pardon me. Are we looking at the wooden door that has a number three on it? It's kind of faint, but it does have a number three on it. It's a wooden door, light wood, and it's...

>> Yes, it's wood right now.

>> And that is there. The request is to return to turn that door into a window.

>> So, there's two doors on the front of, on the south.

>> Uh-huh.

>> Okay. So there's the one under the main entry portal, which is, well, I guess it's not tech.

>> Number two with the metal.

>> Number two, they both have metal screens on them, so that won't help. But the one to the right that's west, so the door to the west has kind of an arch over the door. And it's the door itself has a curve to it. That is a wood door that they're looking at replacing with a panel door with lights. One on the to the east is currently a wood door that they want to make into a window. So, it's on the south side, but it's to the east of the other door.

>> The opening of the window will be the same size as the door has been.

>> No, it'll be actually smaller than the actual door.

>> Thank you.

>> Yeah, I have a question about that, Lanny. So, is that door number three, the square topped door on the south facade of the building? Is that the door is non-historic? Is the opening historic? Do we know?

>> No, that would have been when they converted it into three units.

>> Okay. So, I could, I could amend my friendly amendment to kind of clean this up, if you will allow that. No, I think your motion's fine, but I'll just, I'll just amend.

>> Would indicate that the maker of the motion clarify the motion in terms of those three doors, please.

>> The motion is to require the, to deny the replacement of the following windows and require the repair. That's F, G, H, I, and J. Window number L is non-historic, Lanny. So I've omitted that one. And to require the replacement of door number two in kind so that the arch is maintained, even though that door is non-historic. Door number two. The arch is too, right? Yeah. The door. Yeah. And then to require the replacement in kind of the gable vents rather than a different design. Did I get it all? Cover everything.

>> The, the vents.

>> Yeah. The vents can be.

>> Okay. And then, and then allow the replacement of door number three with the window.

>> Yes. Yeah. All other elements are approved as submitted. Sorry, but may I ask about number three? Just to be clear, how big is that window going to be that's replacing the door? Number three. I mean that door goes down to the ground. Of course, that's what doors do. So, if you're replacing it with a window, I just want to know the dimensions.

>> Yeah, right there.

>> Three feet wide.

>> Sorry. Sorry. Thank you.

>> Thank you. Okay. I think we're clear on the motion and I will ask for a roll call vote.

>> Sorry, Madam Chair. Member Beach, implicit in your motion is that the exceptions are found for raising the roof.

>> Yes.

>> Okay. All right. And based on the...

>> Did we address all exceptions?

>> Motion from...

>> Do I need to clarify that the criteria are met, Frank?

>> You can rest on the record that's been presented.

>> Okay. Yeah. Thank you.

>> Okay. I think we're good on the motion. Mariah. Now, can we have the roll call vote, please?

>> Member Den, you seconded it, right?

>> Yes, I did.

>> Okay. And you approved.

>> Yes.

>> Okay. Member Beach.

>> Yes. Member Cherry.

>> Yes.

>> Member Aguiler Madrono and left. Member Benu.

>> Yes.

>> The motion has passed. Chair. Thank you very much. Good luck on your project. And we come to the last case this evening, which is located at 1302 S. Gordo. And Lanny, that is your case. Okay. So this is case 2025-111725 for 1302 Sarraordo Road construction. All right, I think my computer quit. So, this section of Sarraordo Road consists of various slope sites, with those on the north at a higher grade than the road and those on the south at a lower grade. The houses vary in proximity to the road. The street is lined with a variety of fences from wire or coyote latas and stucco adobe and rock walls. The houses vary with both flat and pitched roofs and very low single-story homes and taller two-story homes. The predominant styles are Spanish Pueblo Revival and vernacular. The stucco tends to be in lighter shades of brown with paint in red, brown or white. The pitched roofs are metal with either gray or red tones, and the lots are long and narrow with housing at the front and secondary housing at the rear of the lots. The taller residences range from 16 to 28 feet in height and are located to the east and rear of the subject property. The lower residences range from 11 to 15 feet in height, with the older structures to the rear of the lots on the south of the road average at about 14 feet in height. The newer construction in the rear of the lots averages 20 feet in height. So, the site actually holds two lots located in the Downtown Eastside Historic District. Lot one features a non-contributing single-family resident structure of approximately 1,400 square feet in a Spanish Pueblo Revival style that was constructed in 2021. The site also includes a non-historic coyote fence and stucco yard wall. The existing residence on lot one and the yard walls are exempt from this request. Lot two is to the rear of that property and sits below street level grade by approximately 40 feet. Lot two is a vacant lot with access provided from lot one. The applicant is proposing to construct a 3,698 square foot single-family residence in a Spanish Pueblo Revival style to a height of 22 feet where the maximum allowable height is 15 feet 6 inches. An exception is requested to section 14-5.2D9 to exceed the maximum allowable height. Staff would like to make it very clear that construction is on a flat low lot that is lower than the lot in the front. There is no slope to the lot. So that exception request is not due to the slope but due to the height requested. The windows on the north street facing elevation will be divided light with iron or color. Windows and doors under portalls on the south and on the east and west elevations will be single light. This is similar to those of the existing house. The entry door will be wood with hand-forged hardware. The garage door will be a metal raised panel design. Stucco color has not yet been determined, but will most likely match the color of the other residence, which is a synthetic mukkin color. The exterior lighting will consist of rose onyx rectangular wall sconces. And canalies will be metal lined wood trough units. They would also like to install a 10-foot wide, 5-foot high metal and wood electric gate at the entrance to the back side of the lot at the driveway access. This is our east elevation facing the driveway. These are the planned window designs. This is the color and lighting samples. And then staff finds that the exception criteria have been met and recommends approval of the exception to section 14-5.2D9 to exceed the maximum allowable height of the residence. Otherwise, staff recommends approval of the other elements of the application as it also complies with 14-5.2D 2D and 5.2E.

I was asked at the site visit to take some photos for you guys. So I'd like to show this. This is the street perspective in 3D from Google Earth. Sorry, I'm on slide 13, if that helps you, Maggie. Okay, that looks correct to me.

And then while we were standing at the lot, I took photos. So this one is looking up towards the north, which that is the house that's actually already on lot one. There you go. Okay. And then we're going to change the slide.

And then this is looking northeast at the neighboring house on the street and the driveway itself. And then this is the property to the east. It's actually our car and Frank sitting in the car there. And then this is kind of the southeastern corner. You can see the story poles in the front and then the two-story house in the back behind that property. And then we kind of go a little more to the southwest. There's not a building there. There's kind of a ravine. Sorry.

And then this is the property to the west. Just beyond this property is actually Armijo Lane. And the story poles are visible from Armijo Lane. Unfortunately, I did not get photos from the lane itself. And then this is actually, sorry, the property across Serord from the property at 1302. So it's the house that's right up on the hill across from them. So this house could be seen from Armijo. It can be, will it be seen from Sordo?

**Speaker:** Yes.

**Speaker:** So Armijo and Sro Gordo.

**Speaker:** Yes.

**Speaker:** And within the immediate vicinity, are there any other two-story homes? Just the one to the back of it. That one in the southeast corner. South.

**Speaker:** Yeah, west and east backwards. Sorry. Southeast corner.

**Speaker:** The one that has a portion of a two-story.

**Speaker:** It's visible, right?

**Speaker:** Is that correct?

**Speaker:** Mhm.

**Speaker:** But that's, it's way lower on the lot.

**Speaker:** It's behind it and you can tell it's two stories from the lot itself. I don't know how much lower below this lot that those.

**Speaker:** It appeared that the grade of that house is a lot lower, I would say. I would say yes.

**Speaker:** And also, divided light windows. Is this applicant proposing non-divided light windows?

**Speaker:** Yes. On the rest of the house, the divided lights will only be on the Sarra Gordo side. So the north. Okay. And let me see. Okay. On the door, the metal door. Can you give us those dimensions again? Which door?

**Speaker:** Oh, the garage. It's the garage door that's metal. Oh, okay. So, they are not proposing another vehicular door. No, just the one garage door. Any other questions at this time? Not at this time. Applicant or applicants, please come forward. Get sworn in. Give us your testimony.

**Speaker:** Hello. Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record.

**Speaker:** Right in the microphone, please.

**Speaker:** 108 comments. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury?

**Speaker:** I do.

**Speaker:** Thank you.

**Speaker:** Yes, sir. What do you have to tell us?

**Speaker:** If you can bring that mic right up to your mouth.

**Speaker:** Yes.

**Speaker:** Good evening. So, actually the garage door is proposed to be a, it is a metal door, but it's a raised panel to mimic a wood door. So, from a distance, it would be identical to a wood door. And also the windows, any window that is not under a portal is divided light around the entire house.

**Speaker:** Yes. And how many windows are under the portal that are not divided?

**Speaker:** Couldn't answer that.

**Speaker:** Yeah, there's some, mainly the sliding doors.

**Speaker:** What we are seeing here on the south elevation are those on the first floor, those are doors.

**Speaker:** That is correct. Yes. And can you tell us what the interior ceiling heights are?

**Speaker:** Interior, pardon me, ceiling heights.

**Speaker:** 9 ft.

**Speaker:** Say it again.

**Speaker:** 9 ft.

**Speaker:** 9 ft both on the first floor and the second floor.

**Speaker:** Correct.

**Speaker:** Any other questions, board members? Yeah, I'm a little confused because in the west and east elevations, none of the windows or doors have divided light. Are those all under portals? The drawings we have, it only shows the north elevation with divided light.

**Speaker:** Okay. If that is, that's incorrect. Those should be divided lights. And it, we're trying to adhere to historic standards and anything that is not under a portal is divided light. So if it's not drawn on there like that, I can modify it and represent it as that. Yes.

**Speaker:** A bit of question. What's the architectural style of this home?

**Speaker:** It's an adobe pueblo style home. Any other questions?

**Speaker:** Comments.

**Speaker:** Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, more comments, I guess. So, I think the big issue here, I mean, we have a bunch of issues probably, but the big issue that you probably need to address is height exception requests. I know that staff has recommended that a finding that the exception criteria have been met, but just visiting the property on site today and seeing the story poles, which I don't think we're at all the corners looking at the floor plan, but we're at some of the main corners and it was, from my perspective, rather imposing and pretty significantly over the height calculation. I gather from the staff report that the reason staff thought that was okay was because the property is set down from the road, but it really isn't on a sloping site. It's really on a flat, once you get, make the quick downturn off of the road, you're on a fairly flat site. So this really will be quite a large structure from ground level. It's also visible, it is visible from Sarra Gordo. I think it will be clearly a very, very tall structure and certainly from all the surrounding properties it will be, even the two-story building that's nearby, I think will be looking up at this and all the others are one story and I think this will seem quite imposing to them. So I'm personally concerned about whether the exception criteria have been met for the height. The other, so I'm going to just ask you to address it. And then the second, the other thing that staff didn't address, but I think the applicant suggested was a reason was that this amount of square footage was needed because the house that's already on the lot that you call the guest house has to be factored into the total square footage that's allowed on the lot. So I wonder how, what's the square footage of the guest house and how have you done your calculations there?

**Speaker:** It's 1498 square feet.

**Speaker:** So what have you done a calculation that if you were restricted to the 40% lot coverage, what the footprint could be of a one-story house here?

**Speaker:** A one-story house?

**Speaker:** Yeah, with that square footage.

**Speaker:** No, I'm really, I think what you're suggesting is to get a house that meets the square footage that you require, you need to go two stories, right?

**Speaker:** Correct.

**Speaker:** So, you must have done a calculation that when you add the 1498 to what you want, if it was one story, it wouldn't give you enough. But what would it give you? In other words, how much square footage are you allowed just on the footprint under your calculations if it was a one-story building?

**Speaker:** I have, I don't have that information available.

**Speaker:** Okay. So, what about the, anything else that you want to add to the request for the exception criteria on the additional height that's not already addressed in your application?

**Speaker:** No, that's all I would have to add.

**Speaker:** Thank you.

**Speaker:** Yes. Thanks.

**Speaker:** Could you take it to the elevations?

**Speaker:** So, we, I just wanted to clarify. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. We're allowed 15 feet 6 inches. So we're 6 feet and 6 inches over the allowable height. Correct. Okay. Okay. Yeah. I'm wondering if board members feel that the architectural elements of this are reflected properly if you're getting a clear picture. I think to your point, one of the things that just from a drawing standpoint that makes it difficult to visualize is there's that ceiling and floor lines that are shown on the elevations, like in these case, they're not dashed. So, you know, there's those horizontal lines that go across it. I think is that one of the things you're referencing, Cheerios, is that because that, that makes it, I think I can see around that, but I can see how that would make it pretty.

**Speaker:** A little confusing.

**Speaker:** Yeah, like are those lentils or where are they and, and, uh, like, uh, yeah, that, oh, it's moving around.

**Speaker:** And the fact that the applicant has indicated that all lights will be, all windows will be divided light, but.

**Speaker:** They're not drawn that way.

**Speaker:** But they're not drawn in that manner. I don't know if this is a complete or an incomplete. I will continue listening to your comments or questions.

**Speaker:** I feel like it's basic, but seems, I mean, it seems the rendering seems, seems complete. It's just.

**Speaker:** Complete to you.

**Speaker:** Mhm. I do feel like it would be clearer if the lines depicting the floor and ceiling heights, which are on the interior, weren't on the exterior elevations. And of course, it would be clearer if the, to get an understanding of it too, if the divided lights were shown accurately. It would be easier to get, wouldn't have to interpolate that. So it's, it's incomplete in that sense, definitely that it's, it's incorrect is what I would say regarding the divided lights because we have no way of knowing like how they're divided up or what they're, what they're going to look like. So in that, in that sense, I would say to me, it's, it's inaccurate, which would also be incomplete in this instance. Well, at this point, I will ask for public comment.

**Speaker:** Thank you.

**Speaker:** Come forward and get sworn in. Will you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record.

**Speaker:** Armijo 508 Camino de Guad Lupita Santa Fe 8750.

**Speaker:** Thank you. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? Thank you, ma'am. My grandparents are Abundo Army Senior and Maria Rivera Armijo. They lived next to the house that's on the monitor here, the one that's across the street on Seror on the upper limit. My grandmother owned that home. My grandmother's father owned that home. To the west of that home is my grandparents' home. They bore 10 children and as the children were married, a piece of land was allotted to them and that with the 10 children made north and South Armijo Lane. We live at 105 South Armijo Lane, which is shares the property line with this house. And it's been there for 70 years. The house that Maverick bought and remodeled as a guest house has been there approximately 60 years. And he remodeled it to the complexion and the cultural kindness, I would say, of the neighborhood. I didn't know. We knew there was an exception to the property coming up, but we didn't know what the exception was until the poles were raised. And it's significant to our home. We sit level with it and so the home takes away the view of most of the Picacho and the Buffalo Mountain at different levels. If you look from our window, you can see a part of it. If you step outside into the backyard, you see less. And if you sit down in the yard, the building would take away the view. The house, the two-story house that they're speaking of in the southeast corner is set way back. There's no obstruction of any neighbors' views from there. You can see it from, you can see where the two-story house would be seen very clearly from Sogoro and you do see it going up South Armijo Lane. It'd be very visible. It's a big house. It doesn't fit with the complexion or the cultural flavor of the neighborhood at all.

I like Maverick, and I think he's done very well with the house that he's remodeled and really took care to keep it in that vein. But in this one, I was very shocked to see how tall the poles went and what an impact it had on my mom's house. I've been gone for over six hours. She's 95. The only reason that we're here, my sister and I, is because it really upset her to see what was taken away by this house. So, I'll let my sister talk. I was going to say more, but we really can't be gone anymore. So, I'll let her speak and I'll step away. Thank you.

: Will you please state your name and address for the record?

: Robert Miho, 105 South Mhome.

: Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury?

: Thank you very much. To further what my sister was saying, the area that is in question, when my grandparents were there before they split it up, it was grazing land. It was alfalfa. Most of that area down on the bottom was alfalfa all the way almost to where you go down to the river. My grandfather always had instilled in us that family was very important and taking care of each other was very important. As she stated, my mom's 95. She's in very good health. We hope to have her for many years, and in such, I am selling my house and moved down to her home to enjoy her for what years we have left. My mom is an artist. Looking at the mountains has always given her great pleasure, and to look at it and look at the majestic mountains and what could be done with art and just the beauty of it all. When she heard what was going to happen, she was just destroyed. She and my father built the home themselves, and it was never in anyone's dreams that there was ever going to be anything to take it away from her. There's a tree there that we never imagined would grow so high and block so much. So, between that and this house, my mom's view is gone. She's five foot nothing. So, at the bottom of the stairs, she sees nothing. Even in the rooms, she would probably see this much of the Picacho. Even though the buffalo's taller, even though it doesn't look like, she's not going to see anything but the very tippity top, if she sees it at all.

I feel that she deserves to enjoy there. She's been, it's our culture, it's our tradition for one story. It's something that is very important and inherent in our family. My mother's happiness is the most important thing to our family. He was going to put trees, and he listened, and he moved them so my mom would be able to see him. We truly appreciate that. The wall was going to be too high, and looking at what was allowable, he brought it back down. And so we appreciate that. We did not appreciate such a huge obstruction and non-matching, for lack of better words, non-conforming nature of our neighborhood, and something that my grandparents established and built within their family. I myself, who moved down there, and I lived there, that was a place I was born and lived until I bought my eldest Tia's house next to my grandparents' house. I cannot fathom all of that being taken away from me as well. It's been such a permanent part of my life that has been a privilege to have view of. So much of our mountains have been built up with so many houses, and the beauty of Sierra Gordo and the area has gone away. And to have this part, this little tiny part that we have access to viewing, and the pleasure of viewing, and granted to us by higher powers for it to be taken away, it's just excruciating and heartbreaking, especially to my mother.

: Thank you very much for your testimony. I'm a big fan of infill. Usually when you think of infill, you think of some cute little place on the Upper East Side down the hill, and you're going to squeeze something in. I kind of like some of that stuff. This is a little bit different because this is a part of sort of a little bit of rural space in Santa Fe, Sarra Gordo. I've always been a little envious of people who live there. To me, this seems as if this addition to the community there is a bit big, a bit cold. I don't know how to describe it. I found the drawings a little bit confusing, and it helped me to have somebody explain that all the extra lines were not part of the house. However, it seems very rectilinear. It seems a little bit too big for the property. When I took a second look at the poles that show the height, it was remarkably large seeming. So, you're going to deal with all of that? I like infill, but this doesn't seem to be an addition to the community quite. It's not quite done yet. I think it should be modified. That's my opinion. Thank you very much.

: Thank you, Joel. That's how much, that's how much smart. I didn't. Thank you. On Zoom, wanting to speak on this project.

: Yes. Peter, is it? Please state your name and address for the record and be sworn in. You'll have to unmute yourself.

: I had been sworn in earlier, but I'll swear myself again.

: Okay. No, that should be fine. Just state your name for the record.

: Peter Goodwin, 1402 Sur Gorda Road. Do you have comment on this case?

: Yes. Madam Chair and the board. I was formerly a neighborhood president of the Neighborhood Canyon Association earlier on in the 70s and 80s. I've been a resident in the neighborhood for the last 50 years, and I have some very serious concerns about the massive size of this building in a neighborhood that the Miko family has just mentioned is out of scale for what we've been used to be living with in our neighborhood. The house that the applicant has built or remodeled and enlarged closer to the road was done in a very nice style. It seemed to be fitting nicely into the streetscape because he was able to lower the elevations and keep it, maintain the size in proportion to every other structure that was in eyesight of the location. This building is difficult to first of all imagine the size of it because of the dimensional lines are solid as member Ben Venu mentioned, and yet everything else from the floor plan to the elevations just seem to make the whole structure too large for the space that it has a footprint for. So that's my comment. I would recommend, I would go along with the neighbors who are asking not to have the second floor elevation. That's my comment.

: Thank you, Peter. Anybody else?

: No. Chair members, do you have further comments or questions?

: Member Chair.

: Thank you. Madam Chair, I just needed some clarification because it's difficult for me to determine, is this two lots or one lot? It's one lot. It's three quarters of an acre.

: Okay. When I say, I guess when I'm asking that, is the lot runs all the way from Sarra Gordo. So the guest house is on the same piece of property.

: It was formally subdivided back in the 60s, and the owner turned it into one property for tax purposes, and that's why it's listed as one lot. But it's, that's how it is on the survey. It's actually one lot.

: Okay. And

: It's a 30-some thousand square foot.

: So is the

: Sorry, say that again. It's a 30,000 square foot lot, I believe. So yes. Okay, that's helpful because the site plan shows, I mean, the way this is depicted to me is confusing because it reads as two lots, and then it says lot size 18, 18,300 square feet. So it's not clear here that this depicts that as all one lot. It says lot one and shows where the guest house is, and then it says lot two. So the site plan depicts it as two separate lots. The lot size on lot two is significantly smaller than the square footage that you just said. So, it's really, it's, it's, it makes it really challenging to get some kind of square footage calculation for how big of a single-story house could be built on this lot or lots.

: I'm very amenable to a single-story home. We can make that happen. I respect the AR Mihos. We've been good neighbors the entire. How much different is a 15-foot 6-inch house as opposed to a 22-foot house?

: How much difference is that going to make?

: Well, it's 6 feet, 6 and a half feet. Yeah, that's the difference.

: Yes. But in view-wise, I understand, and I'm amenable to that. That back, that back section is 200 feet deep by 100 feet wide.

: Okay.

: Yes.

: Yeah. I think I, do you, are you refer, pardon me a moment. May I

: Yeah, Jack. Are you, when you say it's 100, you're talking about the portion of the property that the house would be on.

: That is correct. Yes. I mean, clearly there's a, this is a generous lot. There's a lot of options here, right? It's like fantastic, right? So, and it sounds like you're amenable, and you have good relationship with your neighbors, and there's a lot of options, right? You could, I mean, of course, there comes a point where you can't let the whole neighborhood design your house, but this seems to me to be, you know, you're getting some input that's like, this is too much. So, and there are a lot more options. The hardship, I honestly, I don't feel like I agree with the hardship argument because it's, it's a generous lot. I mean, we look at lots every two weeks that are, the hardship is like, you know, you're licking a postage stamp to get the house on the lot, you know? So, I think there's a lot of good options here. And if you're amenable then to, you know, meeting the height requirement or even a little less if you were going to go to a single story. It doesn't, not that you have to be less because it is a height requirement. But my point is, there's, there's a lot of options that seem like you could accommodate your neighbors and your needs as well in this situation.

: Correct. The reason we went with a two-story, and I can give 30 houses within, you know, 500 yards of our property that are 3,500 square feet. So, it's not such a massive house in today's time. If we did do a single-story home, our setbacks will be much closer to the fences. So, that's something else to be aware of for the neighbors is that we will have a 10-foot setback, which is the legal requirement from the wall. So, there will be 15 feet right in front of the fence as opposed to 20 feet behind the fence. So, that was part of my consideration, but I understand. Any other comments? Member BJ.

: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to, well, to thank everyone for sticking around. This is pretty amazing to see people be so civil at this late hour. So, thank you, and thank you to the Armyo family for clearly the commitment you have to your community and your mom. I wanted to ask the applicant, would you prefer to come back with a redesign, like a post, we could postpone your case for a redesign and schedule for a date certain to come back with another design that's one story, or we can deny the case and have you just start fresh. I think there might be a, is there a cost implication for one or the other? I think it makes more sense if you just, the applicant is willing to come back. I think it's more important to just postpone the case.

: Is that okay with you?

: If it's a no, I'm willing to come back.

: Yes. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think my read, I think the exception criteria for the height exception are not met because the full range of design options hasn't been considered.

And so I would, I guess I can move to postpone the case for a redesign that considers the comments from your neighbors and proposes a one-story house in this location.

Okay, I understand. And is it correct that in Santa Fe, view corridors are not preserved?

That is correct. Actually, they are preserved. That is correct. But not—

Right.

They are not preserved.

Yeah. We would not be making a decision here based on a neighbor's view, to be blunt. So the issue that you're facing coming before us is that we have to find, in order to grant your application, we have to find that you have conclusively established every exception criteria necessary. That's a very high hurdle that we have to find that you've met. So it's never a matter of just, "Oh, well, you know, what's this? This is just a few feet here or there." We have to make, even inches, we have to decide you've established your criteria, and that's the problem that we face. We're not considering, I mean, views, that's a wonderful thing for you to take into consideration in working with your neighbors, but it's not something that we legally apply to a decision. But certainly the right thing to do. I can tell you already, talk to your neighbors about things like that, and our pieces are so, so yeah. And I would just for further clarifications, I don't think I, I prefer not to talk about stories, one and two stories, because to me, the issue is just the height calculation. The staff tells us what the maximum allowable height is, and every inch over that has to be justified by an exception. And when they make that height calculation, they are taking into account all those neighboring properties that you were referring to. So if there are, so if you're surrounded by 25-foot-high buildings, you're likely to have a calculation that allows for a building, but that's all been taken into account, and where you ended up was 15 and a half feet. So that's, that's what we consider to be maximum.

Understandable. Thank you. So, I move, I believe you were [clears throat] in the middle of a motion.

In case number 202511725 HDRB at 1302 Sarah Gordo Road, I'm, I move to postpone the application for a redesign to a date certain. I don't know, does it have to be a date certain?

It does not.

And so, postponed for a redesign at the owner's discretion when to submit that. You give, noting, he said no. Noting that the exception criteria have not been met. Specifically, criteria number three, that the full range of design options has not been considered. We encourage the applicant to explore designs that are within the allowable height and do not require an exception, whether it be one story or two. I think, I think that's it.

Second.

Anything further to add?

Nothing further.

I would just friendly clarification, maybe. You're not suggesting that only the third criteria has not been met in this case, because I would be afraid that that would imply that as long as you come back and say you've considered the other designs and they don't work, then that would satisfy that. But—

Certainly think that none of the criteria—

No, I think you're right. I'm sorry if I, yeah, I should, I can go through them. Because—

No, I don't think you need to really, because we're not actually doing a denial at this stage. Okay.

We're just postponing.

Yeah. But, but clearly it's not fitting with the character of the, of the neighborhood.

I think it's a better idea to indicate the clarification. All the criteria have not—

So was that a friendly amendment?

I think the clarification, what I mean—

But anyway, if the maker of the motion elects not to, he's the maker of the motion. Yeah. I just, I'm just indicating that their request for a redesign is based on the fact that not all criteria have been met. The design is not harmonious with the streetscape or the surrounding properties. The hardship has not been demonstrated because there is some extra space on the lot. The full range of design options have not been presented. We're not aware that there's a special condition associated with the lot which spans sort of two previously divided lots. There's plenty of space. And, uh, yeah. So, and there was a second in—

I, I want to add to that, and also that if you accept this, that the owner, the applicant has indicated that the applicant is amenable to lower—

To lowering the height.

Yes. Thank you. Accepted as friendly.

Okay. Roll call vote, please.

Member Bananu.

Yes.

Member Cherry.

Yes.

Member Pete.

Yes.

Member DNA.

Yes.

The motion has passed. Thank you. And I want to thank all of you, the army host that testified. And I want to thank you, sir, the owner, because you were willing, when you heard the testimony of your neighbors, you were willing to make a redesign. You were willing to redesign. So for me, that is appreciated. So thank you. Please say no to any of these [laughter] discussion items.

Madam Chair, I do have one brief item, and that is—

Oh, Frank, we cannot hear much.

No, this will be 30 seconds at the most. The board may recall that on June 24th and July 22nd, it considered a project proposal for a window replacement at the White Building at 206 McKenzie Street, the Downtown East Side Historic District, and that was denied. There was an appeal to the governing body, which was heard on December 10th, 2025. The governing body voted to overrule the Historic District Review Board and grant the appeal and grant the window replacement. The vote was nine to nothing.

Thank you for that one.

Okay. Matters from the board. Nothing. Thank you. Our next meeting is January the 27th, and I will entertain a motion to adjourn. All those in favor, say loud, "Aye."