Historic Districts Review Board Meeting Tue, Jul 14, 2026 · Historic Districts Review Board https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/1165 == Executive Summary == The Historic Districts Review Board convened on July 14, 2026, addressing several significant cases and ongoing issues. A key discussion point involved the Elias and Rufino Romero House at 208 West Houghton Street, where the board debated maintaining its 'significant' historic status despite numerous alterations, ultimately postponing a decision to allow for further research into the sequencing of additions. Similarly, the status of 808 Galisteo Street was discussed, with the applicant arguing for a downgrade due to extensive alterations, but no decision was reached in this segment. The board approved the application for 203 West Water Street, maintaining its 'contributing' status with the south facade as primary, but explicitly excluding non-historic window and door materials. They also approved a portal addition and existing pergola at 804 Apodaca Hill. A major project for the Santa Fe Community Convention Center terrace, involving security enhancements and usability improvements, was postponed for redesigns of wrought iron elements and canopy columns, and for the submission of 3D renderings. The meeting also touched upon the integration of wildfire mitigation into historic district guidelines and the upcoming interviews for the Historic Preservation Manager position. == Key Decisions == - The agenda was approved, with Case 202612691 HERB at 216 Maynard, Unit A and B, postponed to July 28. - Case 2026-012686HDRP2 at 203 West Water Street was approved, maintaining its 'contributing' historic status with the south facade as primary, and excluding non-historic materials in the doors or windows. The door and window openings as they currently exist, and the recess, are to be maintained. - Case 2026-012701HERB at 804 Apodaca Hill was approved for a portal addition and an existing pergola. - The application for window replacement at 878 East Palace was approved with the condition that windows on primary facades (D and F) must be replaced in kind with respect to material (excluding aluminum cladding), shape, size, divisions, glazing, and operation. - Case 20260120012703 HD Area 21 East Marcy Street (Santa Fe Community Convention Center terrace renovation) was postponed to a future meeting for redesigns and 3D renderings. == Motions & Votes == - Approval of the agenda with noted changes — Passed (voice vote, then roll call requested and passed unanimously) - Motion to downgrade the structure at 208 West Houghton Street to contributing, with facades 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, and 12 as primary, and the front fence and low yard wall as contributing — Failed (2-3) - Motion to postpone Case 2026012674HDRB (208 West Houghton Street) for further research into the sequencing of additions — Passed (4-1) - Motion to adopt staff's recommendations for 203 West Water Street, maintain the historic status of the commercial structure as contributing, designate the south facade (number three) as primary, with the understanding that any materials in the doors or windows demonstrated to be non-historic are excluded. The designation includes the door openings and window openings as they currently exist, and the recess is to be maintained — Passed (5-0) - Motion to approve the application as submitted for the portal addition and approve the existing pergola at 804 Apodaca Hill — Passed (5-0) - Motion to approve the application for window replacement at 878 East Palace as submitted, with the condition that windows on the primary facades (D and F) must be replaced in kind with respect to material (excluding aluminum cladding), shape, size, divisions, glazing, and operation — Carried (unanimous among voting members present) - Motion to postpone Case 20260120012703 HD Area 21 East Marcy Street — Approved (5-0) == Public Comment == Public comments included Stephanie Benonato's concerns about the handling of a previous case (515 Paseo De Peralta), questioning interim committee meetings and the board's address of hardship requirements, and challenging the posting notice for 208 West Houghton. Jordan Young urged the board to integrate climate readiness and defensible space into future design standards, referencing the St. Catherine's fire and questioning the city's role in addressing property neglect. John Murphy argued that the initial 'significant' designation for 208 West Houghton was a mistake due to misidentification of its age and style. Stephanie Benannatto supported maintaining the 'significant' status for 208 West Houghton, citing its historical connection and character retention. Miss Benonato also expressed concern about 'denigrating' 1980s HBI surveys and supported maintaining 'contributing' status for 203 West Water Street. For the Convention Center project, Stephanie Benonato questioned the large canopy, criticized the 'Art Deco' appearance of the gates, and raised concerns about light pollution. == Topics == - Fire Hardening Guidelines - St. Catherine's Demolition - Subcommittee Precedent - Hardship Proof - Historic Preservation Manager - Minimum Maintenance Violations - Public Notice Posting - Climate Readiness Presentation == Full Transcript == IT, please let us know when we are live. We are live. Good evening, and welcome to this meeting of the Historic Districts Review Board. This meeting is called to order, and we are 07/14/2026. May we have a roll call, please? Chair Rios? Here. Vice Chair Ben Venue? Here. Member Sibbens? Member Beachside? Here. Member Sherry? Here. Member Degnon? Here. Madam Chair, you have a quorum. Thank you very much. Are there any changes to tonight's agenda? Yes, for item number E, which is case 202612691 HERB at 216 Maynard, Unit A and B, that case has been postponed. Is it a new date, sir? Yes, that is the next hearing, which is July 28. And that's the other amendment we just wanted to note on item number 12 for the next meeting, and that is that date is 07/28/2026. Thank you. There are no further changes? No, Chair. All those in favor of the agenda as just changed, say aye. Aye. And those opposed, say no. We have no minutes on this evening's agenda, and we have no findings of fact and conclusions of law. Anyone in this room wanting to come forward and speak about anything in reference to not your case, but in reference to something else that is related to the historic districts? It appears not. And is there anyone online? Yes, Stephanie Benonato. Miss Benonato, you might be able to unmute. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. Great. So, I want to point out a few things. First of all, you had a May meeting in which 515 Paseo De Peralta was heard. That case was heard again at the library. There was no Zoom link. I don't know how Guida and Miss Jordan Young got the Zoom link, but it is not on the agenda. I was not able to attend. And I want to point out that I think having an interim committee or subcommittee meeting with individual applicants is a really bad precedent. Up to this point, as far as I can remember, you have these subcommittees meeting with governmental entities, maybe institutional entities, when there's a large project and there needs to be discussion about redesign. But you all, the board, and you've repeated this yourselves, are not supposed to be designing somebody's project. They are supposed to know what to do and come in and then make changes based on comments. I believe that once the board members, even a couple of board members, get involved, then the expectation by the applicant is that the board will approve it. And as far as I can tell from what happened at 515 Paseo De Peralta, is that they made a few architectural changes, but you all never again addressed the idea of hardship, that they never proved why they needed a 3,500 plus square foot building. And aging in place is not a hardship. It is a, it is a fact of life. Having steps that need to be repaired is not a hardship. You repair the steps so that the board would be perfectly willing to have that done. You thinking that the front house that's been lived in for a hundred years is not private enough for you is not a hardship. So as far as I could tell in reviewing that whole thing, there was no discussion of hardship, no proof of hardship. And again, it has to be conclusively proven. So the fact that you might need a caregiver later on in some future speculation, that is just that, speculation, not conclusive proof. And I don't know if the name for Gully was the thing that motivated having this subcommittee, but I think it's just a really bad precedent. And then the other thing I want to point out is that I believe 208 West Houghton, which is on your agenda tonight, that that sign, that notice was not posted for two weeks. I went by there on July 4th on my way downtown to go to the Cross of Martyrs for fireworks. I did not see it. I've been through there by there at least two other times and only saw this today for the first time. So I do think that that should be postponed unless the applicant can prove it was there. But again, I'm pretty observant. It's pretty obvious. I love that little building, and I think about it every time I pass by there. So I would ask that you postpone that till there's enough adequate notice posted on the property. Thank you. Thank you, Stephanie. Is there anyone else on Zoom? Yes, Chair Rios. We have one other person who would like to speak, and that's Jordan Young. Miss Young, you might be able to unmute. Yes, thank you. Thank you. I attended, maybe it was a month or six weeks ago, the very enlightening presentation about climate readiness. There was an expert who came and gave a very well-researched presentation about defensible space and about our historic preservation standards and preparation for natural disasters. It was a really great presentation that made me think a lot about what our priorities were. I wondered then and wonder now even more if H4 will take this presentation into consideration when looking at the future and our design standards. After the really dangerous and scary fire at St. Catherine's, I'm sure many others share my fear that this fate could befall other properties. I know that wasn't a, quote, unquote, natural disaster, but it did sit vacant due to prohibitive costs or difficulty rezoning and other constraints. But I wonder what at what point does H board urge city staff to use red tags or other devices to prevent this kind of dangerous neglect. Though I know that access was a barrier to redevelopment, I hope that public safety and safety from neglect and disasters can be taken more seriously going forward. Thank you. Thank you, Jordan. Anyone else? Chair Rios, no other hands raised. Thank you very much. Do we have anything under staff communication? Chair Rios, one thing that we need to go back to is the approval of the agenda. Clark seems to think that also that is about our planning manager. There was no roll call vote on the approval of the agenda. Okay. Well, we did all those in favor say aye. And you want a roll call vote for that? Is that necessary? Okay. Yes, have a chair. Thank you. The occupant of a house in the Downtown and East Side Historic District at 639 Old Santa Fe Trail was the subject of two municipal court prosecutions for petty misdemeanors, one for violation of minimum maintenance standards in a historic district, and then another for junk vehicles, residing in an RV and a residential property, overgrowth on the sidewalks, and debris and litter. And he was found guilty a couple of weeks ago, and he was sentenced yesterday. He was sentenced to a period of probation, I think, 180 days. And as a condition of that probation, he will have to submit a repair plan for him to bring that house into compliance. My belief is that the house may be almost uninhabitable, given the fact that he is living in an RV and has been living in an RV behind the house for some time. It's a contributing house in the historic district, but we're going to continue to monitor the situation to see if he can bring the house into some standard habitability. Gentleman's name is Michael Ortega. Which I believe we believe. Anything else? Yes, Chair Rios. I'd just like to point out that there's a couple pieces of correspondence that I handed out to you regarding the structural analysis for Saint Catherine's. The fire, unfortunately, decimated the building, and there's been a correspondence sent to you in terms of the State Historic Preservation Division approving our analysis that there was nothing to be able to preserve, nothing left that could be preserved. And also, the State Fire Marshal's office needed to initiate their investigation, and so that was done under an emergency action. And so just as a follow-up on that, I would also like to provide those structural reports to you just for that or as a point of information, that one was done by the city with Wilson and Company engineers, and another one, the other information is provided by the Santa Fe Civic Housing Authority, Mr. Tom Gifford being the right. Thank you for that. Heather, as I recall, there's quite a number of buildings on that property. Can you tell us how many of those buildings will be demolished? Are you serious? The only approval was for the demolition of the main building and its two wings, which included a chapel and the girls' dormitory. And then also, there was a laundry room that had already been partially demolished anyway. It's just, well, falling apart, I suppose. It was just a CMU box. And that portion was demolished. There's a one-story addition to the girl's dorm on the southwest side of the building, and that was also burned, and so that was taken down as well. There was pretty much nothing left with that little addition. So, and then the walls of the main building, the adobe had actually swollen. Approximately 1,200,000 gallons of water was used to extinguish the fire, and it continued to burn for several days even as they were pouring more and more water on it. So the walls, the base of the adobe portion, which is the the original main building, they were starting to expand, and the rest of the wall became very unstable. The most of these walls were held together by wood members, you know, rafters and beams and all of those. And so all of those were burnt, and so there were a lot of standing brick walls with no supports whatsoever. They were just sort of, and and when we had to demolish for the investigation, the the first part, the the west wing of the building where the fire was started by an arsonist, they they just came down with no hardly any efforts. So, it's it's a huge loss of a historic cultural resource, but as the campus is reimagined in the future, I I think there might be opportunities for this board because it is still a landmark, that you know, to have comment and input on that as well as just to report the other buildings adjacent, like, the recreation hall that has a very large mural on it. That is not being impacted. The the junior high school building is not impacted. So all of those buildings weren't there was an archway that connected the recreation hall with the main building, and a portion of that had to be demolished because the roof had had burned off. The brick was still there, but the roof had burned off, and it was connected to the the main building. So it's just a very small portion of that that was taken down. So the demolition is in progress as we speak? Of of the main building and its two additions, yes. That's correct. Nothing else. Thank you. Thank you for that report. We have nothing under old business and new business. We have five cases this evening, and Amanda will be presenting all five cases. Understand. All right. And the first case is located at 2 Way West Houghton, and I see that the applicant is here. And, Amanda, you have the floor. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. This is for case 2026012674HDRB at 208 West Houghton Street. And I wanted to note that I did speak with the applicant today, and they did show proof of posting on the property. So that was taken care of, to answer Stephanie Benonato's request that it be postponed. So I did confirm proof of posting. And this is Lani McCauley's case, and she's out. So I'm representing it on her behalf. So, West Houghton Street runs from Galisteo and follows a radical curve that represents the previous location of the Acequia Madre irrigation ditch. The area was previously farm and ranch land on the South Side of the Santa Fe River. The original homes here are all tied to the Camino Real, the Galisteo Road, which once was a dirt route connecting Santa Fe with the village of Galisteo. The area housed many members of the extended Romero family, most of whom were born in the area. This created a unique feel to West Houghton Street in which the residents are close together and sometimes connected. Houses along the street are set back, and there are a few sheds that are close to the street that face to the side, away from the street. Almost all of the residences are Spanish Pueblo Revival style with a view in vernacular style. The Elias and Rufino Romero House is listed as significant to the Don Gaspar Area Historic District and was in the Romero family for eight decades. The 1,233 square foot residence sits on 0.132 acres and was designated when the district was established in 1983. The original Adobe residence was constructed by 1912 in a territorial style. An addition to the northwest corner was constructed by the 1930s and created an L-shaped floor plan. Another addition on the southwest corner was constructed between 1948 and 1950. The enclosed frame on the west elevation was constructed between 1965 and 1975. Somewhere between 1993 and 2006, a second roof alteration was done, which created a pocket roof captivity and a shed roof. In 2001, a 216 square feet addition replaced the 1950s addition in the southwest corner. According to John Murphy's 2026 Historical Properties and Brochure, the basis of the significant status is unclear, given the alterations to the residence that prevent it from reading as original territorial style. Therefore, the applicant requests a status downgrade from significant to contributing for the residence with primary facade designation, if applicable, and status designation of the front-facing fence. As you can see here, all areas are historic, except for the 2001 portal addition. Here we have a 1992 compared photo to the 2006. The original structure is adobe and frame construction. The residence has inset windows with three-over-one wood windows. The door is original to the structure, and the door in the 1930s additions are nine-light single leaf and wood frames. The 1930s additions have pediments. Here we have the west elevation and the east elevation. So, stating the structure is referred to as significant in the staff report, and later in the 2001 case, it shows it as contributing. But staff was unable to locate where any status was changed. We did not find any clarification that the status of this residence has changed. So, at our site visit today, it was determined that staff is changing its recommendation from contributing to be maintained as significant to the Don Gaspar Area, excluding the non-historic material of the 2001 portal addition. The historic street frontage fence is to be designated as contributing for Section 14-4.6c, designation of a significant contributing and non-contributing status within the historic districts. I stand for questions. Thank you, Amanda. Any questions for Amanda at this point? Member Benvenuto: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a quick question on the fence. What do we know about the color of the fence? We couldn't find anything on the original color, Member Benvenuto, members of the board. I was just able to locate when the 2001 portal addition that the fence was painted to match that color. But I did not find anything on the color of the original. Okay. So we don't know if the current color is historic. I think I may have seen a photo. What was the age of that hippie that had the photo from the 1980s? I think there may be a photo in the package, but it said it was still blue to match the 1975 enclosed porch. Okay. So just so I'm clear on staff's recommendations, staff is now recommending that the status of the house be maintained as significant? That is correct, excluding the 2001 portal addition as the facade deck diagram represents on the screen. Okay. And why the exclusion exactly? Because the 2001 portion of the building is non-historic. Okay. I guess I'm always confused about this. So staff is comfortable with having a significant building where certain facades are excluded? I thought we went through this once before, and we were told we couldn't do that. Heather, can you comment on that? That is something that has been up in the air. Yes. Thank you, Chair Rios, for the. We have significant buildings that we have had additions that have been approved. But in 2001, it was not, it went to the Historic District Review Board, although there was nothing specific about an exception request. At that time, the exceptions were mostly limited to height, and then the preservation standards were just implemented. So, I'm not sure that that's, I'm sure that the age board's determination that it was okay in 2001 was, you know, something that was considered as an exception to the rule. Right? So, there are changes to significance and, you know, primary facades allowed, but that does not change the nature of the building. So it's just considering one facade. There has been a change and acknowledging that it's not historic, but all the rest of the facades are primary. Just so that if the applicant chooses to in the future, they could remove that 2001 addition and go back to the original facade and make it like the historic facade. Yeah. No. I mean, all that makes perfect sense to me. It's just that I feel like it's a confusing situation because I think we tried to do exactly that on that Paseo De Peralta property, and we were told that we acted improperly, and then we undid it. And so we redesignated the facades. No. That was different because we designated part of the building as contributing and part of the building as significant. This is different in the fact that the staff is recommending a significant status with an exclusion of non-historic material. Is that? Okay. I guess I can understand. Yeah. I guess we consider it that way. That's consistent with what we've done with contributing status with an exclusion on that's the way, I guess, I would frame it. And when I've, when it's framed that way, I'd be comfortable with that, that it's still significant, but with the exclusion of non-historic material, which is pretty much the language we always use with primary facades of contributing. In this particular case, what the Historic District's Review Board found was that those areas of the facade where the addition was had already been disturbed. So it didn't impact the significant status of the historic footprint, and the attachments were to areas that had previously been disturbed. Okay. Good. And we clearly, we're all on the same page. We want to differentiate this non-historic addition from the significant structure. I guess I would just also point out that the board had to have believed at the time that they approved that addition that they were not, that that would not alter the status. So that to me, that action could not be used as a grounds for now downgrading the status because the board would not have been able to legally approve that addition if it would have that effect. So I think just to be consistent with what the board previously did. And then I know that I noticed in the packet that, some years later in 2019 when solar came before the board, it was specifically pointed out by staff. This is a significant building, so you've got to consider whether approving solar would impact the status. So, again, the board presumably acted in a way that they were ensuring that this would not cause a downgrade. So I think that's, that's the history of the case as I understand it. Thank you. One more comment? I think that Senator. Thank you. Disregarding what you bring up is good just to be clear about how those buildings are statused in regard to the difference between a building with multi-status or a building with status and exclusions. I think there's also a lot of precedent for buildings with, say, a significant status that has certain areas excluded. I mean, I know there are certain, there are, there are buildings with, with, you know, with, with a status with exclusion, so it is consistent to precedent. It's the only other comment I would make. Even so, the definition of significant doesn't indicate exclusion. Right. That's, that's why we're in this strange, little place. But as long as we're consistent with how we act, I think we're fine. Any other comments or questions? Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sorry that I missed the discussion on the field trip today, but could you clarify again why there's a change in recommendation and what, because it's not in the staff report. What, what is different with respect to the findings? There was a nice analysis of what, why it would qualify as contributing, but not significant. I'm just wondering what exactly has changed. Thank you, Member Bishaid, members of the board. So when we were doing more research in regards to the 2001 case, and we looked further into that case. And, there at that point, it was, there was confusion on whether it was significant or contributing at that time. And so we reevaluated and determined that it is, it is maintaining significant because of the, the lack of changes on the structure. But, but the report says the opposite. I'm just a little confused. I mean, the, the changes happened. Right? So we, they were evaluated one way with the initial staff report, but when you looked at the 2001 discussion, there was something else that contributed. Heather. Chair Rios. Thank you. So when we were at the site visit today, there were some questions raised regarding the minutes and what the record was. And, we did a deeper dive, like Miss Romero said, and determined by looking at the record that really the status hadn't been changed nor had it been called into question as a significant structure over time, especially with reference at 2019 case where it was still classified as significant. So the, consultant who prepared the report made a recommendation. It is up to the board as to whether he would agree with that or not. But based on the confusion, as of the writing of the staff report and the questions asked today, we researched it further, and that's why the recommendations changed. And just, are there any other buildings on the, on the stretch of West Houghton that were associated with the Romero family that are significant? I know there's some contributing ones, but I'd look at that up. Okay. Thank you. In the meantime, are there any other questions? Member Simmons? I have a question about the comment about when the shed roof was put on sometime between 1990 and 2026. That's over a 30-year period. I probably understand that the building department no longer has any records of the, of the portal addition that was done in, when was that, 2005? Would that make sense that that roof was done at that time? Just curious as to why that it was such a long span and there was, it was unknown. Yes. I don't, thank you, Member Simmons and members of the board. I did not find any record of that roof, and it seems Miss McCauley, denied either because she, noted it was somewhere between 1993 and 2006. So it's most likely she did not find record of that permit either. Yeah. I would, I would just make the comment, I would make is oftentimes that those kind of changes are, are, are determined by aerial photography. And so they have a photo of one time period where there's no roof and then another time period where there is a roof, so that's why there's a gap. So they don't have, and that's, that's my experience with the, when there's a gap in the dates and the historic in a, in a HICD, it's because they've looked at aerials from the DOT. And they see it in one year, and they don't see it in another year, and there's gap between those two years. They don't know. They just know it was built sometime. I don't know if that's the case here, but that's, that's typically why there's a gap. Member Cherry, may I ask you a question? Would you mind just summing what you just said because I didn't hear it? From my experience, when there's a gap, when there's a range, a date range, like, we think the roof was built between this date and that date, it generally is because they have an aerial photograph from a certain, like, if they say the roof was built between 1960 and 1970, they have an aerial photograph of 1960 and they have an aerial photograph of 1970. So they can't determine the exact date. But, I mean, most of the time, the historian is using that. That's my experience, that they're using that DOT photography that was shot from planes in those times, over periods of time. Thanks for that. Thank you. Heather Arias, I have an answer for Member Beach Heights' inquiry. So in the neighborhood, and unfortunately, this map is not updated, but it's the best we have right now, is they're at 808 Galisteo Street. That is a significant structure. Unfortunately, I don't know what the area of the Romero family generally in the neighborhood, but there are a lot of contributing structures as well. So, but there are three others in the general area, on West Houghton Street, as well as Galisteo and over to Allendale. Other questions, board members, at this point? No. Let's get the applicant to come forward. And while he's coming to the podium, I do need to tell you that if you disagree with the decisions that this board renders this evening, you do have the option to appeal to the City Council. And I would suggest that you get together with staff because they can guide you through the process, and there are time constraints. And also, this evening, for people that are commenting for public comment, I will limit their comments to two minutes. So, if you can be sworn in, please. Good evening. I'm Craig Hoops. Do I need to be sworn in? You do. Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record. Pardon? Name and address for the record. Greg Hoops, 333 Montezuma 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 so under the penalties of perjury? I do. Please proceed. Thank you. So, with all due respect to the additions that have been made to the house over time, I know that oftentimes, we take a look at historic properties and the additions that have been done and feel that those additions are part of the history of the house and the significance of the house. In this particular case, what has happened is with the roof changes, the additions that have been done, the window and door replacements that have been done, the historic proportions of the house have changed, and the sense that the original house would have had because of those proportions, because the additions have lost the integrity, the historic integrity of the house. So we feel that while we understand that it was a house that was deemed to be significant at one point, we feel that its significance has been lost through the work that has been done on the house in the past. So, there is no historic fabric left on the house that is original to the 1912 house. What is there now is just amalgamation, a conglomeration of different changes that have been made to the house, and so we feel that it's no longer a significant building. We understand that you may want to designate certain sides as primary, but we think that that is not appropriate in this case because of the changes that have been made. Thank you. Mr. Hoops, is it your position that this house should be contributing or not have any kind of designation? Personally, I think it should be non-contributing, but there is a footprint there of an original house. And inside the house, you can see that original house, but from without, you can't. Aside from the 2001 addition, does not the original footprint remain? The 1912 property is the original house. It was a three... But I should say that the footprint, the historic footprint, because the 1912, obviously, is the oldest portion. Right. But we have the 1950 and the other portions that make up what is the house today. Well, obviously, the 2001 does not fall into the historic time period for the house. But, you know, even the 1975 addition is not in keeping with the original look of the house. It was a portal at one point. It's been enclosed. It's no longer, you know, the original part of the house, which was a portal, and it's been closed off. So I think many portions, the 1950 addition is surrounded by, you know, pieces that I would not call historic. The 1935 addition, like the 1912 addition, has had its roof changed, the windows changed. So all of this has happened over time. And so the historic fabric that is left is merely the footprint. Would you reiterate what the roof used to look like? From what we can tell inside the house, it was originally a flat roof. The beam structure is still there. The original blanking is still there. So we can see that originally, it was a flat roof structure, probably earthen, earthen roof. At some point, it probably leaked, and they decided that they should raise the roof to shed the water off the roof and do that. But when they did that, they raised the facade on the front. So the proportions of the openings within that facade are very different now than they would have been originally. Okay. Are there other questions at this point? Member Simmons. Mr. Hoops, do you have any information about when that shed roof would have been put on other than the 30-year gap? I don't have that, Member Simmons. It seems to me that there would have been numerous aerial photographs taken over that period of time. Looking at the aerial photographs that we have, the 1935 addition was actually a gabled structure. The photographs are fuzzy and not clear. As in terms of the 1912 structure, we don't have anything that definitively says that it happened one year or another or exactly when that was changed. So it's established that sometime between, when is it, the 1990s, that roof was put on after the structure was designated as significant? That would be our interpretation. Yes. Okay. And again, the 2001 addition was done after it was designated significant. So somehow, the board at that time did not feel that it was a significant building if we could then add on to the facades that were there. Was that in the code at the time that significant buildings could not have additions on them? They were all facades were primary? I don't have a history of the code. Does anybody know the history of that? Well, significant means that all facades are primary. Okay. And why that occurred in 2001, we'd have to look at the minutes. Yeah. There seems to be a gap in the information there. Mr. Hoops, do you have any ability to kind of ascertain the relationship between the 2001 portal addition and the roof's change? Could you... I don't know if they were done simultaneously or at different times. I'm sorry. I don't have that history. It doesn't seem to be anywhere. Other questions? Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Hoops, you made a comment about the historic nature of the structure and that in your opinion, I think, that it had changed for one reason would be that they had raised the roof. I'm confused about what you're saying about why it changed the historic nature of the facades. Well, when they raised the roof, they changed the proportions of the facade. So that is a major part in how a house looks. And when you change how a house looks, to me, it no longer has the same significance as it had before. In addition, they changed the windows. We have a building permit that shows that they were changing the windows and doors. And so, again, that was a loss of historic fabric that happened at that time. So, you know, we feel there's nothing left of what the original house really looked like, and therefore, its significance has been diminished. Thank you. Other questions? Both? Heather. Chair Rios, there may be a really helpful image in the proposed historic cultural property inventory form on page 23 or PDF 24. There's a picture of the building now and a picture of the building from 1982 that may help with the board's deliberation. And could that be put up on the screen? One moment. I will. Which page are you on? 23 only. That's just one photo. So we're waiting for that on the... There's a prior HICB or there's a... on page 17, there's a historical inventory that was done in 1993. That's also correct. It's a little unclear in that what those, which photos are what were taken at that historic inventory and if there are historical photos in that historic inventory because it appears, you know, on page 15 of that to show a structure with the flat roof. Is that correct? It's a little hard to tell. Is it the angle of the photo? Heather, tell us again the top photos for a point here. Sure. Yes. The top photo is a picture taken from 1982. The bottom photo is from 2026. Just on my untrained eye, there's... you can see that there are some changes in the roof, but the distance, like Mr. Hoops talks about, you know, the change in the elevation as a result of the changes to the roof. But just an eyeball look, it seems like the distance from the top of the door to the top of the roof is not significantly changed. Likewise, on the elevation, it would be the north elevation. So that's the south elevation that I was just referring to. In the north elevation, there are some vents that were added in. You can tell. But I don't know if that rises to a level of significance because, or a significant change because the dimensions between the door and the top of the roof, and the windows and the top of the roof, although obscured by the tree in that 1982 photo, is similar. And if the applicant doesn't have or has additional information, I think it's the responsibility on that research to be shared with the board, and maybe we just do not have enough information today. And I did look up the 2001 building permit. It wasn't very specific, but there was no change to the roofline at that time. And we're... When's the top... My other permits are trade permits from 1999 forward. Thank you. When's the top photo on that? The 1983, you said? '27. Yeah. '82. Okay. So we know the roof was built prior to 1982. Not, excuse me. But not necessarily. You can see the significant change in the 1935 addition to the left there. So there was significant change at some point after that 1982 where that roof over the 1935 was actually lowered at one point. And the other facade, it was raised so that they could get the vents in there. And these are all material changes to a structure that, if it's going to be labeled significant, it doesn't meet the standards according to the seven. Number seven. On page 17 of the Hickby, there's two photographs, number 14 and number 12. And number 12 shows the screen porch, and it also shows a sloped roof. So this is from 1993. So I think that there's enough discrepancies here in this report that it seems to me that we do ourselves a favor and get some of these things ironed out. '17? John Murphy may be on Zoom. Would you check and see if he is? Yes, Mr. History is on report. Is he part of the applicant team, or is he speaking as a member of the public? Is Mr. Murphy part of the applicant team, or is he speaking as a member of the public? He wrote the report. Okay. So then he will have to wait until public comments. I will open it up for public comment. Part of the applicant team. Oh, he's part of the applicant team? Okay. Hold on. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. So I'm again, I'm just kind of fixated on the history of the board's and staff's prior actions with respect to this property because just looking through the documents, it looks like it was, the staff originally surveyed the property in '82 and designated it as significant. And then they did another survey in 1993 and designated it significant. An application came before the board, and it was designated as significant and described as significant. And then in 2001, that addition, staff reported that it was significant. And then in 2019, it came before the board again with staff saying it was significant. So, I mean, to me, this issue, all the changes that have been made have all been made prior to the time that staff and the board have consistently continued to treat this building as significant and taking into account that they're not to approve any additions that would alter that designation. So, presumably, every change that's been made was already understood as not altering the significance of the structure previously and that any change that was authorized to be made was also understood not to have the effect of changing the structure. So that seems relatively clear to me in the record, that it's more or less already been resolved by implication by multiple prior boards and staff. This has always remained a significant building. I will say, though, there's one interesting discrepancy coming back to the primary facade issue, and that is where, before I get to the history on that, where exactly do we find in the code that every facade of a significant building is considered primary? And I was just looking for it, and I can't seem to put my finger on it anywhere, even though we always have assumed that to be the case. Madam Chair and member of Bienvenu, it's not spelled out exactly like that in the code. There are, with respect to contributing buildings, there are primary facades. Right. And there are restrictions on alterations to the primary facades. Those restrictions that apply to the primary facades of contributing buildings apply to all facades of significant buildings. That's the part I'm looking for authority for, that last thing you just said. Right. Why it is that every facade on a contributing building is significant, is automatically deemed primary. Yes, I know we say that, but I don't know where that's actually set forth in the ordinance. And here's, okay, now I'll get to the point, which is on 02/20/2001, and this is page 113 of my version of the packet, staff said in that proposed addition that the condition on approval should be that the proposed addition be set back an additional three feet from the primary elevation on the west. So even though they were designating it as significant on the very same page. So at that time, at least, it seems that staff and the board understood it was a significant building, but it had a primary facade, and that was the west. So I think that might explain some of this confusion about why certain things would or would not have been permitted at the time, which is perhaps there was just a different interpretation of what the word significant entailed as far as primary facades. That's all I have. So, if there are no further questions or comments, and if you're looking for the answer to give to the board in reference to all facades that are primary on a significant building, we'd appreciate it or something that is connected to that. Ever Beach site. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just in response to John's comment that you're referring to the 2019 case. Correct? 2001. Oh, sorry. Okay. In 2019, I just noticed the cover sheet for the case has all the primary elevations checked. You know, there's a box for each one. So I think there must be north, south, west, east was times. Yep. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. The document I'm looking at, if you're looking at the packet, is page 113, and it's the staff report from 2001. You say change over time, you mean change in how it was interpreted? Interpreted. The, yeah. How staff and the board were interpreting the meaning of significant. Or as how it, as how it, how it affects. Yeah. Gotcha. Seems they were both designating as significant and designating primary facades, at least at one time. So, however, they did not consider the 1935 addition to be primary because they allowed that roof to be changed. Yeah, I can't speak to what they did or didn't think other than what's set forth in the staff report. So, okay. Thank you. I have an open it for public comment. Yes, Heather. Mr. Murphy is on the line, and he, okay. Oh, of course. Sorry, mister on. Yes. And so, John, if you can please state your name and address for the record and be sworn. Sure. John Murphy, 2833 Puerto Vallarta. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth, nothing but the truth, and do so under the penalties of perjury? I do. Please proceed. Sure. So I don't want to take up folks' time further debating whether, you know, we're talking about significant or contributing building, but I'd like to go back to why this was designated significant, and I think it was done in there. And I can tell you factually, I'm not guessing how the board thought. I can just tell you factually. So in 1982, this district was surveyed by consultants, who work with city staff and another consultant to wrap it up into what they call the Don Gaspar Historic District. And so to answer your question, generally, any building in the district that was constructed before 1912 or had a major historical association such as the Senator David Chavez House was considered significant. So on the beginning of the report, and if I can just take your time, it's like significance, quote, significant structures are those that usually are, are those usually known as, quote, registered sites or landmarks and are considered to be the most architecturally and historically important buildings in the area. Included in this category, excuse me, are nearly all the surviving buildings built before 1912. Significant structures are shown in the photographs, etcetera, etcetera. So turning to the page where they actually discuss this building, which is, excuse me for my smugness here. I'm getting to, here it is. 24, if you have this book, it brings up this particular house as the most striking of these is a territorial period house, April photo 52, with pedimented moldings, which date to before 1912 and was owned by Rafael Medrano, etcetera, etcetera. So my feeling is the mistake was made at that point because the consultants didn't understand that the building that they were looking at was not a 1912 territorial period building. It was a building that already had accretions and conglomerations that made it a composite structure. So it was not of the territorial period, and the moldings they were describing were of the twenties or thirties. They were not of the territorial period. So at that point, I think there was already a mistake made in considering it significant. So how these were designated significant, I will tell you. The board would receive a list of all these addresses and the contributing ones on a particular HDRB hearing night, and they would vote on them en masse, and then it would go to the governing body, usually the next week, and there you go. So I think this mistake, while people like to rely on tradition, has been affecting projects since then. So the way I see this building, I do see it as a contributing building in its composite character, but I do not see it as a significant building that has good architectural quality or even the appearance of a territorial period house. It's just not there. Thank you. Thank you, John. Yes, Heather. Jerry, I was just to report back on the code section. Mr. Esquivel helped me. Section 14-4.6, E.1, and then three little I's. It states that for the purposes of historic preservation standards, all facades are considered significant, or on significant buildings, all facades are considered primary. Just to report back. Oh, it is part of the ordinance as you just indicated. Okay. Now I will open it for public comment. Anyone in this room wishing to comment on this particular case? If so, come forward. No one. Is there anyone online? Yes, Miss Stephanie Benanato. And, Stephanie, you need to get sworn in? Okay. And please, state your name and address for the record as well as prepare to be sworn. Stephanie Benannatto, PO Box 1601, 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 so under the penalties of perjury? Yes. Please proceed. Thank you. This is one of my most favorite houses in this area. I was married into the Romero family, and they definitely owned all of Houghton Street and beyond that into Galisteo and south in Lomita. And, I'm a little upset when a very well-known architect says that somehow it's not really historic because there were additions that are more than 50 years old. And we all know that a building can get added onto and that it is considered historic when it has additions that are 50 years old. Additionally, I've been in this house because it was for sale recently. And had I known it was not as attached to the next structure as it is, I would have maybe made a bid on it. And I can tell you that the windows, except on the 2001 addition, are single pane. They have the original or really looks like very old, probably thirties heaters, and it retains its character. And as far as the roof change, to me, this is just part of living in the house. You just, you realize that having a flat roof is problematic, and you come in and you ask for a change. And it's unclear when that change occurred. But I do know that you actually gave an award to this building for, you know, one of the historic preservation awards. I don't know what the year was. But when I was looking at the structure, the person who owned it was so proud of getting this award that it was up on the wall. So you obviously have considered this building many times, and each time you have said that it was significant. And, I'm not, I wouldn't be upset if you made the 2001, you know, made it contributing with the 2001 not being that. But I think that you have pointed out that you can be consistent and just exempt the 2001 addition. I also think that fencing is definitely contributing and should be maintained whether it's white color or blue color. It is one of the few examples of this wonderful fencing that was historic in that area. Thank you. Thank you, Stephanie. Anyone else online? No, Sherry. Board members, do you have anything further to ask or to comment? If not, it is appropriate now to entertain a motion. Looking to my left, and I'm looking to my right. Thank you, Madam Chair. Case number 2026012674HDRB at 208 West Houghton Street. I would move to adopt staff's recommendation made tonight, based on their further review of the record and the property that the historic structure, historic status of the structure be maintained as significant, finding that the applicant, well, finding that the status of this property has come, additionally finding that status of the property has come before staff and the preservation division and the board on multiple occasions since 1982 and has always been understood to be significant, and that the changes pointed out by the applicant as justifying a downgrade priority, understood by previous preservation division staff and the board as either not downgrading the status or as would not downgrade the status if approved. So I would move that the structure be maintained as significant with the exception of the non-historic addition of 2001. And I would also move, again, adopting staff's findings, that the defense be designated as contributing, excluding the current color. Is there a second to the motion? I'll second the motion. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just something to keep in mind. I think that we often, when presented with a case with a difficult history, with some inconsistencies often dating back to the 1982 surveys, we request that the applicant pursue a new HCPCS, which they've done in this case. And that usually resolves the issues or at least gives the board a more comprehensive review and summary. And I think we're doing the opposite in this case, which I find a little bit inconsistent with our past practice. So I just wanted to put that out there. Well, if there is nothing further, I'd only respond to that by saying that our practice that normally occurs because we are being asked to status and unstatus property, whereas this is the applicant having the burden to come before us to justify a downgrade. So we haven't requested an HPE, but the applicant is using an HPE to justify their application. I do think it's a different circumstance. Thank you. If there's nothing further, I will ask for a roll call vote. Chair Bienvenu? Yes. Member Simmons? Yeah. Member Beachside? No. Member Cherry? No. And Member Degnan? No. Madam Chair, the motion did not pass. I will entertain a new motion. I'll make a motion. I guess, can I make a comment before I do that? I guess I'm feeling like there's, I like Joe's original comment of the possibility of getting more information regarding specifics of when the roof was added would be valuable for this. It seems like it does seem like it's a really complicated case. I tend to agree with the logic that John Murphy presented in regard to its, I think it's an important building. I think, based on how he interpreted or represented the history of it in his comments, I would agree with that, but I also feel like it could have, as much as I, this is just a comment for conversation, I guess. But it seems like there are very important features of this building, but there could be some more information that could be helpful with this. That would be my comment. But at this time, I would feel comfortable with, it is a contributing structure, and the, doing this in the form of a motion? Yeah. I'll do it in the form of a motion and see if it passes or fails. So in case 2026012674HDRB at 208 Houghton Street, I would move to downgrade the structure to contributing, with the facades one, two, three, four, and 12 as, as with the facades one, two, three, four, and within the logic that I'm working on here, 10, 11, and 12 as primary, being that those facades are also historic. So, and the front fence and low yard wall as contributing as well. Second to this motion. Can you type a second? I think we're there to that. Nothing further. Roll call vote, please. Just one moment. No. Member Simmons? Member Beachside? Yes. Member Cherry? Yes. And Member Degnan? No. Madam Chair, it failed again. Okay. I will entertain a third motion. Member Simmons, you seem ready to do that. In the case of the number, I don't have it in front of me here. Here it is. Where am I looking at here? Okay. 2016, 2026-012674HDRB. I would move that the applicant do further research into the sequencing of when the various additions were done, with particular emphasis in the hearing that occurred where the building was noted as contributing, because I think that is a significant thing. I think that there could be some more information in that hearing if that information is available. It's a particularly difficult project to deal with. So are you asking, are you making a motion to? Make a motion that further information be clarified. It looked like a photograph from 1993 shows the sloping roof, and that's at variance to what the HICB report says at sometime between 1996 and or 1993 and 2026. I think there's probably some aerial photography that could be looked at. I think there's the discrepancy in my mind is there was a hearing done where this board regarded the building as contributing irrespective of the fact that all the other meetings showed it as significant. So I just think that perhaps there could be some clarity given to the reports. You did not use the word postponement, but I think you want to postpone. I would, I would. All this information to be gathered. I would move to postpone until further information can be gathered to clarify the report. Second the motion. To a date certain or as soon as the information is gathered? Just as the applicant could put that together. Roll call vote, please. Chair Bienvenu? I vote no only because I believe I have sufficient information in front of me to make a decision. Member Simmons? Yes. Member Beachside? Yeah. Member Cherry? Yes. Member Degnan? Yes. Madam Chair, the motion passed. Okay. We need more information and your case is postponed. We will move on to the next case. We thank the board for its time. To you next, sir. Okay. The next case is located at 203 West Water Street, and I'm going to guess the applicant is here. Yes, Madam Chair. The applicant is here. And if you'll give me a moment just to pull up the presentation. Okay. This case is 2026012686HGRB for 203 West Water Street. This is in the Downtown and Eastside Historic District. So, we have, this building was constructed in the 1880s, and renovations done in 1930 through 1948. And further, further done in 19, in the 1980s. So as you could see, this property is a very elongated property. And I want to express this was the Hickey that was done in the 1980s, and it showed, when they designated the structure as contributing, it shows the same facade as it is today. Here, we have a document from the 1990s that came in for permit. And on the elevation, which is the elevation on the south, it shows where they had a request to change the entry door, and that application was never proceeded with. Because the structure was built in the 1800s and has retained its footprint and it's a single story, it tells a story to the streetscape change on Water Street, and the storefront change was minor. Staff recommends the status of the commercial structure be maintained as contributing with the south facade as primary, per the facade diagram shown. And this is per 14-4.6c designation of significant contributing or non-contributing status within the historic districts, and 14-4.6g2 Downtown and East Side Historic District standards. I stand for questions. Any questions for Matt at this point, board members? If not, so, applicant, if you'll come forward and get sworn in. Hey, Dan. Hey. Please raise your right hand. What's your name and address for the record? Steve McCormick, 1611 Paseo De Peralta, Santa Fe 87501. 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 so under the penalties of perjury? I do. Please proceed. Mr. McCormick, do you agree or disagree with staff's report? I disagree with staff recommendations. Because, here's what happened is the owner bought the building recently and was curious about the history of the building and was interested in making some modifications to the facade. So we hired John Murphy to do a new HICPE to really understand the full history of the project. And to our surprise, really, he found that there has been significant work done in the last 50 years to the south facade, the only facade that is publicly visible. Just to be clear, this is a typical downtown property with buildings on both sides. All you can see is the facade. Right? Although, historically, that wasn't true. Also, we did a little bit of demo inside to understand, you know, what the wall systems were and how it was built, when it was built. And John got to see that stuff too, which really led him to dig deep for some photographs and discover that this building has been modified more than we thought. So at this point, I'd like to hand it over to John, who's on the applicant team, to go over the details, if that's okay. Okay. John, you may unmute. And you are previously sworn. Mr. Murphy, you may unmute. Hello. Just a little more background. I first saw this building maybe 2011, 2013. I was staff as Amanda is to the city preservation department, and the owner, not the owner, but the business owner at the time wanted to reinstall the fabric awning and also put up a little display of flowers, which I don't know if this went to the board or got administrative approval, but I went to the building. And I immediately, something struck me as odd in that the display window was at shin level. And that's not typical at that height for a commercial business as it was then, which was a gallery. So I, you know, I put that aside. And then 15 years later, Steve contacted me first to do this deep dive of its background because the client, I understood, wanted to understand what did it serve as early on, and they were looking for themes and inspirations. And so we found out that it was, you know, a blacksmith shop. It was all types of things dealing with animals, etcetera. And then we got to the HCPI approach. So going through the Sanborns, the aerials, and then later finding this photograph, I could determine, and I, please, I hope you have the correct HCPI in front of you. There was one with red at the top. There's a draft that was not supposed to be the packet, and there should be one without the red in front of you right now. So working with the archives at the Palace of the Governors, we found this photograph from the 1950s. And this photograph is important for two things. I think it's figure eight. First of all, it shows that at that time, it did not have a display window. It had a high, like, security window because this was a warehouse. And from what I understand from the earlier survey, it had a loading dock type door at the entry. So this was very important to understanding, to me, a fairly big change to the facade. Second, if you look at the photographs of the aerials and the Sanborns leading up to 1978, you will see that its west elevation was exposed at least for 183 years. So this west elevation was clearly seen from the street along an alley, a small alley, but that belonged to the lot that holds this building. So in 1985, a condominium was built adjacent. There was a stucco curtain wall constructed. The windows went away, and there's no more visibility unless you go inside the courtyard of this condominium, and that's a forced, a very short view of the west elevation. So if you think about precedence in a building that has two public facades, one that had an age, again, of over 183 years was removed in 1985, which is not the historic period. So putting all this together, I felt that this building should be considered for a downgrade. So number one, you have an altered entry. This is on the south facade. Also, you have an altered window, both in height and maybe also in width and definitely in the type of window. The window that is there is a field-built window. And if you look at the picture that I took inside, when they were doing the exploratory demo, you can see it was just jammed in there and a new sole plate was put to hold it. So those are two big hits to what might be the most publicly visible facade. The third impact, which I think is significant, is the loss of the alley and the loss of the west elevation and its windows. If you look at the survey photo from 1983 from Harry Bies, and that was after this work was done, you can still see one of those windows. If you look at the 1968 Sanborn map, there are two windows depicted on the elevation, I mean, on the plan view. So in conclusion, I think those two changes to a building that doesn't have much fenestration to begin with should bring into question whether it has retained enough integrity, especially of windows and doors, to meet contributing status. Thank you. Board members, do you have questions for John or the applicant? Yes, Member Cherry. Yeah, I have a question. Howdy, John. So I'm looking at this photograph on page, I believe it's 21 of your report. It shows the 1950s photograph that I believe you're referring to, Figure 8. Yes. Yeah, Figure 8. Thank you. And it's very foreshortened. And I guess what I'm curious about is the certainty in which you have, on the left-hand side of the photo, it shows a fence adjoining the wall, which to me could be the alley, meaning that the storefront on the Lone Pawn Shop is the larger opening that we're seeing in the modern version, and that this door and window are infilled to the east of that area, or there's some other modification that was made. Yeah, because in that photograph, the Lone Pawn Shop, the PDF, the corner there looks like it could be that alley. I'm not seeing enough space between the Lone Pawn Shop and the brown building that depicts the door and the window opening. Is that, that door and window opening on the brown building, to me, looks like a single wide door opening, and it looks narrower than the opening that's there now. So it's just, I'm curious with your regard to your certainty of this photo representing actually what's on the plan view, if that makes sense. Yeah, so let me, I'm sorry, let me get to it. So the compression you're seeing makes it look like the HARC or Loan and Pawn Shop is directly abutting the subject building, but it's not. So if you look at what I've labeled as number one, and again, I hope you have the right HCPI, you can see the roof turns back and moves north where an alley stands. So that, that is, that is the space between the buildings. So the subject building and the pawn shop, which was removed and replaced with this condominium to the west. So if you look at, let's see, Figure 10. So I don't see the roof that you're talking about. I see the photo. Yeah, it, right above where the 'O' is on the loan symbol, the photo, you can't, I can't really see where the roof turns and goes into there personally. But, well, you can. So look at the one. I hope. Well, maybe you can. I can't. Okay. So look at the one, and you'll see that the angle turns to the left. It doesn't continue to hit, to reach the roof of the hock shop. Plus, this compression is immaterial when you look at the aerials because you'll see that that alley maintained through the historic period. Okay, maybe, maybe you're right. Maybe I don't have the right HICB because the photo gets cut off at the top of the sign on what I'm looking at. Okay. So I, I, the corrected HICCBI was emailed to the board earlier today. Okay, gotcha. Okay. So I, I would really like the board to be working off the correct HICD. And that was emailed to him today. Okay. So again, going back, I, I see your, your quandary, Member Cherry, and I made that initial mistake myself. I thought it was a wider facade to the subject building, but that's not the case. It turns back at that point. So what is important really about that photo is the height of the window compared to the adult male. And if you look at the before and after photo in Figure 9, so repeat photography is the best I could do or my surveyor could do. It's definitely a different window height. And you can see the alley was maintained on the opening day. Well, where is it here? On the December, Figure 13, 12/06/1984 HBI survey along with one surviving window along the west facade. Do you know when the window was installed, the one that's there? I would assume it, it was done during 1983 when they worked on the, the entry because that, that, that's a totally new ensemble, and I assume that window was put in at the same time. Again, up until that point, it was used for housing furniture. This man moved his business to the mall and decided to turn this building, to renovate it into commercial space. He had a little bit of an issue with the floor height, and so that is why the window is at that, that level. There's nowhere else he could go, really. And then so just to be clear, so I'm looking at Figure 11 now? Figure 11. Okay. So the blue shaded, the blue building shaded structure is the pawn shop. Correct. Is what you're saying. Yeah. And the fence line we're seeing is coming. Okay, I understand now. So also, if you're looking at the, those two little X marks along the west facade of the furniture warehouse are window openings. So. Okay, thank you. Sure. Mr. Murphy, this is Joe Simmons. Yes. I have a question about, if you could elucidate, please, your, why you think it is significant, a significant loss to the structure that a building next door took over that space and abutted itself to that building. It actually didn't in the back, but toward the front, it did. But I just would like to get some clarification about why that facade, having been modified by the construction of a building next door, is significant in the proposal here to downgrade. Sure. So if you're thinking about an urban street wall, a historic street wall, and this would be Water Street, there were a number of alleys. Some were half alleys, some were full alleys that span between West Water Street and West San Francisco. This building used that alley as part of its service, and it had fenestration along that elevation at least consistently from the 20s forward until 1968 and also into the 1980s before the two-and-a-half-story condominium or three-story condominium was constructed. So when the condominium was constructed, it removed that wall as it were and the fenestration. And the, so the significance of this building in terms of its use and its presentation to the public as two facades for over 183 years was removed. So now we just have this altered front south-facing facade where there was also a supporting facade that historically was just as significant to the streetscape and to the understanding of this building over its many uses. Thank you. Do you have any comments or questions? Amanda. I'd like for you to comment in reference to the comments that Mr. Murphy has been making. Thank you. I would like to first thank you, Mr. Murphy, for all your hard work and information that you put into doing your Higbee's respectfully. So you commented that in 1983 that you, you thought the windows were changed, but in the Higbee that we show from 1984, it, the facade as is what it is today, and that was notated as a contributing. And I know you said that a blanket status was done for the different districts, but this is what it was marked as contributing in the 1980s where it looks as it is today. Okay. So reference to the, the side facade that is now covering with the two-story condominium building, I am not asking for that facade to be designated as primary. I am asking for the south facade to be designated as primary. Now notated the window change has been, is larger now, but that doesn't take away from this actual building was constructed in the 1800s, and it does contribute to the district. It may have changed use, the use of the building, but it still is to the commercial vitality of that streetscape. Sure, if I may comment on that. When again, so in the 1980s, consultants were hired to roam around Santa Fe and do very quick HBI forms. They didn't have time to research. They had no access or little access to Sanborn maps and no access to aerials. So Harry Weiss, who made that form, if you read the notes, it says something like there's enough surviving material for it possibly to be contributing. He notes that the window had changed. He notes the door had changed, but he didn't know anything about the building. So this is kind of like the previous case because of the haste and just this is just the way it was done. Business was done then of doing basically windshield surveys. He was saying he was mistaking things that he thought were historic as they are changes. He also saw the building with the west elevation exposed, so that is key. And I, I, I'm not saying we should designate that because you can't. I'm just saying that is an integrity loss to have that, that west facade, which was very critical to the building's use, now removed and removed from public view. Thank you. Thank you, John. Heather? Thank you, Chair Rios. So I just would like to review a couple of things. Status not only relates to architectural features, but overall parts of mass and size and its relationship to the environment. As far as we can tell, or the surroundings, as far as we can tell, this has been a one-story building since it was constructed. Also, the addition of buildings to the east happened between 1921 and 1930 according to the Sanborn maps. And there was a building that was located in the '21 map as well as the 1930 map going all the way through some form of building on the other side of the alley that intervened with the appearance or the, the view of the wall that Mr. Murphy is referring to. So there has been a building that's been located on the other side of that alley since the 20s. But that was within the historic period. This condominium was erected in 1985, and it is at a different style. Correct. But I'm just saying that when you're referring to that wall as, as, as to visibility, there has always been from the street been an intervening building there that. There has been. And the wall itself hasn't changed. This is actually a public hearing. So Miss, Miss Rios, Chair Rios will need to recognize you, John. Okay. John, did you have something further? Sorry. I just want to say that if you look at the Sanborns, while Heather is correct, there has been a building to the west, there has always been an alley between them. So I think there's a clear distinction there. Thank you. I will open it up for public comment or the applicant is here. Ed wants to say something. Go ahead. Thank you, Madam Chair and the board. I think Heather brings up a good point about the massing of the building. It's clearly historic. However, the window and the door and the sidelights are, they're just not, they're not historic. And so would it be, and if I understand correctly, your implication is that perhaps we should maintain the contributing status, the primary facade being the south facade. If, if the board chooses to do so, could we possibly exclude the, the non-historic windows and doors that maintain, you know, suggesting that. Just, and Amanda, please comment on that. Staff would like to maintain with the, because we don't know when that was done. And when it was designated as contributing, it was with the windows and or as is as of now. So staff will remain with, remain with its recommendation. If, if there is proof, though, that those are not historic, certainly, then through that proof, we'll be able to consider that situation. That has happened in other cases. So that is taken into consideration, but so is staff's testimony. I will open it for public comment. Is there anyone in this room that wishes to comment on this particular project? Nobody? Is there anyone online? Yes, Miss Benonato, who has previously been sworn. I just find it unfortunate that the hippies of the 1980s are just so denigrated at this point. I know that they were pretty, in a sense, fly-by-night. But they do have photographs which are valuable. And what I heard Mr. Murphy say is that he had photographs from 1950, but I don't hear when the window openings changed. And if it's been used as a furniture store, you're going to have to get furniture in and out. So you could assume that the door opening was fairly wide. As far as the west facade and it not being visible, I doubt that it was actually very visible from the street if there was another building right up next to it. And that's not what's being asked here. What's being asked is that the south facade be considered primary. And it's basically on the age of the building and the current footprint, which is original to the structure itself. So I do hope that you will keep it contributing. And these openings, if they are proven to be non-historic, then I think the applicant, if they want to make a change, can come back to the board and point that out and actually have hard evidence, not just an assumption that here's 1950 and here's 1982. That's a big span of time in which the openings could or could not have changed. And I think that the board tends to be reasonable about those things, so I do hope that you will maintain it. I do really appreciate the fact that this is a recessed opening. It is unique or characteristic of that building and unique on the streetscape. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else on the members of the board? If you have nothing further to say or comment, I will entertain a motion. Member Simmons. I actually have a further comment. In my work in Lower Downtown Denver, we have come across many times buildings like this where the masonry facade and the openings were substantially in the original condition. The storefronts were oftentimes made out of wood and greatly deteriorated, and in that historic district, we have, many times, been directed to leave the mass of the wall as it is. We know that somewhere between 1950 and 1983 that the windowsill of this opening was lowered, but it doesn't appear that the width was changed. And I can determine that by the lintels, that it doesn't look like the lintels had changed. So I think that it's reasonable to consider that the mass of the structure be maintained, with the allowance that I can understand why a storefront and some windows might want to change their construction just due to the age. So I would move that in this case that we maintain the contributing status, maintain this configuration of the openings, and maintain the recess of the storefront, but allow the applicant to make modifications to the window in the storefront. So if I could make this motion, in the case of 2026-012686HDRP2, 203 West Water Street, that I move that the configuration of the wall as it currently exists remain in a contributing status, and that the recessed entrance, and therefore, moving inside perhaps the ramp, I don't know. We don't rule on interiors in this case, but that the recessed entry be maintained, and that the applicant could be allowed to change the configuration of the window in the storefront. Can I ask for clarification on what you mean by configuration of the window? I just mean the window, the window opening. So maintain the actual opening. Correct. Allow the window itself to be altered. Yes, to the extent it's non-historic. Right, which I think is already implicit even if we didn't have that condition. Right, because only historic windows on primary facades are protected. So I second the motion. So you're indicating to leave the opening as is and perhaps in the future change the actual infill and the materials of the window and the entrance. Has the, and then again, clarification, has the entrance been established to be materials in the entrance, have they been established to be non-historic? Or should we just, could I ask maybe a friendly amendment since I've seconded that, just add to the extent it's demonstrated that any of those materials are non-historic? In the field visit today, it looked to me that the details of the entrance construction were identical to the window. So it seems to me that they were done at the same time. It would make sense that they were. Does it make them historic, both of them? Do you agree with that, Amanda? Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. I'm confused by it. If you could please clarify the motion as to this contributing, yes, the door and window primary, the south being primary, the door and the window openings to remain as they are. As far as the windows and the door, do they have to keep the same divided light type? No, I wouldn't put that restriction on. I don't know that that's germane. So I'm a little confused. If you could just redo the motion clearly so that way when I'm writing it out, I understand. Okay. I move that the configuration of the mass wall remain with its openings as they currently are. I would allow that the window itself could be reconfigured and brought back to this board. I would move that the location of where the door is now be maintained, and then the materials in the recess and the door materials itself could come back for review. Is there a second? I have a question. Did you second? I think I'm ever earlier. My only issue is I just want to, I mean, to me, the clearer way to state the motion for my purposes would just be to designate that as the primary facade excluding any elements that are demonstrated to be non-historic. Because I don't know that I don't want to say they can change the windows and doors, especially the doors, until I'm comfortable that it's been established. Madam Chair. I'll accept that. I have a question, Madam Chair. So I'm a little confused as to what's going on here. We had a motion and a second, and then we had an amendment. So, technically, the amendment has to be voted on, and I believe it has to be accepted by the original motion and the original seconder. I think we should just restate the motion. Accepted and then voted on. But just to simplify, you're correct, but it's gotten confusing. Maybe we withdraw the motion and just restate the motion. Is that what would be acceptable? Can I make a comment? Hold on. I want to hear what Member Terry has to say. My comment, neither motion stated that the status of the building. My recommendation would be in the motion, state the status. Okay. Member Simmons, would you, Member Simmons, since you were the maker of the motion, would you withdraw the motion and restate your motion? I wonder if I could defer to Mr. Penvinu because he was more succinct than I can be. Okay. I'll give it a try because I just, yeah. I think we can get to where you're wanting to get to in terms of saying what can and can't be done just by the designation. So I would move that in case number 2026012686HDRB203WestWaterStreet that staff's findings, staff's recommendations be adopted, that the historic status of the commercial structure be maintained as contributing, south facade number three designated as primary, all on the understanding that any materials in the doors or windows that are demonstrated to be non-historic are excluded. Well, that to me is implicit in the designation. But if you want it to be explicit, it would be that the designation includes the door opening, door openings and window openings as they currently exist. And is there a second to the motion? I'll second that. I haven't, is there anything further to add? Point of clarification, are you also including the recess be maintained in that? Yeah. Again, to me, all of that's implicit as soon as we made that the primary facade. But, yes, if we need to make that explicit, that would include, I think so, recesses. Because that in this particular case, the, like, the, yeah, there's a wood, there's a wood wainscoting. There's a wood recess. I think that's a good point, actually, that is worth pointing out. I see. I think so. I think it's a good point. Question? Thank you. Okay. I'll go ahead and ask it. Can you honor your motion when you are saying that you're asking to designate the primary facade with windows and a door that aren't historic? Am I confused here? I'm walking here with Amanda. I'm a little confused. We're talking about the opening in the masonry wall? I'm talking about the facade. What are you talking about? What is the motion for? It protects the, it protects the openings, but not the non-historic window and door material. So the, the south side that we're looking at would be contributing. It would, the openings would be protected. So they couldn't come in and make the window bigger. They couldn't come in and make the doorway bigger, but they could replace the window and they could replace the door because those are non-historic materials. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Appreciate it. Alright. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think we're getting really carried away here. I think what John suggested, excluding the non-historic materials, kind of covers all of this. Like, I think the HICC actually says that the windows and doors were replaced in the eighties, that the display window was cut into an earlier wall and framed out. So I think, I think that there is some evidence. And when, or if, the applicant comes forward to make changes, they'll present that, and we can make a decision on that point. But as long as if we sort of say we're excluding non-historic materials, then that allows us the flexibility to consider additional evidence at the time of a change being proposed. Roll call, please. Chair Bien Venu? Yes. Member Simmons? Yeah. Chair Beachside? Yes. Chair Cherry? I mean, Member Cherry? Yes. And Member Dignam? Yes. And I'm sure the motion carries. Thank you. Next case is located at 804 Apodaca Hill. Is that applicant here? Apodaca? Yes. Madam Chair, the applicant is here. Okay. This is for 2026-012701HERB at 804 Apodaca Hill in the Downtown and Eastside Historic District. This structure is a non-contributing, and they are requesting to, requesting and propose to construct a 670 square foot portal addition to the height of 11 feet 3 inches and approval of an unimproved existing pergola. Here you will see the proposed and existing site plan. On the right, you will see in the gray area where they are requesting the pergola to be put. This site is located on a 0.07 acre lot built in 1996. The residence is 3,800 square feet. The one-story structure in recent Santa Fe style architecture. So, again, here's a closer up. The shaded area is where the portal will be located. It is, will be earth tone with a single skylight. And here is the elevation showing that the portal, and as you saw today, will not be visible from the street, the streetscape. Here is the 100 square foot existing wooden pergola in the back. We are also requesting approval for this evening. The patio itself will be colored in concrete and an earth tone color, and the structural supports and horizontal beams will be painted steel in a medium rose brown. The roof framing will consist of dark fir 3x8s, and a 2-foot spacing will have a clear and natural finish, with the cypress pale yellow decking above. The roofing itself will be done in TPO in a pale gray. Again, as we all saw today, this beautiful property and yard in the back, staff recommends approval of the proposed project and finds the application does comply with Section 14-4.6E, General Design Standards for all Historic Districts, and 14-4.6G2, Downtown and Eastside Design Standards. I stand for questions. Any questions for Matt at this point? You did indicate that both of these items are not publicly visible. Correct? That is correct, Madam Chair. Okay, sir, if you'll come forward. You'll state your name and your address and then get sworn in. Warren Wagner, 3886 Old Santa Fe Trail, Santa Fe, 755. 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 penalty of perjury? Please proceed. And, Mr. Wagner, do you have anything further to add to what staff just told us? Not really. Do you have questions for Mr. Wagner? Not really. Anyone in the room wishing to comment on this project? No one. No one. One moment. Your hands are raised. Okay. Or, I'm sorry, your hands are raised here, Rios. Thank you. Motion, please. I'll make a motion. Case 2026012701HTRB804 Apodaca Hill. I would move to approve the application as submitted, as well as approve the pergola as well. Second. Second. Roll call vote, please. Chair Bienvenu? Yes. Member Simmons? Member Bishai? Yes. Member Cherry? Yes. Member Degnan? Yes. Motion carries. Thank you, Mr. Rick. Next case is located at 878 East Palace. Thank you, Madam Chair. The applicant is in the room this evening. This is 2026012702HGRB. This is for 878 East Palace, and this is in the Downtown and Eastside Historic District. The single-family residence is a 900 square foot main residential structure on a 0.088 acre lot, in the 1930s. And the main structure was built in Spanish Pueblo Revival. They came for a status review in 2025, and this board designated the primary facades to be the north facade and the east facade. The request is a window replacement on a primary facade with exception to 14-4.641 or maybe 4IA. So the applicant, again, is proposing more window replacements. Two are located on the west elevation in the bottom section here, which would be considered C and A. And then on the top elevation, it would be the window considered F, which is on the right, which is also, that's, so the east is primary, the west is not. And on the north facade, we have a window dedicated as shown as D, is requesting to be replaced. So, with casement windows with flash frost blue, and the divided light are requested to be in replacement of that window, windows plural. Staff find the exception criteria have been met, and recommends approval of the window replacement on primary facades. And this complies with elements, with 14-5.2D General Design Standards for all Historic Districts and 14-4.G2 Downtown and Eastside Design Standards. I stand for questions. Thank you, Amanda. Just a clarification or a repeat. The windows that are being replaced are all wood. The existing windows are all wood. Correct? Yes, Madam Chair. And they will be replaced with wood windows exactly as what is existing? As far as I could view on their, on their window proposal, I do show that they are wooden wood window install, and I do show that they are casement windows. Thank you. I'm sure that Member Cherry will have more questions. Yes. Mavis Simmons. I'd just like to add a comment here in the Pella Reserve shop drawing here. It calls out for a painted standard Euro clad frost blue finish. That's an aluminum finish on the exterior. So it is a wood window, but it has an aluminum cladding on it. That's how they make windows these days. Yes. That's standard. Yeah. Any other comments or questions for Amanda at this point? No. Applicant, would you come forward? Please raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record. My name is Marilyn Halla. My address is 3807 Royal Lane in Dallas, Texas. 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 so under the penalties of perjury? I do. Please proceed. Good evening. And do you have anything further to add to what Amanda just told? I'm sorry, I'm not hearing you very well. Do you have anything more to add? The Pella Window Company that has submitted this proposal has replaced windows in our neighborhood, and he said these were windows that had been previously approved for our neighbors. If the board has any questions for you. Any questions? That would be Shay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Could you please confirm that the two windows on the primary facades, which are the north and the east, would be restored rather than, or sorry, not restored, but replaced in kind with wood windows that are not aluminum clad, that are not the Pella off-the-shelf windows that are matching the other two that are being replaced? Are you, are you proposing replacing of all four windows with the exact same? All four windows the same. The same process. I think our practice in the past has been for primary facades to replicate those in kind. So the window would have to be wood, you know, to the same dimensions and divisions as is there currently and painted in the same. Well, we would agree to that. Of course. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? There's one person remaining. No comments, she's indicating. And anyone online? Yes, Stephanie Benanata, who previously has been sworn. You may unmute. Thank you very much. I appreciate, I'm assuming that the windows that are going to be replaced on the primary facade are so degraded that they cannot be repaired. And I appreciate Member Bishai's attention to detail in asking whether the ones that can be repaired will be repaired in kind as opposed to having the aluminum facade on them. And so I again, I think in kind means no aluminum facade, and they all, as far as I can, or as far as I think, to comply with code should be wood windows, not with an aluminum facing. So I hope that's what has been discussed here. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? No others. Motion, please. Thank you, Madam Chair. In case number 2026012702HDRB at 878 East Palace, I move to approve the application as submitted with the condition that the windows on the primary facades, numbers D and F, which are more than 40% deteriorated, are allowed for replacement, but they must be replaced in kind with respect to material, which excludes an aluminum coating on those two windows. So I can take them. Can I make a friendly amendment? Can I make a friendly amendment that they, sure, that just that they'd be, they'd be that the in kind mean that they're replicated with the same material and they're not, yeah. Yes. That's, that's what's intended in in kind with respect to materials, shape, size, divisions, glazing. Operation. Operation. Thank you. Vice Chair Bienvenu? Yes. Member Simmons? Member Bishai? Yes. Member Cherry? Yes. Member Degnan? Yes. Madam Chair, motion's carried. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Your project. And last case this evening is located at 21 East Marcy. Amanda, tell us about this one. Thank you, Madam Chair. If I could just have one moment to get the next slide up. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board, for your patience while I get myself reorganized there. This is for 2026, case number 2026012703HTRB at 201 East Marcy Street in the Downtown Historic District. This is a non-contributing structure, and they are proposing a 520 square foot heated storage room and a portal of 3,530 square feet to the height of 13 feet 6 inches on the terrace and monumental stair in the courtyard and 8-foot wrought iron fence and gates. So I will go ahead and read their intent of the entire project, and then we'll kind of go over the slides thereafter since there's, there's so much stuff happening here. Okay? So on the ground level, they're asking to remove the existing rolling meadow park guardrail on the east side of the courtyard and replace that with a new wrought iron decorative fencing and gates to the maximum height of 8 feet. The addition of the monumental stairs in the northwest corner of the courtyard. The stairs are to be constructed of masonry finished with some aesthetic stucco, the stair trench to be open and made of precast concrete, railings to be wrought iron, and a gate located at the first landing. Also, it will have recessed lighting will be in the corner masses of the masonry, and lighting will be in the treads as well. We have an additional wrought iron gate at the northeast corner of the courtyard, maximum height of 8 feet. In addition of wrought iron gate in the southwest corner of the courtyard, the curved opening with maximum height of 8 feet. And the wrought iron that has been mentioned will be hammered with wrought iron with blackened finish. And on the terrace level, they're requesting to move the planters on the north side of the terrace and replace with an opening shade canopy included a small storage prep room on the east side of the terrace, 520 square feet, and the height of the canopy to be maximum of 73 feet 6 inches at the rear. And that is not to exceed the existing parapet height of 74 feet and 6 inches. As we spoke earlier at the site visit, there were questions whether or not the canopy would be connected to the existing building, and the answer to that is yes. It will be connected to the existing building, and then it would have the, the two, the other columns that are not attached, obviously. Let's see. So the columns were to be topped with wood corbels and wood fascia finishing covering the face of the steel beam. Shed light style skylights are included in the north wall to provide daylight into the covered area. Proposed lighting to include the tin wall sconces, recessed downlights, and cable lighting, and the cable lighting will be tucked up under the canopy. A new cementitious mechanical chimney is being added at the northwest corner, just west of the prep room, of the storage room. And there's this chimney as well as a chimney at the gas fireplace are both lower than the tallest parapet, approximately by 12 inches. The addition of the new gas fireplace at the west end of the terrace will have cementitious stucco and finish with a stone mantle and stone hearth as noted above. The chimney will be lower than the tallest parapet. A wrought iron screen with glazing will cover the firebox. Existing portal on the west side of the terrace has white stucco beneath it with the green painted wainscot. This wainscot will be repainted in a browner color. The north wall under the canopy will also have white stuff underneath it painted with brown wainscot. An existing wood door to the roof and roof tie unit visible to the existing wood burning Kiva fireplace at the northwest corner of the terrace. The terrace will be replaced with a wooden new door that matches the existing style and finishes. And then they will be reroofing, to reroofing to protect the door and existing maintenance needed for that roof. So, go on to the drawings here. So we have the, the existing site plan of the, of the lower floor. Here we have the south elevation, and the only change on the south elevation will be the, the gate, 8-foot gate in the lower doorway. There's the north elevation where it is going to, and this is the elevation that faces City Hall here where they're going to remove the guardrails. And then the top of the proposed storage room is also in this area on the north elevation. I tried to put these on both things. But so here is the existing ground floor plan, and you will see here where the changes are going to be happening. This is where the staircase will be put in place of the planter. Here's a better one. Here's the staircase we put in instead of the planter. Here is a gate that we'll be putting in next to the parking garage doors. And around on the north side is where the gate will, the fence will be located, and then as well as the south that we've already discussed. This shows the terrace from the elevation portion. This is the internal courtyard view of the proposed. And here we have the proposed tin sconces, the decorative lighting beneath the canopy, and an example of recessed lighting for the stairs. And here is a design of the gates that will be placed. So the only recommendation of staff is the top of the vents here, which would be considered the, I don't think of my word at the moment, but the finials. Thank you. Finials. To be softened in that area of the ironwork that was being proposed. Otherwise, staff is in approval of this application, and I stand for questions. Thank you, Amanda, for that report. Can we look at the elevations that show the porch? That would be the courtyard, Madam Chair, or the second-floor terrace? The second floor. So this is the terrace from the courtyard elevation. The second floor, you can see there. Let me see if I can find you a different view of it, but there is the elevation. And this is from the courtyard looking up to the terrace. And the primary reason for these changes is for safety reasons, I would imagine? Yes, for safety and also to enclose the courtyard in order for the convention center to obtain the proper liquor licenses. They need to have that area enclosed as well. Thank you. Board members, do you have questions for Amanda at this point? We do not have questions. Do you come forward? Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record. Yep. Barbara Felix, 1828 Cristobal Lane, Santa Fe. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth, nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Is it possible to have this somewhere? No, it's a little, it might be a little more clear. It was a lot of drawings, so thank you for your patience in going through that. It's a complicated project, and it's huge. Okay. Good evening. Thank you so much for having me. I appreciate it. I hope you enjoyed your tour. This is a request that I think has been a long time coming from the Santa Fe Tourism Department. So obviously, the building, the Santa Fe Community Convention Center, is well-loved. It's beloved by visitors and the community alike. There is a request from the Tourism Department to be able to better utilize the terrace. Right now, it's very hot. Plants die in the planters. They're not able to do weddings or really do big activities upstairs or on that terrace level because it's just too hot and there are too many planters, honestly. The other thing is, as Amanda said, it's important that they have actually a secure, controlled environment in order to serve alcohol. And so that's one of the issues. So I'm not necessarily going to go through slides unless you have questions because I think they might be a little easier to see in this. However, I want to start with what the real desire is for security. So there's a desire to make the building and the surroundings safe for visitors and community members. As Amanda said, the ABC, the Alcoholic Beverage Control Center, requires controlled space. The historic problem has been that there have been homeless encampments on the roof. And while that happened previously when the old elevator, so if you look over here, I can see why you were going up and down now. Okay. So where there's this little elevator here and the elevator over by the Santa Fe Community Gallery, both of those used to be open. People used to just kind of sneak up there and then go on the roof. Once you're on the roof, it is a big building, and it's almost impossible to know anybody's on the roof because there's really no way to put cameras or security up there. So that's one of the issues. While they've closed those doors, people are still finding a way to climb trees, plants, various other things to get onto the roof. And obviously, I think with Saint Katz in the news, I think we're all concerned about making sure that we're protecting our buildings. We understand gates and fences are not to exceed eight feet per code, and okay, it's not obvious. The gates actually need to have panic hardware on them. That's because of the sheer number of people who are coming out of the building. So let me go to the first gate. Okay. So if you look at the gate in the lower right picture, part of the reason that we're doing that, not quite Art Deco, but that kind of black piece that are going in there with the hammered metal, is because the doors are going to need to have panic hardware. And what happens oftentimes with panic hardware when you have a gate is it's pretty easy for somebody to reach their hand around and or take a chain or a bicycle, something, throw it over the top, pull the panic hardware, and then you again have free rein inside the building. And so there are a lot of very unattractive gate hardware shields. And so this is our way of trying to make it a much more attractive thing, but still slow people down from actually opening that panic hardware. The other thing is we want to make, which is tricky, the wrought iron gates and fences approachable, but we also don't want people going over the top of them. And so Amanda was very kind when she called and said, "Could you please make the tops of the gates more friendly?" And I very quickly said, "We cannot," because we really are trying to keep people from climbing over the top of them. So I did bring a slightly larger detail of what that top piece is. And so if you look at the bottom right, you can see what we're trying to do is we're going to have a spike that's kind of going up. We're going to have that flat hammered piece that's kind of like a flower petal in the back, and then really we're going to have kind of a three-dimensional piece that's moving forward. So we didn't have that drawing when we went in with Amanda. And again, partly this is we wanted to be beautiful, we wanted to be Spanish style, we wanted to fit into the historic district and Santa Fe style in general, but we really do want to deter people from climbing the fence and going over the top. Okay. So Melanie is here with the Tourism Department. And because we also know, again, that the courtyard is beloved, I do believe that the Tourism Department is working on and trying to figure out operationally how they can keep the courtyard open during the day when there's staff on-site, and then close the building and close the gates at night when there is not anyone there. So moving on to the need for the terrace balcony and the canopy. Again, this is an idea to provide much-needed shade for visitors and guests while allowing for increased outdoor seating. So we were tasked with trying to find shaded covering for up to 200 guests, preferably wedding guests. And I don't, I've never been a bridezilla because I've never been a bride, but it's a challenge. And so part of this was how to make this gracious, welcoming, and that also ties into that monumental stair. Right now, for people to get to the second-floor balcony, people are, good, I'm going to go to this image for a second. So what is happening now is people are actually having to go out of the building through the, I'm on the second floor, underneath the port hall, down into the area with the shared lobby where the community gallery is, and then upstairs and out and around. It's a very circuitous route, and it's confusing for people who are trying to get up there. So again, the idea of the monumental stair in the courtyard was a way to make a much easier access for people who are renting that upstairs terrace to have access. The monumental stair is not meant for egress, so it does not need to meet egress codes. It is strictly an additional stair, and you all know Randy Randall. He thinks it's the perfect place for wedding photos, brides, bridesmaids standing on the staircase. The small catering storage area is really meant to be just that. If we have 200 people up there, they just need a place where they can kind of reheat food. It is not meant to be cooking. It is not meant to have grills. It is not meant to have anything. It really is kind of a catering kitchen. And honestly, that's partly why we're here, because when you add square footage in this historic district, it's an automatic, and you must go to the board. So here we are. Due to this proposed size of the canopy, which I realized was not on your drawings, so I apologize that I don't think you had dimensions. The canopy is front to back, 35 feet nine inches deep. And so side to side, so from east to west, it is 98 feet long. So it is a very large canopy. And then you have the 500-square-foot building to the right, the little storage facility. So the reason for doing the skylights at the back wall is so that we can get some daylight back into that space. We don't want to add heat because that's one of the things we're trying to work against, but we do want to get some daylight so it feels a little more open and bright in there. As Amanda said, the mechanical chimney that is near the northeast corner, kind of here in this back area. Can you see that? Oh, I guess you can. That's really about we don't have a lot of head height, and we also know it might be stale and stuffy in there. And so that the whole point of that chase is to actually draw air through so we can get air movement through that whole under area. Again, we've got the new fireplace that's going on, going in, which will be a gas fireplace. And then finally, the columns and the spacing, and why are we doing so few columns and such big columns? As I mentioned, this is a very large canopy, and as such, it needs to tie to the structure down below. And so the location of those eight columns tie to the eight columns that are down below. And in working with a structural engineer, we started with, "Hey, can we do wood?" And it was a full-on, flat-out, "Absolutely not." So it has to be steel. Again, the fire department also wants it steel because it's an outdoor area. It will be sprinklered. And as Amanda said, it is tied to the building because it is such a large structure. Again, we need to protect for lateral and wind loads. And then again, the wainscot color currently, as Amanda said, it's a colonial green, and we're changing it to kind of a more neutral brown to stay with the family of other colors on the building and to make it a little more acceptable to brides. And then finally, what really started this conversation with the Tourism Department, and I, you all were up there today, is the roof is failing underneath the concrete pavers. And so if they're going to have to take out the planters and all the pavers and redo that whole roof, it was an opportunity to think about what might work better for them in the future. So I stand for questions. For the applicant? Member Sippens. Miss Felix, does your office use 3D modeling software? We do. Just a comment. I know that you and I as architects can certainly understand orthographic drawings, but I know that perspective views really help laypeople. So just a suggestion, and I would like to actually expand this suggestion to land use staff that, when possible, it would really help the applications if we could get some 3D models, 3D renderings of projects. Not that that's a requirement, but I just wanted to make that comment, and I'm glad you do. I really think that this is a very good solution to the problem. I've been a member of a party that has hosted a three-day event at the convention center. I confirm that the alcohol service outside is a difficult problem, and I think that you're going to have a good solution to that. Certainly, the canopy on top is a good solution for weddings and things like that, and I appreciate the efforts that are being made with the CalWall skylight across that facade there. So I just wanted to make those comments. Thank you for those comments. Anyone else? Thank you, Madam Chair. Three-dimensional drawings on a project of this magnitude seem almost to be expected, to be honest with you. I mean, that's kind of disappointing not to see that. So, not sure why I chose not to, but this is a major addition to the structure, and it's going to have a big visual impact. So it would have been very helpful to see that, especially elevation drawings with this kind of a project, in a corner of a courtyard and with the various angles and so forth, it is difficult to visualize. So, I agree with that for the future. I'm more fixated on the details, which I guess is what the staff was also working with you on. To me, of course, you've got the large structure up above, but all of the gating is going to have a larger visual impact to the public. The public will largely even know about the inner courtyard issues, but the rest of it will be quite visible from quite a few public locations along that walkway that gets a tremendous amount of use from the parking garage, and then the gate that'll be visible from the street. I would love to see some more work done on those proposals. I completely understand your limitations that you're trying to work within, but I'm not really picking up exactly what the design element is really intending to refer to. I also thought it looked Art Deco, just as you had actually mentioned, and it's not clear to me why there would be Art Deco styling on this very traditional Santa Fe Pueblo-style building. So I would like to see that worked on, not just the finials, but also all of it, actually. I understand that you want some panels and not just open lattice work, but I think you could come up with a better solution to that that maybe is picking up from something somewhere else in Santa Fe. This seems more of a generic kind of Spanish style, maybe something you'd see in Spain, particularly, maybe in California and some other places, but it doesn't look like Santa Fe to me. And this, after all, is the Santa Fe Convention Center. So I would say of all buildings, this one really needs to be very specific because, as you know, our predecessors that developed all of our style guidelines were insistent that Santa Fe design was distinctive from Spanish colonial. That's a lot of the provisions in our code are specifically designed to say, "We're not Spanish colonial style. We are Northern New Mexico style." And this is really blurring that distinction in my mind. I mean, they're perfectly lovely designs. I just don't think that they are appropriate for a Santa Fe institutional building. So I would like to see, personally, a redesign of those elements with something that is distinctive to Santa Fe or picking up something else that's already existing in the building. And the columns, I find completely unacceptable. I know that, again, you have parameters that you're trying to work with, but they are so bizarre looking, these large stucco rectangles and then capped with wooden for no apparent reason, capped with the wooden corbels with sort of a gap in between, just makes no sense to me if I'm reading the drawings correctly. So I'm just wondering if there's not something that could be done to make those read much better and still solve the problems you're facing of having to be steel interiors. And, also, I know you're trying to run some water drainage along those. So I'd love to see a redesign of those as well as all of the wrought iron elements. Thank you. Your comments. Anyone else? Anybody else has comment or the comments at this point? I do thank both of you for your comments. I tend to agree with you, and I think for a project this size that we really need to see a lot more, comments that you made, Manuel Simmons, and that you agreed with, but it would be really very helpful when a project such as this one comes before us that you see something in more detail, more 3D that you can really visualize. And, I think that would be very helpful. Let me see if anybody in the public has comments. Anybody online? Stephanie Benonato. I really question the need for such a big canopy on the second floor. I think it will be visually very impactful. I understand the need to somehow accommodate weddings, but I don't know. It seems like we're selling out to commercial use when it's a community convention center. And, yeah, I'm sure there's some people from the community who want to get married there perhaps. But, again, it just seems overkill. I totally agree with member BMB NU's comments on the gates. First of all, it's going to have a huge visual impact across that courtyard. I'm happy they want to keep them open during the day, but it does look very Art Deco and does not look at all like Santa Fe style. And I also just want to point out that on Burro Alley, you approved, and this isn't really a different case, but you approved gates because they had to have it for liquor control purposes, and yet they always keep those gates open. So I wonder how vigilant the convention center will be in keeping them closed when there are events. And then my other concern is the lights, the sconces, because it doesn't seem that they have caps on the top. And, again, there's so much problem with light pollution here where it faces downward. It's true. It's not going straight out, but it does go up. And unless it's under a portal, those lights, unless they have a cap on the top, are going to go up, and they will affect the dark skies, and we are supposed to be observing that. So thank you. Alright. Thank you, Stephanie. Anyone else? Any further comments or questions? Member Simmons. I have some further comments about just what the purpose of this board is, and it seems sometimes that, at least to me, that there's kind of a sense that we're judges in a beauty contest, and I don't really think that that's what our job is. I really appreciate the effort that's gone into these gates. I've had to design security gates, and you can't believe how difficult it is, especially with a panic device in there because it is so easy to open those gates. I appreciate the effort that Ms. Felix has gone into, and I don't share the opinion that we should label a style as Art Deco. It definitely looks Spanish style to me. I mean, this was part of New Spain, so I don't see that there's such a divergence there. I would like to advocate that our architects who are very talented in this town and the owners who really understand what their building program needs to be, to be given a lot more leeway in their design. And I don't know that it's really appropriate, in my personal opinion, that we get into the details of things. I think that it's an appropriate solution that they've evolved, and I think it solves the security problem. I think that anything that they come back with is going to have the similar density to it. It's going to have a simpler complexity to it, and I just don't think that we should get into arguing one way or back and forth against the other. I think if the convention center and the tourist bureau are in agreement with these gates and fences, I think that we should allow them to do that. I also think that the columns that are up on, that are supporting this new roof are hardly visible from even the courtyard, that that step way back. It certainly meets the criteria of making it, I want to use the word subservient. That's not the right word. Subordinate to the main structure. I think that the visual impact of this canopy roof is hardly going to be noticed. And, so I just wanted to go on record with that opinion. Any other opinions or comment? A few comments and questions. Just to confirm, the canopy posts are steel, but they are clad in wood, so they appear wood or no? They're the posts are steel. They're clad in roughly two-foot by two-foot stucco columns at the bottom. We originally did not have the wood corbels. We just had the steel, the stucco columns going further up. Staff actually recommended that we add the wood corbels in order to make it feel more appropriate to what was going on downstairs. So the very top above the stucco between the stucco and the wood and the steel beams is the wood corbel and then the wood the beam is wrapped in wood. Okay. And the they are the same on the canopy and downstairs on the courtyard? What is the same? Oh, sorry. The post structure. The columns. Sorry. So the columns are lined up with the structure inside the building down below. They are not lined up with the wood portals that are on the first floor. That we couldn't make that work. Right. Okay. And then the gating system that's on the east side of the courtyard, sorry. Are those posts already in place where you're acting at? No. Those are the existing wood posts with the corbels. That's all existing. We're just coming in between those. Okay. Thank you. And then with the gates, is the passage from the parking garage through to three, is that maintained? Can people still walk from the street here through to the parking garage? Yes. Yeah. Hold on. Let us get that plan up. So if you look at this drawing and you look where the number three is here in the corner, that's the location for the proposed gate. So this is the covered portal here that people can still walk. Yes. Okay. Thank you. And then in terms of the 3D, I think it's a valid point, and we had many 3D renderings. Staff didn't really like them. Tourism didn't really like them, so you didn't get to see them. They thought it looked scary in 3D. So, yeah. And then just one last question about the detail. The color, the green wainscoting has been replaced with brown uniformly on the entire building? No. Because there's only on the terrace level. And is it sorry. Is there green below or elsewhere on the building? I thought there is blue and terracotta. Please state your name and address for the record. Melanie Moore, 530 Juniper Drive, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501. 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. Please proceed. The convention center has a palette of colors under the portal. I believe it is a colonial green, moody blue, red brick. So on Grant, there's red brick. On Marcy, there's a red brick. Once you come into the Convention Center Courtyard, it is a colonial green. And then on the second floor of the terrace is the colonial green. And then here on the Eastport Hall, it is the blue. And so my understanding is that our architect is recommending that we on the terrace, we change the colonial green, so just only on the second level to the more neutral brown, not only for weddings, but just for any event up there. I mean, it is appealing for any social event. I would just like to say that a theory behind this plan was to create a connection from the second-floor terrace to the courtyard because I can think of one or two events in the history of my time there, which is now 17 years, where we had an event down in the courtyard that was also connected to what was happening on the rooftop. And for any guest to go to the roof, they are going through a wind, they are going up the elevators. It is just very disconnected. So we have long felt that a staircase in the courtyard would connect the spaces and that it would be more appealing for any sort of client that may want to have a social event. We have many memorials up there. It is a very lovely private space, and it is significantly unused. It is used under the shaded area, but it is never used in the exposed area due to the exposure. I don't stand for any other questions if you have them at this time. We're coming on the lot, iron. I know. So, to your point, Mr. Bienvenu, when the elder fathers of Santa Fe style developed Santa Fe style, there were many, many, many craftsmen. There are many less craftsmen today and significantly less even since COVID. So I worked on La Fonda in 2017. I had access to wrought iron workers, wood carvers, stonemasons. Most of those companies are gone. Either they have retired because they were older, or they didn't survive COVID, or they didn't survive the 2008 something or other. And so the drawings that were developed, I actually did with a wrought iron worker, and this is his comment: "This is a huge wrought iron job." He's not sure anyone in the state is actually even capable of doing it because he doesn't think there's capacity. And so, to your point, part of the reason we did not draw all of these on every elevation is because, one, I wanted some feedback. And to be clear, staff was adamant that it be wrought iron. So that's fine. But the reality is part of the gate design, and to Joe's, Mr. Simmons' point about the panic hardware, we're going to have to work with an arts person. We're going to have to work with the craftsman who's actually doing this. So I am giving you what I am hoping these gates look like and this fence looks like, but the reality is I don't do wrought iron. And there's not a lot of people left in the state who do. So we're going to end up working with an artist to craft something that is as authentic as we can get it. That's what I can promise you. Can we look at that again, the wrought iron? Both the extended gate area and smaller gate. I want to start with this. And if you can talk to us a little more about it. So I want to start with this one because what you see on the right, that is our, that's really where we'd like to head. That's our preferred area. That's where we started. And then we realized, "Oh, we're going to need to have a shield for the panic hardware." And how do we do that? Is that a lot of little wrought iron pieces? Is that a lot more curlicues? And the reality is somebody can still get something through that to actually pull those bars, which is why we ended up with kind of those fan patterns. Because really, the owner and we really like this fan pattern in general. So we're just trying to fill those in. So this is really what we're trying to get to. And then you, which is what is along this whole east side. And then you can see where we have the gates, you can see that we've kind of infilled that piece because that's where the panic hardware is going to be. The reality is we're going to end up with something potentially more like that second gate. So this then was the next iteration of how do we, at the gate where we have panic hardware, start to block access to somebody being able to reach through and around. So this is that same gate. It's the same pattern that you saw in the last one, but now it has more elements added to it in order to start to block that access. So we only see using this literally where we have the four gates that are operable. And are these all black or do they have color? No, it's wrought iron. So it would be... But just dull. Well, so it's not painted black. Wrought iron is that really great modeled hammered steel, which catches the light because there's a little silver, there's a little gray, there's a little black, but it is not a continuous solid black. I actually think it could be quite lovely. And truthfully, there is a steel painted panel that is inside the courthouse, the courtyard, on the south wall that's hiding an electrical panel that's painted. It's very contemporary. It looks like it's wood, but it's metal. And we started with that with staff of, "Hey, can we do this?" And that was a hard no because, again, the standards call for wrought iron in this district. Hi. Thanks. So this gate, I'm just curious. It has scrolls. So this is what you went to. So this has scrolls as opposed to the other doesn't. And I know it's kind of a moving target right now with artisan and capabilities and things like that. But would your intent be for this to be the only one with those scrolls? Or because this to me seems like a pretty good hybrid of the design you've got, and then the scrolls add a touch of wrought iron that typically was produced in shops around here. So, I thank you. It's a good question, and I think we may end up at a hybrid of this. Because, again, it depends what the shops can do and, honestly, the capability. I mean, I think we all know Christopher Thompson up in Pecos. He used to be a huge shop. He's two people now. So, you would think that would end up probably more in this direction than in the facade where you're showing the no scrolls, like, on the east facade? Yes. And if you all say we don't like the scrolls, we want it simpler, then we'll try to simplify the scrolls. But I like the scrolls. But the solid pieces, we need. Anything further, board members? Oh, I did have another question. Yes, for sharing. Just about lighting. I mean, I would imagine there was a comment brought up about the night sky lighting. I imagine that would be addressed in the regular city code. But my other question was with what appears to be the festoon lighting, it looks a little bit like laser beams on the... Is it, is it my inter... I just want to make sure I'm interpreting that right. Is that like a fest, like a kind of an LED strip festoon light that you've got in the lighting proposal for underneath the... Yes. Albeit, much sexier than that. So the idea is it's not a drooping, like, it's not a sagging light. It's a, it's a solid light that would actually go... Like a lighted cable kind of? Correct. And it is meant to kind of be in, kind of a bit of a cross pattern to actually add some interest. And again, they're all going to be on dimmers because this is an area that we know is going to be used by community members, right, wedding park, whoever is renting that space. So it's meant to be kind of the sparkle light. I mean, ideally, we would have put 10 chandeliers under there, but we literally don't have the head height. So we needed to get something in there that was actually a little more sparkly and sexy than just the downlights that we have. Is it, is it underneath the canopy? Like, I mean, you're going to visibility of the canopy. I imagine you'll see some of it from underneath, but... But you shouldn't on the courtyard. But you shouldn't be able to. Okay. And the reason I'm saying that is because, whoops. So if a person is standing down here at courtyard level, right, you're looking up and, okay, you might be able to see an edge of it, but the reality is that lighting is up between these beams. Right? So you shouldn't be able to see it. As for Ms. Benonato's comment, the sconces are on the face of these large columns, and so they're lighting up to the underside of this. They're not lighting up into the square. Yeah. So they're, they're under the, those lights are under the portal, and the festoon lighting isn't extending under those eaves. It is not. In between the columns. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. I'd like to make a clarification if I can. So the renderings that were submitted were submitted with the initial application. And then when the final application was made, the renderings were not a part of that application. So staff didn't hold that from the board. It was the initial application. So we're clear. It was the initial application, not the application after staff requested changes. So if these steel beams are going to be what color? They will be painted the same color as the wood beams and the, and the wood. So they're, they're meant to disappear and look like wood. There's just so many of them. It would be cost prohibitive to one, clad them in wood, and it would be a maintenance. I don't know how it would ever stay ahead of it. They both have enough question, and someone's ready to make a motion. I, I have one more question. Sorry. Yes. The, the blocks of wood between the corbels and the posts, or is there a, there is a, there is a small, I don't know if it's a block of wood or what is between the top of the corbel or the bottom of the corbel and the top of the post. I'm pulling that up, member, member Cherry. One moment. And this is on the second floor? It's, it's called out as, "round tapered wood post." Looking at E2 on 300. Is that a, is that a, serving a purpose, or is it stylistic, purely stylistic? What is, what serving a purpose? The round tapered wood, there's, there's the bottom of the corbel. This is the corbel, and this is the wood that is covering the steel beam. I'm talking about the bottom of the corbel between the bottom of the corbel and the top of the column. Right here? Yeah. I think it was really the, I, I don't think. Part of the reason for doing that was so we were creating the illusion that there was a wood column coming out of the top of the stucco post. Because you see that all over Santa Fe, right, where you have a low wall and then you have the wood post coming out and then you have the corbel. Again, do we need that? I don't know. Is, I was just curious if there were some functionality to it or if it were... There, there is stylistic, gotcha. It's, it's stylistic, and it's to mimic the top of a column that's coming up and kind of tapering. Yeah. As it hits the bottom side of the corbels. Okay. Thanks. Yes. I think further to ask or say, a motion is in order. I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion, even though I think it might be a minority, but I'm, I'm going to move in case 20260120012703 HD Area 21 East Marcy Street to postpone to the next available meeting date to permit us to see the 3D renderings, as well as a redesign of all of the wrought iron gate work and fencing, as well as the stuccoed columns and corbels consistent with the concerns expressed tonight. Is there a second to the solution? Do you have a local vote? Vice Chair Bienvenu? Yes. Member Simmons? Member Beachhead? Yes. Member Cherry? Yes. And Member Dignan? Yes. I'm sure the motion carries. Okay. I shall see you next time. Thank you. Okay. That was the last case this evening. Staff, anything under discussion? I do. Under discussion terms. Yeah. Nothing? Okay. Anything matters from the board? I have something quickly. Remember that group that came before us, the Wildland Urban Interface Group that came to talk to us about wildfires in historic districts, what we picked best due to incorporate materials that would help with, help in the historic districts to alleviate the, help with fire. And what is this? Remember the night that we had in the second mother's house? Probably for us when you all play for a street. Anyway, they came before us. It was a long presentation, 26. Anyway, I don't think I was here. I think I was, oh, maybe you were. I think I was, I've only been absent twice since I've been on the board, so that must have been one of the nights. Sorry. Yeah. How are you doing? My apologies. Anyway, so a group has been formed, a steering committee group, and myself and member Simmons are part of that group. And so, this group is suggesting certain things that be incorporated into a rewrite of the ordinance. And I'm sure that that will come down to everybody for your reviews. I just want to make you aware of what's going on because they are making suggestions about certain specifics, such as what are the specifics in members and help indicate other specifics perhaps. But one of them that I remember was, if you're going to plant anything, you have to plant it X number of feet from your house. That was one of them, which was about, I think, five feet from your house. And I don't know if I kept thinking about this. Yeah. Do you want to incorporate this into the ordinance itself, or do you want to have some idle? So it's to help in fire hardening guidelines for historic in particular? Yeah. Okay. Therefore, and they were emphasizing, actually, they emphasized all of the historic areas, but I think their main emphasis is areas where you have homes, historic homes, where there's a lot of vegetative growth. So that should, as I remember that conversation, it was, there was a lot of, it was excluded in the in-town, the urban parts of the historic district, but it's more applicable to the, what's the term we use here? The, or the slopes where there's, where there's a lot more natural vegetation, where that's, and that's where the wildland urban, urban wildland interface code really comes into. It doesn't really apply into the urban areas because it's just the conditions are different. But, but it is true that they were talking about, in those areas, not, not to exclude plantings, but to be mindful of the types of plantings that don't contribute fuel load to it. And I, I do agree that the more that we can deal with guidelines rather than prescriptive rules, it's just going to be a lot easier to interpret individual cases. You know, they did talk about using wood windows. You know, now I, I kind of draw the line there. I just don't think that the, that the wood muntins in a window are going to be contributing that much to a, to a fire. You know, if there's a, a, the way the fire department guys explained to me, the biggest problem with a fire is radiant heat, that if you have a raging fire that's 50 feet away from your house, it's going to catch all the furniture in the house on fire through the windows. It, it doesn't have to be right there. We had a very similar presentation at an AIA luncheon with, it's one of the fellows who was on in on the, the meeting. The, the fire department guy, I don't remember his name, one of the things that he brought up, and I think he brought it up again in that seminar that we're in, that one of the things the fire department hates is coyote fences coming right up to the house. You know, coyote fence, once it catches fire, that's a significant amount of fuel load that, that can, that can affect something. So they just were suggesting that, you know, for five feet away from the house, make it a little stucco wall. Then that way you can bring the, the thing like that up too. So, some of the things that I remember about that, about that meeting. I would just say that those don't seem specific to the historic districts for me. That, you know, I think that that's great that the code would, would adopt some of those concepts, but I don't see anything in our historic code section that would prevent that. So, but you just, I don't see how they would. I mean, I just don't know why we would be in the, the business of prescribing to people in the historic districts that type of detail if it weren't otherwise just required for anyone building within the city. And the bigger issue from a preservation standpoint is if you plant plants up against the house, then you got to water them. And if you're watering a rubble trench foundation, it's, or any kind of foundation, therefore, it's just not a good idea from a preservation standpoint. But it's just so, so off track from what we as a board are delegated to, to make decisions upon, in my opinion. That's just a, that's just general preservation practice, but we're, we just decide whether or not a structure fits the, you know, the style that's set forth in the code. Bob's available within the, within the, the districts or away from in the areas where they're talking about. Yeah, but really, Joe, they included the areas within the city, not just the, maybe the emphasis was put more on areas where vegetative growth occurred. The only thing I'm talking about, I would just say that if they're, if they're, if they identified something in our historic preservation ordinance chapter that they thought was actually in opposition to best practices for fire prevention, so that we were actually requiring people to do something that was dangerous, then I think they should point that out. That's the only thing I think would, that would be relevant to our work and our code. I wouldn't want our code. I, I would agree with that, and then I would, I would think it would be up to staff to guide us on what takes precedent because I think that often becomes an issue when permitting. Is, is there, you know, you have a land use code and you have a historic code, and sometimes they conflict, and it's unclear. Okay, well, which one takes precedent if they do conflict? Well, oftentimes, when there are, well, one of the things that they started out with complimenting us is that we go a long way towards fire prevention with stucco and even on frame construction, and it really is. I mean, you know, the, it's, it's so easy to even make a one-hour wall, fire-rated wall with, with our typical construction that we, that we do here. So, I mean, we go a long way already with, with fire, with preventing fires just by the, just the construction technology that we use. I know that the insurance companies are leading the charge with roofing now because, I, I got a call from a builder that I'm working with out in Las Campanas that his insurance company is mandating that they put a non-combustible protection board right below the roof membrane even though the code currently doesn't require it now. It's going to catch up. But I do want to, I mean, I, I remember seeing a map in that seminar where there was a grayed-out area there that, that where the principal part of the city occupies. The code that they're talking about is called the wild, the urban wildland interface, and I've dealt with this a lot in Colorado dealing with, constructing houses in the mountains. I did a house for a guy up here in Evergreen where he had to take down every single tree within 50 feet of his house. Now that Colorado has gone further beyond that standard code. Sure. It's being driven by so many people having houses in the mountains that are dealt with with volunteer fire departments that, you know, once a fire gets started, I mean, there was a fire near Pueblo, Colorado that they lost 280 houses. It's, it's, it's, well, for sure. Yeah. I'm sure it's, they're dictating, come in and cut this or, yeah. Send. But, yeah. Yeah, I think the, I think the only, the, yep. Yeah. The only way they're going to apply is if the city adopts some fire hardening code that conflicts with our code, and then we need to know, then we need to know how, how, what, what takes precedent. Well, the, the, I think the wall, I think the wall, I think, I think the wall example that Joe brought up could. Right? If we've got a structure that we're not allowed to attach a wall, oftentimes, we detach the wall. Right, and then easy from, from a, a structure, right, that has that, that has, that, that came up on that Canyon Road with the gate where they had attached, they had built the wall and they attached it to the contributing structure with that. And, and so we required them, I believe, to remove the attachment from the structure. Well, if, if you're going to want, which I think is a good idea, to do five feet of wall beforehand, that conflicts with the code because we're saying historic is saying you can't connect it to the building. Fire code might be saying, well, you can't, you can't use a coyote fence within five. Say that becomes the fire hardening code. Then there would be a, that would be an example of a potential conflict. And then there'd have to be, there'd have, yeah. Exactly. I agree with you. Yeah. If, if there are conflicts, it's going to be in it, it's going to be in the details. Next. I'd be happy to, Heather. Here, Rios. I, I forgot to bring up under discussion items. We're going to be interviewing. We have about two weeks to go on the advertisement for the historic preservation manager, and they're, we're going to be conducting interviews. And, although you would not be asking interview questions, I would like a couple of board members to be present and discuss afterward, you know, the, the candidates. And I got two volunteers, Joe and, and Mariela Degnan. So, if somebody, we will probably record the interviews and maybe give you all the opportunity to take a look at those as well. Yeah, I'd, I'd be happy to participate as well with that meeting. If, if, and typically, they're virtual meetings. So, what we could do, at least the first round, is possibly just have y'all join virtually in the background. We can have a quorum, but those who are interested, as long as we don't have a quorum, you know, are welcome to. Select. You would probably want to be clear, though, about exactly what role you're expecting board members to play in that process because that is a personnel matter that there may be some interesting input, but you'd probably want to have some separation from final decision-making. Yes, it would just be the deliberations. And for instance, you know, in terms of historic preservation knowledge and, and all of that, it's good to get afterward, after the interview, to get some perspective from the board members as to the candidates. That's great. Good. I have one more apology to make. I've been on this board for three months, and I've missed three meetings already. And I'm have to apologize because I'm not going to be here for the next meeting. I'm going to be on vacation. I promise I won't ever get sick again. Right? Thank you. That's a good promise. Yeah. Where are you going? That sounds like fun. I'm not going to be here for this at the meeting in August. Okay. So noted. Next meeting is July 28th, and looks like Amanda wants to say something. Did you know? Like, good night. So noted that member Simmons won't miss any other hearings than the next hearing. And member Rios will be out the second, or excuse me, Chair Rios will be out the second hearing in August and as well as member Bishaid, second hearing in August. We're not going to. Move, move to adjourn. Oh, all those in favor say woof. Yes. Alright.