Historic Districts Review Board Meeting Tue, Jan 27, 2026 · Historic Districts Review Board https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/1171 == Executive Summary == The Historic Design Review Board (HDRB) meeting covered a range of topics, including the approval of an amended agenda and a finding of fact. A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to the revised design of the Executive Office Building at 130 South Capital, with discussions focusing on its massing, height, and adherence to design standards. The board also addressed several historic property status reviews and applications for additions and window replacements, often leading to debates about the interpretation of historic preservation guidelines and city codes. Key decisions included approving the revised plans for the state's Executive Office Building, provided no substantive design changes are made without board review. The board also designated the historic status of several properties, including a multi-part building at 924 Peralta, where different sections received varying designations (significant vs. contributing). A controversial height exception request for 600 Camino Rancheros was denied, while a window replacement project at 801 Old Santa Fe Trail failed to pass due to differing interpretations of "in kind" replacement. The meeting concluded with the approval of a pergola built without a permit, contingent on its relocation to meet setback requirements, and a postponement of another case. == Key Decisions == - Approved the amended agenda. - Approved the Finding of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Case 2025-10488-HDRB. - Passed a motion (3-1) finding no remaining unresolved issues with the state's revised plans for the Executive Office Building (130 South Capital Street), with the condition that no substantive design changes occur without prior notice and review. - Passed a motion (4-0) for 212 and 212A East Santa Fe Avenue: primary residence designated 'contributing,' north facade and front portions of east/west facades as primary; 212A (altered garage) designated 'non-contributing'; front yard wall designated 'contributing'. - Passed a motion to designate the main residence and garage at 310 Lomita Street as 'contributing,' with specific primary facades (R1, R2, R3, R8 for house; G1 for garage). - Passed a motion (3-1) to designate specific facades as primary (R1, R2, R3, R4, R6, R7, R8, and G1) for a property. - Passed a motion (4-0) to designate the structure at 411 Camino D Miguel as 'non-contributing'. - Passed a motion (3-1) for 924 Peralta: Rapp House designated 'significant' (all facades primary); service wing designated 'contributing' (east face primary, excluding non-historic alterations); workshop area designated 'contributing' (east facade primary). - Approved the proposed addition at 516 Alto Street (4-0). - Denied the height exception application for 600 Camino Rancheros (3-1). - Approved the Hotel St. Francis remodel at 210 Dongaspar Avenue (4-0). - Approved the window replacement, restucco, and repairs at 726 Galisteo Street (3-1). - Approved the retroactive permit for 330 Gormley Lane (3-1), conditioned on the pergola being moved to meet setback requirements. - Postponed Case 2026-011770 HDRB (302 Camino Certo) to the next meeting (4-0). == Motions & Votes == - Approval of Amended Agenda — Passed (Aye) - Approval of Finding of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Case 2025-10488-HDRB — Passed (Aye) - Motion that the board finds no remaining unresolved issues with the state's revised plans for 130 South Capital Street, provided the state does not make substantive design changes without prior notice and review, reserving the board's right to invoke procedural safeguards if changes occur — Passed 3-1 - Motion for 212 and 212A East Santa Fe Avenue: primary residence 'contributing,' north facade and front portions of east/west facades as primary; 212A (altered garage) 'non-contributing'; front yard wall 'contributing' — Passed 4-0 - Motion to designate the main residence and garage at 310 Lomita Street as 'contributing,' with specific primary facades (R1, R2, R3, R8 for house; G1 for garage) — Passed (Vote count not specified, but motion was made) - Motion to designate specific facades as primary (R1, R2, R3, R4, R6, R7, R8, and G1) for a property — Passed 3-1 - Motion to designate the structure at 411 Camino D Miguel as 'non-contributing' — Passed 4-0 - Motion for 924 Peralta: Rapp House 'significant' (all facades primary); service wing 'contributing' (east face primary, excluding non-historic alterations); workshop area 'contributing' (east facade primary) — Passed 3-1 - Motion to approve the proposed addition at 516 Alto Street — Passed 4-0 - Motion to deny the height exception application for 600 Camino Rancheros — Passed 3-1 - Motion to approve the Hotel St. Francis remodel at 210 Dongaspar Avenue — Passed 4-0 - Motion to approve the window replacement, restucco, and repairs at 726 Galisteo Street — Passed 3-1 - Motion to adopt the staff recommendation for window replacement at 801 Old Santa Fe Trail, finding all exception criteria met and approving the project as submitted — Failed 2-3 - Motion to approve the retroactive permit for 330 Gormley Lane, conditioned on the pergola being moved to meet setback requirements — Passed 3-1 - Motion to postpone Case 2026-011770 HDRB (302 Camino Certo) to the next meeting — Passed 4-0 == Public Comment == Stephanie Denonato raised concerns about the progress of a bridge near the Supreme Court building and criticized staff approval of a highly visible, unscreened HVAC system at 300 Galisto Street, arguing it violated screening guidelines. She also expressed disappointment with a previous demolition decision and questioned the influence of the Old Santa Fe Association. Jordan Young criticized the public comment process as inefficient and biased, advocating for administrative approval by an architect. Other commenters, including Beverly Spears and Frank Katz, strongly opposed the proposed height of the Executive Office Building, citing miscalculations and lack of collaborative process. Stephanie Benonato consistently provided comments on various cases, often supporting staff recommendations for historic designations, questioning hardship criteria for large additions, and expressing concern over the neglect of historic properties and the impact of incremental changes to primary facades. The applicant for 411 Camino D Miguel disputed comments about the property's condition, stating they bought it as-is and are a carpenter. The Stuart Compound Condominium Association also expressed concerns regarding the unpermitted work at 330 Gormley Lane. == Topics == - Executive Office Building Project - Agenda Changes and Approval - Staff Communications - Public Concerns - Bridge Progress - Public Concerns - Staff Approvals - Pergola and Portal Retroactive Approval - Story Poles Requirement - Roll Call and Quorum - Findings of Fact Approval - Public Comment Procedure - Appeal Process - 720-728 Galasteo Street Approval - Meeting Adjournment == Full Transcript == We are live. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to this meeting of the Historic Districts Review Board. Today is January 27th, 2026. May we have a roll call, please? Chair: Madam Chair Rios. Rios: Here. Chair: Vice Chair Bianuil. Bianuil: Here. Chair: Member B. B: Here. Chair: Member Cherry. Cherry: Here. Chair: Member Dagnet. Dagnet: Here. Chair: Member Agular Madrono. Agular Madrono: Excused. Chair: Thank you, ma'am. You have a quorum. Thank you very much. Are there any changes to the agenda? Yes, Chair Rios. Under new business, item E, 2025-011246-HDRB, 532 Kaya Cororville, has been postponed. Also, item G, 2025-011550-HDRB, 539 Garcia Street, has been postponed at the request of the applicant. Any other changes? No, Chair Rios. Is there a motion to approve the agenda as just amended? Move to approve the agenda. Second. All those in favor say "Aye." Aye. Opposed say "No." Thank you. We do not have any minutes this time, and we have one finding of fact, conclusions of law, and that is for case 2025-10488-HDRB. Changes to this particular case? Anyone? No changes. A motion, please, to approve. Motion to approve. Move approval. All those in favor say "Aye." Aye. Say "No." Matters from the public. Is there anyone in this room or on Zoom that would like to address the board in reference to HDRB matters? Anyone on Zoom? Yes, Chair Rios. I see one hand raised right now. Miss Stephanie Benonato. I will allow you to talk. Unmute yourself, please. State your name. Stephanie Denonato. Can you hear me? Barely. Okay. I'll try to talk a little louder. It says that my reception was... Okay, good. I just want to again ask about the bridge by the Supreme Court building and what is its progress status? I understood there was a subcommittee of two that was on the board that was going to be reporting back about it. I haven't heard anything. And I also understand from looking at legislation that it's often that capital improvement projects are extended. So the whole fear of, "Oh, we're going to lose the funding," was actually not an accurate statement by the consultants, the engineer, or your staff member. So I do wonder what is happening with that. And then the other thing I wanted to bring to your attention, which is always a concern for me, is staff approval. So at 300 Galisto Street, which is right across from the river park, there is a huge HVAC system that is totally visible from at least two sides. And I talked to Mr. Mochino maybe a month ago now, and I haven't gotten back to you. I was in a truck bike accident, me being on the bike, and so have had serious injury. But I was told by Mr. Mochino at the time that this was a staff approval for that HVAC. And it amazes me that your staff doesn't know that you want these things screened from the street. And there it is. It's at least three or more feet tall. It's extremely visible, and it really detracts from that building. So, again, my concern is having the staff have so much authority without actually following the guidelines that the board has clearly established over years and years. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else on Zoom, Maggie? Yes, Chair Rios. I don't see any additional hands raised. Okay. Thank you very much. Staff communications. It's back to you, Maggie or Gary. Yes, Chair Rios. We do have a couple of them. I'll do a couple, and then Amanda will do the other one. One matter is Amanda Mathers will no longer be on the HDRB board. She has resigned. So, yeah, that's one of them. And these cases, just want to FYI the board, is that these cases going forward today will be under the old codes. The next meetings will probably be going under the new codes, depending on when the applicants were submitted. But if a case starts under the old code, will it continue under the old code? Correct. Okay. Thank you. And are you going to tell us anything about the preservation awards, or Amanda? Hi, uh, uh, Member Chair Rios and members of the board. I'm going to follow up a little bit on what Gary said about Member Mather. So, we want to wish her the best of luck also, but we do have a historian position open that you can email HPD submit with a resume, and we're always looking for recommendations for that. So, I will move forward to the next item, is the 2026 Heritage Preservation Award. And you will receive nomination forms in your packets. If you could submit your nominations by February 27th, 2026, and the preservation awards will be on May 21st. If you have any questions. Thank you. Member D. Miss Mario, what is the venue? Where will it be held? It will still be held at the San Miguel Chapel, and the reception will be at El Zaguan. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Any other questions? Normal 5:30. Thank you, Amanda. It appears there are no other questions. So, is there anything further that staff wants to let us know about? Not at this present time, Madam Chair. Thank you. We will move on to old business, and in reference to cases this evening, if you disagree with the decision this board renders, you do have the option to appeal. You would be appealing to the City Council. And I would suggest that you get together with staff, city staff, because there are constraints that you have to meet. Okay, with that being said, we will move on to the first case, and that is case 2025-011586-HDRB, located at 130 South Capital. This is the capital outlay project, the Executive Office Building. Thank you, Madam Chair. If you could go ahead and put the podium. Thank you. So, I will go ahead and turn this over to the state representative to go ahead and give the presentation, and then staff will add a comment thereafter. Okay, that is okay. And yes, we have Miss Jennifer Jenkins online. She's joining us as a panelist and can proceed with the presentation. And I just want to say something before the presentation starts. This evening, we have, in addition to this case, we have a total of 12 cases. And at the last board meeting, we were here till, I think I got home about quarter to 2:00 in the morning. We do not want to repeat that this evening. But we do want to give due process to every applicant. And so, Jennifer Jenkins, if you are listening to me, if you can make your comments to the point, and I would suggest that all members that are going to comment, please do so, and you will have a two-minute limit to speak. And Mariah, can you help me with that? The two-minute limit, if you can raise your hand or blow a whistle or do something. Good evening, Chair Rios and commissioners. Is it, I am joining remotely this evening as I am out of town. Is this the time for me to get started? Yes, please. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Rios and board members. Can I go ahead and swear her in real quick? Yes, please. Will you please state your name and address for the record? Jennifer Jenkins, 130 Grant Avenue. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you, ma'am. She's been sworn in, Chair. Great. Thank you. I'm Jennifer Jenkins with Jenkins Gavin, here this evening on behalf of the State of New Mexico. And I want to start just by thanking staff and the board for the very thoughtful comments we received at this hearing a couple of weeks ago. And we are pleased to present some modifications that we have made to the design in response to those comments. So, I am going to ask a member of the design team who is there with you in person to go ahead and come forward, and we're just going to go over them briefly. They are, I believe all the information is in your packet, but we just, we're going to just touch on them briefly to address those changes, and then we'll be happy to stand for questions. Will you please state your name and address for the record? 3131. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Thank you very much. Okay, Chair Rios, board. Thanks for having us back again tonight. We have put together a presentation for you. I believe you've seen it already, but we're going to use just four slides tonight to show you the changes to the building based on the suggestions that we heard at the last board meeting. So we'll start with the east elevation. One of the comments was made at the southeast corner of the building, that you felt that the administration on that corner was oversized, and it needed to reflect more of the openings on the tower that's on the north side of the building. So you see we've reduced the size of the openings. We've separated the third floor from the lower floor. So it's a little, we just reduced the size again on all of the openings. One of the comments was pediments on the opening. So we've added pediments to all of the windows. We addressed the single-story comment, wanted more single-story elements on the street. So the portal, we've added a roof on that. So that's reflecting the single-story element that was requested without compromising the square footage of the building itself. And then the windows on that east facade, we've reduced, you see the version before that's down in the bottom right-hand corner of the screen. So we've reduced that size quite a bit. Let's see. Oh, and one general comment. We are at one stucco color now. You requested that. No, no stucco colors. Moving around a little bit. Let's see. Additional comments, that the ground floor windows did not go to the floor. So we have added that, we've raised that index three feet from the finished floor. So we no longer have the windows going all the way to the floor. Moving around to the north elevation, again, pediments at the windows. We responded to the rhythm of the windows on the second floor. Those are a little not as clear as they are now. They're a little more aligned with the second floor windows and respecting the column grid lines. Again, it was mentioned that the cupola hadn't really been detailed enough. So, added a little more detail to that. This is just a little closer view of that cupola. And then we show where the windows above the entry, it was reflected that those are too small. So we enlarged those. Again, a general comment, no horizontal expression of the windows. So all of the muntins are full of vertical and horizontal. And I believe that is... Will we open it up to viewing? Thank you. Of course, this building is very large, and can you tell us how this building is going to relate in terms of its 160-plus square foot and its height to the surrounding buildings? Most of the buildings, and you guys jump in anytime you want to. I also have Ted Grumblat and Antonio V. Hill here with the FPT team. So, but we've all been working on this. So we all have something to say. All the buildings around it are mainly two and three-story masses. So we feel like the massing of this building responds to those. Right up against the parking structure has quite a bit of stepping on it. So we've tried to break down the massing to do just what I said there. With the single-story portals that have roofs over them, two-story entry element, and so as you move around the building, you'll see a lot of massing changes on the building, and that's how... Is it your opinion that this building relates to human scale? Yes, we are also set back from Capitol Street quite a bit. So there's quite a pedestrian plaza in front that's going to be very pedestrian. Again, anytime you have a portal that's covered, very pedestrian. We think the landscaping is very lush and responds to the landscaping of Santa Fe. So that's another area. On the south side, we have a lot of pedestrian courtyards and things for the music of the building itself. So yes, we do feel like >> Thank you. Board members, do you have any other comments or questions for the applicant at this time? >> Member Benu. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. So, thank you for taking all of those considerations and translating them into a revised design and I really appreciate the process we've been going through. I do want to just confirm your view though that the design with the final changes that you've made, or the most recent changes that you've made, is in the opinion of the state and the opinion of the architects, not only acceptable, but that it's even an improved design from what it was before. And the reason I ask is we're always leery of designing by committee. We do not try to redesign projects for people. We give advice sometimes or things to take into consideration, but we certainly don't want to stand between a project and the architect in terms of what they believe to be the best possible design within the parameters of the ordinance. And it's the latter part that is our job to enforce, but it's the first part for you. And so can you confirm that one way or another for us, what your view is? >> So, it's always a challenge when you have a client that's requesting a certain amount of square. We've got the codes that we have to deal with. We have the setbacks that we have to deal with. We have the historical review that we have to deal with. All those things in my mind just makes a better building. And that's what I feel this building does. It has to respond to the height setbacks, the massing changes, even the maximum amount of window. We've looked at that. I think we've shown some diagrams in your package where we've looked at each of the facades and shown that they respond to the maximum or way less than the maximum allowed. We've looked very hard at the surrounding buildings, not just the general territorial style, but the buildings around it, tried to respond to the proportion of the windows that are on all the buildings that surround it. And as you go around Santa Fe, you're going to see territorial buildings. They all look a little different. They respond differently with administration, with massing. Some of them go three stories straight up. But I think that's the beauty of the style itself, that there's not just one style, but it's kind of flexible in a way. And I think that's what this responds to. So did that answer your question? >> Yeah, more or less. I'd like a little more positive direct response. How about if I put it this way? Is there anything in those final revisions that you made since the last meeting that you were reluctant to make because you thought it might have diminished the design? >> The smart thing to say is no. >> No, you can be honest. >> There are certain pieces that we liked. Of course, we'd always like to push a little bit of contemporary. There's not a whole lot of contemporary on the building, but this is 2026. Buildings change, style changes, revival means, you know, the styles change. Not a whole lot, but there are a few things like I think the windows on the east facade. We really did like the impression that we had before, but it's not something that we can't live without. It's not something that when this building is finished, we'll go, "Oh my God, we failed." It speaks to the character of the style and we're proud of it even. >> Great. Thank you. >> Member Dign. Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Tatum, you referred to what we'll call the small windows on the third floor on the main facade. Yes. You indicated that you responded to the notion that they might be a little larger and I think that's appreciated. Can you tell me the difference in size and measurement from what was on that drawing there and what you're proposing now because we don't have new drawing? Of course. >> Antonio, can you answer that? They were, I think they were like two feet by three feet. Speak into the microphone. >> We're more like three feet by five. >> Thank you. >> And member Digen, also on the top left corner, it will reflect what it was prior and then the drawing below shows the new proposed. >> Thank you for that. >> Members, any other questions or comments at this point? No. I will open it for public comment at this point and I'm going to do something a little bit different this evening. I'm going to ask, just because oftentimes we have had technical difficulties, I'm going to ask for Zoom comments from the public right now. Anybody on Zoom? >> Yes, Chair Rios. I do see a few hands up. So, we will have Miss Jordan Young. You can please unmute yourself. Thank you. And state your name for the record. Swear in. >> My name is Jordan Young and I live at 652 Galasto Street. >> Thank you, Jordan. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. She's been sworn in. >> Thank you. Thank you for Chair Rios for implementing some time constraints. The last meeting was a bit of a marathon. I want to express again my concern about the lack of an architect on the board. Lack of professional expertise is a serious concern and the board's lack of action to remedy this matter is inexcusable. The Old Santa Fe Association, which does very little to preserve but much to block development, continues to have an outsized number of positions and weight on the decision making of this board. Last week, after pointing out the absurdity, or two weeks ago, after pointing out the absurdity of redesigning a building via public comment, Chair Rios ignored this completely and solicited comments from all of the members of the public with nitpicky design concerns and complaints. She asked them to submit them. How many more times will the state have to submit to a design process with HDRB before they are allowed to proceed with their project? As a resident of South Capital, I'm disgusted by HDRB's inability to condense multi-hour meetings into administrative approvals. As a small business owner, I like to be mindful of meetings that could have been an email. As a young working homeowner, I am terrified about what these kinds of processes mean for my neighborhood. Will any families or children be able to live here in five to ten years? Why can't we have a code and process that allows for administrative approval by a real architect? Why must every project go through multiple phases of public input? Again, I'd like to point out that public input privileges the wealthy, the retired, and the lawyered. Complainers make up the majority of the people making input. By giving them such a privileged position, we make all development more expensive and slower. This ridiculous case by case, complaint by complaint process undermines the authority of our code. Historic preservation should be about people and culture, not a bureaucratic gridlock. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Your two minutes are up. Anyone else on Zoom? >> Yes, Cheerios. We have Miss Stephanie Benonato. >> And she has already been sworn in. >> Not yet. >> Not yet. Please, please swear her in. >> Can you please state your name and address for the record? >> Sure. Stephanie Benonato, PO Box 1601, Santa Fe, New Mexico. >> Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. She's been sworn in. >> So, I appreciate your questions, Chair Rios, to the staff of the proposed building. And I agree with Miss Young that we need to have, you know, we need to care about preservation. And I live in South Capitol, too. And I appreciate the efforts to preserve the history of our town because that is what attracts people here. And if we destroy history in the form of architecture, then we obliterate our history and we obliterate or we diminish why people come here. And as a tour guide, I know that firsthand. I think there's a process called due process and that this is a public hearing. It's a land use hearing and you, the board, are required to have these kinds of hearings no matter how tedious or onerous they may be. And I want to say I agree with Miss Young about needing an architect on the board. I still didn't hear from the last meeting and I had to go off because it got to be so late, but I didn't hear really what was new about why the state now could suddenly demolish those houses. And again, you've all emphasized star decisis over and over and yet there were no new reasons given and it was very disappointing that the board caved on that. In terms of this new design, yes, I guess it's better, but I don't see human scale in it at all. And the main facade between the first and second fenestrations. I wish that they would leave out that white detail between them and have it look more like that third and second story part to the left of that facade where there's a stucco rather than just a white facing, whatever that facing is. I think it would just make the building look slightly less overwhelming. And I know it's a done deal, so you know, I know you're going to approve this, but again, I'm very disappointed that the board caved in on their decision not to allow demolition without new reasoning for it. Thank you. >> Thank you, Stephanie. Anyone else on Zoom, Maggie? >> I don't see any other hands on Zoom. >> Thank you. I'm sure there are many people here in this audience that wish to speak. If you could kindly line up over here where John is headed and can you swear them in in mass? >> Yes, ma'am. >> And then when you speak, you can state your name and address. Go ahead and quickly, friends and neighbors. Okay, everybody. We're going to swear you all in. Okay. So, please raise your right hand. Each take a turn stating your name and address for the record in the microphone. Okay. 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? >> Everybody, thank you. >> Thank you very much, Madam Chair, board members. Thank you, staff. My name is John Eddie. My address is 14 Avanita Compo Verde, Santa Fe, New Mexico. I do appreciate the aesthetic moves that the state has made on this building. I think they have improved things and they have softened the building. I would like to speak to a little bit of a misconception that came up about how these meetings are handled. And I would like to clarify, I would like staff to clarify for me the makeup of this board. Staff is paying attention to my question. How many members of the Old Santa Fe Association are on this board as a position designated for the Old Santa Fe Association? I see the boardwoman Rios raising her hand with one finger. If there is one person who is a designated OSO position, I'm sorry, there's one person. I just wanted to clarify for the public because there is a misconception there. There is a designated and very dedicated group of people that are on the Old Santa Fe Association that have worked towards preservation of our historic culture in Santa Fe and our architectural culture for 100 years now. Having said that, we maintain and support a public process. Miss Benavidez stated that this public process works. It is tedious and it is trying, but it works. So that's why people continue to show up in a dedicated fashion. I wanted to raise having stated my agreement with the aesthetics that are being applied to the building. I do appreciate that. I am still very concerned about code violations. Is that me or you? Is that the two minutes? Okay. Sorry, John. I think you devoted a little time to something else. But anyway, my name is Beverly Spears. I live at 1897 KJO Drive. Good evening, Chair Rios and board members. With my limited time to speak, I will come straight to the point. The state's consultant has misled the public and the H board regarding the maximum allowable height. They have said that the maximum allowable height is 57 feet 6 inches. Their method of calculating allowable height was not in compliance with city code. The code is precise in this matter. The only allowable method of calculating allowable height is to use the building heights documented on the city's official building heights map. This error, this egregious mistake, was pointed out to the board at its December 9th meeting. The board did not address this grave error that evening. However, the board and city staff and the state and the state's consultants have had ample time subsequently to investigate and rectify this critical calculation. I don't see how the board, in good faith and in following its legal and ethical responsibility, can possibly approve this proposed design as currently presented. It is not only wildly out of compliance with city regulations, but also greatly out of scale with the historic district. So, forgive me for bringing this up, but given that it seems to be larger than the Roundhouse, it can be likened to the massive ballroom under construction at the White House. Please consider this carefully. Thank you very much. Thank you, Beverly. Good evening, Rios and the board members. Good to see you again. My name is Frank Katz. I live at 1500 Canyon Road. I was going to talk more about the provisions of the law that makes it absolutely clear that the height limit here is some 37 feet, that you have to use the map. That map can be amended. And one of my proposals is actually that we look at that. We were supposed to have collaborative sessions under the law, but none of that ever happened. The state is just kind of driving this through without listening to the input from the state, without following the law. There never were collaborative sessions. We were talked to about the design, but not worked with. The result is a building that violates design standards, clearly open to a legal challenge. And is that where we want to go? I hope not. There are two ways of resolving this issue. One is to meet the height limit by removing the third floor, which blocks the view of the Jemez from the Capitol West. It can be done by increasing the footprint of the building into the area now occupied by the South Capitol Street. Brad Acton has some good suggestions about how that could be used. The state's response to that suggestion was emblematic of their attitude: "It's a non-starter." I asked why. They gave two reasons. South Capitol is needed so that the employees leaving the parking underground parking garage that's planned can go north on Galisteo, go through the South Capitol Street, and then south on... Good evening, Chair Rios and members, and thank you for your service. My name is Philip Crump. I reside at 1897 KJO Drive here in Santa Fe. I'm a 37-year resident of this community, a former member of the Urban Policy Committee of the Planning Commission, and yes, a former president of Old Santa Fe Association. I've heard reference to a final design for this building. I would draw your attention to the parking structure to the immediate south of this site and note that in, I believe it was 2008, the design of this state building was significantly altered thanks to the integrity and collaborative spirit of the state architect in conversation with Mike Harris, who was a construction consultant, Brad Acton of the Old Santa Fe Association, and resulted in the ordinance mandating consultation between the state and the city. It's not a final design. The state would say they need the space. I would say they want the space. That's optional. Many agencies occupy the building, and then it's up to the architects to follow the program that's given by the state calls for creativity. I would maintain this building is way too large, and the changes that have been presented tonight are like brushing the teeth of the T-Rex. Thank you very much. Thank you for your comments. Hello, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Randall Bell. My address is 2991 Pavo Real, Santa Fe. I'm president of the Old Santa Fe Association. I just want to say that there's an implication that it's unfortunate that numbers of the interest and parties are trying to reflect this at this late, late time in the design process. But I would just like to hold up here: 2024 New Mexico Statute, Chapter 3, Article 22, Section 3226, Historic Districts and Landmarks, Applicability to Construction and Renovation State Buildings. Virtually nothing required. This is not optional, required in this or by the planner, Miss Jenkins, or the state. Two years ago, I believe there was an enlistment by a huge number of people present, people from the preservation community, neighborhood people. It was highly attended. Not long after that, there was a meeting called of the state, Peter Worth hearing that, and that included what was to be a city-state committee deal. And so they adjourned briefly. Let me just quickly finish. Adjourned briefly, went out, came back and said, "You know, we're not going to have this meeting. Here's what's going to happen. This is directed by Senator W." The city needs to engage with interested organizations and individuals in the community in the design process. That never happened. All of a sudden, we get this fully fleshed design, the last minute, posted a Friday night for this meeting of the previous Tuesday meeting. It's just blatant disregard of the requirements. It's not optional, and I believe this board should refer this back to the city-state committee. It should. Thank you, Rad. My name is Rad Acton, and Chair Rios and board members, my name has been invoked, hopefully not in vain tonight, but just as someone who wants to lend to the graphic exploration of alternatives some credibility. And so my experience has been with the state that they have accommodated input in a direct and substantive way, particularly regarding reinforcing the height maximums permitted by city statute. So it compelled our organization to explore what a height-conforming building and footprint might look like. Well, we came up with a plan, a massing plan, that does provide the state with the square footage they're looking for and does maintain the two-way access and parking along South Capitol, albeit somewhat realigned, and does increase the two-story footprint of the building such that it does now comply with the city height maximums. So we wanted to show that a building can be placed there that meets all of the programmatic requirements that also meets the city's height restrictions. And I think we've shown that, and all we ask is that that be explored, as there's no need for a rush to judgment. We're still theoretically in what we call the design phase, and there's time to explore that, I believe. So I'm going to just ask that you look at that and explore those options. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you all for speaking. Anyone else wanting to come forward in this audience and speak in reference to this matter? No one else. I do have to make a couple of comments, and those are per the law. The law indicates that a city historic preservation group should be involved in the collaborative process of the state and the city. And I do have to say that the statements that were made this evening, that that never happened, to my eyes, to my ears, that never did happen. The times that I tried to get some people involved, that was the state did not want those people present for whatever reason. They did not want their presence there. So their comments were never heard. So the comments that we are hearing this evening, those comments should have been heard a long time ago at the beginning of this process. Now I'm just wondering, what are we going to do? What is this board going to do? Because we never did go through that. We never involved the preservation community, and I think that's really very inappropriate and very sad in this process, as we should have been. We are a historic city. People, you come out and you are an involved community that gives of yourselves because you are interested. You're involved. You are responsible, and it's too bad that those comments were not heard. And is it too late? I don't know. We shall see. That's one of the points that I wanted to strongly make. And the other one is about the height. I keep hearing 35 plus feet. That is what the ordinance allows. But in reference to this, I heard from city staff that in this particular project, a capital outlay project, and why they would have separate rules, separate height restrictions, I do not know. And maybe Frank or maybe Maggie can answer that this evening, where they could go 50 feet plus. I do remember that Heather gave an explanation, which I don't remember exactly what that explanation was, but if one of you can help us out in reference to that. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the board. There is, as I think you all know, just about everything with respect to this project falls under a different subsection than anything else controlling the various historic districts in of the five historic districts of Santa Fe. Those are typically E, F, G, and H. This entire project falls under subsection M of the old code, which still applies to this project as 14-5.2, and that is specific to state capital outlay projects. And can you all hear Frank in the audience? Yes. All I can tell you is that I think there's a presumption that for a state capital outlay project, it's kind of institutional in design, and it has its own height calculation under the design standards. And the height calculation is, "Height shall be limited to an average height of institutional buildings as measured within the applicable streetscape." When determining an applicable streetscape, vacant lots or parcels shall not be included in the calculation for allowable height. If no institutional buildings are included in the streetscape, the maximum height shall not exceed the average height of existing buildings in the streetscape. And so on and so forth. But there is some terminology in this subsection M, subsection M 3, a little Roman numeral 6. So that's how buried it is in the code. But nonetheless, the idea behind the state capital outlay projects is that they're controlled by a different height standard than applied. So, do you know who actually determined that height? Well, and I don't have the expertise to do that. The staff has to do that. I have to rely on what the staff tells me. I just have to make sure. So, you are indicating that city staff is the one that determined that height, the 50? Well, they should. Yes. And I believe that that was stated on the record in the hearing we had on January 13th, I believe. But the idea is that how you calculate the height for the purpose of a state capital outlay project is different in some ways than the manner of calculating the height for a residential area, which is found under D9, and there's subsections under subsections. The streetscape is for any other project other than a state capital outlay project would be found under 15-5.2 D9, the little Roman numeral 2. So it's a completely different section, and there are some similarities. For example, taking into account the streetscape, but for residential areas, it reads, "When determining streetscape, the following structure types shall be excluded: institutional buildings originally constructed to house a hotel, residential multiple units, buildings with non-historic multiple stories, non-historic pitched roof, auxiliary outbuildings such as sheds, etc., etc." But as you can see, the thing that kind of jumps out is that institutional buildings are excluded under the D9 calculation, but they are included under the M3 calculation. That's right. Well, Chair Rios, Miss Jenkins raised her hand. She may have something to contribute on this matter. And who is that? Okay. Just to answer Mr. Katz, yes, it does rely on the official map. I don't dispute that. But what I do emphasize to the board is that institutional buildings are included under the M3 calculation. They're not included under the D9 calculation. Now, how that's calculated is something that the staff has to tell me because I don't go out and measure buildings, and I'm just a lawyer. Right. Thank you. If I may, Chair Rios, would it be possible for me to be recognized, please? Great. Thank you so much. So, with respect to the height calculation, we have been working off this height calculation, I think, since around 2011, when it was originally prepared by a separate architecture team that was engaged with the state just to do a feasibility analysis with respect to the executive office building. The current architecture team confirmed that calculation, which arrives at a little over 57 feet. And then city staff in their memo with the design comments that we discussed at the last meeting, city staff also confirmed that the maximum permissible height is a little over, I think it's 57.6 feet. So this has been confirmed and verified by staff. We don't have to make this up. It has been verified. Clearly, there is a difference of opinion, but your staff has confirmed the maximum height. So, for my money, that should satisfy that question. And I'd also like to speak briefly to the question of collaboration. We held a series of three very well-attended community meetings. We cast a wide net within the community in order to be transparent and have the most broad outreach that we could. At that meeting, we presented where we were in the process at that time, constraints of the site, conceptual design plans, whatever the subject of that meeting may have been. We also invited, we were willing to meet with anybody who wanted to sit with us with their comments, with their questions, and in the last two years, I have not received one request for a meeting. We have yet to receive any written comments from anyone, any interested community members on this project. We are in the midst of a 60-day review period in accordance with state statute and in accordance with the accompanying city ordinance. I did not receive the drawings that were distributed to you momentarily ago in advance of this meeting. So collaboration is a two-way street. We have always made ourselves available to meet with anyone who was interested in meeting with us and received no request to do so. So, I just wanted to clarify that one point, and I appreciate the board's time and attention. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Miss Jenkins, can you hear me? It's Mary Ellen Don. Could you clarify for me your comment, please, about you said the staff clearly and plainly verified the height. Yes. That actually, I can pull that up real quick. So, in the memo that was distributed prior to the last meeting regarding the subcommittees and staff's comments on the design, and I'm going to pull those up really quick. While you're doing that, Miss Jenkins, may I just finish my thought on that? Absolutely. Please, please do. You made it clear to us that the staff verified the height. Did they recommend the height? I'm going to read the language. And this was item number four in the memo, and it says, "The height should not exceed the average height of the institutional buildings in the streetscape, and permitted height is 57 feet, 6 inches." Those are the exact, I'm reading directly from the memo provided by staff. The promoting building height is approximately 50 feet. Okay, thank you for that. I just wanted to be sure that we're using the same words with the same meaning. No, absolutely. Yes, thank you. Board members, any other comments at this point or questions? Member Benu. Thank you, Madam Chair. Always happy to make a comment. So, this has been going on for a long time, years actually. And I think that here we are all this time later, and it just seems to me that most of the disagreement that's taking place, other than just a desire not to have the building, of course, and that's perfectly legitimate. But on the process part is the disagreement, I think, is really just because the ordinance and the statute are just extremely poorly written, and they're very complex, and they're very difficult to sort out. And years ago, I can remember when this first came up and we were talking about demolition, that from then on, from that point forward, I have repeatedly tried to set forth my understanding of how the process would work. I think that's been accurate all along, but it got confused by the demolition request, which inserted itself prior to the design application. But nonetheless, I think that up until tonight, there is still confusion about how the procedures set forth in our ordinance and the state statute work. And even where we're at in the process, I think is still not completely understood. And again, even though I think at every one of the last meetings, we've tried to at least make clear what the city understands the process to be at this point in time. So, I'm not really, I'm not saying whether it's a good process. I think it needs to be not only clarified, but actually made better when the Phase 2 code update takes place. Because some of the things that have happened throughout this undertaking have made clear where there's some flaws. And I'll mention one later. But regardless of whether it's a good process, I do believe the process has been followed in this particular case. And just to clarify what has happened, the committee first, years ago, the first request was just for demolition. When that was denied, that one issue went before, well, a committee was formed under the procedures in the code and the ordinance to consider the state's appeal of that one issue. The state withdrew its appeal before the committee actually began its procedures. So design was never ever going to be part of what that committee was going to address originally. The state then went back, decided that they wanted to come back before the board with a new design, a more detailed design, in order to, in its mind, address the concern that some of the board members had that it was impossible to determine demolition without knowing how the streetscape would be impacted by any new building that would be put in its place. So that took place, and then the various meetings happened that were just described by Miss Jenkins. The procedure was followed for asking for public input by identifiable community groups. Whether or not that input was taken into account, I don't know because I did not participate in them. But I know that those meetings did happen. A plan was then presented to the board on December 9th. The important part about that is that design that was presented to the board triggered a 60-day period that everyone had to act within. Not just the board, but community groups. Everybody had a deadline that started running on December 9th when those plans were presented to the board. So since then, the board has been working diligently to try to provide feedback on that design to the state. The state has been responsive to that. And then another design based on that feedback was presented to the board with additional public comment. And now we're at a stage when the board has to make a decision as to whether or not its written recommendations that were provided to the state have or have not resolved their issues. And if they have not resolved their issues, the state, the city needs to act within the 60 plus five days in order to ask for that committee to be formed in order to resolve all unresolved issues. So that's what's before us right now, and it's pretty deep into the process. So when we talk about this being a final design, what's meant by that is we have to assume it's a final design because otherwise the board cannot decide whether or not it still has unresolved issues. So, in fact, I will now ask the state if it will represent to the H board that this design that has been presented to us tonight is the final design as of today, and that if any substantive changes were made to that design after today, that it would agree to submit those changes for board review without prejudice to the board's right to invoke the procedures under section M. Is that acceptable to the state? Yes. Chair Rios, board member Bianu, and board members. Yes, that is acceptable to the state. Okay. Thank you for that. So I just, the whole point of all of this is pure clarification about the procedural posture that this comes before the board in tonight, which is very deep into the 60-day period to decide whether or not to invoke this joint state city committee to review the design. And I also wanted to address the height, and that is that after the meeting in December when this information was presented, and thank you for doing so, about the height calculations, the board did direct staff to verify that its calculations were correct. The board never relies on calculations by the applicant. I've never seen that happen. It is always a staff calculation. So, and what we ask of them is two things. One is what is the calculation from the city's perspective of the allowable height, and secondly, what is the calculation of the height of the proposed building in the application? And if it's beyond the allowable height, an exception needs to be requested. And what staff came back to us with, and that was presented at the last board meeting, is that it had reviewed its calculations and verified that the main building was under the allowable height per the ordinance, but the cupola was not. And that's why we addressed the cupola at the last meeting. Thank you, member Benu, and members of this board and members of the public. If board members have no further comments, we have come to the time, to the point at this meeting where I need to entertain the motion in reference to the design. Yes, Amanda. Thank you, Chair Rios and members of the board. Before we do that, I would like to ask the state a few clarification questions that the subcommittee had when we met yesterday. First of all, what is the depth of the recess in the windows? If you have those numbers possibly. Will you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record. 79, New Mexico. You solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury. Thank you. All right. If I could answer that question, Chair Rios, member of the board. So, where we're at right now is to make sure that we have at least a minimum 8 inches deep as far as the windows go. Face of the frame, the window of the glass itself. Excuse me, sir. Could you repeat that? I didn't get it. What is the number? It will be 8 inches. Thank you. Stay close. And what is the size of the mullions in the windows we have? I know there's different window sizes, but we're concerned of them being too thin in some spaces. So, do you have the size of the mullion? Yeah, we're it's likely going to be 2 inches. That's a typical width of a mullion for storefront type windows. Lastly, we wanted to mention here, let me see if you guys, if you could please put my computer on the monitor. Thank you. So, if you see here on the northwest corner of your front entry, this does not have any windows. The east elevation of abutting the main entrance into the building, and would you be willing to add windows on that entry or on that side? Yes, of course. I mean, the more windows you can have in an office building, the better it would be. So, absolutely. And of course, those would also be reflective to the style type of all the other windows. Thank you. And that is all the subcommittee had for the developer. Thank you, member Cherry. Yeah, I just wanted to clarify exactly what's before us tonight regarding my understanding is that we're making, because you're requesting a motion, Madame Chair, and this process is a little different. We're not approving or denying. My understanding is that we are really approving just this part of the process, since the last part of the process, in the sense that we've asked for some changes to be made. The changes have been made and we're saying we agree with those changes that are made. Is that correct? I guess that would be a question for either Frank or maybe John, since you have a lot of clarity around this process that I don't. Well, thank you. I'd be happy to have the city attorney weigh in, but I would say that I'm prepared to make a motion that would address that issue because it's not at all, to me, it's not at all clear what, if anything, exactly has to happen at this point because I think doing nothing could, you know, be an option. I think that would be a bad way to proceed, however, because it would leave it open, in my opinion, to the board or rather the state being able to potentially modify some of its design and we would have lost our rights under this ticking clock. Excuse me for interrupting. And that's what Frank, the city attorney, indicated at our last meeting. That it would be more appropriate to have a motion. And I... Yeah, I understand that. Yeah. And so it's not, you know, it's an odd form of a motion. It'd probably be more of a resolution. But nonetheless, I think we can make a motion that the board has no remaining, I'll make the motion at some point, and it would be to the effect that the board has no remaining unresolved issues that would require it to invoke the procedures set forth in the ordinance and under the statute. But it reserves its right to do so if the state makes any substantive changes to the design. I see. Yeah, that helps. No, that would just be the motion. I'm not saying that motion passes. That's how I see it coming before the board. Yeah, the phrasing helps my understanding of it because, for instance, the cupola, like in a, I would consider like a standard case that we were talking about that being over the height. So, we would be approving an exception that was being requested. That's not, that's not what we're, this is very different. So, I'm just wanting clarification on this that this isn't just that we approve of these set of plans, build on kind of, yeah, it's a different process, I understand. Yeah, I got it. Board members, if you have nothing further to say, I will entertain, and I would put it in the form of the motion. Yeah, I will. Madame Chair and board members, I do seem to recall an issue that came up at the subcommittee meeting on Monday was that the board was going to ask for more specification of the detail of the redesigned tower. I thought that that was one of the issues that you were going. More specification. Oh, on the... On the cupola or the tower. Yes. I would comment on that that just from what I've seen in the drawings, there's more detail. The, I mean, the applicant could comment, but right, but... My observation. If you want more detail, if one of the architects can quickly tell us about it. If you'll come to the podium in reference to the tower. That is several steps, railing comment about the underneath side of the roof itself that basically more, more detail dentals on the top, looking at how people are treated on different very successful John G. Beam territorial buildings, and tried to really apply that level of detail to this. You look at the even the corner columns, we've added a little detail on that. You can see stepping in the cornice itself, that railing that we added, just a higher level of detail. Which will continue as we work. Well, and since you're there, I have a question to ask you that just came to mind. This building, would you say that the larger proportion or the larger percentage of this building is second story, is two-story, or would you say it's three-story? Yeah, I would think two-story probably, but without looking at each, break it down. It's a lot of two-story elements. The west side on anything else, board members. If not, it is time to make your statement in form of a motion. Thank you. Recommendation. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay. So, case 2025-011586 HDRB at 130 South Capitol Street. Let's see. I'll move that findings be entered that this matter came before us pursuant to the procedures set forth in section 14-5.2M to M, that the procedures set forth in that subsections M2 and M3 have been followed, that the state has submitted its plan to the review board for review and comment, that a public meeting has been held to receive public input, required notice was given, the review board has communicated recommendations and comments in writing to the state, the state and the review board have consulted to resolve the issues raised, and revised plans have been submitted. These revised plans, as put into the record at the meeting tonight, have resolved the issues raised by the board, and the state has represented that it will not make any substantive design changes to these plans without prior notice to the review board for their further review under 14-5.2 or their additional review under 14-5.2M, and without prejudice to their all procedural rights that they have under that subsection. Therefore, the Historic Review Board does not find it necessary at this time to notify the state that any issues remain unresolved or that issues need to be finally determined as set forth in section 3-22-6G of the state statutes. Provided, however, that the state shall not make any alterations to the design presented tonight without prior submission for review by the board, and the board reserves its right to invoke all procedural safeguards set forth in 14-5.2M in the event it determines that substantive changes have been made to the design. Second. There's a motion and a second. Will we have a roll call vote, please? Member Bimanu. Yes. Member Beach. Member Cherry. Aye. Member Dman. No. The motion has passed, Chair. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you very much. We will move on to new business. First case this evening is located at Santa Fe Avenue 212 and 212A. Good evening, Chair Rios, members of the board. I'm looking at seeing if I could share my screen. Hang on a minute, please. Just a minute. This is Paul's case. I'm trying to share my screen here. One moment, please. Chair Rios, can you see my screen? Yes. Chair Rios, members of the board, in case 2026-011790 HDRV, 212 and 212A, East Santa Fe Avenue in the Don Gaspar area historic district. This structure was built in the 1930s in the Spanish Pueblo Revival style. It was given a status in the 1980s, but it was a drive-by statusing and it didn't encapsulate all the structures or any facades. So, the applicant or the property owner is coming before the board for a status review and for 212 East Santa Fe Avenue and a status downgrade for 212A East Santa Fe Avenue. Here we see an oblique of the north facade and the west facade as well as the yard wall along East Santa Fe Avenue. Here we have the east elevation, the covered portal. As we walk down the property, we can continue on that east facade. Now the facades are masked and very eloquently masked with historic wooden windows and rounded architecturally designed parapets. So, on the east facade we can see an addition that was constructed on that south facade extending out. Staff is recommending that that east facade be designated as one of the primary facades. Here is the south facade where a previous addition was constructed. Here's another view of that south facade. And here we have that west facade, a large masked elongated facade with wooden windows. Here at 212A East Santa Fe Avenue is a garage that was also constructed in 1930 that has been completely altered by 2007 and now reads as a casita. This is the north elevation showing the entry door and you can see the work around the stucco of the door how it has been altered. Here you have the east facade. Unique on this east facade is you can see the wooden overhang as well as the wooden windows that share that mass. Here we have the south facade where we believe was the original garage where the carriage doors would have been originally. But now this facade no longer reads to that extent and the west elevation here. Two wooden windows and just a just a small facade as can see. So, with that we have the Sanborn maps from 1930 and 1948 courtesy of Mr. Murphy's 2025 Historic Cultural Property Inventory Report. The top one is the 1930 Sanborn map showing the structure, the original construction of the structure and the garage. The same as in on the bottom, the 1948 Sanborn map. Here we have a 1958 aerial photograph of the of the structure showing the massing, the original floor plan as we see today as well as the garage. Here is staff's proposed facade diagram showing that the north, east, and west facades designated as primary and the yard wall as contributing and recommending the down status downgrade of the garage as it no longer speaks to its original construction. Thank you, Paul. Is that it? Yes, ma'am. Board members, any questions for Paul? No questions for you right now, Paul. Applicant or applicants, please come forward. Get sworn in. Hello. Will you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record. Thank you. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth? And do this under the penalties of perjury? Thank you very much. Good evening, Mr. Kramer. Do you agree with staff's recommendations? You do. Okay. Any questions for Mr. Kramer? No questions. And anyone in this audience wishing to comment on this particular case? No one. Anyone on Zoom? Yes. Miss Benonato, you should be able to unmute yourself. Please state your name. Stephanie Benonato, PO Box 1601, Santa Fe. I think that the staff recommendations are appropriate and that the status should be downgraded of building A, and that the choices of primary facades for the main building again are appropriate, and I hope the board will adopt these recommendations. Thank you. Anyone else online? I see no other hands raised. Chair Hughes, board members, I will entertain a motion at this point. Member BJ. Thank you, Madam Chair. In case number 2026-011790 HDRB at 212 and 212A East Santa Fe Avenue, I move to adopt staff's recommendation to designate the primary residence to maintain the primary residence as contributing and designate the north facade and the front portions of the east and west facades as noted on the staff's facade map as facades numbers one, two, and three, as primary, to designate 212A as non-contributing, and to designate the front yard wall as contributing. I hear a second. And is there anything further to add? Nothing. A roll call vote, please. Member DNA. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Beach. Yes. Member Bianu. Yes. The motion has passed. Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Creamman. Next case is Lanny's case, and that's located at 310 Lomita Street. Lanny, if the microphone's on. Sorry. Good evening. This is case 2026-1-011767 HDRB for 310 Lomita Street for a status review. Lomita Street is a 720-foot long street between Don Gaspar Avenue and Galisteo Street and is a part of the 1940s Linda Vista addition. The north side of Lomita Street is in the Don Gaspar Area Historic District, while the south side of the street is outside of the historic district. The Linda Vista addition is one of the last subdivisions developed in the Don Gaspar Area Historic District and was developed by Samuel L. Kirk and Celia May Grimes. The street has sidewalks on both sides of the street. Properties have low to medium height stuccoed or rocky yard walls and retaining walls and latia fencing along the street. The houses are set back from the sidewalk by 20 feet or more. The residences on the streetscape are in the Spanish Pueblo Revival or vernacular styles. The dominant paint colors are blue, white, or brown. Most of the residences have some form of wood element such as columns or headers at portales. The property at 310 Lomita is approximately 0.13 acres with a 922-foot residence, one-car garage, and stone retaining walls. The non-contributing residence in the Don Gaspar Area Historic District is a 1941 Spanish Pueblo Revival style with a single-car garage to the side and rear of the residence. The building is characteristic of many of the buildings within the Linda Vista addition. The residence retains its original massing and footprint, and the steel casement windows are original. The south elevation has a stepped planar arrangement which continues to express the intended design of Mr. Kirk. Only minor changes have been made over time, such as the doors being replaced. Staff found that no previous cases were on file for the property. This is a 1958 aerial as provided in the HCPI. It does show that the residence is in its current configuration in 1958. The detached garage to the rear is most likely constructed in the early 1940s at the same time as the residence and retains its original form, footprint, and characteristic tongue and groove tilt-up door. It continues to reflect its historic use and relationship with the house. The stone retaining wall spans the front of the lot and appears to be original to the development of the property. It delineates the elevated terrace that holds the house above the street. There are additional retaining walls in the rear of the lot that define planting areas. The history of these walls is not provided in the HCPI, but they do appear in the 1969 aerial in a different layout than is present today. I will point out that I handed out a paper at the beginning of the hearing that is additional information regarding these walls from John Murphy, who wrote the current HCPI form. Staff is recommending the historic status of the residential structure be upgraded to contributing with the south facades R1, 2, and 3, including the patio yard wall, and the west facades R6 and R8 designated as the primary facades. The historic status of the garage structure be upgraded to contributing with the south facade G1, excluding the garage door, as the primary facade. The historic status of the street-facing stone retaining wall be upgraded to contributing, and the historic status of the rear retaining walls designated as contributing for section 14-5.2C. Stand for questions. Thank you, Lanny. Any questions for Lanny, board members? Yeah, I have a question. Member Cherry. What's known about the retaining, the stone retaining wall in the back as far as its age? I'm not sure. I haven't had the opportunity to read what Mr. Murphy offered. I do understand that he's with us tonight, so that he'll be able to answer some questions if we have them. Okay. Any other questions? Nope. Applicant, could you please come forward? Oh, is there an applicant? Lanny. They are online. Yes, they're online. Yeah, thank you. Okay. Michael Darter, you should be able to unmute yourself and say your name. I am unmuted. Can you hear me? We can. Thank you. Great. Good evening. Hi, Michael. Can you please state your name and address for the record? Michael Darter, 310 Lomita Street, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 87505. Although I don't actually live at that address currently. Okay. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes, I do. Thank you. He's been sworn in. Yes. What do you have to tell us? Do you agree with the recommendations of staff? For the most part, I do agree. Would you indicate what you don't agree with? Yes. I don't agree with the status of the rear retaining walls. Those appear to have changed over time. John Murphy has submitted a memorandum stating to that. He should be on this Zoom as well, and it would be great if he could speak to it since he is, that's his area of expertise. The other facade that I disagree with is the section on page five that's highlighted as R6. It's the west-facing facade. That particular section is not visible from the street. So I would ask that that can remain non-contributing since it's not visible currently from the street. Other than that, I agree with the interesting yard wall in the front, and I love to maintain the integrity of the front of the structure. The rear retaining walls and raised patios, though, those seem just like more modern additions that I disagree with the findings and the upgrading to a contributing. Thank you. Board members, any questions for Mr. Arch? Member Benu. Thank you, Madam Chair. Not, I don't know who this question is for, but is there a photograph in the packet or something we can look at on the wall in question that's in dispute? I'm not finding it. The only thing I have is an aerial, which is this one here. I believe on the addendum, I mean the memorandum that John has compiled, my understanding was that he would be on this call, and I believe he wanted to share his screen to go through his opinion of those areas. The photo is on pages eight and nine of that document that I gave you from John. Okay. John Murphy, are you there? Is John online? Well, he said he was checking in. Well, now is the time for him to speak if he's going to speak. Hold on. I'm just sending him a quick note here. Okay. Yeah, I don't have that. Hey, John. You should be able to unmute yourself. Can you hear me now? There we go. Yes, we can. Okay. You want to mute? Yes. Can you please state your name and address for the record? Sure. John Murphy, 2833 Plaza Verde. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes, I do. Thank you, sir. Madam Chair, he's been sworn in. Okay. Hi, John. What do you have to tell us? Well, very quickly, Chair Rios, I assembled a very brief memo about this rear retaining wall specifically, as well as what is, I think, a very small planter that has been bricked over with contemporary bricks. It now serves as kind of a raised patio. So when I made the site visit on November 28th, I looked at these features. They did not strike me as historic. So I did not document them other than taking some photographs. Michael alerted me that they were being recommended for contributing. So I looked at them again this afternoon, put together this memo. I think the most salient aspects of the memo is really to look at how staff in 1995, who created previous HBI form, depicted them. So for this raised planter, it was, which now functions as a kind of a deck, it was covered with grass at the time. And I look at that, and I, you know, I see the components I remember from growing up in a neighborhood for a time. So I would say yes, that modest, very modest, low to the ground structure may be 50 years of age, and I tried to show that in the aerial photographs. I personally don't think it rises to the level of a contributing structure. The second feature is dual retaining walls behind it. So if you again look at my report, which references the 1995 staff visit and HBI, Mary at that time said they were block. She didn't say stone face, she didn't say stone, she says block. So I looked at the stonework, the mortar, the pigmentation, the type of stone, and again, the capping of it. And this really looks to me like something that was done after Mary's report in 1995. So therefore, I don't think those are true to the original design. If they were there, they would have been modest block retaining walls as she has documented. So that is really my conclusion as to these added features coming under the recommendation for contributing status. Thank you, John. Any questions for John? No questions. Yeah. You have a question? I do. It's not. Member Cherry. It's not in regard, in reference to those walls. I agree with you, John, on the walls from a construction standpoint. Another indicator I saw was mortar. It appears to be a like a brown-colored mortar, which wouldn't be indicative of something that was used historically unless it was like arroyo sand, but it appears to be like pigmented mortar on those walls. They also don't line up with the figure from the previous Hickby that you have, figure seven. So yeah, I guess that's a comment, that's not a question. My question for you, John, though, is this house is like incredibly well intact as a whole. So can you comment on the decision to recommend contributing as opposed to significant? Sure. I did walk through the neighborhood to see if there were other varieties of that house, and there are, and you can tell by their front elevation, configuration of windows and doors, and that kind of bat swoop at the corner. And they have been all altered to some degree or another. And so this is a very good example, I would say, but I'm not sure either, you know, its association with Kirk under sort of a criterion A. Now, historical context rises to the level of significance, nor the house as a design. Again, it does represent his work and maybe one of the most intact within that surviving subdivision, but as a piece of architecture, I don't see it at the significant level. Okay. And why would you not recommend the east? Oh, why I didn't. Yeah, it's I mean, it is visible. It's pretty representative of, well, it's very representative of the house and the openings are. Right. Clearly, I think most of this house is pretty intact. So. Sure. I was really taken with the south facade and display of, you know, slight massing. I saw the east facade as fairly utilitarian and plain. So that's why I didn't recommend it. Thanks. Any other questions? Anyone from the public wanting to speak on this project? No one in this room. Anyone online? Yes, Chair Rios. I see Ms. Benonato's hand up. Did you want to comment on this one, Ms. Benonato? Yes, I did. Thank you, Stephanie Benonato. I too live in this subdivision and I think this house is a beautiful example of the buildings in the area. It is definitely characteristic with the retaining wall. You'll see many of these in that subdivision with the front retaining wall and the separate garage set back from the main house. And I agree with staff's opinion that the three facades should be considered primary for the house and that one facade for the garage and the front retaining wall be primary. I'm not sure, I don't think that the back walls should be considered contributing, but I don't think just because you can't really see a facade from or part of the facade from the street that it shouldn't be considered contributing because if it is characteristic of the house intact, especially the windows being intact, I think it deserves preservation or protection. Thank you. Thank you, Stephanie. Anyone else? No one else. Motion please, Board members. I'll make a motion. Member Cherry. In case 2026-11767 HDRB or 310 Luma Street, I would move that the status of the building be contributing and the status of the garage also be contributing with facades R1, R2, R3, and R8 as primary facades on the house and G1 as primary facade on the garage. And also that the yard wall on the south side of the building against the street retaining the front yard be considered contributing and that the retaining walls and patio areas in the back be excluded from that and be non-contributing. Do I hear a second? Dman second. Roll call, please. Oh, and there's an amendment. Sorry. Question. Discussion. Yep. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, you're excluding from in the motion R6, which was also recommended on the west facade by staff as a primary. Deliberate. It was deliberate, but it's, yeah. And I knew it was recommended by staff, but it does bring up an interesting question. Can I ask John a question? John, was that, was that wall something you recommended be part of, be a primary facade R6? The west wall on the back. Still there. Sure. Yeah. Chair Rios. Oh, there he is. Okay. Yes. Chair Rios, member Cherry. When I look at these, the slides, I'm sorry. I don't think like staff. I think more holistically. So, when I say south, it's the entire south. When I say west, it's the entire west. So, yes. Okay. Thanks. Yeah. And we, we specify that so that it's very specific and understood when people go to do work on those portions of the house. So if you're saying, would you consider that the return on the, on the east side that goes back as part of the east side or part of the north facade? Okay. So, I'm looking at the building in plan and are we talking about the east elevation of the house or something else? So, if you're looking at it in plan, it would be on the east elevation. The, from the, from the southeast corner, the wall goes back and then it turns to the, uh, south, sorry, southwest corner. The, the wall goes to the north and then makes a 90 degree turn to the east and then so it jogs back and makes, and then jogs north again to the northwest corner of the. So, what I'm talking about is the short wall going all, going that runs east west. You're talking about, I'm sorry. The wall at the front that creates the patio. Nope. Okay. So, are, are you looking at the plan? Are you able to look, are you able to look at? I'm looking, I'm sorry. I'm looking at the staff diagrammatic of the different elevations suggested for contributing. That's what I'm looking at. Right. That are colored yellow. Yes. So, I'm talking about R7. Yes. So, I, I am sorry. I will say that again. I considered the entire west facade including that offset contributing. Yes. Okay. So, six, seven, and eight. Yes. Okay. So, that's. Or primary, I should say. Yeah, I understand. So staff's, so staff's, staff's recommending just to be, just to clarify. So your question number be in venue. So staff's recommending our, it looks on this diagram like R6 but not R7. So, so my, my motion was to not include R6. Just to include, I can restate it. The, the primary facades I was in my motion are R1, R2, R3, R8, and G1. Okay. That does clarify for me. I would just point out that, you know, these, it does have these steel frame windows that are extremely character defining on this house. They will not be protected if they're not on a primary facade. So you could end up as a position where the only, where you end up replacing all the windows except for the ones on the primary facades that you just designated. Yeah. Do you want to? I would not do that, but that. Make a friendly amendment. I would, my friendly amendment would be if you accept it would be the southwest and east facades as primary. So R6 and R4. Yeah. Okay. I would accept that as friendly. So you made the motion and did we have a second? Yes, I accept it. Just to be clear, sorry, just throw in R4 as well, correct? Yes. R4 and R6. Okay. Tiny house. That's like almost every facade. Okay. Got it. Thank you. Can I clarify, include R7? Does that include R7 as well? Yes. Yes. Okay. Roll call vote, please. Okay. Member Benu. Yes. Member Beach. No. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Dman. Yes. The motion has passed. Chair. Thank you very much. I am sorry. Madam Chair and Member Cherry, I heard R7 is included and I heard that R7 is excluded. It's included. R7 is included. Correct. Okay, got it. Frank. So primary facades are R1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7. And G8, 6, 7, 8, and G1. Correct. Okay. Is that everybody's understanding? Thank you very much. And the front retaining wall. Thank you very much. Okay. Next case is located at 411 Camino Lamigette and I see the applicant is here and that is Paul's case and Paul is online. Paul, can we hear from you? Chair Rios, members of the board, can you see the PowerPoint? Yes. Thank you, Chair. In case number 2026-011791 HDRB at 411 Camino Don Miguel, the single family, the single family residence is listed as contributing to the downtown and east side historic district. The main residential structure was built on a 0.87 acre lot in 1957 and comprised of approximately 2,280 feet of roofed area. The structure was built in the vernacular architectural design style as seen by the adobe block, wood frame, and concrete masonry block building materials and wood, steel, and aluminum doors and windows. In 1984, Michael Bellshaw designated the structure as non-contributing as identified in Mr. John Murphy's 2025 historical cultural property inventory form. It is unknown when the property received a contributing status, but it is currently listed on the 2026 city of Santa Fe GIS overlay districts map as contributing. Mr. Murphy's 2025 HCPI survey report discusses the evaluation and historic status of the structure attached additions and carport which have an absence of architectural distinction or meaningful historical association with the streetscape or the downtown and east side historic district. The structures do not exemplify any defined Santa Fe styles and the current deterioration in substandard construction no longer speak to any accretive character. Staff is in agreement with the historian. During a recent site visit with the applicant, it appeared that the last time the residence was occupied was in the early 1980s, but it is unknown how long this property has been vacant. At this point in time, the property has fallen into such disrepair that it has become a danger and a hazard to the community and streetscape. In this presentation here on the north elevation, the whole property is covered with by a chain link fence and protecting anybody around it. Here's the north elevation. Here we have an addition that was built on the original, on the original structure. Here you can see the chain link fence. Here we have a wood paneling addition on the south elevation. And the property in itself has kind of an amalgamation of wood frame CMU additions to one core CMU and Adobe block construction. Here, as we take a look, a glimpse in through the window on that west elevation, it's just fallen into complete deterioration. Here we have kind of a courtyard area where you have wood paneling, CMU block, wood frame kind of construction materials that make up the structure. Here you have an enclosed portal into one of the rooms. Kind of an overview of of a car covered carport that gets you into the property. And here you have some of the mixed construction material that was used to build the structure. And an interior photo by Mr. Murphy showing just how to the extent on the inside how it is kind of just fluffing out and kind of kind of imploding. So with that, staff recommends the historic status of the structure be downgraded to non-contributing per 14-5.2c designation of significant and contributing structures. Thank you. Staff stands for any questions. Questions for Paul? No questions for you right now. Thank you. Sean or applicants, please get sworn in. Will you both please raise your right hand, state your name and address for the record? 6986, Santa Fe. Thank you both. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? Thank you very much. They've been sworn in. Good evening. And do you agree with staff's recommendation of non-contributing downgrading? Oh, okay. Oh, okay. Mr. Canana, you have the floor. What do you want to tell us? Good evening, Madam Chairwoman, board me staff. And. If you'll speak right into that mic. Good evening. Raise it up. Good evening. How's that? Excellent. Good evening, Madam Chairwoman, board members, staff. Thank you for considering my, my property here, considering it. And I'd like to continue my family's heritage. Madam Chair, good evening. In reference to 411 Camino Don Miguel, there's a couple of items that I'd like to clarify. First off is the Mr. Quintana acquired the property in late 2024. It's not a property that he has had during his tenure as the owner that has fallen into disrepair. There was significant damage created by the or allowed to happen by the previous owner. I just wanted to make very clear so that the board members know that Mr. Quintana purchases late 2024. The other item in the staff report, it on page two of six, it states that the property is 0.87 acres. I just wanted to correct it. The property is 0.1686 acres or 7,341 square feet. So, a lot smaller than '08. The second item is the fact that as we move forward, the idea of preservation is something that Mr. Quintana, as a longtime resident, born and raised here, longtime resident of Santa Fe, understands the idea of preservation and the need for historic preservation. As we move forward with the project, preservation will be foremost in our mind and how we look at how the property is integrated into the neighborhood. The third item that I'd like to just make clear in Mr. Murphy's recent HCPI that is part of your packet, on page two of the packet where it describes property owners, what was in your packet is an older version of the HCPI that was presented by John. Mr. Quintana owns both properties. There are actually two properties at 411 where the garage and carport are on the southern property and the house is on the north parcel. It is owned entirely by Mr. Quintana's trust. With that, we do accept the recommendation of staff for non-contributing status, as was mentioned in Mr. Duranza's report. It somehow became contributing in the historic mapping. No documentation as to the actual process or legal action that was taken by the H board. So, we respectfully request that it be considered for non-contributing. Thank you. Chair: Thank you, John. Any questions for John or Mr. Quintana? No. Anyone in this room wanting to comment on this project? No. Anyone online? Online Speaker: Yes, Chair Rios. Miss Stephanie Benonato. Stephanie Benonato: Good evening, Stephanie Benonato. I understand that Mr. Quintana has recently acquired this property, but it has been in his family for some time. One wonders how one could ignore the degradation of this building if you knew the prior owner. I think it's just so sad when families ignore the degradation of historic properties, even if they're owned by somebody else, and don't try to step in and encourage them to make repairs, et cetera. I do wonder how you can preserve the building if it's literally imploding on itself. I know that's not the subject of your status review, but it's nice to say that. I just don't know how it will ever really happen. So again, I think that we have lost a historic property due to neglect and a really severe neglect. I just feel very sad about the loss of these kinds of properties tucked away on the east side because family members seemingly disregard or don't care. Thank you. Chair: Thank you. Anyone else online? Online Speaker: Please, Chair. There's no one else online. Thank you. Mr. Quintana: Yes, Mr. Quintana, board. I'm a carpenter. My grandpa was a carpenter. My great-grandpa was. I'd like to have a house like my great-grandpa built on Palace. I've had a long time. I bought this property for the record. I bought this property in the condition that it's in. I would like that to be on the record. The person whom we spoke before, I don't know what they're talking about. There's plenty of records to show that I bought it in. And as I said, I'm a carpenter. One of those things. Chair: Okay. Thank you for your comments. And board members, if you have no questions or comments, I will entertain a motion, please. Member Don: Could I just make a comment first? Yeah, that's the only real reason. These are tricky cases that come before us on a downgrade when there's been neglect. I think in this particular case, though, it's a little more complicated or simpler depending on how you look at it. But I don't think we really know that this is a downgrade. I don't know that we knew this ever was considered contributing. I think that's rather important to keep in mind here. To me, the way the posture this is coming before us is there is a confused record as to the status of this property, and we're being asked to give it a status once and for all because there are some records that show it contributing and other records within the city that show it as non-contributing. So, I view it differently than the applicant has a burden to show that it should be downgraded, which I think would present a different set of questions to us. I view it as in the condition it's in, the state it's in right now, do we consider this to be a contributing structure or not? Chair: A question or continue that discussion. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, how do you see the condition weighing on that versus just its existence? Member Don: Two ways. First, I don't think I said condition, but I meant that in a larger sense as being also its character as to whether or not it is actually contributing, even if it was in good condition, to the district, which is the definition. But then secondly, contributing does require a certain level of ongoing integrity, and I think that this particular structure appears to lack that integrity. Chair: Okay, I can understand that viewpoint. I guess I see this as, from the site visit today, being there as in somewhat of a varied condition, right? There are portions of the building that are imploding. There are portions of the building that are intact. So, I just wanted to note that for the record, that it's that, you know, to me, it doesn't look, of course, it would take an engineer to figure out or a full assessment with a variety of people to figure out if any parts, what, and if any parts of this structure would be salvageable. But I just want to make sure we're not doing it a disservice by saying it is imploding as in, you know, that just implies that the whole thing is, you know, there's a variety of conditions going on in this building, I believe, from my observation. That's all I have to comment. Chair: Any other comments? Were you ready to motion? Member Don: Well, I was. You were. You have to take under the conditions, pardon me, the situation that exists and the comments made by my fellow members. I think I'll withdraw my motion at the moment because frankly, how can we downgrade it if we don't even know what the status is? It's just dawning on me that maybe I'm making a motion. Well, I'm speaking to my own motion. Thank you. Chair: I didn't hear a motion. So, well, if you don't want to make a motion, I'm happy to make a motion then. Okay. So, in case, let's see, what case are we on here? Oh, we're on case 2026. No, we're on 202611791 HDRB 411 Camino D Miguel. I would move that findings be entered that the status of current status of this structure is uncertain because the city records in some areas show it as being a contributing structure and others show it as being non-contributing. Therefore, the board is called upon to designate a status for this structure. And based on the staff report and the site visit, I would have staff's findings adopted that the structure does not help to establish and maintain the character of the historic district, and its integrity no longer remains, and therefore it should be designated non-contributing. Chair: I hear a second. Okay. Roll call vote, please. Member Bianu: Yes. Member Viche: Yes. Member Cherry: Yes. Member DNE: Yes. Chair: The motion has passed. Thank you both. Mr. Quintana: Thank you, board. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chair: Next case. Staff: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Oh, you're welcome. Thank you, staff. Next case is located at 924 P de Bara. And oh, this is also John's case. John Padilla is the applicant, and Paul, can we hear from you, Rios? Members of the board, can you see the PowerPoint? Chair: Yes. Staff: Thank you, Chair. In case number 2026 011792 HDRB at 924 PO de Peralta, the current El Castillo retirement resident office space and previous architect Isaac Hamilton Raps, original single-family residence at 924 Pose Peralta is listed as contributing to the downtown and east side historic district. The original structure was built on a 0.42-acre lot in the late 1920s and comprises 5,906 square feet of roofed area. The residence was constructed in the Spanish Pueblo Revival architectural design style, as seen by the flat roof with rounded parapets, recessed doors and windows, and wooden lintel and vigas elements throughout the structure. The structure eloquently speaks to its environments and surrounding structures along the streetscape and has a monumental impact as an aesthetically pleasing structure on Po de Peralta. Mr. Murphy's 2025 Historic Cultural Property Inventory Survey Report encapsulates the history of the construction of this special structure and the owners who once called this residence home. Mr. Murphy's analysis of the structure and the previous additions to it shares how this historic building speaks to the times of place and people in the heart of Santa Fe. In general, Mr. Murphy expresses the structure retains a high level of historic integrity, except for the east elevation of the former service wing. This determination is observed by previous Historic Districts Review Board cases in the 1980s and 1990s where changes have impacted the original form of the structure. The changes do not diminish the contributing status of the structure as a whole. It does not give a good representation of the original construction as other elevations which do demonstrate on the structure. Staff agrees with the historian's evaluation and recommendations of the primary facades. In saying that, here is the north elevation of the original wrap home, and it's really well preserved in its entirety. As we walked the property today, it was a good illustration of how this property has maintained such a special place in its current location. Here you can see the north and the east elevation along the vegetation. Here's a good view from Po de Peralta looking from Canyon Road. As you look out west, the structure in itself holds a very stable place on that Po de Peralta streetscape. Here's the east elevation entry into the El Castillo offices. And here is an infill of a previous portal or infill of the garage on that east elevation. And then the infilled portal on that east elevation which now is a gallery. As we move along down that east elevation, you can see the wooden lintel elements, the divided light doors and windows, and the rounded parapets, wooden vigas, and all the elements this structure has. Here we again in the service wing, the divided light, windows, doors, lintels, and so forth. Here on the south elevation is kind of the most simplistic part of this structure. Here we have that west elevation on the opposite side of facial, and it's showing just the different types of elements that this structure that Mr. Wrap created. Here we have the portal and courtyard on that western elevation. As we move down the west elevation towards the south, the entrance to the basement and the service wing. And as we walk down, we can move more towards that southern end of the structure. Here we have the deep recessed windows, the deep rounded parapets, and so forth. Here's an oblique photograph of the western facade and its massing along with its architectural elements and that southern facade. Mr. John Padilla and Mr. John Murphy present a really good illustration of the development of this structure throughout time. The green showing the original core construction of the house, Mr. Rap's house, and then the orange, the service wing, the blue in the 40s, the workshop area, and the 80s where alterations have occurred by that red blocked area. Here is the proposed facade diagram. Staff is recommending that the original core construction of the wrap house be all primary facades, and we designated one through eight. So one and two would be the north, three and four would be the east, five and six would be the south, seven and eight would be the west. And it's just how the layout of the structure is. But the core original home of Mr. Rapp would be the primary facades of this structure. Given the previous infill of the garage, the infill of the portals on that eastern elevation, and the work that's been done on those on the eastern elevation, staff is not recommending that eastern elevation. And the western elevation is not publicly visible. So for those reasons, staff recommends the historic status of the structure be maintained as contributing and designate all the north elevation, east elevation of the historic residence extending from the one-story section with the chimney northward to the north, including the second story, the west elevation extending from the original house southward to the south end of the portal, and the south elevation on the original structure, including the second story identified in the facade diagram numbers one through eight as the primary facades per 14-5.2 designation of significant and contributing structures. Thank you, board. Staff stands for questions. Thank you, Paul, for that long report. Thank you, board members. Any questions for Paul? Member Benu: Thank you, Madam Chair. So, Paul, in reviewing the HCPI, we did talk today on site about it being a Rapp residence, but I think as I understand it now, it was built after Isaac Rapp passed away and was built by his widow, which it's still a Rapp residence. But just for clarification, I don't think that he, Isaac Rapp, the architect, ever lived in this particular residence. But nonetheless, it still seems to me to potentially rise to significant status based on its association with Rapp. And of course, his widow was a significant figure in Santa Fe when she moved to Santa Fe in her own right. It does appear that it was built possibly by plans from Isaac Rapp. It's incredibly well preserved, the main structure of the residence. It has a very prominent location. It has a huge effect on the streetscape in the district in that area. So I just, and even the extensions, oh, and then John Gaw Meem acquired the property and converted it to apartments, which is interesting in its own right as also having an association with Meem, as well as an association with the development of altering buildings to serve as apartments in that era of the 40s, which is when I think he did that. So even the alteration from the original residence and these wings that are attached seemed to me to have some important significance for Santa Fe history. So what do you think? What are your thoughts on why this property would not be considered significant, both for its association with important historic figures in Santa Fe, as well as its contribution to the district? If I could interrupt, you're indicating a portion. Probably the older portion. Certainly that, yeah, even the even the new, even the more recent additions are still date back to the 30s and 40s. So they're also, they're pretty important in their own right and very historic. And they have, there's reasons why they were added on that I think are very interesting historically as a workshop and so forth. I guess the only thing that doesn't strike me as something with historic value are these 80s alterations that are fairly insignificant, but probably would need to be excluded from any any designation regardless of what it is. So anyway, I'm throwing it back to you, Paul, to say what are your thoughts on a significant status for the structure, especially the original footprint of the residence, the 1936 house, and then also just the service wing? Yeah, thanks. Chair Rios, Member Benu, thank you for asking that. That is a very thoughtful consideration. I think that that's staff's, well, that was kind of the direction of staff when reviewing this project and reading the HCPI report from Mr. Murphy and just how monumental this structure is on the Paseo de Peralta streetscape and the heart of downtown. And as in our proposed facade diagram, one through eight is the original core construction of the Rapp house. So we're trying to preserve that as best as we can as making all of those as the primary facades. Yes, because of the infills and some of those alterations, we reconsidered that those eastern facades as maybe not because of those alterations. We can't ask for that. But I think that's something the board can consider that in our own proposed facade diagram. We're trying to preserve that original core construction of the Rapp house. Now, I don't know if the board can make that motion where they can designate significant to the Rapp house and the contributing to the service wing and the other additions of the property extending to the south. But that's something to consider. But definitely the presence of this structure needs to be preserved in some capacity. Yeah, thank you for that. Yeah, I guess maybe it doesn't, I guess if I understand your answer, it's that if you were just designating the residence as significant, that wouldn't add anything to what you're already proposing, which is it being designated as contributing with all of those facades being primary. Is that the? Member, Chair Reese, Member Benu, that's correct. Well, at least that's staff's way of reviewing this structure. Right. Okay. Thanks. Any other questions? Board members? Member Degen: Could I ask staff if there has been a case in the past that comes to mind where you have this wonderful dilemma in this great building, different ages and stages? Can you, this is one unit connected. Do you have different designations per dwelling within that whole unit, the whole application? Maybe I didn't make my question clear. I'm sorry. Chair Rios, Member Degen, that's a great question. I don't know if we generally do that. I would ask other board members if that's something that's been done previously to my tenure. Do we, do we know, do we have any recall? But I don't think it's an impossibility. Yeah. Because if you have special circumstances, special situation where you have a building that you, that you really feel is significant, and another portion of the building that was built later, but that the board doesn't feel it's significant, but is contributing, I think it's, I think the possibility exists. Yes. So it doesn't happen. Well, if I may, Madam Chair, just to add to that, it, it, it seems to me that this is of a piece. This is a whole development unit. And it seems awkward. Well, I guess in the scheme of things, people probably won't be asking the question down the road, do you have three designations, sir, or just one? I mean, you know, so I'm just wanting to make sure that we don't inadvertently make recommendation or go on something that might start something else off that hasn't happened before. Maybe it's, this is unique, you know, but there you go. Thank you. My experience working on buildings with a variety of different statuses is that it's atypical to see buildings that have, I guess I would say multiple statuses. And it would be also the, I guess the best way to say it as an example would be the Nordfeldt House is the house that I think of, 460 Camino de las Animas, which is a significant structure. However, has quite a few alterations that are, I would say, similar in some ways to this as in specific additions at specific points in time. So there, they are added to the building. They become part of the building. And in that case, you know, it's, I think John Murphy's mic is on, Maggie. Oh, I thought we had a ghost. Mr. I don't want you to think that he's saying that you're putting us to sleep. He might be. And anyway, I guess, I guess, I don't, I don't think there's a really clear answer to that, but since it was asked of the board if there's anybody that knows of anything that's sort of. Possibility. Sort of atypical. Yeah. I mean, if you think about a significant structure, all facades are automatically primary facades, right? So you would say, well, if something's been added on to it and and that's non-historic, it, it, you know, it, it shouldn't be significant. But there are buildings out there that have been statused significant excluding those additions. And and sometimes, you know, the other, the other thing to note in the definition of a significant structure is it can be significant because of the person who occupied it or who was associated with it or who lived in it. So, you know, in in that sense, I've seen buildings that architecturally shouldn't be significant by the way the code's written, meaning because they've been altered, but someone significant constructed the house, some other, there was another reasoning. So in that case, those sort of atypical designations have been made that I've seen of say a significant. And in a way, this is stretching it a little because it's saying, okay, well, it's not, we're not saying this is significant, you know, we're going to make facades seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven significant and then, you know, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight and like all these other facades non-contributing. We're talking about making a what is now one singular building have separate statuses that that I don't think I've ever seen. But but it could be interpreted as an extension of a significant building that has exclusions because those excluded areas are essentially areas of the building that have a different status because they're excluded from the significant status. So I, there's a lot of opportunity for interpretation there. Yeah. Thank you for that. Any other comments? If not, I will ask, John, have you spoken? Well, that, I'm, why are you smiling? Just kidding. Yes, John, you have the floor. Madam Chair, thank you. Members of the board, great conversation. Thank you. I appreciate your thoughtful review of the application and comments that were made. I will tell you that El Castillo Retirement Communities is very proud of this building and having had it in their possession for many years. They, you know, the lease with the tenant was Nambe. Everybody always referred to it as, well, you know, the Nambe building over there. Well, I will tell you that my client, El Castillo Retirement Community, the minute we had our report, or excuse me, our updated HCPI done by Mr. Murphy, they immediately started referring to it as the Rapp building. We now refer to that main structure as the Rapp building. Their intent is to move their offices into their, their administrative offices without any significant changes. Obviously, we know it's a, if it's a contributing structure, we're limited to what we can do. They understand that. They are proud of that building. They are proud of the fact that they own a Rapp building and therefore will be sensitive to the redevelopment or the development of this property as they move forward. Some of you may recall, excuse me, Madam Chair, I know you recall a plan that we brought forward for the corner property which now exists as a parking lot. There was an attempt by El Castillo to create a much larger structure there. Well, they didn't do that. And our, my client has no intent to do that because they need a parking to be able to facilitate the functions that will be a part of the Rapp building. So, I mean, and when we engaged Mr. Murphy to do the updated HCPI, we learned a lot about it. Just the fact that it was Rapp owned, Rapp designed, and then Gaw Meem owned, Gaw Meem renovation. We understand. We understand that. My client understands that, and they are proud to be the owners of this property. The intent for any change to that Rapp building is, I can tell you, the idea is we need this designation to be able to tell us what we can do and where we can do it. Now, the conversation you were having about structures having different designations, how many times just tonight you did two separate structures. You had on, I believe, Alameda Street, where the main house and the garage had two different structures on the same property. They were detached. They were, I was getting to that, they were detached. This one, I think, in the historic records, would have been the classic single-family house called the Rapp building itself, with its support structures possibly detached to it. Because as we look at the 1936 house, is the green, the service wing in '36, the workshop areas in '40, and then the alterations and infill. So they were independent and morphed together over the years. So the possibility of looking at one contiguous piece of structure having separate designations is something I think the board should look at. There is the possibility, because if you look at the Rapp building versus what I would call the support structure, the support structures remodeled. The plan by John Gammel was to actually create apartments. He owned the building. "I've got property. Hey, I'm going to rent apartments. I'm going to build apartments and rent them." So it became an additional income generator. So I think there are two different ways to look at it: this is all one structure, or yes, it's all one structure with two significant statuses given to the structures. Therefore, you've already, in the recommendations, identified what I'll call the support wing as non-primary facades, but the Rapp building as primary facades designated. So, what we are looking for, we are looking for your support of staff's recommendation and possibly even considering the Rapp House being the contributing structure with the support structures being a non-contributing structure. Madam Chair and Member Cherry and Mr. Padilla, I would bring to the board's attention that there were two conjoined buildings that were built at different times at 710 Canyon Road. The front part of the building was a contributing structure. The back part of the building was built in 1988, was non-contributing due to its modernity. And there was a roof replacement that required a replacement of a crimp metal roofing with a standing seam roof. And the board considered the exception criteria for the front part of the building, but did not require exception criteria for the back part of the building. They just treated it as if it was, they treated the contributing building differently than the back part of the building and required exceptions for alterations to the front, but no exceptions for alterations to the back. Thank you, Frank. You're welcome. Did you have something, Member Cherry? For discussion. Yeah, if... Go ahead. There's time for that now, or I can wait and do it. Yeah, I mean, I, it is a very interesting conversation, and I think it's, you know, these buildings are so unique, but also the buildings in Santa Fe that we live in and experience. So it's really hard to have, you know, hard to find non-subjective ways to look at them or apply that. And, you know, just looking at this structure, I, if I'm looking at the purple section, which to me, it's blue, which is being called the workshop area, and I'm looking at the diagram, it's on, yeah, that one. You know, if that building stood on its own, in my opinion, it meets the criteria for contributing. So if, probably the orange service wing also meets the criteria for contributing, with excluding non-historic alterations. And the green section probably meets a lot of the criteria. Now, the nuances of all for significant, the nuances of all that, I think could be debated and, you know, friendly amended. But there's, you know, there's a possibility here in looking at it as a multi-status grouping of structures, have three significant, or three, I shouldn't use that word, three definitive different statuses for three definitive. I think that's a strong possibility because it started with the Rapp building, and it existed for a while, and then they added to it. Yeah, and I think it makes, I mean, the diagram we've been looking at is, and staff's recommendation of, which I understand why they've gotten there through the reasoning of the HICB and their research, staff's research as well, but is, you know, the contributing with the primary facades only on the Rapp structure, and then not on any of the rest of the structure. And I think it is a very interesting conversation, because if you looked at the other parts of the structure, there are probably a lot of reasons they should be contributing with their own primaries. If so, if it's done as a whole, you know, I would lean towards there are more facades that are primary than staff's recommending. However, you could probably also divide it up. It sounds like from what Frank said, too, from precedent, we could divide it up. That's what I'm hearing is a possibility. Thank you, Madam Cherry. If there are no other comments at this time, I'll open it for public comment. Anybody? Nobody in here, but someone online, or did they go to bed? I see Miss Beninato's hand up. There you go. Thank you. I'm still hanging in here. I really like this discussion, and I think that if you're going to say that the four facades are primary, you have a significant building, not only because of the unchanging facades, but also because of Rapp's connection to those buildings. I do also agree with Mr. Cherry and with some of the other discussion, and including Mr. Padilla, that, you know, these other structures, these were other structures that were added on to this building. They are historic in their own right, and they are not very changed over time. So I would urge the board to make the green area significant, all four facades primary, the blue one to be contributing with at least the south and east facades being primary, and then on the orange part, to also have that contributing with the recent additions excluded, and the other facades being primary. And again, I think it's possible to do this. I think it's important to do it, because this is, as you all have described, a very important building on the streetscape on Paseo de Peralta. It's been there for a long time. It's been unchanged for a long time, and I think it's important that it be protected. Thank you. Thank you, Stephanie. Anybody else online? DNA. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to ask staff, one of our options possibly is to have this one designation, as the buildings are attached. Yes, they were added at different times. What is the possibility of that, given the fact that the most recent addition wouldn't have the significance of the Rapp home, but it's part and parcel of a whole? What is the, have we done something like that? I'm sure we have. I think you just... Madam Chair and Member DNA, this structure that I was just describing to you at 710 Canyon Road, what I described to you was the alteration consideration that was December 10th, 2024. Earlier in the year, the building came up for a status review, and the board reaffirmed the front building facing the street, constructed before 1912, having a contributing status, but acknowledged that the back building, which is attached under the same roof and a conjoining wall, since it was built in 1988, was non-contributing due to its modernity. So... Okay, I guess I maybe I could ask the question a little bit more simply or clearly for me anyway. I'm asking if we've done something where we included something of lesser status into one designation, like the buildings you just referred to on Canyon. There are two designations there, because there's one's not contributing and one is. If all of them are historic, right? If they're not too modern to be considered. So we could actually, in theory, create a whole designation for this. That is correct. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Just to be clear, we could do either, is what I've heard. And I, yeah. My only other comment that I thought of is just, you know, I think it's important to remember that we're, the intent of the code in its entirety is to do the best thing for the preservation of these buildings. So if that requires our understanding of the ambiguity of if we can make part of it different statuses, if we see that as serving the intent of the code, then that seems like a pretty perfectly reasonable way to move forward. Thank you for your comments, board members. A motion, please. Who would like to give it a stab? Oh, go ahead. Okay. I defer. Sure. Okay, Member Cherry, you're going to go for it. I'll go for it. In case 2026-01792 HRB, 924 Peralta, 011. Sorry, 011. Thank you. In case 2026-011792 HDRB, I would make the motion that the, I think I should, that the Rapp portion, that the portion of the building that's known as the Rapp House, depicted in green on this diagram, encompassing, let's see, can you pull the facade map? Maybe I'll pull that. Sorry, just want to get to the facade map. A minute, second. I think the color... You think that's sufficient? Okay. The, that, that portion known as the Rapp House be designated as significant. And that the portion of the building with the orange coloring, designated as the service wing, be designated as contributing with the east face as primary, excluding non-historic alterations. And that the portion of the building depicted in blue, known as the workshop area, be considered contributing with the east facade as primary. Second. And indicating that all facades of the Rapp House that are, you're indicating, to be significant, be primary. Correct. Okay, Member By, did you have something? Yes. Just, I guess a point of discussion and maybe a friendly amendment that the service wing, the orange in the middle, is the east facade is covered with 1980s alterations and infill. There's nothing on the east facade that could be considered primary. So I would, I would suggest excluding those two, those, the east-facing facades and the orange building service wing. Okay, let me look at a photo of that, because the massing may be something. They're indicated by the red dashed lines on this. No, I understand that. But I'd like to look at an elevation, because I think that a primary facade on that designation, excluding the non-historic, could preserve the massing of that structure. Although there's, there's, it's not age eligible. The facade itself is '80s. Well, I, I think the parapet wall above the alterations could be age, could, could be age relevant. Just the parapet. Yeah, it's preserving the massing of the building. So it's... Sandwiched between two contributing primary facades. So I think in terms of... Yeah, it is. But I'm trying not to... That might be met. Yeah, I'm trying not to incorporate that into the reasoning in regards to like, where's the property line? What could they do? I think the designation should be made how to preserve the structure based on the integrity of the structure and it in itself, and not what might be designated next to it, because that, that, that in my mind, creates a different determination. But if my understanding is correct, the massing on this structure is original. It's the infill that's non-historic. That would be a question I would ask for the applicant or for Paul. Probably for Paul. Is that correct? Member Cherry, that would be correct. So, making this contributing, just to finish that thought, would protect the mass and the shape and the height, but allow the non-historic features that have been altered to be changed or upgraded. That's the reasoning behind... Making it primary, you mean? Yeah, thank you. Making it primary. That's the reasoning behind that, being a contributing structure with that as a primary facade, even though, I understand what you're saying, Member Beachside, that excluding the non-historic material is excluding most of the facade, but there's a portion of it there that I feel like is important. And no one seconded the motion. I did. Oh, you did, Member Bianu. Okay. Is there further discussion? No further discussion. Is the motion clear? Roll call vote, please. Member Bianu? Yes. Member Beach? No. Member Cherry? Yes. Member Dagnet? Yes. The motion has passed, Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we are going to move on to the next case, which is located at 302 Camino Cerito. Is the applicant here? You check for Ephrain. I don't know how you said his name. Sorry. Is the applicant here? Lenny online or... He might be online. The applicant is not with us. If, who's the, what's the applicant's name? The applicant's name is Ephrain. Ephrain Kuna. Ephrain Kuna. I don't know if you are online and just under a different name online, but if you are, please raise your hand so we can record that you are here. I'm not seeing any hand raises or anyone by that name online right now. And the attendees, hello. Who want to call her to call? Okay. The applicant does not appear to be with us at this moment. Do I hear a motion to move this case to the end of the agenda? So moved. Member Dagnet moves. Do I hear a second? Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Say no. Okay. That case is being moved to the end of the agenda. So we move on to the next case, which is located at 516 Alto. Is that applicant here in the audience? Is that applicant online? Are you for 516 Alto? Yes. Okay. So Paul, would you give the report, please? Madam Chair, members of the board, can you see my presentation? Mhm. Yes. Great. Thank you, Madam Chair. In case number 2025011536 HDRB, 516 and 516 1/2 Alto Street, the single-family residences are listed as contributing to the Westside Guadalupe Historic District with the north elevations designated as the primary facades on the main structure and the east elevation on the garage structure as the primary facades. The Santa Fe County tax parcel information identifies that the structure was built in 1710 on a 0.25 acre parcel with 2,932 square feet of roofed area. It is noted that a 280 square foot flat-roofed carport was constructed in 1935 and a 320 square foot detached garage was built in 1953. The structure speaks to a combination of Spanish Pueblo, Territorial, and New Mexico vernacular design styles as seen by the one-story adobe structures constructed with hipped corrugated metal roofs, mud plaster walls, and rectangular floor plans with a simple porch along the streetscape. Mr. John Murphy's 2025 Historic Cultural Property Inventory Survey Report addresses the 1996 Historic District Review Board approved changes to the property. The changes included wholesale replacement of doors and windows, a glazed corridor connecting the two structures, new front porch, and replacement of the roof. Prior to the renovation of the structure, structures were small independent residential adobe structures with hipped and flat roofs. In the proposed application, the applicant is proposing a 210 square foot addition to an addition that was approved in 1996. So here is the north elevation of 516, which is the primary facade. There'll be no changes here. This is 516 1/2. No changes here. Primary facade. Here is the 1996 approved corridor, glazed corridor that connects the two structures. Here was the previously approved 1996 addition on that eastern facade. The applicant is proposing a 210 square foot addition that extends to the south by 8 feet on this facade. Here you can see the courtyard. In this courtyard, the applicant is also, with the extension of the 210 square feet, looking at building a portal that faces to the west that mimics the portal that faces to the east in this courtyard. And so here's the glazed area that was previously approved in 1996 and then the contributing garage structure and the carriage doors. So, here's the facade map that was previously approved in 2025. And now the existing and proposed site plan. Here you can see the small addition on that eastern facade. Here is the 516 Alto Street proposed floor plan showing the extent of that new bathroom addition. Here we have the proposed east elevation. They're extending out 210 square feet, keeping the same roofline and three over one double-hung windows. Same on the south facade. Extending out 210 feet, keeping the same stucco massing, roofline with the addition of the portal that is west-facing. And here is the proposed elevation facing towards the east. The portal addition and the extension of the roofline. And here where the two, three over one double-hung windows will be located here. Just an overview of the window styles will be matched here. The new portal will mimic the other on the other courtyard, other side of the courtyard, and the detailing will mimic what is currently there. So almost in kind what's presently there and the courtyard will look in this fashion. With that, staff recommends approval of the proposed project and finds that the application complies with section 14-5.2D, general design standards for all historic districts and 14-5.2I, Westside Guadalupe Historic District Design Standards. Thank you. Staff stands for questions. Thank you, Paul. Any questions for Paul? No questions for you right now, Paul. And I'll have the applicant get sworn in. Hello. Will you please raise your right hand, state your name and address for the record? 1305 Blue Hob. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? Thank you very much, Chair. He's been sworn in. Good evening. And what do you have to add to what Paul just told us? It was pretty thorough. Really, it's trying to keep the character intact and capitalize on that courtyard more symmetrical, that port side, which... I think any questions for the applicant? Paul, I have a question for you. So with this small addition, you feel that this house will continue to be contributing? Madam Chair, members of the board? Yes, ma'am. I do. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone from the public wishing to comment, please come forward or speak up online. Yes, Chair Rios, it looks like Stephanie Benonato has her hand raised. Thank you. I'm just unclear whether, is there anything the applicant had to say at all because he didn't speak into the mic? And I'm just unclear whether this addition is on a primary facade or not, and if it is, then wouldn't it need some kind of exception? So I am sorry, but I couldn't, I don't remember the diagram of the primary facades. It's not really that clear. It is not on a primary facade. Okay. So, to me, it's a minor addition. It allows some bathrooms that probably are needed. I think the portal is appropriate because it can always be removed. So I would urge the board to approve. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Nobody else. Motion, please. Board members. Madam Chair, in case number 2025, sorry, no, sorry, 2025011536 HDRB at 516 Alto Street. I recommend or I move that we adopt the staff's recommendation for approval of this project as submitted. Second. I hear a second. Second. Roll call, please. Member Bianu? Yes. Member Beach? Yes. Member Cherry? Yes. Member Dagnet? Yes. The motion has passed, Chair. Thank you very much and thank you, sir. Next case, Lenny, 600 Camino Rancheros. Okay, so this is case 2026011769 HDRB at 600 Camino Rancheros for a height exception. Camino Rancheros has a rural character along the vegetation-lined road, though the housing tends to be larger residences that are close in proximity to each other. Part of this may be that the lots are generally sloped with a high point at the street and the houses having a setback of about 10 feet so that the houses are hidden behind coyote fences, yard walls in addition to the vegetation. Most of the residences are Spanish Pueblo Revival style homes, the details of which are not visible. There are a total of 20 structures on this, on the streetscape. Only seven of the 20 structures on the streetscape are included in the height calculation. 13 of the structures in the streetscape range in height from 16 1/2 to 22 1/2 feet and are excluded from the height calculation for either being grandfathered due to construction before the historic district's height ordinance adoption in 1997 or being approved by the HDRB with an exception for height. Seven of the excluded homes have portions of the residence as a second story. The lot at 600 Camino Rancheros is 0.65 acres. The 1999 Spanish Pueblo Revival style main residence has a lower height at the front of the structure and taller up to 18.8 feet in the rear to accommodate the slope of the lot. The front of the structure has a portal with common columns, cross beam vigas, and a low roof. The residence is 4,144 square feet and has five roofed porches and a 73-foot attached garage. The residence is not historic and is located in the historic review historic district. The property also has two accessory dwelling units. One on the northeast corner of the lot at 677 feet and one at the southwest corner of the lot at 770 feet. There's also a 43-foot utility shed. The applicant proposes to construct a 1,322 square foot second-floor addition to a height of 24 feet where the maximum allowable height is 14 feet 8 inches. An exception is requested to 14-5.2D9 for exceeding the maximum allowable height. Most cases in the historic review district are issued administrative approvals. However, this case comes before the HDRB tonight for the request to exceed the maximum allowable height. While single-story development would be less of an impact on the character of the city by being within the height limits of the code, the overall streetscape will not be damaged by the proposed second-story addition because it will be set back from Camino Rancheros by 85 feet. The terrain on the site is uneven, which is standard for the area and not peculiar to the land or the structure. However, the structures of the area tend to be higher in order to provide a natural environment to the area. Therefore, it is in keeping with the streetscape to have a second-floor structure. By the addition of the second story stepped away from the street, the applicant will use a smaller area of the lot and will retain the natural rural character of the area. There will be no injury to the public welfare as the design has considered through the stepping back of the second story mass least impact on the Camino Rancheros streetscape. This property is already at a higher height of 18 feet. The second-story addition is requested to use a smaller area of the lot so as to retain the natural rural character of the area. Staff finds that the exception criteria have been met and recommends approval to section 14-5.2D9 to exceed the maximum allowable height. I stand for questions. Thank you, Lenny. Lenny, what's the square footage of the existing house? 14,444. Are there other dwellings on the property? There are two accessory dwelling units on the property in addition. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? It appears not. Applicant, come forward. Just to be clear, one structure and then there's a woodwork. Move that mic right near your mouth. Thank you. Can you hear? Yes. All right, sorry about that. So, the other structure on the property is actually a wood shop. It's a working space. It's more of like a studio. The other space is a very small casita. A small what? Casita. Okay, yeah. Otherwise, we don't want to have a huge impact on the neighborhood. If you did your drive-by today, you can see that that house is very well tucked into the property, and it's on a hillside. The proposed second floor is set back well from the facade of the existing house such that once it's built, it will be very hard to perceive from the street. That's basically the reason, our main argument. Otherwise, I think it blends well, and architecturally, we're trying again to make this look seamless and look like it's always been there. That's the intention. So we just defer to your judgment. Can you tell us the interior ceiling heights of the proposed second floor? They won't be extreme because we are limited. We are building on an existing house. So the main room, the ceiling height there will be nine feet to the bottom of the, we're going to have some veas in there. So if you count the VGA, it's going to be more like nine feet, maybe eight inches. So it won't be extravagant. Any other questions for the applicant? No questions. Anyone wanting to speak on this project? Miss Terz, I see Miss Benonato. Please, Stephanie Benonato. I just wonder what the hardship criteria is here. You already have a 4,000 square foot house, and now you're adding on another 1,300 square feet. A 5,300 square foot house is very big. Is the second story, I understand it's set back, but does it, is it going to slope? Is it on the downslope of the house so that it becomes even less visible or not? These are just some questions I have. Again, these like huge houses, I understand, yes, it's less impact on the land because it's a second story, but I don't really understand the hardship there. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? No. Board members, what are your thoughts? Member Benu. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I will make a motion if we're at that point yet, but just comments. My problem with this particular application is that we're a board that didn't write the ordinance. We just apply the ordinance. I think we always have to be careful when we're granting any exception that what we're doing is really just making a judgment that the way the ordinance is written, we think we have a better idea than the way it's written. That strikes me that in this case, that's almost, it's almost the position of the applicant, and I appreciate the candor in the application, but it really is sort of just saying, "Wow, there are a lot of other tall buildings. It's really great to have a tall building, and we think this would be fine in this area." I completely understand that point of view. In fact, there are other two-story buildings there. But that just can't be the board's rationale for undermining what the governing body has already determined is the height limit because the obvious outcome of that would be we've essentially revoked the height requirement because how could we ever apply it in another case if that was sufficient grounds for not applying it here? Because everyone honestly could claim an exception under that rationale. So, I don't begrudge the applicant for the size of their residence at all, but they still do have to meet the exception criteria, and they really have a pretty high burden, not just these applicants, but all applicants when they're asking for exceptions. They need to, there are six separate exception criteria, all of which the applicant has the burden of conclusively demonstrating. That's just very difficult for me. That would be very difficult for me to find that that burden has been carried in this particular case, especially for what is not a minor height addition beyond what's calculated as being allowed, but almost double what's allowed. So, I'm happy to have further discussion on the topic, but I'm also prepared to make a motion, Chair, whenever you're ready. Yeah, I'd like to make a comment along those same lines. I mean, there's two things that stick out to me. One is regarding the criterion in the application exception criterion, which is the hardship exception criterion from the applicant. There is no major hardship. That's how I'm reading the criteria that's supposed to defend the hardship. So it's somewhat stating there is no hardship, and then the staff is finding that the criteria is met is my second thing. So I'm confused by that. To me, it appears like the criteria has not been met. I'm definitely confused by that if the applicant is even saying in their as their exception criteria response that it hasn't been met, and the staff is agreeing with that. Why the staff would be recommending approval if they're agreeing that there is no hardship, which is one of the criteria that needs to be met. Thank you. If there is no further discussion, I will entertain a motion, please. Ben. Thank you, Madam Chair. In case 2026-011769 HDRB 600 Camino Roneros, I would have findings entered that the exception criteria have not been conclusively demonstrated by the applicant to have been met in this case. Specifically, exception criteria number one does not damage the character of the district, but find that a height that is nearly 10 feet higher than what is allowed in the district does damage the character of the district. I would find under criterion two that it's not required to prevent a hardship to the applicant as the applicant has indicated that no major hardship would result from not being able to build this addition. The third criterion that it provides a full range of design options to ensure that residents can continue to reside within the historic district has not been met because it's not necessary to have this exceptional height on this building to ensure that residents can continue to reside within the district. Fourth criterion, that the request is due to special conditions and circumstances peculiar to the land or structure which are not applicable to other lands and the related streetscape has not been met because the application indicates that the related streetscape has the same terrain as the applicant's property. Fifth criterion has not been met. That criterion provides that the applicant has the burden of showing that these are special conditions and circumstances which are not a result of the actions of the applicant. That's not been met because this is specific to an the applicant needing or desiring to have additional space for a living person. The sixth criterion is that it provides the least negative impact, and that has not been met because the additional height would have a greater impact than finding square footage in a different manner. Therefore, I would move the application be denied for those reasons. Will I hear a second? Second. Roll call vote, please. Member Benil. Yes. Member Beach. No. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Dman. Yes. The motion has passed. Chair, thank you. Thank you. Applicant. Next case is the applicant for 801 Old Santa Fe Trail here. Lenny, may we hear from you? Okay, you hear me? This is case 2026-011768 HBRB for 801 Old Santa Fe Trail for window replacement. This property is located at the intersection of Old Santa Fe Trail and Camino Monta Vista. Therefore, the property is part of two different streetscapes. Camino Monta Vista is a dead-end street lined with off-street parking and yard walls, which increase in height as the street goes east. The walls are mostly stuccoed with one rock wall and a few wire fences at the far east of the road. The road is lined with trees and vegetation between parking areas, and the housing tends to be Spanish Pueblo Revival with lower heights and larger setbacks. Along Old Santa Fe Trail, the southern end has higher yard walls and coyote fences and a single yard wall with wrought iron metal on top of the wall. The houses are set back about 7 to 10 feet and are in the Spanish Pueblo style. To the north, the yard walls tend to be low to medium in height, and the housing is a combination of Territorial Revival and Spanish Pueblo styles with a similar setback. Directly across from the subject property is the triangle formed by the intersection at Old Santa Fe Trail and Old Pecos, and it is a Territorial Revival commercial structure. The subject property at 801 Old Santa Fe Trail is a Territorial Revival style 1920s residence that is designated as significant to the Downtown and East Side Historic District. While the structure was built in sections, it was completed by the 1920s. The residence has a concrete over stone foundation, a portal on the west side with white posts, a beadboard ceiling, and brick coping on the roof parapet. The brick coping on the residence is only on the west elevation. The windows are mostly single-light wood windows with a single window with divided lights on the south elevation and two 2-over-2 windows on the west elevation under the portal. The windows do not match those described in the 2002 HCPI. The applicant proposes the following: to replace eight windows. The new window frame will overlap the old window frame, allowing for the removal of the old sash and leaving the historic frames to remain in place. Window replacement will be in kind with double-hung Windsor Window Pinnacle wood prime windows. An exception is requested to 14-5.2D51A for replacing historic windows on primary facades. Specifically, we're replacing windows C, D, and E on the west-facing side and H on the south elevation. Windows are currently single-light windows. Window C has a historic frame, while the components of the window were replaced between 1988 and 1994 and are not historic. Window D is a 3-over-4 and is not historic. Window E is a historic frame, but the sashes were replaced in 1988. Window H is historic and is unsatisfactorily rotted beyond repair. According to the window assessment, the historic frames of windows C and E will remain with the new windows sitting in the historic frame. Replacement of windows I and J on the west elevation. The windows are currently 2-over-2. Window I has a historic frame, but the divided light pattern does not match the residence and is not a historic window. Window J is not historic. Replacement of windows K and L on the north elevation. These windows are currently single-light windows and are not historic. They will be repairing as needed windows A, B, F, G, and M through Y. These windows will not be replaced. The applicant is proposing to retain all historic frames and replace the windows within those frames. The only historic window to be replaced is window H, which is not repairable according to the window assessment. Staff finds that the exception criteria have been met and recommends approval of the exception to section 14-5.2D51A for replacing historic windows on primary facades. Otherwise, staff recommends approval of the other elements of the application as they comply with 14-5.2D and E for general design standards and downtown and east side design standards. Mayor: Thank you, Lenny. Questions for Lenny at this point? Member Beach. Member Beach: Thank you, Madam Chair. Lenny, when was this property designated as significant? I didn't put that down. Lenny: It would have been in the 1990s. I don't know the exact date. Member Beach: As part of an H-board evaluation or as part of just a global statusing like the '84 efforts? Lenny: If I understand correctly, the 1990s were actually going to the governing body. Mayor: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Other questions at this point? Applicant, please come forward. Applicant: Hello. Mayor: Will you please raise your right hand, state your name and address for the record? Applicant: 125 Lincoln Avenue. Mayor: Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? Applicant: Yes. Mayor: Thank you, Chair. He's been sworn in. Good evening. And what do you have to tell us? Applicant: Oh, sorry. Thank you for this opportunity to go over this. My voice is going. So, city staff, going over a lot of these windows, all eight windows are in need of expensive repair. Is that working better? How's that? Yeah, the eight windows in question are, you know, they're leaking. They have plenty of issues and all need replacement. As you can see on the request, the windows that would be replaced with are like windows. They look like the ones that are being replaced. So then, you know, with the accompanying window assessment, we'll kind of dive in deeper to the need for this replacement and the hardship that would entail our the client or the homeowner to, you know, live through what they've been living through, which is, you know, windows that are very difficult to open, and windows that, in fact, they sent me a picture this morning on windows that are completely frosted over from the cold weather we've just had. But I'm open for any questions. Mayor: Thank you. Well, as we know, there are window replacements and there are window replacements. So, we have a member on this board, Member Cherry, who actually happens to be an expert in window replacement. He does a lot of that. So, I would like for him to comment in reference to these windows that we saw today on the field trip. In terms of its replacement and if they've replaced them, quote unquote, in kind. Member Cherry: Yeah. So, as you know, we go look at these buildings. So, we get to walk around the outside and we get to have a look. So, we don't do as thorough of an observation as you do when a window assessment's done or that the window assessor has done. I see a lot of issues with these windows and I agree with a lot of the that a lot of them need to be replaced. I think my concern is that the proposal is to replace a historic wood window that has a frame. And this is a good example. This house is a good example of this where there is a frame which is part of the window and a sash which is a part of the window. And there's a lot of other little window geek parts in there too. But the I'm bringing up those two parts because that's what's been brought up in this in this assessment as far as the frame is historic, the sash is non-historic. And again, it's hard, it's really hard to sometimes know a lot of that for sure with absolute certainty and certainly from walking around. But the method of which is being proposed regarding removing sashes and then inserting a new entire window which includes a frame and the sash and of course all the little parts is a different window replacement than, you know, removing the sashes. There are definitely from my observation, there's a lot of parts on those sashes that are unrepairable. They're either too warped to be repaired or they're too damaged from rot. And same with the frame and of those a lot of those windows. And then there's also the factor of the settlement. Window E, for instance, is probably four inches lower or three inches lower on the right-hand side than the left-hand side when viewed from the outside. So our criterion from assessing windows always looks at degradation, doesn't take into account that sort of settlement, but clearly it's an issue, right? So it warrants addressing. I think the question for the board with this project and other projects is it's a significant house, so it's really important the character of those windows. And I think the detail in the character of those windows is really important to preserve and how will that be preserved and these windows be replaced in a way that the term that's being used in kind replaces them in a way that represents them in the way that they are historically, but in an operable way. And certainly removing the sashes and inserting a window unit, a factory-made window unit does that as far as replace it from a functionality standpoint. But I guess the real question to us and all of us is, is that, is that the precedent we want to have for historic window replacement? Because we've done both. We've allowed that and we've allowed and we've also mandated that those windows that in the in-kind replacement of those windows be to remove the sashes that are in the historic frames that are still good and replace the components that are degraded, rotted or warped as opposed to remove them, discard them and then replace them sort of wholesale so to speak with with a unit. So that that would be my what I would have to add from a technical standpoint is on what's being replaced. My what I the only thing I would question a lot a lot of what the window assessor said I would not question. I think and the criteria, I think there's a lot of those windows that need to be addressed, but how they're addressed I think is really important to figure out and and the way I see them being addressed is the removal of historic material where they're and and the replacement with a non-historic material which would happen either way, but it's it's a non-historic material that in my mind isn't in kind because it's a factory every window that's being inserted into a historic frame as opposed to in kind would be to remake new sashes, remake the frames in kind to the dimensions that they are and then reinstall them. Mayor: Which, which windows are you referring to? Because of the eight Applicant: Yeah. Mayor: that were in question, those window sashes weren't historic. The windows and window sashes aren't historic. The frames are and the frame. Applicant: Yeah. The right. So the Mayor: A lot of these were done in like 1988, 1989. Applicant: What was done to them? No. Mayor: What? Applicant: Well, what I would come while you're looking for that, I can respond to that is dimensionally and construction-wise, they look identical to the windows on on the front of the house. I don't know what elevation that is. But so then if they were replaced at that point, they were replaced in that manner, meaning the sashes were were either built new in kind with in kind meaning rebuilt to replicate exactly what's there. Mayor: In the window assessment, explain. So if you window, for example, only the frame was historic. So for example, like that particular Applicant: Which, which window were you looking at? Mayor: Uh, sure. Uh, so, okay, the E, E is a good one. The frame is historic but non-historic. Applicant: That was the only one where the frame was in question. On the description of the windows and how they were going them, they did put in there that they would, you know, try to keep the frame intact. That was the only one that said that it might damage because of the particular window. All of the other ones said that bring up the historic frame, say that the frame isn't in question at all, but that the sashes and windows were placed sometime summer 1988, summer 199, but the windows and sashes are were already placed at some time before. So what this the Mayor: ones that are frames do need to stain, right? But the sashes of that window are coming out. The frame of that window is staying in, and then a factory window is getting inserted into a historic frame. In other words, a Windsor factory window that has a frame and sashes. They're not sashes that are being remade in kind to the sashes that were originally there or potentially were replaced that we're seeing now. On the assessment, it explains that a lot of these sashes were up that was in a double. You know, like I said, their goal is to make these windows because they want to keep this. They bought a historic, they want it to look exactly the way it looks. They want it to be, you know, conform and be a historic piece. That was what they purchased. They didn't want to make changes or anything like that, but the windows are incredibly. Some of them won't close all the way, some of them won't open. Yeah, I understand that, and I agree with that. But what I'm saying is, to your point, I don't think what's proposed here does what you're saying. I don't think putting a Windsor factory window inside, taking the sashes, whether they're historic or non-historic, out of a historic frame and putting a new window unit within that frame does what you're saying. I don't think it replicates. I think it actually looks different. The actual bid on the window, I mean, they have a lot of experience in historic, and they even make a point to reference doing historic windows. They are here in town. Who, who, who are, sorry, who, who is "they"? Windsor Architectural Windows and Doors of Santa Fe. Right. And, you know, that's like I said, I mean, this is something that they do. Oh, I understand. I understand that. I'm just saying it's a, it's a, it's just a different type of window replacement on a house of this importance that what's being proposed here will look different than, in my opinion, markedly different than replacing those windows truly in kind, which would be to make replicas of what's there and replace them with replicas. And Windsor has a distributor here in Santa Fe, so they have a sales distribution here, but it's a factory. It's a national window company that makes, you know, it's a factory window. So, just, just trying to... Is that a requirement, like no factory windows? I'm not sure. I'm just asking. I don't... Well, my understanding of the requirement is that they are to be replaced in kind. And my understanding of "in kind" would be with wood. If they're wood, that they're replaced with wood, that the dimensions of that wood are the same as the wood that is, that the original windows are, that all the dimensionality of that is the same so that it represents the same. And I mean, part of the issue, no fault to you, is there's, you know, we're looking at photographs and then we're looking at a window order that has a very schematic drawing of a window, you know, so it's, it's, it's difficult to tell, oh, you know, are these windows that are being presented, are the rails and styles on the sashes the same? But the one main thing that will markedly be different is you're taking a new window that, when I say window, I mean a whole unit that has a frame and it has sashes and it has weather stripping and it has all the components that make up a window and removing the sash portion of an original, or even if it's the original frame, and we're assuming that the sashes that were remade for those that are being stated as non-historic were made to match the historic sashes because they match the sashes that are on the front, which are historic. So when that whole, you know, the new frame goes in, that's going to take up space. So you're going to see basically a window within a window and then sashes inside a frame that are inside a frame. So the clear opening, the overall glass opening, is going to get smaller. So, and I'm just trying to explain to you how I see it as just being different and how I see the definition of "in kind" and with it being a significant structure. You know, a little bit of extra scrutiny is taken towards this in wanting to maintain that integrity of the look in a very nuanced and detailed way because it's, you know, it becomes really easy to say "in kind" and, well, yeah, it's square with this many muntin bars, but if it's, if the whole assembly is, there's a lot of nuances that can make that look, that make historic windows look very definitively unique compared to factory windows. And so I think if you put a factory window in there, it's going to have that markedly different appearance. Factory windows are not allowed in my opinion. Well, in my opinion, no. Because the way I interpret the code is that it needs to be replaced in kind. But in kind. Okay. So in kind means identical to what is... Correct. Scott, did you indicate that there's a place here in Santa Fe that does replicate windows? Well, there are a variety of woodworkers that do it. Yeah, I mean, there's a variety of people who, because of this, when I say this, because of this ordinance and because of windows that get replaced in the district, yeah, are there a variety of custom woodworkers that make windows to go and to replace historic windows or non-historic windows or, in this case, historic windows that have non-historic components? But I think it's also the board's decision to determine, you know, how do we want to see this kind of a case approached? Meaning, there's what I'm interpreting from the assessment, right? Is there are some windows that, there's a variety of windows, but the ones I'm going to refer to specifically that have historic frames, but the sashes were replaced in kind in the 80s. So if those sashes have now expired their lifespan, then, but the frames are still good, then the way I view the code is then those windows should be replaced, those non-historic sashes should be replaced in kind with new sashes, but not with a, not by taking the sashes out and then just reinstalling a window wholesale into that historic frame because I think that creates a totally different look and style. And I think there's a lot, I know this from experience because windows are my business, and that we replace a lot of windows. I have replaced a lot of windows where the board has required it to be replaced in kind. They required it to be made by... No, not by me, but by a woodworker so that a window replacement, somebody doing the window replacement, can replace the windows. It's often times that maybe just lots of the buildings here are contributing. So the contributing windows on the facade, two of them will be made by a local manufacturer, by a local craftsperson in kind to match the historic windows, and then the rest of the windows on the non-contributing, on the non-primary facades, would be, you know, replaced in the way that's being proposed here. But on a significant building, all the facades are... Yeah. Are primary. So... And that's why I guess, I understand, are there specific companies that we have to use to put in windows? Is there someone we are supposed to be using? I mean, I know for like window assessments this was done, but... I think that's up to you. How, if I have to follow something so specific, how to do that? There can't be but yourself and maybe a couple of others that actually do that in this town because Architectural Window and Doors of Santa Fe, I know, have done stuff in historic and done primary facades, at least that's what they've said. Sure, and I don't doubt that. Well, but I guess, you know, I mean, it's the middle of winter and these people are feeling it, but we thought they went through the right steps. Yeah, no, I understand that. And it's, it's nuanced and it's, and it's code. This code is that specific. I just want to make sure because we don't want to do this. I think it's, I think it's not, the word that's being used is "in kind," which has a lot of different interpretations, right? Sure. So "in kind" could just mean like it has the same light divisions and it's wood. But, you know, I think that as far as precedent, I've experience with, I would say experience with a lot of window replacement projects, whether I was involved in them or not, because I know the other people in the industry and, you know, we chat and we're colleagues. And this board has done both. They have made people replace windows on primary facades. We'll just say it that way. On significant, they're all, but on contributing, they're very specific with windows with "in kind" meaning you replace it, you know, to match like a dead ringer. Like, you know, when you come back and the window replacement's done, it's like, "Wow, is that a 1930s window? It's in such fantastic shape." You know, but with the window replacement that's being proposed, you're going to walk up to those windows and go like, "Oh, look. They inserted a replacement window inside a historic window frame." Okay. That, and so I think it's, but yes, both things have happened from the board in my experience, and both things have happened from the board. I've been sitting on this board for almost a year, eight, nine months, but I've stood in front of the board for 15 years prior to that. So, I've, I've, I've had it and seen it go both different ways, you know. But I think in my position here, I'm interpreting it as like, what's the intent of the code? What are we trying to do? This is a significant building, and we're trying to preserve the visual integrity of it, right? The historic material, if that sashes on window E came out in 1986 and went back with that board's interpretation of "in kind," we'd have to go through the notes to figure all that out if there were any even. But I think that is going to represent the look of those windows in that building the best. And so to me, that would be, that's what should be done on this building. Okay. Thank you, Scott. Member Bish. Thank you, Madam Chair. I've, I've tried to express this before. I think what's happening here is incredibly unfair to the applicant and to the staff. I appreciate that we have some expertise on the board, but the staff is advising applicants to hire a window assessor that's on the qualified list, which they do at an expense. And that report is provided to us in our packet. That's what we're all prepared to talk about. We come to this meeting and we have a whole new opinion expressed in great detail, which is not what the code prescribes. It's, it's a new precedent. It's not what we've done in the past to sort of dictate the replacements. This applicant is agreeing to restore the windows that the Ray Patterson assessment says are restorable and historic. We've seen successful replacements of windows in kind, whether that be full wood and glazing on those that are restorable. And in for the other cases, the light pattern matching, the size unchanged, the frames intact, we've seen successful projects doing that. This, this, this level of detail is giving the impression that, I mean, I think the applicant even asked, like, does it have to be done by Mr. Cherry? Like, no, of course not. But this is not our job to kind of dictate this level of detail in a project that's come before us recommended by staff with a complete packet. Other comments? As long as we're here. Yeah, thank you. So, yeah, I mean, I actually agree with a lot of the, you know, the specifics about this discussion that have been raised by Member Cherry, and I do also agree with what Member Bish just said about the way we actually practice. The way I'm seeing the situation, and it's come up several times in the last several meetings with windows, is we, the board, I'm not really in favor of simply blindly relying on one window assessment that's provided by an applicant. That's not casting aspersions. It's just a limited amount of information. But on the other hand, that is what staff has advised the applicants to do up until now. The staff is working with the applicant. The staff has indicated that the way they're proceeding is acceptable and they will recommend that it be approved. So to me, we're kind of in a place where there is some unfairness to the applicant at this stage to rewrite the process. But we have been talking about, and I hope that we're just about to enter into a very serious discussion about updating our policy on windows so that we can really make sure that we're following best practices for historic preservation and replacement of windows. We have extremely clear, specific guidelines that the board adopts and that applicants have available to them. And then that is the policy that we apply henceforth, and that's to me the solution, and I hope that we get there soon. I think that in this case, we have to remember that this is a significant house, and if any windows are removed and redone, I would say replicated, because sometimes when you say "in kind," as was explained by Member Cherry, it'll be different, and then you can immediately see that we're trying to preserve what is there. If the maker of the motion would indicate that, and I don't know what the cost is if you replicate sash by sash, or if you go buy an already manufactured window. I know windows are expensive anyway, and I don't know, I guess you could compare. The only thing, but just, if I don't mean to interrupt, but we'd still, I think, have to focus on the fact that under the information that's provided to us through the report, there's only one window that would need to be replaced in kind, and that would only be if it was non-reparable. This is not about the whole project, according to the applicant's presentation, and the applicant has said, and that report has said, that it's non-reparable. So that's the only one, I think, that is coming before us for an exception. Everything else is not. Jerry: Ten seconds or less. I agree with the window assessment, I think, and I agree that it's not fair for the staff and the board to try and make a determination about what their policy is going to be based on your case. However, I also see it as somewhat cut and dry in the sense of you got a window assessment. It shows that these ones are repairable, these ones are unrepairable. It shows some commentary on these ones are historic, these parts of these ones are historic, these parts of these ones aren't historic. So, in my mind, it's not that big of a deal. It's that you say, "Okay, we can replace these." How? And always have to say is, how do you replace them? Do you replicate them as the replacements? I don't think that's a new precedent. That's been done to me when I was, you know, so you could come away from this with, that's how it was for me when I was an applicant. I would present my case. Sometimes it was to replace a bunch of stuff, and the board said, "No, you've got to replicate that." And I went, "Okay." And back to my client, "So, we got to replicate these ones, and we got to do, and we can replace these ones with the Windsor window or whatever." And that's just, you move on. Oh, yeah. No, no. Can I say one thing? Because all of these windows, only H is a historic window. All of the others on the assessment show that they were put in in 1988 to 1994. A and B are historic. Madam Chair, point of order. We are really, this is overly repetitive at this point, and now we're just having an argument instead of. We should state our positions and then be done. Anyone from the public wanting to comment? The applicant is here. Thanks, Frank. I don't know. I'm having a microphone issue. I do see Ms. Benonato with her hand up. Thank you very much. It's been an interesting discussion, and I can just say that yes, if there's only one historic window, that is the one that needs the exception. However, I do understand that if you leave the frame in but then put a totally new window in, it does decrease the amount of the window by the amount of the old frame. And so you actually don't have the exact opening that you used to have. And again, I think this is maybe somewhat different in that it is a significant building. And so, perhaps there needs to be more attention paid to that, the difference that putting a new window in with an existing frame actually causes. And I wonder again if it's possible to just put in a the sash and not put in the new frame. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes. Hello. Madam Chair, I think the applicant is online. The homeowner, I'm sorry. Yes. Please. Hi. Can you please state your name and address for the record? Sure. So, this is Janet Sanders, and I'm here with my husband, Stuart Cohen. We're the applicants. We live at 801 Old Santa Fe Trail. Okay. And do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes, absolutely. Sure. Thank you. So, I appreciate the conversation, and I feel a little bit disconcerted because we have gone through this process for months, trying to complete in every regard every step of the application process, requirements, having architectural drawings, elevations done. We went through quite a lengthy process, and this is the first opportunity we have to speak to you. My understanding is that the proposal is that the windows that we're proposing to put in, they were not called "in kind" to us. They were called "like for like" with the idea that they would completely look exactly like what is being removed. So that's the first thing I want to say. The second is that I haven't heard, I'm not a window expert. I don't really know what all these parts are, and I feel a little bit at a, you know, a little bit of a disadvantage trying to defend the project to improve the comfort and the usability of my home when I don't have the language that you all have. But what I have not heard anybody address is that these are uninsulated single-pane windows. And I do not understand how replacing a sash or window sill is going to give me insulated windows that provide comfort in the home. It's really quite cold in this hundred-year-old house or so with very, very old windows. So, if somebody who was not in favor of our plan, I would respectfully ask if what you are proposing would address the fact that these windows are not insulated. And so we're not just talking about wood and frame and sash. We're talking about the glass. And I need to have an insulated house. I feel it's a matter of, I feel it's a matter of health. We are older people, and it's quite cold in our home. We've done all that we can to make this a very beautiful and well-restored home, and this is an essential element. So I'm confused by the discussion and would like some clarification about why what we're proposing is not sufficient, and what you are proposing, those who are not in favor, how that would address the coldness and the discomfort of living with very old uninsulated single-pane glass. Thank you for your comments. Is there anyone else? There is no one else, and I will entertain a motion at this moment or this case. Thank you, Madam Chair. In case number 2026011768 HDRB at 801 Old Santa Fe Trail Unit A, I move that we adopt the staff recommendation, finding that all exception criteria have been met and approve the project as submitted. Is there a second? Second. And is there any further discussion? No further discussion. Roll call vote, please. Member Bianu. Yes. Member Beach. Yes. Member Cherry. No. Member DNA. No. The motion dies. I take that back. Sure. You got to vote. Yes. Even though I do agree with everything that Member Cherry said, and I really hope, I'm going to vote in favor of the motion, but please, I'm going to hold you to it to really replicate these windows. Okay. Absolutely. Okay. I'm going to look. Thank you. Also, I have a comment on something other than the windows. I have been admiring for the longest time. They have that little metal fence, and they've never removed that. But along with that metal fence was a little metal gate that was removed, and a little, excuse me, it matched the little metal fence, the old gate right there in the front of the house. Now they have put two metal gates, pedestrian gates. Those are new. One at the front of the house, one as you enter and go to the right that we noticed on the field trip. Take a look at that. I don't know what happened to that little metal gate on the significant house. Definitely. Definitely. Thank you. Okay. Good luck with your project. Thank you so much. I'm sure we've learned a lot. I've learned a lot from Scott, too. I learned a lot. I don't know. You could weigh all options. Okay, friends and neighbors, we're going to the next case that's located at 210 Donga Spot. Oh, look. There's people hiding behind. Yeah. Lenny. Okay. This is case 2025011724 HRB at 210 Dongaspar Avenue, the St. Francis Hotel, and that's for a remodel. The building abuts three street frontages: Dongaspar Avenue, Westwater Street, and Ortiz Street. Dongaspar Avenue is a commercial hub with two to three-story buildings fronting the sidewalk and a parking lot directly across from the hotel. Building styles vary on the Dongaspar streetscape, and a city-run parking lot is located across the street. Water Street is similar, consisting of predominantly two and three-story buildings, but also has several single-story buildings, except for the Hotel St. Francis and the building to its north. The buildings along Ortiz Street are all single-story. The commercial Mission Revival style structure located at 210 Dongaspar is listed as significant to the downtown and East Side Historic District. All elevations are considered primary on significant buildings. The property was originally the Dargas Hotel and is currently the Hotel St. Francis. Nargasus Hotel was constructed in 1924, but buildings were known to have existed in this location as early as 1890. The building is characterized by its unusual triangular footprint. The Mission Revival style building has arches at the patio and terrace entrances, as well as over some windows. It also holds wrought iron elements, clay tile detailing on a stucco exterior. The windows on the third floor have a continuous concrete sill. The second-floor openings are recessed squares with individual concrete balconies with wrought iron railings along Dongaspar Avenue and Water Street, and concrete sills on the other elevations. The ground floor windows have arched awnings in blue at the restaurant on the northeastern section and brown awnings at the hotel on the southeast section. All windows are wood and are trimmed in a combination of blue and white or both. There is a long patio at the entrance with a brown portico under white and an enclosed courtyard patio at the northwest corner. The courtyard is enclosed with an 8-foot-high adobe wall with windows that have iron bars, wood doors, and is topped with a clay tile roof. The building's stucco is painted in beige. The 1984 historic building inventory form notes that the first floor of the hotel was thought to have existed by 1883 when it was the National Hotel. A second story was added between 1902 and 1908. The 1995 historic building inventory notes that a remodel and restoration of the property took place in the mid-1980s, and some doors were replaced and some changes occurred to the storefront on the north side of the building. More recent remodeling from 2008, which was approved by the HDRB, included a new window opening on the north and west dining courtyard, alteration of the arched gate at the courtyard for functionality, and addition of clay roof tiles on the west elevation of the hotel. The applicant is currently requesting to relocate a pedestrian door on the south ground floor level of the hotel, to extend the landing at that doorway, install railing at the landing, and stucco repair to match the existing stucco. The relocation of the door will align the door with the hall into the building and allow for the small area in front of the existing door to be used for an ADA-compliant restroom and room within the hotel. The landing will be extended to allow for egress. Staff will note that this is not an ADA-compliant exit since it has stairs rather than an ADA ramp. Staff believes a ramp should be considered at this exit since it is next to a planned ADA room. Staff finds that the exception criteria have been met and recommends approval of the exception to section 14-5.2D to D5A to alter the openings on a primary facade. Staff also recommends approval of the other elements of the application as they comply with the general design standards and the downtown and east side design standards. Staff stands for questions. Thank you. Any questions for Lenny? No questions now. Richard, will you please state your name and address for the record? Richard Martinez, PO Box 925, Santa Fe. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you very much. He's been sworn in. Oh, Richard, hi. How are you? Good. Hopefully, I have a quick something to say. This hotel, the Hotel St. Francis, had a flood about a year ago that required the repair of about half the rooms. So that whole north wing of the building, sorry, south wing, needs repair. For us to get a permit, the city required that five of the rooms be accessible with accessible bathrooms as well. This wing of the hotel was built in 1926, and so some of the bathrooms were very unusual. Some of them had a step up from the rooms. You actually had to step up into the bathroom from the rooms. Some of them had the lavatory sink in the rooms, so only the bathrooms only had a toilet and a shower in them. In the renovation, we were trying to keep all of the exterior windows and architectural elements completely as they were, no changes. It was just an interior repair job and was difficult to fit in the rooms with some of the bathrooms being expanded to be accessible and some of them being expanded just to be proper bathrooms the guests expect, not having sinks in the rooms. We never intended to do any changes to the exterior of this significant building, and we got a permit for that to happen. However, one of the accessible bathrooms that we were planning to do is now not possible because we discovered some existing plumbing lines that are in the way of the expanded accessible bathroom. It happens to be right next door to the bathroom, the only bathroom that I could see that we could expand. The way that we're expanding this bathroom is that we're expanding into the space where the exit door now exists. Luckily, we're able to move that door over around six feet so that we could expand the bathroom and still exit, have the emergency exit go to the same place basically, and not have to do renovations to the hallways and to the accessible stairways from the different rooms. This is not a historic door. It's a right now it's just a flush metal door, painted metal door, from the outside because it's not intended to be ever used from the outside to get in. There's actually no hardware that you can get in from the outside. It's just intended to be an emergency exit from inside to the outside. That's it. This non-historic door is on the parking lot side of the building and it's behind a privacy wall. However, this is a significant building, and so all of the facades are primary. So, this is a change on the primary facade. My proposal is to move this existing door or one just like it because it's an old door, and we proposed to get a new metal door just exactly the same. This door was put in in the 1980s as part of the renovation of the hotel. There was a major renovation at that time. Incidentally, the renovation in 2008 was me. We redid the lobby, the restaurant, the bar, and a handicapped elevator at that time. The change that I'm proposing is only here because this is a significant building, and this door is on the outside of the building. I never intended to make any change to the exterior of the building. This change will not affect the status of the building, and it won't affect any of the historic elements of the building, the roof, the red roof, the windows, the doors, anything like that. Exception criteria was required because all facades are considered primary, and those exception criteria were written by Joseph Karns, who's here, and he can answer or address any questions on the exception. Thank you, Richard. Any questions for Richard? No for you. And Mr. Karns, do you want to say anything? Okay. Any questions for Attorney Karns? No. Okay. Anyone from the public wanting to comment on this case? Yes, Miss Benavidez. Here we are. Please go ahead. Thank you. Stephanie Benavidez. I'm appreciative that they're pointing out that this is a significant structure, and that the 2008 renovations, I believe it was the date, occurred inside. I'm not quite clear about how many ADA accessible rooms there needs to be in this particular part of the hotel. It sounded like there were five, but then I thought I heard Mr. Martinez say that this was the only one. I do understand that they want to expand in this direction, and I do think that if you're going to have a door near ADA accessible rooms, that you should have a ramp. But I do also point out that a few years ago, the hotel came in and got an exception on the west side for a spa type setting over there that they insisted would be absolutely necessary for the economic health of the hotel. So, I just feel like it's nicking away at the facades, the primary facades, with small changes or not so small changes, and wonder when the building becomes not significant. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? I'm going to guess no. Okay, board members, if you don't have any questions, I will entertain a motion, please. Oh, yes, Len. Thank you, Madam Chair. Regarding case number 2025-011724 HDRB at 210 Don Gaspar Avenue, I move that we approve the request to relocate the door to allow for the aforementioned handicapped restroom facility. Do I hear a second? I have a second. And just a friendly amendment to note that all exception criteria have been met. Thank you for reminding me of that. Roll call vote, please. Member Pimpanu? Yes. Member Beach? Yes. Member Cherry? Yes. Member DNE? Yes. The motion has passed. Thank you very much. Richard, if you happen to know, just this is an aside, how many rooms are there in that hotel? I believe there are 84. 84. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Last case this evening, which is located at 330 Gormley Lane, and we have the Soul. No, I'm missing what. Did I skip one? Yeah. Well, 13. Oh, okay. Oh, I'm sorry. Um, 7, this is Sale 726 or 728. I'm sorry. I had already checked it off. Had checked you off. Okay, Miss Paul, can I hear from you? Chair, members of the board, in case number 2026-011794 HDRB, the single-family residence at 726 and 728 Galisteo Street is listed as significant to the Don Gaspar Area Historic District. The main structure was built in 1930 in the Territorial architectural design style and comprises approximately 1,274 square feet of roofed area. The structure was given significant status as identified in the 1982 New Mexico Historic Building Inventory Form. The structure is prominently situated on the corner of Galisteo Street and Sena Street and speaks to the architectural vocabulary of the streetscape. The Historic Districts Review Board has requested that all significant structures in the historic districts come before the board for any proposed alterations, and the applicant has done so. The applicant is requesting to replace the current windows on the structure in kind with double-hung windows. The applicant has contracted an architectural historian for a window assessment, and the summary of the assessment has recorded that all the windows on the subject property are not historic. These window openings are historic and will not be altered or modified in any way. Here is the north elevation of 726 Galisteo Street. This sits on the corner of Sena Street and Galisteo Street. This is very similar to the previous case you heard at 801 Old Santa Fe Trail. The applicant is also proposing to do some repair of the brick coping on top of the parapet and restucco the structure in cementitious La Habra stucco color Colonial White. Here's the east facade facing Galisteo Street. Here is the east facade behind the fence, the south facade behind the fence, and the west elevation. Give a good overview of those recessed windows and doorways. So, as described, the owner is requesting restucco, replace the windows in kind, repair the brick, and replace gutters and downspouts. With Mr. Patterson's window assessment, he assessed in his professional opinion that the windows and doors are non-historic. The sashes, exterior casings, and the seals are, the window openings are in kind and similar to the case that was presented before you earlier. Here is the proposed site plan of the proposed window and door replacement showing the locations of where the windows will be replaced. It's 11 windows, four doors to be replaced. And with that, staff recommends approval of the proposed project and finds that the application complies with section 14-5.2D, general design standards for all historic districts, and 14-5.2H, Don Gaspar Area Design Standards. Thank you. Staff stands for questions. Thank you, Paul. Any questions for Paul, board members? No questions for you right now. Applicant, please come forward and get sworn. Will you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record. Michael Meisel, PO Box 2764. Thank you. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. He's been sworn in. Did you have something to add to what Paul told us? I just want to make one clarification. The way Paul read it, I just wanted to make sure that we understood it's windows, the sashes, everything about them are non-historic. Just the openings are. I just wanted what I heard might not have been, but it is written as that. Even though you're indicating they are not historic, you are wanting to replace them exactly as what is there. As they are. Okay. And I understand you're wanting to change the color of the building from what we are seeing in the elevation. Can you put that up, the color of the building? So the color of the building, so it's originally an adobe building that was stuccoed at some point. That first color was the colonial white. This is just basically aged and discolored over the years. I did bring, on the one corner you can actually see under layers, the original white. I did bring samples, but I had left them with Paul. So, unfortunately, I don't have the sample for you. So, is this going to be like white? It's the colonial white. I believe it's just like a slight off-white, more of an ivory. But you're saying this is the original color? Yes, the building. The original stucco color of the building. Okay. Questions, board members, or comments? There were some historic photos in the package of the white. So, at some point over the history, Sorry, we did see the... Yeah, remember. Thank you. We did see some of the chipped pieces. They were on a little display. Someone put them there. And so we did see the original stucco color, which is a... Kind of, as you say, an ivory type white. Yes. Similar to the... that's more of a pink right behind you. It's definitely more. Okay. Board members should not have questions at this time. And is there anyone from the public? Yes, Miss Benonato. Just one second. Okay, please go ahead, Miss Benonato. Thank you very much. Yeah, this is your second case on window replacement on a... is this a significant structure? And when they say in kind, I understand they're not historic windows, but are they now double-pane windows and are they going to be replaced with wood windows, which is what I think the assessment says they are? I just like a little more clarification, and I hope the board would too, on what does the replacement in kind really mean in terms of what these windows are now and what will actually be replaced. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? I'm going to guess no. No one else. And did you want to comment? Do you want to say anything? Respond to that or... Okay. Any other questions, board members, or comments? If not, Yeah, what are the windows being replaced with? So, they're currently wood windows. As you can see, they're double-hung windows. We want to just replace them in the same wood style, double-hung, but with an insulated glass. It would be a problem. So, you'll put double-hungs in all of the locations? As they are there. Where the casements are, they'll be replaced with double-hungs. That one small window, that's the only casement. And I'm sure... Thought I saw a couple. Oh, there's a matching one at the bathroom. Those would be replaced as casements. And with what kind of window is there? Wood casement. What brand? I do not remember off the top of my head. Okay. But just a factory wood window. Yes. Okay. Okay. Motion, please. Nobody. I'm sure. Yes. Thank you. Regarding case number 202611794, HDRB. Applicant requests replacement in kind. And what was the other phrase? Just in kind. Yes. Because we had another one had a double phrase. In kind, with wood, as described to the board this evening. And am I supposed to say he meant the exception? There's no exception. I'm trying to follow my colleague's advice. I just need a second. Maybe I couldn't get a second because this is a miserable motion. I'm sorry. I'll try it again. Okay. So, I move approval. Do I get a second? But there's also new stucco and repairing the brick. Oh, well, I forgot about the brick parapet. And the coping. For the repair of the brick parapet. I would... you're going to be able to clean it. He's only repairing those the brick that is, yes, that today. Okay. So maybe I should rephrase the whole thing. Sorry. Let me try again if I may. For the record, 20126-11794 HDRB at 720 and 726 and 728 Galasteo Street. Move approval of the window request, replacing the wooden windows. Also addressing the parapet repair of the spalled brick coping or territorial trim around the ones that are compromised and also the parapet in the same. Second. And is there anything to add? A second with a friendly amendment to address the stucco color is approved as colonial white based on the applicant's evidence of that being an original color. And the rest of the application, including the rear gutter and downspouts, are moved for approval. Thank you. Accept the amendment. Anything else? And I don't know if you specified, but the brick parapet, replacing those that only need to be replaced, that are just repair. Yeah. Thank you. Anybody else? If nothing else, we have a roll call vote, please. Member BManu. Yes. Member Beachide. Yes. Member Cherry. No. Member Dman. Yes. The motion has passed. Chair. Thank you. So much. And I'm sure that there is no one for the for 3:30 Gormley. So that will be heard at a future date. Is Armando on? Correct. Lanny, no one's online, right? Armando on. Yes. Okay. Someone is online or not? Yes. Armando Gonzalez. So, for 3:30 Gormley Lane. Yes. Oh, okay. So, okay, Lenny. Okay. So, this is case 2025 011231-HDRB at 330 Gormley Lane for a remodel to rectify work without a permit street. Can you put my... can you put my thing up on the TV? Sorry. Proceed. I guess where you guys... you all right with that? Michael, can you please... there we go. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So the streetscape for the property is defined as the entire length of Gormley Lane between Canyon Road and Asakia Madre. Gormley Lane is a narrow dirt road with houses constructed to the street. There are only a few fences lining the street, and these consist of wood planks, wire, coyote, and yard walls and homes that are set further back from the road. The houses face the road and are all in medium brown colors with white or brown trim. Wood elements are in natural colors. There is a single commercial property at the corner of Canyon Road, which was previously Gormley's store and now houses an art gallery. The buildings along Gormley Lane are a variety of heights with both single and two-story buildings. The single-family residence at 330 Gormley is listed as non-contributing to the downtown and east side historic district due to its age. The residence was constructed in 1989 on 0.18 acres in a Spanish Pueblo Revival style. The property is lined with a six-foot high coyote fencing on the north, south, and west sides of the property. The driveway and parking areas are located at the front of the residence on the east side of the property. There's a low yard wall that separates the parking areas by creating a courtyard between the garage and the house. In March of 2023, a stop work order was issued for the construction of a pergola on the northwest corner of the property. At that time, Ramon Sarason, an HPD senior planner, was assigned to the case. Mr. Sarason proceeded with the case and was working with the applicant to obtain revised drawings until his resignation in May of 2024. The case was then reassigned to Lanny McCully. In June of 2024, when Miss McCully did the research and site visit on the property, it was discovered that the back portal constructed after 2019 was not approved, as well as the new pedestrian gates on the coyote fences. In order to bring the property into full compliance, Miss McCully worked with the applicant to include all aspects of the work done without approval for retroactive approval in the case. Outside of the delays due to staffing issues, there have been further delays due to communication issues, travel deadlines, and document submittals. The Stuart Compound Condominium Association reached out through their attorneys, Crupnik and Space LLC, in August of 2025 to find out where the city was in the process of this red-tagged property. The applicant requests retroactive approval for construction of a 144 square foot pergola on the northwest corner of the lot. The pergola is constructed of wood beams with an open roof in a natural color. The pergola will have no stain or paint. The pergola is currently located within the required building setback and must be relocated to meet the setback requirements. They want to construct, well, that to construct the 248-foot portal on the southwest corner of the residence. The portal's roof slopes to the south of the property and holds 6-inch low-profile canales. The portal is white. And then they need approval to install the exterior lighting that is currently on that portal and install solid wood pedestrian gates ranging in height from 5'10" to 6 ft. and the six-foot high latia fence on the north and south of the residence and one interior property fencing. The portal was constructed sometime after 2019 but was not permitted nor approved through the HDRB. The pergola was constructed in 2023 within the setback and without a permit nor approval from the HDRB. The pergola is required to be relocated a minimum of 5 ft. from the property line. This is the pergola as it was built. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed project with the condition that the pergola be relocated to meet the required setbacks and finds that the application complies with section 14-5.2D for general design standards and 14-5.2E for the downtown and east side standards. Questions for Lenny, board members? Nothing right now. Applicant, if you can get sworn in. Will you please state your name and address for the record? My name is Armando Gonzalez, and I'm doing the application on behalf of Elizabeth Guyer at 330 Gormley. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. He's been sworn in. Mr. Gonzalez, what do you have to tell us? Yes, just pretty much talk about the... we made a general mistake while building the pergola. We looked shallow, looked through the permitting, and we went through the, what is it called, through the Santa Fe County codes, and we thought we were it was within our limitations to not get a permit for the pergola, and we went ahead until we got red-tagged. After we got red-tagged, we tried working with the city to come into compliance. It has been a little bit confusing and taking a longer route. I just, like Elani said, the miscommunication was one of the major issues trying to make this move forward. At the first initial stages of the communication, I thought it was going to be, well, it was brought to us, if it was going to be like an easier process, just hand-drawn plans and easier, and it ended up being into getting an architect involved and really well prepared to get all of this to happen. And if we would have known that from the very beginning, we would have gone to just straight getting an architect, a drafter to get all of this ready for making everything for compliance. And that's, we are, we want to do whatever is necessary to bring it to compliance. Whatever needs to happen, we will gladly make that happen. Okay. Thank you, Lana. You indicated that the pergola needs to move in by five feet. From its present location. Yes, it is currently up to the property line. So, it's going to have to be moved out five feet from the fence line. Board members, any questions for the applicant? No questions. Anyone from the public wanting to comment on this? No. Chair Rios, there's no one online. Thank you. Motion, please. Board members. Nobody, sir. In case number 2025-011231 HDRB at 330 Gormley Lane, I move to approve the application with the condition that the pergola is moved within the setbacks required. Second the motion. Great. Thank you. Anything further? Roll call vote, please. Member Bianu. Yes. Member Beach. Yes. Member Cherry. No. Member Degen. Yes. The motion has passed. Chair. Thank you very much. And in reference to case 2026-0120770H, located at 302, we had a motion on the agenda and I, we have to move to, we move the motion. Hey, Chair Rios, I just want to remind you to speak into the mic. I don't think we can. Oh, I'm so sorry. In reference to the case at 302 Certo, it was moved to move to the end of the agenda. Do we have to remove that motion or? I would maybe suggest postponing that case to the next hearing on February. Is that sufficient? Yeah, I think so. A motion to postpone it to. I hear that. You did. I said, did you make the motion? Oh, somebody. In case number 2026-011770 HDRB at 302 Camino Certo, I move to postpone that case due to lack of applicant at this hearing until February 10th for the next meeting. Do I hear a second? Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. I oppose say no. Okay. Any discussion items? Yes. You have one minute to speak. No, I just was going to make a comment on this. If we can get clarification from staff on when story poles are required and when they're not, because it seems really unclear to the attending site visit board members. Okay, good point. When are story poles required, Gary, for new applications? Chair Rios and members of the board, I think we did mention that anytime there's an addition, we will need, require story poles. So that's part of the application process. So it's not, it's not predicated on how difficult it may be to install the pole, whether or not it's a second story or a steep slope or. No, not at all. Abandoned car under where the pole is going to be. Pretty much general if there's new construction or new addition. So. Okay. Okay. Anything else? Matters from the board. I guess that was matters from the board kind of. So, can I get clarification on that? Because I think that I would like to make sure that there's an understanding that that is conveyed to the applicants that anytime an exception is requested, that there needs to be story poles, a height exception. Well, so what it was just stated was anytime there's an addition. So is it anytime there's an exception or anytime there's an addition? I wouldn't for an addition that's under the acceptable height needs. Second. As long as it's within the height. Well, I mean, that's a discussion item, but. Yeah, so how has that been handled in the past? It's been allowable. In the past, it depends on who the manager is. So, yeah, so it's, it's like if it's a new, new construction, we do story poles and I've seen them in additions as well. So. Even if it's within the height restriction. Correct. So, are we saying that every single application that comes before us now that has an, is either new or addition will always have story poles? We'll look into that and let you. Okay. I mean, it's fine with me, but I, I haven't seen that being the case. Yeah. It just seemed like it needed to be clarified because it seemed like there should have been, we, the expectation we had today was they should have been on Red Pharaohs and they weren't. So, and then. Yeah. And I hate for that to come up for the first time with the applicant at the hearing. That's why I brought it up now. Right. Okay. Thank you. Anything else, board members? If not, our next meeting is February the 10th, 2026. And do I hear a motion to adjourn? Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you.