Historic Districts Review Board Meeting Tue, Sep 22, 2026 · Historic Districts Review Board https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/1179-historic-design-review-sep-22-2026 == Executive Summary == The Historic Districts Review Board met on September 22, 2026, addressing several property cases and discussing procedural matters. Key decisions included the unanimous approval of a new 1,800 sq ft residence at 925 Canyon Road, known as "River House," with specific conditions for corner radiuses and window/door insets. The Board also approved a remodel and addition for an accessory dwelling unit and main house at 320 Camino Delora, and upgraded the historic status of several units on Juanita Street. A significant discussion revolved around the unauthorized stucco and painting of the contributing "Cider Press" building at 127 East De Vargas Street, which covered historic murals. The Board postponed a decision on this case, requiring the applicant to investigate the feasibility of paint removal and provide more information on the stucco application. Procedural discussions included the need for perspective views in future applications, the interplay between federal and local preservation standards, and concerns about the current window preservation policy. The Board also noted that a City Council study session on the General Plan and Land Development Code update is scheduled for November 10th. == Key Decisions == - Approved a remodel and addition to an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and an addition to the main house at 320 Camino Delora (Case 2026-013106-HDRB) as submitted and recommended by staff. - Adopted staff's recommendations to maintain Unit A as non-contributing and upgrade Unit B to contributing status at 405 A and B Juanita Street (Case 2026-013079-HDRB). - Adopted staff's recommendations to maintain 407 Juanita Street as non-contributing and upgrade 407.5 Juanita Street to contributing status (Case 2026-013080-HDRB). - Approved a new 1,800 sq ft residence, "River House," at 925 Canyon Road (Case 2026012488HTRB), conditioned on corner radiuses being 2-3 inches and windows/doors being inset 1-2 inches minimum. - Adopted five sets of findings of fact and conclusions of law by voice vote. == Motions & Votes == - Motion to postpone Old Business cases 2026-012691-HDRB and 2026-013107-HDRB (817 Vista Catedral) to 10/13/2026 — Passed (details not specified). - Motion to approve Case 2026-013106-HDRB (320 Camino Delora) as submitted and recommended by staff — Passed unanimously (3-0). - Motion to adopt staff's recommendations for Case 2026-013079-HDRB (405 A and B Juanita Street) — Passed unanimously (3-0). - Motion to adopt staff's recommendations for Case 2026-013080-HDRB (407 and 407.5 Juanita Street) — Passed unanimously (3-0). - Motion to postpone Case 135 Grant Avenue to 10/27/2026 — Passed unanimously (3-0). - Motion to accept the applicant's proposal for 127 East De Vargas Street (reproduce "Cider Press" sign, not reproduce two images, add a plaque) — Failed (lacked a second). - Motion to postpone the application for 127 East De Vargas Street until the applicant can demonstrate the feasibility of paint removal and provide information on the stucco application — Passed (3-1). - Motion to approve Case 2026012488HTRB (925 Canyon Road) for a new 1,800 sq ft residence with conditions for corner radiuses (2-3 inches) and window/door insets (1-2 inches minimum) — Passed unanimously (details not specified). == Public Comment == A public commenter expressed concern that the board's reconsideration process creates unnecessary costs for low-income residents in historic districts. The Chair noted that such motions are rare. No public comment was taken during the City Council study session announcement. == Topics == - Reconsideration Procedures - Historic District Standards - Accessory Dwelling Unit Remodel - Application Drawing Requirements - Window Preservation Policy - Public Comment Period - Meeting Location Change - Appeal to City Council - New Historic Preservation Manager == Full Transcript == We are live. This is for real. I'm calling this meeting to order. We are the Historic Districts Review Board, and welcome all. This is September 22, 2026. May we have a roll call, please? Member Simmons? Here. Member Biedscheid? Excused. Member Cherry? Excused. Member Degnan? Here. Vice Chair Bienvenu? Here. Madam Chair Rios? Here. Madam Chair, you have a quorum. Thank you very much. Are there any changes to tonight's agenda, staff or the board? Yes, Amanda. Staff has two changes, just advising old business, 2026-012691-HDRB is postponed to October 13, 2026, and new business 2026-013107-HDRB is postponed to October 13, and that's for 817 Vista Catedral. Thank you so much. Board members, anyone on the board have any changes? Member [unintelligible]. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let's see. Under old business, case number B, discussion for possible reconsideration: case number 2026-012765-HDRB at 1062 Camino San Acacio. And item C, discussion for possible reconsideration, item 2026-012764-HDRB at 1062 Camino San Acacio. I move that the agenda be amended to withdraw permanently those two items for the agenda. And can I just make a brief comment as to why? Thank you. So by way of background, these two matters were decided several meetings ago. At the last meeting, a motion was made and approved to place these two items for possible reconsideration on tonight's agenda. Subsequent to that meeting, I had the opportunity to look at Robert's Rules of Order in some detail and came to the conclusion that motions for reconsideration, even though that procedure's been utilized in these hearings on a number of occasions, too. In particular, I can remember in recent times, both as proposed by board members and also as proposed by preservation division staff. I did come to the conclusion that those are actually not the proper way to proceed under Robert's Rules because motions for reconsideration, if made at all, should be made before the adjournment of a meeting at which the original motion that is intended to be reconsidered was decided. So I don't believe it's appropriate to have a reconsideration of the motion since it was already determined at a previous meeting. I do think, just for the benefit of the public and the board, that in the event that there is a belief that a decision was erroneously made, there is still a procedure to undertake, but it's not for reconsideration. And here I'm only talking about after the fact. It's not a motion for reconsideration. It would be either a motion to amend or a motion to rescind, which have a different set of procedural rules. But those wouldn't be applicable in those case, this case, either one of these cases either. The applicant is represented, not surprisingly, that action has been undertaken on reliance on the original motion that would obviate any subsequent reconsideration, amendment, or rescission. And I think that for all those reasons, it should be taken off the agenda permanently. And I do think that also an apology is in order to the applicant for having to respond to that improvidently granted motion. Thank you, Amber. And I noticed that the owner of the property is here. You're the owner. Correct? So we're free to leave. Sorry. You had to attend. I, I, I wanted to have you alerted that you didn't need to show up tonight, but perhaps you didn't get the message. Okay. I think you just probably wanted to make sure. But good evening, and thank you, and good luck with your project. We have no minutes for this evening, but we do have five findings of fact and conclusions of law, four of which are from January 13, 2026. But we still need to vote on the agenda, I think. Oh, I'm sorry. All those in favor of the agenda. Actually, I think we need a motion first. I'll move to approve the agenda as amended. I'm sorry. I am moving so fast on this this evening. I guess I want to get out of here, you guys. We'll be out of here in five minutes. Okay. I second the motion. All those in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Aye. And opposed, say no. Thank you. And that's why we have more members here so that they keep me honest. Okay? So we will move on. We do not have any minutes this evening, but we do have, as I indicated, five findings of fact and conclusions of law, four of which are from January 13, 2026, and one is from May 26, 2026. Any changes to any of these, either staff or board? If not, I will entertain a motion to adopt these. Moves to adopt the approval of findings and conclusions. Okay. Through E. Second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. And opposed, say no. Thank you. Matters from the public. If there's anyone in this room that wishes to comment on anything related to H board matters, you're welcome to come to the podium at this point. It does, it would not have anything to do with your case. Why they, why they can reconsider one of their decisions, and that they don't cost the tech, the community any more time and money than they already have to spend. This board is very hard, makes it really impossible for people of limited income to live in the historic district. And, and that idea would make it even more difficult as it would involve more money, more time. Thank you. Thank you very much for your comments. And I do want to indicate that motions for reconsideration that I can think of recently, and I've been on the board for quite a little while, that, it's that case that you're talking about, Richard, and that does not come before this board very often. Motions for, to reconsider or more motions to rescind or to rehear a case. That does not occur very often. I can guarantee you. But thank you for your comments, Richard. Is there anyone else in this room that wishes to comment about anything related to each board matters? No one. Is there anyone on Zoom? No, Madam Chair. No hands raised. We'll move on to staff communications. Heather, Amanda, or I have one staff communication, Madam Chair, and that our next hearing that is going to be October 13 will be located at 500 Market Street in the second floor of the REI Building. So just, it'll be posted on the next agenda. I just wanted to give you the advance notice. It will not be in the chambers. Thank you. Do you have anything, Heather? Got it. Okay. Thank you. Madam Chair? We have, Madam Chair? Yes. I, I wanted to bring to the board's attention that the appeal, appeal petition on a case, which is 2026-12126-HDRB regarding the address at 515 Paseo de Peralta, has been found to conform with the requirements for appeals, and it has been placed on the governing body agenda for September 30. That'll be a week from Wednesday. That is a structure, again, at 515. You may recall that it was on the agenda for a meeting in April, then it was assigned to a subcommittee. Then the subcommittee, after meeting with the subcommittee, the architect came back with a redesign, and the redesign was approved on May 26, 2026. So the governing body will hear that appeal. The appeal is brought by a neighboring landowner on September 30, and land use hearings are always toward the very end of the agenda for governing body meetings. So even though they start at five, quite frequently, land use isn't heard till eight or nine or later. Thank you, Frank. Anything else? Nothing else. We'll move on to the next topic, which is new business. This evening, we have six cases under new business. I do want to remind IT staff to put up the two-minute limit for public comment so that I can see that on, on the screen. Also, if you disagree with the decision this board renders this evening, you do have the option to appeal to the City Council. I would suggest that you get together with city staff, and they can guide you through that process. First case this evening is located at 320 Camino Delora. And Lani, did we hear from you? This is case 2026-013106-HDRB for 320 Camino Delora for a remodel. The single-family residence at 320 Camino Delora is located on the west side of Camino Delora midway between Canyon Road and Camino San Acacio. The streetscape consists of the Cristo Rey Parish Complex to the north and northeast, a vacant lot to the southeast, and residences to the south and further east. Residences are separated by yard walls of [unintelligible] and rot. Buildings range up to two stories with flat roofs with the exception of single pitch roof at the southern end of the street. The Vicente and Petrita Brito House located at 320 Camino Delora is currently listed as contributing to the Downtown and Eastside Historic District. The property also consists of an accessory dwelling unit, shed, and yard walls, which are all designated as non-contributing. According to the 2026 HCPI by John Murphy, it's evident that the original garage structure was present in 1960. An expansion and conversion of the garage were approved under case H01160. The expansion more than doubled the footprint of the original garage and created openings where none existed. Garage door was replaced with French doors. Four port halls were installed on the northeast and west elevations. The 2000s portion of the structure holds two sets of French doors on the north elevation and vinyl windows. The expansion and renovation of the building allowed for the conversion of the use from a garage to an ADU, sorry, accessory dwelling unit. This application applies only to the accessory dwelling unit. The applicant is proposing to remodel the guesthouse by constructing a 341-square-foot Spanish Pueblo Revival style addition to a height of 12 feet 9 where the maximum allowable height is 14 feet 5. Windows will be simulated divided light, aluminum clad wood windows in colonial white, match the existing windows on the south elevation of the casita. One skylight will be installed on the roof of the addition. There will be two canales draining to the north onto the property. They also want to construct a 121-square-foot portal with wood columns and corbels and a 65-square-foot shed structure on the rear of the new addition. This will have a galvanized metal shed roof with flashing. They will be stuccoing and cementitious buckskin to match the existing building. Wood elements will be stained in dark brown. Caving and exterior steps will be in red brick. HVAC will be ground mounted on the west side of the addition and will not be publicly visible. Staff is recommending approval of the proposal project, proposed project, and finds that the application complies with sections 14-4.6 E, general design standards, and 14-4.6 G2 for the Downtown and Eastside Design Standard. Thank you, Lani, for your report. Board members, do you have any questions for Lani at this point? We have no questions. So applicant Richard Martinez, would you come to the podium and get sworn in? Hi. Please raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record. Richard Martinez, PO Box 925, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Thank you. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you. He has been sworn, Madam. Richard, what do you have to add? Okay. We agree with the recommendations of the staff. The guesthouse is not contributing and therefore does not need to apply with the regulations of a contributing building. This port, this addition for the guesthouse portal that we are adding is going to be more in dialogue with or responding to the main house than the guesthouse. Yeah. Can you put the elevation, sir? Is it possible to have the site plan, please? It's really hard to see. But the, but the proposed site plan, the one on the bottom, the right, shows that the portal sticks out of from the guesthouse, sorry, the additions steps out of the guesthouse in a way that creates a garden between the main house and the, the addition. The main house is very small and has only one bedroom and has no covered exterior space, no portal. And we all know how important portals are in Santa Fe, how much you can live outside, do many things in the house. I mean, in my portal, I spend, I think, 60% of my time. And so this addition provides a portal that is going to be used by the main house as well. The existing entrance in the guesthouse, where the garage doors were originally, will be an entrance into a workroom. That workroom is intended, the husband of the family is a woodworker, it will be a woodshop. So the guesthouse is not any bigger than it was before. We're just putting another living space on the side and turning the existing living space in front into a workroom. There's also two storage rooms in it, one of which opens up directly into the garden and is intended for garden items. And that's the one, it's sort of garden-like. It's covered in wood, it's clad in wood, and it has doors directly into the garden. So just for your information, the main house is 974 square feet. That includes the adobe walls. The guesthouse is 638 square feet. It has a portal of 121 square feet, and the workshop is 240. That's all. Thank you, Richard. Lani, I will ask you to put up the elevations. And board members, you can take a closer look at the elevations. Do you have any questions? Richard, can you tell us the height again of the building? I have it listed. It's 12 feet, 9 inches? Yes. Okay. It's not any higher than the main house. Thank you. Board members, do you have any questions or do you have any comments? Yes. Richard, I applaud you for your design maneuver to form a dialogue between the two buildings. I think that's going to be a really effective way to kind of bring those two properties, those two buildings, into some congruence with each other. And I think, I was standing in the garden this afternoon, I think that's a just a really great maneuver. I commend you on that. And then I did want to make a comment here that there is actually an activity that we do here in Santa Fe sitting on the portal. It's actually called portaling. Thank you. Just make that one. Thank you, Member Simmons. Any other questions or comment? I do want to say that they do have a lovely garden area. So is there anyone in this room that wishes to comment on this particular case? No one. Is there anyone on Zoom? No hands raised. No. No one on Zoom. I will entertain a motion at this point. Thank you. Case 2026-013106-HDRB, 320 Camino Delora. I move to have the application approved as submitted and as recommended by staff. Second. Second. Roll call vote, please. Member Simmons? Yes. Member Bienvenu? Member Degnan? Yes. Madam Chair, the motion has passed. Thank you, Richard. Thank you. Alright. Next case is located at 925 Canyon Road. Is that applicant here? Can we make sure if he's on Zoom, please? I'm looking for either Trey Jordan or Grant Alexander. I do not have anyone on Zoom. Apparently, he's not here at this time. I hope to postpone to the end of the hearing in case the applicant appears. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Oh, say no. Next case is located at 405 A and B, Juanita Street. And, Lauren, this is your case. May we hear from you? And I think that the applicant is here. Sorry. It's not, yes. This is for case 2026-013079-HDRB, 405 Juanita Street, Units A and B for status review. Both buildings currently status as non-contributing in the Westside Guadalupe Historic District. 405 Juanita Street, Units A and B, are centrally located on the East Side of Juanita Street, bound by Agua Fria Street to the North, Romero Street to the East, and West Manhattan Street to the South. While Unit A was erected in the early 1970s, Unit B dates between 1933 and 1948. Units A and B are connected by a partially enclosed wooden storage space erected by 1975. The horizontal rectangular lot at 405 Juanita Street historically belonged to the contributing building, Ludy Roybal Residence, circa 1910s at 826 Agua Fria Street, north of Unit B. Prior to municipal sewer service arriving in the 1920s, the area developed as an agricultural landscape. By the 1930s, subdivisions show the area evolving into more residential uses with new street developments, including Juanita Street. Unit B is located on the east side of the lot and shares a common historic wall with an outbuilding at the south end of the 824 Agua Fria Street, or at 824 Agua Fria Street along the east side of each lot separated by the east-west bound. The, sorry, the west elevation of Unit A faces Juanita Street behind a gravel drive and non-historic stuccoed concrete block wall. The single-story side-gabled residential building is rectangular in plan, two bays wide by two bays deep, clad in cementitious stucco with a corrugated metal roof and slight eave overhang. The left bay of the west elevation has a vinyl sliding window, and the right bay, historically a carport enclosed after 1985, has a single non-historic entrance with an exterior metal screen door to the left and a large rectangular glazed window to the right. Below the gable is a small historic fixed metal ventilation window. Non-historic shallow wooden steps and filled with gravel lead along a shallow yard wall extending around the facade to the south elevation into a courtyard between 405 and 407 Juanita Street. Along the south elevation, a wooden frame portal overhangs the left bay with an eight-over-eight double-hung window at the center flanked by two large horizontal fixed single glass or single-pane windows. The right bay is slightly recessed from the left with a double single-pane window above enclosed mechanical equipment, clad in stucco. The east elevation is partially covered by a carport additionally installed before 1975, connecting Units A and B. The wooden structure is separated with a wooden partition wall, a wooden fence, and gate enclosure, and gabled roof with corrugated metal roofing supported at each end by large wooden columns and corbels. The north elevation has a large double single-pane window at the center of the right bay. While the original building dates prior to 1975 based off of historical mapping and records, the enclosure of the carport after 1985 has significantly altered the south and west elevations and historic footprint. Additionally, the installation of street-facing yard of the street-facing yard wall and entrance has altered the historic relation to the streetscape. Therefore, staff recommends 405 Juanita Street, Unit A, maintain its non-contributing status per City of Santa Fe Code 14-4.6.C, designation of significant contributing and non-contributing status within historic districts. Unit B is an adobe structure two bays wide by one bay deep, flat and cementitious stucco with a rectangular footprint and flat roofline. The left side of the west elevation is covered by a wooden portico with a corrugated roof above a cement slab entrance. The entrance has a non-historic metal frame four-over-four glass pane exterior door with a two-over-four glass block window to the left and wall sconce above. The right bay has a recessed three-over-12 glass block window. The south elevation has a single central double-hung window within a recessed opening that appears to have been a larger opening, likely the historic main entrance. The east elevation has a historic four-over-four double-hung window at the center of the left bay and a historic wood frame window. A shallow metal roof overhang covers wooden rafters with a clear break in the roof lines at the north wall shared with the outbuilding at 824 Agua Fria Street. While the street-facing west elevation has been altered from its original historic appearance, the south and the east elevations retain their historic openings, although slightly altered on the south elevation. The building retains its historic footprint, its physical and cultural association with the adjacent contributing property at 826 Agua Fria Street and meets the 50-year requirement. Therefore, staff recommends 405 Juanita Street, Unit B, be upgraded to a contributing status with the primary facades designated as the south and east elevations per City of Santa Fe Code 14-4.6.C, designation of significant contributing or non-contributing status within historic districts. For your report, Lauren. And you did indicate that on B, that the primary facades are south and the east. Is that correct? South and east. Yes. That's correct. Thank you. Any other questions or comments at this point? Or no. Applicant, would you come forward? And remember, this evening, we are only looking at the status. Please do not go into anything indicating what you might be wanting to do. Simply status review. That's what we're looking at. Okay. There's two. And, do you agree with Lauren's evaluation? Yes, I do. Okay. And did you have anything further to add? Not at this point. Madam Chair. Pardon. I need to swear in. So excuse me. Please raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record. It's Antoine Alcoury. Address 31 Aceo Vista, San Antonio, Mexico 875. Thank you. Antoine, do you solemnly declare and affirm the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. You didn't have anything further to say. And, board members, do you have anything? Member Simmons. I have a question for staff. Could you go through your logic about why the south elevation should be upgraded to contributing when it is evident that there has been a change to a former entrance into now a window? Yes. Member Simmons, the, so the south elevation, although it has been altered to be a modern window installation, you can still see the historic outline of what was once potentially the historic entrance. And, I believe that that is a reversible opening, therefore, would be contributing. Okay. This facade is not visible from a public way. Does how does that enter into your analysis? That is a question that I did not think of. That's a great question. It's something that I will. Then may I clarify what I would you agree that the east elevation is publicly visible from a right of way? No, it is not. Okay. Chair, Member Simmons, when it comes to architectural elements, those things that are publicly visible, it's really about the building, not visibility in terms of preservation standards. Because if we only consider publicly visible facades, then we would not be considering the building as a whole. So that's traditionally the practice of this board. I see. Just the, that's despite the fact that most significant or contributing buildings' primary facades are street-facing or the non-primary or the non-street-facing facades can be designated as contributing, because they're visible. I just think of just the recent ones that we've looked at. It's a, this is kind of new information for me that it's, am I understanding correctly now that it's a matter of integrity, remaining integrity, and having met the criteria for designation, including a building, like like this one here that it now meets the 50-year standard. And so because those two facades remain as non-altered, is that the logic here that is applied? I just, I just want to understand what the rules are. Member Simmons, you answered my question for me. It's the remaining integrity. Yes. Thank you. And I meant to ask the applicant, do you agree with the evaluation and this recommendation of staff? Yeah. In terms of, definitely for the south elevation, I would say that's acceptable. The east elevation is really just glass blocks in those window openings, and it's really hard to see that elevation from anywhere. That overhang, I'm not sure if it's really going to affect what we might do in the future. I know we're not supposed to talk, but that's all I would just say. I agree on the south, but the east, maybe we can have that as not good. Do we have better photographic evidence of that east elevation so we could see the glass block that's in those openings? Unfortunately, Chair Simmons, we, or Member Simmons, we do not. There was quite a bit of obstruction. As you can see, I think there's a stove and some other debris that's blocking, and directly to the right is a fence. And just one final question. Is the white window I'm looking at on the south elevation a recently replaced vinyl-type window, or is it a wood window that's been painted? If you give me just a moment. I believe it is a vinyl window. Okay, thank you. Any other questions or comments? Anyone in this audience wishing to comment on this case? No one. Anyone on Zoom? No, Madam Chair. Thank you. I will entertain the motion at this point. Member Bienvenu. Thank you, Madam Chair. Case number 2026-013079-HDRB at 405 A and B, Juanita Street. I'd move to adopt staff's recommendations and have Unit 405 A continue to be designated as not contributing, and 405 B be upgraded to contributing with the south and east facades as primary, but excluding any non-historic material in the windows themselves. I'll second. Megan seconds. Roll call, please. Member Simmons? Yes. Member Bienvenu? Yes. Member Degnan? Yes. The motion has passed. No problem. Next case is at the same location. That's at 407 and 407.5 Juanita. And Lauren, you have the floor. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Rios. This is case 2026-013080-HDRB, 407 and 407.5 Juanita Street for status review. Currently, the status is not contributing. 407 and 407.5 Juanita Street are centrally located on the east side of Juanita Street, bound by Agua Fria Street to the north, Romero Street to the east, and West Manhattan Street to the south in the Westside Guadalupe Historic District. The 407 Juanita Street lot runs parallel to 405 Juanita Street to the north, sharing a common entrance and courtyard space with two buildings known as the Juanita Compound Rental Company, divided into two lots in the 1950s. Prior to municipal sewer service arriving in the 1920s, the area developed as an agricultural landscape. By the 1930s, subdivisions show the area established as a residential area with new street developments, including Juanita Street. Street-facing 407, sorry, street-facing 407 Juanita Street, originally a single-family residence built in the Pueblo Revival style, dates to circa 1939 according to historic aerials. Currently, the building is split into three rental units. In 1954, the larger Ludi Roybal tract, now at 826 Agua Fria Street and a contributing property constructed during the 1910s, was subdivided into smaller parcels and distributed among the children of Lucio and Katerina Roybal. At the east end of the lot, 407.5 dates between 1948 and 1958 and was likely used as an outbuilding historically, later converted into a two-bedroom apartment. The primary flat-roof single-story west building at 407 Juanita Street is clad in cementitious stucco, built of adobe block and frame, and primarily rectangular in shape with projected massing at the northwest corner and central north elevation, set behind a shallow retaining wall clad in stucco and cement blocks. The building was constructed in the late 1930s, historically underwent additions in the 1950s and again in the 1970s with the enclosure of the west portal post-1985. According to historic aerials, alcove additions were present by 1969, suggesting the building was converted into apartments at this time, or by this time, I should say. The street-facing facade, west elevation, is two bays wide with fixed windows on all three elevations of the enclosed portal and a flat recessed wall to the right that formerly contained fenestration, now a mounting location for natural gas meters. The north elevation has a yard wall clad in cementitious stucco set behind the enclosed portal, partially enclosing the courtyard between 405 and 407 Juanita Street. East of the yard wall on the north elevation are two projected massings. The west massing has a west-facing entrance covered by a wood frame portal with a corrugated metal roof and a concrete slab flooring. At the center of the north elevation, the two massings flank a second entrance alcove with a double fixed window to the right and brick paper flooring. Along the east elevation are several wall planes with a non-historic utility room at the northeast corner with a wood frame glass door entrance. The central bay has an altered window opening with a fixed divided light window to the right and double-hung metal window to the left within a wooden frame. Left of the central bay is a wooden fenced enclosure with a sliding glass patio door and cement slab entrance covered by a plywood overhang. This larger section of the building that accommodates the two rental units existed in 1969 but did not reconfigure to its present form until 1978. The wooden fence from the east elevation partially wraps around the south elevation, enclosing five recessed window openings and separates the two bays. Along the right bay is a non-historic horizontal window to the south, separated into four square lights and aluminum surround with a smaller window opening to the left. The left bay has a small central window opening flanked by two large openings. Unfortunately, from the images provided in December 2026 HCPI, it is difficult to determine the historic integrity of the four westernmost windows and their openings. However, each of these four openings presents similar dimensions as the 1969 aerial. Although the original building dates to the late 1930s with historic additions and modifications dating between the 1950s and 1970s, the enclosure of the street-facing portal, addition of a non-historic yard wall, removal of fenestration, along with other non-historic modifications and materials replacement, it is recommended by staff that the building at 407 Juanita Street retain its current status as non-contributing to the Westside Waterway Bay Historic District. Per City of Santa Fe Code 14-4.6c, designation of significant contributing or non-contributing status within historic districts. 407.5 Juanita Street is located in the rear east side of the 407 Juanita Street lot, approximately 40 feet from the primary building. The single-story building has a rectangular footprint, two bays wide by one bay deep, with a flat alternating height roofline with the north parapet extending slightly higher than the south. The single-story building is likely constructed of adobe based on the surface texture and clad in cementitious stucco. The west elevation has a sliding aluminum window opening at the center of the right bay and door at the center of the left bay with a squat chimney at the northwest corner. The south elevation has a single grilled entry door opening at the center with a small wooden shed attached at the southeast corner. The east elevation has a single aluminum sliding window on the right bay with an overhang eave along the roofline. The north elevation is stark without openings and attaches directly to the yard wall, accessed only from the adjacent parking area at 822C Agua Fria Street. Although the openings of the building present modern fenestrations, the building meets the 50-year requirement. The footprint, form, and building materials retain their historic integrity, and it maintains physical and cultural association with the adjacent contributing property at 826 Agua Fria. Therefore, it is recommended by staff that 407.5 Juanita Street be upgraded to a contributing status with the primary facades designated as the northeast and west elevations per City of Santa Fe Code 14-4.6c, designation of significant contributing or non-contributing status within historic districts. I do need to apologize to Chair Rios and members of the board. I misspoke at our site visit earlier and referred to the proposed primary facades as the south and the east, which is the neighboring property. So I misspoke, and I apologize. Just for clarification. Thank you. Verification. Are there any photographs of this particular building other than the single elevation that's shown in the packet? Which building? Or, I'm sorry. Which 407.5, Unit C? Is that what we're talking about? Unit C shows that on the site plan, Unit C? So the site plan, this is actually 407.5. Correct. Are there photographs of the contributing elevations in this packet? Yeah. In the packet? Did you just show them to us? Yes. This is, I'm sorry. Yes. This is, this is the west elevation that is proposed. To the right is the east elevation, and this is the north elevation. Then would you please repeat which elevations you would like to designate as primary? Yes. The west elevation, the east elevation on the right, and the north elevation. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the presentation. You mentioned that there were modern fenestrations. Did you mean the actual openings themselves, or did you mean what fills the windows within the openings? The, well, it's, unfortunately, the, yes. Okay. This was thought to be, as I mentioned, this was thought to be an outbuilding, probably a garage, with likely the west elevation as the entrance here. Okay. So maybe for my benefit, could you walk me through the three elevations that you're recommending as primary about the openings themselves and how historic the openings are? Not the not the window unit, but the opening itself. Sure. So this would, unfortunately, there are no photographs of this, but this elevation would have likely been a garage. Of course, the door to the on the left bay and the window on the right, those are partially enclosed, these two openings. When would that have happened, do you think? I, unfortunately, am unsure. Within 50 years or more recent than that? It's hard to say. Yeah. It's hard to say. Okay. I will say, I think there's an aerial from 1969 that shows an opening on the south elevation. Okay. And then the east elevation, as I mentioned, this this window opening on the right bay, I'm not sure of the date. And then the north elevation, I would assume that that has remained the same. What and what's the location of the camera in this photo? Is it on a neighboring property? Yes. It is, this elevation is accessed. Is that a driveway of someone else's property? Yes. And does that driveway have public view from the from Agua Fria? That, I do not believe. Okay. But I will, I'm not 100% sure. Okay. If you had to, I guess for such a, I'll just say I'm with you on the contributing status. It seems like a lot of facades to be designating for such an extremely humble structure. I'm a big fan of humble structures. I think that's they're the most important ones to protect. But we're almost making it significant when we designate three or four elevations as primary. So if you had to limit what you are going to designate or recommend, what would you think is the most important facade and then the second most important facade? And by important, I guess, I mean, most character defining because that's what determines the primary. Or one that shows the character-defining detailing. I mean, that to me would be potentially one of them because it's the most unaltered. What we're looking at, the north, it's the most unaltered and also definitely speaks of the character of the original structure. So I agree, definitely the north elevation. And I would say the east elevation just because of the single non-historic opening on the right bay. Right. And then so that would leave the west. And that one, that one does seem to have been pretty radically modified from its original use if I'm not getting mixed up about which is which. The west is the most visible, right, but it's also the most altered. Am I right about that? With the proposed enclosure of two garage open. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or comments, board members, at this point? No. Member Simmons? Just a comment. I appreciate your study and analysis. I think it might be a little aggressive here to designate three facades as primary, especially the east facade, which has been altered. And I don't know. I don't think any of these facades offer any possibility for any kind of additional space to be put on them. But, you know, when we get into the conversation about contributing facades, it's very difficult to make changes that an owner might want to. So I just, just a comment. Appreciate it. You have been sworn in, and let us know what you think. Yeah. I do agree that if I were to choose, like, the two elevations that would be considered the most contributing would be the north and the east. And the one facing the west, we believe it has been altered. Those openings are not original open to it. So that's kind of. Thank you. Thank you. Governor Jakeman? Thank you, Madam Chair. Sir, I just want to clarify what I thought I just heard you say. Are you saying the north and the east, or you're not? North and the east to be the. To be the primary. The primary. Yeah. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Anyone in this room wishing to comment on this particular case? No. Anyone on Zoom? No, Madam Chair. Motion, please. Happy to make another one unless I don't want to hog the floor. So that okay? Okay. You're good. Thank you. Alright. Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, we're just moving along so quickly here, and we're getting so much cooperation. So let's go with the motion in case 2026013080 HDRB at 407 and 407.5 Juanita Street. Again, consistent with staff's recommendation, I would move that the property designated as 407 be maintained as non-contributing and consistent with staff's recommendation that 407.5 be upgraded to contributing. I would, though, agree with staff that the north and east be primary, but not the west due to the alterations on significant alterations on the openings. So I would only, the motion would be to designate the north and east facades as primary. And again, excluding any non-historic materials. Do I hear a second? Second. Roll call vote, please. Member Simmons? Yes. Member Bienvenu? Yes. Member Degnan? Yes. The motion has passed. Thank you, sir. Next case is located at 135 Grant Avenue, and I noticed that, Lani, that the applicants are not here. Correct? Yes. Miss Jenkins would like to send her apologies to the board for her last-minute decision, but she has requested that we go ahead and postpone this to a date certain of October 27 while they gather some additional information for you. Okay. I will entertain a motion indicating such. It does film the case to October 27. A motion as such. Second. I'll second. Roll call vote, please. Member Degnan? Yes. Vice Chair Bienvenu? Yes. Member Simmons? Yes. The motion has passed. Thank you very much. Next case is located at 127 East De Vargas Street, and that applicant is here. Lani, may we hear your report? Okay. This is case 2026013109HDRB for 127 East De Vargas Street. The site oppressed compound is a grouping of historic structures between two public institutional buildings sited on the river to the north and a historically significant home to the south at East De Vargas Street. The small compound consists of the residences at 127 and 127.5 East De Vargas. 127 East De Vargas is the subject of this case. The structure at 127 East De Vargas Street was once known as the Cider Press, which was an antique store located in the building in the early 1960s. Building started as a circa 1910 brick garage. Brick walls were laid in an English pattern of alternating courses and headers of headers and stretchers. The north, south, and west sides have high parapets that block the view of the wire glass skylight. The parapets are topped with a Roloc rip coping with a row of headers on top. The entry to the garage was a set of swinging doors on the west. Building was expanded with two frame rooms in the 1950s. The addition has a sculptural shape, rounded parapets, and rustic. The Spanish Pueblo Revival style structure now stands at 1,083 square feet. The garage door is now open to a bedroom window. The south elevation has a single opening holding an older two-over-one wood sash window and a segmental brick header and sill framing the opening. The north elevation houses two projecting box windows, which were likely used for display purposes. The larger unit is boxed and holds four six-light casements. Smaller has a single pane. It is faced with stucco and, as of 2022, had several faded murals from the building's use as an antique shop. Above the box window was a sign that read "Cider Press." In 2022, the structure was designated as contributing with the west, east, and north facades, including the wall-mounted sign stating "Cider Press" and the murals as the primary facades. Contributing designation was in part due to, and I quote, "the Cider Press building's boxed windows, remaining Cider Press sign, and faded murals remain character familiar to many generations of Santa Feans and visitors." That's per the staff report from the 2022 case from Angela Shackleberg Portagary. The owners obtained approval in 2022 to construct a freestanding shed and in 2023 to stucco and paint the 127 and a half building on the property. On 11/17/2023, Javier Flores with Mountaintop Home Remodeling applied to the Historic Preservation Division for cement stucco in a traditional pebble dash system for the property at 127. No color was offered, and no approval was issued because the application was considered incomplete. While completing the other work on the property, the owners took the opportunity to also stucco and paint the Cider Press building without approval. In doing so, they removed the Cider Press sign and faded murals. On 07/11/2025, the owners were cited for unapproved construction at place of residence for the painting over of historic murals on the north wall of the property with no approvals from historic preservation. Now the applicant has worked with Historic Preservation Division to find a resolution to the citation for over a year. Initially, case planners insisted that the historic murals be reestablished. However, replacing the mural still removes the original historic material. Therefore, after further review, the application now comes forward to the H Board to request a retroactive approval of the stucco and paint while seeking a compromise for the restoration or recreation of the historic murals. So staff has worked with the owners to verify the content of the historic murals. The larger mural is one of a man working on a cider press. Subject of the upper mural is less clear. The applicant argues that the murals are not clear enough to replicate. However, staff finds some form of restoration and commemoration of the historic mural is necessary. For section 14-4.6 E one one, the historic status of a property with a historic status designation of significant contributing or landmark shall be retained and preserved. If a proposed alteration will cause a property to lose its significance, contributing or landmark status, the application shall be denied. Removal of historic materials or alterations of architectural features and spaces that embody the status is prohibited. The murals were a distinctive feature of the facade and a major component of the structure's contributing status. Therefore, the mural should be replaced per section 14-4.6 C three five, restoration of status of a property owner makes changes to a structure without the proper city approvals, which results in the lowering the structure status, staff or the board may require the property owner to restore the structure such that its former status is restored. While restoration of the murals may not be possible, there is documentation and pictorial evidence of the murals allowing the board to make an informed determination of how the murals could be replicated. The applicant is requesting retroactive approval to stucco and paint the structure, approval to reestablish the Cider Press sign above the box window, approval to install a plaque to commemorate the structure's history to replace the murals, and retroactive approval to remove the historic murals from the wall. An exception is requested to section 14-4.6 E 42 to remove historic materials. The plaque is proposed to read, "A small, quarter-acre, roughly square-shaped property fronting Santa Fe Riverhead, two buildings located on the parcel purchased by James Jimmy Caldwell circa 1939. He lived part-time in Santa Fe. The brick portion with two large blue doors was the first garage in Santa Fe built by the Cartwright family circa 1910. The second building consisted of two adobe rooms built by Juan Lujan of the Taos Pueblo employed by Jimmy Caldwell. The old garage and adobe rooms called the Cider Press were used as an antique shop circa 1960s. The first item purchased for the antique shop reportedly was a cider press. A mural painted onto the brick portion of the building by an unknown artist deteriorated. The mural depicted a man in front of a possible cider press and a woman painted above to the left of the object. The name 'Cider Press' appears above one of the adobe windows. Betty R. Caldwell, Jimmy's daughter, inherited the property. Betty Caldwell and her partner, Norma Kirby, remodeled the two separate buildings into one building circa 1990s. The Cider Press is now an apartment consisting of a living room, kitchen, bathroom, and bedroom. Mary Catherine Casey and Robin Connell are the trustees of the 127 East De Vargas property." While the language of the plaque is not adequate or accurate and should focus more on the history of the building and its contribution to Santa Fe than on that of the current owner and use, history should be verified and corrected before publication of the plaque. The type of plaque should also be considered for durability and longevity. Staff finds that the exception criteria have not been met and recommends denial of the exception to section 14-4.6 E four two for the permanent removal of the murals. Staff recommends approval of replacing the mural and a plaque with reconsideration of the type and information provided on the plaque and the approval of the reestablishment of the Cider Press sign. And the retroactive approval is stuck on paint as they comply with sections 14-4.6 E general design standards and 14-4.6 G two for the downtown and East Side design standards. Thank you for your report, Lani. Would you kindly reiterate the dates of the Cider Press sign and also the date of the mural? So my understanding is that the business was from 1954 to 1964, somewhere in there. And so those signs and murals would have been from that period. Thank you. Any other questions? Member Simmons? A technical question. How did you establish the date of construction for the original garage as 1910? I did not. That was on the Hiccupy. That would have been John Murphy's work. I see. Okay. It's just indicative of that vintage of a building that it has arched window openings. Those were prevalent all throughout the West in the railroad towns where the railroad first brought the masonry into town, but they did not have steel lintels that allowed a flat window head. And that came to town really throughout the West around 1890. So it could possibly be that that garage is older than 1910. Thank you, Member Simmons. Any other questions or comments of other members? No. Applicant or applicants, please come forward. State your name. And it's four now. Please state your name and address for the record. It's Walsh. You have to speak right into the microphone. Joseph Walsh. 460 Saint Michaels Drive, Suite 301, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505. Thank you. Do you solemnly declare and affirm the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you. It's been sworn. Madam Chair, members of the board, thank you. As I just said, my name is Joseph Walsh. I'm the attorney representing Mary Catherine Casey. Interrupt you. There are people behind you. I will have you comment, but if he is the applicant, if you can take a seat, and then I will call on you later. They are the property owners. Oh, they are the property owners? Yes. Oh, okay. Okay. I didn't know that. That's fine. Thank you, Madam Chair. They did want to address the board today as well after I give my initial call. Thank you. You will have an opportunity to speak. Thank you, Madam Chair. Before we get into the application in preparation for today's hearing, and as I was doing my research and preparing for today, I came across, I think, some relevant statutory ordinance guidance that's relevant to the board's consideration of these matters today. I've taken the liberty of providing you all with a couple of handouts, and I think that to sum it up succinctly, I think we're all looking at this from the incorrect perspective because I think what we're talking about today, at least in terms of the cider press sign and the murals, they're actually signs and advertisements. And I think that's I want to go over with you the relevant statutory guidance to address these issues because I think it's a prerequisite before we get into the request that's been made. So under 14-2.6 C1, it provides that the HGRB shall review and approve or deny all applications, except signs in the historic districts, and signs are governed by 14-3.11. A sign includes every sign, billboard, ground sign, wall sign, et cetera, used to advertise or promote the interests of any person when it is placed outdoors in view of the general public, including outdoor electric lights, which are relevant here. A wall sign is a sign that is painted on or attached to and directed parallel to the face of an outside wall. Now I think what's been very clear with the Hickey documentation that's been provided to the applicants and created by the city is that the signs at issue here were advertisements. These were not anything other than a sign advertising a business. It's repeated throughout all of the materials generated by the city that this was a sign advertising the cider press antique store. The murals were also related to that because I think if we look at the definition of sign, illustration is also included in that definition. Now why that's relevant is if we look at section 14-8.10, which governs signs in the city of Santa Fe, section B6A, which governs sign removal, provides in relevant part any sign now or hereafter existing, which no longer advertises a bona fide business conducted or a product sold shall be taken down and removed by the owner, agent, person having the beneficial use of the building lot or structure upon which sign may be found. And then it continues to subsection B, whenever a sign is removed from a building or structure, the building or structure shall be cleaned, painted, or otherwise altered, and all signs, supports, brackets, mounts, utilities, or other connecting devices shall be removed so that there is no visible trace of the removed sign or the supports, brackets, mounts, utilities, or other connecting devices. So what this provides effectively is that because there is no dispute that the signs for the cider press and the murals were created for the purpose of advertising a business which used to be located at this property, but there again, there's no dispute that business is no longer located at this property, that it is actually mandatory under the city's land use code that those signs be removed. And so what I'm asking today is, first, that the board approve the retroactive approval of the paint and stucco that was applied as per the staff suggestion, staff recommendation. But I am also asking the board at this time to not require the replacement of the cider press sign or the mural because to do so would be in stark contrast and violation of black letter city code regarding signs. If the board is not so inclined to pursue that form of remedy, then we are asking for the board to approve a recreation of the cider press sign as close to the original form as possible, but to not require the recreation of the murals. And I think that the city's materials make very clear that the murals were degraded and faded, and even the images that we have in the packets, images that we have searched for, and we have searched the state archives, we've searched the city archives, we've searched for every place we can think of to find high-quality images. You just can't really tell what those images consist of. They're faded. They're deteriorated. And as a result, it's going to be very difficult to recreate those. My clients are very apologetic, and that's why they wanted to come before the board today. They are not they didn't do this maliciously. They didn't do this intentionally in the sense that they wanted to get rid of something that may or may not have or may have meant a lot to a lot of Santa Feans and visitors, but they also understand that this is a very old building and needed to be preserved and protected. And they painted over those the cider press sign and the murals, not fully understanding and appreciating that they needed to get permission to do so. If we replace anything on that wall, it's no longer going to be historic. It's going to be a representation of something that once existed. And I think what's what's significant to consider with all of that as well is we don't even know who the artist was or the specific year these murals were created because they were advertisements. These were not meant to be art for art's sake. This wasn't a mural by a known artist made to beautify the city. It was made to draw business to a business. So with that being said, I would like my, I know my clients did want to speak to the board today and offer their insight and position on this if the board would be so willing to hear. Certainly. Looking forward and, state your name again, Vernon. My name is Mary Catherine Casey. And your address? Please raise your right hand and state your address as well. My address is 127 East De Vargas. Thank you. Do you solemnly declare and affirm the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Absolutely. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. She has been sworn. So we came here, I think it was in 2022, to ask your permission to remodel our studio, and graciously, you said yes. And this was at the end of COVID. And as you know, it's very difficult to find folks to air for buildings or do anything. And so we thought this is a great time to do painting and do some updating to the cider press, which Nikki and Betty willed to me and to us. I can't tell you how sorry I am that this has caused such a ruckus. If you've known the cider press, you would probably also know the vines of ivy that I've spent hours taking off the front, reaching up to what was then the picture. And I apologize. Thank you very much. Hi. Please raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record and speak into the microphone. Robin Connell, and my I live in Albuquerque. That's fine. Just your address, and, yeah, I need you to speak right into the microphone there. 1712 Vassar Drive Southeast, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Thank you. And what was your name again? Robin. Robin. Do you solemnly declare and affirm the testimony you have in reference to this item as the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Thank you. The big secret is that my first name is Cynthia, and I've never used it. From the day they brought me home from the hospital, they said, "This is your sister, Robbie." And then it's Robin when I went to school. So I never used Cynthia. And, but it always comes up because it's my first name. Seems to be very hard. It's their middle name. This is a hard place for us. This property was entrusted to us by Betty Caldwell and her, my partner, Norma Kirby. Betty loved the property. She came to the property as often as she could, although her home was in New Orleans. And she came and she brought me here in 1982 to show me the property, to point out what she did on this prop where she had a swing. I walked around the property, and she had stories for all parts of it. I I love Betty. Betty and Norma brought me into their family. And so it's the property at 127 is a heart, and we really did not want to do anything that was against anything. We didn't mean to go against some store. The wall was decaying. We had to get some work for the brick. The brick wall, the garage was wooden, and you can see pictures when it was the Cartwright property, and it was the first garage built. And that's where we got 1910 was from the records of the garage. Is where the everything that was done to the house in love to make it a home. And Norma and Betty Betty and Nikki lived there. They moved there when she retired, and they lived there, and that was their heart home. And that was after they had made a home in New Orleans. They left that and came to Santa Fe as it was always a place that she loved. When they when she gave it to Mary Catherine and I, it was that we would care for the property and love the property and take care of the property. We had no intention of doing anything that wouldn't be keeping up the property. The the brick wall needed to be, needed to be saved. It was starting to show that it and the the wall was you can only think of it as something like my my foot decompensated, but it's not that it didn't mean it. Some things oh, I'm sorry. You can speak right into that mic because it's important that we hear you and also that the that it's recorded properly. Do you agree? Now there's a I might have touched it when I was nervous, and I pushed the I'm sorry. That's okay. I won't touch it. This is better if I talk right into the mic? It's correct. Okay. The we we had to to paint it. And when we thought we needed to paint the wall, to preserve the wall, we thought that you couldn't you couldn't see the pictures. They're not like the pictures here. They were all faded and going away, and you couldn't tell what they were. So when they said, we just told them to paint the wall. We didn't consciously say take away this. We just didn't think it was the the thing to to take care of. It was to take care of the wall and make sure that that wall that goes up against the garage, which was a wooden garage that was connected. And then, I think it was when the adobe was worked on to preserve the adobe part of the house. It was preserved and painted. Nothing was done to be disrespectful. We really are trying to preserve the integrity and the property as it was given to us as a loving place. It's been a residence. It hasn't been an antique store since the mid-sixties. So we're hoping that you understand we didn't do this in a malicious way or in an attempt to disregard. We did this in a way to preserve the building and keep it intact. I apologize for painting it over. We thought we were doing the right thing. Thank you both for your comments. I do have a question at this point for Heather, actually. Heather, would you address the significance and weight that historic signs and murals carry, despite what Attorney Walsh addressed in reference to advertisements cited per the ordinance? Yes, thank you, Chair Rios. So there are two different ordinances at play here. There are the sign standards, and there are specific sign standards in historic districts in the code, as well as preservation standards that we more commonly refer to through the work of this board. Maybe not so much the signs, but that typically is managed administratively unless there's an exception that's being requested, like the Lucchese example, for instance. So the preservation standards is what will prevail here just because it is preserving the distinctive feature, finish, or construction technique associated with the project, or I'm sorry, associated with the building, and it is an element and a feature of the historic building. So while it may have advertised a business at one time, and the murals may have been connected to that particular business, this has retained its own historic significance by being present over time, even as the use of the property changed. So I would respectfully disagree with Mr. Walsh, and that these particular signs needed to be removed. And in fact, I don't know that that code criterion was in place when the cider press ceased to exist. I would have to go back and look at those code criteria at that time. So it's a bit of a challenge in that the code has changed, but also, we need to consider the historic significance of the property, and this is a part of a character-defining feature as it is called out in the HCPCS, as well as in this particular case. And I believe when the property was designated, I think there was a specific note regarding those signs and murals, if I'm correct. And so that is the action of this board is that those two elements be preserved as part of the character. Thank you. Further question. In reference to the sign, it's been removed. If it is replicated in kind, is this reinventing history, or would you comment in reference to that and also in reference to the mural? Sure. Thank you, Chair Rios. So as being character-defining features that were designated by this board when the status was considered, there is a provision in the code that something, just as was referred to in an earlier case tonight, if something is returned to its original character, to its original, you know, if those elements were repainted, it would not be recharacterizing. Say, for instance, they wanted to change it from cider press to medical offices or whatever it might be, that would be conjectural, and then the new standards would apply. But if they're to replace these with in-kind elements, then that would not be because we have the photo. Thank you for your comments. Any other comments or questions, Member Simmons? Sure. I have lots of comments and lots of questions. A question for Heather. So when it comes to historic signs that are older than fifty years, would it be the Land Use Department's preference if a building owner were to come to your office and say, "You know, this sign is getting kind of worn out and kind of shabby looking here. We'd like to repaint it." I'm not sure that that follows along with any historic preservation standards. Chair, Member Simmons, that would be something that would be an administrative approval. Certainly, we'd look at the materials. There's been a request for painting on historic buildings previously. If it is indeed a historic sign, not just isolating it to this particular case, then we would consider also the, you know, making sure that the building would be preserved and the proposed, you know, refresh would not impact the building or structure, just like we did with the six block recently. There were proposals to repaint it and repair it, but we discovered in our research that that may be detrimental to that structure. So it's my experience in other historic districts when historic signs are on buildings that they're sort of sacrosanct, and they're not to be touched. They're not to be retouched. They're not to be cleaned. They're not to be scrubbed. So I would suggest to this Land Use Department, for future signs, that you dig a little deeper into the Department of Interior guidelines and other historic precedents because showing the age of time is definitely a character-defining element in historic districts. And, you know, for a city that's 400 years old, I think that we'll just owe it to ourselves to understand that, you know, a sign like the cider press is a record of history, and it is not a sign, and it is not a piece of art, and it's not something that ought to be cleaned up and restored. Just my opinion. I do have further comments here. For the applicant and the building owners, this masonry structure is from the turn of the century, and the brick on this building is a low-fired brick. It's not a hard-fired brick like we see these days. And rule number one with masonry buildings is you never paint masonry. Paint will, what paint will do, especially with masonry and especially with even stucco, is it will trap moisture inside, and it will accelerate deterioration. So just a word to the wise. That's just, it's just, it's not the right thing to do. Having said that, I have a lot of experience as an architect, preservation architect, and removing paint from buildings. It's not that difficult of a thing to do. There are all manner of companies that make restoration products, both as paint strippers, liquid-applied paint removers, as well as poultice-type materials that I would recommend that the applicant first exhaust their possibilities with restoring the mural. In that, it's certainly possible if you were to communicate with a masonry restoration expert and specialist. There may not be any in this town, but there are certainly within 500 miles here who do this all the time, that I think that it's a reasonable thing to exhaust the possibility of removing paint in such a delicate way that paint is not removed from the original murals. And so that would be my suggestion in this meeting that we not really go further until further study is done on this paint. And then, to then change the topic a little about stucco, I would like to understand how the stucco restuccoing was applied. And I would like to get a submittal from the building owner, from the company who did the stucco. I'd like to know exactly what the specification was, what they exactly did. Did they put a mesh over there? Did they, was it just, I would like to understand what their process was because sometimes stucco can be removed without damaging the underlying substrate. Jim Simmons. Other comments or questions? Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Walsh, perhaps this is actually for Director Lamboy. I am pretty sure that Santa Fe has a sign ordinance. Does it have a dedicated sign ordinance for the city? And a sign ordinance, not just for the city as a whole, but there are specific regulations for historic districts because of the unique character of districts and data. Well, and then my question, the second part of it would have been, then, of course, we have to consider a sign ordinance as it relates to historic districts. And my question is, I'm assuming that the historic sign ordinance would take precedent over the city sign ordinance in a situation like this. Is that correct? And that is correct. Okay, thank you. Do you have a question or a comment? I'm looking at the new Adam. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, yeah, this has become confusing for me, at least, because I feel like the ground is shifting here between the application and the posture in which this came before us in the packet and what's being presented here tonight. So I just want to get a little clarity. I understand the application to be based on the letter from the representative to seek two things. I'm reading from it. First, we seek permission to not restore the mural. That's number one, and only one reason is given for that, due to the inability to locate photographs that would allow us to recreate the images. And the fact that that replacement would not be historic would be a recreation. I guess that's two reasons. And then the second thing that's being asked for is permission to recreate this cider press sign, restoring the lettering of the cider press. So that's what was being asked for secondly. And then third, permission to put up a plaque. But what I understood tonight is the applicant was withdrawing those requests and going all for nothing here and just saying we shouldn't have to do anything, I think, is your position tonight. So are you asking us for anything at this point? Yes, Board Member Bienvenu, we were asking for in the relief, in the alternative relief, and I think that initially the application was made before I had reviewed some of these relevant provisions, or at least what we understood to be relevant provisions, and specifically 14-2.6 C1, which provides staff shall review signs in accordance with Section 14-3.11, which is construction permits for signs. So upon reviewing that statutory guidance, I think it became a condition precedent to address that issue because if a sign is restored or put back, which then places my clients in violation of a separate land use provision, it's creating an untenable position. Well, so I just want to stop this. So I want to know what you're asking for because now it sounds like you're back to asking for we shouldn't have to do what we asked for in the application. We no longer want to do that. That would be unlawful. So I just want to be clear on what you're asking from us. And I appreciate, is that just a backup position, or is that literally your position? That is, that is the initial request. And if the board denies that request and finds that the sign ordinance as written in the relevant statutory sections I've cited is not applicable to this situation, then to proceed under the application as submitted to allow us to either not restore the mural, or to alternatively, or to not restore the mural, to put up a plaque, and to recreate the cider press signage above the window. I just want to make sure that if that, whatever the board decides, I want to make sure it's not putting my clients in an untenable position where they're being asked to do something contrary to my reading of the code, and I don't know which specific sections Ms. Lamboy was referencing that supersedes 13-3.11, because that is the section referred to in 14-2.6 C1. So I just, I'm, I'm trying to, I guess what I'm, what I'm really getting to here, Board Member Bienvenu, is that my clients are not wealthy women. They don't have a lot of money to go through this process. It has cost them a lot already with a criminal citation, two criminal citations that have held them into municipal court on criminal charges for this. That is why I was initially retained over covering over a painting result on their own property, resulting in criminal charges. And I understand the basis of the citation very well, but if whatever way the board is going to direct us to go forward, I would like it to be as clear and succinct as possible so that my clients do not have to spend any more money than is required to put this matter behind them and go on with their lives. And that includes both resolution of the criminal cases as well as coming into compliance with whatever it is ultimately the board decides to do. And I think part of that gets into the question of the mural. If the board is going to order the mural recreated, what exactly are we going to be required to recreate? Was it the mural depicted in 2012? Was it the mural when it was covered over in 2025? What image are we actually going to be asked to recreate? So I think all of the answer that. Part of the same. What's that? I can answer that. Okay. Okay. So I appreciate that explanation. It's still, in all honesty, it's not 100% clear to me what you're asking for because I do think you're making a legal argument that your clients can't be legally ordered to restore these murals because that would put them in violation of the law. And, you know, I think that needs to be worked. If that's your position, the board can't resolve that no matter what we do. In fact, if we say restore it, it sounds to me like you might just go away and say, "Fine, I'll take that up with the court then because I think you just did something unlawful." So you're putting us in that position, the way I understand it, that maybe it does just need to be worked out in court, but that's contrary to the idea if you're trying to get to a solution that doesn't cost your clients any more money. So I'm going to actually just disregard that argument for the time being and just look at your application as it came to us and take them one at a time. The first one is restoring the mural. By that, I mean, not the word "cider press." I think they're both murals in a way, but let's just talk about the two images that are definitely very faded. An inability to locate photographs that would allow us to recreate the images. I think there's some pretty, actually, pretty good imagery in there. That's one of them. There's a couple that are even better. The best ones, well, what I would say is I believe that one and some of the others that are in the packet were part of the HICP, if I'm not mistaken, which means that John Murphy or his associate took those photographs. So, presumably, he has probably even higher quality versions of those images than the ones that have been reproduced here. I don't think you're ever going to get a perfect image because they were faded at the time that the designation was made. And so to answer your question about what would need to be recreated, it would need to be recreated exactly as it stood at the time that the board determined that that was a primary facade and very specifically included the word "cider press" and the two images when it made that designation of the primary facade. And I understand that your clients are saying that, you know, they didn't do this maliciously, but they were involved in the hearing when that discussion took place. They had a representative here representing them. They received multiple written notices specifically saying that this was designated as the primary facade and included the images. And anyone that's lived in Santa Fe is very familiar with how distinctive those images are on that particular building in that location. And it's hard for me to imagine anyone going ahead and covering them up, even if we hadn't made that designation, without wondering if that was okay. So, the innocence factor is not weighing very heavily for me. On the other hand, we're not here to enforce criminal penalties or anything like that. That's not our job. We're not after retribution. We're after solutions. It's already been done. So I really do think that, as member Simmons said, I think that there's one possibility is that perhaps they could just be revealed again through a certain process. But even if that's not the case, just as you said the words, the lettering "cider press" could be reproduced based on the imagery. I don't see any reason why the other images couldn't as well. And, of course, they would be reproduced. They wouldn't be reproduced as the way they were originally painted. They would be reproduced in the manner in which they were, in which they appeared at the time the designation was made. And that would be almost exactly the time these photos were taken. So again, I think that that's really not a big ask. It's really just a matter of talking to the right person that can do the reproduction of those images. And that brings me to another question. In the packet, I noticed that there were some materials relating to a mural restoration service. Was that included by staff, or was that included by the applicant? That was included by staff. By staff. Okay. For, and exactly what did you have in mind, staff, if I can ask you, in including that? Was that a suggestion of referring the applicant to that individual? It was just information for the board to understand how murals can be restored. And, and, right. So I do know that there's that particular professional outfit, and there are others, including several, I believe, in Santa Fe that are just art restorers. That's their business. So I would think that it would not be a big stretch to contact one of them, show them the images, show them the wall, and discuss exactly what would be involved in reproducing these images to match what was there previously. Are you suggesting that the mural and the sign would be repainted to look like it's 75 years old? No. So that it would look exactly as it looked when that photograph was taken because that's what we designated as contributing, as a contributing factor to the primary facade, where those murals and the signage or the lettering as it existed at that point in time. They were not, in fact, they couldn't have been restored back to the way they were originally painted without, in my mind, also being in violation of our, of our designation. Yeah, we just kind of have a dilemma here because historic murals are allowed to just continue to weather and age and show the patina of age, and that is part of the history. If anybody's been to Prague, this is just a similar sort of a thing. All the Gothic towers in that town are very dark from all the stains from coal-fired burning, and there was a decision made in Prague that they do not clean those buildings because it just removes the history. So I just, I think this is a very problematic concern here is, you know, how do we, how do we get back to what was there two years ago? Why is it, I, to me, that's not so difficult. It's exactly reproducing what we're seeing on this photograph. I do think there's a philosophical debate one could have about whether it should be returned to its original form because some murals are restored often, actually, to their original form. But I don't believe that's what's before us tonight because the issue before the board is we designated the murals as they existed in that moment of time as contributing to the primary facade and not to be altered. So it would be another question to decide that they should be restored to an earlier state. And as an example, Notre Dame, as you know, had a huge fire, and so they restored the church. And there are many different monuments and different historical places that need restoration. So, member Simmons, they restore them as they were at some point. It's called a period of significance. So, yeah. But, interestingly, in Notre Dame, they've replaced some of the glass windows with brand new modern designs. It's, it's off topic. I would like to restate a process that I think could possibly help move this forward and to engage with the masonry restoration specialist and do some testing in innocuous places to see what sort of materials could be used that could actually pull this new layer of paint off, that it's quite likely that the mural was used, had used lead-based paint, which is a far more durable material than latex. Latex is just basically, it's rubber, where, you know, murals that would stand the test of time. They were probably made with, you know, pretty more, much more heavy-duty materials that would be resistant to some of those chemical strippers. And so I would just like to suggest to our board there that there is some further study and analysis that could be made here to help get to a place where we can actually possibly see those original murals. Yeah, to be clear, I was, I, I didn't mean to bypass that phase. I was saying they could be recreated, but if they could, could just be revealed again, that would be even better. So I see it as a two-step process. Sure. I would start with the, I'm sure, may I see if they can be revealed. Yeah. Yeah. Member Degnan? I'll be brief. I'm totally in agreement, and nothing personal here, Mr. Bienvenu, but with Mr. Simmons. My experience in this world of preservation has included never trying to paint something just to leave it and let it age. It's to your point. You just let it fade. You have to. I mean, you, it won't be historic if you try to put a brand new sign there. Paint it over. I don't understand what the disagreement is that we're, you think we're having. I thought you were suggesting that we could paint the sign, and I thought Mr. Simmons was very clear about, no. His opinion was, is that your view? Yeah. Mhm. There is no sign. The point is that we have no sign right now. No, there isn't. The point is is that we do have a sign. It's just under a coat of paint. And as I said, if it can be revealed that way, that was step one. But what if it can't? That's what I was talking about. Are you saying then you would not agree? Well, if it can't be, then that takes care of that issue. Just don't understand the dispute. Simmons, leave it. You are indicating that this, leave it. Fine as well. If you leave it the way it is, if you can't get it back to the way it was, you'll make it worse. The way it is right now is completely damaged. Are you fine? Mhm. No. I don't want not. Perhaps, perhaps what the, the comment is, is, is that the paint needs to be removed in, in gentle and non, that's what I'm saying. If I didn't say it correctly, I'm sorry. Destructive ways, and it can be done. I've, I've, I've done it. I'm going to ask for public comments at this point. Anyone from the public wishing to come forward? Mr. Zinn, if you'll get sworn in, please. Hello. Please state your name and address for the record. Yeah. Zinn. PO Box 756, Santa Fe, 87504. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yep. Thank you. Good evening. I represented these ladies. And one of the things that I'm hearing tonight is that the, you know, John Murphy did an amazing job in terms of historic integrity of this building and, and the, the context. I think what we're missing here is, is there's a little bit of nostalgia here, but this building is here and in this, in its state because of these ladies. It's between the Supreme Court Building, which used to be Oliver Seth's father's house, and the land office, which used to be something else. And this is an isolated island of preservation of, of loving care. I think it needs to be said that the, the property ran from the river all the way up to the Vargas Street, and, and the most significant house is up there, Vargas, which is now owned by our. These ladies have hung on to this lower level and done everything they can to keep it in their family and in their trust. When this was first brought up, and this was never part of the projects that I was involved in, I was involved in much of the work on the other building, and this was mostly maintenance that was done on this building. And that was after the fact, after the other building was kind of done. The most significant part about this building is that it was the Carright, and I knew the Carrights. The Carright garage, and it's built exactly the—I mean, it's exactly the way it was, that brick. And it was the first garage in Santa Fe for the first car in Santa Fe. It's maybe the most significant thing to it. I think if we were talking about something that was really a high, high, high value, high need, highly praised artist and mural, I think all of these discussions would probably be appropriate to be approached. We have a couple in Santa Fe examples. The Velanum, I was involved in the beginning of that project and the preservation architect. We did not get the project, but my feeling at the beginning and still today is there was no reason to take off that mural. And I was hoping that I would, somewhere during the construction, get to the point where they would say, "Oh, yeah. They were right. They needed to take off that mural." Still today, I'm going, "It didn't need to happen, but it did happen." So the solution there was to do this interpretation, which I think is pretty good and pretty beholden. Federico, as I should say now, was involved in helping create that. When this citation came down, I contacted Heather. The citation really originally said that they would stucco over the murals, which means whoever wrote it never even came close to the building. Must have done it from across the river. But I was appalled that they had stuccoed it too when I got over there. So now it had been painted probably since 1920. That paint—there's been paint on that brick that long, but the integrity of that is still there. And what's important is the shape, color, texture of that building and the fact that it's there at all. This mural thing, replicating it would be like Disneyland. I just really—replicating that just doesn't seem to have would reach the ability to touch this nostalgic part of like, "Oh, yeah. That was the cider press." I actually went to the cider press when I was a kid. That was in 1910. Probably 1966 probably was the time I went there. I would say that the application, the sign ordinance thing set aside, is we're not doing the building or the public any good by making them replicate this. I think because of the state of those murals, I think you could spend a whole lot of money, and I've done restoration, many, many buildings as well. And the Secretary of Interior standards would totally object to them being replicated. But I think the interpretation is a good idea, and I think the monitoring the building. I think it has been painted for many, many, many years. I don't think that brick is as soft as we think it is. And I worry more about the stone siding on the side and maintaining the pointing on that. I think what Robin was trying to get at is the pointing on the brick is going, and they needed to cover it. Probably not a great idea to paint it, but it's already been painted probably more than three, four times since it got painted the first time. I don't think this excavating down, applying layers of paint—I've done that with University of Pennsylvania and Texas Tech and stuff like that. It certainly can be done, but I don't think this particular mural warrants that kind of financial exploration and philosophical trudging through. I think replicating what we think the mural could be on a plaque, I think, was probably appropriate. It's more than what the City of Santa Fe did for the Beehill mural that was on the north side and was stuccoed over with the permission of David Rash, who's head of the preservation division. And there were no consequences that you weren't charged with a felony. These two ladies were charged with felonies. I mean, really? I don't have anything more to state about that, but I reached out to Heather when we got this, and it was over a year before I got a letter back. And the letter back was basically not a letter back. It was just these citations is how I found out about it. And I cited the—I cited the other things that have happened. You know, sometimes murals just go away, and they fade. They go, and we should let them go. And if it's important, we should do replication of some kind that memorializes them. So I'll stand for questions if you have. Any questions for Mr. Zinn? No question. Thank you. Anyone else in this audience wishing to comment on this particular case? No one else? Anyone on—No, Madam Chair. You know, this is a difficult case, and I think that I feel for you ladies, but if you had not done anything, then I don't think we would have been—we would be in this situation. And I think that you've acknowledged that. I don't think you were—I think everybody on this board knows that you didn't do what you did maliciously, but you did do something that you probably should not have done. And now we're in this situation. And so hold him. Okay. And I—I'm Mary Catherine. No one knew. And I can tell you about the number of people who knocked at the door and asked if it was a tea house. Yeah. I know. A tea house. Okay. And I'm guessing you all know it was not. It was a personal residence for Nikki and Betty. And so we did wrong. And, you know, as adult kids, we feel spanked, and we're hoping we make it to heaven anyway. That being said—I know. That being said, I would like you to consider the plaque that we've submitted as a possibility. I was told by someone the only thing they knew about the mural was I used it for that compass game where people would find certain latitudes. Oh, yeah. I've had that on the compass game, which doesn't seem very historical to me. But I do think a plaque that actually makes people stop and learn about the historical value is far more important than a replica. I'm not opposed, Mr. Simmons, to your ideas about trying to find out. And Mr. Walsh told you our financial situation. It's a little embarrassing. But I do think for the good of Santa Fe, if you're really talking about historical knowledge, right? Isn't that what murals are about, historical knowledge, then please consider the plaque. It gives a picture. We can get a good picture. You all said there were good pictures out there. We don't have one. But more importantly, it tells a history of a place that was built by one of the early white families here in Santa Fe that hosted the first car garage. Now if that's important, that's important. More important is the two rooms that we don't talk about that was built by Juan Luhan, a Native American man from Alps. That's what's important to Robin and me. So please consider the option. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. There are no further speakers, no further comments, no further questions. I will entertain a motion at this point. Member Bienvenu, make a—Thank you, Madam. I'm trying to make a motion, but I think from the previous comments of my colleagues, it's futile, but I'm going to make it anyway because I think this is the way I would like to resolve the issue. So just as a preamble, I, of course, this building is important in many different ways, so we're hearing that. But that's not—we already dealt with that when we were doing status reviews. So nothing we're talking about here in focusing on these, the mural and the lettering, is to suggest these are the most important aspects of the building. It's just that these were specifically to be protected as part of the designation that was made, and they were. So the question is what do we do about that right now? And that's only partially an HDRB issue, I believe. It sounds like you have cases going on in court where the city, completely independent of us—I don't even have any knowledge of those cases—is also pursuing something with regard to the changes you made without authorization. So I just want to be clear that we're how limited the focus of the board is, because it sounds like, and I can gather it's pretty extremely stressful for you, that you become engulfed through this process in things coming at you from multiple directions. But the only thing that's before us is what to do about the cider press and the two images. That's the only thing before us. And I'm going to just come back to the application because that is what your representatives on your behalf said that they were asking to do to resolve the issue, and that was to recreate the Cider Press lettering as it existed, I believe, at the time, not be required to recreate the two painted images, and to add a plaque. That's what I understand to be the application. I think that the recreating—I'm going to search for a compromise here where I'm going to say my—here's the motion. The motion would be to accept the applicant's proposal to reproduce the cider press sign as it existed at the time that the board made its designation, not be required to reproduce the two images on the other facade of the building on the basis that it was potentially excessively expensive, and also because of the loss of a major amount of integrity of those images, even though in my ideal world, they would be reproduced. I'm willing to accept that as compromise, and then accept a plaque with wording to be agreed upon between the applicant and staff. And I think some of staff's specific concerns were it was a little bit too much focused on the current ownership and not about the history of the property, and I would agree with that. I think if there's going to be a plaque, it should only be about the historical aspects of the property and have an image of what we're looking at in this photograph. So that would be my motion. Do I hear a second to this motion? No second to the motion, so the motion dies. I will entertain a different motion, another motion. I would like to make a motion in a case of 2026-013109-HDRB, 127 East of Vargas Street, that we postpone the application until such time that the applicant can come back and have demonstrated that removal of the paint is feasible or not feasible, and to get additional information from the applicator of the stucco as to exactly what was put on, as a recoat, just so we can have the real information. Second the motion. Roll call vote, please. Member Simmons? Yes. Member Bienvenu? No. Member Degnan? Yes. The motion has passed. So we will be seeing you again. Okay? Alright. Alright. Thank you. Thank you all. Last case this evening is located at 925 Canyon Road. Is there a motion to remove this from—So moved. Taken to move. Is there a second to bring this? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed? That one more case. What? Yeah. From the—Oh, but, right. Can you not? No. Right. But we had put it at the end of the agenda, and I just had it removed. That's the one we're going to hear now. Yeah. Sorry. We are going to hear 925 Canyon Road. Miss Lani? Sorry. I didn't mean to get confused on you guys. Because I—so my applicant is here now. Yeah. We'll go ahead and move forward. So this is case 2026-012488-HDRB for 925 Canyon Road for new construction. The property is located on the north side of the road between Canyon and the Santa Fe River. The residence at 925 Canyon Road is a non-contributing vernacular style two-story structure in the Downtown and East Side Historic District. The 1,500 square foot home was constructed sometime between 1950 and 1958. The residence sits at the front of the lot of Budding Canyon Road. The rear of the lot is mostly dirt and is used for parking currently. There was a non-historic open shed at the very rear of the lot that has been removed. So the applicant is proposing to construct in the vacant area a 2,301 square foot freestanding recent Santa Fe style residence to a height of 14 feet where the maximum allowable height is 17 feet. The roof will be flat with parapets. The windows will be wood clad with simulated divided light where publicly visible and single light where it is not. It will be in a dark bronze. The doors will be glass doors in dark bronze. They want to stucco the residence in synthetic stucco, which is an allowed color per stucco styles, material, and color guidance in the historic districts. And the wood trim and elements will be stained in Old Master's Weatherwood. They'd like to demolish the shed. It was previously removed. It was a metal shed of recent construction, which leaned to the side, had no door in the opening, and was sort of falling down anyway. We would like to construct a six-foot high coyote fence along the north and west property lines, construct yard walls and gates to the west and east of the new residence, to define the yard space. So this is the proposed north elevation, which faces the river. This is a west elevation. It faces the existing driveway. And then this is the east elevation and will face the existing yard wall between this property and the neighboring lot. And this is the south elevation, which will face the existing residence and Canyon Road. These are the proposed colors for the new residence, and these elevations show the existing house, the new residence, and are for the east and west elevations. This is the existing view from the river. The new structure will sit between that residence in the background and this grove of trees here. And then staff recommends approval of the proposed project and finds that the application complies with section 14-4.6e, general design standards, and 14-4.6g2, downtown and east side design standards. Staff would like to request as part of that approval, the corners for the building be at two to three inches and the windows be inset at one to two inches. You're talking radius? Yes. Thank you. Lani, what you show is the elevation that faces Alameda? Still Alameda? Yeah. Give me one second. Well, this one on the lower right? Is that it? Right. So there's the pencil drawings that actually show the elevations, and then this is kind of colored in to kind of give it that 3D perspective for you. They're all the same drawing. Thank you. Are you done with your report? Yes, I am. Any questions for Lani? No questions. Mr. Jordan, please raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record. Ray Jordan, 227 East Palace, UW. Can I just remove that? Yep. Is that? Oh, there we go. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and to the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you. Troy, would you talk to us about this project? Yeah, I mean, I stand for questions. It's going to be beautiful. Yeah, I just, big thought for me on this one was the view from Alameda. And I really, the idea of seeing it across the river through these trees, I really didn't want it to be a back porch facing a busy road. I wanted it to be sort of sculptural, a little bit abstract. So other than there's a sliding glass door in the main bedroom that I'm intending to put some evergreens in front of. So the idea is that visually, the scale of the building is a little bit suppressed, and it becomes a little bit sculptural. I did that high atelier window, which reflects the history of Canyon Road in the immediate area. It also makes a lot of sense from interior space, not looking straight across to a busy road, but rather up into the trees when you're looking north. The geometry of the lot is quite amazing in that the riverbed sort of pulls slightly kind of southwest along the rear property line. So the view from this living from the living room is actually down the river. And so that's what kind of generated the geometry of the plan and the organization of the spaces. How far back is it from the river? I think it's about 20 feet. It's a 15-foot setback, and then there's an overhead power line easement. So maybe a little less than because I think those kind of overlap a little bit. So 18 to 20 feet, something like that. Kind of at the top of the slope there. There's also a flood plain issue. So, there's, you know, a number of things. Thank you, Troy. Board members, do you have comments or questions? Member Simmons. Yes, Mr. Jordan, I very much admire your work. I applaud you for this. One of the things that we look at in new buildings and historic districts is how they're making a statement about today as to not create a false history, and I think there's several maneuvers that you've done on these. If you could kind of walk us through the elevations and kind of describe some of those, some of those features that you think are making this look very contemporary and not creating a false history. Well, I don't know specifically what you're referring to. I mean, I think, in general, I'm a big believer in I'm not really sure that I would say the south and north elevations in conversation with each other, especially if you remove the yard walls and look at the elevation where you actually see into the courtyard where there's most of the glazing. But I'm a big fan of solid walls that are solid and voids that are voids. And I'm not a big one for sprinkling little windows around because we get nervous. It's the side of a garage, but three square windows in a row. That just means I couldn't think of anything. So I think it kind of does that. I like strong walls, and I like simple simple buildings. The building was, like I said, I think the big move is that atelier window. The sill height of that window starts at five and a half feet above the floor and goes to 11. It tilts back. It can't to the south. There's actually a building right across the street about two doors east of here on Canyon Road with the same slanted that sloped atelier window, the Harwood Museum in Taos, the white building over on Mackenzie. You know, there's a long-standing history of those atelier windows. So it's a reference to that. And I also think it'll capture a beautiful view. And it's just a tight little I mean, I have tried for 15 years to design an 1,800 square foot house, and I've never hit it. It's always been bigger or smaller, and this one's 1,800. So maybe it was time. It's really crafted for that site. And I don't say that from ego when I started my presentation. I guess it sounds that way, but it's going to be beautiful. It's, it's just going to be this beautiful little gift that you see across the river. I just think it's, I'm so thrilled from the day that I saw this property. I just thought something beautiful could happen there. And, and the little house in front will be the next step and it's going to have its whole, you know, it needs to give something to Canyon Road that it doesn't right now. I mean, apart from like complying with the ordinance and, you know, all of that. But, this house, and I called it River House, is about the river view and the other house, which we call Front House, which I'll see you at some point in the future on, it's about Canyon Road, that little stretch. So I'm sorry if that I don't know if that answered your question or not. Yes, you did. Okay. Can you show us the other elevations? Not a word. Much shorter than Troy. Sorry. So the drawings, he's got the typical 2D elevation and then some because there's some setbacks and such in the building that's down below. And then the rendering is actually in the lower right. And that's how pretty much all of these are set up. So board members, any comments or questions? Member Bienvenu. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, yeah, thank you for your design. I also agree that it's I think it's going to look, you know, very appropriate in the setting. And I I completely agree that, you know, the view from Alameda is what's significant here. And, yep, I think it's very nice. Do you based on everything that you've said and how you want it to fit in, I would, I'm going to guess that you didn't indicate the radiuses on your drawings, but I'm going to guess you don't disagree with the recommend No. Recommended condition. Okay. I'm prepared to make a motion. Oh. Oh, no. No. You didn't open it up to public. There is no public comment in this room, and I there's no public comment I'm going to guess online. No, Madam Chair. No public comment online. And Member Bienvenu, make a motion. Okay. So case number 2026012488HTRB at 925 Canyon Road. I move to approve the application as submitted, with the additional condition as agreed as recommended by staff and agreed by the applicant that the corner radiuses will be two to three inches and windows will doors will be inset one to two inches minimum. Second. Second. Member Simmons? Yes. Member Degnan? Yes. Member Bienvenu? Yes. The motion has passed. Yes. Thanks, Troy. And that was the last case this evening. Anything under discussion items? Hold on. We have matters from the board, but anything under discussion items? Staff? Chair, members of the board, not at this time other to than to let you know on November 10 at 5:00 PM, the City Council will be having a study session regarding both the general plan update as well as the land development code update. So you may be interested in attending. No public comment is going to be taken at that time, but I believe it will also be cast on YouTube. Although it's going to be a little difficult to see because everybody is at a table down in the center of the room. So I don't know how high quality a recording is. And we have H4 that night. Oh, so Yeah. City Council got moved because of Veterans Day, and so that's why we have a conflict that night. So, we will make sure that there's a recording for you just so that you have that available to you. Nothing else? Nothing at this time. Thank you. Matters from the board. Member Simmons. I I have two things. Actually, three things. Would, Heather, would you ask one of your staff to forward to me the ordinance that was passed last year for the phase one update? I'm I have a document that I got from Maggie Moore that, in conversation with Lani today, I that may not have been the correct document that was approved. And the reason I'm asking is, in the historic preservation section, it has taken out the wording old Santa Fe style and new Santa Fe style, and it just uses only Santa Fe style. And, that, I don't know that that's, that I have the right the right document. Okay. So so would you, please ask one of your staff to forward me a PDF of the actual document that Matt Goble's team had written that is passed so I can have the correct document in my file. There, Member Simmons, I would just recommend that you take a look at the city's web page under the City Clerk page, and all the ordinances that have been recorded, you know, are posted on that web page and ordinance number 2025-25. Okay. So so that has now made it to the muni code? Not to muni code yet because we're just about to get all the scrivener's errors fixed. We're finalizing that ordinance because there are a lot of links that were broken and all the I see. All the things that happened at the very last, prior to the hearing with the City Attorney's office. So those scrivener errors are going to be, hopefully, approved beginning of October, the fixes, and then that will go into Muni Code. Okay, great. So I'll start looking in a different place then for the right ordinance. Then the second topic I have is, we've recently been agreeing that the Department of Interior Standards are part of our ordinance, and I would just respectfully ask, it's an additional job for staff, but to include perhaps comments about, and I don't think it needs to go through every single application, but where it's appropriate for, like, new buildings and additions, what the Department of Interior Standard says, in addition to what our ordinance says. You can certainly not do that. That's just something, just a request I'd like to make, just because I think it's going to be important moving forward that the Department of Interior Standards, because it's getting a lot of discussion in this venue here and elsewhere about adopting those. So I just think it's coming. So, you know, when that's appropriate, and I certainly don't want to increase the load the staff has because they all know that they're extremely busy. I remember Simmons, I just might say that I'm not sure all staff are familiar with the Department of Interior Standards, and so we'll work on training for that and make sure that that's implemented, may not be right away. Fair enough. Then my last request, and I'm not, I don't know if you have the authority as a director to make a sort of an interim, what's the right word here, process that we incorporate or we add to the submittal documents, to your request of applicants in the case of additions and new buildings, that we get some perspective views of the proposal. It's very difficult to really get a sense of, a feel, and I can as an architect because I understand I've been doing orthographic drawings for 50 years now. But I know that a perspective view, it certainly helped in the case of Gabriel Brown's presentation that he had some perspectives that he could demonstrate compliance like that. I know that virtually all the architects in town here are on a 3D CAD program, so it's nothing to them to include those. And I think it would help members of the board here as well as staff, as well as the public, when we see these proposals presented to us, just to include some perspective views of the project. Chair, member Simmons, I do have a question relative to, so if the addition is, say, for instance, on the south elevation, do you only want a perspective of the three elevations where it's being impacted, or do you want a perspective of the entire building? I'm just trying to figure out how many perspectives we should be asking so we can make sure to administer it. That's certainly a fair question. I think, you know, certainly at least one. There could be additional views to show the scope. You know, I think it could just be open-ended. You know, it's not a hard and fast thing. You know, they're always going to give us elevations. It, I think it just is very helpful as a visual tool to see the context, not only of just, you know, the immediate context, but, you know, it's also possible to, just no. I mean, SketchUp is such a fast program, and I mean, I don't particularly, I don't use it just because the software I use is far more robust and does everything that SketchUp can do and more. But I do know that most of the architects in town here use SketchUp, and then they use a standard drafting program. But there's quite a lot of architects who use the Revit programs and other 3D programs. And I just, I don't think it's too big of an ask for them just, and I think it would just help, just if you could use the wording to help, help, alright, help show the just the scope of the project that they're proposing. Doesn't have to be every single view, every possible view. Doesn't have to be 17 aerials and, you know, foreground views. Just enough to describe the project in general terms as to how its form is going to fit into the context. Thanks. Ask a question about that. Oh, go ahead. Hold on. I want to make a comment in reference to the Department of Interior Standards. We, this board, does not operate under the Department of Interior Standards. Yes, yes, we do. We have our own ordinance. We have both. Be an overlap. But, correct, we do not operate under Department of Interior Standard. Madam Chair and member Simmons, the Department of the Interior Standards have, there's kind of a template or a basis for historic preservation generally. The problem with Department of the Interior Standards is that there's no way they can fashion standards at a national level that are specific, the design standards of each, of each historic district throughout the United States. I disagree. Well, and but, and if I could just finish one thing, it is that, you know, a design standard for Santa Fe wouldn't be the same as a design standard, say, for Charleston, South Carolina, or New Orleans or Albany, New York, or any place that had very strict historic district standards. What you'll find is most of the historic standards at the city level are more stringent, and they're more specific than the Department of the Interior Standards, which are, at one of the basis where the Department of the Interior Standards is federal lands, for example, and national parks. So, yeah, that, that there is something to be, there is, I'd say, maybe a model for historic standards throughout the United States to be found in the Department of the Interior Standards. But most cities that have historic preservation like we have in Santa Fe have more specifics and more stringent requirements, and that is something that the city can do because the federal government really doesn't have the authority to tell each city this is what the standards have to be in your city. Yeah, I just wanted that clarification and further from Heather. Yes, thank you, Chair Rios. First of all, the design standards aren't related to Department of Interior Standards, just preservation. Department of Interior has, you know, technical briefs, and I think you've started seeing some things from staff regarding preservation of Adobe, for instance. I think I shared that. Preservation of windows, steel casement windows. I think there was an article that I shared with you all. I think it can inform what we do. And, for instance, in our historic preservation standards, there is reference to it, but certainly it's not saying we're adopting Section 106. So that is a federal program. And as a certified local government, we do have to comply with those standards, you know, being a certified local government for historic preservation. But this is one of the things that I wanted to chat with you all about in terms of making things more clear. And I think that's sort of some of the feedback we get from the community is it's just not abundantly clear how we judge these cases, and we should, and this is, I tried to do this last year and then just got too busy. It's not gotten better, but we're going to make sure to have a meeting so we can talk about that stucco guidance and as well as the window guidance and, you know, other things where we can study that issue and determine, you know, whether it's additive or if we just want to use the Department of Interior Standards or a mixture thereof. So, but that's, that's something that needs more dialogue. As a member of a certified local government, I understand that it is required that the Department of Interior Standards be adopted as well as providing with a review board. So the Department of Interior Standards are not at variance with our ordinance. It, it, they're not. They're, it's just, it's additional information, and it's always in the law that a more restrictive rule or a law is going to take precedence. And so I don't think there's any conflict, but just to get into the weeds here a little bit, with respect to historic windows, our code in Santa Fe is far stricter than the Department of Interior Standards that the only cases in, than the standards that a repairable window must be repaired is in a condition where the building is a local, state, or federal, national landmark. If tax credits are being applied for or if federal funding is being applied. And this is a conversation that we're having with some members of the City Council as a way to help kind of smooth the way because dealing with windows in this town has just historically been a really, really, really difficult process. And as one of the City Council members have said that they're just really getting sick and tired of having to review windows. So I think that there's something that we can do on this side here to help, to help that. The council had one case where they were talking about when to. Correct. Well, but it's, it's oftentimes that, that what gets appealed to council are rulings that this board makes on windows. And I'm, I'm just saying that, that I think that we can, we can help the members of the community here with their houses. You know, last meeting, we had that project on Gildersleeve where there were six, I think, windows, maybe seven on the primary facades, and four of them had to be restored, and the other three can be replaced. And it just to me as an architect, that just doesn't make any sense, you know, that, that we've. Chair, point of order. I, I think this is a, may I have the floor? I think this is an extremely important issue that you're raising. I just don't think it's fair to debate this issue in this format when it's not on the agenda. No one is prepared for it. You know, I, I could disagree and give reasons why for virtually every statement you've made, as I said, when we. Well, you're a lawyer. City Council, because I think they're wrong. But it's just, it's not the right place for it. And I think that debate needs to happen. And, first of all, be for the reason you just, well, first of all, because there's even disagreement amongst the board as to what those rules and regulations are and should be. But more importantly, because the public doesn't understand them. And that's either a question of education or it's a question of change. And I would say it's a question of education. But now I'm starting to debate it. The point of order I want to make is I think we just need to have that discussion at the appropriate time and place, and it needs to take place. It's extremely important. But I just don't think it's going to be effective or efficient to do it in this, just on the spur of the moment. Yeah, I, I, I didn't intend to comment here at the meeting, and certainly, John, I agree with you. We'll schedule a study session. You know, I think I would recommend be after the new Historic Preservation Division Manager arrives. He's going to be starting on October 10. Oh. And it has some. That's a higher. Preservation. What's his name? Allen. He's worked in Savannah, Georgia, Montclair, New Jersey, and New York. Excellent. And. What would, yeah, I did have something I want. Oh, I, I wanted to agree with member Simmons on the issue about the elevate, the drawings. But I, I guess I, I, I do think it would be extremely helpful. I think it's in the, in completely in the interest of the applicant to do that, because we're, we're so much more informed as a board when those drawings are given to us. So I don't know why they wouldn't do that. And it's especially frustrating when we see them for the first time at a meeting if we see them at all. They really need to be part of the application. So I, I, I wholeheartedly support that. I just don't know, though. I think there's ordinance language about what the applicant is required to submit. So I don't know that we have the authority to just require things beyond what the ordinance says. I think the ordinance speaks of elevation drawings, photographs, some other things. I'm just bringing that up for you to think about whether or not that can actually be mandated at this point in time without a code amendment or whether it should just be highly encouraged, which I think you can do no matter what the code says. The middle requirements are set by the language director, not by the code. There's nothing in the code regarding I think there is. There is a provision in the code because I know it talks about photographs of the surrounding area and a plat map, and I know I've read that language someplace in the code. So, anyway, I'm just bringing it up. I have no answers to that. I would love to see exactly what Joseph E. Simmons said adopted. I just don't know how we go about that in the most effective way. Yes. I think that's a given that we should encourage it. And, again, as part of the application, not just to show up with PowerPoint slides. So that is what I was going to mention. Yes. Thank you. There's nothing else. Our next meeting is October 13, 2026. Do I hear a motion to adjourn? Second. All those in favor, say aye. Any opposed, say no. Okay. Thank you all. Thank you all for this evening, and we'll see you on the thirteenth.