Historic Districts Review Board Meeting Tue, Apr 8, 2025 · Historic Districts Review Board https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/567 == Executive Summary == The Historic Districts Review Board held a meeting where they approved several administrative items, discussed nominations for the Santa Fe Heritage Preservation Awards, and reviewed multiple project proposals. A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to a preliminary design presentation for the rehabilitation of Marian Hall and additions to the Drury Hotel, which involved extensive historical context and proposed alterations. The board also deliberated on the historic status and proposed changes for two residential properties, 1000 Camino San Casio and 423 West San Francisco Street, Unit A, with detailed discussions on material choices, visibility, and adherence to historic guidelines. Key decisions included the approval of the amended agenda, past meeting minutes, and findings of fact. The board also approved the application for 925 Aikia Madre with specific conditions regarding materials and maintained the non-contributing status of a shed at 248 Rodriguez Street. A notable decision was the designation of the main structure at 423 West San Francisco Street, Unit A, as contributing with specific primary facades, and its garage also as contributing. Public comments raised concerns about board composition, voting procedures, and specific project details, while the Mayor praised the sensitive approach to the Marian Hall rehabilitation. == Key Decisions == - Approved the amended agenda, minutes from March 25, 2025, and several findings of fact and conclusions of law from November 26, 2024, and December 10, 2024. - Approved the application for 925 Aikia Madre with the condition that flashing be galvanized steel and the temporary roofing material be allowed. - Maintained the shed at 248 Rodriguez Street as non-contributing. - Designated the main structure at 423 West San Francisco Street, Unit A, as contributing with the south and east sides as primary (excluding non-historic material), and its garage as contributing with the west and north facades as primary. - Adjourned the meeting. == Motions & Votes == - Amended agenda — Passed (all members present voted yes by roll call vote) - Minutes from March 25, 2025 — Approved (all ayes by voice vote) - Findings of fact and conclusions of law for 918D Asia Madre (November 26, 2024) — Approved (all ayes by voice vote) - Findings of fact and conclusions of law for 449 Camino Monavista, 465 Camino Monzano, and 346 Hillside Avenue (all December 10, 2024) — Approved (all ayes by voice vote) - Motion to Approve Case 202500916 HDRB (1010 Camino Santa Colossio) as Proposed with Amendments (Door A relocation, color sample for staff approval, skylight not publicly visible, revised drawings) — Carried unanimously (4-0) - Motion to approve Case 2025009943 HDRB at 925 Aikia Madre as submitted, with the condition that the flashing be galvanized steel material and the temporary roofing material be allowed — Passed unanimously (4-0) - Motion to maintain the shed at 248 Rodriguez Street as non-contributing, consistent with staff's recommendation — Passed unanimously (4-0) - Motion to designate the main structure at 423 West San Francisco Street, 1/2 unit A, as contributing with the south and east sides as primary (excluding non-historic material), and to designate the garage as contributing with the west and north facades as primary — Passed (3-1) - Motion to adjourn the meeting — Passed unanimously == Public Comment == Public comments included concerns about the 'plain meaning rule' regarding voting procedures and the absence of a licensed architect on the board. For the Marian Hall/Drury Hotel project, public commenters were generally positive, with some preferring a glass walkway design and highlighting the building's historical and sentimental value. For 1000 Camino San Casio, a public commenter questioned the necessity of a skylight for a closet and raised concerns about the garage door, breezeway door, and proposed stonework. For 925 Aikia Madre, a public commenter strongly opposed the project, arguing it was mislabeled, used inappropriate materials, and was unnecessary. For 423 West San Francisco Street, Unit A, public comments debated the property's public visibility, supported its upgrade to 'contributing' status, and questioned the historical accuracy of certain features. == Topics == - Land Development Code Update - Heritage Preservation Awards - Voting Procedures - Board Composition - St. Catherine's Indian School - Executive Office Building Redesign - Stucco Policy Guidance - Historic District Designations - Approval of Minutes - Findings of Fact Approval == Full Transcript == Let us know when we're ready. Good evening. Welcome, everybody, in attendance personally and remotely. It is 5:30 p.m. I call this meeting to order. My name is John Benvven. I'll be serving as acting chair in the absence of Chair Rios. This meeting has been duly noticed for April 8, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. May I have a roll call, please? **[Speaker Name]**: Madame Chair Rios, uh, excused. Vice Chair Benu, present. Member Adelao. Member Cherry, here. Member Bishide, here. Member DGNEN, here. Member Mather, here. Thank you, Chair. You have a quorum. **[Speaker Name]**: Thank you. We have an agenda that has been duly published. Are there any changes to the agenda? **[Speaker Name]**: Yes. Uh, Chair Benu and members of the board. Under new business, item D, 2025-0100093 HB 224 and 228 East Palace has been postponed and will be for information only today. And then the next meeting has changed to May 13, 2025, instead of the end of April. That's it. **[Speaker Name]**: Thank you. Board members, may I have a motion to approve the agenda as amended? **[Speaker Name]**: So moved. **[Speaker Name]**: Johnson seconds. **[Speaker Name]**: Thank you. May I have a roll call vote? **[Speaker Name]**: Member Mather? **[Speaker Name]**: Yep. **[Speaker Name]**: Member DGEN? **[Speaker Name]**: Yes. **[Speaker Name]**: Member Bish? **[Speaker Name]**: Yes. **[Speaker Name]**: Member Cherry? **[Speaker Name]**: Yes. **[Speaker Name]**: Member Agel Majano? **[Speaker Name]**: Yes. **[Speaker Name]**: The motion has passed. Thank you. Next on the agenda is approval of minutes for March 25, 2025. Are there any changes to the minutes? Hearing none, may I have a motion? **[Speaker Name]**: So moved. **[Speaker Name]**: Iron seconds. **[Speaker Name]**: Thank you. All in favor say aye. **[Speaker Name]**: Aye. **[Speaker Name]**: Any opposed? That motion is carried. Next, we have approval of findings of fact and conclusions of law, which I'm going to take in two groups. The first one being 2024007675HDRB 918D Asia Madre, November 26, 2024. Are there any changes to these findings and conclusions? None. May I have a motion? **[Speaker Name]**: I'd subscribe. **[Speaker Name]**: Thank you. All in favor say aye. **[Speaker Name]**: Aye. **[Speaker Name]**: Any opposed? The motion is carried. The next group of findings and conclusions will be three, starting with 2024009377 HDRB 449 Camino Monavista, December 10, 2024. Next, 2024009399 HDRB at 465 Camino Monzano, also on December 10, 2024. And finally, 2024-009398HDRB at 346 Hillside Avenue on December 10, 2024. Are there any proposed changes to those findings and conclusions? Seeing none, may I have a motion to approve? **[Speaker Name]**: Madron so moves. **[Speaker Name]**: Second. **[Speaker Name]**: Thank you. All in favor signify by saying aye. **[Speaker Name]**: Aye. **[Speaker Name]**: Opposed? That motion also carries. Next on the agenda, matters from the public. Is there anyone in the room tonight that would like to speak? Please approach the podium. We have two minutes. **[Speaker Name]**: I don't know. Can you hear me? **[Speaker Name]**: Speak up just a bit. **[Speaker Name]**: So, Stephanie Benonato. I didn't get quite to finish last week on the plain meaning rule that should be controlling the resolution concerning the a vote by the majority of the members present determines an issue. The plain language rule, just to reiterate, means that if it's not ambiguous, you apply it. You don't interpret it, and you certainly don't add on words to it. But I've also been told by the, and that was what Mr. Rubalid and the city attorney have been doing, is adding the word "voting members" to that resolution's wording. I've also been told by the city attorney that can't possibly want a supermajority, but I point out to you that on the ordinance for the city council itself, 2-2.66 says, "Procedure for adoption of ordinances, resolutions, and orders." And I'm not going to, well, in the passage of adoption of every ordinance and every resolution or order to enter into contract by the governing body, the ayes and the nays shall be called and recorded, and to pass or adopt any ordinance of any such resolution, order, or, excuse me, or order, a concurrence of a majority of the whole number of members elected to the governing body is required. That means that five members must vote for something at city council. And last week, they only had six members, and then five members sitting there. So that meant that if there was a vote on something, all five members, at least five members, had to agree. That's more than, I mean, that's a supermajority or a total majority vote. So the idea that this, that this somehow is creating something that the city hasn't thought about, is also bogus. So again, when you have a four-person quorum, you really do need three people voting for or against to have a valid vote. And I just also wanted to ask about St. Catherine's Indian School. I thought there was going to be some kind of review. **[Speaker Name]**: Go ahead and finish that thought in the next 30 seconds. **[Speaker Name]**: I thought there was going to be some kind of review or presentation to this board. I think it got delayed, but I've never seen or heard it on the agenda, and I'm just curious about that. Thank you. **[Speaker Name]**: Okay. Thank you very much for your comments. Anyone else in the room wishing to speak? Please approach the podium. **[Speaker Name]**: Hello. **[Speaker Name]**: Hello. **[Speaker Name]**: I was curious about the current makeup of the board, and I wondered if there had been any public discussion. My understanding is that there's no longer a licensed architect seated on the board, and I was curious about that. **[Speaker Name]**: Not sure who did technically. **[Speaker Name]**: Yeah. Well, my understanding is that the code calls for a licensed architect to be seated on the board. **[Speaker Name]**: I'm not really sure that we want to be taking questions directly from the floor on matters such as those. If there's anybody here that wishes to direct that question to staff, they can. Otherwise, I would suggest that you direct that question directly to staff outside of the meeting. Is there anybody that wishes to have that question answered by staff? Okay. Thank you for your comment. I would just say go ahead and follow up with staff directly on that, and I'm sure they can answer your question. **[Speaker Name]**: Okay. Thank you. **[Speaker Name]**: You're welcome. Anybody else in the room? Thank you very much. Is there anyone online? **[Speaker Name]**: I started to look something up. I messed myself up. Chair Bennu, nobody has raised their hands. **[Speaker Name]**: Okay, thank you very much. We'll move on to the next agenda item, which are, which is staff communications. 2025 Santa Fe Heritage Preservation Awards vote. **[Speaker Name]**: Good evening, members of the board. I'm here to present to you the 2025 Santa Fe Heritage Preservation Awards. You will see on, or you will find on your desk, the nomination forms. So I will need your nomination. I'll email you as well the same form. I will need by Friday, this Friday, by 5:00 p.m., a response for your nominations to be accepted. Okay. So we will begin. So our first award tonight is for architectural preservation. And in the our, that we have 553 West San Francisco Street and the New Mexico Museum of Art as our two nominations. So for 550 West San Francisco Street, it's a 500 square foot addition, which includes delighted divided light windows, a new residence, new gate with wooden flanked, with wooden flanked by polishers in a carved wood overhang. And the New Mexico Museum of Art, which is at 107 Palace Avenue. It's a significant structure in the downtown and east side historic district. The wood elements repaired and restoring the historic woodwork on the exterior of the building. These repairs address life and safety concerns such as falling vegan ends on the exterior of the building and rotted floorboards on a balcony above St. Francis. Our next award will be for compatible remodel award, and these are outstanding examples of building and remodel that harmonizes with the historic structures in the historic districts. Our nominees are 723 Dunlap, 619 Aseca Madre, 330 Delgado, and 1109 East Alama. First for 723 Dunlap, which is a contributing structure in the west side up district, is an exterior remodel to an existing residence. It created an attached guest house with demolition and removing of existing fences and new fences installed behind the residence. Next, we have 619 Aseca Madre, which is a contributing structure in the downtown and east side historic district. This structure received new yard walls and gates, a new 430 square foot detached garage with 180 foot or structure, 314 foot addition to the main residence, and new windows throughout. Next is 330 Delgado Street, which is a contributing in the downtown and east side historic district. They've replaced 12 non-historic windows, to be exact, 1980 Marvin windows, built new freestanding 96 square foot pergola, and relocated a solar lantern. The last would be 1109 East Alama Street, which is a contributing non-contributing to the downtown and east side historic district. We received exterior demolition, remodel, and alterations with 884 square foot additions attached to the residence. The next award is compatible new construction award nominees. We'll have 302 Senna and 344 Camino Cerrito. 302 Center Street is a non-contributing in the Don Gaspar Historic District. And this is a newly single-family residence with portal skylights and pri roof style. 344 Camino Cerrito is a non-contributing and to the downtown and east side historic district, and it's a new single-family residence, flat roof, and yard walls. And finally, we have the cultural preservation award in honor of preservation of Santa Fe's unique cultural heritage. We have Mark Mitchell, Ray Patterson, and John Murphy. Mark Mitchell is a former governor of Pueblo of Tsuki and is a lifetime member of the tribal council and former chairman of all Pueblo Council of the Governors from 2021 to 2023. Former chairman of the ENIPC in 2009, basic police academy in 1994, government affairs liaison, tribal historic preservation officer from 2008 to 2000, excuse me, to 2020, cultural property review committee 2006 to 2007. Next, we have Ray Patterson. He's known for his quality of work with window assessments within the historic districts. We often receive high acclimates from the public in regards to his work. And finally, we have John Murphy. He is also well known, and he is an architectural historian, researcher, and planner within the city of Santa Fe. He provides historic cultural property inventory surveys throughout the city of Santa Fe, and this board and the public utilizes his work very often. And that is the end of our presentation. I stand for any questions from the board. **[Speaker Name]**: Thank you very much for the presentation. Questions? Yes. **[Speaker Name]**: Member Egler Madrono, Chair Bianu, one question about 1109 East Alama. Is that con, I thought we'd always considered that one non-conforming. Could you give us a little bit more detail about the property or what the remodel entailed? Could you repeat that? I guess also if staff could just speak to whether they think it's non-conforming to the east side district. **[Speaker Name]**: When I looked up that property, I did show that it was non-contributing, but I was not aware that it was non-conforming. So, and I also wasn't aware that non-conforming buildings were not applicable for the awards. **[Speaker Name]**: I don't know that they aren't either. I'm not, no, I'm not saying that. Just a question. **[Speaker Name]**: Yes. Not that I'm aware of, but I could research it further if you'd like. **[Speaker Name]**: Okay. Thank you, Amanda. Anyone else on the board have any questions? Okay. Well, thank you for putting that together and for the explanations. And what, tell us again, our deadline for our votes. **[Speaker Name]**: That will be this Friday, which is, if I'm correct, April 11th, by 5:00 p.m. And the award ceremony will be May 15th at 5:30 at San Miguel Chapel. And I've had a few volunteers for presentations of the awards, and I'm looking for a few more. So, you would like to volunteer, please email me. Thank you. **[Speaker Name]**: So, I'd love to volunteer, but I'm again out of town on that. **[Speaker Name]**: Yes, you will during that week. Sorry to say. **[Speaker Name]**: Thank you, Chair. **[Speaker Name]**: Okay, moving on. Next item on the agenda. Oh. Oh, no. Actually, still under staff communications. We have preliminary design presentation for the proposed additions to Maran Hall and Drury Hotel at 224 and 228 East Palace Avenue. Who will be presenting? Chair Benu: We will have Chiho Deitra to do the presentations of the background and the proposed work at Miriam Hall. Thank you. Does the presenter need to be sworn for an informational presentation? Chair: No, he does not. With reference to this, this package came to the board and was scheduled for this evening, but we felt, as with the Fritzker Center at St. John's College, there were a lot of issues associated with this project. We felt it would be a good opportunity for the HDRB to have an understanding of the project at first and then maybe have some initial comments. Then the applicant will be coming back for action on the case. Thank you. Unless I'm mistaken, I saw a lot of background materials, but I didn't see any plans for the proposal. Were they in the packet? Chair Bianua: I think they were not. I'm sorry. So, we're going to be seeing them just now for the first time. I'm just pointing that out because we may not have a lot of comments tonight since we're going to be seeing it for the first time, and I'm not sure how valuable our gut reactions are going to be. My apologies. Whenever you're ready, just go ahead and state your name, but you don't need to be sworn in. Thank you. Yes, I am Thoitra, representing Drury Southwest, and thank you for taking the time for this informational hearing. I also have Eddie Robinson, who is a representative of Drury Southwest as well. You're having difficulties, Chair. If you bear with us for one moment. Take your time. Apologize. While we're waiting for the screen to be up and running, I'll just give you a brief introduction. So, about 16 or 17 years ago now, I was part of the design team that went through the approval process for the Drury Hotel property, which includes the Marion Hall, also known as the St. Vincent Sanatorium. Ah, looks like we're in luck. So, I'll just give you a brief overview of the history of the building. It is a significant building to the district and to Santa Fe. This picture represents the St. Vincent Sanatorium, which was built in 1908 to 1910, designed by Isaac Hamilton Rapp. Next picture, please. Before this building was there, the original St. Vincent's Sanatorium opened its doors in 1883. What you see there is a picture of the current Cathedral Park with the cathedral to the right. It burned down in 1896, and after that came Marian Hall. You can go on to the next picture. So, this picture shows an early photograph of the north facade of the building, which faces Palace Avenue. This is taken from the corner of Alterero Street and Palace Avenue. It's around 1910. The exact date is not known, but you'll see in the later pictures that this facade is very well preserved. There's been almost no change to it at all. Move on to the next. This is a portion of the west facade, kind of what you would see from Cathedral Park and a west entrance. The building had porches and verandas on all three levels, which were demolished, we think, sometime in the 50s. You can move on to the next slide, please. This picture is taken from where the later St. Vincent's Hospital was built and designed by John Gaw Meem. It's the east facade of Marin Hall. You'll see that the left portion of the building, that portion of the facade, has changed dramatically, and it was changed during the time of John Gaw Meem's design of the hospital. Slide, please. It's an aerial photo from 1969 showing both buildings, the current Drury Hotel and the Marion Hall, which back then had a clay tile roof. I want to point out that there was a connecting hallway that connected the new hospital, which is the Drury Hotel, to the old hospital, Marin Hall. That was designed by John Gaw Meem, and it was demolished in 2011. Next slide, please. This is just a map of the property as it is today, from 2019, showing the hotel and the surroundings. In the next slides, we'll see the facades as they currently stand today. This is the facade that we saw earlier from Palace Avenue North. Very well preserved, showing a lot of detail. We have looked at the original drawings by Isaac Hamilton Rapp, and it looks exactly like the way it was drawn. Next slide, please. This is the portion of the west facade that you can see from Cathedral Park, and you can see here it looks quite a bit different from when it was first designed. You'll see in the next slide that the original porches, which were wrapped around the west and the south facades, those were used for patients for sleep there. They were actually outdoor sleeping porches, is what they called them. They were removed, we think, in the 50s. Continuing on, this is still the west facade, kind of the lower portion of the west facade. In the 1980s, the state of New Mexico took this building and used it as offices and had a rehabilitation, which included replacement of all windows. So, the historic windows were replaced in the 80s with non-historic windows. What you see here is the south facade. It's kind of interior to the lot, to the property, and it's only visible from the Drury property, from when you're inside the parking lot. This is a portion of the east facade, which has quite a bit of detail, and again, most of it is very well preserved. You'll see in following photos the remainder of the east facade, which is obscured by the Drury Hotel building, and you can see it as you walk between the two buildings. That's the portion of the building I was just talking about. So, this portion of the building is quite different from the original design by Rapp. It was changed in the 50s when Meem designed and built the St. Vincent's new hospital. What you see in that picture is a remnant of the connecting corridor that was there from the 50s until 2011, which actually was a U shape. You see a stairwell tower with the door at the second and third floor that was added in the 50s. It's not original to the building. Moving on to what we're proposing to do, what we would like to do. I'll just give you a brief overview. This is a site plan, and I'm not sure it has much relevant information, but just in case we need it, you can move on to the next slide, please. So, the first floor of the building, let me just back up a step. What Drury is proposing is part of the development plan, which was approved and reviewed some 15 years ago. This was a future phase to rehabilitate this building as hotel rooms. We've finally come to that point where they feel ready to do that. So, the proposal was to rehabilitate the building with very little, hopefully very few, changes to the exterior other than repairs and maintenance. But there are a few proposed alterations that we need in order to make the rehabilitation work. So, the proposal includes using this three-story building for adding 38 or 39 new rooms, and it will be serviced by the existing hotel facility. So, it won't be a standalone hotel. It won't have its own front desk. It will just be an annex to the existing hotel. So, what you see in the first floor is the floor plan remains, the exterior of the building remains largely the same, with the exception of, interestingly enough, we're proposing to reestablish the connection, the connecting corridor between the two buildings, between the Drury Hotel and the Marin Hall building, so that the hotel can service this building. That's the exact location where the corridor was previously. Move to the next slide. Thank you. At the second floor, and it's the same on the third floor, there are no exterior proposed changes other than what you see on the right-hand side of the screen, highlighted in color, is a small addition that we're requesting an exception for to increase the footprint of that existing stairwell. I'll get into it more later, but the stairwell as is, is not long enough to connect to the ground floor. The existing stair is only between the second and third floor and does not go down to ground level. So, part of what we're asking for is to make it work for egress and code. We're having to ask to extend the footprint a little bit. This slide shows the south facades. The upper portion of the screen is the existing facade. The lower portion is the proposed. The only change you'll see here is the addition of that connecting corridor. Everything else on the facade will remain the same, except for proposed new colors of paint and repair and replacement of materials that are deteriorated. The north facade is very similar to what I just said. No changes are proposed other than the addition of the connecting corridor between Marin Hall and the hotel building. You'll see in later slides that the design of the connected corridor is similar to what was there originally but doesn't mimic it. We tried to make sure that we're not trying to copy something that was, and intentionally leaving a little bit of differentiation between old and new. On the west facade, we do have one proposed alteration to the west facade, and what it is, is originally the building had an entrance on the west facade that featured double doors with sidelights and a transom. The screen shows in the upper part of the screen is existing, and the lower part of the screen is closed. We're proposing to reestablish that door, that entryway, in the exact place where it was, with detailing to either similar or match the original. The east facade is where you'll see proposed alterations. This is the facade that will be affected by the proposed connecting corridor as well as our request to expand the footprint of the existing stairwell. Also, there's one existing window that we are proposing to convert to a door and two existing windows that we're proposing to infill. Those windows are part of the historic facade, but they are that same portion of the building that is not the original. It is what was built in the 50s. And finally, this is just a depiction of the west facade of the Drury Hotel and how the connecting corridor will impact that facade. The old corridor was demolished in 2011. On the left-hand side of the screen, you see the facade as it is today. The window which will be affected by the addition of the corridor is not a historic window. It was put up in 2012. It's a new window, and everything else on the facade remains as is. This is just a blowup of the connection between the two buildings just to show setbacks from the existing corners of the historic buildings and just give you an idea of sizes of windows, what the windows look like. We are requesting an exception for these for the design of these windows as they don't fit the 30-inch pane rule, and I'll talk about that a little bit more. So, that was the gist of everything that we were proposing. I'll just go, I won't take up too much more time. I'll just go over this quickly. We are taking the approach that this is a rehabilitation, and we're doing our best to reuse this old building that's been vacant for a long time. There are what seems like a lot of exceptions, but they're exceptions that we believe are going to help us to get the building reused, and they're not going to take away from the historic fabric. We're asking for an addition to a primary facade for the hallway connection. We're also asking for turning a window into a door and infilling a couple of windows, and also windows that have panes greater than 30 inches. I'll go quickly. This is the facade that will be affected by the proposed addition of the hallway, as well as the increase in the footprint of the stairwell. You'll see on the left-hand side is the original facade. This picture was taken in 1951, and the facade was designed by Rapp and Rapp. On the right-hand side is the way it is today. This picture on the left-hand side of the screen shows you what the connecting hallway looked like until it was demolished in 2011. You'll see on the right-hand side, the photo shows the way the building is today. Actually, there is a remaining portion of that connecting hallway, and one of the windows still remains there. It's a picture from Palace Avenue, taken in 2008, looking at the connection between the two buildings. Again, on the left, you see what the building was like originally before it was changed, and on the right, you see the way it is today. This is the portion of the facade that would be affected by our proposed connection. Here, what you see is the impact of what we are asking for in increasing the footprint of the stairwell. The stairwell, as I said earlier, is not long enough to accommodate the rise and run between the ground floor and the second floor, and we're trying to make the building compliant with codes and make it work for the hotel. We do understand that this is a significant building, and all facades are primary, but also consider that this facade was greatly altered. So, we feel like none of these features are character-defining to the building, and we take that into account. Same facade. This is just highlighting the window that we're proposing to turn into a door. It's an exit door from the stair. This shows the proposed windows to be infilled. Thank you. No, that's fine. And just closing, the last exception that we're asking for is for the windows with panes greater than 30 inches in size. These pictures just show surrounding buildings, and all of them have windows with panes greater than 30 inches in size. You can go to the next slide, including the two buildings, the hotel building and the Marian Hall building. It's just the nature of these buildings. They don't exactly fit the code the way it's written today. We feel like if we proposed divided lights, it would actually be out of sync. That's the gist of our proposal. You can go to the next slide. As I said earlier, we are not applying for approval by the interior, but we have applied the guidelines and the standards of the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation, and that's what we're trying to do is protect and maintain the building. Make sure that the additions don't take away from the status of the building. Lastly, this is a picture just showing you the original dining hall of the St. Vincent Sanitarium. Again, just restating that we are trying to work with a building that is over 100 years old and has been vacant for, I don't know, 20, 30 years, maybe with random use by movie crews. So, we're doing our best to not disturb the historic fabric, but yet also we have to make it work for the new use. So that's our proposal, and we're open for questions and comments. We really wanted to do this because the building is a significant building, and it's very sensitive, and rather than just showing up here and asking you to approve it right away, we wanted to take our time. Mayor: Thank you very much for the presentation. Just as a general matter, I think you've shown a great deal of sensitivity to both of these two structures, and it's very obvious that you're trying to abide by all the appropriate standards for allowing reuse of this property, which is also a very important part of preservation is adaptive reuse. So, the fact that this building is empty and would be occupied is important to everyone in ensuring that these kind of buildings don't deteriorate and that they're actually able to maintain a presence in the community. So all of that is very well taken. I think that also they're very modest changes that you're asking for. Just a couple of points of clarification, maybe. So first of all, the Marian Hall is a significant building, right? All facades are primary, as you pointed out. I'm sure you can answer this, but if not, staff, what about the St. Vincent Hospital that's only contributing? Chair: Yes, Chair Bianu, that is considered contributing. Mayor: Okay, and primary is the facades are primary. My goodness. Is it the one that's in question here? The south-facing facade, west-facing, or the west, rather? Chair: Yeah. Mayor: Okay, which is interesting. I think I know it is interesting. One comment, you know, there is an opportunity to avoid an exception here. So there was a connection previously that was historic, right? There is a provision in the code that for restoration of historic features is permitted under the standards for contributing a significant structure. Right. So if it is the desire of the applicant to mimic the John Gam addition as it was, certainly that would be appropriate, not require an exception. That was going to be my next point. You were making the point that we make all the time, which is we want to differentiate the new from the old. That's not necessarily applicable in this case, in my opinion, because this would not be a speculative restoration. This could be actually reproducing what was, in my opinion, mistakenly taken away in fairly recent years. So that actually, I believe, under both our code and under just general preservation standards, perfectly acceptable to reproduce what was lost. Is that something that's been given consideration? And I'll just point out before you answer, it was actually quite beautiful from the, and I had forgotten that was there until you showed the photograph. Chair: Thank you for pointing that out, and yes, we have considered that. I just want to point out that the original connecting corridor had actually two connection points. So, it was kind of a U shape, and we are not, I think that's the picture you were referring to, that it did look beautiful, and we are only proposing to reestablish one portion of that. But if it's the wish of the board to see us mimic the original iteration, then we'd be more than happy to do that. Mayor: Okay, that's good to know because that may actually be the best solution and satisfy all your concerns at the same time. Chair: Yes. And actually, as I said, that picture on the right shows a piece of it still remains, right? We were trying to figure out exactly what that was a remnant of today, and now you've just, you've just solved the mystery. Director Lamboy: Yes, Director Lamboy. Thank you, Chair. With reference to the exception for non-divided lights, that would go away as well because we're establishing a historic feature. So that takes away two exceptions, right? And it really, the, it's, the windows are great in that original connection because of the fact that it allows that transparency. Chair: Yeah, it's, it, it has some unique features that you, you don't see. Well, you, you see them at the Drury Hotel building, like the concrete there. I think they're octagonal columns. Yeah, but yeah, you would, we would recreate that. Mayor: And that to me is the reason why a request to not abide by the 30-inch rule is perfectly appropriate in this case, and definitely not because of those buildings across the street. In my opinion, I would not rely on those for this at all. One is the Krueger building, which was, it's beautiful in its own right, but it's one of the reasons we have an historic ordinance was because of the uproar over that building. Chair: Understood. Yeah. Mayor: And the other, I have no idea. I was just asking staff today, how did that gallery get approved with those storefront windows? And I'm hoping someone will look into that and give us an answer. Chair: Well, I, I, I realized that there is a six-foot rule for, for if it's a port under a portal that's six feet or deeper, then, then you can apply windows that are greater than 30 inches. But really, I was, I, I, I totally appreciate your comment, and I just use them as a reference to see that the streetscape, it's a little eclectic. Mayor: Yes. Supports the larger windows. Yeah. That's all I have for right now. Board members, questions or comments? Member Agelar Madano. Member Agelar Madano: Thank you, Chair Bianu. Nothing really new to what you said. Thank you for the really thoughtful presentation. It was lovely, and it was fun to see the historic photos next to existing conditions, and also how you highlighted the proposed changes in red just made it easy from this far away without having something to look at first. So I would just echo Chair Bambonu's comments that I think your approach has been very thoughtful to the significance of the building, and I don't have any issues with anything you showed tonight. I don't know that I have strong feelings either way in terms of approving what you've shown today versus if you want to come back and recreate John Came's original design. I personally would be okay with either. I didn't have an issue with the window exception given that it's, you know, really a breezeway, and I think you want that to feel light, and you also want natural light to come in and not be this kind of scary dark hallway that you're walking between. And I, yeah, I was glad to, I was glad to see that the glass in the breezeway didn't come all the way down to the floor and that you had a little bit of that solid wall space below. Yeah, but I would, I'd be happy either way. Thank you. Chair: Thank you. Mayor: Any other board members? Member Beachek. Member Beachek: Thank you. Vice Chair. I just would like to say that I'm really in favor of recreating the John Gummy connection. That's a really great idea. I had one question. And it's probably just an artifact of the flat drawing, but the connection to the Drury building looks like it abuts the small balcony on the middle window. Is that, is that how it always was? Was that balcony there? Chair: Yes, that is how it was. Good point. And it won't affect it actually. It just, the existing height of the, of the parapet and the roof of the, what was the connecting corridor, doesn't affect that, the balcony and the osters. Member Beachek: Yeah, that's great. Thank you for your careful work, and it's nice that you, there's some continuity between your work on the Drury and, and this work now. Chair: Yes, just out of curiosity, why was that breezeway demolished? Was it during the creation of the hotel? Member Beachek: It, it was a very good question. Full circle. Chair: So, the original development plan with all phases includes an expansion of the underground parking garage, and that was going to be the entry point to the parking garage. And those, the connecting corridors at that point were, they were not considered, they were, their status was, would not, was not downgraded. And it seemed to work with the plan back then to, to have a lot more underground parking. And, and so just to give you a little bit more background, the, the, the existing surface parking lot in the back lot of Drury Hotel, the phase three, which has not happened yet, the approval got approval for three new construction buildings that, that will, that would go where the, the surface parking is now. So, that was part of the thought back then, was that the entry into the underground parking would be between the two buildings. Yeah. So, to clarify, there was approval for that demolition from this board and from the city. Yes, there was. Yes. Member: Thank you, Chair Bondoo. Sir, can you tell us, because I don't think you have a rendering of something that doesn't exist, what will the connector and the materials look like? We got a lot of information here and I can't find it. Sure. Well, it sounds like we're all in favor of the Jonga. I mean, look, there was a slide. I'm not sure if we can find it back, just the photos of that. It's, well, if you can't put your hand on it right away, in the interest of time, maybe you could describe the materials. Yeah, sure. I mean, both buildings are brick, so it will be a painted brick facade with continuing what's actually an existing brick coping at the parapet top. And they would have this, if we do recreate the meme version, it has steel casement windows that have, you know, large panes of glass. And if we don't, then maybe we wouldn't match the material of the windows of the hotel, which are white aluminum clad windows. Thank you. My apologies for the technology. Could be me. Oh, that's quite right. Member Cherry: Thanks. Thanks for your thoughtful presentation. And I would just say I'd be in favor of either in regard to the corridor. I understand that it'd be less exception work to go one direction, but I could also see a reason to go a new way. And I'm definitely in favor and I understand having to enlarge the stairwell. I think that's just the natural evolution of buildings, and I think you've done it a very thoughtful way. Thank you and appreciate the comment. And it's great to have your feedback. When we came up with our design for the connecting hallway exterior, we were thinking less glass rather than what meme, because the meme version has almost, it's almost all glass, but we're certainly happy to entertain that. I actually think the glass is a positive on the meme design. It's my personal opinion. I mean, I actually could accept the other one, but I think the glass breezeway is really a lovely way to join those two buildings. And so did John Gabby. Well, if there's any more comments or questions, I won't, I don't want to take up more of your time. Appreciate the feedback. Sure. Certainly helps us and it will kind of inform our presentation for next time, I guess. Are you going to put the balconies back on the second and third floors for sleeping outside? That was considered. Yeah, it was actually a much more attractive building when it had the balconies. Okay. Thank you. I'm, you know, even though I know we don't have to have public comment, I will, if it's acceptable to staff, I would open this up for public comment if anyone wants to comment. Anybody in the room apparently? Okay. Please step forward and limit your remarks to two minutes, please. Chair Benu, if you can clarify that we'll be swearing in. I don't think it's necessary. Staff says otherwise or city attorney. We're not, this is not a case being presented. This is not a quasi-judicial hearing, so I don't think it's necessary. Thank you, Stephanie Benonato. I'm happy that this building is going to be used. In fact, once it becomes a hotel, I will definitely rent a room there because I think if I'm going to have a ghost experience, that's where it'll be. And I do think that I do like the John Gone Me walkway rather than the proposed one, just because it does have a lot of light going through it and it makes it somewhat less noticeable in some way. And I do think that there's been a lot of thought given to this proposal and the idea of having the stairwell connecting only makes sense and of course is part of the code. So I think that when it comes back, if it comes back either in either way, that this board probably should approve it. I think it would be better if there were no exceptions. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else in the room wishing to comment, please step forward, state your name. Thank you. My name is Katherine Rivera. And while I don't have any architectural specific comments on it, I wanted to say that I was very pleased to see this renovation. And having worked near that building and at that intersection for many years, I just wanted to comment to everyone that visitors and I guess legacy families that come through that property always stop and point at the windows, point at somewhere, some floor, and say, "I remember my mother being up there, or I remember that's the floor that I was born at, or that's the room that my grandmother was at." And it has a lot of, I guess, memories for a lot of the cities, the citizens of Santa Fe. And I'm pleased that this building will get used because the second part of the conversation that I hear is, "I wonder what's going on with the building. I wonder what's going to become of it." So I'm pleased to see this. I'm pleased to see the rendering thus far. Anyone else in the room? Anyone online? No hands are raised. Okay. Thank you. Thank you again for your presentation. Good luck. Look forward to seeing you again. Okay. Next on the agenda is old business. Please be advised that if you disagree with the decision of the board, that you have a right of appeal to the governing body, and those deadlines and procedures for appeal are set forth in the city code. It's section 14.317, and staff can also answer any questions regarding those timelines and procedures. First item under old business is 202500916 HDRB 1000 Camino San Casio. See the applicants present. Mr. Dren. Good evening, Chair, members of the board. Thank you for your patience. In case number 2025009916, the single-family residence at 1010 Camino Santa Casio is listed as contributing to the downtown and east side historic district with the north and west elevations designated as primary. The 2,874 square foot main residential structure was built on a 0.27 acre lot in the early 1960s. The main structure was built in the Spanish Pueblo Revival architectural style, as seen by the Adobe and Rock Foundation construction materials, recessed doors and windows, and wooden corbel elements. The structure was built by Mr. Louie Ewing, a well-known artist who lived and worked in Santa Fe from 1935 to 1983. Mr. Ewing was most well known for his photographic work for the laboratory of anthropology in 1939. Now, this case has previously gone before the board on February 25th, 2025, and was postponed for some revisions to the drawings, which the applicant has provided. So what we have here is the north and west elevations. These are the primary facades on the structure. Currently, the applicant is proposing here at the carport to excavate down 2 feet. So the bottom of ceiling to the bottom of grade floor will be 8 feet, which allows for much ease of access into the garage. Here on the west facade, the applicant is requesting an exception for closing off and adding additional square footage on that primary facade, extending to the south facade. Also on the north elevation, on that northeastern side of the structure, they will be establishing a parking driveway with stacked block sandstone rock. So here we have a view, a little closer view of that primary west and north elevation. Here we have on the east elevation the proposed 75 square foot closet addition. This addition is set back from the primary facade more than 10 feet and will not require an exception. And it differentiates in style with a flat roof, a flat roof lower roof line addition that extends to the east. Here we have on the south elevation here, the applicant has requested an exception to 14-5.2 to D4, portals shall not be enclosed. And so they're enclosing this portal addition and extending it to that western facade to for closed heated space. Here we have a 1984 historic building inventory photograph of the structure. And here we have the primary facade diagram designating the north and west facades as the primary and the rock wall in front of the structure. So here we have the existing site plan and the proposed site plan. Here the proposed site plan, as you can see, the closure of the south elevation, the addition on the east elevation, along with on that northeastern side, the stacked rock. Here we have the existing floor plan and the proposed floor plan with the addition of the closet addition on the east elevation and on the southern portal the enclosure. Here we have the existing north and the existing and proposed north facades. Here you can see on the north facade looking east to west, the addition of the closet addition and the low retaining rock wall for the driveway extending to the east. You can see the new garage door, the excavation of that and the closure of on that west facade with a new wood door. Here we have the existing and proposed east facade. Here we have the closet addition showing and as well as the skylight. Here we have the existing and proposed south facade. Currently we have the open portal and now it will be closed in with windows, large windows and an entry exit door on both on the western and eastern side. We have the existing and proposed west facade here. They're proposing no changes to what's currently there, except that on what we have seen with the closure on the wall into entrance into the south portal. We have a door schedule that the applicant has provided to give a rendering of what that door will look like and the different doors on the south facade and a rendering of the skylight visibility. Staff had concerns about the public visibility skylight from the from the road, and the applicant has provided this skylight visibility that a 6-foot tall human being will not be able to see that skylight walking along the roadway. Here are the proposed colors. The stucco will be to match the existing in Lray ash. The entry door and the entry door will be a turquoise blue ground color, and the garage door will be diamond bal satin parson's gray. Staff recommends conditional approval of the proposed project, requesting that the skylight on the east facade addition be non-publicly visible and finds that the exception criterion has been met and complied with section 14-5.2D general design standards for all historic districts and 14-5.2e downtown and east side historic district design standards. Thank you. Staff stands for questions. Thank you very much for the presentation. Just to focus for a minute on the, well, first of all, just for clarification, it seems like the big change that's happened since the last time that was presented to us was the second story addition to the carport's been just taken off the plans. Chair Benu, members of the board, that is correct. Sir, that was, as I recall, the real issue that the board had at the last meeting. Everything else seemed to be largely acceptable, although there are, you know, certainly open to discussion tonight. And now just to focus for a minute on the two exceptions, the back porch or back portal, I guess that really is a portal, needs an exception because strangely enough, our code says that no porches or portals shall be enclosed, no matter what facade they're on. Right. Chair Benu, that is correct. Which is an anomaly, I think, and something that I would just put a pin on for thinking about whether we want that to continue to be the case in the code rewrite. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me that that is in a separate subsection from all of the provisions relating to primary facades, which are really directed to the same thing, which is windows and doors that are significant to the structure because they embody the character-defining features, and typically they're on a public-facing facade. So, I'm just not clear why this would be different, and I think it might just be a drafting error. So, I just have that be something that we could look at when the code is being addressed. The one on the front, though, is, I guess, on a primary facade. It's a little different, though, because it's definitely not a portal, right? I would not call it a portal. It might be a porch. It's just kind of, I think, its own thing. It's not clear to me that it really fits what people normally think of as a porch or a portal. It's kind of a covered, just kind of a covered area between two buildings. I don't know. It strikes me as a little odd. I'm not sure if we have, well, we actually do. Let me just see here what the definition of a porch is. "Porch is a roofed space outside the main walls of a structure at the street or first-floor level," which I guess this is at the first-floor level, "which has a depth of not less than four feet from the outside face." So, this might just barely qualify there. Is that about four feet? It's not much more than that, or it's barely that. Chair Bianvenu, members of the board, it would be, it seems more of a breezeway connecting one addition to the main structure. So, possibly four feet, maybe, maybe not, maybe three and a half feet, right? It's not a big deal, I guess, because you can still approach it through the exceptions, but it just, to me, this is, it's not, it doesn't really strike me as the feature that the code provision prohibiting enclosing portals and porches is really designed to address, which is a different issue whether it's a good idea to close it off separately. That's just a design issue that I think could be addressed. But those are just my thoughts on that one topic. Does any other, do any other board members have any questions for staff? Yes, Member Beach. Thank you, Vice Chair Bianvenu. Just a quick question about the stucco. I think on contributing buildings, we typically require cementitious stucco. I believe this one, according to the HICP, already has elastomeric stucco on it. So, just a question about the addition. Is there any specification or limitation with respect to what stucco is selected there? Chair Bianvenu, Member Bishai, that's a great question because that comes up quite a bit. We have these structures, they get designated as contributing. They were previously restuccoed with stucco, and now, or elastomeric, and now they're contributing. And now, do we send them, have them change that stucco to cementitious? And that's a great question, and I think staff works independently per applicant. And so, with that, I would say if the board recommends that they need to restucco with cementitious, given the status was given this year, then that would be, we, staff would move in that direction, that they would move that. However, Director Lamboy, would you like to chime in on this? Director Lamboy, Chair Bianvenu, my apologies for butting in. So, I just would like to say we did designate it as contributing, and there is evidence that stucco or elastomeric products don't help when it comes to adobe construction and can cause some issues with adobe construction if not installed properly. And so, cementitious would actually be a preference of staff. And just a follow-on, would that, sorry, would that be a condition you would recommend that we impose on this project if they're, they're just doing an addition? It's not my understanding that they're planning to restucco the entire house. Chair Bianvenu, Member Bishai, from what the applicant is proposing, it doesn't seem like they're requesting to restucco the entire house, only the addition on that eastern facade and the enclosure on the portal on the south facade. I guess my question is, would we, would we be appropriate in making that a condition for the renovation of this house? Chair Bianvenu, Member Bishai, I believe we can consider this the elastomeric, given that it's not adobe construction material, it'll be wood frame. I believe that staff could work with the applicant depending on what the board's decision is tonight. But it would seem that if the structure is already elastomeric and they're using frame and wood frame and maybe concrete blocks to build the addition and the Southport tall addition or the enclosure, then we can work with the applicant in elastomeric since it's not adobe and the adobe material will not be impacted adversely. Yes, Member Cherry. Yeah, I see that stucco that's currently proposed is El Rey Ash. Is that a cementitious product, or is it, is the stucco proposed right now elastomeric? My Chair Bianvenu, from my understanding, the stucco ash would be a cementitious stucco. That's what's being proposed, correct? Chair Bianvenu, I would like the applicant to address that if possible to clear any kind of concerns that the board may have. I just think if cementitious is being proposed, then it not being allowed to be elastomeric is kind of a moot point, right? Chair Bianvenu, Member Cherry, that's correct. Yes, sir. Will the applicant address that as well? Anything else from the board? Yeah. Yes, Member Madrone. Chair Bianvenu, I'm fine with everything before us tonight with the revisions that the applicant has made, so we're appreciative of that. My only concern at this point is the vertical plank garage door, the color of it being in gray. I'm concerned that from a distance, given the pattern and the color, that it may just look like a metal garage door, and gray stain that I can think of isn't something that we typically see in this district or on the streetscape. So, I would love to hear from the applicant what his next best choice would be. I don't imagine it's turquoise. I think that would be too bold. This sits right on the street. I know there's also a clear stain, more natural wood that's existing on the house. So, when the applicant addresses the question about the stucco, perhaps they can speak to the color of that door as well. Thank you. Anybody else? All right. Applicant, you may step forward, please, and be sworn. Please raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record. Daniel Strong, Water to Kenya. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony that you are going to give in regards to this item is the truth, the whole truth? Do this under the penalty of perjury. Thank you, Chair. He has been sworn. You're welcome, sir. And you have the floor. All right. Thank you for your time tonight. To address some of the concerns that you've brought up, I actually am not aware of what product was ultimately used to restucco the house. It's a very good question. The new construction that's proposed here to enclose the portal would be a wood frame construction, and there would not be a preservation argument to be made about cementitious stucco improving the durability of that wall. Additionally, generally, the reason that elastic stucco is not advised on adobe and other forms of breathable vapor-permeable walls is that it prevents the vapor from being able to dry to the outside. The way that the building code handles that is they require you to end your elastomeric stucco above ground, above grade, and add something called a weep screed, which allows water to leave the bottom of the wall. If there, if there is water drying against the interior of that elastic, in this house in particular, the rock foundation is really advantageous. If it is elastic, I can't comment one way or the other. I'm not, that wasn't really within what I was looking at in this particular proposal. We had selected the El Rey Ash because I believe that that's what the owners had had in their last documentation about what was used. I haven't inspected it closely personally to be able to say one way or the other, but that was the color match that I was given, and I was using that as a color match in our proposal rather than a product selection. I would really hope that staff would be able to allow us to use a matching product as they get into construction to work with their contractor to have an accurate color match and an accurate product match to what the rest of the house has been stuccoed in. And I would hope that you would avoid adding constraints in that direction on the, on an approval of the project. In terms of the garage door, the grain stain that we had selected is actually a, it's a semi-transparent product. So, it's really designed to enable you to see the wood grain through the stain. And it is a way to retain the nice, the qualities of the wood while harmonizing more closely with the rest of the architecture on the house. That color was chosen to harmonize with the dark gray windows that have been approved previously and match the original steel windows that were in the house. We felt as though it was a nice compromise between sort of bringing the home into the modern day and differentiating the garage door as a modern addition rather than a historic addition, while still being sensitive to the finishes that the rest of the home already has on it. This form of grain stain is also a lot more, a much more durable product than a clear coat finish, which, and I'm sure you've all seen, do not hold up so well in our high desert climate. And so, this is much more integral to the, to the wood and easier to maintain than in a clear, clear stain, which, especially in that location where the garage door would be, would be seeing water from the short overhang of the roof, that it would likely not age so gracefully along the bottom couple of feet of a shore. Not sure if I'm remembering every other comment to address, but I'm happy to stand for questions. And I hope you might recognize the sensitivity we came back with to all the comments we received in the last, in the last board meeting. We're really working to thread the needle on making this, this home, giving this home some utility for the current owners and, while as, while being sensitive to the concerns of the board. I did also check prior to coming up here that the depth of that porch is eight feet. It's actually quite a deep porch or breezeway because of the angles of the house, and the, that was really how they had dealt with the elevation on site was that they had left a large landing at the top of those stairs to enable them to build entrances to both additions and get up to the ground floor. Yeah, thank you for, for that. Yeah, we, I think seeing it on site today, there is something attractive about that current open breezeway, the way it exists right now. You, and it does have an opening in the back of it, which is an interesting feature that I think is, as one member pointed out, it's not, it's not hugely, it's visible from the street, but it's, it's, you really have to look up that line of sight to actually see the kind of the distinctive nature of, of what that is. So, not clear to me that you'd be losing a lot by closing it, but you're obviously going to gain a lot. We, we did actually, in response to that exact concern, we did work through a window and door arrangement that still worked to give you that same, what, one of the things that's really special about that landing is that you come up into the house and you have an experience of the enclosed backyard prior to really entering the home, which is a really special thing. The gate into the portal kind of continues that experience as you're entering the home. One thing that we did work to do is, let me get to the floor plan to show you this. This door here, can you see my cursor? Probably not. The door that's labeled B, which is opposite the entrance to that portal at the back, at the south side of that staircase, would be a glass door. Maybe I can show you in the elevation. Here we go. So, sorry. Okay, this south elevation will show you. We've replaced what we're proposing, replacing that opening with a glass door. And then the front door would have glass at eye level. So when you do approach up the stair, you would still have that visual experience of seeing into the backyard and have that open, a slow opening into the interior of the home that is preceded by an experience of the exterior of the backyard. Okay, I just want to clarify one thing, which is that I understand that you decided to meet some of the concerns by taking away the entire addition above that. Just to be clear, the board was not at all suggesting that that was in any way whatsoever necessary to approving this project. It was just asking for some tweaking of the design presented. But of course, the applicant is perfectly entitled to decide to change direction entirely. I just don't want to leave the impression that that was what the board was asking for. I understand there were other constraints in the project. So, okay. Any board members have questions for the applicant aside? **Member Cherry:** Hi, thanks for bringing this. It's pretty thorough. I like that. So I guess one comment I would make is that I noticed you guys were proposing to use the block rock for the parking area where there's been some demo there or something's gone on there. And I think my opinion about that is that I'm not a big fan of Black Rock, but I like it there because it's differentiating between the historic stonework, which I think is really nice. I was curious about how you guys intend to lower the garage floor. In other words, are you going to underpin that and pour a new footing under those existing supporting walls, or are you going to infill a foundation wall around, like, make the interior space of the garage lower? Because, and I just do want to clarify too, in that condition, you're proposing to mimic the stonework that's already there. Is that correct? Which I'm not opposed to, but I just want clarification on. I'll say that the constructibility, the structural engineering, and the architectural plan set is outside the purview of what we're bringing to the board right now. So it's sort of up to them and their contractor and future construction team to resolve the details of and how that happens. What we have drawn is an extension of the stonework to grade that continues that historic stonework. We felt that was the most respectful way to deal with that existing exposed stonework. We'd be happy to consider alternatives, but really felt that a lot of what was done was toward economy. It seems like he built this at that height because it was economical. The original builder was not prepared to remove whatever it's going to be, like 10 tons of fill. So we felt that was the most respectful way to deal with it. So, I don't know how specifically we ended up calling it out in the notes, but that is what we've drawn is just extending that stonework at the front, at the bases of the front two columns essentially of the structure, to what will be the future grade. We have ideas about how we'll do it, but it's not something that we've gotten to. And it really becomes much more of an interior detail that would generally be approved by the building permits division. **Member Cherry:** Yeah, I understand that and that purview. I was more curious about it, but also just wanting clarification that your intent is to extend that stone down because on the right side, the stone isn't on the front. It's stuccoed around the front of that stone. Okay. And on the left side, the stone extends down. So on the north elevation, but by and large, you're going to do what's drawn here, and the stonework in the rendition that's drawn is going to match the stonework that's on the lower section of the house and that existing garage. That is the plan. I regret the misdrawn right side of that garage, but that would be the plan is to clad it in that similar stonework. **Director Lamboy:** Did you want to comment? You had your hand raised. Thank you, Chair Benu. It certainly is important that we understand all the details. So I would just respond to the comment that the purview of the construction and the details was not within the purview of the board is in the opinion of staff contract. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I guess my view on that would be that it's not within the purview of the board how you engineer the solution, but it is within the purview of the board that whatever solution exists is consistent with whatever is asked for tonight and approved or whenever it's approved. **Member Cherry:** Yeah, it couldn't change the appearance. Yes, I that's more of what I was reflecting on, that none of that would change the exterior appearance of the garage. It's all below grade on those walls. The only location you'd really be able to see it is on those front, the two sides of that garage door, and the garage door, which you've seen rendered in those drawings. **Member Cherry:** Okay. Thank you. Member Cherry, did you have anything else? No. Thanks. Thanks. Anything else? Yes. **Member Bish:** Just one clarification for staff. I think the recommendation was to add a condition for the skylight. Do you feel like that's been met and that's not a necessary condition? **Chair Benu:** Member Bside, I don't believe the staff has, staff still believes that it's publicly visible and that walking on the roadway, you can still see the skylight. So, we would just ask that it be not publicly visible from the street. Not that they can't have one, just that they could find one that instead of eight inches high, maybe four inches high, or figure out some way to meet that. And also on the property today, we noticed there was an HVAC on the addition that we don't know when that was approved. And the Latia fences in the back, we don't, they look brand new. We don't know when those were approved. So, there's some things that I need to talk with the applicant. Furthermore, on some side things that we may need to hash out, but we staff does not find that they have met that condition. So, we would ask that conditionally approve it, that the skylight's not publicly visible from the road. **Member Bish:** Yeah, the reason I'm asking is that I just, I don't understand what the condition would be with a roof like this. There's no parapet, and it's not really, and I can't think of anything other than a very flat skylight that would meet that condition. So I think we would struggle to, we could make the condition, but without a real, a real practical application of it, I'm not sure how helpful that is. **Chair Benu:** Cher Bian Bonu, Member Bishide, I think there's options for skylights that aren't the proposed skylight that the applicant is proposing. Now, we as staff in the historic districts, we don't approve any skylights in the historic districts that are publicly visible. They all have to be non-publicly visible. Same for HVAC units, same for any of that kind of stuff. So with this, we would ask that the applicant maybe think outside the box of using some other kind of dimensional skylights that give the sense of, give the sense of light into this closed off space. And there's plenty other types of skylights. Now, it's not staff's purview to design it for the applicant, but give him suggestions that he can meet that. Now he said that it's not publicly visible and he's not willing to change the design. So what instead the applicant has provided is a skylight visibility. And so in that, he's saying that you can't see that skylight from public, publicly, it's the skylight visibility. You can't see it. A six-foot human being walking by this can't see it. And staff would say we don't agree with that. We believe that, or we find it that walking down the streetscape, you can see all the appurtenances on the structure. So we have a, okay, maybe we can hear from the applicant about any options he might have considered on that. And then just one other thing for the applicant when you come up. I do agree with Member Aguilar Madano about the color of the garage. I mean, sort of sensitive about garages in this neighborhood in general. And I just wondered if you considered a stain that matches the other woodwork on the house. Now, we've talked a lot about the small corbels that are pretty unique. I'm not sure what exact color those are, but maybe did you think about trying to match that? Thanks. Well, this, this really was, the color of the garage was really intended to harmonize more with the aged wood, which is generally graying or red in much of the corbels. I think if the concern is the opaqueness of the stain or the hue, the darkness of the gray, I think we, the applicant would likely be happy to consider a lighter gray. But the desire was to give it a gray color to harmonize more closely with the windows and the, and the old woodwork. There are some newer, newer doors that you can see on this east facade that did get a clear stain and they really stand out in a way that the owners are not super excited about. They haven't aged very well. This door has an overhang that's similar to the overhang on the garage. And if you look closely at this door, it's the bottom two feet of it have weathered very poorly. So those are generally the considerations that we went through. If the board saw it fit to advise or to conditionally approve this with a lighter shade or something in that direction, I think we'd be very amenable to that. To address the skylight, I think the reason we landed on a skylight is that the entire purpose of this addition is for a closet and to add windows to a closet really loses a lot of that utility of that wall space. And so a skylight seemed like a nice compromise. It is a low-profile skylight. It's not a bubble skylight. And the skylight itself is not very thick. The entire reason that it's shown with any height at all is a waterproofing detail. I've replaced too many failing skylights in Santa Fe on flat roofs that didn't have a large enough, didn't have a large enough, blanking on terminology here, curb. Thank you, Scott. Didn't have a tall enough curb, and what inevitably happens is that snow builds up under there and water gets up under, above through the curb into the skylight, as I'm sure you well know, Scott, that we'd like to have the ability to construct it with modern detailing on there. It will be harmonized well with the galvanized drip edge all around the, that will surround the addition as well as the rest of the roof, because it will be mill finish. So it will look really similar to that, this low-profile kind of silver line across it. And we would just ask that, I think that your comments were tending toward understanding that some of the constraints, and I would hope that the board would work with us a little bit on that. It is as low profile as we were able to provide in that circumstance. From most views of the house, especially once the other trees and things grow in, it is not significantly visible. Member Chair: Yeah, thanks. So I guess my experience with skylight visibility has been a little subjective. So I have a question for staff about how that's currently understood. But, you know, if you go up on the Cross of the Martyrs, you're going to see a lot of appurtenances and skylights. So there's a specificity in my understanding of where that public visibility starts and ends. Is that correct? And could you clarify where that is? In other words, on the front of the road for a certain distance, because that road, for instance, the elevation raises to the east. So how far to the east, what are the parameters of publicly visible from the streetscape in this particular case? How far down the street is the limit of visibility would be my question. And then I guess the other thing, as a point of clarification to Member Beachside, the drawings we're looking at are 2D drawings. And so it's just good. I think we want to maintain an awareness that the diagram that you provided, but also that we're in 3D. And that's my understanding of how you could have that skylight on a flat roof, but it not be publicly visible if we can establish some parameters of where we're looking at it on the road. That would be helpful. Chair Benvenu: Member Cherry, with reference to public visibility, lots of times if there's an intervening building, my general rule of thumb when I was a case manager was 300 feet on either side of the structure. But if there is a formal right-of-way that goes around the structure and behind the structure, then that could be considered visibility as well. There is no formal right-of-way. It's just a driveway. So that back portion really doesn't count, even though there's a change in grade. And it's sort of hard unless you do the site visit to be very specific. But the other thing is that the way the applicant has drawn the skylight, it's not one of those typical bubble skylights and is low profile. So it's up to the pleasure of the board, but as it has been sketched, the skylight would, based on site constraints... If I just interject here, it seems to me that no exception is being requested in this case for the skylight. Right. So by definition, approving the skylight is also conditional on it meeting the ordinance, which says that it's not to be publicly visible. So it would then be up to, you're going to find out whether you met the board's approval, if that's the case, when it gets inspected, I guess, and someone looks at it and decides whether it's publicly visible, which I think in the ordinance is defined by someone standing in the street looking at the building, which is, I think, what you are trying to show in your drawing. So I think it's sort of, I mean, to me, this issue revolves around your appetite for risk in having a building inspector say, "Oh, that's publicly visible. You've got to do it over again," as opposed to really deciding how to redesign it, because your position is, "Yeah, I'm meeting the code." Right. So that's the way I see it. Anybody else on the... Yes, Member DGN: Thank you, Chair Benvenu. I think probably you could achieve what the concerns are about in a low profile, and I guess that would remain to be seen by the staff and working with the staff. I would just like to make a comment that in my 100 years of experience, or 200, I've been around a while, I have never seen a requirement that is based on someone's height. Now, maybe it's in there, but if you're 6'1", I guess you can see it according to the six-foot rule. So I'm just curious about that, but I'm sure you maybe will be able to work something out with the staff. Sorry, the six feet was just a tall adult height. It wasn't... It's not referencing any... I just put the dimension on there so that you knew what I was drawing and that you could make an assessment yourselves of whether that felt publicly visible or not. That was all the six feet was. Chair: We were going on our interpretation of the code, as Chair Benvenu is referencing, is really our reading of the code that is, is it visible from the streetscape? And our view is that this would meet that requirement based on development we see around town and our understanding of the streetscape. Other skylights we've seen approved on buildings that are not publicly visible fall into a very similar category. So that's kind of where we were coming from with it and felt like it was, it kind of met the city where they are in our informal survey of skylights on historic buildings in town. Well, thank you for that. And also, I mean, everyone would like to see it work out well according to our guidelines and your needs and your client's approach to this. I'm sure that, again, I can just say thanks for your comments, and I think the staff will help you work that out. I hope. Thank you. Yes, Director Mino Bener and members of the board. With my experience in doing inspections for 20 years, I would go along the main streetscape and see if it's publicly visible. And if it was, then it's in violation of the code. And right there where you're looking at in front of the house going east, there is a rise to it, maybe about a good three feet or so. And the only thing that's obscuring the skylight would be the trees, and we don't use trees as the... But I would go along that main street and see if it's publicly visible, and that's what it'd be. Thank you. Is there anyone in the members of the public in the room that wish to speak on this application? Yes, please step forward. You've been sworn. She has not. Oh, you swear in the witness. Thank you. Please state your name and address for the record. Stephanie Benato: PO Box 1601, Santa Fe. Thank you, Stephanie. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony that you are giving in regards to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under penalty of perjury? Thank you, ma'am. I have no problem with the addition on the enclosure of the portal on the south side. I think the skylight, you know, again, it's sort of like, "Well, we'll look around town and we'll see what's been happening." I appreciate Mr. Mo's observations that the tree doesn't count. I don't know if setting it to one side as opposed to centering it might help, but it is a closet. It really doesn't need a skylight. I understand that it's nice to walk into that closet without having to turn a light on, but it is a closet. The thing that really concerns, or the two things that concern me more really, are the garage door itself, which I think totally changes the appearance of the house. I could see lowering it down so that you have more usability of the carport, but it is going to be enclosed. I appreciate that the client isn't going to add on right on top of that carport. And the other thing that concerns me is the door in the breezeway. And I say that because I don't really see it as being drawn as all glass, and I still think that it radically changes the look of the house and the approach to the house. And I have to say that, you know, the addition of the stonework around the garage, I don't know, maybe it's better not having it because it's not there now. And it's just sort of an architectural feature that again is sort of, it's not even conjecture, it's just like, "Let's put it on." And it's just not there. And I think it's better to be left out. And I do think the doors, those doors could use some, I don't know, lightening and perhaps even openings of some sort to make it not so much of a blank wall, basically. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else in the room that wishes to speak on this project? I don't see anyone. Anyone online? Benvenu has raised. All right. In that case, there's no further discussion. I will entertain a motion from the board. Who wishes to make? I'll make a motion. Member Cherry: In case 202500916 HDRB 1010 Camino Santa Colossio, I would make a motion to approve as proposed with one amendment: that the wall that Door A is in is moved back to provide some relief from that corner of what is that? The guest room. The, I don't have a room name on that. The room above the garage. Just so it retains some of that, that value that it's set back and that it's differentiated. Thank you. Madrono will second, and I'd like to propose two friendly amendments. The first one would be that the applicant submit a color sample of the semi-transparent gray stain to staff for approval to ensure that it mimics the aged existing corbels on the structure. And the second would align with staff's recommendation that the skylight is not publicly dis... Does the maker of the motion accept that as a friendly amendment? Yes. So we have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion as presented? Seeing none, I will ask for a roll call vote. Sorry. Oh, it was Member Beachside. Please slow. I think we probably need to include in the motion that the drawings need to be revised for the relocation of the door, Door A, before they seek a permit and presented to staff and presented to staff for approval. Yeah, that accepted by the mover in the second. Yes. Yes. Okay. Now we have a full motion that's been seconded. Roll call vote, please. Member Cherry: Yes. Member Adlerano: Yes. Member Bishide: Yes. Member DGN: Yes. Motion is carried. Thank you all, and thank you, applicant. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next case is 202500943 HDRB 925 AIA Madre. Mr. Duran is the applicant in the room. Yes, Chair. Okay. Please proceed. Yeah, I think that the minutes should just reflect that Member Mather is no longer... Thank you, Chair Benos noted. Thank you. Let's discuss, Mr. Chair, members of the board, in case number 2025009943 HDRB, the single-family residence at 925 of Seekia Madre is listed as contributing to the Downtown and East Side Historic District with the south facade designated as primary. The 94-foot main residence was constructed in the late 1930s on a 0.15-acre lot. Architectural design style of the main residence is Santa Fe Pueblo Revival, as seen by the adobe block and wooden beam construction materials, flat roof and rounded parapets, and recessed doors and windows with divided lights. On March 25th, 2025, this case came before the board and was postponed with requested further information. Here we have on the resident's northeast elevation at the courtyard and the casita location where the proposed portal addition will is requested. Here we have the east elevation, the south primary elevation, and here we have the entrance into the courtyard, the casita on the left-hand side with the main residence on the right. Here is the proposed location for this portal addition connecting the two structures. Here we have a 1984 historic building inventory photograph presented courtesy of Mr. Murphy. Here we can see the 2001 to 2005 aerial showing the new construction of the casita, the courtyard, and a previous pergola located in the courtyard where the newly proposed portal is being requested. Here we have the existing and proposed site plan showing the 178-square-foot roofed portal addition and its location. Here we have the existing and proposed floor plan. Here we have the floor plan showing the location of the portal, the dimensions, the 178 feet connecting the casita to the main residence. Here we have the existing and proposed north facade showing the tall addition. Here we have the existing and proposed east elevation, showing as you're facing east towards the mountains, you have the casita on the left-hand side, the main residential on the right, and you have the portal addition center. Here we have the existing and proposed south casita elevations showing the proposed portal addition. Here we have the existing and proposed west elevation showing the extent of the portal addition as well as its relief from the two structures. Here is a detail presented by the applicant that was requested by the board on March 25th, 2025, showing the variations of how the portal overhang or the portal roofing material will be constructed. I'll allow the applicant to get further in detail on this, given that he has a better understanding of it to share with the board. And here we have the primary facade diagram showing the south facade as primary, the non-contributing casita structure, and the contributing status of the main residential structure. Staff recommends approval of the proposed project and finds that the application complies with Section 14-5.2D, 2D general design standards for all historic districts, and 14-5.2E, downtown and east side design staff stands for questions. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. Can you remind us of what the very specific request was at the last meeting for the applicant to address and return to the board with? Chair BM Venu: It came before the board, postponed the case until the next hearing on April 8th, and asked that the applicant provide at least one construction detail of the roof profile to indicate the translucent material edge that will not be publicly visible. There were concerns with the roofing material, given that it was a translucent polycarbonate material that's not quite often used in the downtown and east side historic district. This portal construction is somewhat undefined in that it's not connected to either casita or the main residential house. It stands alone such as a pergola, but it's roofed with this polycarbonate material and encased in such a manner that it gives a portalesque feeling to the area, to the location where it's being proposed. And so he had provided this detailed drawing, and the applicant could share more about it and have a better explanation of how this material is not being publicly visible but still providing the owners the light that they're requesting. Okay. Well, we'll see if the board finds this information to be what it needed. Do any members of the board have questions for staff? And the applicant, please step forward. Hello, sir, please be sworn in. Hello. Please state your name and address for the record. Raise your right hand. Gregory Weights, 925 Kayco, Santa Fe. Thank you, Gregory. Did you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and swear this under the penalty of perjury? I do. Thank you. He has been sworn, Chair. Thank you. Thank you, sir. You have the floor. Yes. So, the concern was that the translucent roofing would not be seen from the street. That was the concern. And so these details provide that it's actually a standing seam roof. So it's standing seam. So what's being proposed is a flashing on the edge. I didn't determine the material because I, you know, it could be copper or it could be whatever the board suggests. So that flashing would cover and go over the top on the down-sloping side. It would go over the top of the standing seam roof and extend down over the beam. And so it would not be seen and would look like a typical roof edge detail. You can see from the front view that all you'd see is the flashing and then you'd see the beam and the supporting beam. So, and then on the backside, we're going to do the same thing but drain it off into the gutter. So, that, and then on the actual standing seam itself, would allow for the water to just go right into the gutter. So, it's almost like a leaf, like a leaf guard in a sense, but it would catch any water and also you would not be able to see the edge as in the front condition. You wouldn't see the edge of the translucent roof. Thank you. Board members, questions for the applicant? Members seem to be satisfied. Okay. Do you have a product selected for the polycarbonate? Yes. It's a Hercules roof. So this is actually spec'd from that roof. It's a standing seam. It's very thin material. So, but I think the standing seam ensures that basically it's watertight. And then my other question would be, you didn't spec a color for the flashing. Do you guys have a pre-? I did not spec a color. Do you have a preference? Because it's suggested that we might suggest one, but do you have one that you want? I would go with copper because it could patina and kind of blend in with a lot of other. We've got an iron gate at the front, iron, I mean, iron fence. So it could patina. It's blended. Thanks. Okay. Any members of the public wishing to speak to this application, please step forward. Miss Benonato, you have been sworn. Stephanie Benonato. I'm actually highly offended by this project, and I want to put up a point of order. It's been noticed as a portal. It is not a portal. It is not connected to a building. Portals are connected to buildings. It is not a pergola because it's being roofed over, and that makes it a pavilion. It has not been properly noticed at all. It is not harmonious with the rest of the structure or, yeah, the rest of the structure on the property since it uses basically a plexiglass as a roofing material, and the ordinance does generally require that all the materials on the property are harmonious with each other. This is not a needed structure. It's just a want. We don't even know why they need it because they're not going from one structure to another according to what they have said. And so there's no real justification. The idea that they wanted to save money by using this cheap material is just not a good reason to allow it. And really, if you can afford to buy a house on a sec Madre, I think you can afford to have something other than cheap material. The other thing I would suggest if you are going to approve this plexiglass is that it does not come to the edge of any of these, the edge of any of the part of the structure that they actually have to put wood there, and the plexiglass is shortened. I'll just say shortened or lessened so that its impact will not be visible at all, even on the property. And again, the idea that, you know, they don't even really know what material they want to use for flashing is kind of a, you know, just a red flag for me, and I thought generally speaking, the board does not approve copper. So, thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the room that wishes to speak to this project? No. Is there anyone online? No. Chair B: Thank you. Any further discussion on this project? Yes, member. Thank you, Vice Chair Bianu. Just have a question about, apologize, I missed the last hearing where you presented this case, but was there any discussion about why an exception is not required for material on this contributing house? That's a question for staff. Thanks. Venue: Member Visha, great question. There were concerns about the square footage, given that it's the historic, the contributing structure. The 178 feet exceeds, in the future, the additions may exceed square footage of the property, the main residential structure, but not for the material. The material today, we were on a site visit, and one of the structures had the same material, similar material as a portal. This material, you know, it's not seen very often, but it is used, and it didn't come across staff that to require an exception for this material during the initial review to request an exception for this material, and so it wasn't requested. Yes. Oh, Director Lamboy, you, Chair B, I don't want to speak out of chair. So, Member Beachside, I believe this is somewhat a freestanding structure as well. So, as it's not attached to the contributing structure, it does not need to have an exception material. If it were attached, then it would be a defense rail. Any other questions or comments from the board for the applicant? In that case, we'll entertain a motion. Back. Thank you. Yeah, I hate to make a motion because I think I would move to deny this application just based on the material that's inconsistent with historic materials in the area and with this contributing house. I think there are other ways to achieve, you know, getting some light in a pergola. I don't know if you considered just like skylights in the roofing. You could still use, you know, another material to make the solid portions, you know, wood or. And did you consider anything else that would meet your client's needs? This meeting, I think, was about showing that the material would not be seen from the street. I think that we're just bypassing that reality right now and going back to what the discussion was last week about the materials and that the materials would not be seen by anyone except for the homeowners. I personally think that from a detailing standpoint, to do these sort of more hodgepodge things, you're going to actually probably bring in more water damage versus having one system. And so I think that what I've tried to do is address concerns of the board is that it would not be visible from, done that the flashing, open to sort of board approval of what they see flashing, etc., is closing. Yeah, fair enough. And I wasn't here for the last discussion, so I'd appreciate if some of the board members who were could speak to the expectation this time around and if it's been met and what your thoughts were on the material last, the last hearing. Member Madano: Thank you, Chair Benu. We talked a lot about this one last time. And I think we were all very torn on it. I think we got to a point where we felt like we didn't have enough information, lacking the detail and really understanding what that even looked like to decide if it was something we could approve. So, in my mind, it was still open for conversation. I do recognize that the detail, I think, does prove that that can be achieved, but we were really struggling whether it was an appropriate material for the district. One of the things I brought up last time was just how this is being used. It's connecting the main residence and a casita. So, I don't, I can't imagine that it's being used on a daily basis. I think I'd feel differently if it were like a main house and a garage, and it really was a space that owners were going to be using every day throughout the year. Why they'd want some protection from rain and snow, you know, and the hardscape underneath. But I'm having a harder time justifying that with a casita in a main house. And I don't know that you were able to respond to that last time. So if you could give us some more clarity on why this is so needed between the casita and the main house, that might be helpful. Maybe they use the casita for something different. Yeah, the casita is used by their kids. So it's really the kids' house. So little kids or grown kids? Grown. Okay. I mean, you know, they're children, they're adult children, but I mean teens, I would say more adult, but they are a part of the family. And so, and I guess also the other thing is, is if you could see from the drawings, this portal did exist. And so we're using the existing foot, the column, the anchor bolts are still there. So we're not excavating, going back in time there. And I don't want to speak for other board members, but I don't think any of us have an issue with some sort of structure or connection happening here. I think it's this very specific material that we're struggling with because, as you know, everyone typically comes and has precedent photos. So I think if we're going to introduce a new material, we just have to be really thoughtful about it and comfortable that it will very likely be brought forward in the future. I think that's good we're having extra conversation because I'm... I would like to mention that I have seen a number of sort of greenhouse-type structures just right in the vicinity of that house. So I think we're trying to eliminate it as a visual. No, I understand that. And I mean, this isn't a greenhouse. That's a very different use. And just how you're saying that you've seen greenhouses in the area, someone else will say roofs that are in the area. You can just see them from the street. See them from the driveway. I don't think it's fair to compare this to a greenhouse, but hopefully you can see my point. We're having this additional conversation because one day we'll have an applicant that says, "But there's this house on Madre that got to use it." So we just, if they knew them, hope. Yeah, hopefully. Member Cherry: Yeah, I just wanted to respond to Member Beachside from the last hearing. So, regarding the discussion that was had about skylights, I think it was pointed out that a skylight would require some kind of curb, some kind of elevation. So this solution might actually be less visible than a skylight, although it still is plastic. But that was, that was sort of the comparative of if it were to be a skylight instead, because you would see the profile of the skylight. Then I think the request for the details was based on suggesting that the edge of this material would be closed with a closure, like a flashing grip edge type of closure, which he's... But there was still a materials conversation as well. And just in response to that, it seems like the material could be removed at some point in time pretty easily. Is that correct? It's easier for us to approve things that are not permanent or less permanent and can be restored should they need to be at some point. Yeah, I mean, the visual structure was congruent. Yeah, and it does seem like style. Yeah, it does seem like you responded to what was asked the last time. So, thank you for that. I would also add that my experience with this material is it's pretty temporary. I mean, we live at 7,000 feet of elevation and the sun tears it up pretty quick. And not to say you can't just keep replacing it with the same material, but it's, yeah, you know, you get glass and more expensive, buy once, cry once, they say, right? But this is, yeah, you're going to be, it is somewhat temporary. I believe this can be witnessed by the call itself no longer being made. Yeah. I would just echo the comments that were asked about the last meeting. I would say that there was definitely concern about the material for all the reasons stated, that it wasn't said so much, "Oh, we'll accept it provided that you can't see it," but it was implied that if you can show us that it's not visible, and of course this isn't visible from the public right of way at all, but even I think the concern was even visible on the property was what was really being asked for in the way of detail coming back. Again, not to say that it was ultimately decided that the material was acceptable, but somewhat implied. Okay. With that, does anyone want to make a motion? I can, I'll do that. In case number 2025009943 HDRB at 925 Aikia Madre, I move to approve the application as submitted with a condition that the flashing be galvanized steel material. I don't think it's as attractive, but sure. Thank you very much. Is there a second to the motion? I would second it with a friendly amendment that the temporary roofing material be allowed. Yes. Sorry, that was intended. Yes. Accepted. So, we have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion on the motion? May I have a roll call vote, please? Member Cherry: Yes. Member DGEN: Yes. Member Ardellar Madrono: Yes. Member Bishide: Yes. Thank you. The motion has passed. Thank you very much and thank you to the... Thank you. Thank you. Good luck. Okay. So we move on to new business. And again, I would advise the members of the public and the applicant that if you disagree with the decision of the board, you may have a right of appeal to the governing body as set forth in 14-3.17 of the code. Case 202510124HDRB at 248 Rodriguez Street. Ms. Romero, is the applicant present? Member Benu: Uh, members of the board. Yes, she is. Please proceed. Thank you. Thank you. As Member Benu stated, this is application 2025 010124 HDRB at 224 Rodriguez Street in the Downtown and East Side Historic District. We have this structure, which is a shed that was previously on 537 and a half Rodriguez Street across the Arroyo. This is the north elevation of the structure. The shed was made in a vernacular style with flat roof, wood frame, and stucco. Showing the west elevation, the shed is 104 square feet and is 9 feet 4 inches in height. Here's the south elevation. It has one window as well as the east. The shed was constructed between 1966 and 1973. From the earlier hike, it was considered a shed, also regarded as a storage room and a small apartment with no bath. As you could see in the site plan, it's very near the Arroyo, not much buildable area. And staff recommends to maintain as non-contributing to the Downtown and East Side Historic District with no primary facades to be designated. I stand for questions for your presentation. Does anyone have, do any board members have questions for staff? None. Do any members, or rather, applicant, please approach the podium and be sworn in. Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record. Jennifer Saleni, 125 Lincoln Avenue. You solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth, nothing but the truth, and do so under the penalty of perjury. Good evening, ma'am. The floor is yours. Court staff's decision and time for any questions you may have. Board members, questions for the applicant. Still none. To be an easy case for them. Uh, members of the public who wish to speak on this application. None. Anyone online? There are no one is requesting to speak. All right. Thank you. We'll enter further discussion. We'll entertain a motion. Member Agar Madano: Thank you, Chair. In case number 2025-010124 HDRB at 248 Rodriguez Street, I move to maintain the shed as non-contributing, which is consistent with staff's recommendation. Sir, thank you. Any discussion? Roll call vote, please. Member Cherry: Yes. Member Adelao: Yes. Member Bish: Yes. Member DGEN: Yes. Thank you. The motion has been approved. Thank you very much. Motion carries. Thank you, applicant. Good luck. I do have one question if I may. Yes, please. For Benu, moving forward, my question is, can they do a demolition and a remodel at the same time, or would you prefer that be done separately? We normally treat them separately. Yes. I don't recall it ever coming before us as together, but that doesn't mean we can't. In this particular case, it was probably assumed by everyone here that this was going to come before us for a demolition request next. So I'd be willing to have it come before the board for both purposes, but how do the other board members feel? Does anyone, would anyone object to that procedure? I would think it would be a good thing to have it come as demolition and, and, uh, I mean, I can understand not having demolition and new work proposed during the status review, but demolition is just really one of the phases of a new construction project. I think that's true. And also, one of the factors for demolition is whether the streetscape will be replaced. And so that gives the, that allows the board to consider that factor knowing what the request is. So, so do we do it separately? I, I would say we would do them together unless anyone objects. Okay. I think that we could do it that way. Chair Bianvenue and board members, in going through some old cases, it seems to me like it used to happen more frequently than it does now that there would be first a case for demolition, then a case for new construction. But I think they had two different case numbers. So they're technically two different cases. But I, I don't see any reason why they can't be heard the same night or in consecutive, one consecutive to the other. I just used to see it more frequently, but before I was the... Yeah. And I think taking the applicant's concerns into account as well, we're, this would require three separate board hearings for them, right? And if we did not put them together the next time, and that is somewhat onerous. Yes, uh, director. Thank you, Chair Bianu. Also, the building has now been designated as non-contributing. I think if the building had a historic status that was contributing significant, then it would be a different... That's true. Yeah, we might feel differently about it under those circumstances. So we're not setting a precedent for all future cases. Understood. Thank you for bringing you and member of the board. Okay, moving on to the last item under new business. 20250102 HDRB 423 West San Francisco Street, half unit A. A very, very interesting property. Mr. Duran. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. In case number 20250102 HDRB, the single family residence and garage at 423 West San Francisco Street, 1/2, unit A, are listed as non-contributing to the Downtown and East Side Historic District. The main residential structure was constructed around the 1880s on a 0.08 acre parcel and comprised of approximately 1,093 square feet of heated space. The main residential structure was built in the vernacular and Spanish Pueblo Revival design styles as seen by the rectangular building shape, adobe block construction material, and recessed 30 over one windows. Mr. John Murphy has provided a detailed summation of the property in his 2025 Historic Cultural Properties Inventory Survey Form. The archival research identified in the Sandborn maps show that the west additions occurred pre-1930s with an addition to the west and east on the main residential structure sometime between 1930 and 1948. The garage structure was constructed sometime post 1948. Window and door alterations with the Latia Portal have been recorded on the south and west facades in the 1990s. The north facade is currently a painted mural cinder block wall associated with 126 North Guadalupe Street concrete jungle smoke shop parking area. The property is uniquely situated on the landscape. This is not publicly visible from West San Francisco Street or North Guadalupe Street. The main residential structure and garage meet the criteria for contributing status with the character defining features identified as the east and south facades on the main structure and west facade on the garage. There are currently no known previous status evaluations, board cases, Historic Cultural Property Inventory, HCPI, or Historic Building Inventory, HBI survey forms completed on this subject parcel. So here we have the north facade and this is a unique illustration of the development of this landscape. We have on the far western edition pre-1930s. It's a part because it was built on a zero lot line. It's a part of the boundary line for this other house that has a coyote fence encapsulating it and part of their wall, that northern facade. You can see the veas imprinted along the top of the roofline. You have this mural, and then it extends to the additions on the eastern facade along with multiple more murals. And so it's an amalgamation on this northern facade that may need to take into more research to understand how this has all taken place. However, Mr. Murphy does a fantastic job on his research and archival research and understanding the development of this parcel throughout time. Here we have the eastern facade. This is the only facade that still has a 30 over 1 wooden window, still representative of when it was constructed, that 1930s construction. Here we have the southern facade. And on this southern facade, the windows have been changed. You have the addition of the portal, but the structure in itself maintains that original rectangular shape, as you can see from the rounded parapets and how it was originally situated, constructed, and built along with those windows and doors. Now, the western facade kind of holds more of the utility lines, their vents, and more of that kind of hardware. And it's hidden by a coyote fence that sits behind it or sits in front of it. Now here, Mr. Murphy provided in his HCPI form an 1884 map of the city of Santa Fe by Mr. Hartman showing the establishment of this structure in the 1930 Sanborn maps. It's identified as an adobe structure. Yet we do not see the garage here. In the 1958 aerial photograph, we have identification of the additions on that structure as well as the establishment of the garage. Now, here in this 1978 aerial photograph, we see the high raised walls as they extend to the east. We have the garage and the roof and the main residential structure with the low-hanging wall. And Mr. Murphy was able to pull this photograph from Nimris in Arms, and it's a great way to show what this house would have looked like in its original formation. Now, here's our facade diagram. Staff recommends the historic status of the main residential structure and garage be upgraded to contributing status with the main structure's east and south facades and the garage's west facade designated as primary, identified on the suggested primary facade diagram as numbers two and three on the main structure and four on the garage for 14-5.2C to C designation of significant and contributing structures. Thank you. Staff stands for questions. Chair: Thank you for that. Could you just identify what, if anything, or if anywhere, staff differs in their recommendations from the HICAP? Staff: Staff recommends on this primary facade diagram number two, which is that eastern facade that still has the original 3 over 1 wooden window, and that element within itself, it gives it that character-defining feature on this structure and on this facade. Chair: That's what you additionally are proposing to be designated compared to Mr. Murphy. Is that what you're saying? Staff: Yes, Chair. Chair: Because you're also designating the other facade or proposing the designation of the main facade, right? Staff: Yes, the entire main facade. That is correct. Chair: Okay. And I'm taking it that you're excluding the woodwork that was added not historically. Staff: Yes, Chair, members of the board, the portal additions and some of the window changes staff is not recommending, given that they were constructed in the 1990s. So staff would only recommend on those on the primary facades only historic material, excluding non-historic materials. Chair: And do we actually know that the portals there are non-historic? Do we have evidence of that? Staff: Chair Bian Venu, yes, sir. In the HCPI form that John Murphy states, the window sashes work on the windows and doors, and the portal was established around the 1990s. Chair: The only other thing that sort of jumped out at me, at least in looking at the property today, is the garage. The north facade is quite distinctive. It has an extremely deep-set window of indeterminate age, but probably at least the opening is for certain original. Well, not for certain. It seems to be original to the building, which I think the HICAP dates as by 1948. Is it adobe, by the way? Do you know what the construction material is of the garage? Staff: Chair Bian Venu, members of the board, I believe it's all adobe. Chair: Okay. The window opening and facade and the windows themselves, which we were discussing today, seem to be old. Well, they're sash windows, so nothing special, but they probably could well date back to that era. Anyway, it's something for the board to consider whether or not that facade would also be primary. Does staff have any position on that? Staff: Chair Bian Venu, members of the board, after the site visit and looking at that northern facade, it is character-defining of that structure, just as the west facade is. Chair: Thank you. Questions from the board. Yes, Member Beach. Member Beach: Thank you, Vice Chair. Actually, the way I read the HICAP report is different from the facade recommendations by staff. John Murphy actually says, "Given the central block may date from the 1880s and represent a building form and the door and window pattern typical of that period, it seems fitting to designate the south elevation of this section, room 4, as the primary facade." He says, "While the lesser appendages are of age and reflect a creative growth, they do not hold the same level of significance as the central block." But I think he's recommending just the tall, just the tall portion that sticks out about four feet from the other portions as the primary facade. Staff: Chair Bian Venu, Member Bishide, that is correct. Mr. Murphy made his recommendation for that southern, that rectangular block section of the main structure. However, staff finds that all the additions are nearly a hundred years old from the 1930s, and although that built out of adobe and these additions hold the character-defining features that are in congruent with the downtown and east side historic design standards. And so given their age, the location, and how they harmonize with this structure, I believe that staff finds that they meet the code criteria. Member Beach: Yeah, I think actually John Murphy makes that point that the whole structure is in place by 1958, not quite 100 years old, but he sort of says, "Even though it meets the criteria for age, he doesn't think that that rises to the level of character-defining," but I appreciate your recommendation. Chair: Thank you, Member Beachside. Yeah, I think that's important to note, that's a distinction. I certainly think it's, I agree completely with staff on that. I couldn't even imagine separating out the two wings from the main structure, as being of the wings as being lesser of lesser significance, because it's obviously such a pattern of a Santa Fe adobe, the way they grow, and they have great aesthetic quality, their character-defining, and they're significant as a characteristic of Santa Fe architecture. Sure. Any other members have questions for staff? None. I just wanted a point of clarification. Mr. Duran, you said the window, the sashes, and maybe you just misspoke, but the sashes on that south facade were replaced in the 90s, but it was just the storm sashes, right, not the window sashes, is that correct? Staff: Chair Bian Venu, Member Cherry, from the HCPI form, we as staff have no documentation on any work on this structure. And in the HCPI form, Mr. Murphy states that there's some work that has been done, the windows and doors and the portal. Now, as we walk the site, you can see that those windows, they're probably from the 50s. The storm sashes that are over those windows most likely were installed there in the 1990s. So, the windows themselves are characteristic of what we would find in the 50s, excluding the one on the window on the east facade, which may be representative of an older date, but currently that's the storm sashes is correct. Chair: Okay, that, yeah, thanks for the clarification, that's how I understood it. Just wanted to be clear about that. Sure. Thank you. Else, any members of the public that wish to speak to this application, please approach the podium and be sworn in. Whoever you are. Hi. Please state your name and address for the record. John Eddie: John Eddie, 14. Chair: Hi, John. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth and nothing but, and do you swear this under the penalty of perjury? John Eddie: I do. Chair: Thank you. Good evening, sir. John Eddie: Good evening. It's all yours. I'm really thrilled that you're dealing with this property. That's one of my favorites. I'm curious how you're going to reconcile the parapet at which we're looking at right now. My take on that is that that was a brick coping that was plastered over. So that's kind of a vernacular aberration of architecture in Santa Fe that we've seen many times. But on a contributing structure, is it appropriate as it is, or is this something that might need to be rolled back to maintain the historic integrity of this structure? Thank you. That's all. Chair: Thank you very much for the comment. Do we know, Mr. Duran, anything about the date of that parapet modification? Staff: Chair Bian Venu, members of the board, that's a great question. We don't have any documentation, no board cases for this property. There is no information on this property. It's almost as if it never existed. Yet, we have photo historic photographs of it showing that Mr. Eddie's comments of the territorial style red brick coping, the rectangular shape structure, and the additions throughout time looks like as a structure, the addition to the structure looked like you could see the adobe blocks, block materials. And so we do not have any records, sir. It's possible it was done in the 2000s when the portals were added, or it's possible they go back more than 50 years, or when I say they, I mean the stucco-ing over of the bricks could go back more than 50 years. We just don't know. Staff: Chair Bian Venu, members of the board, it almost appears as if it was done in the 70s. That stucco is fairly old. It's like a... Chair: It looks old, but... All right. Anybody? Yes, Member Cherry. Member Cherry: I'm just curious about this photo. I'm a little unclear about it because the current photo has a door where the window is on the left side. And see how this, so where the gentleman's sitting, to his right there is a window, and to his left there is a door. And in the current, in the current building, the two doors are together and the windows are separated by the two doors. So I'm just curious about the history of that, that photograph. I know it's in the HICAP, but I'm sure that either indicates that it's a different building or that somebody swapped a door with a window at some point. Staff: Chair Bian Venu, Member Cherry, if you look at the canales and how they abut and where he's sitting is almost, almost, well, you can't make it out there. Here where those, where those canales, where he's sitting. So now it does appear that there was some revision and addition to this given that photo. Chair: Director Lamboy, I'm just, I'm just lost in the photograph here. Yeah, great. Okay, go ahead, please. Staff: Member Cherry, I think it was converted into a duplex at some point that where things were moved around. Whether that was done historically and with the same materials and windows as previously, unsure, but that seems to have happened. Yeah, it looked like from going inside it was originally a duplex because there's a beam missing where there used to be a partition wall there. But I'm still the window and the door were moved at some point, it appears. Yes, Mr. Deman. **Mr. Deman:** Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Duran, do you know if we've had an occasion in the past to, if you can go back to the previous photo with Mr. Eddie's addressing the parapet, have we ever had a case where something like that happened to it or if someone in the dark of night did this, I'm saying, did we ever try to undo it? **Chair:** Member Deman, great question. It is the purview of the board to make those recommendations and for staff to follow through with those, whatever the board makes a motion on, staff to follow through on. So yes, it has happened, but to what extent, I would need to do some further research to share what properties that has occurred and the details for that. A great question. Thank you. Anyone else in the room that wishes to speak to this application? Oh, the applicant. Sorry. Haven't heard from the applicant. Please approach and you'll need to be sworn in. Please state your name and address for the record. **Applicant:** It's tight to say, but I'm live 719 Bomar Houston time 425 West San Francisco. **Chair:** Thank you. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony that you are giving in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalty of perjury? Thank you. She has been sworn. Thank you very much. Ma'am, would you like to speak to your application and provide any additional information? **Applicant:** Something about going last that is somewhat unappealing, but nevertheless. Chairman and board members, thank you for allowing me to make this presentation about the property now known as 423A West San Francisco. Mr. Duran represents the county and city. Mr. Murphy represents the architectural historical perspective. I speak for the property itself. I own it for better or for worse. According to Shaun Evans of the AIA Santa Fe, historic preservation focuses on balancing heritage preservation, meeting the needs of contemporary citizens. That was published in Santa Fe, New Mexico, which I take daily, on February 12th of 2025. In reviewing the ordinances pertinent to the Historic Preservation Board, it emphasizes that the purpose that you have, and I've seen demonstrated here tonight and in viewing other Zoom meetings that are on file, the purpose is to promote the economic, cultural, and general welfare of the city of Santa Fe and to ensure the harmonious, orderly, and efficient growth development city. It is essential the governing body secure harmonious outward appearances which preserve the property values and attract tourists and residents alike. I would like to consider myself a resident. I do completely agree with the mission. I'm asking you to declare only the south side of Central as the primary, according to Mr. Murphy's report, and I would also request that it be continued, not that it be continued to be non-contributory, but leave that open for further review after the remodeling renovation that is permitted by the board in the future as we move through this process. Focus on two things, please. Preservation of properties with historical in harmony as to style, form, color, proportion, texture, material, historic design, those more modern. I have told the staff and I was somewhat blindsided tonight by what recommendation is on the facade issue. With regard to my choices, I do not intend to change the footprint, to tear down at all, to move any part of the structure except perhaps... **Chair:** I'm going to just ask you not to address what changes you're going to make or you're thinking of making, just because we're supposed to focus solely on the status tonight. Thank you. **Applicant:** This is not my will. Understood. Not surprising. Thank you. I ask you to focus on the goals and the definitions that are included in the ordinance that I wrote. The one considering word applicability, applicability pertains to the exterior remodeling any exterior feature or other public place. Standard section emphasizes the differentiation between properties with public, which are in mid to accomplish the stated goals with no public view, which requires scrutiny but not to the extent that the contributing status requires. I understand that I will be required to board's approval. In reviewing Mr. Murphy's report, it is clear that 423A West San Francisco has no streetscape. My understanding of streetscape is a word used throughout the ordinance and here I 14-5.2BD9, to BD9. It is defined as a property that is subject to public use from a public street. The CPI report exclusively states that 14A West is not page one. Introductory paragraph perfect hidden from public view. CO2 subject property is not visible. Page five. Subject property is out of view. Page 12, due to its hidden location, and I might report that finding the property is somewhat difficult. I had worried about the woman that I bought the house from, who's an 80-year-old woman. Her health was poor. I worried had she called some kind of an emergency vehicle home, they would not have been able to find it. Most people cannot find or through a San Francisco in the standards for properties in an historic district. A list is provided Noi Stuckco one story limited color select. I think this property is El Ray Desert Rose 114.39 to that, but it's based on my watching January 11th, 2022 board meeting where the historic preservation specialist talked about color. She showed this pallet. I think this is similar to property. My goal is to preserve the footprint, the color, the style without disruption. Properties to the immediate south southwest are a series of rental units and commercial property. I'm sure you're aware what Zona Rosa means. This was, I suspect, part of the red light district of Santa Fe back when the railroad. And I do think board chairman board member Cherry said that it was a duplex. The local lore is that it was a wh house, but it was a brothel along with Zona Rosa, which has been totally remodeled and into a lovely condominium complex sits in front of the property immediately in front of the south facade is also rental that has been updated, upgraded. And I found out when I got my survey on the property, the fence, the the dubby fence that follows the to the to the garage, little driveway, the front of the house is actually approaches on my property by about 1,000 square feet. Each of these properties has an easement to use the private drive that is not a public and it begins at West San Francisco about 170 ft for the structure at question time. There's no outlet although I've had to ask people to get move off the property. They do think it has some kind of street purpose. And it's a little upsetting as a single woman living to have opportunity. Section 14.52B D9 lists the considerations for permitting remodel. No streetscape, east negative, no publicly visible. **Chair:** And just remind you again, we're not addressing any changes to the building tonight. We're only addressing the status. **Applicant:** I'm curious as what the expectations are for this property. I'm committed to this property. I am intellectually, emotionally, financially invested in Santa Fe. I serve on, I've been visiting here for years, reasons annually contribute to the museum foundation, support the chamber, attend every desert performance, and I support as they are just lost. **Chair:** I'm just going to ask you just if you have any comments to direct at the issue of the staff analysis and the primary facades is the only thing under consideration. **Applicant:** I would agree with Mr. Perfect's suggestion. The center facade south side primary focus and that the contributing, I guess when I read the ordinances about the differentiation between contributing, they both require supervision. It's just a matter of whether or not it's to the degree that the contributions required. And from a financial aspect, I am unsure that, and the question that came up to mind about whether something has to be retrograded, I guess is the right word. It seems like a penalty box. No one has owned this property prior to me has had the decency to either get a permit for what they've done or there are no records. **Chair:** Just, ma'am, I'm just going to say again, we're only, we're not addressing anything to do with what changes you might wish to make. And in fact, nothing that's decided tonight will decide what changes you can and can't make. It will even no matter what the designation is that the board decides on tonight, you will still be able to come back before the board and ask for the changes that you wish to make and you'll have a lot of time to work with staff on that time. So, I just want to make sure you understand that none of that is going to be decided tonight no matter what the designation is. So unless there's anything else that you wanted to address with respect to the status and the primary facades, I think it would be good time for the board to ask you any questions that they might have. Is that fine? Okay. Board members, any questions for the applicant? None. Okay. And I think I already prematurely went to members of the public. Are there any other members of the public at this time now having heard from the applicant that wish to speak? No. Anyone online? **Staff:** Yes. Chair, Stephanie Benato. **Chair:** Stephanie, you may unmute and you've been sworn previously. **Stephanie Benato:** Okay. Thank you. Can you hear me? **Chair:** Yes. **Stephanie Benato:** Okay, great. Ma'am, you can stay, you can stay at the podium. You may have some more questions. So I think that... Excuse me. I think that this should be upgraded to a contributing building. I understand that it's down a driveway, but it's part of a pattern in that in that area and in the historic zones of having one building connected to another so that ultimately perhaps you don't have visibility from the street. But it does look to be original footprint and it sounded like the windows were historic even if the storm windows were not. And I would think that it would be easy enough to find out when it became a duplex by looking at city directories, for example. In terms of the roof, or that covering over of what might be brick, I did research on a property on Romero Street and it had a very similar popping, a top, I'll just call it a top, with that sort of curved aspect to it. And I think that was common for if you had brick coping and you were having trouble with the brick coping that you would then stucco it over. It is historically not uncommon to see this. And again, I think it just is a question of when that occurred. It doesn't look recent and 1970s is definitely more than 50 years old, 1975. So that I would think that you could easily find this to be a contributing structure with this south side being designated as primary. Thank you. **Chair:** Thank you for your comments. Anyone else online? **Staff:** No, Chair. **Chair:** Okay. Yes. Ben, if I, sure, could I'm sorry, I just want to rub. Sometimes the question comes up why we don't consider a proposal for a renovation on a project when the board has to vote on the status and for Miss Yarl's edification. I met Miss Yarl previously, found it to be very engaging. Many times applicants come before the Historic District Review Board with a renovation that seems to be very sincere and code compliant. The board approves the project and it's never built. We don't know why, and perhaps people run out of money or their life circumstances change. So, one of the things we want to avoid here is the board being motivated to vote on the status of a structure based on a project that is never built or basically an expectation that's never fulfilled. So, that's one of the issues we encounter here. Thank you. That's helpful. Actually, I haven't thought of it from that perspective, but that's a good point. Yes, Mr. Grant, Cherpian Venue, members of the board, we keep saying that there are no facades publicly visible. The whole entire north facade is publicly visible. It's just a mural, and it's an anomaly. Part of it's on somebody's private property. You can see the VGA posts, and it's been painted over, and it extends closer to the concrete jungle. It's established with a concrete jungle parking lot, and it's publicly visible. It's always been publicly visible. Anybody from the street can see that mural. So to say that it's not publicly visible is incorrect. Thank you very much for the clarification. Sure, please. In talking about the primary facade, the south side is notable. That's my point. Thank you for that. So, I would just make a couple comments on that just for the benefit of the applicant and the public, and maybe listening, that public visibility is not a factor in the definition of a contributing structure. It's whether or not the structure contributes to maintaining the character of the district. And that can be done whether it's publicly visible or not. Now, public visibility may factor into a board's thinking on whether it does or does not contribute in that fashion, but it's not a prerequisite, and it's not uncommon that structures that are not publicly visible are treated that way. The primary facade designation is also, I don't believe, well, I'm certain is not dependent on public visibility either, but again, it's the character-defining features of the building. And again, a board may take into account public visibility, particularly since so frequently the character-defining features and the very nature of a facade, which is the face of a building, implies some direct relationship to the public outward public-facing part of the building. But in Santa Fe, as we all know, we don't have traditional streetscapes in that fashion. So often the facades do not face the primary facades do not face the street or are publicly visible at all. And then finally, I just wanted to make the point that nothing about a designation determines what can and can't be done to a building. Ultimately, it does determine some requirements that if an exception isn't granted, could preclude certain modifications to a building. Now, I'm talking about the primary facade designation, but as if you've been watching prior board meetings and even tonight, the answer to that when someone feels strongly for reasons that are unique to a building and unique to the purposes that that building is going to be put to, feels that the exception criteria are met for specific requirements applying to a primary facade to be overridden, then the board overrides those. So again, neither the designation tonight nor the primary facade designation tonight makes the final determination of what can and can't be done to a structure. That is, that's for the next go-around. So with that, are there any further comments or discussion? Yes, Member Beach. Just a comment. I was looking at the HICP again, and the photograph we were looking at of with the man sitting outside was actually the Trinidad Chavez house, which was at the end of the driveway. It is no longer there. The one where the house in question is the Rosina Chavez house. That's a different house. That might be the case too. That's why I was lost in studying that photograph. Thank you for that clarification. If there's no further discussion, I will entertain a motion on this case. Member Agelor Madrono, Chair Bambanu, in case number 2025-02 HDRB at 423 West San Francisco Street, 1/2 unit A, I move to designate the main structure as contributing with the south side and the east side being primary, excluding any non-historic material. And I would also move to designate the garage as contributing with the west and north facades being primary. Thank you. Is there a second? Second. Second. Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, I will ask for a roll call vote. Member Cherry, yes. Member Ardell Arano, yes. Member Bishide, no. Member DGEN, yes. The motion has passed. Thank you very much. The motion carries. And thank you, applicant staff, for the presentations. All right, moving on. That completes new business. Next item is discussion items. I think we were, oh, there is a discussion item. Director Lambo, thank you. So, with reference to the Land Development Code update, we have been working on a couple of things in response to comments from staff from other departments, and we're hoping to have it introduced the end of April. And so, this board will be seeing the code update. What I'm doing for the Planning Commission is a study session. So, it's likely that you will have a study session in May. The second meeting in April was canceled due to no applications that were ready. So, for the meeting in May, we will go over those changes so you can be prepared to act on it when it comes to you after it goes through all the boarding committee process. And then also just a shameless plug, April 26th, Historic Foundation will be having a symposium. And I would suggest going to their website. It's an all-day symposium that talks about preservation in Santa Fe. And one of the speakers is going to be our own Gary Mokina. And the code update that's coming before us is just phase one, right? This is just the work that's been done to date on the so-called hygienic cleanup of the code. Yes, that is correct. In the presentation that I'll make at the study session, there are some changes that are being proposed specifically with reference to affordable housing and additional incentives for affordable housing, allowing more density to help fund the affordable units. So that's been one of the comments is just what the rising construction, like, plus we do want to find opportunities for infill development that would allow for accessory dwelling units so that mortgage payments can be supported or the mother-in-law apartment can be provided. So, and then the other changes have to do with Vince Heights as well as green building code standards, sort of amplifying the need to increase, not in the historic districts, but outside of the historic districts, the minimum allowed height for two stories is going to be 26 feet, and for three stories is going to be 30. So there are other changes that have been contemplated that really don't have much of an impact on the historic districts, but I will be reviewing in our study session. Are there any changes that impact substantively our work? Yes, Chair and Venue, the district standards have been reorganized so that there's a reference to styles that, like for instance, Downtown Eastside Historic District, there's the recent Santa Fe style and the old Santa Fe style. And that is part of the introduction and part of the reference, but the focus will be moving away from styles as it was drafted in 1957 to more of preservation and materials and context. So for those buildings that are historic and have a historic status, those will be preserved. And then there, the focus in our subcommittee, we talked a lot about the materials being just as important, maybe not everything looking exactly the same, especially trying to differentiate the historic, how do the historic buildings stand out? So that that is one change that will be, that is somewhat substantive, but is really speaking to the evolution of preservation. That seems extremely substantive to me. You're saying we're doing a, that the draft would do away with the definition of styles in the current ordinance. No, Chair Venue, that it would actually, so it's reorganized the design standards to have in the purpose statement the different standards or different styles that are referenced in that district, for instance, in Don Gaspar, it's going to be different from Downtown Eastside. But then when it comes to something being designed, it's not limited to recent Santa Fe style, which is defined sort of differently in many points of an old Santa Fe style, which is defined differently many points of view. So it's, those are our reference for what is to be designed new, and then the materials are listed. Scott was part of all that discussion. So, Member Jerry, so I don't know if you have anything to add to that, but it was all reviewed by the committee, the subcommittee that's been working on that. Yeah, I don't really have anything to add other than I look forward to seeing the result. Well, is there a draft of this that's circulated that we can see before it gets any further down the road? This sounds to me, that sounds very substantive what you've just described, and I thought that was phase two. So, I'm concerned that that's happening in phase one. So, it was actually something that was discussed in 2004, then never adopted. And so those components of the design standards were discussed a long time ago. We do have a draft that's being reviewed right now by staff that I can share with you. Okay. So that, you know, you have it. It's not the, you know, final, final, final, but, you know, it's for the purposes of the historic districts and the archaeological districts ordinance, we're there. Appreciate that. Thank you very much. And I could add that, you know, the process is interesting because when you're, when you're trying to clean up code that might change, you know, there can be a lot of conversation about why are we, why are we cleaning this if the consensus in the room is it's going to, it's going to be altered. So that was, that's why I said from the beginning, I didn't understand this two-step process. Made no sense to me because I didn't see how you could clean it up without addressing substance. And this, my fear is it's being borne out that it actually was addressing substance. Yeah, I think that that, that was constantly front of mind during that process. Okay. I'd just like to add something, Mr. Chair, please. Congratulations. Good article in the paper about all of it, if you didn't see it. I forget, pardon me, what day was last week? Yes, it was last week, and I believe the one that you were quoted in. I thought you, it was very interesting to read. Was good with reference to the Santa Fe Forward General Plan update process, but also talking about the Land Development. I missed that. That was out of that. Those two projects will join together after the adoption of phase one. And and just to be honest with you, when I first came to the city, that had already been spelled out, and I didn't 100% agree as well, but we are where we are, and we'll be able to deal with the key issues that have come up during those discussions at the 30,000-foot policy development level and well as well as at the Land Development Code level. So, I think that is sort of one, you know, silver lining to our process. And so the community engagement, the scenario planning, everything associated with the general plan will also have Land Development component as well. So when it comes to the public, they can better understand how our regulations relate to a vision and mission as well as to, you know, how things are built. Great. Appreciate that. Thank you. Also, I think that if I'm not mistaken, I think that the public presentation of the executive office building redesigned is set for Thursday. I think it was interest of that date. I remember seeing an email, but I think it's Thursday where Member Benu, the state office. That is correct. Our next, yeah. Okay, that is at what time? It is going to be at 5:30, starting at 5:30 at the Facilities Management Division, State Library, 2522, or I'm sorry, 2542 Cerrillos Road, Building T187. So if folks attended last time, it's that facilities building that's tucked in by the behind the Tony Anaya Building of the State Complex off of Cerrillos Road. Right. Yeah. And there's no requirement that anyone attend. This will be coming before the board. And I guess I can report that the subcommittee that was appointed, myself and Chair Rios, is that it is, yeah, I think so, has met with the state separately prior to this and had some discussion. So the next step is for them to have public outreach for all members of the public because our ordinance and the state statute require consultation with preservation organizations prior to entering the design phase. So that's what they are doing, but it's not limited to preservation people. If anyone wants to show up and speak and see what they're proposing. Yes. And if I may, during that meeting, what preliminary meeting we had with the staff, we offered, the city offered to vacate South Capitol to allow for some more room to accommodate the building, but also accommodate the historic sources. And I got word back from, so I got agreement with the Public Works Director that that would be a possibility, but got reported back to me that the state is not interested in vacating by South Capitol. I was confused by this, but just for everyone's benefit, South Capitol is actually the name of the street that runs directly, I guess, east-west alongside where the building project is. It's a very short street, and Director Lambo was proposing, "Well, hey, if you have a space problem, you can, we can give you that street and then you can have all the space you need." But apparently they turned it down. Okay. I think the next matter is matters from the board. Anybody have matters from the board? The only thing I, I have one thing, and that is the cementitious stucco discussion reminded me that we addressed a stucco policy guidance document at one time, but I'm not sure if that ever got adopted. Is that actually in effect? Chair Venu, members of the board. Yes, we, we as staff have a document from 2022 that addresses the stucco, stucco colors, the types of stucco, even down to the very details of administering the stucco on the wall, the different types of styles of doing. Yeah. Yes, sir. So we as staff have that stucco chart, and that's how we implement all work moving forward with anything dealing with stucco. It has the colors, colors that are not approved that have to get board approval, so forth. But is it, and it addresses, I assume, cementitious versus synthetic stucco and when one is allowed and when not. Yes, Chair. Yeah, that's what I thought. Okay. So those guidelines were adopted by this, well, previous iteration of this board. Charlie Picarella brought that to the board back in 2022. I would be happy to, I mean, might be helpful for us to send those to the board so that everybody has. I think that'd be great. Yeah. Thanks. And Member Cherry, is that publicly available as well, that document? Chair Venu, Member Cherry, I believe we put it on the website. We had made a request for it to go on the website. I will have to, it is, okay, it's up there. Okay. Recently. Okay, that's all I have. Is there anything else from the board? Right. Is there a motion to adjourn? I move. Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed. Okay, we are adjourned. Thank you everybody for your work tonight. It's always appreciated. Thank you, board members. Oh, yeah, you, oh, that's right. You just, well, is it on the, yes, I'm pretty, yeah, I'm pretty sure I'm, I think I'm leaving on Wednesday. So, yes, I am going to be at the, yeah, I'm sure I can picture it. Yeah, I can, I don't want to, I don't want to, oh, I just, I'll scan, I'll just mark it, scan it, and send it to, yeah. I just,