Historic Districts Review Board Meeting Tue, Jun 10, 2025 · Historic Districts Review Board https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/569 == Executive Summary == The Historic Districts Review Board addressed several key cases, including significant renovations at 206 McKenzie Street and new construction at 815 East Alameda Street. The 206 McKenzie Street case, involving extensive window replacement, a new steel carport, and parapet raising, was postponed to allow for more detailed documentation and a site visit due to its complexity and the board's concerns about preserving historic fabric. The board also approved the construction of a single-family house at 815 East Alameda Street but denied the proposed yard wall and planter, requiring a separate application for those elements. Additionally, the board discussed the historic status of a property at 140 Romero Street, designating the building as "contributing" with specific primary facades, and approved a motion for 626 Canyon Road to retain its contributing status and designate certain facades as primary. A proposal for gate and garage door redesign at 511 East Palace Avenue was approved with conditions requiring redesigns of the pedestrian and vehicular gates to align with New Mexico traditional style. Public comments throughout the meeting raised concerns about code changes, infrastructure issues, and the appropriateness of proposed designs within historic districts. == Key Decisions == - Approved the agenda as amended, postponing Item D (539 Garcia) to June 24th and withdrawing Item E (964 Sik Madre). - Designated the building at 140 Romero Street as "contributing" with facades four, five, six, and seven as primary, excluding non-historic door, window, and plywood door on the carport. - Retained the contributing status of the building at 626 Canyon Road, added the front courtyard wall as contributing, and designated facades 1, 7, 9 (excluding the portal), 1A, and 7A as primary, clarifying this does not approve unauthorized alterations. - Approved the project at 511 East Palace Avenue with conditions: pedestrian and vehicular gates must be redesigned in New Mexico traditional style with fenestration, subject to staff approval; garage doors and window trim color approved as submitted; mailbox relocation and design approved. - Approved the house construction at 815 East Alameda Street as proposed but denied the accompanying yard wall and planter, requiring a new application for those elements. - Postponed Case 2025-010495-HDRB (439 Camino del Monte Sol) to obtain a new historical cultural inventory report for the building. - Approved the application for 911 Old Santa Fe Trail with conditions for windows (simulated divided lights with spacers, consistent across all elevations, white or staff-approved color) and garage door (wood, appropriate divided light pattern without a curve). - Postponed Case 2025-0494 HDRB (206 McKenzie Street) to the June 24th meeting, requiring the applicant to provide comprehensive documentation and scheduling a site visit. == Motions & Votes == - Motion to approve the agenda as amended — Carried by "Aye" votes. - Motion to table Case 2025010494 HDRB (206 McKenzie Street) to the end of the agenda — Passed unanimously. - Motion to designate the building at 140 Romero Street as "contributing" with facades four, five, six, and seven as primary, excluding non-historic door, window, and plywood door on the carport — Passed 4-1 (4 Yes, 1 No). - Motion to retain the contributing status of the building at 626 Canyon Road, add the front courtyard wall as contributing, and designate facades 1, 7, 9 (excluding the portal), 1A, and 7A as primary — Passed 4-0. - Motion to approve the project at 511 East Palace Avenue with conditions for gate redesigns, garage door/trim color, and mailbox — Passed 4-0 (Member Dagnen: Yes, Member Beach: Yes, Member Cherry: Yes, Member Mather: Yes). - Motion to approve the house as proposed and deny approval for the wall and planter as proposed for 815 East Alameda Street — Passed 3-1 (3 Yes, 1 No). - Motion to approve the application for 439 Camino del Monte Sol as proposed — Failed (lack of a second). - Motion to approve the application for 439 Camino del Monte Sol with the removal of a specific window on the garage — Failed (lack of a second). - Motion to postpone Case 2025-010495-HDRB (439 Camino del Monte Sol) to obtain a new historical cultural inventory report for the building — Passed 3-1. - Motion to approve the application for 911 Old Santa Fe Trail with specific conditions regarding windows and garage door — Passed unanimously (5-0). - Motion to move Case 2025-0494 HDRB (206 McKenzie Street) to "old business" for the June 24th, 2025 meeting and schedule a site visit before then, with a friendly amendment requiring specific documentation from the applicant by June 16th — Approved by roll call vote (Member Mather: Yes, Member Cherry: Yes, Member Beach: Yes, Member Dagden: Yes). == Public Comment == Public comments covered several areas: disappointment over lack of public comment during a previous code study session, concerns about the Land Use Director potentially overriding Board decisions, and proposed parking/affordable housing code changes. Residents also highlighted non-functional water fountains on the Sakia Trail and the urgent need for a pedestrian crossing on Serios Road. For specific cases, public commenters expressed opinions on the historic status of properties, the appropriateness of fence heights, the design of gates, and the extent of proposed renovations, particularly for 206 McKenzie Street, where concerns were raised about window replacement, skylights, and solar panels. == Topics == - Historic Building Preservation - McKenzie Street Property (206 McKenzie) - Code and Definitions - Exceptions and Waivers - Sustainability and Solar Panels - Public Safety and Pedestrian Crossings - Archaeological Site Visit - Water Fountain Functionality - Parking Requirements - Affordable Housing == Full Transcript == Please let us know when we are live. We are live. Great. Well, good evening. Welcome, everybody, to the Historic District Review Board meeting for June 10, 2025. I call this meeting to order. My name is John Bianbin. I'll be serving as acting chair in the absence of Chair Rios tonight. So, we are now in session, and may I please have a roll call? Madame Chair Rios, she is excused. Vice Chair Bianu, present. Member Aguilera Madrono, also excused. Member Mather, here. Member Cherry, here. Member Dagnet, here. Member Beachite, here. Chair, you have a quorum. Thank you very much. We have an agenda that has been duly published. Do any board members have changes to the agenda or staff? Yes, Chair Bianu. We do have a change in the agenda under new item. Item D, 2025-0104989-HDRB 539 Garcia, has been postponed to June 24th. Also, item E, 2025-010492-HDRB 964 Sik Madre, has been withdrawn. All right. Thank you, Director Mo. Board members, may I have a motion to approve the agenda as amended? So moved. Second. Is there a second? Second. Second. Thank you. Roll call, or no, just please indicate if you are in favor by saying "Aye." Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Motion is carried. Next on the agenda is approval of the minutes. I see none in the packet. Is that correct, staff? That is correct. Thank you. We will skip on to the next item on the agenda, which is approval of findings of fact, conclusions of law. Again, I see none in the packet. Correct. That is correct. Thank you. We will then move on to matters from the public. Are there any members of the public in the room? Please come to the podium and please limit your remarks to two minutes. Stephanie Benonato. I have to say that I was a little disappointed last time because I thought when you did the study session on the code that you were going to allow for public comment, and there wasn't any. And I do have to say that I wonder how the land use director is actually, is the land use director going to change the code to reflect your comments, or how the governing body is going to really know how you feel about this proposal. I do agree with you that the descriptions of the different districts were pretty useless and that there needs to be a lot more definitions and better definitions. And I've given you one example where it says an appellant is a person who appeals. That's the current definition. That's fairly useless. It's circuitous. I also am disappointed or concerned because I thought I heard that the LU, the land use staff, could override your vote. Say somebody wants to remove windows, but, and they're historic, and you say no, you have to repair them, but the staff could override that based on sustainability, for example, or perhaps with solar panels, something like that. Also, there is a very clear nonconformity section in the current ordinance, Historic Design Review Board section, about nonconforming structures other than buildings cannot be repaired or replaced, but structure buildings can if they're brought more into compliance. And that seems to be going away. And I just want to just go through quite quickly because it's not really about you. But the lowering the parking requirement, according to the Bike Advisory Committee, they're only at 2% of people commuting by bike, and there needs to be 30% in order to be effective. Affordable housing, I think no fee in lieu of, you don't get bonus points or bonus units fee in lieu of. And that the, it should be like at least for 50 years, not eight years, and that the 1.5 number of units bonus is a little excessive. I know I'm run out of time, but there's other things there that you can read. Thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Anybody else from the public wishing to speak? Is there any, oh, yes, please. Hello. Okay. My name is Camila Cluit. I am a resident of District 1 and an avid pedestrian. I have come across two huge issues here in Santa Fe. One, I take the Sakia Trail about three plus times a week. There's one water fountain that currently functions on it. And I wonder why Santa Fe has a bunch of water fountains that don't function. There has to be a good solution for it. Number two, there's a huge need for a pedestrian crossing in front of Elray Court, the hotel, on Serios Road. I live in the neighborhood across the street. I have to cross it often to get to the Pantry or Lray. Events going on. I about 90% of the time am not the only person crossing unprotected on that street, and it's really dangerous. There needs to be a better way to do it, and the answer to that is a clear pedestrian crossing, and I would be happy to work with anyone. I just want to know what I need to do to get that pedestrian crossing in because we need one. We need cars to stop, and it is a huge matter of public safety. I yield my time. Thank you very much. Anyone else in the public? Oh, yes. Director Lamboy, you, Chair. I just might offer to the last speaker that the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee is going to be held on Thursday. And so you might want to, this is, yes, this is the Historic Districts Review Board, but those are very important comments, and I will forward them to Public Works so they can be aware, but that advisory committee could be helpful too. Thank you. Is there anyone on Zoom that wishes to speak? Chair, there are no hands raised. Okay, moving on. Next item on the agenda is new business. Let me advise the applicants and the public that decisions of the board may be appealed to the governing body, and the deadlines and procedures for appeal are set forth in 14-3.17 of the city code. First case on the agenda, 2025010494 HDRB at 206 McKenzie Street. Senior Planner Duran, I believe this is your case. Good evening, Chair Bian Venu. Members of the board, thank you for being here this evening. Members of the public, thank you for being here. Members of the board, in case number 2025010494 HDRB, 206 Mackenzie Street, I would first like to say to the applicant, to the architect, Braden Fury, thank you. Thank you on behalf of the city of staff for working with city staff in presenting and providing a detailed application of the previous work that has taken place. We greatly appreciate your work and your working through. We understand the dilemma that you and your contractor have been under with this property, and so I hope everything works out for the best. Okay. The mixed-use commercial and multifamily complex at 206 McKenzie Street is listed as contributing to the Downtown and East Side Historic District with the north, east, and partial southern and western facades designated as primary. The original structure has been identified in the 2005 Historic Cultural Properties Inventory HCPI survey form to have been constructed pre-1766 to 1846 with several changes from the 1930s and 1940s into the present. The unique eclectic nature of the structure and location on the Grant Avenue and McKenzie Street streetscapes has made this structure a standalone complex unmirrored to anything seen in the Downtown and East Side Historic District. So, we'll just jump right into this property here on the north facade. This is a primary facade, and this facade faces the McKenzie streetscape. Currently, there's quite a bit of work being done in preservation aspects of the adobe. Currently, there's an open adobe facing on that northern side. There's been some work, and the applicant has requested an exception for the addition on the primary facade with raising of the parapet. So, currently on this facade, there's quite a bit of extensive work taking place. Now we have the east elevation, and on this east elevation, generally as it roundabouts to the that Griffin streetscape and into the Grand Avenue. This, this facade is, is, is some of the wall, some of the windows are now boarded up. Some of the doors are now shut down, closed off. And there's quite a bit of extensive work. It's, it's fenced off and gated off from any review. And there's quite a bit of extensive work that needs to take place on this facade. Here we have the south elevation. This elevation is, is, has extensive windows, divided light windows, single pane wood windows, and for which another exception is being requested for the removal of these windows and doorways. And so we here we have the courtyard. Now in this courtyard, this is kind of where a lot of the work is taking place. And they've started, they are reestablishing their greenhouse. They're looking at providing some solar on top of the current carports and adding additional steel carport for which another exception is requested for where the location of this Jeep is parked and other vehicles as well. But if we take a step back into the 1766 UI urea map, it's a, the Mr. Macintosh who did this survey report does a good, good research in identifying the location and this structure's presence in downtown Santa Fe in the 1700s. In, in the, in the 1844 Gilman map, the structure is identified. It's present on the street in the location of where the court, military office quarters are at. And so this, this structure in its entirety and in its footprint is prevalent in the 1840s. Here we have the 1886 map of the, of showing the extending of this property. And then we have the Stoner's 1882 map showing the location and a really good diagram of the location of this property on McKenzie Street. Then we have a 1958 New Mexico DOT aerial photograph. And I know this isn't the best photograph given it's black and white and it, it's hard to pop out that roof line, but the structure is very established on the streetscape. And as in discussion, staff, you know, feels that this property should have been significant given it's one of, one of its own here in downtown Santa Fe. However, it, it almost is as we look at this primary facade diagram. And when the board designated the status as contributing status to the Downtown and East Side Historic District along with the primary facades given that north, east, mostly south and that portion on the west facade as primary and just left the inner part of that courtyard area as non-primary. Now here we have the floor plan. If we start from, let's go, go from left to right. We have that steel cardboard. And given that steel is not a, a material generally recognized as, as historically used in the Downtown and East Side Historic District, the applicant has requested an exception to 14-5.2e Downtown and East Side Design Standards. In that staff has reviewed and responded back with approval of those exception criteria. Now, as we look at the northern facade, and you're on the northern facade, the pro, the proposed raising of the parapet on this element, architectural design and the element, staff has some concerns about that raising and does not feel that that exception criteria has been met as it alters what has been requested in preservation. So maybe that may need to be discussed further tonight. And throughout these elevations, as we see, there's many doors and windows. And in the door and window assessment by the historic architect identified that there are many historic windows, doors and windows on this structure, and some are repairable. However, if they're removed from the structure, they cannot be reestablished. And so given that, and given that some of these windows are missing, doors are missing, and in order to provide the necessary means of preserving this entire, this structure in its entirety, staff recommends approval of this exception for the removal of the historic materials. Here we have the south facade showing the extent of these divided light windows and the west facade. On this west facade, they're also, the applicant is also proposing the, some changes to the entrance gate, handrails into the loading dock, and solar on the carport and the, the new requested steel carport. And here is the location of the wall. That is their western boundary line, raising up the wall and providing that solar on the carport, which will provide coverage from public visibility. So, in Mr. Patterson's assessment, he does a detailed, he does a great job in identifying and detailing the windows and the doors, and with his summation, in which staff stands by the historic architect. And so, in this, and I'll allow the applicant to discuss in greater detail, this property at 206 McKenzie is in desperate need of some TLC, some care. And so, the applicant and their contractor are coming before the board this evening for just that reason. So, with that, staff recommendation recommends approval of the proposed project and finds that the application complies with section 14-5.2D, general design standards for all historic districts, and 14-5.2E to E, downtown and Eastside design standards, and the exception criteria have been met for all exception requests, except for the request for the addition and increase in height to the primary north elevation facade. The applicant should find other design options for that addition, including lowering the parapet to be subservient to the adjacent historic parapet. Thank you. Staff stands for questions. Thank you very much. So, I didn't find Ray Patterson's report. Could you tell me what page it is in the packet so I can locate it? Chair Bian Venu, thank you for asking that. As I went through the packet materials this afternoon after our site visit, that piece of information or the assessment was not in the packet materials. That is staff's fault that you did not get that historic assessment. Yeah, that's fine. I mean, that's my apologies. You don't need to apologize. It's just that we're going to, I think the board needs that in order to reach a decision on that exception request. Is it possible to circulate a hard copy? Absolutely, members, absolutely. If you bear with me, I'll go in there and I'll get you all a hard copy. Okay, thank you. And just before you leave, what page would I find just a list of everything that the applicant is asking for approval for? There's quite a bit of information in this packet, much of which we've already addressed in the past. Both you and the applicant have done a great job of providing all the information, but there's so much here I can't quite find exactly what the items are that need approval. Chair BM Venu, members of the board, I would start in the staff report. After the staff report, I don't believe actually gives a list of what items are in issue. It just talks about the exceptions. In page 11 on the staff report, it states the applicant proposes the following exterior alterations. It's fine. Thank you. Chair Yanu, I may suggest so that you have a moment to look at the report that Paul is going to produce, that you table this item to the end of the meeting. Okay. If necessary, since you have the chest review. That would be fine with me. Is that acceptable to the rest of the board? Table this item to the last item on the agenda. Okay. So, do we need a motion for that or can we just table? I believe we do need a motion. Okay. So, can I have a motion, please? Each side moves to move item A under new business, case number 2025010494 HDRB at 206 Mackenzie Street to the end of the agenda after item I. May there will second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Thank you. That motion carries. That matter will be heard at the end. And I do now see a page 11 for the board's benefit. Since I confused the issue, staff has listed the six items that are before us tonight. The first three appear to be tracking the exception request, but the other three are roof mounted HVAC units, new pedestrian gate, and restart. Okay. So, let's move on then for the time being to the next agenda item, which is case 2025 010488 HDRB at 140 Romero Street. And this would be senior planner McCaulay. My computer is thinking. Give me just one second. Put the display up. Okay. This is case 2025 at 10488 for 140 Romero Street for a status review. Romero Street is a mix of architectural styles, including vernacular pueblo revival and bungalow with a hip roof and an early 20th century bunk house. A variety of low fences line the street, constructed from materials such as wood boards, latias, steel wire, stuccoed concrete blocks, and clay structural tiles. Single family residence at 140 Romero Street is currently listed as non-contributing to the Westside Guadalupe Historic District. The yard wall has not had a historic status designation. The Adobe residence was constructed in the 1940s. An addition was constructed on the rear in the 1948. A carport was constructed along the north side in the 1950s and was enclosed after 1985. A porch on the northwest corner was enclosed around the same time. Most of the windows are non-historic post 1985 installations, except for a few steel casement windows on the north and west elevations. The front yard wall was likely constructed in the 1960s of concrete masonry units with square pilasters. The wall was modified after 1985 with a PBLO revival style treatment with rounded edges and stucco. The style of the yard wall retains the relationship to and character of the streetscape, which is predominantly low yard walls and fences. For the historic cultural properties inventory, and I quote, "Romero Street is carved out of land abutting the rail yard, land traced with railroad sightings, loading platforms, and the ATNSF engine house. By 1928, Manhattan Road had been paved with a sewer line running down its center. By the time the subject house was constructed, Manhattan Road had been suburbanized." End quote. During the development of the area, lot 37 of the 1912 Kings map was acquired by Bernard Brian Hanley. Upon his death, the lot was subdivided into seven lots, one of which involves the subject property. The wedding announcement in 1939 for Charles Romero and Virginia Shoots states that the couple would be living in the new home at 140 Romero Street. In 1952, Carlos deeded the property to his younger brother, William, who resided in the house with his family until 1965. The house was then a rental property with multiple tenants into the 1990s, including one of William's children, Robert Romero. The property was inherited by Williams daughter Lillian Sne, who resided in Los Altos, California when he passed in 2015. Lillian sold the property to its current owner in 2023. The only previous case on record in the historic preservation division is a single administrative approval in 2023 for re-roofing. The applicant is currently asking for a status review with primary facade designation if applicable for the residential structure and a status review of the front street facing yard wall. Staff recommends the historic status of the residential structure be retained as non-contributing due to the alteration and window replacements which diminish the historic character of the structure and the yard wall be designated as contributing due to the character which has remained unchanged since the 1960s and is consistent with the Romero streetscape dominated by low yard walls and fences per section 14-5.2 to C2, designation of significant contributing or non-contributing status within historic districts. I stand for questions. Thank you very much. So, we're just here on this case for status review and it's, has this case ever come for status review? This property ever come for status review before? Not that I'm aware of. No, it's non, it was never designated non-contributing and it just hasn't received a designation. It would have received non-contributing when they did the district back in 1983. Okay. So, when I look at the Hickpy and the photographs and then particularly the site visit, I have to say that I'm not sure I, well, I'm sure I don't agree with it being non-contributing for the reason that it strikes me as being almost a quintessential example of the type of modest vernacular adobe that exists in that neighborhood and on that very streetscape, including across the street. It's, it is extremely simple, but that almost defines the streetscape. It's built in the either the 30s or the 40s of Adobe. It's got most of its existing footprint. The changes are primarily in the rear, not on the street. The only real alterations I could see on the street facing frontage were the window and door, but not the openings. It didn't appear, just the actual infill, or not the infill, but the door and window themselves. And the what would used to be a carport looks like it was enclosed at some time. And I gather from the Hickpy that was probably after 1985. So, that's not historic, but it is set back 10 feet or so from the front street facing facade and it's in the exact same footprint that the previous carport was in for I don't know how many years and was historic. So, if I, if I understand the Hickpa, it seemed that the recommendation was non-contributing and perhaps staff agreed with this because it was because of there were alterations and because it was a modest structure, but to me the modesty of the structure is the very thing that I would say makes it contributing for that district and the alterations do not seem to me very apparent to the public. So, those are my initial thoughts. Does, do any board members have any questions for staff on this case? Yes. Member Cherry. Oh, thank you. Nobody. All right. Would the applicant please step forward and be sworn? Hello. Can you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record. It's Camila Ray Kennedy and my address is 140 Romero. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? Thank you and welcome. Would you like to add anything to staff's report or have anything to say to the board on this application? Yeah. With this application, with the staff's report on the main house, I agree. I was a little bit surprised because it is a modest home. I got my bachelor's degree in architecture and I have lived in modest adobes before and I would say that the modesty is sort of what makes the structure, especially there are a couple elements of the house, especially on the front facade that are quite adorable. There's that piece of wood above the front door. And you are correct that the openings have not been altered in any way. That the new windows that have been put in that are not the old original windows didn't alter the openings at all and I have no intention of ever messing with the front facade. However, with the status of the garden wall in the front, that's the only thing that I was, I would say should not be made contributing, especially considering that it was cinder block originally in 1985. And you can see that in the photo in the report. And then it was added to to be made into the PBLO style by putting stucco and then quite thick paint on top of it. And so, I would say that historic, it doesn't really bear any historic significance. And as to it contributing to the streetscape, I do understand the calculations involved in determining the streetscape, but I would like to draw attention to the fact that the house directly across the street from mine has a coyote fence and many other properties on my street, so from Manhattan all the way down to the other end of Romero Street. There are several small walls and I'm aware of that. And my goal for removing eventually this front garden wall is not to significantly alter the streetscape. I didn't want to build anything crazy there. What I wanted to do is just build a short, or eventually, is to build a short coyote fence no more than five feet tall because I do enjoy the feeling of my street. So, I'm very close with all of my neighbors. We know all of each other's names. We have constant communication with each other. I like to wave at my neighbors, and a lot of the people on the street have lived there over 30 years. And so I consider them a significant piece of the historicness of the street, and so I don't want to ruin that by putting in some audacious wall or anything. But that wall, as it exists now, is very inconvenient. Just going to stop you so that we don't talk too much about what you plan to do in the future while we're just considering the status. Blame the grant. No, I completely understand the status. Yeah. So the status of the wall itself, I disagree with it being suggested that it be main contributing, especially because in the code I can see that there was something that says, "Changes that create a false sense of historical development" is a point in the code right above the code that was used, or the piece of the code that was suggested for making it contributing. So I would just disagree because it's been made to look historic. It's CMU block. It is not adobe, and then they slathered it with paint. Yeah. So that's what I would disagree with. The house itself, I agree with their assessment. Okay, great. Thank you. Does any, do any board members have questions for the applicant? Yes. Would you suggest that we designate the front of the house as contributing and then sort of leave out the wall? Is that what you would do in an ideal world? Yeah, that would be absolutely fine by me because I would say that there are significant features of the front of the house that do, in my mind, make it a little bit contributing. I don't know of any other house on the block that has that cute above the door, the little carvings. And also, I don't know if you noticed at the site visit that there's specific paint also applied around the door creating a negative effect. So when it rains, there's a starburst effect. And I know that that was done around when they painted the front of the house. So I think that was probably before 1985. Yeah. Good evening. I just wanted to clarify. You said the wall was cinder block in the 80s. Photos I'm looking at show the wall existing in the 60s. So it was, it was there, yes, prior to the 80s. So the age of it would designate it being historic, not necessarily the materials. It's been existing for longer than 50 years. It would be historic. You are correct in that. Yes, the wall has been there. I have the, in the aerial photographs, you can see it all the way back until at least 1968. But it was cinder block until just cinder block, no stucco, no extra stuff until after '85. Okay. Because in the 1969 aerial photograph, that's color. It looks to be the same color as the house. That would be very interesting. So they must have replaced it because the survey photo from 1985 shows it as just being cinder block. So I don't know if they had painted it before and then replaced the wall way back when. I don't know about that. I just know that at the survey time in 1985, that photograph shows it being cinder block. As for why it was that, you mean it's still cinder block, but you mean raw cinder block on the outside. Exactly. Yes, it was raw cinder block in 1985 for that photo, which is black and white. That aerial photograph, which shows the house being sort of a hibiscus color across the whole thing, that paint that was used, because there have been some minor fixes and I have seen that original paint that was, that old paint, and not the paint that is currently on the wall, which is an elastic. Okay, thanks. Questions? Member Beached. Thank you. Yeah, I don't have any questions. Just wanted to say that I agree with the applicant's assessment of the yard wall not contributing to the property. It actually has a style that has been changed over time and is inconsistent with the vernacular style of the house. And I think you make some good points about the front facade, especially the door and window locations not having changed over time and the, I was struggling to find some character defining details, but the carving above the front door, I think fills that, that need for something special on that facade that isn't represented on the others in order to designate that as primary. But the windows, you know, the windows themselves are non-sympathetic. But if you were, you know, to replace those at some point with something more in keeping with the original, that, you know, that certainly would enhance that facade. Thank you. Any members from the public that wish to be heard on this application? Yes, ma'am. Please step to the podium and be sworn. Please raise your right hand, state your name and address for the record. Excuse me. Stephanie Benonato, PO Box 1601, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes. Thank you very much. I appreciate the board's direction in designating the front facade as, or making it contributing and designating the front facade as primary. I think Romero Street is exactly as described, small, vernacular, simple homes. I did research on one a little bit further down the street, which was also very similar and had been added on to a couple of times with a family of six children living there within a 600 square foot house. I am a little concerned. I think that CMU is a material that has been used historically since probably at least the 1930s. And it's hard to tell in 1985 whether people were just repairing the wall at that point and had taken away the stucco or whether it was stuccoed. But by 1985, I believe that it would have been a non-conforming wall if it had not been stuccoed. And I just, because the applicant has brought it up, I would be extremely concerned that a five-foot high fence would be put in the front yard. I think it would significantly change the streetscape and the effect of the house and its view from the streetscape. Thank you. Anyone else from the public? Lonnie, I'd be curious to have you address the issue on the wall since it was your recommendation. So the issues that have been brought up are the fact that it was, it is historic. It seems to date back to the early to mid-60s. It's understood it was always made from CMU block, and at some point after 1985, it's been restuccoed and the corners rounded. That's what I think I understand the facts to be. So given that, could you flesh out a little bit your view on the recommendation that it should have contributing status and to what extent that's a reflection of the height of the wall, which has always been the same? So the wall matches the house as it was built. It is indicative of the streetscape, and so the low wall that matches the house is what we were basing that contributing. Okay. Anybody else have any questions? Okay. Well, if there's no further discussion, I'll entertain a motion. I'll make a motion. Please do. Is it first, is there a facade app? Yes, if you could share the slideshow again one more time. This just in case you guys lean towards contributing on this one. So the front of the house is to the right is facade six. So in case 2025-010 or 88 HDRB, I would make a motion that the status be contributing of the building with facades four, five, six, and seven as primary facades along with the wall, excluding the non-historic door, window, and plywood door on the carport. I'll second. Okay, we have a motion to second. Is there any discussion before we proceed to a vote? Oh, sorry, Member Beich. I just, thank you. Maybe you can elaborate on the addition of the other primary facades. I hadn't heard any discussion of, well, of any of the others besides the front. So is there something character defining captured in the other three facades that you're recommending? Yeah, I think being there at the site visit, my opinion is the wall definitely contributes to the historic nature of the neighborhood and it's been there for a historic amount of time. In, what I would say is, let me get the page number for you. Page 21, which would be page 232 of the packet. The roof of the carport that you see, which is not infilled at that time, is also in my opinion, character defining of that facade, along with the wall going from the roof of that carport, which would be, I guess I should define facade five, but you know, coming, coming back toward that east facade, the what's being called the front facade where the window and the entry door are, and then the facade seven, it is, is very intact and I feel very visible and and very indicative of contributing nature of that structure to the, well, to the facade is contributing to the the structure as well as to the neighborhood. Thank you. I just, you know, our practice has been in some periods of time to limit the primary facades, especially on houses that are this small, in, in order just to capture what we consider to be the most character defining features. And if they're duplicated on other facades that we, you know, try to, to limit, it, you know, just the, the whatever captures that. So if there other ones, you know, represent something different in your mind, then that matter, I understand. Thanks. Okay. Thank you. And may I have a roll call vote, please? Did you have something to add? No. Member, I'm sorry. Member Mather. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Dagnen. Yes. Member Beich. No. Thank you. The motion is carried. And to the applicant, I'd just like to say, really appreciate how thorough you were and helpful to the board in your description of your obvious love for the house and its history. And I'd also just add that, you know, the designation of a status does not automatically determine what can and can't be done with a property. So just be aware that you can discuss with staff seeking approval of things within what's allowed on contributing structures and also exceptions. And good luck to you. Thank you. Moving on, next item on the agenda is 2025-010506 HDRB 626 Canyon Road. This is Planner Romero's case. Please proceed. Thank you, Chair Benu and members of the board. So this is case 2025-010506 HDRB at 626 Canyon Road. So our initial facade designation showed a facade one to retain the historic character of the low-pitched roof and the centered octagon fixed window. Facade two was original adobe and older wood casement windows. Facade four and five showcased the studio that was built by artist Andrew Balik Kupa, a two-story high window, two-story building windows with good lighting. Eight featured stained glass stairwell window as part of the 1958 edition, and facade nine showed features of a nicho and divided light windows. So the yard wall as shown here, during our site visit had embedded tiles along, and at our site visit today, that no longer existed. So stucco work has been done. We show that this case became, was put on an agenda in 2022 and was postponed, and no record of it coming back for status or primary facade before this board. The windows were obviously replaced on all facades. Your staff report reflects facade six, but it's actually all facades. The windows have been changed. The stained glass window on the west facade is also no longer there. So windows have been added and removed without this board's permission. And also, we went looking into the permit section of our records, and all we show that is a re-roof that was done. We stand for questions. Thank you very much. Do any board members have questions of Senior Planner Romero? Member Cherry, please proceed. When were the windows installed and stucco done? That is unknown. Member Cherry, I can tell you that when we went out on the site visit, the windows were changed, and it reflects the windows were changed. And when we did the initial review of our records, it showed windows, but that application was withdrawn, and it was never processed. And what was the date that that was? I can tell you it was in 2022. I'm not for sure that that's when the windows were changed out, but that's what I show a record was of a withdrawn application. Thank you. Perhaps the applicant can address the timeline. Any other questions from the board for staff? Okay. So, applicant, would you like to step forward, please? Be sworn in. Please raise your right hand, state your name and address for the record. Yes. Can you do it in the microphone? PO Box 925, Santa Fe. Thank you. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes, I do. Thank you. Welcome, Mr. Martinez. What do you have to add? I don't know when the house was last modified. My clients bought it this way, so I don't know. I want to say that the structure should remain as contributing. It has a very interesting history. I don't know if you read the history report. I would, however, designate different facades than the staff recommended as primary. They didn't go into the facades that they recommended as primary. Maybe we can bring that up on the screen. Thank you. The front wall, the front street-facing yard wall, should definitely be designated as contributing. And this house, you would think it would be a significant house because the recommendation from the staff is to have contributing primary facades on all four faces of the house. I want to go through the facades one by one. Facade number one of the house is the Canyon Road Street-facing north facade. This facade should definitely be primary. Though this facade has had new doors installed, it definitely defines the character of the building. Facade number two, which is on the east side, in that narrow little yard, this facade cannot be seen from the street. The staff report mentions old wood casement windows, and as you saw on the site, those windows no longer exist. They were replaced in the last remodel. What is that? Okay, thank you. This is a photograph of the windows that exist on that facade. He's coming. I have a photograph of the windows on the facade. That east facade, as you saw on the site visit, it's behind a gate, and it's very narrow, only, the report says, only three feet in some cases. So it's not, I don't believe it's character-defining because how can it be character-defining if it's invisible, if you cannot see it? I thought that this board was concerned with the streetscape and how the building contributes to the streetscape. This facade doesn't help to contribute to the... Member Benavidez, or sorry, Vice Chair Benavidez, I'm going to bring these up to you because our overhead is not... So, there's four photographs, but I'm just talking about the first one in that pile. Okay. Oh, now it's working. Looking at bare wood. Now we're looking at bare wood. Okay. Okay. So, this is a photograph of those windows behind that gate. Okay. And then facade number nine, which is the west facade that's on the driveway side of the house, should definitely be primary because it's very visible from Canyon Road. Even though the windows have been replaced, it's very prominent as an expression of the building. Facade number eight, which is the entryway, is the entryway to the house. I don't believe it should be primary because the reason for it to be primary is mentioned in the staff report as being the stained glass stairwell window, which no longer exists. It was replaced in the last remodel. And facade number seven, which is not mentioned in the staff report, I believe it's upside down. I believe it should be... No, this is the outside of the garage. This is also visible from Canyon Road. And I think as a long, blank wall, very emblematic of the architecture of Santa Fe, it might be the most beautiful wall in our part of this house. I feel this should be primary as well because again, it's visible in Canyon Road. Facades four and five, which is the two-story part within the courtyard, the courtyard facades, these I feel should not be primary facades. They cannot be seen from Canyon Road, and the primary facades are defined as, quote, "elevations of a building with features that define the character of the building's architecture." The building's architecture cannot be defined by elevations that cannot be seen by the public. I believe the historic board is concerned with the public view of the house and how that house contributes to the streetscape. Why not designate the north and the west side of that two-story section of the house, which actually do provide a public view of that two-story part and do impact the view from Canyon Road? We stand for questions. Thank you. Thank you. It's helpful. Does any, do any board members have questions for the applicant? Yes, Member Cherry. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Martinez. Appreciate your comments. I do agree with you that facade number seven is probably one of the equally most important facades on this building. I think it's really character-defining. It's very visible from the street. I would disagree that my interpretation of the purpose of the preservation of these structures by the board isn't just what's publicly visible. If it's invisible, I think it still can have some importance to that structure. But I don't really have any questions for you other than just those comments of what do you think about the fact that it's all four sides of the building? Well, I kind of see it as more than four sides. I didn't find, you know, it's really unfortunate, in my opinion, that the work that was done on the building, that that was not permitted and not, you know, that there was some preservation degradation to this building by the remodeling that was done sometime between 2021 and now. I think, you know, when you have a building that's statused significant, all sides are primary, and most of the time, some of those buildings have non-visible sides, but they're still worthy of preservation. In regard to this, I personally don't feel like those two facades in, I don't have the map up right now, but the ones in the rear are necessarily worthy of being primary. But I would, I would personally think that the facades, I think it's, let me pull it up. I can be clear about that. The two-story part of the house, which is actually no longer two-story. It confused me at first because it's a very tall section of the house. Inside, the entryway is kind of awkward. The front door actually opens out rather than in, you know, like so, and it has no window. So if somebody knocks on the door, you have to, they have to step back because you have to open the door out. It's, it's, it's crazy. We were going to use the same door but make it open in. But the reason it opened out was because there used to be a stairway that went up to a second story in that two-story part. And each, each story in that two-story part had a very low ceiling. And so rather than deal with that, whoever remodeled this house took that out. And so they made a very tall part of the house. And so it confused me because one, the doorway was very awkward the way that you entered the house. And there was a clear story, a tall clear story in the house. Seemed to me like one of those elements that you might see in a 2000 house rather than a 1960s house. And so I was confused, but I've never seen the house without the new windows and the new stucco and new kitchens, new bathrooms, all that sort of new side. So, I've got this map in front of me now, and my opinion is that the wall certainly should be primary in front of the house on the north facade. Sides one, nine, eight, and seven should be primary too. It's got some street-facing side, but again, I don't think that that's necessarily what should always drive primary facade designation. So I think I could go either way on that. I think what I have a little confusion about is facade eight, like where facade eight and nine start and stop. Start and stop. And the portal, from the looks of the photos and the Hickby and everything, seems to be new. So, does seem to be new, right? Not very attractive. Yeah. So that, that I certainly wouldn't want to make that primary, but the facade that the window, this stained glass window was in, I could see some validity to preserving that facade even though it's been altered with the exception of the portal that's probably new. So, the, so you can see that the facades that aren't noted in this drawing, the north and west facades of the second story that are visible from Canyon Road, maybe should be considered primary because they're character-defining elements in a way that the facades four and five are not. I'd like to ask if staff would go ahead and give us a designation for that second floor facade that's visible. So, it's the north facade of the second floor and I guess the west as well. We need to have a designation so that the record is clear when on the west facade you have the closest to Canyon, which would be what I'm talking about is a facade that isn't designated yet. I think I'd like to ask you to make a designation for our purposes tonight. Doesn't mean it's going to get designated as primary facade, but we need to know what we're all referring to. I would say that where you have number eight, what I'm talking about is the north facade of the second floor. So, it's not designated. If you could just call that 8A or whatever you want to call it. And then also that of that same upper floor, the elevation that faces west, like a 1A on the on the north facade could be one, actually one, because it's all north. That one would be north face 7A. 7A on the, you understand what we're, so 8, 8A, I'm actually, I think it's a better approach to you because it's north-facing. We already have a north-facing facade as one on the street. We could call the north-facing facade of that second floor 1A. 1A and 7A. Yes. 7A would be the second floor facing west. Okay. Just so we're all clear what we're talking about. Is there any need for 5A, John, that you see, or is that, since we're going down that clarity rabbit hole? I'm going to reserve that just in case unless someone brings that up because actually I think that five and four are already designating the first and the second. Yeah. Right. Yeah. With the exception of the west side of four comes off that roof of the back structure just like the 7A structure or 7A facade that is kind of is sort of part of its eight already. See what I mean? Kind of. Let's just hold off on that if someone wants to start discussing those, we'll designate them now. Right now, I know we're talking about the ones that we've just designated as 1A instead. Okay. Okay. So, now we have some clarity. We can refer to those. Did you want to address any of the questions? If not, that's fine. Just giving you an opportunity. I chose seven as non-primary because it did not have any features. Okay. I could pretend that not having any features is beautiful, right? That's your, that's what you think is character-defining and contributing about that. Understood. So, Member Beachside, I may, sorry, thank you. I may be the only one, but can we just clarify what staff has recommended and what the applicant is suggesting as changes, just so we're clear? Staff has recommended 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, and 9. And I understand the applicant to agree with one, but not 2, 4, 5, or 8. Applicant is agreeing, if I can just step in, if I understand, applicant is agreeing to 1, 7, 9, and what we've designated as 1A and 7A. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Okay. So, when you refer to the west facade, that's number nine. Yes. Okay. Thank you. And of the wall. Yes. And the wall. Yes. Thank you. Anybody else before we seek comment from the public? Anyone from the public wishing to speak, please step to the podium. I think that this report and case has been rather confusing. And I do agree with Member Cherry that not everything that you designate as primary has to be visible. I'm wondering in the application of 2022 that was withdrawn, exactly what the application consisted of. I think that's important to know. I appreciate that Mr. Martinez wants to make number seven primary. I think massive walls are characteristic, at least for parts of structures. And I wonder if the two or three-story, whatever it was, window that was there, if that could be required to be replaced. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else from the public? Anyone on Zoom? No. Chair: Yes. You: Yes, you may. When you designate a primary facade, just remember that you're designating 10 feet of a non-primary facade next to that primary facade. You cannot build anything within 10 feet of a primary facade. Any further discussion? Anyone wish to make a motion? Member Bish: Thank you, Vice Chair Binanu. In case number 2025-010506 HDRB at 626 Canyon Road, I'd just like to say that I appreciate the applicant's participation in the facade discussion. I think the points that you've made about visibility make a lot of sense. I think the suggestion of designating the upper facades of the two-story looking portion is consistent with the Hiki, which says that this, you know, residence is more in keeping with the basic Gulopa characteristics than any other. That, you know, the facade that's very close on the east side to the neighboring building is, you know, not something that we typically do. There's no value to the streetscape associated with something that's so closely located to another building that you can't see it. So, in this case, I moved to retain the contributing status of the building, adding the front courtyard wall as contributing, and designating the following facades as primary: 1, 9, 7, 1A, and 7A, the newly designated upper portions of the two-story facade on the north and west. Second. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion before we proceed to a vote? Want to make a friendly amendment? Yes, you may. I would agree with that designation, making the friendly amendment to include facade 8 as well, as it is facing the street and street visible. Is that the facade with the, with the door that opens outward? Is what is in that facade? Actually, I'm not sure. It's just like a hall and a doorway. Maybe the applicant can clarify for us. Maybe you should show a picture of facade 8. Do we have a photograph showing facade 8 so that it can all be clear what they're discussing? Member Benu, members of the board, this was facade 8 prior to the non-approved closing of the windows and making of the new windows. Yeah, I think in with respect to my motion, I would not accept that amendment just because it's been altered and the stained glass is no longer there. It's, it looks like, yeah. So, I'm, I'm, I guess again, I'm confused where 8 and 9 end, because I would think that if 9 goes all the way to the corner where the number 8 is, then the window location would be included in 9, the previous window location. It's, it's unclear where the, let me show you here, of those two facades are. This is the corner area. I'll show you a picture here. And then so that this is the same corner. So that is, um, 9 goes all the way up to the portal, and then 8 is that corner area that we're discussing. Could you, um, this is 8, this whole section right here? Yeah, I think I can, I think it would be more helpful to, to show that on the photograph as it exists today. Would you mind showing, sure, pointing it out on this photograph? Thank you. You're saying, I just hang on. I think we better do this at the microphone so that everyone can hear it. Can you turn back on the Elmo, please? You're upside down. So the portal is part of 9. So the, the new portal would be then on the primary. Yeah. I would, I would accept as friendly exclusion of the no portal on facade number 9, but would not recommend including 8 because the character-defining features that were originally there are no longer there. Okay, so the friendly amendment was not accepted. Are there any other discussion items before we vote? Okay, roll call. Can you restate the motion? Are you, are you excluding the, sure, portal? Yeah. I'm moving to designate facades number 1, 7, 9, excluding the portal, 1A, and 7A as primary. Second. And, and the front courtyard wall. Thank you. Sorry, I have one more question because this came up last time. This, your marking of this as 7, are you including this yard wall as part of that facade, or just the building wall as part of that facade? The, the number 7 that you drew on the page is on the yard wall, but the, on the, on the facade map, it's showing just that, uh, just the structure wall. It, it seems it to be the structure wall. So the, so that yard wall would then not be contributing. Yeah. In, in my motion, I'm just referring to the facade map in the packet, um, aside from the new designations of 1A and 7A, right? So where the number 8 is, is where this wall is extending out. So my question is, is that wall primary? The yard wall, not the structure. No, no, just the front courtyard wall. That is, is that what staff intended, but you were not intending to designate the wall that we have the number 7 on as being part of facade 7? Right. You are correct, me. Okay. I think that's clear. Clear? Yes. Okay. All right. Roll call vote, please. Member Matherther: Yes. Member Cherry: Yes. Member Bish: Yes. Member Dagnet: Yes. The motion has passed. Thank you. Thank you. I guess just for staff, kind of a question on this, is I wouldn't want this approval of, um, or designation to mean that this is an after-the-fact approval of any unauthorized alterations that were made in the event that the city decides to proceed in any manner against the, the owner of the property to have those unauthorized changes reversed. So, is that fairly understood that we're not approving those after the fact? I think you've, you've made your record. I can put that in the findings of fact, conclusions of law, if everybody agrees. I see everybody. Yes. Yes. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is case 2025-010489 HDRB at 539 Garcia Street. Oh, that's why that's been postponed. Explains it. Uh, then we go to 202010508 HDRB 511 East Palace Avenue and Senior Planner Romero. It's your case again. Yes. Thank you, Member Benu, members of the board. This is for 2025-010508 HDRB, as you said, at 511 East Palace Avenue. Can you please change it to the presentation? Thank you, sir. So, we have here the yard wall, and they are requesting to change out the gate, and it is currently at 6 feet, 2.5 inches. And the new door will be of the same, where's our elevation, of the same height. Um, the applicant also requesting to replace the proposed gate. Here is the new requested door of, um, the pedestrian gate, which is made of wood, stained glass, and will have no arch, and the wood will be set into an aged 1-inch steel frame. This is the vehicular gate that is being requested to be replaced. Um, here is the what is requested as a solid wood. The applicant has suggested they are willing to put in finished fenestration if that is the request of the board at this time. Uh, also in the packet, we are requesting to change the garage doors into just painting them, um, replaced and painted utilizing Clinton brown color. The windows and doors that are already turquoise to repaint the trim in the same color. And on the front wall in this location here, there was an inbuilt mailbox. As in the site today, we, um, did see that that had already been taken out without permission. And, um, the request tonight is to put something similar to this mailbox here. I stand for questions. Um, so there are three things before us: a gate, a garage door, and a, well, a pedestrian gate, a garage door, and then a motor vehicle gate, a driveway gate. That is correct. And is the, is the garage door intended to remain the same, but just be painted, or is it going to be replaced? It was under my review. I believe that they were just going to paint that door. Okay. We can clarify that with the applicant. We can clarify with the applicant. And, um, you mentioned the fenestration on the gate, which is, um, something that our wall and fence guidelines specifically address, states that fenestrated gates should be encouraged as opposed to solid gates. So that's the board, I'm sure, will want to discuss. Um, the pedestrian gate, it appears to be from, um, Tibet or India, as opposed to something local. And our, our guidelines specifically address gates, or say that they should be designed to complement the wall or fence treatment containing them with respect to scale, height, material, texture, and color. I just point that out to the board as well, that, um, that may not comply. Do board members have any questions for the, for staff? Yes. Yes. Member Cherry: What's the history of the existing gate? The existing gate, uh, was shown on a Hiki that was done in the 1980s, the proposed wall and gate. Um, as far as the pedestrian gate, the Hiki did not show the vehicular gate, only the, um, pedestrian gate. Do you know when either of those gates were installed? I do not. I just know the Hiki from the 1980s did show the pedestrian gate. Anything else? Thank you. No, sorry. No problem. Okay. Members of the public wish to be heard on this applic, or no, rather, I'm sorry, the applicant can step forward and make a presentation if so desired. It's pleased to be. Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record. My name is Frederick Brian. I'm the house of the applicant, and my, uh, address is 5021 Saratoga Road in Langley, Washington. Address here is 51 Alice. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Do. Thank you very much. What would you like to tell us? Um, well, I'm just here to answer questions if you have. Did you have anything, um, uh, with respect to staff's presentation or report that you wanted to add to or disagree with? Uh, just to clarify that yes, it was just paint on the garage door, and we don't have very much history on the house either. Great. Thank you. Do, um, any members of the board have questions for the applicant? Yes. Yes, Member Cherry. Um, so in regard to the auto gate, um, where fenestrations are typically required, and what Amanda has said is you guys are amenable to that. Do you have an idea of what the administration's design would look like? We would do pretty much the same as what's current. Okay, thanks. Else from the board? Yes, Member Beachside. I'm sorry. Could you clarify what's happening with the mailbox? Are you reinserting it into the wall, or do you still prefer the freestanding mailbox? We would prefer to put a post-secure mailbox just to the right of the garage door. It's kind of set back from the sidewalk. It would be right in front of the wall, actually, to the left of the pedestrian gate and to the right of the garage. Oh, I see. And then with respect to the pedestrian gate, I know many people are partial to that style of gate, but it really is not in keeping with traditional Santa Fe style. Would you be amenable to another gate, or do you have your heart set on this ornament? I'd have to say that my wife has her heart set on it, but I think we could probably be amenable to making a change if that was the recommendation of the board. Yeah, I'm not aware that there are other gates like that on the street, especially on contributing buildings. They are nice, but yeah, not consistent with that traditional Santa Fe style. It's actually a common misconception that architectural antiquities from that area of the world that are sold here in large quantities are somehow connected with Santa Fe style. Because they're older and they have rusty metal frequently and aged wood and carvings, they are, I think the board agrees, completely inappropriate in the historic districts, even though you can find them because people largely put them up without seeking approval. So you will see them from time to time around town. And unfortunately, a whole street has been taken over by them in one of our most important historic districts, and I would like to see that addressed someday. But at any rate, that's an understandable error, but I would be surprised if the board didn't seek a redesign of the gates. Anything else? Yes, members. I have a point of clarification and then a question for staff. Can you go back to the photograph showing the existing pedestrian gate? So, yeah, just a point of clarification. Member Beachside, because you weren't at the site visit today, that mailbox is no longer there. Okay. Okay. And then my question for staff is the wall, the bricks in front of the wall, there are sidewalk. So, is that city property? And would a mailbox on a post in front of the wall on the sidewalk be, which is what I'm understanding is being proposed, would that be... I know it's, I know what I heard was it was proposed to be post-mounted in front of the wall between the two gates, but it's actually would be through the concrete that's sort of around the garage, so it's set back from the brick. Oh, okay. So it doesn't encroach into the public sidewalk. Okay. And I don't have a question for staff. Okay. Any members of the public wish to be heard on this application? Yes, please. A member from the public wishing to speak. You've already been sworn. Stephanie Benonato. I appreciate the applicant's simple requests to redo these gates and the garage, and then only painting the garage and their willingness to put in some fenestration on the vehicular gate. I actually like, I know those are from Serret and Son, mostly those gates that they're proposing, but I do want to point out to you that on Camino Escandido, in the corner of the dirt part of East Alama, there is such a gate there, and that came in front of the board, and the board approved that gate. So to say that people just put it up without board approval is inaccurate. The board has approved gates like that, and I actually think it's a more handsome gate than the wood gate that exists now on the structure. Thank you. Anybody else on the public? Is there anyone on Zoom? No, Chair. No one has their hand raised. Thank you. There's no further discussion. We'll entertain a motion. Just have one more question. Sure. Senator Cherry. Thanks. So, the garage is being proposed to be painted the brown color that's on the... Which brown color on the swatch? It's Clinton Brown. Let me see if I could pull it up for you. Member, lower one in the image. See swatch similar to what the existing is, correct? In kind. Yeah. Yeah. It'll be in kind with the existing. Should be a darker brown. Okay. Clinton Brown. And which, which, which teal color? There's three, there's three of the teal colors in the swatches as well. It's not identified which one on that. Oh, in your packet. The lightest one. So, it's the top one. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And those will be in kind as well. Gotcha. Okay. In a kind color to the turquoise that's existing. Okay. And then is there any finish on the auto gate being proposed? He is open to fenestration on the vehicular gate. No, any finish. That's just raw wood being proposed. Okay. Thanks. Yes, Member D. Is there a possibility that the gate could have fenestration? Yes. Good. You're willing to do that because that makes it so much more welcoming and open. Yeah. Great. Thank you. Right. Motion. I'll take it. Change. Regarding case number 010506 HDRB at 628 Canyon Road. I think we're on, excuse me, 511 East Palace. Okay, let me try again. Regarding case number 010508 HDRB 511 East Palace Avenue. I recommend, or the board, I'm asking the board to consider approval of the request for treating the gate, the garage gate, and the pedestrian gate as discussed. And if a second wants to elaborate further, I'm open to that. Well, maybe you could just flesh out just a little bit. So, there are three items. There's the small, the pedestrian gate, the vehicular gate, and the garage door. Those three. Let's start with the small pedestrian gate. Move approval of the request for the pedestrian gate. Should I? With on condition that it be a modified design be proposed for staff approval, consistent with New Mexico's traditional style and with fenestration. Said beautifully. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, I'm just trying, actually, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but if you... Well, no. Let me ask you, as discussed, and I think that's as what was as right up there, everyone. Okay. And then the garage, or rather, let's do the vehicular gate the same. Yes. The same for the requirement for the vehicular gate. Should we mention paint color and I think we want to mention vehicular fenestration. Right. Right. Yeah. Same requirements. And then garage door. And the garage door. Move approval of the request for the garage door as discussed. Okay. And the trim on the windows as well, right? Yes. Well, it's, I presume that's part of the motion. Yeah. Is there a second or further discussion? Member Mather seconds. Second. Mr. Chair, would you mind rewording that for me so I can make sure that it's accurate and just repeat what I... Sure, I will try, but you need to tell me if I get it. Okay. Oh, sure. Thank you. So, you're moving to approve the project as submitted on condition that the pedestrian gate be redesigned in New Mexico traditional style, not inconsistent with what currently exists, and with some fenestration to be approved by staff, that the vehicular gate be redesigned in the same manner and approved by, submitted to be approved by staff, and that the garage doors be approved as submitted and also the trim color. Let me know if I... That's still, you still second that motion as restated. Member Mather seconds. Okay. As now discussion before we proceed to... Can I make a friendly amendment? Yes, you may. That the just the fenestrations on the new gate proposed just match the existing gate. That's what was, that's what was discussed that he agreed to. So, sure. Is that friendly amendment accepted by the... Accepted by Member Mather. Yeah. Okay. And Member, not necessarily a friendly amendment, but just for a discussion, it might be nice for the applicant to consider natural aged wood that matches for both the pedestrian and the vehicular gate. Just a, just a point for consideration. Yeah. Right. In terms of material. Thank you. Just something to say, I guess. Do we want to talk about the mailbox, or are we cool about the mailbox? And are you approving the proposed mailbox as part of the motion? Yeah. Application is otherwise approved. I don't see the proposed mailbox. Is that not part of the application? Yes, it does show in your packet the proposed, and then I did bring a picture. I can bring it back up if you'd like. And it's just a standalone mailbox. I guess I just don't see it in the elevation, proposed elevation. It's on, I'll show you. It is the one that shows the garage door, Member Cherry. And you'll see where it says proposed location of mail. Okay. Okay. So, it shows a location, but not, not the box or the pole or... Gotcha. And then this would be it if you could reshow the presentation. So, here is the location of the mailbox on the proposed elevation. It is next to the garage and the wall. And on this last slide here, members of the board, is a proposed what the mailbox would be proposed to look like. You know, just for my own benefit, was that part of the actual application though, or is that something that's just being brought up now that you've... Is that, I don't see that in the staff report. It is in the staff report, but it was not, if you'll see under relocate mailbox. Correct. All right. Yes. Clear. That's included in motion. All right. Roll call vote, please. Member Dagnen. Yes. Member Beach. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Mather. Yes. Chair, the motion has passed. Thank you very much. Good luck. You'll be working with staff on the redesign. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is case 2025010490 HDRO at 815 East Alama Street, Unit 8. This is Senior Planner McCully's case. Try turning that on. Sorry. Okay. So, this is case 202510490 for 815 East Alama Street, Unit 8 for new construction. The property at 815 East Alama is located across from the Santa Fe River Park, which is a passive recreational area with landscaping, picnic tables, and a walking path. The park is restricted to parcel sections from 20 to 100 feet wide, bounded on one side by a 10-foot drop to the riverbed and on the other side by Alama Street. This parkway was developed for the visual enhancement of the nature of the site. Across from the Santa Fe River is the residential sector of Alama Street. The houses range in style, with the most prominent styles being Spanish Pueblo Revival and Territorial. While there are two-story buildings, the majority are still lower single-story buildings with an average height on the streetscape of 12'5". The street is lined with low raw yard walls with an average height of 4'6". The properties have a higher density with a zoning of R21, which allows for up to 21 residences per acre. The yard walls are stuccoed concrete masonry units that are colored to match the corresponding buildings. The 0.89-acre property that houses the Sangria Compound Condominiums is addressed as 815 and 817 East Alama. The property is part of a phased development plan which was amended most recently in 2025. Phase 1 consists of 0.3 acres and is addressed as 815 East Alama, Units 1 through 3. Phase 2 is 0.21 acres, which is addressed as 817 East Alama, Units 4 through 7. Phase 3 is 0.38 acres, which is listed as 815 East Alama, Unit 8. Phases 1 and 2 are complete. This request is for Phase 3 of the development plan, which is currently used for vehicle parking for the compound. The original structure on the lot was 815 East Alama, now known as Units 1A and 1B. It was constructed in 1949 in Territorial Revival style. It's a two-story building. Then the seagull car garage on the property's west corner was converted to a Spanish Pueblo Revival style living space in 1959. That unit was enlarged in 2006 and now includes both units two and three. That structure is designated as non-contributing. The residences at 817, units 4 through 7, were constructed in vernacular style in 1964. They're designated non-contributing, and they were extended to include units 6 and 7 and changed windows and doors in 2006 as approved under case H05-084A and B. The area of the lot designated for 815 East Alameda Unit 8 was previously addressed as 817 East Alameda Unit 8, as it is in case number H05-8084D. This case proposed the construction of the final building, Phase 3, of the development plan. The HDRB approved the residence in March of 2006. However, the structure was not constructed at that time, and the lot remains a gravel parking area. All streetscape and courtyard walls and fences, hardscaping, and exterior lighting were approved under case H05-84E. The yard walls were approved at 3 to 4 feet high, and the rear lot line walls and coyote fences were approved between 5 and 6 feet on May 9th of 2006. Due to the lapse of time since these approvals and changes in design, the applicant is returning to HDRB for approval of Phase 3. The applicant is proposing to construct a 2,204 square foot single-story residence to a height of 14 feet 5 inches, which is the maximum allowable height. The residence is designed in Spanish Pueblo Revival style with 3 to 4 inch bull-nosed corners. Windows and doors will have rounded corners and will consist of wood units with metal cladding in either cream or light green with true divided lights. There will be one interior fireplace with a chimney on the north side of the residence. The residence will have skylights that shall not be publicly visible. The residence will be stuccoed in synthetic stucco from La Habra, colored in either Adobe Vo or Suffolk. Exterior wood will be stained in semi-transparent medium to dark wood stains with clear sealer. In addition, an 882 square foot portal with an exterior fireplace will be located on the south elevation. They want to construct a yard wall to 6 feet high with an 8 foot high gate enclosure where the allowable height is 4 feet 6 inches. An exception is requested to section 14-5.2D9C2C to exceed the maximum allowable height. The fence will house two pedestrian yard walls, will house two pedestrian gates with one on the west and one on the south. The gates will be wood with frames in matte clear sealant or stained in medium to dark brown to match the other wood elements. And they will install exterior lighting in a lantern type wall sconces in dark bronze or black under the portal and simple cube-shaped downlight sconces in black on the exterior of the courtyard walls at each gate. And they're proposing to install a 3-foot high weathered steel planter along the exterior of the yard wall and building wall on the east side of the lot. While this is not along the street, it is publicly visible. Staff will apologize now for the oversight, but we did not catch that the planter was proposed as metal until after the posting of the agenda, so an exception was not requested for a metal planter. These are the color samples. These colors will coordinate with the other buildings in the development. Staff finds that the exception criteria have not been met and recommends denial of the 6-foot high yard wall and gates. Staff also finds that the 3-foot high publicly visible metal planter wall that extends for approximately half of the east elevation does not comply with the material standards under section 14-5.2E to E Downtown and Eastside Historic District standards, as metal cannot simulate the appearance of Adobe construction, and recommends denial of the metal planter. Otherwise, staff recommends approval of the other elements of the application as they comply with 14-5.2D general design standards for all historic districts and 14-5.2E Downtown and Eastside design standards. I stand for questions. Thank you. One of the things that was noted at the site visit was that there were no story poles. This is, I guess, within the allowable height, but the building footprint does extend quite close to the sidewalk, and it's squeezed in between the other buildings that are already on the site. I'm not passing judgment on that at this point. I'm just remarking that it seems it's a little bit difficult to really understand the impact this building would have without seeing the story poles. Want to address that? The applicant was requested to put up the story poles, and we did discuss it at the site visit. We did not have a chance after the field trip to actually discuss whether or not to... Okay, so that would be one of the options. Yes. Okay. For the board to consider. And board members, do you have any questions for staff? Nope. Thank you. Applicant, would you like to step forward and be sworn in? Hello. Can you please raise your right hand, state your name and address for the record? Schmidt, 6 Sendero Artesia. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? Thank you, Chair. He's been sworn in. Thank you and welcome. What would you like to tell the board? Well, first, I apologize for the story poles. I saw that we needed to install story poles when I saw the agenda yesterday morning. Just didn't have a chance to get them up. A couple of comments regarding staff's recommendation of denial of the 6-foot yard wall. Alamita is really a busy street. You may have noticed when you were there at the site visit today, there's cars zooming by pretty fast on that narrow street. It's narrowest right in front of this property. And people come down from the intersection of Alamita and Palace down that little S-curve, and they're zooming pretty good. So there's a lot of traffic, and there's a lot of noise from the traffic. So part of our reasoning for installing a 6-foot high wall was to help mitigate sound and to provide safety from the traffic. As you mentioned just now, the front wall of the house is fairly close to the street, and that was another reason for having the wall 6 feet high was just to help with the sound mitigation. In staff's recommendation to deny that wall height, they mention things like the 6-foot wall does not strengthen the heterogeneous character of the city but weakens it, that it goes against the open feeling that the streetscape has, and that generally speaking, the walls are shorter than 6 feet. Staff was terrific in providing measurements of walls up and down the streetscape, which actually vary from 35 inches to 75 inches on their diagram. So there are walls that are taller than 4 feet 6 inches. Recognize that they're recommending 4 feet 6 inches as an average height. I did a little math when I added in our wall to the mix, to the total mix. It raises the average height of all the walls on the streetscape by a half inch. So the average wall height would go from 54 inches to 54 and a half. That may not mean much, but they did a little math. But we don't believe that the wall in front of this one particular house detracts from the character of the street. There's all kinds of different wall heights, and there's different wall materials up and down the street. And as far as openness is concerned, the compound itself is fairly open with 3 to 4 foot high walls. It currently exists. But the rest of the streetscape is not necessarily that open. A lot of properties have walls that are higher than 3 to 4 feet, and the open feeling that is described in staff's response, I think we disagree with. I think the property owners here, and she's going to have some comments as well. Those are my comments regarding the 6-foot wall. In regards to the steel planter, if an alternative material for the planter such as a coyote fence or stucco is acceptable, go that way. Thank you. Do any board members have any questions for the applicant? All right. In that case, I will open the floor to any members of the public that wish to speak or the applicant themselves. Will you please raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record? Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of traffic along even shall, and so noise, safety, and consideration the layout of the proposed homes and the road. I ask for the consideration. The sidewall stucco would be great if we can make it really safe. Fairly shallow space, and I think that's all reinforced. Thank you. Any board members? I'll just make a short comment on the height issue of the wall. It's very understandable what you're saying. I mean, it is a busy street. There's no doubt about it. The issue, though, is that that's, you know, the code already has a built-in way of addressing heights of walls, and that is to take an average, and that becomes the maximum. And without amending the code, that's the general rule. And it's not so much that permitting a higher height in a specific instance would raise the average. I think the issue is more that it creates a precedent for anyone living on the same road to be able to make the same argument that they should have a higher height as it's a busy road. And it would, in essence, the board would be undoing a rule and an ordinance that the governing body has already addressed and passed. And my view is that that is a governing body issue to make those determinations in the absence of specific facts that apply to a specific property that are sufficient to carry the relatively high burden of being able to justify an exception. And I do think you've mentioned maybe one of them. You think that there's a curve right here. The, I'll leave it up to the rest of the board, but Palace in general has curves, and I think that that argument would apply to a lot of these properties. So just a general comment on the way the ordinance functions. Does anybody on the board have any questions? Thank you very much, though, for your presentation. Members of the public, please step forward. Stephanie Beninato. I'm wondering how close the structure actually is to the street if it's 7 feet back, which is the front yard setback normally required. It also, given the other the heights of the other buildings in the same compound, it doesn't really it's not really harmonious with the rest of the walls in that compound. And I think that 4 feet 6 inches is going to do just as much protection if somebody comes flying around the curve as a 6-foot wall. I don't think the extra foot and a half of height is actually going to protect you. And it is kind of open in that part of Alameda Street, and I would urge the board not to approve the height of the yard wall. Thank you. And I do appreciate that the applicant's willing to make the planter into something like a stucco planter so that it does fit in with the rest of the house and the streetscape while giving them some protection from cars coming into the compound. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else from the public? Yes, ma'am. You may step forward. You've already been sworn. I just would like to make it very clear that a stucco wall, given the footing requirements, we just may not have space. So if it's feasible, I think the coyote fence would be a better avenue given the limited space that we have to build there. Or we're fine just doing nothing and putting a railroad tie for the parking spaces. But I don't want to be held to a stucco wall and then not be able to build it properly or on a parking space. Thank you for the clarification. Is there anyone on Zoom that wishes to speak? No, Chair. Okay, thank you. Board members, do you want to proceed? I mean, one of the things that was raised was question story poles. So, completely discretion of the board, I think at this point, to decide whether or not they have sufficient information without the poles, or whether they wish to postpone or update certain in order to see it with story poles. My opinion is to proceed. The drawing showed the existing structures that gave us a pretty decent idea of the heights. So I don't see that as an issue. Anybody else? Thank you. Just to follow on to that, I do think it might be helpful for the public to see the story poles, especially with respect to it's a very busy street. It's very visible. It's very close to the street. And I guess I would like an answer. I'm not sure how close the closest part of the building is to Alameda. Just another consideration would be the public's perception of how this building gets built. I don't know that it is quite a large change to this currently vacant space. I think that's actually a good point in the sense that it doesn't look like a space that a building would go into. It looks like a parking area for existing buildings. So, I think the public might, it might bring it to their attention that there's a building, a large building going up to fill in that space. But again, it's up to the board's pleasure at this point how they wish to proceed. Yes, certainly. Yes. Director Lamboy. Thank you, Chair Benu and members of the board. I just want to clarify that there has been a development plan that was approved, but this contemplated as a part of development, as part of that development plan originally. And this is within the permitted height. And so, in essence, that is an entitlement. So I just wanted to bring that to your attention that this has been vetted also through the... Well, does that mean that the board has nothing to say about the height at this point? No, Chair, that's not my... No, no, no, I meant that. I meant, I didn't mean, I didn't mean that to sound like I didn't think that was appropriate. It may be completely appropriate. Point of information. No, but it does sort of imply to me that the board would be overstepping its boundaries then if it's already been permitted and approved. And... Well, the height is permitted according to the ordinance and that, well, that's true too, population that was provided by Miss McCauley. So that would be similar to the SEPAC being already pre-established. Yes, a different pre-establishment, but it's pre-established. But it certainly is up to the, let's see, the ability of the board. I'm not coming with the right word, but it is certainly up to the board as to whether they find that they still have jurisdiction over that. Okay. If it helps also, if I may, the front setback from the property line is 10 feet for the house. And the yard wall itself will be right at the sidewalk. Has that helped you guys? Well, I'm going to turn back to the board and see if anyone wants to make a motion. Even postponing it, if that was the pleasure, would require a motion. So, entertaining whatever the board desires to... Yes. Member B. Thank you, Vice Chair. Just a question for staff. Is there a floor plan in the packet? There should be. Yes. We're not seeing it. Anyone else see it? Not in my... It's not in my presentation either. Sorry. Sorry. Is it just to confirm, is it a single-family house? Yes. Okay, thank you. And I guess one other question is this planter proposed to be attached to the house or is that freestanding? I want to make... I see the existing site plan with the dashed line of where the house is. And then I guess I'm just not totally clear on that from the floor plan too, of the planter location and the... I don't think story poles are going to help me. I just am trying to kind of get my head around the plan. The planter is on the east side, which is on the right. You see the cars on this diagram that we're looking on, on the screen, or on the right-hand side of that drawing. You see where the house kind of bumps out there towards the top and then down towards the street. It's very narrow. It's like this wide. So it's in front of the cars. In front of the cars. And it's running, I guess that would be north-south. Yes, north-south. And as Nancy said, part of the reason for it is it's acting sort of as a guard to keep cars from, you know, if they, if they come in too fast and miss the end of the parking space, hopefully they don't crash into... Okay, thanks. And just to clarify on the distance of the front of the house to the street, the front of the house is right at the seven-foot setback. That setback line is about 10 feet, the edge of the sidewalk. Sidewalk's four feet wide. So it, the front of the house is roughly 14 feet, 14 to 15 feet from the dash line at the bottom property line. The heavy, the heavier dash property line. So is the, the wall outside of the property line? No, the, the wall... Oh, the, the yard wall is... Yes, the yard wall is running along the sidewalk. Okay. And that's, that's outside the... Okay. So is that permissible, staff, that that yard wall is outside of the property line? Being venue member cherry. No, that is not permissible. I was just looking at it in point of reference for the trees, just to understand where things are. If you were out on the site visit, there's a smaller tree and then a big, I think it's a cottonwood tree. And it appears that the right of way, those might be in the right of way or right adjacent to the right of way. Yes, the yard wall would not be able to be adjacent to the sidewalk, but has to be built on the property line, on the property side of the property line. On the private property side of the... Okay. So, so then, I guess point of clarification, can we rule on the construction of the house and deny the yard wall in entirety and they can come back with it later or propose differently? Well, or does staff want to address the issue of wall? I mean, should the board even be addressing that if it's impermissible? Chair Beam Venue, Member Cherry, the yard wall as proposed would not be permitted. And it's a good catch. So, you, it can be the pleasure of the board either to go ahead and act on the house but not the yard wall, or if you prefer, can postpone the project to another hearing date. I guess. Okay. Thank you. I would have a question for the applicant. I mean, now realizing this is something that's just out of our scope, it's a zoning issue. You can't put the wall there. If we were to rule on the house, would you still want the house the way the house is, knowing that you can't have the wall there, irregardless of our purview? I don't think it was anybody's intention to put a wall where it's not intended. So, this is news to me. The existing wall is, it would be permitted because it was permitted previously. So if we could work with that parameter, we've been delayed and delayed and so we just would hate to see further delay. I think that I agree, we wouldn't want to build a wall where we're not permitted. That's not the intention at all. Yeah, I, I, I hear you there. I guess my question is, you know, if, if you had expected sort of in your planning to have a certain amount of space between the house and the wall. So if now knowing that the wall can't go there, would there be a, you know, we, we don't want to waste any time approving a house that you're going to redesign because having to push the wall back makes you want to re, a different design on that side of the house. That's all. Can we have an acting chair, Benv? I, I need to make it clear that I don't think it's consistent with procedure to approve part of a project and postpone another part. I don't know how I do findings of fact and conclusions of law for the approved part and a postponement of another part. You know that. So I think that if you didn't approve the wall, they'd have to come back with another project application for the wall. Okay. So, so can I clarify that? But if we approved the house and and disapproved with excluding the wall, they could come back with another application for a different wall. Correct. And then they could, they could begin the permitting and construction process of their structure, which allows them to move forward with some work. That is correct. They would have to submit another application for the wall, but also remember that the board can approve the project with conditions with respect to the wall. So for example, if you said we approve the project on the condition that the wall be limited to a particular height, then that is also an option under the code in a legal location. Yes. Gotcha. Members of the board, I, I think we'd like to proceed with, if, if you're willing to approve the house by itself, that'll be fine. We can come back to the board at a future time with a proposal for the wall. If I'm hearing everything correctly, the wall's not going to be able to exceed 46 and it has to be on the property. And we'll come back with a proposal that looks like that. These drawings show the wall where it is because when this site development plan was done back in 21, 22 years ago, that's where the wall was drawn at that time. We currently have the site development plan into planning concurrently with this process to get approved and they haven't commented yet, but I imagine they would have said the same thing that we can't build the wall on city property. Okay. And for Cherry. Oh, go ahead. Just, I think for me, I think it would be most helpful to have a complete packet that shows the wall in relation to this new building, but also in relation to the existing buildings. This, these buildings are very close together and obviously have a relationship with each other as per your development plan. So, in my opinion, I think it would be better to see the full packet with the adjusted wall shown on the elevations and the floor plan included. I mean, there's a couple things that were illuminated by the floor plan that wasn't in our packet. And so I think I would like to see the whole packet come back. That's, that's just my opinion for such a prominent section of East Alameda. Can I interject? The floor plan was included in our submittal. So, Member Cherry, did you want to make a motion? Yeah. In case 2025 010490 HDRB 815 East Alameda, I would move to approve the house as proposed and deny approval for the, for the wall as proposed and the planter as proposed, or excluding the planter as proposed. And that's it. Is there a second? With seconds. Any further discussion? Call vote, please. Member Mather, yes. Member Cherry, yes. Member Beach, no. Member Tagnet. Yes. Chair, the motion has passed. Thank you. Okay, good luck. Next item on the agenda is case 2025 010510 HDRB 911 Old Santa Fe Trail. You want to do it? Okay. So, actually, before we hear that case, it's 8:00. So, why don't we take a 10-minute break? We'll take a recess. We'll resume in 10 minutes. It's a good idea. I'm almost, you know, open. Work stuff about you saying you sent one of the email. Yeah, I didn't know they were too ugly. Oh, it's a problem. Well, I'm trying to reduce the number. No, I'm just saying you were, you were dealing with viol. But yeah, I mean, they turn into, yeah. So that made a little, no medicine. Let's go. This is your daughter. Either way, it'll be, you would love skip. Himself. She, okay. Amen. Okay, we are back on the record, and we still have a quorum. So, not as I originally indicated, but as I will now indicate, the next item on the agenda is actually H, which is 2025010495 HDRB439 Camino del Monte Sol. And that is Senior Planner Duran's case. Chair, BM Venue, members of the board, the single-family residence at 439 Camino del Monte Sol, Lot 1A, is listed as contributing to the Downtown and Eastside Historic District, and the north facade designated as primary. The main residential structure was built in 1925 on a 0.173-acre parcel and comprises 5,894 square feet of roofed area. The 1991 New Mexico Historic Building Inventory (HBI) survey form records the architectural design style as Spanish Pueblo Revival, as seen by the adobe block and wooden viga construction material, recessed doors and windows, and flat roof with rounded parapets. The structure has undergone several alterations and additions in the 1990s, as noted below. However, the core structure maintains the original inception of design and character to the streetscape and district in which it resides. The proposed garage and breezeway addition will not impact the current status and integrity of the structure. Here is 439 Camino del Monte Sol on the eastern side of the road as you're driving up the roadway or driving south on the roadway. The Chiaroscuro Gallery used to be here, but it is no longer owned by the gallery and is now owned by a private resident. Here on this eastern elevation is where the proposed garage will be constructed, as well as the breezeway. Here is that eastern elevation as you enter into the courtyard. Here is the southern elevation. Here on the southern elevation is where you have entrance into the courtyard. You can oversee the courtyard. And here we have the courtyard. So here is a proposed site plan of the property. Now, this is a beautiful property. What the applicant is proposing to construct is in harmony with the other structures in this compound. The proposed garage and breezeway is approximately 500 square feet, a parking garage, and it'll be in kind to what is previously established on the property. Here is the floor plan, the existing and proposed floor plan, showing that new garage addition on that northern elevation and on that eastern elevation. Here is the existing and proposed north elevation. And as we walked the site visit, the applicant had the story poles that can show the entrance into the garage and the breezeway that connects into the building. Here we have the proposed, the existing and proposed east elevation, showing the two windows, the breezeway, and the entrance into the property. Here we have the existing and proposed south elevation. Here they're proposing to do some minor features of an HVAC unit and some coyote fencing. Here we have the proposed, the existing and proposed west elevation, where no changes will take place. Here we have the garage, which is congruent with what's already at the compound, as well as the exterior finishes. Here is a rendering from the applicant showing the garage addition and the northern primary facade, as well as the breezeway. And here we have the rendering on the east elevation showing the two windows in congruent with the courtyard and the removal of that courtyard. Staff recommends approval of the proposed project and finds that the application complies with Section 14-5.2D, General Design Standards for all Historic Districts, and 14-5.2E, Downtown and Eastside Design Standards. Thank you. Staff stands for questions. Thank you for your presentation. I guess I'm surprised this case, this is a, has the status of contributing and not significant. It seems to be very, very well preserved from its original design and erection. It's Mary Austin's house. It was designed by John Kimmey. Do you have any thoughts on whether or not this designation is appropriate? Terbian Venue, members of the board, the structure and the exterior of the structure is, it's quite significant to the streetscape and to this residential compound. However, the additions throughout time have maybe impacted that significant status, and now the status that it currently holds is correct for where it's at today. But you're right, the property in itself, the windows, the doors, the vigas, the structure, it does have that feel of a significant structure. It does. Well, yeah. I mean, it was built in 1925. It's adobe. It's associated with one of the most important figures in Santa Fe history. It was her home. She basically started the preservation movement in Santa Fe. And at the very time this was being built, one of the earliest residences of John Kimmey, it's, I think the HIC indicated that it hasn't been altered all that much from the exterior. So, I'm just not clear on how we would not designate this as a significant building. Chair, BM Venue, members of the board, it is the purview of the board to make that designation. To do so, though, it would need to be noticed and brought back on another occasion. Right. That would be correct, Chair. Yes. It's the pleasure of the board. The last HICB was done in 1991, and so this preference of the board to have further investigation on the praise, and it's, those are my thoughts. I'd be curious to hear from the rest of the board. I know that the interior has been massively altered, but the exterior really looks quite similar to what was originally constructed. And anyway, any thoughts from other board members on that before we move forward? Oh, member Beachside. Yeah, I mean, 1991 is a long time ago. If it hasn't been altered in that time, it might be time to take another look at that because I do think that the garage being in line with the front of the house, you know, is potentially impactful. Like, it does fall on the same plane, even though technically that, you know, 10 feet away and 10 feet back for the breezeway. But if it is significant, then we would want to rethink that. Yeah, I'm always in favor of getting a new HICP if that's an option. Okay. Any other board members? I think that's probably, '91's a long time ago. It's probably time for a reinvestigation of status. Yes, definite. Would, pardon me, would consideration of elevating its status affect or be affected by approving the garage? I mean, do we have cart and horse here, or? Well, it's attached. If this was a significant building, this structure would be noted as a post because this, that would be a primary facade that the breezeway is attached. Right now it's permitted because it's a primary. Okay. Well, if it is the board's pleasure for, so, should we proceed on this? Do you need a, would it be appropriate for me to ask for a motion at this time just to find out if that's the board's pleasure or not? Chair, the appropriate action in this case is if you feel like you don't have enough information, then you can postpone the case and provide direction to the applicant as the next step. If I may, you said that if this was a significant building, this would not be approved. But the code does allow for exceptions even to significant. Absolutely. So it would not be approved, or it would require an exception. Thank you for the clarification. Yes, of course, it could be approved with, if the exception criteria were met. Yeah. A question for staff that's more general is what's the current guidelines for staff to request status review? Is there a timeline, like 10 years, 20 years? Is there, is there a standard? Members of the board, we usually like the HICP form, we pretty much go with like anything over 2000 current. As long as it has adequate information on HICP, then we will use that. If we do need additional information on the HICP, then we will require a new HICP form. So this one should have had a, that should have been the path would have been to have a status review instead of proposed. There being a new, member cherry. I think in this particular case, the HICP was pretty comprehensive. Okay. And so staff made the determination that a new one was not required. But certainly it's up to the purview of the board to demand more information. So it's a guideline for the 2000 previous before 2000 to require it. It's a guideline dependent on how comprehensive the previous HICP was. Okay, that is correct. But since there was quite a bit of information there, but certainly we take under advisement that the board, the need for additional consideration. I guess I'd like to hear from the applicant on the issue that's being discussed right now just before we proceed. So, if you don't mind being sworn, please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record. Right. Groups 333 Montezuma. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you very much. So, I think in looking at this house that has been a gallery for a long time, if you look at the east elevation, if somebody can move it to the east elevation, you'll see that it was significantly altered over time. The what you see there is not John Kimmey. That's where we're adding the addition. So, to call this significant, I think, is wrong in this particular case. So the gallery has gone through many changes. Well, it was a gallery for a long time. It went through many changes. And what is there is nothing that represents 1925, nor anything that is significant to Santa Fe. Thank you for your comments. How does the board wish to proceed? Can I, Craig, can I ask a question of Craig? Those, the doors and the windows that are on that area where the breezeway are going to be, do you know the era of those, the era of those, when, when those were, were those original to the building or were they? I believe the windows that are to the left of the breezeway and to the right of the breezeway are original. Yes. The door that goes in to the house from the breezeway, I do not think it's original to the building. Okay. But we're preserving those windows and doors. Thanks. Board wish to proceed, or does someone want to make a motion? If there's no motion to postpone, then we'll just go forward. I think we'll go forward. So, why don't you let us know what you have to tell us about the project? Well, it is a, it meets the requirements for adding on to primary facades by keeping the, by going back 10 feet from the primary facade and then coming across 10 feet. So that the garage does not come out in front of the primary facade in any way. It is a Pueblo style garage. The new windows are going in, and they are true, excuse me, they are simulated divided light, and match the windows within the existing house. The garage itself is down 6 inches from the parapets of the closest part of the house to the garage, and the breezeway is below that by another 9 inches. So, all of this is in conformance with the historic guidelines for a property such as this. Again, we are adding on to a facade where it is not, it has been severely altered over time. And so I do not see how this would do any harm to the existing residence. Thank you. Yeah, I mean, it's nice that you've tried to do something that's harmonious with the house for sure. I guess I'm a little bit troubled by the fact that when I look at this drawing in particular, it just gives to me the appearance that this was always the design of the house. You have this very beautiful long facade on that north elevation, and then a somewhat setback breezeway, and then the garage that's flush with the house itself and same height essentially. And to me, it just gives off the appearance that this was all part of the original design, which is always a little bit concerning because you want to differentiate what the original building was from the new. So that's one concern I would have. I wonder if that could be addressed. And then the window, the window looks a little out of place to me on the garage, only because it clearly could only be inserted in that spot if it was a framed structure, right? So it makes it really clear that that's not an adobe. We actually thickened that front wall so that that wall is a foot deep and not just a framed foot in order to duplicate the feeling of the true adobe. That's great that it's recessed, but the problem is, you know, we have that three-foot rule that from the corner, just to... I'm willing to get rid of that window. Well, it's funny because it's sort of like it's nice to have a window. I understand why you're doing it. It's a couple windows on the south facade. So we do have light coming into the garage. Yeah. So my comment in listening to you, Vice Chair Benu, is I think interesting because that sort of separates it from its true historic nature because you can, like what you just observed, that it shows that it's framed. But I was also going to ask, does the three-foot rule apply to this structure and was there an exception request for that? Is it publicly visible? Would be the answer to that, I guess, because that's what the three-foot rule applies. Well, it does not comply with the three-foot rule. So, no, it doesn't. It clearly doesn't. Saying it'd be nice to get, but the three-foot rule applies when it's publicly visible is what I was, the point I was making. It probably is from through the gate, but that would be an issue. But it shows that it's new, right? But that's not the way you want to show it because the other requirement is that it should appear to be made of adobe. So you're kind of solving one problem and creating another. Gotcha. But I appreciate the willingness to work with the board. Any other comments for the applicant from the board? Yes, Member Beach. Right. I just wonder if there was any consideration of a detached garage because breezeway implies something that I would consider less substantial than this. This is really an addition to the house. It's all connected. Correct. I just wondered if there was a reason why a detached garage that didn't touch the house might have... We looked at that at the very beginning of the design process, and on that east facade of the existing house, there are two doors right there where we're, that are coming out to the, where the, this is the only place the garage can be that's close to the house. And there are two doors coming out there. It just seems natural to connect the garage to the house with a breezeway. I think some of the previous cases, I don't know if it's the same owners or not, but there was a proposal for a detached garage. Would it have been in the same location or do you know anything about those cases? We didn't have a proposal for, there's not a garage on the property currently. No, there's not. Thank you. Is this going to require that, must be an apricot tree to be taken? I'm sorry. Is this going to require the apricot tree to be taken down? That's in the... The apricot tree, yes, will need to come down. Okay. And you know you have to have approval for that, right? Not from us. Anything else? No. Anyone from the public wishing to speak on this application? No. Anyone on Zoom? Yes, Chair. Stephanie Benonato has a comment to make. She's previously been sworn. I believe, Stephanie, you may unmute. Yeah. Can you hear me? Yes. Yes. Okay, great. I agree with Member Bshide that the breezeway should look more like a breezeway than something that's an enclosed room. And I really do think it would be better if the garage was actually separate. I wonder if the doors could be put to, I'm sorry, I've forgotten which direction. That's north, right? To the east, as it would be east. I mean, so that the door, the garage doors themselves are not visible, that you have to go around on the side to enter the garage with a vehicle. To me, that would be the ideal so that what it is, is a garage, is not obvious as you look at it. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else on Zoom? May I comment on that? Sure. That would be physically impossible to put a door on the side of the garage and be able to drive in. Thank you. Anyone else on Zoom? Thank you. If there's no further discussion, I have a question. Yeah, please. Member Cherry Craig, can you help me? The, the, I believe it's the south wall of the breezeway. Yeah. How does that, how does that interact with that window there? You're preserving the window. Correct. Correct. In the, in the smaller courtyard that's being created by the design. If you, let me go to the pictures and, and the reason I'm asking is because in the plan view, let me see which sheet that's on. So that mullion in between the door and the window is very thick. And so we can have a wall butt into that and there is a gate into the garden so that that exists now and so accessing that smaller courtyard is not a problem. And the windows. Is there an elevation of that facade that, the south facade of that, or is it, it mimics the, it mimics the north facade? The south facade of the breezeway. So, so the south facade of the breezeway, there is a small courtyard there between that and the wall, but there is a gate in the wall so that it... Right. I guess I'm asking, does the window in the breezeway you're proposing, does it look, it mimics the window in... Yes, from the north side, yes, it does. Okay, thanks. I'm sorry, I didn't understand the question. Sorry. Yes. Member Beach. Thank you. Just a question for staff. On the proposed location of the breezeway, those walls are, I think, within three feet of the door on the right side of this photograph and then the window on the other. Is that, is that a problem? Is that, can you just interpret that requirement for us, please? Typically, that is required on all publicly visible sides. Unfortunately, I was not at the site, so I can't tell you whether this is publicly visible or not. Perhaps the applicant can speak to that. Is the, is the front of the breezeway publicly visible? No. No. Is the front of the house publicly visible? The house is actually perpendicular to the road. So the front facade is perpendicular to the road. This is set back from the front facade. So there's no way anybody can see that from the, from Camino to Monte Sol. Yeah, I guess my thoughts are, I mean, this, you know, seems allowable for a contributing building. I think that it does kind of convert this beautiful house into a more modern house with an attached garage. And I think it, you know, it's not, you know, as it was designed. I think I would be perfectly fine with a detached garage. It's the breezeway, that connection that I think alters the function of the house, you know, to something more modern. I think if you go back and research John Gaw Meem's designs, there are many houses he had that had attached garages to the houses. So this is not in conflict with what he did in other situations. I think another observation I would make is it's somewhat similar to the causeway at the Drury that we just talked about a couple of hearings ago, where there's the one structure that's being connected by the other structure that was designed by John Gaw Meem and then removed, and we just approved replacing it with a design similar to the original design that was designed by John Gaw Meem. So it's just a comment. I find it similar in some capacity to that. Sorry. And then just the turquoise. I don't know if it's just the rendering, but is the turquoise, is there a turquoise painted fascia above the breezeway? Yes, there is. Yes. It does that match the window color? You can make that a PBLO style if you wish. Whatever. Yeah. I don't know what the other board members think about that, but that kind of enhances the issue that I see with the design. How so? I think what's important about what we're doing here is it's done in such a way that at some point in time if somebody wanted to remove the garage and the breezeway, all the historic fabric is left in place. So that there is nothing that, if anybody wanted to take it back to its original form, they could do that without any damage to the building. And I think that's a very important aspect. All right, board members. I'll make a motion. In case 2025-010495-HDRB, 439 Camino Monte Sol, I would move to approve the application as proposed. Is there a second? Motion dies for lack of second. Any other motions? Make another motion. Sure. Okay. In case 2025-010495-HDRB, 439 Camino Monte Sol, I would move to approve as proposed with the removal of the window on the north face of the garage adjacent to the garage door. Is there a second? Sorry, for lack of second. Okay. Member Beach. I think the motion I want to make is probably not acceptable to the applicant. So, which would be a detached garage. So, I just maybe want to ask the applicant what your opinion is that, because I think the lightest touch, you know, obviously you make a good point that you could remove this, but obviously the lightest touch would be not to touch that, you know, historic facade at all and just have a detached garage. I mean, the reason I'm hesitant is that I do sort of think we probably need another HICAP because I just don't want to make a mistake with a house that has the potential to be significant with an association with a well-known architect and, you know, the people who have lived here and designed it. I just, you know, I don't want to overstep and still make that motion if you want. Yeah. Demotion period. Okay. If you want, I'm not saying what you, I guess since I asked the question, like, what do you, what do you think about the detached garage? What do I think about it or your client? Well, I, I, I know looking at the whole, the compound as a whole, all the other houses have garages. This is the only house that does not. So from that standpoint, it's being consistent within the compound by having an attached garage. So, do I like the attached garage? If I were the homeowner, I would, I would want an attached garage. Certainly more convenient. I think just because I'm hesitant about, I mean, I think the design is fine. But I just want to be sure we're doing the right thing by this property. So, I'm going to make a motion that we postpone the case in favor of obtaining a new historical cultural inventory report for this building so that we can review the status before reviewing the design that's proposed. Second. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion on this motion? Roll call vote, please. Member Dagman. Yes. Member Beachite. Yes. Member Cherry. No. Member Mather. Yes. The motion has passed. Chair. You. So we'll see you again. Well, I, I will say this. I disagree with you asking for that. At this point in time, we have, I don't care. I'm going to comment. This was approved by staff and to come back and say we now have to go back and have another historic review of the property, I think it's, it's not correct. Thank you. Okay, next case on the agenda is 2025-010510-HDRB at 911 Old Santa Fe Trail, and this is Senior Planner Romero's case. Thank you, Member Benu, and members of the board. You could just give me a minute. We're having technical difficulties. This is 2025 010510 HDRB at 911 Old Santa Fe Trail. This is currently an existing vacant lot. The proposed site plan, you'll see before you, there is a residential structure and garage. It will be designed in New Santa Fe style, and the maximum height is 15 feet 6 inches. The south elevation has divided light windows. The roof will have five skylights, and those will not be publicly visible. The stucco color will be in buckskin. The canales will be metal cladding and natural wood. These are what the garage doors will look like. To clarify, the windows on the garage doors will be clear. That is not black, clear. Also, on our field trip today, the question was asked if this was in the archaeological district, and it is. So, they would need to comply to get an archaeological clearance from the ARC. Also, there was a red tag on the property today, and that was done by our terrain management team in regards to the trees. The applicant is working with the terrain management to get that red tag violation corrected. I stand for questions. Thank you. Chair: Do any members of the board have questions for the planner Romero? Member Beach. Member Beach: Thank you. So, sorry, Amanda, if I didn't hear you correctly, but the applicant's letter seems to indicate that all windows are vinyl and that they have snap-in grids to replicate divided light. Is that correct? Planner: Just a moment, Member Bishide and members of the board. It does have divided light windows, and yes, that is correct. They are not true divided light. Member Beach: Yes, I'm just reading the letter. It says there'll be vinyl windows with a taupe-colored frame. And it says the street-facing windows will have a cross-bridge pattern insert to meet the Santa Fe standards. And then it looks like some of the windows that aren't publicly visible do not have the insert, or they're just not divided. Planner: That is correct on the east elevation. Member Beach: Okay. So, is this allowed? I don't think we ever approved vinyl windows and especially object to the insert that can be removed and also the inconsistency in the windows on a property, like both having both undivided and divided light. Planner: I did talk to the applicant, and they are willing to change the window type. Member Beach: Okay, thank you. Chair: Thank you. Any other questions from the board? Thank you. May the applicant come to the podium and be sworn in? Clerk: Hi. Will you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record. Applicant: Yes. Francisco Morrison, 9425 Woodland Avenue Northeast in Albuquerque. Clerk: Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? Applicant: I do. Clerk: Thank you, Chair. He's been sworn in. Chair: Thank you very much. Welcome. What can you tell us? Applicant: All right. So, we are Twilight Homes, and we're working with Mr. Cordova to build a new residence. As stated, we are willing to change the window style so that it meets more of the recommendations of the board. Yeah, and really not much more to say over that. Chair: Okay. Do any members of the board have questions for the applicant? Member Cherry? Member Cherry: Yeah. What's the construction of the proposed garage door? Applicant: So, that would be a—I'd have to clarify that one. It is a metal door with a wood grain finish to it. And then the windows would be a clear window above. Member Cherry: So, it's got an applied image of wood onto a metal door. It's not a solid wood door, is what you're proposing. Applicant: Yes. Chair: Any other questions? No. Does any member of the public wish to speak on this application? Any members on Zoom or any members of the public on Zoom, please proceed. Public Commenter: I had my hand up. Chair: Yes. Okay, we can hear you. Public Commenter: Sorry, I didn't know I was being recognized. No problem. I appreciate that the windows will be, I guess, simulated divided lights, not vinyl. I wonder about the longer windows. They're almost full windows. I don't know what side they are on, maybe the south side. Are they also going to be divided lights? And then with the garage, I wonder if the garage is publicly visible because it really kind of takes over, it seems to me, that facade. And again, if it's, and even in New Santa Fe style, I don't know that that's really appropriate. I do appreciate the fact that they are looking like wood even though they're not wood and that they do have lights in them. Thank you. Chair: Thank you. Any other members of the public on Zoom? All right. Board members, any further discussion? Yes. Member Dagnet. Member Dagnet: Question, please, Mr. Chairman. Have we approved metal garage doors before? Staff: Staff can answer that question. I don't recall. I've seen them outside the district. Member Dagnet: Serious question. Staff: Oh, no. Yeah, I see them outside the districts. I don't know if I've seen them approved. I don't believe I've ever been involved in an approval of one, to my knowledge, especially in the downtown and east side historic district. There may have been something in the west side. Member Dagnet: Maybe I could ask the applicant's representative, is there a reason they want to have a metal door? They have one already or what? And you're building a new home, correct? Applicant: No, it's a style similar to what we do in our other areas that we build. So, that was what we proposed, but we're more than willing to direct. Member Dagnet: Okay, good. That's good. Thank you. Appreciate your cooperation. You're being very helpful to the board. Thank you for that. Chair: How about a motion from the board? Anybody? Yes, Member Dagnet. Member Dagnet: Okay. Chair: Member Cherry. Member Cherry: Oh, sure. I can make a motion. I'm not ready to make a motion yet. Chair: Member Dagnet, go ahead and make your motion perhaps. Member Dagnet: Sorry, this is a partial motion. I don't want it to be a partial motion. I think we need to understand the whole picture. We already—you've been very good about the windows. Pardon me. I'm sorry. And I would just like to say that if the applicant is willing to put in a wooden garage door, I would like to make a motion to that effect. But we also have other moving parts here. Amanda, can you help me out here? Planner: Yes, Member Dagnet. So, you are questioning the windows, the type of window, correct? Member Dagnet: Well, I was thinking about the material. They indicated a willingness to have the correct historic echo material, true divided light windows. And for the garage door to be a wood garage door, maybe the mechanisms possibly used of other material, but so then the motion should include working with the staff on that. So, we'll know working with other material means, right? Planner: Yes, Member Dagnet. So, thank you. So, a motion would be to approve the request with the understanding that the windows would be of the material we discussed and not what you had proposed. And then also the same with the garage and working with the staff to iron out the details. Chair: So, for clarification, I think you're suggesting that the application be approved on condition that the windows be true divided light, not vinyl clad, that they be consistent throughout the entire—on all elevations of the house. Member Dagnet: So, that would be ideal. I mean, that's what I understood. We're not going to have different windows, are we? And I mean, again, you can stop me at any—you can change any of this. Just trying to recapitulate what the discussion was. And I heard something different earlier, which was simulated divided light because we're talking about three different things with the windows: true divided light, simulated divided light, or some kind of an applied— Planner: Yeah, I think what—yeah, we're talking about simulated divided lights with spacers probably and not snap-in buttons. Correct. Member Dagnet: That's what I understood. Yes. And and would understand as what is approved on new construction in the district. Right. And so that would be the condition. And then the wooden door, wooden garage doors, correct? Chair: Can you repeat that? I can try to repeat that for you, but I don't think I have it all because there's a lot of detail in there. So, make a general. Member Dagnet: Yeah. Just to work with the staff to reflect the comments made regarding the windows with divided lights. No plastic mountains, popped-in two divided lights, and then a garage door of wood. And I guess we have to get to color and all that. I'm stopping my motion there, welcoming an amendment to it. Planner: Just to clarify because I think I sent you in the wrong way. Not true divided lights, but simulated divided lights with spacers. Chair: All right. Do I have a second? Neither will second. Okay. Further discussion. Member Cherry: I'd make a friendly amendment. Member Cherry, I'd make a friendly amendment that the light pattern on the doors not have the curve that's on the proposed door. It's just a—it's a—that's not a— Chair: The garage you're talking about? Member Cherry: Yeah. On the garage door. Yeah. It's not—it's not an—and I'm trying very hard here to be specific so you can have some clear direction on how to move forward, but that style, the ellipse, the style with the ellipse above is not something that's congruent in the district, that's normal in the district. So, I would say that there should be some lights on these solid wood doors, but not with the ellipse on the upper section of the window that is proposed. It should just be a square divided light pattern or rectangular divided lights with no curve. Chair: Bit of curve. Yeah. Accepted as friendly. Yes. Thank you. Member Beachside: I would like to suggest another friendly amendment that the window color, rather than taupe, be white or another color. I think the taupe looks like a manufactured vinyl window. I don't think that's a very common, commonly chosen color in this district. So, I think maybe white is always safe, or another color approved by staff, but not—I'm not sure if I need to. Yeah, maybe maybe just white or another color approved by staff that's not taupe that's acceptable to the applicant. Applicant: Yeah, we're willing to work with the review board and not to get an acceptable color. Do we have to be tied to white at this moment though? Member Beachside: No, no. I think I tried to phrase that as white is always good, but another color that's acceptable per staff that's in keeping with other houses in the streetscape, but not taupe. Applicant: But not taupe. Okay. Chair: So, that has been accepted by the applicant. And do you accept that as a friendly amendment? Member Dagnet: I do. Thank you. Chair: All right. Anything else? Roll call, please. Clerk: Member Mather. Member Mather: Yes. Clerk: Member Cherry. Member Cherry: Yes. Clerk: Member Beach. Member Beach: Yes. Clerk: Member Dagnet. Member Dagnet: Yes. Clerk: The motion has passed. Chair. Chair: Thank you. Thank you, members of the board, and thank you very much, applicant. Yes, Amanda. Planner: Member Benu, I have a question for clarification about your motion on the north elevation. The windows are under the portal. Did you want those divided light as well? Because they are not, and they're under a portal, and they're not required to be. So, I just want to make sure all elevations are requiring that. Member Dagnet: I think the motion was to have consistency of divided lights throughout the house. Thank you. I'll leave it up to— Planner: Thank you. That would be included. Thank you. Chair: Thank you. Yes, sir. Member Benu: Chair Ben, for any clarification, simulated divided lights were acceptable, right? So, we—this is just a terminology issue. I think we've all come to a consensus that when we say simulated divided lights, we mean lights that are individual panes of glass with an actual wooden structure separating those panes of glass. That's—oh, no. Take that back. That's not correct. That's a true divided light. What we're talking about is a wooden lattice structure on each that's actually part of the frame and that separates the glass visually as opposed to snap-in separation dividers. Okay. And that there be spacers in between those wooden pieces to give the appearance that they are individual panes. So that is simulated divided lights with spacers. Or with actual wood muntins. Is that right? Yeah, I mean, we need to get, we need something in writing proof so we don't have to have this discussion every time we talk about devices. So, actual, because every manufacturer just describes these differently, right? So we just need an agreed upon consensus as they, the simulated divided light has a very specific description in the window world. It's what you did describe. It's got muntin bars on both sides of the window. It'd be wood on the inside. The exterior would be wood or clad. It would both still be simulated divided light. And then it would be one sheet of glass, but there would be a spacer bar assembly between the two sheets of insulated glass. So that's what I was trying to describe as well, as opposed to one picture window sheet of glass with an applied lattice on one side. This isn't also to say that you can't have true divided lights. Okay. Acceptable. We should have said that in the motion. It can't, but we are approving a simulated divided light, was my understanding. But my point is that I think it would be better to frame these motions as one or the other at the applicant's discretion, because you don't want to preclude them from doing true divided lights. Okay. Well, I can word it as if this accurately recites the motion, with either true divided light windows or simulated divided light windows that is simulated with actual wood muntins on both sides of the window, not pop-in muntins. Yeah, I don't think there, I guess a pop-in. Okay. I think that works. I think you should, I think it'd be good to clarify that aluminum clad on the exterior would be acceptable or would not be acceptable. Okay. Okay, I can do that. All right. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you, applicant. Let's move on to case that was postponed under new business, A 20205010494 HDRB 206 McKenzie Street. Go ahead then and let Senior Planner Duran again give the presentation. Please proceed. Chair Bienvenu, members of the board, members of the public, just to recapitulate what we discussed for this project at 206 McKenzie Street. This is a contributing structure with the northeast, south portion of the south, and portion of the west facades as primary. The applicant is proposing from left to right a new steel carport, which he requested an exception, a removal of all doors and windows to replace in kind, which they requested an exception. And then on the north facade, the addition to a primary facade of raising the parapet 3 feet 3 inches, which they requested an exception, and general work including restucco and painting the wood trim and so forth. So, as we move forward with this application on the north, on the existing and proposed north facade, here we see the raising of this architectural design style of this kind of mission-esque style. And so now what was there previously was a low-hanging sloped shape, but now they're raising that design 3 feet 3 inches, which the elaboration of this architectural design detracts from what was previously established. And with that, staff is not recommending approval of this exception request. On the proposed existing east elevation, the removal of the windows and doors and replacing in kind. Staff does recommend approval. On the south elevation, staff does recommend approval of the replacement of the doors and windows. And on the inside the courtyard, staff does recommend approval of the steel carport, which is here, and the solar panel, the proposed solar panels, and the raising of the courtyard walls that are in line with the BDC zoning. We, staff did provide the historic architect's assessment, and I do, staff does understand that this project is, there's a lot of moving parts and believes that the applicant could better address your questions or concerns than staff, given that they have been on site and understand the processes that have taken place on site better than staff throughout the last six years. However, with saying that, staff recommends approval of the proposed project and finds that the application complies with Section 14-5.2D, general design standards for all historic districts, and 14-5.2E, downtown and eastside design standards. And the exception criteria have been met for all exception requests, except for the request for the addition and increase in height to the primary north elevation facade. The applicant should find other design options for the addition, including lowering the parapet to be subservient to the adjacent historic parapet. Thank you, and staff stands for questions if there's any further questions. Thank you. Questions for staff on this application before we proceed to the applicant? Yes, Member Beach. Sorry, just for clarification, Paul. So the request is for replacement of all doors and windows, and you agree with that. Is that right? Chair Bienvenu, Member Bishai, that is correct. And staff's interpretation of this is walking the site with the applicant and the contractor and reviewing the historic architect's assessment. The congruency of the windows will provide the stability, the integrity, and preservation of that structure, given that many of these doors and windows are boarded up or in disrepair, and the structure in its entirety needs a lot of care. And this may be the best way moving forward for this structure. And I know as we look at this south facade, it's intense. There's a lot of windows, a lot of doorways, and it is somewhat of a blanket recommendation or the exception criteria. It is, it is given the scope of work on this property and staff. If this is the best preservation of this structure, then maybe this is the best way moving forward. Staff came to that conclusion. So even, even though they're on the primary facade and historic and repairable, you're recommending replacement or you're, you're, we give for the request, the exception request that the applicant requested for the removal, staff is recommending approval of the, or that they meet the criteria. And when you say some windows are missing, are they like actually lost or are they, or did the, did the window assessment include all windows or did some go missing after this assessment? Chair Bienvenu, Member Bishai, great question. And here on the east elevation facing the streetscape, there's missing, they're missing windows. It's just boarded up. And some other windows on the north elevation here, those windows are missing. They're boarded up. So there's windows on this structure on the primary facades that the windows are just gone. Does the assessment address what was there or just skip those windows? Chair Bienvenu, Member Bishai, I believe the assessment does address these windows. However, there are some windows that may have now been boarded up that weren't previously boarded up, given this assessment was done in, I believe, in January of 2025. And some of the windows may now be boarded up that weren't previously. But the applicant can speak more to that than I can. I don't know if now's the moment to bring, Member. Thank you. I don't know about y'all, but I feel very overwhelmed by the amount of information. And I wonder if it wouldn't be smart to, because this is such a big project, to have like an informational session about the plan, not at 9:15 at night, but, you know, maybe have a whole meeting about this. This is a big deal. We all know that about this building. And I'd like to give it the attention it deserves. I don't know if you all feel the same, but the board members. Yeah, I just have some questions for all and probably the applicant. And just some comments in general. I guess I would start with comments is it's, you go ahead. I just, is, did anyone want to respond to Member Mather's concept of a, either converting, I was not sure if that was converting this to an informational session or having a subsequent or, I think we should have a subsequent one. I mean, I, I personally, I just think that I feel like I'm not going to be able to give it the attention it deserves here. I would, I would, I would say, I, I was responding to that, but I wanted to give some context because I think context. I think if, if part of what I have questions about is lack of information that I can make decisions on. So I think it's relevant to to a possible postponement for more information. But I know it's a multi-story structure. So what I, what I see in the proposal is a, is an existing and a proposed site plan. And we're talking about a very important building that's got lots of historic material, and we don't have elevations that tie, that tie to a window assessment. We got the window assessment, as everyone saw, just, just recently, but I can't make a correlation between what's on the window assessment, certainly not right here right now with while we were working on other cases. So I'm, I'm in agreement with you on that. But however, if we are going to request more information, I just want to be specific with the applicant so they know what we need to make decisions so that they can get it to us and we can get them a decision as soon as possible. But there aren't any elevations showing the proposed and existing window changes. I know there are details of the windows, but there aren't elevations. I, I did notice it's a multi-story structure and there's only one floor plan. There's no floor plan of the different levels. So it's hard to tell on the floor plan which windows are which if they're windows stacked over windows. And with no elevations, it's really hard to tell that as well. So I think it is a lot of information, but there's also a lack of information in my viewpoint. Yeah, I just feel like I can't make heads or tails out of it at this point. I'd like to focus on it because it's such an important building, as we all know. Member Beach and Member DNA, do you have any thoughts on that proposal? I would agree with Member Mather that we should give it all the care and thought that it deserves, and it's a lot of information and we don't have the basics right now. So I would agree with that idea of postponing the proposal until we can analyze it and have the information we need. Yeah, I agree with that. I don't know if the applicants are prepared to like walk us through this. That, that might be the other option is if they can, you know, just really break it down for us and connect the dots, that would be helpful. Okay. Yeah, I think that at the very, regardless of whether this gets postponed ultimately, I do think since the applicants are here, it would make sense to hear from them and have them give all to sort of lay, lay out the information that that you're looking for, and then they would also know what more information they need to provide. So I think we should go ahead with hearing from the applicant with the understanding that you're already suggesting to them and to staff that this may need to be postponed and not ultimately decided on tonight. Does that, does that sound fair? Yeah. And I want them to be able to say what they need to say, too. Of course. Yeah. Anybody from staff need to comment on that proposed procedure or directors? No. Okay. So why don't we go ahead then and turn it over to the applicants to go ahead and make a presentation. I would focus on sort of the big picture of what you're proposing. And by the way, you did provide a lot of helpful information. So don't take away from this that what you just heard was useless. I mean, you did a really good job of a lot of summarizing of this complicated history. So that's why I think it's helpful for you to hear from the board as to what specific additional information they'd like to get. And of course, it'd be useful to focus on the three exceptions that are being requested as well. So with that, please swear in the applicant. Please raise your right hand, state your name and address for the record. Braden Furry, PO Box 238, Santa Fe. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth? And do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you, Chair. He's been sworn in. Thank you. So, please go ahead and tell us what you can. I can address the comment on the elevations. If you look up now, obviously there's going to be four of these sheets for each facade of the building. What you're actually seeing is on the top is the existing, and on the bottom is what we're proposing. The windows for the most part look the same because we are trying to replace them in kind. So they look exactly as they do now. As far as the comment that they don't refer back to the assessment, the window tags on the lower one have the same designations as each window and door does in the assessment. So, those were added so they could be correlated back and forth. And I do realize there's a lot of them. But as far as just the doors and windows, only probably half of them—I don't have the exact number—are actually still historic. Over the years, there's been many renovations, a lot of work done on the building, and the windows that had been there from when it was built or soon after have been replaced, damaged. A little bit of history on the building: it was bought by the current owners in 2019, where they immediately set out on a renovation project with a previous contractor and a previous architect. As of 2021, they were no longer part of the project, and I was brought on as the designer. A new contractor was subsequently brought on. And so through the last four years of working on this project, we have uncovered a lot of shoddy workmanship, a lot of items that were against code, a lot of items that a permit was never pulled for. So over those last four years, we have basically started with the permit process to begin with to make sure we had all of that in place, and over the last several years have been actually taking the building back to where it was at that time in 2019 to fix the problems that had been inherent in the building and also what the previous contractor did to the building. So that's why this has been a long process for the building in general. So as part of a lot of that assessment over the years, we've been uncovering items like the doors and windows. Because the ones that are still there and historic, they're actually set right into the adobe or the pentile wall. And where they're failing is through that framework, which is actually the buck in the wall, which is the piece that you would normally attach a window to in the wall. That is the window. So to repair a historic window, we would have to remove it, which then would subsequently damage the existing structure around it. So that's why we wanted to go with all new doors and windows that look exactly like they are now, but stop the degradation of the building from infiltration of moisture and such. The other exception with the carport: the applicants would like to add as much solar to this project as they can. They are trying to be very green, sustainable, and environmentally conscious. There were assessments done for solar on the existing roofs of the building. The problem is those roofs are greatly separated from each other; they don't have adequate square footage for each. So the only answer that made a significant impact was to build a new structure in the auto court that would be a structure for the solar panels, but also subsequently as a bonus would provide shade and shelter for the users of the building for parking. But along with that, because the auto court is so small, doing a quote-unquote standard carport with wood beams, posts on the corners, and interstitially would basically render the auto court unusable for cars. There wouldn't be enough maneuverability for the cars to get into the spots or the minimum number of spots that we need for this building. So that's why the steel structure came in, because that has the material that can support itself in this situation, support the solar, protect the cars, and keep it maneuverable. A couple of other issues on this: there were installed rooftop units on the building. Apparently those did not get approved. So that's why they are on this list. There was an administrative approval for a screen wall to hide them, which we are keeping in the design. But we were told that when the mechanical contractors went to get their permit, that had not been approved by Historic. So that's why this is on this list. Also on the north facade on Mackenzie Street, there is a pedestrian gate. Right now, it's got an existing steel framework that we're keeping that's been there for, I don't know when it was put in, but it's been there for decades. Unfortunately, somebody has taken out the original gate and replaced it with just livestock fencing, square fencing, wire mesh. So, in the elevation, you'll see the design of the new gate actually matches gates that were found on the property before. So that's why we needed to come to the board just for a new gate approval, which is why that's on there. The stucco: through the previous contractor, the stucco started to delaminate from the building, so it was already falling off, so we removed it. We're wanting to go back with new stucco that's exactly like what was pre-approved in a board meeting a couple of years ago. So that's just to confirm that we're going to go back with like-for-like on that. And then the last is—make sure it's the last—yeah, the last is the parapet extension. In a previous board meeting, the design that is seen, it's kind of grayed out, but on the top one was actually a design that the board had approved previously. What we're just wanting to do is take that same design and extend it up three feet because behind that we would like to put in a set of skylights. Because back when the building, in the early 1900s, the portion of the building behind that was actually an alleyway and open to the outside. In about the 1940s, it was enclosed and became interior space. So we would like to go back in and recreate that as best we can while keeping it an interior space. Because after the building had been renovated to include it as interior, we can't go back now because the interior finishes won't support it. That wall was actually—we are just replacing a wall that was there that got completely destroyed over the last construction process. So we are rebuilding it in the adobe and along with all the repairs to the building. We're actually doing it in traditional adobe style that goes along with the building. So we're for this one, we just want to raise it from what was previously approved and to hide the skylight behind. That was kind of a lot of information at once, but that's kind of the general overview of the six items that we're discussing. I feel like I know a lot more now than I did before. So, thank you for letting us know. I appreciate it. I apologize for not seeing this completely. It's there's a lot of info and getting all this right while we're paying attention to other cases is challenging. So, I've looked at it for months and it's still—yeah. But it's good to hear your description of it all. I'm curious, the structure that's there now with the, like, above what is the wall you're proposing to raise. What is that where the beams are? We were there today just looking at this. There's the steel structure. No, the beams. The wood beams that are on this elevation here. I believe it's on that elevation. Yeah, there's some wood beams that there's tarps over it. Oh, that's temporary. Okay. Just temporary roofing to protect the building while it's under— Okay. The bigger wooden beams are a temporary roof structure that's just protecting. Gotcha. Okay. Yeah. It's just hard to get your head around an existing and a proposed when then you go to the site and the existing has apparatus all over it that you can't really see what's existing and what's being worked on. And so it's just a lot to get, I think as Mather brought up before, it's a lot to get your head around in three or four days. Oh, absolutely. Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record. Pamela Coer, 1102 Press Road. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? Thank you, Chair. She's been sworn in. Great. Please go ahead. Thank you for hearing me out. I wanted you guys to know that we love this building. We see ourselves as stewards of the building. Our first go with the construction broke our hearts. We bought a building that was deteriorating, and it needed a lot. Unfortunately, under our watch, it didn't get that, but now it is. And so I really want to assure you guys that our vision is 100% restoration. So, the lens that we have for the restoration starts at about 1850 and goes to about 1945. And I can tell you who did what on the building and why, what part was built. Three women were really instrumental. I can tell you exactly what they all did. They were so important to this community. We want to honor them. We are restoring what the instruction to the contractor is: to make this building last another 100 years. So that's why the adobe is being done, and we hired a group that does adobe restoration. We're taking this—all is one of the reasons that I've taken all the interviews I did with the community when we bought the building. This building, as you know, was so important to people. So many people talk to me about, so the bottom floor is going to be open for many community events. This is—we want to give it back to the community, although our work will all be upstairs. So I'm telling you this because I want you to understand that we are making every decision for the building, both preserving what was there, but also bringing in really good—I'm happy to answer any questions you might have about what kind of care we're taking, what the rubric decisions are. Happy to talk about this building. Thank you, Member Tekken. Thank you for your comments. And congratulations on such a great preservation project. Pardon me. I do understand that you plan to live there as well as do work there. You have— No, not at all. Actually, the upstairs will be the headquarters for our company. We own a small tech company here in Santa Fe. And the downstairs, we are setting up a fairly innovative way that will allow for many different types of community events, fundraisers. Well, thank you. Great members. Member Mather, I think it's great because now I feel like I have a place to start, which is thank you so much for telling me and congratulations. I hope this all goes much more according to plan than it did before. It's really good. Oh, good. I know he is. His reputation precedes him. I don't know how you guys would feel about picking a date or what would work for you because I would really want to, I want to hear what you have to say, I guess. Sure. And a renovation. I don't know what you guys want to hear and what you want to know, but I'm serious. Well, what's your pleasure, Board? We would advocate as soon as you guys can as possible for you because you know that the building is at right now because of what Braden was telling you. We really can't move forward until we get the windows, and so we're really on the edge for that. We don't want to. Well, it turns out that we have a schedule for the next meeting that would accommodate being moved to that meeting. So, that would be two weeks from now. Board, just out of curiosity, I don't know if you would be willing to do this or if it would accommodate you all, but maybe we should pick a day not on a meeting day when we can really concentrate on this and do like a special learning session. How would you all feel about that? I would say we have to talk with the staff so the staff can be prepared to do that. You guys too. What works for you, Member Mather? The issue is public notice, and so we've already noticed for the 24th meeting, which, you know, would include this as old business, right, if it were to be postponed. So there's not much we can do sooner than June. It would have to be at, there's time at the 24th meeting, right, there regarding, yes, the amount of cases. There's like, there's, there's space at the next. We can post, we can continue this to the 24th as noticed, be heard first. We have all the information, so that's, that's definitely a possibility here. I'll just say that we can, I mean, really, I don't, I think there's a huge amount more information that you probably need. I think you just need to digest some of this information. So, there are really three big issues in my mind. One is the windows. To me, that's the biggest issue. I mean, just on an on-site visit, I have to say, wow, you've got a lot of really good-looking windows on this property. So, we didn't see the Ray Patterson report until now, but it really doesn't appear that he's, he's actually said whether the windows are repairable or not. And that's normally what we see in his report that he lists. So, most of the report is each door and window by itself and just an assessment, but at the end he does have a summary that summarizes it. But what we normally see is window by window assessment of whether it's repairable or not. A condition report. This is more of a general, well, the best solution is to remove them, but it doesn't really specify what we usually look for. Okay? Because we have a, we have an ordinance, of course, that says on primary facades, windows that are historic, windows that are repairable, must be repaired. So then we always turn to a window assessor to tell us, are they repairable or not? And only if it's determined they're not repairable, do we allow them to be replaced in kind, unless an exception is granted, of course. So that's why, um, I can get some clarification from him. Yeah, I would say that we would definitely want more information there because it looks, you know, I, I completely understand that the, the general thrust of the argument is the way they're installed in the Adobe means that they would be potentially compromised if you remove them and it would potentially compromise the walls. But that's a little bit different than saying that the windows themselves are non-repairable. So, that's just something I think that would need to wipe out here because the windows when you see this building seem really significant, right? They're very similar throughout. They unify all the elevations. Many of them look, I mean, they are, they're historic. Not every one of them, but many of them are historic. And, um, and they look to be generally in repairable condition. So that, this is just a pure visual reaction and that's why we don't rely on that. Typically we usually want an expert report. Right. Sure. Sure. I'm not, um, they, they don't work. Um, so that's really the problem. I did want to tell you though, on the elevation, you see that big bank of windows on the right, right? Those are not going away. And in fact, there's a, excuse me, on the inside, there's a skylight that continues them over them, right? We have, are putting, we have, but it, it has failed, but we're doing a modern skylight over those so that we do not have to replace those because those windows matter so much to people and plus they're amazing. I don't know if you've been in, they're incredible windows. Yeah, that, that's important to hear from you because touch those because when I read the request, it's all windows, all windows. And so it's, it's those. Okay, that's why we need some, you know, we really need to digest it, I think. Yeah, that's important because we were operating on the assumption today without all the information that those were also going to be, um, replaced in kind as the application says all windows. But anyway, this is just the point of the clarification. So it's really helpful for us. I was just going to go through what I think we need. Then the, uh, the parapet raising is a big issue for you to address because of the fact that staff has not found that persuasive and is recommending that that not be approved. And, um, the, and then the steel, uh, carport structure is the only really, I think, big issue that needs to be dealt with here. So, I don't think we have a huge amount of things to worry about, um, at the next meeting, but I would say that the, it's especially the windows that probably need the most additional information. Anything else from Board that or guidance for the applicant? Yes, Member Dena. This is for the applicant and for, for us, for me today when I was going through the property, um, I thought that the idea of, I didn't catch all windows is all windows. I didn't catch that phrase. I caught some windows. Maybe that was my wishful thinking, but I was thinking that you weren't addressing all windows because so many of them are historic and may not be in danger of needing to be repaired depending on where they are. So I guess that's what I was thinking that you were going to do some, not all. It's all so large bank in the sky. That's great that we, we were delighted about the big, the deco windows there, but the glass brick window. When you study these, um, especially on the elevations, you can see writing and various places on the building. Yes. For previous admin approvals, right? It has the case number, the date, and all that. So that there's been a lot of them over the years that we've been continuing with. Well, thank you. Well, I'll look forward to two weeks with all the information that we have. We haven't actually, uh, moved to continue this yet, so we'll need to do that. But go ahead and, um, continue your comments. Member Beach. Thank you, Vice Chair Benu. Um, so, I guess I'm just not clear what we're expecting in two weeks. Like, are we, what, what is the additional information that these applicants need to bring forward? Because I think we've already spent, you know, only think about 45 minutes on this and we're going to have to do that again in two weeks. Um, so I just, I, I feel like maybe we have the right people here. Maybe we can actually hear this tonight. Maybe I'm missing something. Well, my response to that would be without a window assessment that states whether or not the windows are repairable, I don't think it can be decided or, or the, the condition of the existing historic material of the windows. Well, yeah, that's the same. Okay. But it normally, normally we get an actual, is it repairable or not conclusion, especially for the ones that are historic and on the primary facades. So, I, I do, I, I totally, we will, we will get that to you. No problem. But I do want to just acknowledge that actually the first contractor broke a ton of them and so they're in much worse shape than when we watch, bought the building. I'm so sorry to say. Um, and then I, I just wanted to clarify for the ones that are replaced because certainly you will be replacing some of these. Um, when you say in kind, that's in terms of pattern and material. Okay. Okay. And then with respect to, in that case, you want to hang on to as many windows as you can. And then the stucco, I don't know if it's paint, a painted building now. Is it painted or is that white stucco? It's been white for decades. Yeah. No, I know. I know. But is it, is it actually cementitious stucco? Cementitious, three, three layers. And that's what you're proposing to, um, and then the other thing with respect to the, um, the wall, the increase of the parapet, um, you mentioned that it's to hide some skylights, but it's being extended by three feet plus. Yeah, it was always skylights in the design, but then when we found out about the stucco problems, the Adobe problems, that changed the skylight design a little bit behind, which then necessitates it raising the same. It's the same design. It's just higher that was previously approved. So that all that stuff that we uncovered necessitated a slight change in modification to those. So you had, sorry, the skylights. What's behind there? That's three feet tall. But, um, for the skylights to work, we had to raise them about three feet behind this parapet. If we remain where, um, it was previously approved, they will be visible slightly. I see. The parapet hides the skylight. Correct. Yep. All right. So is, I think you were all trending towards a continuance to the 24th, but if that's the case, we would need a motion. I move. Yes, Member. I. Hello. I think I get to do public comment. Oh, sorry. You are so correct. Let's have a, um, let's turn it over to public comment. Is there anyone in the room that wishes to comment? If you want to speak, you're, you're welcome. Yeah. May I, may I continue? Just need to be sworn in. I'm, um, Stephanie, we're going to have, um, people in the room first and then we'll get to you. Thanks. Okay. Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record. Can you please speak into the microphone? Mindy Hail, 1102 Pier Rojas. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? I thank you, Chair, sworn in. Thank you. Go ahead. I really appreciate you guys taking the time on this. Um, one of the things that both Braden and Pamela spoke to is the destruction building that happened during our first phase. Um, and Pamela said it was heartbreaking and it really was. And from the outside, I don't think you can see it as well when you say you look at these windows and you have good windows. You don't have good windows. Um, and the level of destruction that happened under this last company, it's so astronomical and it cost us over, close to $5 million to have them destroy our building. And we're committed to starting over and everything failed. And I think that's something you have to understand when you're looking at particular these windows. Um, we can piecemeal one, save this window, save that window and lose the structural integrity of the building, which was, I, these, these guys tore through pintile where we just have one layer of pintile holding up two stories of building and you have windows sitting above that. We have to repair all this pintile. We have to repair the, the window frames and structures that are in there. We want to do what's best for the building. And I, I appreciate saving every window we possibly can. And there comes a loss. This is a dramatic moment. The music's appropriate. There, great buildup. There comes a loss to the building itself that, that happens and I just want to be really cautious about, um, because I, I just don't think it, there's a way to represent to you guys how bad of a job slash crew did. And, um, it, it, we're just, yeah, it, it's, it's when Braden's talking about having to raise the skylights, it's, it's what was done to the Adobe buildings. We're just doing everything we can, and I know we'll get the assessment. That's really what you need to be able to make your decision, but just understand the structural damage that was done. That's our main focus. We really do want this building standing. Chair: Just in a quick response before we continue on with that comment, it would be helpful if you can provide us with some photos as additional information of the inside where there was this damage that was done. So that is part of just so we know that the windows we could provide and provide based on that. I got a question, John. Just so you know, that can be part of the window assessment. It's not just the wooden frame, but it can be whether or not you can repair them and put them back in. It'd be nice to get a photo of the inside and the exterior of each window individually. Just a photo of what's going on on the inside and outside. I'd like to take a tour. Is that possible? Yes. So we have most of it, anything that you can provide that you think would be helpful to the board. Okay. So we do. Oh, no. Anyone on Zoom? Sure. Yeah. Can we set up a tour with you between now and the 24th, or it could be part of the site visit on the 24th? Yeah, I kind of think it's going to take more time than that. Paul can set up some possible dates or give us a date, set up a date with you guys, and then we could do it. That'd be great. Thanks. All right. Anyone on Zoom? And Chair, just with reference to the tour, just a quick response. Because it'll be a quorum of the H board, if the quorum chooses to attend, we do have to provide 72 hours notice just to be able to put that up on the website. So just so you know, based on the date, we need to provide that notice. Stephanie Benonato is requesting to speak. Previously been sworn. Feel free to unmute. Okay, excuse me. I think I now am unmuted. I hope you can hear me because I could not hear the speaker after the architect and who just spoke just now. Absolutely inaudible. Very distressing, very frustrating not to be able to hear those comments. I am encouraged that they're actually going to show you photographs of the damage to the building and then have a better explanation about why certain windows or why all the windows have to be replaced, because again, it seems to me if you take the window out, you've already damaged it. So I don't really quite understand that rationale. And I also think that some of what they want is additional to what was there historically, like skylights. And if they can't work without having to raise the parapet, for example, then maybe they just need to be done away with. And that's a wish, not a need, not historic. And the same even with solar. I understand that sustainability is important, but this is the Downtown East Side District. It's not the Dongaspar District. And maybe you can't get everything to be solar, or maybe you do have to put them on the roofs in smaller arrays than having a steel structure in downtown, especially when you wouldn't even let the previous applicant have steel garage doors that look like wood. I really appreciate these owners and the amount of money that they put into this building, and I'm happy people have this amount of money to put in a building. But I also don't think it gives them carte blanche. And I do wonder when these inspections should have occurred or were occurring, why it is that nobody noticed what was going on. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Is there anybody else on Zoom? No. Chair: Okay. Let's make a motion then. Somebody. Yes. Member Mather: In case 2025-0494 HDRB 206 McKenzie Street, I move that we move it to old business for our meeting June 24th, 2025, and also have a site visit at some point before then. Second. Second. Any further discussion? Can I make a friendly amendment just to clarify that at the meeting on the 24th, you bring the documentation we spoke about, which includes photographs of the interior and exterior, the windows, along with the, I don't recall what you called it, the 3D file. Thanks. Yeah. Yes. Director Lamboy, thank you. With reference to providing additional information, we published the packet the Friday before the Tuesday meeting, and so it would be really helpful if this information could get into the packet so you would have time to absorb the information. So, if you can get that to us. I have to look at my calendar, but the Wednesday before the Friday before the meeting, right? One point of clarification, it's called the Matterport tour. That's online only. You log in on your computer and navigate through it. So, I don't know if we can provide that somehow. Unless I had an interface here, we wouldn't be able to probably do it on the meeting. Yeah. And it's password protected. So it would have to only be the board members. Yeah. Okay. Then there would have to be some kind of meeting where we would navigate. I would amend my friendly amendment to include photographs and an updated window assessment showing condition materials conditions of the windows by window no later than Friday before the board meeting. Wednesday. No later than Wednesday for posting on Friday. Isn't that correct? Wednesday. Thank you. Just June 16th. All right. Does that was that accepted as friendly? Accepted as friendly. Roll call. Roll call vote. Member Mather. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Beach. Yes. Member Dagden. Yes. The motion has been approved. Sure. Thank you. Great. So, we'll see you again in a couple weeks. Thank you very much. Good night. Okay. Discussion items. Any discussion items? I have one. Maybe this is a matter from the board. I would just like to ask Paul, could you address the invitation to the archaeology tour so that the board members know whether that's something they would like to attend? Chair Bian Venu, members of the board, the Georgia O'Keeffe Museum on behalf, staff reached out to the Georgia O'Keeffe Museum last week and requested a site visit for the Archaeological Review Committee and the Historic Districts Review to attend a site visit at 123 and 135 Grant Avenue. Given the archaeological excavations have uncovered a Spanish colonial site, and so I reached out to the NEH and Pin, who's running the on the federal side of things for the archaeological investigation, and Jennifer Jenkins responded about a week ago saying that she will open up the site. Jennifer Jenkins and Colleen Gavin reached out and said they would open the site. They can only allow 10 people on the site for one hour at a time. And so in consideration, I thought the board, given the board has been invested, they're also invested. So above ground, below ground, all the cultural resources taken into consideration. And I think this would be a great opportunity for the board members to attend seeing a Spanish colonial site that dates back to 1610. And it's going to be impressive from my understanding from the archaeologist who have given the arc a general idea of what has taken place. I think it would be great to see some of the infrastructure and structures that the Spanish had built and that are well preserved today. It will be limited. The board will have 10:30 to 11:30 a.m., and then the ARC will have 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 a.m. I was talking to Member Dgnant, and it would have been nice to have the ARC with you so you all could collaborate and talk about it together. However, Jennifer and Colleen have separated it in this time frame, and in that, we need to get these release forms signed by you all, and I have all of your to please fill it out. I will send it to Colleen this evening. I reached out to her today and just notified her after the hearing tonight. I would send her the signed relief forms to her so she'll have them first thing tomorrow, and then tomorrow morning we'll meet at the site at 10:30, and their archaeologist as well as Jennifer and I'm sure Colleen will give us a rundown, and then we'll make the site visit for the hour. Great. Well, thank you for making the arrangements and letting us know. Thank you. Anything else from the board, from staff? All right. Any objection to adjournment? Adjourned. Actually, a little chaotic to me.