Historic Districts Review Board Meeting Tue, Aug 12, 2025 · Historic Districts Review Board https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/571 == Executive Summary == The Historic Districts Review Board addressed a variety of applications, including preliminary reviews for the Santa Fe Botanical Garden's Children's Discovery Garden and Gateway Pavilion, and a significant renovation project at 219 and 219A Washington Avenue, which was ultimately postponed due to concerns about height, massing, and impact on the streetscape. The Board also made several historic status designations for properties at 515 P de Peralta, 516 and 516.5 Alto Street, 549.5 Aqua Fria Street, and 836 Don Cabaro Avenue, clarifying contributing and non-contributing elements and primary facades. Key decisions included approving a fence and gate design at 222 Palco Street, a carport at 438 Apodaca Hill, and an addition at 626 Canyon Road. A notable discussion point throughout the meeting was the appropriate stucco texture for historic buildings, particularly at 423.5 West San Francisco Street, where the Board approved the project with a condition that the applicant could provide proof of a previously smoother texture. Public comments highlighted concerns about the lack of remote participation options, the absence of a registered architect on the board, and the ongoing debate surrounding the Soldiers Monument's historic status. == Key Decisions == - Approved the agenda as amended, postponing Item H (439 Camino Monte Sol) and withdrawing Item J (1379 Sra Gorder Road). - Approved the minutes from July 8, 2025, with one minor textual revision. - Approved the fence and gate design at 222 Palco Street as submitted and recommended by staff. - Designated the residential structure at 515 P de Peralta as 'significant,' excluding specific non-historic additions, and designated the shed and garage as 'non-contributing.' The south retaining wall was designated 'significant.' - Approved the construction of a 260 square foot freestanding carport at 438 Apodaca Hill. - Approved the addition and pergola reconfiguration at 626 Canyon Road as submitted. - Retained the contributing status of the main residential structure at 516 and 516.5 Alto Street, designating the north facades as primary, and retained the contributing status of the standalone garage with the east facade as primary. - Designated the house at 549.5 Aqua Fria Street as 'contributing' with the south facade as primary (excluding non-historic windows), and the yard wall as 'non-contributing.' - Approved the wall design at 815 East Alameda Street, Unit 8, with conditions for consistent stucco color, lighting, pilaster patterns, brick coping, radius, and pedestrian gates. - Approved the project for 423.5 West San Francisco Street with the condition that the stucco texture must match the existing, unless the applicant can provide photographic evidence of a previously smoother texture. == Motions & Votes == - Motion to approve the agenda as amended — Passed unanimously. - Motion to approve the minutes from July 8, 2025, as amended — Passed unanimously. - Motion to approve Application 2025010698 HDRB at 222 Palco Street as submitted and recommended by staff — Passed unanimously ('Aye'). - Motion to designate the residential structure at 515 P de Peralta as 'significant,' excluding facades 1, 6, 12 (northwest bedroom addition) and 4, 5, 6 (garage addition on the west/south/north facade) — Passed (4 Ayes, 0 Nays). - Motion to designate the shed at 515 P de Peralta as 'non-contributing' — Passed (3 Ayes, 1 Nay - Member Aguilar Madrono voted No). - Motion to designate the garage at 515 P de Peralta as 'non-contributing' — Passed (4 Ayes, 0 Nays). - Motion to designate the south retaining wall, including entry steps, at 515 P de Peralta as 'significant' — Passed (4 Ayes, 0 Nays). - Motion to approve the construction of a 260 square foot freestanding carport at 438 Apodaca Hill — Passed (4 Ayes, 0 Nays). - Motion to approve the application for 626 Canyon Road as submitted — Passed unanimously (4-0). - Motion to retain the contributing status of the main structure at 516 and 516.5 Alto Street, designating the north facades (numbers one and two) as primary, and designate the garage as contributing with the east facade as primary (excluding the carport, and noting the original garage doors as character-defining), with a friendly amendment to exclude the doors and windows of the primary residential structure from the designation as they had been replaced — Passed unanimously (4-0). - Motion to designate the house at 549.5 Aqua Fria Street as contributing and the south facade as primary, excluding non-historic windows, and to designate the yard wall as non-contributing — Passed (Member Aguilar Madrono: Yes, Member Mather: Yes, Member Dnet: Yes, Member Beich: Yes). - Motion to approve the 4-foot 6-inch height of the wall at 815 East Alameda Street, Unit 8, with several conditions (consistent stucco color, consistent lights, repeated pilaster pattern with brick coping, brick coping along full extent, consistent radius on stucco, pedestrian gates with latas, revised plans to staff for approval) — Passed (4-0). - Motion to postpone Case K: 2025-010873 HDRB at 219 and 219A Washington Avenue to a date certain — Passed unanimously (4-0). - Motion to approve the proposed project for 423.5 West San Francisco Street with the condition that the stucco texture must match the existing, unless the applicant can prove that a smoother texture existed previously — Passed unanimously (4-0). == Public Comment == Public comments included Elizabeth West's request for the Historic Districts Review Board to initiate a historic status review for the Soldiers Monument and her praise for the applicant's efforts at 815 East Alameda Street. Stephanie Benonato expressed disappointment over technical issues with remote participation and a lack of confidence in staff, argued the Soldiers Monument is non-conforming, and commented on various applications, including the gate design at 222 Palco Street, the status designation at 516 and 516.5 Alto Street, and the design at 219 and 219A Washington Avenue, which she felt would negatively alter the streetscape. Richard Martinez noted the continued absence of a registered architect on the board. A Botanical Garden board member argued for exceptions for their proposed design due to the context of Museum Hill. Concerns were also raised about the removal of a significant apple tree at 815 East Alameda Street. == Topics == - Soldiers Monument Status - Stucco Texture and Color - Technical Meeting Issues - Architect on Board - Staff Competence/Trust - Botanical Garden Project - Window Replacement - Meeting Minutes Approval == Full Transcript == Chair: When you're ready, you may begin. You may begin. Thank you. Okay. Good evening. Welcome to all in attendance. It's 5:30 p.m., and I call this meeting to order. We are now in session in the Historic District Review Board meeting, duly noticed for this evening, August 12, 2025. I will be serving as acting chair tonight in the absence of Chair Rios. This meeting, as you may know from the notice, is in-person attendance only due to technical difficulties. There are no remote participants. May I have a roll call, please? Chair: Rios, excused. Vice Chair: Benvvenu, present. Member: Aguilera Madrono, here. Member: Matherther, here. Member: Dagnet, here. Member: Beach, here. Member: Cherry, excused. You have a quorum. Thank you. Okay. We have an agenda that has been duly published. Are there any changes to the agenda? Yes, Chair Benvvenu. There is one change on item number H, 202510871 HDRB 439 Camino Monte Sol, should be postponed to August 26th. And then item J, which is 202510895 HDRB 1379 Sra Gorder Road, has been withdrawn. Thank you. Board members, may I have a motion to approve the agenda as amended? Aguilera Madrono so moves. Beach seconds. Thank you. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you. That motion is carried. Next on the agenda, item number four, approval of minutes from July 8, 2025. Are there any revisions to the minutes? Let's just take a quick look if I may. I actually have one change. On page 15, the third full paragraph, the first line where it states, "Member Benvvenu stated that he did not believe that the board preferred not to design a new bridge." Delete the word "not." So it states, "preferred to design a new bridge." "Doesn't believe that the board preferred to design a new bridge." That's the only change I have. Seeing no others, is there a motion to approve as amended? So moved. Second. Thank you very much. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Those minutes are approved as amended. Item five, approval of findings and conclusions. I see none in the packet or the agenda. Is that correct? Thank you. Moving on to item number six, matters from the public. If there's anyone from the public who wishes to speak, please step to the podium. Oh, do you have that? I only have July 8th on my agenda. I think, sorry. I think the July 22nd minutes are included in the packet, but are they not on the agenda for approval? They're not on the agenda. I think you're correct that they were in the packet though. I saw them as well. We'll defer that to the next. Yes, since that's our error, we'll defer that to the next time. Thank you. Thank you for noticing that, Member Beach. I will ask that we keep our comments from the public to two minutes. We have a number of items to get through tonight, so that will be much appreciated. Please step to the podium. Please state your name. Good evening. My name is Elizabeth West. I live in Santa Fe, and I'm here again just to reiterate some of the things I said at the last meeting. I also want to make sure that Member Beach did get a packet. I made you a new one just in case because I handed a bunch out. Can I give one to you and you can give it to her? That's mine. And I'd also, I am going to give to this wonderful person over here my updated, what do you call it? A cover letter. I did it at the last minute, which is obvious. There's no reason to have excuses, but it's an explanation. I am terrible with typos, and also I left off some stuff. So I'm going to hand her also one for each of you, and thank you very much. And I have another minute. Okay. That was the thud of some maps that I got printed up about our register. It took me a while to learn that our register in Santa Fe is a map. So that was kind of fun. So I am again requesting that the HDRB, on your own, somebody, one of you, bring it forward, the idea of establishing historic status of the Soldiers Monument. And any of you members of the HDRB can move to bring this action up for placement on the next hearing's agenda for an historic status review of the Soldiers Monument. The Historic District's code supports this process. There are three main things to note in the last 30 seconds I have. One is the city register exists as the historic building status map. Two, the Soldiers Monument on the Santa Fe Plaza has no historic status. And the HDRB, number three, HDRB has legal authority to designate historic status for the Soldiers Monument on the city register. So, I will let somebody else speak right now, but I'm going to quietly hand the papers to you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Friends of mine said, "Oh, could you print up one of those for," and I said, "You want to pay for it?" Thank you. Please step up and state your name for the record. Stephanie Benonato. I just want to express a lot of disappointment in the technical problems that the city is having. Not having a Zoom meeting. I'm not even sure if this is available to look at on YouTube right now, like in real time. And it seems that this has been an ongoing problem and should have been addressed weeks ago, really. And then the other thing I want to bring up is a lack of confidence in staff. At a current, at the City Council meeting on an appeal from an HB board decision, we had the head of land use misrepresenting what an institution was. And that was that they represented that the Girls Club was an institution. But institutions are clearly defined in the code as government buildings, educational buildings, museums, and hospitals, not clinics. So, Girls Inc. doesn't fall in any of those categories. And it becomes difficult to want to trust staff if they don't even know what the law actually says and then misrepresents it to either a board or the council. And in terms of this monument, the Soldiers Monument, the obelisk, I would just point out that there is a definition of object in the city code that says that monuments are not included. They define it as something small, which obviously the obelisk is not. But it's also non-conforming at this point, and you cannot replace or repair non-conforming structures. You can only remove them. And so I think those are two major issues that you need to consider before you would bring this motion that Ms. West is requesting to the board for public discussion. Thank you. You next, please. Hello. My name is Richard Martinez. I just want to mention that this board still does not have an architect sitting on the board. My understanding is that we've now had two nominations to the mayor. And I believe what he told me was that that was what he was looking for was two nominations. And I believe that staff should not be part of this decision. These are positions appointed by the mayor, and they represent the wider community in Santa Fe. And remember that architect means that you're registered with the state. It's like calling yourself a lawyer when you're not. So I just wanted to remind you that there's not an architect sitting on the board. The second thing is the obelisk in the plaza. Just remember that I can show you some photographs of the plaza before the obelisk was there. It is possible to have a plaza that's person-centered, not object-centered, where a person can occupy the center of the plaza rather than having an object in the center of the plaza. Perhaps the obelisk no longer represents the community and who we are now. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak? All right, we will move on then. Seeing no hands raised, to item number seven, staff communications. Item A, 715 Camino Lejo. I will open the floor to staff to introduce this item. As required by Section 14-5.2M, State Capital Outlay Projects. As you know, the Museum of New Mexico is a division of the state. And so the standards that apply in subsection M require that the state present the project to the board for feedback. And if there is any concern regarding the design, then there would be a subcommittee that would be appointed of the board to work with the state. So this is part of step one, and the applicant is present to provide you with an overview of the project and we'll give you the opportunity to have feedback. If there are any major concerns, then we can set forth with the next step if necessary. Thank you for that. And just so I'm clear, were there any materials presented in the packet for this item? Chair, no, no materials, just the rendering. You all right. So will you be presenting, Mr. Dan? Chair Benvvenu, members of the board, Mr. Philip Weddle is here to present the case for 715 Camino Lejo. Thank you. Thank you. You have the floor. Does the witness need to be sworn for this presentation? You would say yes. Why don't you go ahead and swear the witness, please? Will you please raise your right hand, state your name and address for the record? My name is Philip Weddle, address 6916 East 5th Avenue, Scottsdale. 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. Chair, he's been sworn in. Mr. Weddle, you have the floor. I apologize for my laptop presentations. We're going to be presenting on these screens. Would it be possible to have the lower screen that's on the floor tilted towards the board and maybe brought forward slightly? That's great. Now move more towards the wall just so that we don't block off too much of the audience. That's great. Thanks. Okay. Mr. Chairman and members of the board, my name is Phil Weddle with Weddle Gilmore Architects. It's a pleasure to be here with you tonight. We're presenting the proposal for the Santa Fe Botanical Garden for the Gateway Pavilion and the Children's Discovery Garden. Before I start with the presentation, I wanted to introduce quickly a couple of key team members just to let you know who else is here in the audience. We have Michelle Roberts, who's the Deputy Secretary for DCA here in case there are any questions pertaining to the state's role in the project. Obviously, state property as was discussed in the presentation. We also have David Young, who is the Executive Director for the Santa Fe Botanical Garden. And David can speak to any issues related to the garden. And then lastly, we have Kenneth Francis. Kenneth Francis from Surrounding Studio, who's the principal landscape architect, who's been leading the design on the Children's Discovery Garden project. So, the project just at a high level before we get into the design presentation, includes the development of a new Children's Discovery Garden on the southern edge of the Santa Fe Botanical Garden, approximately 1.2 acres of land are being developed as part of the Children's Discovery Garden. The goal of the Children's Discovery Garden is to develop a kind of a place for passive and active experiential learning for children through a broad spectrum of ages. In conjunction with the Children's Discovery Garden, we are also proposing to do a Gateway Pavilion. And the Gateway Pavilion really functions as a portal into the Children's Discovery Garden, and also provides restroom facilities to kind of support programs that part. Technical problem. My apologies. It's Thank you. It's Um, so again, this, uh, the site, if we look at the aerial photograph, on the aerial photograph on the far right-hand side, the area of the site is the lower portion on the southern boundary of the Botanical Garden. And there are several photographs from the site showing site context for reference. The location where the EV array is mounted on the ground, that is more or less where the gateway is located. Context that PV array is planned to be relocated on the roof of the structure. And then a site plan showing the existing conditions. The existing site is a pinion juniper woodlands. We're working around the majority of those trees and kind of developing the garden and the structure around that vegetation. And as I mentioned, the existing PV solar array is being relocated on the roof of the Gateway Pavilion. Then a site plan that shows the proposal. So the Children's Discovery Garden is on the lower portion with the Gateway Plaza on the upper edge, creating a portal into the Children's Discovery Garden. Children's Discovery Garden includes a loop trail with interactive play elements, as well as an acequia with a headwater element that has some interactive play features as a part of that. The Gateway Pavilion includes a shaded portal for gathering and seating. And as a part of that kind of shaded gathering area, we're also developing a rainwater harvesting component in the center. The roof has a bit of a butterfly slope to it. So we're actually bringing the drainage center of that, really creating an opportunity to kind of celebrate the water harvesting opportunity there. So we have a catchment basin that is a central part of that central plaza, and then a below-grade cistern for rainwater storage for reuse for irrigation systems. In addition to that, on the western edge of the Gateway Plaza, we have an art mural wall that is kind of the other element that is framing the opposite side of that Gateway Plaza. And then on the eastern side, we have the proposed restrooms and storage and support spaces for the program. Just in terms of what's being proposed from a building perspective, it's a modest building. We're talking 572 square feet of building for the restroom building. The total roof area for the shaded zone and the building is 2,112 square feet. So rather modest in size, but really important in terms of framing that entry into the Children's Discovery Garden and creating a shaded space where they can do outdoor education programming within the Children's Discovery Garden. The materials that are being proposed for the architecture, we really tried to work hard to develop a design concept that ties to the existing Botanical Garden. It's important for us as one of the few buildings that are within the Botanical Garden to develop something that is kind of continuing to support that identity of the Botanical Garden and furthering the development of that identity and character of the garden. So we were heavily tied to the existing context. We have a good portion of the Botanical Garden. One of the primary elements that you see are these moss rock walls that are built throughout the Botanical Garden. So the moss rock as a mass wall is one of the primary materials that we're proposing for the Gateway Pavilion that create two-foot thick mass walls that kind of frame the entry into Children's Discovery Garden. In addition to that, we have earth-toned stucco that is also kind of a second element that you see throughout the garden and within the area. And we're developing that in certain portions of the Gateway Plaza as well. And then lastly, the other kind of key characteristic of the Botanical Garden are these weathered steel ramadas that you see throughout the Botanical Garden. You see on the far left the image from the garden area just to the north of where the Children's Discovery Garden is located. That is all kind of a weathered steel ramada. And then you also have the Berlin Amphitheater zone that has kind of a shed roof, weathered steel shade structure over that. So the kind of weathered steel ramada is the kind of last component that we're doing again to try and tie into the existing character of the Botanical Garden. Elevations of the proposed structure, it's again relatively modest in scale. We are about 16, just under 16 to 17 feet in terms of the maximum height above natural grade. The moss rock walls facing to the north and the south, and then the stucco walls facing to the east and the west with the arc mural wall on the western side. Several renderings that we've developed for reference. So this is a pedestrian path that is connecting up to the Gateway Plaza with the Children's Discovery Garden beyond. And you see the moss rock masonry walls and then the weathered steel ramada structure. And then as you enter into that shaded breezeway zone, the portal into the Children's Discovery Garden. On the left, you see the water catchment basin that was described in terms of the rainwater harvesting. So again, the roof is sloping to that kind of center section to capture all of that rainwater to be reutilized for irrigation. And then the art mural wall to the right, which is facing to the west, and then seating within that kind of shaded plaza area. And then the last rendering is looking from the Children's Discovery Garden back to the north. You see the trails that are connecting through the garden, the headwaters to the acequia, and some of the headgate play structures that are integrated in. So that's the proposal, and happy to answer any questions that you may have. Mayor: Well, thank you for the presentation. How much of this is visible from the street, Camino Lejo? The primarily just the eastern elevation is visible from Camino Lejo. The north and south elevations are oriented towards the garden and towards the neighboring property. And then the west elevation again towards the central garden. So if we go back to the site plan, so the arrows that you see there on the right-hand side of the site plan, that's really the only view into the site for Camino, which is essentially eastern elevation, a little bit of southern. Do you have any photographs of the existing structures in the Botanical Garden that you're attempting to harmonize with? So the material photos that we're showing are actually existing structures from the Botanical Garden. The upper left-hand image is the moss rock walls that are part of the Orchard Garden. The other rock that you see there is from Milner Plaza across the street from the Botanical Garden. So we're also looking at kind of the materials that are there on Museum Hill. The images of the stucco on the center is from the Botanical Garden that is also part of that rival gateway at the existing garden. And then image to the right of that is the museum that's across the street. It's part of Museum Hill. And then the two ramada structures that you see are both from the Botanical Garden, one from the Orchard Garden and one from the. So all of those are part of the Botanical Garden. Heather, how was the, I wasn't here on the board when the Botanical Garden structures were approved. What was the process? Did that come to the board or did staff approve the structures, which they can normally do with buildings in that district? Chair Bonu, I'd have to research that because I was not here at that time as well. Can I jump in really quick? Thank you. Can you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record. Shell Gallagher Roberts, 12 Sierra Dawn, 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? Thank you much. So, Chairman Bianu, the statute that is the reason why the Botanical Gardens is bringing this forth now is a recent, when was it passed, in 2021. So these structures predate that statute, and so we're not subject to this committee's. Oh, well, yeah, I think that confuses a couple different things about the process. Everything in this district is subject to the Preservation Division and the board generally. But this, you do have a special process here that applies because of the fact that this is a state-sponsored project. So I think that's what you're referring to. But just to be clear, in this district, the staff typically does approve new construction as opposed to the other districts. So that's why my question was whether it even came to the board or not, but it must have received some sort of approval from the division. So, Chairman, this is actually state property, and so it was not subject to review prior to the passing of this statute. Okay, I stand corrected. So even the, all the, all the Botanical Garden is state property. Chairman, members, no, actually, part of it is state property and part of it is actually city property. And so these structures are on state property, and I would defer to the Botanical Garden on what is on city property, but I can only speak to what's on state property. These are on state. By these, are you referring to the ones we're looking at on the screen, the ramadas and so forth that exist today? Correct. Okay, thank you for that. Yes. Director Lamboy. Thank you, Chair. So, Section 14-5.2 M, State Capital Outlay Projects, was adopted in 2009. So it is likely, yes, you're correct. In the historic review, historic district, a lot of the cases are managed administratively, with the exception when there's an exception or the building has a historic status. So in this particular case, it's not historic status, but if we were to look at this from a perspective of the historic district's ordinance, an exception would need to be requested for the material and design of the project. So that is why the board needs to provide this particular case. Right. Okay. Okay. So the existing structures probably did not come before the division for approval. Best I can gather. And I think they're different in that they're ramadas and it's not a full building, but they're more garden features. Yeah, I was going to also make that distinction that the steel that's being used in the existing structures is to me different than the large expanses of sheet steel that are in the currently proposed building. We generally are reluctant to permit weathered steel structures in the historic districts. There have been some exceptions, particularly in this district, and then there have been ones that have just crept in one way or another. But it is a concern of the board and of staff. And as Director Lamboy mentioned, that would need an exception under our interpretation of the code. So, and possibly also, what about the use, the percentage of the stone facing on the structures compared to the stucco? Is an exception needed for that in this district? Yes, Chair, that's correct. And just also for clarity, before I pass it on to other members of the board, where do you perceive us to be at in the process that's set forth for capital outlay projects? Is this the process that's or the stage before commencing with the design phase when the applicant or the state is to consult with the board, or is this after that? So, Chair, you bring up a good point. So, like the Executive Office Building, a lot of design work had been done when this was first presented to the city. And so, theoretically, we would be in the place where it's before design. This was presented to us. We felt like it would be a good launching point. even though it should be really before the design commences. Okay. And there'll still need to be a public meeting with the design proposal, correct? Yes. And that is up to the applicant to have a public meeting. And I'm not sure if the museum has had any meeting already. Okay. Well, I meant a public meeting to be held by the review board. Yes. I'm sorry, but there's also typically public engagement. Public engagement by the applicant. Okay. In this case, the museum. Okay. So, it sounds like we're in the very early stages of the design process as far as the procedure set forth in the code and the state statute go, even though I understand that you proceeded along to some extent beyond that. Do any board members have comments? Yes, Member DNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a question more about curiosity about the materials. The picture in the center, there are nine photos, the one in the middle row, and the orange-colored stone along with the stucco. Is that just a result of photo saturation that I'm looking at, or is that stone really that orange? There was no kind of excessive saturation on the image. So that stone is from the museum that's on the opposite side of the street. Okay. Thank you. Member Pet. Thank you, Chair Bianu. Just one question for staff regarding the exceptions that we would have to address if this were coming to the board as a regular case. You said the material, the steel, and then the percentage of moss rock with the windows. Are the windows subject to an exception? I think they're, I think the ones I saw were quite oblong and skinny, but I don't know that they violate any code requirements. Chair, Member Beachside, the windows themselves do not violate anything. If we could go to the elevation, I appreciate that. So the two exceptions we would identify is the roof form and wall dominated. So those are the two big key things. We have more flexibility in the historic review district than other districts. And so wall dominated and the overall appearance and context of Spanish Pueblo Revival design. So and Okay, yeah, thank you. And then just a comment, I think the proposed east elevation is what we would see from Camino. Is that, that's correct? That is correct. Yeah. So, I appreciate that the building is oriented that way because I think that minimizes the profile of the butterfly roof, which is something that is not in keeping with our design standards. But I think in this case, where the botanical garden mission includes guidance for sustainable gardening, and this certainly is a feature that would be important to the mission of the building. So I think that I don't have a problem with that, especially with the way it's oriented. On that, that also screens solar array. That's the one other thing that the roof form does for us. Yeah, structure. Yeah, that's nice. Thank you. Yeah, I think that's all I had for now. Thanks. Comments from other members? Member Mather, any comments? Or Madrono? No. Okay. Well, I would just say that I consider this something of a preliminary review. It's very difficult, and I don't think completely helpful to be looking or to give much in the way of feedback to designs that were just seeing for the first time and then expected to respond on the spot, especially without any context of visiting the site. So, I mean, my general comment would be, I think that structure would be, as I'm looking at it, would not fit most of the design standards for the district. It's not to say it's not an attractive and handsome design in the right location, but I think it would need a number of exceptions to be approved. And I think it could be, from my perspective, scaled back to be at least somewhat more traditional in form, even though it's not completely visible from the street, just because our ordinance is written for a reason, and I think that it's important to enforce it as written. But with that, I'm going to defer to staff to work with the applicant on what the next steps would be under the ordinance. And the next time it comes before us, I guess I should ask, do you think there's any need for a committee of any sort to be appointed to be working with the applicant on this, or is it Are you comfortable? So, I think it might be helpful together with staff that the subcommittee of the board actually engage with the museum to determine the best path forward, and then we can report back to the board. Okay. Hopefully, we'll have to achieve consensus. Okay. Do I have any volunteers? I would say we just need two members. Member Mather and Member DNE. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. Oh, you know, I actually would say if there's someone from the audience that wishes to comment on this very preliminary proposal, I'm going to allow that. Keep your comments restricted to two minutes, please. And just bear in mind this is just a preliminary proposal at this point in time, but I think it would be helpful for the board to hear from the public. Yes, sir. Please be sworn in. Will you please state your name and address for the record? Richardson. 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, Chairman Benu and the board. I'm a long-standing member of the board of the Botanical Garden, which has approved these plans. We've worked with the state along in this process for quite a while, and I would also, I understand Chairman Ben Benu's concerns, but the whole Museum Hill is a whole region that should be considered because we're right across Camino Lejo from, for instance, the Folk Art Museum. And the Folk Art Museum is a mid-century modern building designed by John Gamim, and it does not fit the design guidelines that you're trying to impose on the Botanical Garden. And so I, and if we had to do something in Pueblo Revival, it would not fit any of the other buildings in the garden. We're trying to have something that's architecturally cohesive, and it's fairly well screened from neighbors in the street, and I think that we should be granted the exceptions that we're requesting. Thank you. Thank you. Spend it. I'll do You. Oh, no. Yes. Please state your name and address for the record. The microphone, please. Stephanie Ben. Address. PO Box 1601, Santa Fe. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes. Thank you. I just have to say, I know that there's other steel roofs in the Botanical Gardens, but I find it sort of ironic that a botanical garden uses steel as opposed to natural materials or roofing. And I understand, you know, it's longer lasting and all of that, but still, I just find it ironic. And in terms of this particular design, it does seem much bigger than as described. Visually, it has more of an impact, I think. And although it shows mass because the bathrooms are to the east, the one window, it just seems, it just doesn't feel very, it doesn't feel like a good design. It feels like there needs to be either more windows, something, or maybe reverse it so that the mural is on the east side and the bathrooms are on the west side, that is, on the interior facing interior into the garden as opposed to exterior. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no one else who wishes to speak, we will move on to the next item, number eight on the agenda. Yes, Attorney Reel. Thank you, Chair Biminu and members. I am pleased to report that in the governing body appeal hearing of HDRB case number 20249478 involving 614 PO de Peralta non-conforming fence there. That matter was heard by the HDRB on December 10th, 2024. In the appeal hearing, which took place on July 30th, the governing body voted 8 to 1 to uphold the Historic District Review Board's denial for approval of the non-conforming fence, which was 5'8" in coyote design. And so, the H board was upheld by the governing body. Thank you very much for the report. Item 8A, old business, 2025 010698 HDRB 222 Palco Street. And before we're proceeding, I just want to advise all the applicants and members of the public that any decisions of the board may be appealed to the governing body. The deadlines, procedures, and parties who have standing to appeal are all set forth in section 14-3.17 of the city code. With that, senior planner, please proceed. Thank you, Member Benu and members of the board. This case is 2025 010698 HDRB at 222 Palco Street in the Westside Guadalupe Historic District. The applicant previously came before this board on July 22nd, 2025, requesting to install a coyote fence and a vehicular gate to the height of 6 ft where the maximum allowable height is 4'7". They have also requested an exception to 14-5.2 D9A double I and large B. At that time, the Historic Review Board requested that the applicant return with a new design with the date certain of August 12, 2025. The previous bench shown here is visible in the photographs in the historic cultural property inventory form of 1998 and building inventory form completed in 1985. This case was initially the result of a red tag issued by the Historic District Construction Inspector. The applicant had removed a 6-ft cedar plank fence and was erecting a 6-ft coyote fence. The applicant has returned this evening with a new design to construct a CMU adobe wall to the height of 4'7", which meets the maximum allowable height. The applicant also is proposing a 5-ft pedestrian gate with wood panels and steel frame and a vehicular gate for to be 4'7" tall as well. The steel will be, the steel frame will have a rustic finish, and the wood will be stained in a honey natural color, and the stucco shall be adobe in color. SHA recommends approval for this application as it complies with 14-5.2D general design standards for all historic districts and 14-5.21 21 Westside and Guadalupe Westside Guadalupe design standards, and I stand for questions. Thank you very much for the presentation. One thing I noted in looking at the design of the gate is that it's not fenestrated, which is something that our guidelines request for gates. Is that something that staff has spoken to the applicant about? And is there any room for fenestration to your knowledge? So, yes, I do believe the code says that it's suggested of fenestration, and because of the low height of the wall, fenestration was not suggested. But the applicant can speak to whether if they're interested in providing that. Okay. How tall is the gate? Is it, I saw the dimensions. Is it 5 foot? The pedestrian gate is 5 foot, and the vehicular gate is 4'7" as well as the wall. And do you understand those to be solid wood panels or planks? I believe Chair Ben Venu and members of the board that is solid wood panels, but we can speak with the applicant to describe further. Thank you. Do any members of the board have questions for staff? No. Okay. Applicant, please be sworn in. Will you please raise your right hand, state your name and address for the record? Caleb Beal, 320 Aztec Street. 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 sworn in. Thank you very much. Welcome back. Thank you for the revised design. What do you have to add? I would like to understand what you mean by fenestration on a gate. This is a panelized gate. All the gates are panelized. Is that what you mean by fenestration? No, and it's not actually in the ordinance. This is a guideline that was adopted by the board at some past date. It's posted online. I believe it just uses the term fenestration. It says "fenestration of gates shall always be encouraged." And by that, we've always understood that to mean something other than solid. So, it can have some kind of openings in the gate. The gate, the pedestrian gate or the vehicular gate, is 4'7", so you can look over it. And then the pedestrian gate is 5' at the top of the arch. I just wanted to have a little interest, I suppose you could call it, as an archway at the gate itself. But again, at 4'7" and 5', I mean, my eyes are at 5', so you can see over it. You're seeing over the wall. So I don't know if that's what fenestration was about. No, because fenestration, of course, wouldn't refer to just visibility, but fenestration, I mean, normally the word fenestration, as you know as an architect, refers to windows. It's an opening. I think the intent of the word as used in the guidance was to have openings in the gate as opposed to a solid gate, and it doesn't really speak to whether that depends on what the dimensions of the gate are. Okay. Well, I'll throw that away. Thank you. Okay. And is it solid wood? Solid wood. Solid wood panels or? It'll be an inch and a quarter, inch and a half solid wood panels between the steel. Okay. Okay. And we chose the steel for its longevity. Members of the board, questions for the applicant? No. Okay. Any members of the public that wish to speak to this application, please step forward. Stephanie Benonato had already been sworn. Oh, I'm sorry. There it is. Oh, you can hardly see that online, so it's really hard to tell the elevation. And yeah, now I can see it when I'm down here. Can you make that bigger? So, I was going to say that there was no elevation, but there it is. It's really hard to see even online here. I'm sorry, Kayla. But I think that now, except for the increase in height of the gate, the pedestrian gate, that it does meet code. And it doesn't look like it's a solid panel. I mean, the gate is a solid panel. I guess it's 3' wide, 3'6". And then this is, how wide is each of these panels? Seven. Each of those are seven, seven. Yeah. So, I'm wondering on each of these panels, which you all probably really can't see, there are looks like three panels, an opening, and then three panels, and how wide each of those panels are. I just again think it's at least broken up and not one solid panel or like six or seven feet, which I think would be visually not very interesting. So I think from what I can see that even though it's not fenestrated, that it is at least visually interesting. There's a break in the gate itself at halfway with a bar, and it has a seemingly a difference between the framing and the actual material in the gate. So I think that this gives it some visual break in a sense, and that you should approve it. Very much. Any other members of the public that wish to speak to this application? Seeing none, I will entertain a motion. Member Beach. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. And case number 2025010698 HDRB at 222 Palco Street. I'd like to thank the applicant for returning with a new design and point out that I appreciate the recess of the pedestrian and vehicular gate. I think that's a nice touch to not have that right on the street as we so often see. I move to approve the application as submitted and as recommended by staff. Second. Any further discussion? All in favor signify by saying "Aye." Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Application is approved. Thank you very much. Next item on the agenda is item B 2025010764HDRB at 438 Apadaka Hill. Oh, you're right. We're, I'm sorry, we're moving into new business. Item A 2025010763 HDRB at 515 Po de Peralta. And let's see whose case this is. Still Senior Planner Romero, please proceed. Thank you, Chair Benu and members of the board. This case is 2025 010763 HDRB and it is located at 515 PL del Peralta in the Downtown and East Side Historic District. The applicant has requested historic status review with parade facade designation if applicable for a residential structure, yard walls, and outbuildings. And here is a picture of the main residential structure in the south yard wall. Here we have a facade diagram that we will be referring to several times. If you have any questions, you need me to bring it back up, let me know. This residential structure predominantly sits above the street on a sloping lot that is supported by rock retaining walls along the southern property line. There is a similar retaining wall along the north. Historically, the lot was densely vegetated and had been subdivided. Once had an acequia running along the north of the property. The Seagull family residence at 515 Pel de Peralta is significant to the Downtown and East Side Historic District, built in 1889 with a tutorial design style highlighted by its brick coping features. Originally, the residence had a brick exterior. However, stucco appeared in photographic evidence as early as 1910. And as all were on the site visit today, we all noticed the rough stucco texture type that it has is very unique. There is a rubble stone foundation that continues above the grade. The south facade features a keyhole opening where the primary entry door is located. One moment, please. Among the character-defining features, there are tall slash windows. The current historic windows are replacements of the original windows and evidenced by the infill in frames. In addition to the building's northeast corner originally served as the garage and was renovated to become a bedroom. An additional detached garage was constructed at that time. There have been many changes to the building in association with the creation of apartments within the original single-family residence. While the GIS website lists this structure as contributing, that data is incorrect. The map has not been updated since 1997 and the structure is actually been deemed significant by documentation by historic staff. And next we have a freestanding shed shown in 1912 King's map as 195 square foot which features a gabled roof with corrugated metal. The south elevation is finished with cementitious stucco. The north elevation is a combination of brick and rubble stone. The interior of the shed is accessed via a pair of wood plank doors on the south elevation. John Murph John Murphy references as an important conceptual structure reflecting the history of housing work of housing work animals on the same site as the residents. Staff recommends the historic status of the residential structure be maintained as significant, the shed to be designated as significant. The garage to be designated a contributing with the south and east as primary and the north retaining wall, south retaining wall and the upper southeast retaining wall all be designated as contributing per 14-5.2c designation of significant contributing or non-contributing status within the historic district. I stand for questions. Thank you very much. Okay. So, there was a bit of confusion the last time because I think that we were under the impression it was a contributing building and we wanted to know if it should be upgraded to significant, and it appears that in fact it already has a significant designation as you just indicated. Is that correct? That is correct, Chair Benu. And the shed, what's its current designation? The shed's current designation, I believe, it is not currently designated. Okay. So that is unstatused and the recommendation is that that also be designated as significant for the reasons set forth in the report. And is the garage also unstatused? The garage is also unstatused. And the recommendation is to designate it as contributing, and then the retaining walls are all, I assume, also unstatused at the current time. Correct. And you're recommending that the north, south, and upper southeast retaining wall be contributing? That is correct, Chair Benu. Okay. And is there anything, is there an addition on the west elevation that is non-historic or otherwise to be called out for purposes of the designation? Let me pull up the facade diagram. So here in the gray is the main structure. And the garage, which was the considered the old garage. Is that the structure that you're referring to? No. I thought there was an addition at the site visit that was pointed out on the west facade of the... Oh yes, that is the, where you would see right above the stairs, facade 16. And what's the story with that facade? I believe that was added in, I want to say the 1970s. Okay. So that's non-historic. Yes. All right. Well, thank you for the thorough report. I know in the packet there was also an inclusion materials related to condition of the properties, and that seems to me to be not relevant at this point in time for statusing. I'd like Director Lamboy to address whether that should be something that the board concerns itself with or not at this stage. Chair Bian, you make an excellent point. Right now, you're considering the status of the building. No changes to it. Okay. And so that could come back to us at a later stage obviously to consider the structural integrity of the buildings. Yes, that is correct. Okay. Members of the board, questions for staff. Member Beach. Is it possible on this photograph, the three windows or... It is not. Let me see. Member Bishide, members of the board, if I could pull up another picture for you that may show. It's right here next to, you can kind of just see it showing in here. It's, you'll go up the stairs and it's to the right where right before the shed. And facade 16 encompasses that whole portion. It goes 16 and it starts at one. Okay. Got it. Thank you. Read that structure. Thank you. Members of the board, any other questions for staff? Okay. Applicant, would you like to step forward and be sworn in? Hello. Will you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record. Becca Wood, 909 Rio Vistas. Contractor, 924 Shoefly Street, 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? They've been sworn in. Chair. Thank you very much. You have the floor. While we're getting the technology set up, just wanted to say we will, sorry, this is our intent in working with our clients in preservation and strong preservation honors the original structure of the building. This is an incredible opportunity. We want, we want to work closely with what is an important historic endeavor within. Okay. Thank you. We heard, we heard, I think, and we appreciate your comments. I do, I, I should also mention that I, I believe this meeting, even though it's not available remotely right now, is being recorded so someone could review it at a future date. Am I right? That is correct. Chamber of the new. Thank you. We'd also like to invite our client, George Fagali, to start us off with a few words about the intent for the project. Thank you. Okay, great. Just need to have him sworn in as well. Hello. Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record. B10. 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. Great. And just so you know, and for the benefit of the public as well, this is just a status review tonight. And so we don't, we shouldn't be addressing or considering anything to do with what your future plans may be for the property. And so all we'll be dealing with right now is status, and then at a later date, we'll deal with all the other issues that I'm sure you have on your mind. No, actually, I just want to thank the staff board members for the visits and for the work. My wife and I live almost in the backyards of this property, and where we live, but to each other, and we've been admiring this property forever. The view from Peralta is spectacular. Everybody who drives by knows that house. And we've known the owners for as long as we've lived here. And Tina and I would like to make this our new home eventually. So I know you're not interested, but this will be where we will live. And, you know, we've traveled the world, and we chose Santa Fe, and we chose this district mainly because of the appearance of it. So we want to preserve what it is. We don't want to change a lot of things. The appearance from Peralta is very important to us, and we just wanted to... Thank you. Thank you for your comments. I appreciate that. And please add anything you like within limits. We have a lot of photos, so that will hopefully orient everybody. All right, thanks very much. We wanted to start with this photograph from approximately 1910, 1915, of the original brick house on this property. And it's immediately recognizable. It looks almost identical today. And finding some of these old photographs has been sort of a guiding light as we are thinking about the property. And I know today we're only doing a status, but we just want to re-emphasize that protecting the nature of this important brick house is central to what we want to do here. We're going to walk through some context and history of the site quickly, look at the site structures individually, and then finish up looking at the elevations. As Amanda mentioned in her great summary, the original brick house dates from 1889. Here it is shown on the 1912 Kings map of Santa Fe. And since that time, several outbuildings and additions have been added to the site. And our hope today is to determine the historical significance of these separate structures and determine how to best celebrate the significance of the original brick house. So just to quickly fly through the timeline of the site, starting in 1889, the adobe shed was added in 1912. In the 20s, we added a garage in the back and a few site walls. Around World War II, the original house was split into three units. And at that time, a garage, a second garage, was added toward the back. And then at a sort of indeterminate date, maybe the 50s up until the 70s, a second bedroom was added on the west side. And so the next section will be walking through all of these structures and hopefully addressing their historical significance separately. So starting with the original brick house, another historical photo from Peralta. It's distinctive and recognizable. We can see that the overall form and impression of the building from the street is unchanged. Even though there has been some change to exterior windows and exterior stairs have been removed and added, the general shape of it and the impression of the detailing is still there. Another view from Peralta to the right. Just like to add, in these two slides, you can see the exterior porch went from being enclosed to an open porch, and the window, the solitary window on the side, became a double-double hung window with arches. This view from the east shows the greatest change, which is what we'll be talking about mostly, which is the addition of new buildings to the north side of the site away from Peralta. So on the left, we see the original house. There's a little piece of a now demolished structure that you can see in that photo on the right-hand side. And then the current site shows the addition of several garages to the back, distinguishable by height and detailing. Just for context, here are a few more photos just moving around the site, all the way down from Wells Fargo, almost at the corner. Just re-emphasizing the reading of the building is primarily that of the original brick structure. As the staff report noted, some distinctive architectural features include the tall arched windows, the projecting front porch with the keyhole openings, the brick coping that has since been stuccoed over, and the stepped massing. Our structural engineer has identified a few things that will need to be repaired so that the building can last another hundred years, but those are thankfully all pretty easily done, and we are hopeful about the renovation of this building for a good time to come. Moving on to the next building, this shed to the north. The staff report mentioned, and the Hickey report mentioned, that it was potentially an animal storage building, but we recently heard from the previous owners that it was actually a coal shed. One of several, the other ones have been demolished since then, but in case that's useful information. Unfortunately, the structure was built without a foundation or waterproofing, so it's in disrepair and is currently uninhabitable. We already covered that the structural status is not the purview of this meeting, but we just want to mention that it is suffering from extreme structural disrepair and is too dangerous to occupy at the moment. The image in the middle, you can see how the adobes were just laid on the earth. The Northwest Bedroom Edition was maybe the one that was being questioned earlier. This is from potentially the 50s, potentially the 70s. We believe it's CMU block with stucco. It's very distinct, as those of you on the site walk probably noticed. It has smooth stucco and aluminum sliding window. Here we see it to the left of the original brick building. It's a good deal lower. It has an overhanging shed roof with a pronounced fascia. And in conclusion, is quite distinct from the original house. Moving to the northeast converted garage. This was built in the 20s, we believe. We believe it's primarily adobe brick and stucco. It's currently used as a bedroom, but like the bedroom on the other side, it's totally distinct from the original brick house. It's about six feet lower. It lacks a brick coping. The stucco is at a totally different texture, and the window is a horizontal divided light window. Here are a few more photos. The last building to consider is the second garage added to the northeast, which we believe was built in the 40s. It is also low and distinct from the original. And like the other shed, it lacks foundation and waterproofing and is performing a retaining function. So, it's in bad shape structurally. The last site element is the site walls. There's a west and east and a south wall. The primary reading of the site is the south wall. And this may be as old as the original building. We see it in the earliest photographs of the site. The other walls were added maybe in the 20s. We're not totally sure. These are much lower to the ground and retaining much less earth. So to kind of wrap up the presentation of the different parts, the primary goal of our project will be to restore and celebrate the unique original brick house. The additions and outbuildings added later may be old, but their character is so distinct as to detract from the historic integrity of the original house. And in several cases, they are too degraded to occupy safely. Based on this research and analysis, we propose that the original brick house be designated significant, and the distinct outbuildings and additions be named non-contributing. In case it's useful, we included some site elevations. So, here is the original brick house visible from the south. The east elevation showing the two garages. The north elevation showing everything tucked behind the original brick house. And the west showing the shed on the left and the 50s-70s bedroom addition. And a few things we hope to discuss with you today. Thank you. Thank you. Anything further from the applicant? You'll have to be sworn in if you wish to speak. Please raise your right hand, state your name and address for the record. My name is Brandon Gable. My address is 10002 Kaargo. And... Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? I swear. Thank you. I am the son of the prior owner. My grandmother owned this property in the early 1930s. So it's been under continuous family ownership since the early 1930s. Basically, I'm amazed with the research they just found out, especially pre-1930s. I was unaware of some of those photos, or actually their drawings, I guess. We sold this property to the Fagalis. We knew they were going to be stewards of this property. Tried to be stewards of it ourselves. My mother, my grandmother was a single woman taking care of her mother and living off the rents from this building. Needless to say, there was deferred maintenance. I got involved as the maintenance guy around 2002. So there were a lot of things that really were overwhelmed. So we've tried our best to keep the place together, and when we, in time to sort of give up, we wanted to find somebody who really cared for this place and was willing to buy it. And the Fagalis living right next door, overlooking the building, struck a chord. You know, we became friends with them, and that they were sold direct to them without throwing this out to the highest bidder. So this house, I think, has got a new set of stewards that will definitely want to care for. I can speak to some of the historical details, but really, having only been born in 1971, and my grandmother, who would be 126 years old now if she was still alive, was really the one who could answer a lot of these questions. But she passed away in 1999. So, I didn't get involved until 2002. So, there's a period of time when my mother and father were dealing with this building as best they could. And then I came in and started doing some maintenance and just keeping tenants happy as best we could. The addition referring to 16, those facades that could have been put on during the housing crisis of World War II, might have been as late as the 50s or 70s. Those facts aren't really known to me exactly. But it is constructed out of cinder block, and it was poorly built, quickly built to enlarge unit number one, the east unit, so that there was an actual bed. There had been a Murphy bed. It didn't work. This family lore stuff I'm kind of sharing. In the interest of time, I might have to cut short the family lore. Is there anything specifically... I'll try to... And really, we're in public comment at this point, it sounds. I will stick to the two window as best as I can. Yeah, if you could just wrap up with any further information you think it would be important for the board to know just for purposes of status. Yeah, the mentioned additions and outbuildings are not in good shape. There was evidence of a coal shed because that building had coal on the floor. There was a coal chute in the back that is abandoned, and they've never been used. That shed has never been used as a habitable building, and since we've owned it, since our family's owned it, the garages have always been in pretty grim shape. Attempts to patch the roof and so forth have not held up well over the years because they were never built properly. They've also caused some issues with the lot properly draining. The way the water probably used to move, the building was sort of directed by those additions to cause some historic flooding issues. Well, thank you for that, and we'll address that further, I'm sure, in the future when we're dealing with issues to come. Did, back to the applicant for a moment, did you have any position on the three retaining walls the staff has recommended be designated as contributing? I think our position is the southernmost one you can see in this photo is contributing, if not significant. The other two are so low to the ground and basically invisible as to not seem overly significant to us. So, probably non-contributing would be our request. Okay, thank you for that. Stone walls, whatever is done. Thank you. Do members of the board have any questions for the applicant? No. No. Okay. Members of the public wishing to speak, please come to the podium, and please limit your remarks to two minutes. Thank you. Stephanie Benonato, I've been sworn. So, I think this is a beautiful building, and it definitely should be considered significant. I think that all the other structures, including the additions that may have been used as part of the building, are distinct. They are historic, and I think you keep saying that, well, they weren't part of the original, but they are all historic, especially if the small one by the shed was put on in, maybe in the 50s. But I would not consider them significant. I would say that you should have the main house as significant. The additions possibly on the, I'm going to say east side or to the back of the house, the sort of different stucco, it's very distinct, it has that red line around it in the photograph, that should be, I believe, contributing. I don't believe the shed should be anything. I think it should be non-contributing, and I do believe that the rock walls should all be contributing, whether they're low or high. They're there. They're a part of the property, and I think they should be preserved. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else from the public? Seeing no hands raised, I will bring it back to the board. Just keep in mind that we have to designate the residential structure, the shed, the garage, and the three retaining walls. Member Aguilar Madano. Thank you, Chair Bambanu. I have a question for staff, actually, because I don't think I've heard this before. Are we able to only designate a portion of the primary structure, let's say, as significant? Like, if we wanted to, for instance, the 16th edition, designate that as contributing, but the primary residence as significant, can we break it up? Is that allowed? Member Agelar Madrono, members of the board, I know on a previous case that you can exclude that portion of the significant area. Still name it significant with all sides, with the portion being excluded from the primary facade. Okay. So, in a motion, we would probably just, I guess, refer to these facade numbers for the exclusion would probably be the most clear. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Director Lamboy. Thank you, Chair. I would just, I would like to request the board do four different motions just so it's abundantly clear to the applicant what the status is of each. Okay, we can do that. Let's begin with the residential structure. Is there a motion? Is that a hand raised? Member Agar Madron, or no, you're thinking about whether to raise your hand. Oh, member Beachside. Yeah, I can try that. The four motions, just to be clear, the four motions are for the main house, which includes one of the garages. Is that correct? Uh, one of the garages has been converted to a bedroom. Yeah. And then the garage, and then the shed, and the yard walls. Okay. All right. So, I appreciate the context in which this was presented and think the applicants make a strong case for the primary preservation objective being the significant, the currently significant main structure. So, I'll make a motion with respect to the main house in case number 2025 010763 HDRB at 515 P de Peralta that we designate or retain the significant designation for the main house, excluding facades number 161 and two to exclude the added northwest bedroom addition, and also excluding facades number four, five, and six, which excludes the garage addition on that, sorry, what is that, west, but south, north facade, sorry, and designating the significant structure as, should I read off the facade numbers? I can do that. No. Well, I don't think that's necessary. It's all the, it's all the facades of the main structure other than the ones you just excluded. Right. I'll except for 1612, five, and six. I think that's clear. Is there a second to the motion? Madron will second. Is there further discussion? A roll call vote, please. Member Aguular Madron. Yes. Member Mather. Yes. Member Dagnet. Yes. Member Beached. Yes. The motion has passed. Thank you very much. Okay, so the next item to be addressed is the shed. I can, I can do that. Proceed, member Beach. Yeah. In case number 2025 010763 HDRB at 515 P de Peralta, I move to designate the shed as non-contributing, noting that it does not meet the criteria of a high level of integrity, and it does not require the identification of primary facades. Is there a second? Hey, there will second. Okay. Any further discussion? Roll call vote, please. Member Beach. Yes. Member Dagnet. Yes. Member Mather. Yes. Member Aguular Madrono. No. The motion has passed. Thank you for that. Next is the garage. And same case number 2025010763 HDRB at 515 Peralta. I move to designate the garage structure identified by facades G1 through G4 as non-contributing, noting that it also does not retain a high level of integrity. Second. Further discussion. Okabo, please. Member Agular Madrono. Yes. Member Matherther. Yes. Member Dagnen. Yes. Member Beachek. Yes. The motion has passed. Chair. Thank you. And then we have the three retaining walls, which you could, you don't have to designate the same, but we could address them in one motion. Okay. Case number 2025 010763 HDRB at 515 PJ Peralta. I move to designate the south, the entire south retaining wall, including the entry steps, as contributing. I don't believe we can designate a wall as significant, although I would support that if that's possible, and to not status the other retaining walls as they're sort of part of the landscaping, and or unless they're not considered that, maybe they are, they're retaining wall, they'll just designate them as non-contributing, sorry. Is there a second? Discussion. Discussion, yes. I would, I would love to hear staff's answer because my preference would be to designate the wall and the entry steps as significant if that's within our purview. Chair Banu, member Aguilar Madrono, it has been the practice of this board to designate walls and fences as contributing without designating them as significant, but that is a practice. It is up to the pleasure of the board as to whether how you want to designate it. I guess based on that, if it's a, all right, I'd like to amend the motion to designate that wall and entry steps as significant. A second to the amendment. Okay. So, we have a motion and a second as amended. Is there further discussion on the amended motion? Roll call vote, please. Member Bee. Yes. Member Dagnet. Yes. Member Matherther. Yes. Member Aguilera Madano. Yes. The motion has passed. Chair. Thank you very much. I think that takes care of everything that was presented to the board. Thank you for your appearances. I know we'll see you again. Next item on the agenda. Item C 2020. No, item, oh, B. I was going to skip Apodaka Hill after trying to get it too soon. So, item B, 2025010764 HDRB 438 Apodaka Hill. This is again Senior Planner Romero's case. Thank you, Chair Ben Venu, members of the board. If you could just give me a few moments to get our technology back up, and I will be with you shortly. Okay, we'll be here. Member Benu, members of the board, would you like for me to wait for member Matherther to return, or do you want me to get started? Uh, we still have a quorum, so I would go ahead and start. This is for 2025 01 0764 HDRB at 438 Opadaka Hill, and that is in the downtown and east side historic district. The applicant requests to construct a 260 square foot freestanding carport to a height of 11 feet 6 inches, where the maximum allowable height is 13 feet 9 inches. You can see here in the site plan that the carport is at the very entry of the property. The freestanding carport will be built in a Spanish pebble revival style. The carport will be open on all sides. Beams and posts will be stained in a Cabot natural, and parapets will be stuccoed in the Habra Alamo. And here are color colors for you to visualize, see the natural of the wood and the Laabra stucco. This is a very simple project. Staff recommends the approval of the proposed project and finds that the application complies with section 14-5.2D 2D general design standards for all historic districts and 14-5.2E downtown and east side design standards. I stand for questions. Thank you very much, members of the board. Any questions for staff? Yes, member Madrono. Thank you, Chair Panu. Amanda, on the photo of the carport site looking west, there's some sort of existing shed there. Is that the same color of stain that the applicant's proposing for the carport? I, it did look very similar to me on site as well as the cut sheet. So, I do believe it's similar. You might want to ask the applicant, but I do believe it's, if not the same, very similar. Okay. Do you, do you have any idea when that structure was built? I realize it could have been restained more recently. Yeah, I do not have record. Okay. Right. Thank you, Amanda. Thank you, member Anthony. You, no further questions from or for staff. I'll ask the applicant to step forward and be sworn in. Hello. Will you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record. Jeff Sears, 122 Lorenzo 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? Yes. Thank you. Welcome, sir. Please proceed. Good evening. Chairman, members of the board, if there's any questions, I'm here to answer them. Okay. Do any members of the board have questions for the applicant? Appears not. Members of the public who wish to comment on this proposal, please step forward. I see none. In that case, I will return this matter to the board for a motion. Member Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that item 2025 010764 HDRB at 438 Apadaka Hill be approved for a freestanding carport to the height of 11.6 with a maximum allowable is 139. Each side. We have a second. Is there any further discussion on the motion? Roll call vote, please. Member Beach: Yes. Member Dagnan: Yes. Member Mather: Yes. Member Aguilar Madrona: Yes. The motion has passed. Chair: Thank you. Your application is approved. Thank you. Good luck. Thank you. And sorry to have dragged this out. It's okay. Moving on to item C under new business, case 2025-010493-HDRB at 626 Canyon Road. Once again, Senior Planner Romero, this is your case. Thank you, Chair Benvvenu and members of the board. While we're waiting for the slide to pull up, I just want to reiterate Chair Benu's statement of 2025-010493-HDRB at 626 Canyon Road, and that's part of the Downtown and East Side Historic District. This application is to construct a 290 square foot addition to the height of 12 feet, where the maximum allowable height is 14 feet 9 inches, and reconfigure the existing pergola to 175 square feet to the height of 9 feet 9 inches. And you can see on this site plan, all the work that's proposed to be done is going to be on the east elevation. Here is a current photo of the east elevation, or a section of the east elevation. And here is the other section of the east elevation. And below the trees here, you can see where the existing pergola is. And that will basically be in the same spot. It'll just be reconfigured a little bit to the left. I wanted to make a note in your packet. The west elevation shown here is shown west in your packet, but it's actually the east elevation is where the construction is going to be taking place. And this is a non-primary elevation statused by this board. The exterior finish will be ABQ, and the windows and doors and trim will be dark bronze. It was recognized in the last hearing for status that a few windows were replaced without board approval, and some tiles from the front yard wall have been removed prior to the status. Staff recommends approval of the proposed project and finds the application complies with Section 14-5.2D, General Design Standards for all Historic Districts, and 14-5.2E, Downtown and East Side Design Standards. I stand for questions. Thank you. Do any members of the board have questions for staff? No. Thank you. Would the applicant please step forward and be sworn in? Will you please raise your right hand, state your name and address for the record? Richard Martinez, Martinez Studio, PO Box 925, Santa Fe. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Thank you. Thank you, Chair. He's been sworn. Thank you. Good evening, sir. You have the floor. Yes. The owner could not be here tonight, and he was planning to talk on Zoom, but he sent me a message that he would like me to read. This is a message to the board from Ross Boyd, the owner of the property. "I would like to begin by sharing how excited we are about the opportunity to be a part of the Canyon Road community. We have made new friends on every side of the house, whether it's Estefan Rios, who owns the Desert Moss Vintage Store behind us, and who looks after our house when we're gone, or Stu Dixon at the Canyon Cafe across the street. We enjoy being able to take peaceful walks in the peaceful courtyard or sitting on the front patio on Canyon Road, just to name a few things. While we recognize the importance of preserving the exterior integrity of the house as much as possible and its unique back loop history, Brooke has made friends with Mr. Be's heirs who have recently visited the house. We have lots of family friends who love to come visit. They all have small children. So, with Richard's help, this bathroom and living room additions will really help us when entertaining family and friends. As it currently stands, we have a second bathroom only for guests, only for one guest room, and it does get chaotic with the parents and children being on top of one another for showering, etc. Having stated the above, Brooke and I kindly ask for the Historic Board's cooperation so we can continue to enjoy what we feel is one of the most unique and special places anywhere for many years to come." We are planning to add 290 square feet to make the living room a little bit larger and to add a bathroom and a closet to one of the guest rooms. These additions will be in the courtyard away from Canyon Road, not visible at all from any public way. The only visible element that we're planning is that we're going to take the front door and install it with the hinges on the other side, the same door, but open in rather than out, because the front door now opens out. And the pergola off the kitchen, which now has a post in a very awkward place, means that it's impossible to have like a table underneath it with chairs and things like that. So we would like to do that as well. Stand for questions. Thank you. Thank you very much. Do any members of the board have questions for the applicant? None. Okay. Members of the public who wish to speak to this application, please step forward. I see none. Okay. Comes back to the board then for a motion. Yes. Member Aguilar Madrono. Chair Bambanu, in case number 2025-010493-HDRB at 626 Canyon Road, I move to approve the application as submitted. Is there a second? I will second. Thank you very much. Any further discussion on the motion? Roll call vote, please. Member Aguilar Madrono: Yes. Member Mather: Yes. Member Denon: Yes. Member Beach: Yes. The motion has passed. Chair: Thank you. Your application is approved and good luck. Thank you, members of the board. Thank you. Your night is done. Next item on the agenda is item D, 202010693-HDRB at 516 and 516 and a half Alto Street. This is Senior Planner Duran's case. Sorry, his presentation's not working. He's going to bring his computer. Good evening, Chair Bian Venu, members of the board. Thank you for your patience with staff and thank you for being here. Thank you all from the public for being here. In case 2025010869-HDRB in 516 and 516 and a half Alto Street, the single-family residence is listed as contributing to the Westside Guadalupe Historic District with the north elevations designated as the primary facades. Now, the Santa Fe County tax parcel information identifies the structure was built in AD 1710 on a 0.25 acre parcel with 2,934 square feet of roofed area. It is noted that a 280-foot flat-roofed carport was constructed in 1935, and a 320-foot detached garage was built in 1953. The structure speaks to a combination of Spanish Pueblo, Territorial, and New Mexico vernacular design styles, as seen by the one-story adobe structures constructed with hipped corrugated metal roofs, mud plaster walls, and rectangular floor plans with a simple porch along the streetscape. In Mr. John Murphy's 2025 Historic Cultural Property Inventory (HCPI) survey form, addresses the 1996 Historic Districts Review Board changes to what is known today as 516 and 516 1/2 Alto Street. The changes included wholesale replacement of doors and windows, a glazed corridor connecting the two structures, new front porch, and replacement of the roof. Mr. Murphy discusses in detail prior to the renovation and connecting the structures, the independent structures comprised of small residential adobe structures with hipped and flat roofs. Mr. Murphy's final evaluation, he recommended the main structure maintain a contributing status with the north elevation designated as primary, and the standalone garage retain its contributing status with the east elevation designated as primary. Staff is in agreement with Mr. Murphy's assessment. So, as we look here is the 1990s floor plan that was approved with the renovations on this property. Now, as we look at 516, this is a street-facing facade on the north facade that faces Alto Street. Here is 516 and 1/2 Alto Street, which faces Alto Street to the north. So these two facades would be the north primary facades that staff is recommending. Here is the glazed corridor which combines the two structures together. Now here is the east facade, which is elongated along the private driveway off of Alto Street. Here is a view from the south facing north of the two south facades in the glazed area, which encompasses this beautiful courtyard. Here is the glazed work and the roof, the roofing, which is pretty immaculate. And then we have the standalone garage, and Mr. Murphy describes this as the most original structure on the property. It has the original garage doors, carriage doors, and holds the most integrity as well. And he's recommending, as well as staff, the east facade, which is the carriage garage doors, as the primary facade with contributing status. So here is staff's primary facade diagram. And in this proposed facade diagram to illustrate that the north 516 and 516 and a half Alto Street, those north elevations be the primary facades, as well as on that garage structure with the carriage doors be the carriage doors on that east elevation be the primary facade. And with that, staff recommends the historic status of the main residential structure be maintained as contributing, and the north elevation be designated as primary, identified in the proposed facade diagram as numbers one and two, and the standalone garage retain its contributing status with the east elevation designated as primary, identified in the proposed facade diagram as number one, per 14-5.2C, 2C designation of significant contributing and non-contributing status with historic districts within the historic districts. Thank you. Staff stands for questions. Thank you for your presentation and the thorough report. Do members of the board have questions for staff? Yes, Member Beach. Just one. Thank you. Paul, in your recommendation for the garage, are you including the carport structure as part of facade one? Chair Benvvenu, Member Beach. Great question. Staff is not recommending the carport, just the structure. Okay. Thank you. Anything else from the board? Okay, we'll open the floor to the applicant. If the applicant wishes to step forward and be sworn in, Will you please raise your right hand, state your name and address for the record? Markton, 1523 Tal Street. 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. Good evening, sir. You have the floor. Agreed with the choice of the primaries. We are hoping to do some work to the building, and one thing that wasn't really noted, and it really doesn't affect this, was just that there has been quite a bit of change over the years, building some as early as the 90s. So just keep that in your decision, otherwise in agreement. Okay. Thank you for that. Members of the board, do you have questions for the applicant? None. Members from the public who wish to speak to this application, please step forward. Please state your name, but you've been sworn. Stephanie Benonato. I'm happy that no one's recommending that it be downgraded because of the approval by the board of changes in the 1990s, because that would mean that the board approved changes that would impair its status. However, I don't really agree that the north facades on the main house should be primary. I think the one on the east side is much more character defining. I think it's the east side than either of those north entries. And other than that, I appreciate that. Again, it's going to be maintained. Both structures are going to be maintained as contributing. Thank you. Thank you. Any other members of the public who wish to speak? Seeing none, I would return to the board for a motion or discussion. I think I saw Member Beach's hand first. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In case number 20250693 HDRB at 516 and 516 and a half Alto Street, I move to designate, sorry, retain the contributing status of the main structure, designating the north facades numbers one and two as primary, and to designate the garage as contributing with the east facade designated as primary, excluding the carport, and noting that the original garage doors are character defining. Thank you. Is there a second? Madrono will second. I'd like to propose a friendly amendment. Please proceed. On the primary residential structure, I would propose that the doors and windows are excluded, which staff stated have been replaced. Yes, thank you for that. That friendly amendment is accepted. There is a motion and a second with a friendly amendment. Is there further discussion? Roll call vote, please. Member Aguilar Madrono. Yes. Member Mather. Yes. Member Dagnum. Yes. Member Beach. Yes. The motion has passed. Chair. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Moving on to item E, 2025010695 HDRB at 549 and a half Aqua Fria Street. This is also Senior Planner Duran's case. Venu, members of the board, when you read that case number, on my case number is 010870. Okay. Well, I'm reading from the agenda. Let's see. You're right that the staff report has a different number. So the number on the agenda is not the same as the number on the staff report. Oh, I noticed that on the last case, a Member Bshid's motion. Oh, let's see. Happened to a different number than what I had. My also reading from the agenda. Okay, that was also had two different numbers. Yes. Let's see about the case number. C was that one did have the right number. So, how does this affect the proceedings that have already transpired? Member Bianu, in previous discussions we've had with the staff and my boss, Ms. Sherry, that the fact that the number is incorrect doesn't have any bearing under the Open Meetings Act, so long as the address is correct, historic district, and the status of the structure, and if exceptions are requested, exceptions. Glad to hear that. So, I'm not sure which number was used in the last case, but we have a common, we have a common address, so I'm sure that will be able to be straightened out. So, what number should we proceed under for the current case? The case number in the staff report or the number in the agenda? Chair Bian Venu, members of the board, would it be the pleasure of the board to use the one on the staff report? These captions, now, if I understand this correctly, my understanding that they were created when they were supposed to go the month before. However, I never got these numbers when they were created from the individual who created them. So, I created new numbers not knowing that these new, these old numbers were created last month. I created these. That's why they're on my staff report. However, when they were creating the captions, they used different numbers for some odd reason. That's a staffer. Yeah. And I'll hold on to the, I will sure own that one. But now that makes sense why. So, I can, yeah, I can see why something like this could happen. I guess I'm just wondering what's the best way to proceed. From the attorney's perspective, should we, which number should we go by, the agenda or the staff report? I would assume the agenda, but I'll leave it up to you. Well, Chair Bianu, I think that would be up to the staff to decide. Oh, really? Okay. So, which number do you want to proceed under the staff report? It sounds like. Chair Bianu, members of the board, it would be my staff number to this case. So, I'm going to revise the case that I call to 2025010870 HDRB at 549 and a half Aqua Fria. Please proceed. Thank you. The single family residence at 549 and a half Aqua Fria Street is listed as not surveyed in the Westside Guadalupe Historic District. The Santa Fe County tax parcel information on the property describes the main dwelling and garage at 549 Aqua Fria Street were built in 1867. Mr. Murphy's 2025 Historic Cultural Property Inventory Survey Report identifies the main structure and garage as being built in the 1920s. However, Mr. Murphy shares that the adobe garage was converted into a small cottage in the 1940s with additions in the 1960s. The current structure at 549 and a half Aqua Fria Street is described as a modest Pueblo Revival style building comprised of approximately 1,000 square feet of roofed area, constructed from adobe block material and stucco over. The structure has recently received a wholesale window and door replacement, construction of the south elevation garden wall, and a new roof. Given the subject property's location, it was most likely never considered during previous historic assessments in the 1980s and 1990s. It is important to note that 549 Aqua Fria Street is designated as a significant structure to the Westside Guadalupe Historic District. And here, here would be the original plat map that was constructed. These rectangular linear parcels extending down to the Santa Fe River. So, this property is off the beaten path of Alto Street. It's tucked in there behind 49 all of Fria Street. And the first thing you see when you get there is a beautifully defined river rock, river rock wall. So, as you get to this structure, and Mr. Murphy's report states, you know, this rock structure was established in the 2000s. However, the original structure within itself, as you can see, has had replacement windows and doors on that south elevation. But that south elevation being the most publicly visible has the most character-defining elements to be the primary facade in which staff recommends this facade being the primary. Now, throughout the structure, many of the additions are seen in the 1958 and 1960s aerials that they were established. However, the windows and doors have now since been replaced as we see here. Now, in the 1930s Sanborn map, you can see that the garage was a built adobe structure behind the main residential house in 1969. And I believe Mr. Murphy provides a very good aerial showing the development and character of the structure's footprint as we see it today. So, in staff's, in staff's review of this property, staff recommends that the structure, the historic status of the structure be upgraded to contributing and designate the south elevation as the primary facade, identified as number one on the proposed facade diagram, exclusive of non-historic windows or 14-5.2c 2C designation of significant contributing or non-contributing status within the historic districts. Thank you. Staff stands for questions. Thank you. Do members of the board have questions for staff? None. Applicant can step forward and be sworn in. Hi. Are you both going to be speaking? Say it again. What? Are you both going to be speaking? You and or just you? Oh, okay. Just checking. Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record. Robert Kger, 3068 Plaza Blanca. 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. Very much. Good evening. Would you like to add anything to the staff's report or inform the board as to anything with regard to your application? My clients and I agree with the report. Okay. Thank you for that. Do any members of the board have questions for the applicant? And if she'd like to address the board, then I'll just ask you to be sworn in as well. Please raise your right hand, 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 perjury? Thank you. Thank you. Please say that I agree and I've really enjoyed finding out more about this building that I agree with everything Mr. Durant. Great. Thank you. It's lovely property. Questions? None. Members of the public who wish to address this application may step forward. I see no one. Okay. Board, what's your pleasure? Motion. Looks like we have hand raised by Member Beachside. You have the floor. Thank you. In case number 2025010870 HDRB at 549 and a half Aquafria Street, I move to designate the house as contributing and with the south facade as primary, excluding the non-historic windows, and I guess I would also at this opportunity just designate the yard wall, which is not historic, as non-contributing. Okay. Thank you. Member DGEN. Is there any further discussion? No. Roll call vote, please. Member Aguilar Madrono. Yes. Member Mather. Yes. Member Dnet. Yes. Member Beich. Yes. The motion has passed. Chair. Thank you and thank you for the application. It's approved. Thank you, Paul. Moving on to item F, 2025010839 HDRB at 433 Kaz. Senior Planner McCauley. Good evening. This is case 202510839 HDRB for 433 Kyle La Paz for a status review and primary facade designation. The property is located just north, just north of Seikia Madre on the east side of the road with the front of the lot facing Ka Paz and the rear of the lot facing Camino Monzano. The area that consists of Kyle Leaz was an apple orchard in the 1920s. Properties in the area were developed with larger lots, heterogeneous designs, and houses that for the most part did not face the street. The addresses were a madre until 1938 when they were changed to Kyle Leaz and Camino Manzano. Kyle Leaz is a dirt road lined with yard walls and wood and wire fencing ranging from 3 feet to 6 feet in height at the edge of the road. The houses are set back from the road from 5 to 10 feet on average. Most of the streetscape is Spanish Pueblo Revival style and a few Territorial style homes. Of the eight properties on the street, only two have freestanding street facing garages. All of the properties back up along Camino Manzano. Camino Monzano is also a dirt road lined with yard walls and wood fencing. However, the street also has several structures that sit at the side of the road with no setbacks. The view of the properties on Kyle Laaz from the Camino Manzano side consists of the rear of homes and backyards, backyard walls, fences, and gates. This area, which also includes Saiia Lane and San Antonio Street, represents the first suburban style development in the east side. Consistent setbacks, lot sizes, and relationship to the street are defining features of early suburbs that were woven into the historic context. Previously the urban design was more defined by access to asakias and long narrow lots to provide space for orchards or agriculture. The 0.16 acre lot at 433 Kyle Laaz was originally owned by Frank Hudson until 1960 when it became a rental unit. It was being leased by Robert Naidajorf when he purchased it in 1972. While Mr. Najdorf passed in 1988, his wife remained in the home until 2000 when she sold it to Lee Dirks. Mr. Dirks recently sold the property to its current owner. The property contains a main residence, a guest house, and a freestanding single vehicle garage with yard walls along each street and some wood fencing. The 1300 sq ft single-family residence is listed as contributing to the Downtown and East Side Historic District. The original portion of the home was constructed in adobe sometime between 1912 and 1930, with four subsequent additions, all of which were constructed before 1970. The new residence is a vernacular interpretation of Territorial style with Pueblo Revival influence in the additions to the historic footprint. The roof heights vary, with most having a brick cornice which was installed in 2001. The main entrance of the residence faces north and is covered by a portal that is off-center from the elevation due to one of the additions. The recent brick floor of the portal is several feet above ground level, and the roof is supported by wood posts set on concrete pier blocks. The residence retains its original finish with mostly two-over-one wood windows, except for one six-over-one wood clad and one one-over-one vinyl window. The doors are wood, except for one metal door. The residence is stuccoed in cement stucco in buckskin. Character-defining elements of the main residence include the original core, original fenestration openings fitted with two-over-one wood windows, and the brick cornice. The applicant provided a window assessment of the windows and doors throughout the residence. There is a combination of historic and non-historic windows and doors in various stages of wear. There is a single case on file for the property from 2001. Case H01126 was approved for replacing windows, a glass door, adding a new window on the south and east elevations, raising the roof of the kitchen, and installation of coping to match the existing. They also installed an outside stair to the basement on the east elevation of the main house and replaced the French doors on the south elevation of the guesthouse. The staff report of the case indicates that the south and east facades of the main residence are not primary but does not clarify which facade is designated as the primary. This is why the primary facade designation of the main residence is being requested at this time. The 564 sq ft casita is listed as non-contributing to the historic district. It was constructed in the early 1980s with frame construction that seems to encompass an older structure on its south end. The casita is a vernacular style with a passive solar design consisting of south-facing clerestory windows and interior brick floors. The main entrance faces west and has a metal panel door and sash windows. The south houses French doors and a sash window, and the upper level has the clerestory windows. The east facade contains wood windows, and the north facade has no openings. According to the window assessment, all windows are non-historic, from 1987 to 2015. The applicant is requesting status confirmation on the casita. Staff notes that the casita is under 50 years of age and is not yet eligible for contributing status. Therefore, the casita should be considered as non-contributing until it reaches historic age. The 264 sq ft west-facing garage was constructed before 1958 of hollow clay tile blocks in Spanish Pueblo Revival style. The roof has been modified with a flat roof with plywood overhang. The vehicle door is a double chevron wood overhead door in a natural color with blue trim surround that matches the blue of the roof overhang. There is a metal light fixture to the south of the door. The south facade holds a non-original 1990 wood pedestrian door painted red and an eight-light sash window turned on its side. The window assessment shows this window as a non-historic 1987 window. The north facade has no openings. The garage is a good example of this type of construction and design. The applicant is requesting status with primary facade designation, if applicable, for the garage. The garage is over 50 years of age and is one of two unique garages facing Calle La Paz. There are 70-inch tall yard walls along both Calle La Paz and Camino Manzano, which were constructed after 1983. In the 1983 survey photo, a much lower wall was in front of the residence, which was raised in height by 1991, as is illustrated in that survey photo. The west wall contains an arch gate opening that reaches 90 inches and holds a wooden gate. To the south is a 72-inch wood plank fence. The yard wall on Camino Manzano starts at the south corner of the lot and runs to the edge of the guesthouse. Closer to the guesthouse is a wooden pedestrian gate topped with a header. At the south end of the guesthouse starts a 72-inch plank fence that runs for about 5 to 10 feet before ending in a wire fence that is damaged by the overgrown foliage that clings to it. The applicant is requesting the status for each of the yard walls. Due to the age, neither wall is historic and does not qualify for status. Therefore, at this time, they should be considered non-contributing until they reach historic age. Staff recommends the historic status of the main residential structure be maintained as contributing, with the north facade or R1 on the map, which retains its original structure and design, be designated as a primary facade. The garage be designated as contributing with the west or G4 as the primary facade, and the guesthouse and yard walls be designated as non-contributing due to their age for Section 14-5.2C, designation of significant contributing non-contributing status within historic districts. I stand for questions. Thank you. I'd just like you to address the west wall or the west facade, rather, of the primary residence. It seems that you indicated that the south and the east were mentioned as not being primary in the past, which implies that both the north and the west have been considered primary. Secondly, that west elevation was noted by the HICPI as the oldest portion of the house, and it's quite visible from the street. It's by far the most visible portion of the house from the street, and it seems to retain at least one, if not two, historic windows. Is there any reason why you're not recommending that that be primary as well, or would you agree that that could be also considered primary? The 2001 case did not actually mention either the north or the east or west facades at all. So there was no indication which was considered primary or if both were. In discussing it on-site with Mr. Martinez, we both agreed that it's very possible that both were intended to be primary, but we were unsure. So, I guess I'm still wondering why you wouldn't recommend the west, the very prominent west facade that's the oldest portion of the house and seems to have been considered primary in the past, to retain its or to be designated formally tonight as also primary. I think the reason I didn't do that is just trying to limit the number of primary facades. Yeah. Okay. Questions from the board or staff? No. Applicant may step forward. You've already been sworn. You have the floor. In general, we agree with the recommendations of the staff. Perhaps the reason why staff only recommended the north elevation, not the west elevation, is because John Murphy in the historic report says the primary house is designated as a contributing structure, and its most important facade is the front north-facing elevation, which has been the least affected by additions and clearly communicates the building's original and historic character. Character-defining features of this facade include its original horizontal massing, window openings containing older two-over-one wood sash windows, and brick cornice. Perhaps because that is where the front door is, and it is character-defining the house, and that's the reason why John Murphy recommended only that facade as being the primary facade for the main house. I want to mention a couple of things. Non-contributing elements of that facade should not be included in the designation as primary. The portal in front of the house is in a different style than the house behind and was possibly added later. The wood columns and the beams on the portal have been painted, and the paint possibly hides damage to the wooden elements there. I may want to replace those because restoration may not be possible. I have no idea. But I did notice on the recommended elevations, a primary facade, it did not include this portal. So I just want to make sure that the portal is not included in that primary facade designation. Also, you can see on this elevation that the window that is next to the door is non-historic, and according to the report, the window report from Ray Patterson, it is not. I would like to make this window similar to the historic windows on this facade on either side, but that would mean changing the opening, making the opening larger. And so I would like to make sure that that window is excluded as well because it is a blemish on this beautiful facade. Also, it's too bad that the primary facade designation precludes the idea of expanding the portal to be symmetrical with the house behind. As you notice that the portal is only like two-thirds of the house behind it. And also, the facade that is designated as primary by the staff includes that little portion of a lower, of the lowered elevation. That space was, I think, was a bathroom addition to the main house and does not have the same details as the main as the facade of the house. Also, if that, if that little portion is designated as primary, because we cannot do any additions or any element, new parts within 10 feet of that, that would mean that it would affect the idea of doing any sort of portal or anything on the backyard of the house, off the kitchen. So I would like that also to be excluded from the primary elevation of the house, which ends at the corner, which has the brick cornice on it. We agree with the contributing designation and the primary facade recommendation of the garage. And we agree with the staff recommendation for the yard walls, and we agree with the staff designation for the guesthouse. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, Director Lamboy. Thank you, Chair Bianu. Just want to make a couple of clarifications and points. So, when I was out at the site visit today, I walked around the building to the south elevation of the building. I've done some research, and there was never an approval for window replacement on that south elevation that was done recently, and the approval that was received in 2001 had a different muntin pattern than what has been replaced. So there's still that, there's still disturbed stucco around the windows. There was that one that is closest to La Paz, and then there's another one that's further in. What's problematic about this illegal window replacement is that there are also building code standards that do apply, and which, which have to do with fire rating because it's not 5 feet setback from the property line. So I want to alert Mr. Martinez that this issue will come up when a building permit is being sought. Also, I would just like to respectfully request that the applicant not talk about what is being planned as a basis for designating primary facades, but whether the finishes or features were historic, then that's it. Thank you. Okay. So, I think that, yeah. I understand what you're saying about the window replacement. I believe that's true. We had nothing to do with it. The owner bought the house, and I finished. Yeah. Yes, Member DNA, did you have a, am I allowed to speak? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, these comments about the recommended primary facade and Mr. Martinez's wishes or professional approaches to addressing, for example, the portal not expanding across the front of the building. With changes like that, doesn't that alter the facade that we're investigating? Chair Bian Vadu: Member, that would alter the primary facade significantly if there was no proof that there was a portal there that was much longer. Thank you. Okay. Yeah, I understood the comments from the applicant's representative to be directed at just excluding certain features because they were not character-defining from the, or non-historic, from the facade designations. I would just comment that it seems like you were excluding an awful lot for the argument that that's to be the only facade that's designated primary. So I would just circle back to the importance in my mind of the west facade, which is facing the street. It said on page eight of Murphy's report, it contains the oldest portions of the house, and it has, it looks like, some historic windows that would not be protected if it was not a primary facade. So, especially if we're taking away a great deal of the front entry as being character-defining, it seems to me it would be extremely important to protect those two facades. But those are just my thoughts. I'm not the maker of the motion. Do any other members of the board have questions or comments for the applicant? The recommendation that I made for excluding parts of the primary facade, we're not excluding any of the mention of what the historian mentions as the character-defining elements of that facade: the coping, the windows, door, things like that. So, thank you. Anything further for the applicant? No. Members of the public that wish to address this application, please step forward. Excuse me. Stephanie Benonato. I found it, and I'm happy that Miss Lambert Lamboy brought it up about talking about what you want to do because as a professional architect who's appeared in front of this board numerous times, Mr. Martinez should know that he shouldn't be talking about what he wants to do. And I would support the idea not only of having both the garage and the main house contributing with the facades designated as primary, but also include the one that's street-facing that is said to be the oldest part with original windows. I think that's really important because that is publicly visible and again, just important to be able to know that it will be preserved. I don't believe that the recommendation includes the portal, but you could be very clear that you're excluding the portal as part of that primary facade. Thank you. Thank you. Any other members of the public? Nope. I'll return to the board for any further discussion or motion. Anybody? Member B Chad: Thank you, Mr. Chair. In case number 2025-010839 HDRB at 433 La Cay La Paz, I move to retain the contributing status of the main house with the north facade designated as primary, excluding the portal, which appears to be new based on the HICP report that refers to non-weathered wood and a new flooring and decking, excluding the sidelight, which is per the HICP, likely non-original, and excluding the addition on the eastern part of the north facade. That is without the brick coping that's on the rest of the house, designating the garage as contributing with the west facade as primary, and designating the guest house and the yard wall as non-contributing. Is there a second? Second. Is there further discussion? Roll call, please. Member Aguilera Madrono. Yes. Member Mather: Yes. Member DGEN: Yes. Member Beach: Yes. The motion has passed. Chair: Thank you. Thank you, applicant. It's 8:15. I think we've been going. We have a few number of cases left. I'm going to propose a 10-minute recess unless there's an objection. Seeing none, we are in recess for 10 minutes. We will reconvene at 25, 20 after, 20 after 8. I wonder that looks. Go. I'd love them in place of the spring. What was it? How does she go about doing that? How is she, how does she get that on? It's one of us, or is she asking one of us? Okay. So, I was wondering how that works, but I didn't volunteer to join. I know. I know. Well, that's, that's right. That's what happens sometimes, doesn't it? Yeah. Sometimes it happens. I agree. There is secret. Well, I'm just saying, am I getting all of the dots? I don't want to miss it. So, like when I'm here, for example, back here there were just two items. There was a staff report and staff do that one. So, I'm just want to make sure that I know how to call up everything. So, wait. So, how do I? Oh, but they don't always. I mean, there are, but basically I just have to click on this and there's no other underneath manipulation. Yeah. Okay. So, how, so let's say I want to go back to, except let me, I'm here and they're on something else. What's the fastest way to get to that? Just shut the stone. Yeah. Right. Yeah. But where do I go from checking, stuffing the chat? Yeah. So, put a 13 in here. Okay, let me just see if that day. Okay, we're going to go back on the record. It's 8:33. We're back on the record. Next case on the agenda is item G, 2025-01840 HDRB at 815 East Alamita Street, Unit 8. This is in your planner, McCauley's case. Thank you. This is case 202510840 for 815 East Alama Street, unit 8. The property at 8:15 East Alama is located across from the Santa Fe River Park, which is a passive recreational area. 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 yard walls with an average height of 54". The yard walls are stuccoed concrete masonry units that are colored to match the corresponding building. The 89-acre property that houses the Zangria Compound Condominiums is addressed as 815 and 8:17 East Alama. The property is part of a three-phased development plan. Phases 1 and 2 are complete. Phase 3 is 38 acres, which is listed as 815 East Alama Unit 8. This request is for phase 3 of the development plan. The area of the lot designated for 815 East Alama Unit 8 is currently a gravel parking area. The applicant came to the HDRB on June 10th of 2025 for approval of phase 3 under case 202510490. The board approved the construction of a 2204 sq ft single-story residence with an 882 sq ft portal to the maximum allowable height of 14'5". As part of this case, the HDRB denied the construction of a 6' high yard wall and installation of a 3' high weathered steel planter along the exterior of the yard wall and building wall on the east side of the lot. The applicant is returning with a new design for the yard wall. The applicant proposes to raise the height of the existing non-historic 2007 yard walls on the south property line to the maximum allowable height of 4'6". These currently range from 3 ft to 4'9". They proposed to remove an existing wall section to install a 3' wide wood pedestrian gate. Construct a circular coyote fence to 4'6" around a newly planted fruit tree on the south street-facing property line. Construct a 4'6" high yard wall along the east and west property lines to enclose the yard and install a 3' wide pedestrian gate on that west yard wall. Stuccoing the yard wall in synthetic stucco from La Habra, colored in Adobe Viejo or Suffolk to match the new residence. The wood gates and frames will be natural wood with a semi-transparent medium to dark wood stain matching the woodwork of the portal. The gate hardware will be weathered steel, and then they plan to install exterior lighting, just a simple cube-shaped Gamite sconce in black on the exterior of the courtyard walls at each gate. This is the proposed site plan complete with the previously approved residence. And then zooming in, this is the area of work for the proposed yard wall. The applicant has corrected the location of the yard wall so that it is interior to the property line, which was part of the reasoning for the previous denial. The applicant has also lowered the height of the yard wall from the initial request for 6 ft to the maximum allowable height of 4'6" as recommended by the board in June. This fits better with the streetscape. The longest portion of the wall without a break or change is 23 feet. Staff recommends approval of the application as it complies with 14-5.2 general design standards for all historic districts and 14-5.2E downtown and east side design standards. Stand for questions. Thank you. Do any board members have questions? Yes, member side. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a couple of questions. One is just an interpretation for breaks and changes in the wall length. I think when walls are less than 4 feet and can be approved administratively, do you all require any sort of change or break in that length? Chair Benu: Member Beach, that is a zoning standard in terms of the breaks and the changes, which applies throughout the city. Okay, regardless of wall height. Regardless of height. Okay. Thank you. And then with respect to the coyote, the circular coyote fence, is that, does that go behind the tree or is that in front of the tree along the street? It goes behind the tree so that the tree is actually on the side of the street. Okay. Thank you. You, member Agalar Madrono. Thank you, Chair Bambanu. Lenny, I believe in the last application there were also some steel planters that were postponed or denied. Is that a part of this application at all, or what has happened to those planters? The planters were actually denied at the last hearing, and they have chosen not to build them. Okay, thank you. You. Further from the board, the applicant may step forward and be sworn in. Hello. Can you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record. Six art. 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's been sworn in. Thank you. Welcome and thank you for the redesign. What would you like to tell us? Chair and members of the board, I'm just ready for questions. Okay. Questions from the board for the applicant. Member Beach. I have a question about the pedestrian gate. Is a wood plank gate, is that correct, or is it a coyote fence gate? It's a wood plank gate. Okay. And then, so there's a mix of elements. There's stucco, there's coyote fencing, and a wood plank gate. Is that just three things? Is that right? That's correct. The coyote fence is existing. So, that's not new. The one that goes around the fruit tree, sorry, is existing. It's there now. Oh, thank you. Okay. But yes, that's correct. Those three elements. Okay. And did you give any consideration to a pedestrian gate that matches the coyote fencing? I'm just, I find like a lot of elements and also along Alama there's a property to the west that has quite a few different colors and styles included in a compound that in my opinion is not very cohesive, and I'm just hoping that this doesn't add to that kind of disparity of elements on the street. So, I'm wondering if you had considered the use of maybe just two materials, a coyote fencing and the stucco wall, and creating the pedestrian gate out of latas rather than the planks. We didn't consider that, actually. We could if it's really an issue, but the tree that that coyote fence is behind, the trunk is literally this wide. Wow. And you'll barely see that coyote fence. Okay. Going past this. Yeah. I didn't. The gate, the wood gate, and the wall would be the predominant elements that you'll see. Okay. Thank you. Member Aguilar Madano: Thank you, Chair Bian Manu. I had similar thoughts just about the materials and their overall design of this wall. You know, it's a compound. So I think right now the wall is kind of bookended by more territorial-inspired, more squared-off corners with a brick coping, and then the inside of the wall goes towards a more curved radius, similar to I think what this house would be. So, I understand that. I think as the walls are now, they were trying to reflect the houses that stood behind it. But I think looking at this as a streetscape and the fact that it's a compound, this wall really should read as one uniform entrance into the compound. And I think there's an opportunity to improve that and make that happen. So, for example, one thought is on either side of the proposed gate, it really seems like those should be two pilasters with brick coping to match the rest of the wall. I would extend the brick coping along the whole front of the wall as it appears on either end. I would keep the light fixtures consistent because there are already light fixtures on one end of the wall. So again, having two different fixtures is just highlighting that these are different residences rather than this is one unified compound containing different units. And then, you know, the stucco color, I think the wall currently is broken up into a couple different colors, and I would think that would need to be made one cohesive color with this renovation. Thank you. Can I? Sure, please. Going back to the original development plan that was done for this Sangria compound in the early 2000s, it was intended to have distinct looks. So that's why there is the territorial on the two sides and then a more Pueblo Revival style in the center part of it. And, you know, we're honestly trying to adhere to that original approved development plan, having the wall match the house, which is going to be Pueblo Revival, not territorial. And my client, the property owner, actually likes the idea of having a different look in front of each of the structures. So that's our reasoning for doing it that way. Any further questions, Member Bish? Yeah, just a comment to say that I appreciate Member Aguilar Majano's comments. I agree completely with that assessment, and it does change the streetscape, and it doesn't, although I understand what you're saying about matching the houses behind it, but for a compound and for this particular stretch, which is fairly close to another compound, it does distract more than it adds to the feeling of a consistent streetscape in my mind. Any other comments? No. Okay. Yes, Member Aguilar Madano. Chair BM, I'm sorry. I did forget one comment I had. Unfortunately, I don't know that there's much we can do about it, but I was very disappointed to see that the apple tree is getting removed, which is, I don't know from aerial photographs how old it is, but it's a pretty significant apple tree with a trunk, you know, of about a foot in diameter. And I do see that you're replacing it, but it's going to get replaced with a tree that's probably an inch and a half in diameter. So, I really wish that there was a way, and perhaps you'd still be open to it, that the house could, you know, be pushed back a little bit further to save that apple tree. I think along East Alameda, this area in general already has such an open feeling compared to other parts of Alameda, and removing the apple tree is just going to exacerbate that. Well, we are going to replace it with a new tree, and yes, it's going to be a baby tree, but it'll grow, and it's going to be a fruit tree also. So, we're doing the best we can do. We did discuss reducing the footprint of the house and decided against it, and we'd prefer to just replace the tree. Yeah. If it were up to me, this board would have purview over trees because they are historic and contribute significantly to the east side. So I would require that. I don't have the purview. It will take many, many decades for a tree to get back to the size of the one that's there now. So if there's any chance you guys would reconsider, I think it would be greatly beneficial to the streetscape. Thank you. I'd just like to add, Member Aguilar Madano, we do have an ordinance relating to significant trees and really two significant trees in the city, and for each inch of caliber loss that needs to be replaced. So, and I don't know how apple trees figure in terms of the significant tree approach, but that will be evaluated just so that, so it might not be just one tree that replaces it. It might be required to be embarked that. All right, members of the public who wish to speak to this application, please step forward. Yes, ma'am. Please raise, not yet. Will you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record, please. Yes. My name's Elizabeth West, 318 Sena Street in the South Cap. 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. Amen. It's kind of a general comment because I am really pleased that these people have brought back with some good ideas and movement towards stuff. And I'm also really pleased to hear what the board in general is doing. And I don't call it a pushback, but you are, there's a give and take here. And I'm just proud to be part of a town that has this happening a little bit. It's great. I do kind of agree about the apple tree because I think it would be a very creative design, but that's not what we're talking about today, is it? However, I think it could be a creative design if you gave room for the apple tree somehow. However, thank you very much for what you're doing. That's mostly my comment. It feels good. And thank you to the applicant for being willing to come back, and you've done a good job in making an attempt to do that. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Stephanie Benonato. Yes, I appreciate that the applicant came back and made significant changes. I do appreciate the comment about the gate being similar to the coyote fencing, not having too much material. And I actually agree with Member Aguilar Madano's suggestions and comments to make it more uniform because even though I understand the intention of the owner and the architect, I think the streetscape, you know, there are different considerations in terms of a streetscape and in a compound. And perhaps if the owner finds out they have to put in eight trees as opposed to one tree, maybe they will decide to just go around the apple tree and keep that very large apple tree on the property. Thank you. Thank you. Any further public comment? No. Coming back to the board for further discussion or a motion, Member Aguilar Madano, in case number 2025-0840-HDRB at 815 East Alameda Street, unit number eight. I move to approve the 4-foot 6-inch height of the wall with the conditions that the full segment of the wall from one entrance drive to the next be consistent in stucco color, that the lights be consistent, whether that is installing new lights along the entire length or matching the existing, that the pattern of pilasters with brick coping is repeated and used as a way to define points such as the pedestrian gate, that the brick coping be used along the full extent of the wall to match either end that are already there, and that the radius be consistent on the stucco, and that the pedestrian gates be constructed with latas to match the stucco fence rather than panels. Second. Would you want to include that revised plans be submitted to staff for approval? Yes. Thank you. We have a motion, a second. Further discussion? Yes. Yes, we have a second discussion. No. Roll call. Member Beard. Yes. Member Dnet. Yes. Member Mather. Yes. Member Aguilar Madano. Yes. The motion has passed. Chair. Thank you. Thank you, applicant. Moving on to the next case on the agenda, under H 2025010871 HDRB 439 Camino Delman Soul. Senior Planner Durant, are correct. So case I just called has been postponed under the amended agenda. So we will move on to case I, which is 2025010872 HDRB at 836 Don Cabaro Avenue. Also, see. Chair BM Venu, members of the board, in case number 2025010872 HDRB at the single-family residence and detached guest house at 836 Don Cabaro Avenue are listed as contributing to the Don Gaspar Area Historic District as recorded in the 1995 New Mexico Historic Building Inventory Survey Report and in a previous Historic Design Review Board staff report in 2003. There are no records in the Historic Preservation Division case files that indicate when the structures at 836 Don Cabaro Avenue received status or primary facade designation. Most likely, the property received status in the 1980s during drive-by property reviews, including an assignment of historic status by then HPD staff. The applicant is coming before the board to determine the primary facades or the contributing structures on the property. There is no request to change the historic status of the building. As we walk through this property, we can see that this would be the east elevation with the wall, stuccoed yard wall, and the covered entrance into the property. Now, I took some photographs from the previous HCPI form in the '90s. Now, as you walk into this property, you have to, there is a garage that's attached to the property to the zero lot line, and you have to walk through the main residential structure in order to see the guest house. Now, the guest house here on the right-hand side is attached to the zero lot line on the wall itself. Now, staff is recommending that this structure, this guest house, the detached guest house along that zero lot line and the main residential maintain that contributing status with the east facades designated as primary. And here we see as you walk in the covered port hall and the guest house. Now, here is our facade diagram at 836 Don Cabaro Avenue. Staff is recommending first that east facade on the main residential structure and the yard wall as contributing or as the primary and contributing on the guest house. Staff is recommending that east elevation as the primary facade and that structure maintain its contributing status. Staff recommends the historic status of the main structure and detached guest house be maintained as contributing with the east facades designated as primary as indicated as numbers one on the proposed facade diagram and the yard wall designated as contributing per 14-5.2C designation of significant contributing and non-contributing status within the historic districts. Thank you. Staff stands for questions. Thank you. Questions for staff from the board. Nope. Would the applicant please step forward and be sworn in? Hello. Will you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record. Strongwater. 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. Good evening. You have the floor. I don't have too much to add to the proposal that Paul brought. I think you probably all visited the site today and saw the major renovation that happened in the early 2000s that went through the historic process. I thankfully received all those files through Paul. I have very little documentation from the current owners. They do not have much in the way of historic documentation. We've pulled together what we can. I hope to be able to answer any questions you may have. A major portion of the house, the front of the house on the east facade, does remain largely intact from what I can tell. I don't think we have any issues or points of contention with what Paul has provided. The guesthouse in the back that is proposed as a primary facade, I will just mention that it does have a full window and door replacement on that facade. I'm not sure if you had a chance to get back in there today on the site visit. That appears to have happened in the early 2000s renovation. It has flat windows and doors with no light divisions in them. So I do think that is of some import when you're considering that as a potentially primary facade. It appears substantially revised when you see it in person. So I might call into question whether that is worthy of a primary facade designation. Other than that, the shape and dimensions of it do remain. The window openings and door openings are in the same location. The portal has been rebuilt that stands over that door. Beyond that, I stand for questions. Great. Thank you. Questions for the applicant? Any members of the public wish to speak? Stephanie Benonato: I have a feeling that what's now the guest unit was probably a garage to begin with. It's very common in that area to have the garage set back like that. And the fact that it's at a zero lot line sort of indicates to me that that would be the historic pattern. So I think that you could still designate that facade as primary, just excluding the actual windows and doors themselves since the openings are supposedly historic. I wonder, I don't know which facade it was, but there's one where you see a couple of windows and you see this curve at the bottom of the windows that's concrete or stucco. And again, this is a very historic detail that's contributing to many homes. I wish, could you see here where there are those, the way the window is designed with those sills? I think that would be south on that house. I don't know if you would consider actually making that primary as well to preserve that feature because that really is a character-defining feature of these kinds of houses. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else in the room wishing to speak to this application? No. I'll bring it back to the board for discussion or a motion. I also mentioned I do have photos of it if that's helpful if you didn't make it there on the site visit today. I wasn't sure what ended up transpiring. We have a motion. I just have a question for Paul, or for the applicant, whoever. Are those window sills represented on the proposed primary facade? Chair: And venue member Bside. They are. They are on the east facade and they extend around the main house. Okay. And the, sorry, the garage is not separately designated because it's attached to the house. Is that my understanding? Okay. Thank you. To be clear, those facades are proposed as secondary. These photos are showing the south facade, which is secondary. I can make a motion. Yeah. Thank you. In case 2025-010872, I hope that's the right number. Okay. At 836 Don Cabaro Avenue, I move to adopt staff's recommendation to designate the, oh, sorry, the east facade of the main structure as primary and the east facade of the guesthouse as primary, excluding the non-historic elements which include the portal and the windows and door, and to designate the yard walls as contributing as suggested by staff. Just for clarification, I think you may have said this, but I wasn't sure. Did you also include in the motion that the main structure and the guesthouse be maintained as contributing? Sorry. Yes, if I didn't, that's what I intended. Thank you. It was implied if not stated explicitly. Is there a second? Second. Member Denon has seconded. Further discussion on the motion. Roll call vote, please. Member Aguular Madrono: Yes. Member Matherther: Yes. Member Dagnen: Yes. Member Beachside: Yes. The motion has passed. Chair. Thank you and good luck with your project. Very much. Yep. Good night. Okay, we are skipping item J, which was withdrawn, and moving on to item K, 2025-010873 HDRB at 219 and 219A Washington Avenue. Senior Planner Duran, it's also your case. Chair Beneu, members of the board, introduction. Sir, the professional office building at 219 Washington Avenue is listed as contributing to the Downtown and East Side Historic District with the west street-facing facade designated as primary. The commercial building at 219 Washington Avenue occupies the northwest corner of the former Levi A. Hughes estate and is characterized as a low, flat-roof building that initially served as a garage. The nondescript structure faces Washington Avenue and sits directly adjacent to a wide sidewalk made of glazed clay blocks. To the north is a concrete walkway leading to the former McKe office building. To the south is a lawn of the one-time Levi A. and Christine L. Hughes residence, constructed between 1930 and 1942. The garage is made of structural clay pentiles and finished with stucco and painted in a buckskin color. The previous garage faces the street, which has been altered with the infill of a door and windows. These include two sets of large multi-light wood windows that sit on low bulkheads faced with stretcher row brick. The public access to the building is through a 3/4-inch glass door at the northwest corner. The structure is currently utilized for commercial business and purposes. That was well written by my former colleague, Mr. Ramon Sarason. Several previous cases have happened on this, pardon me, on this property at 219 Washington Avenue. In 2019, this property went before the board for status, and that west-facing facade was designated as primary. Then it went before the board in 2024, and Mr. Sarason brought it, and it was approved for some alterations on this structure. Now, Mr. Robert Evans is bringing forth this case for some additional renovations on this property at 219 and a newly addressed 219A Washington Avenue. So, here is the current site plan and the floor plan of this structure, or site plan, pardon me. Now, here's the north elevation of 219 Washington Avenue. As you can see, it's just a mass structure. And this is what borders a territorial structure directly adjacent to a parking lot. Here is the eastern facade. And here is the facade that faces the parking lot as you drive into this area. Then we have the west-facing facade. Now the proposed additions and renovations at 219 and 219A Washington Avenue. I'd like to commend the applicant. They worked diligently. Mr. Evans and Mr. Padilla worked diligently with staff. We've talked about this, discussed it, went through the project over time and time again, and we believe that we're presenting to you the best proposed design for the board to review and approve. Now, so this is the existing site plan for this project. Now, the proposed additions to the east and to the rear of the property extend with a two-story addition at 219 Washington. And then set back 10 feet from that addition is a proposed two-story new construction of, I believe, a long-term hotel room. Now, staff requested two exceptions. We accepted one exception for the historic footprint, that the exceeding 50% of that historic original footprint, and then one exception for the height. The maximum building height is 20 feet 1 inch, and they are proposing at 219A a structure to be 22 feet and the 219A to be 24 feet 6 inches. So, it's going to be multi-layered. They're going to have a basement level, and then they're going to build the first floor and then the second floor. That basement level will provide them the mechanical room measures that they'll need for the structure. And so, here we have the floor plan, the two-story plan, and the basement plan. Now here we have the existing and proposed north elevations of the 219, 219. So on that north elevation, they're putting in windows, the divided light windows, and extending the roof. As you can see, it'll be raised. Now the existing and proposed east elevations. Now these elevations are the elevations that are facing the mountain or to the garage to the rear. They are going to be creating a portal, closing in, infilling some door, infilling doors, and to the existing and proposed south elevation. These elevations are the ones facing towards the plaza. They are infilling the door and putting in a new door into windows last year. We have the existing and proposed west elevation. Here they're going to be reestablishing what was previously approved in 2024. Now we have, see here, the proposed north elevation of units four and five. Now units four and five are the additions to the rear of the property. Now, additions, I should say the addition and new construction to the rear of 219. So, it's still going to be attached, but it's going to be to the rear of the building. And this is what it's looking like from the north elevation, raised to 22 feet. Here we have a view facing to the east, and this is facing towards the mountain. Here you can see the railing system going up, the entry to the proposed entry to the second-floor unit, and a window. Here we have the proposed south elevation. Here's the elevation facing towards the plaza. Again, we have the divided light windows in the entryway and the proposed west elevation. The west elevation that will be facing the Washington Street Avenue, Washington Avenue. So now we have the proposed north elevation for units 6, 7, 8, and 9, and this is 219A. So here we have just a general Spanish Pueblo Revival design style with divided light windows and wooden entry doors with a railing. Here we have on the proposed east elevation a railing system with divided light windows and an entryway. Here we have on the proposed south elevation facing towards the plaza, divided light windows, entryway, and the railing system. Then we have the proposed west elevation. This proposed west elevation has divided light windows, has the entryway with an overhang similar to what is being proposed, which is currently established at 215 Washington Avenue. So Mr. Evans provided some renderings, and here's a rendering of 215 Washington Avenue from the street at Washington Avenue. So, as we're facing east, you can see the general two-story addition to the rear of 215 set back behind it. It's, I know that the tree kind of blocks that, but the 219A two-story addition will be at a maximum 22 feet high, which they did request an exception. Now at 215 Washington Avenue, that structure is 29 feet 8 inches. So it's quite, it's still, the addition does not detract from what 215 Washington Avenue, to its streetscape, to its presence on the streetscape. The addition to the rear is set back behind it and will not impact the public-facing facade. Here is the rendering for the west-facing facade at 219 Washington Avenue. That's the primary facade. Then we have an oblique northwest view in the parking lot to the rear of the structure by the parking garage. Now, 215 Washington Avenue is the one with the hip roof to the left. Currently, this is what it looks like today and what the addition will look like to the rear. That's 219A Washington Avenue. This is the rendering in which the applicant is proposing this design style, this recent Santa Fe Revival style. The applicant provided a rendering. I believe this is a rendering facing into the proposed property from 215, down into the courtyard area and towards the entryway into the hotel rooms, and what it would look like facing down into the property. So, given the proposed work, staff recommends approval of the proposed project and finds that all the exception criteria have been met, 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. Chair: Thank you. Members of the board, do you have questions for the staff? Member Beach. Member Beach: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Paul, can you please comment on what, if any, impact you think that these changes have to the existing 219 and also the 215, which I think are both, are they both contributing? Yeah. Staff: They are. Chair Bienvenu, member Beach, yes, ma'am. And that's a great question. The impact, as we looked at this from the streetscape, both those west-facing facades are their primary facades, and that really tells the significance of those structures. And even so, the significant structure directly north of 219 Washington Avenue, a very prominent structure, very Territorial-esque in architectural design and the history to that structure. So, when talking with the applicant, what they were proposing on that west facade at 219, they're proposing stepping it back to the east, not to overwhelm that western facade, maintaining what was previously approved and not touching it, and setting everything to the rear. Now, at the site visit today, these are pretty large structures, and they can overwhelm the area, but the general area, and I believe the applicant is doing the best they can to build on this property by stepping it to the rear, or to the east, where it has the least minimal impact on that streetscape. And so, staff believes that they have met that to bring it before you today. Other questions? No. Applicant, you may step forward and be sworn in. Clerk: Will you please 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 perjury? Thank you, Chair. He's been sworn in. Chair: You're welcome. And please let us know what you have to add. Applicant: I'm ready to take questions and concerns. Chair: Okay. One question I had is what the radius of the corners are in the proposed building. Radius of the corner. Applicant: Is it to match the existing? Chair: Yes. Applicant: Structures. Chair: Okay. Applicant: Try to match everything. In fact, the wood on the front, that big portal on two, we have some overhangs and a portal, and we want to match that color of the wood and that side. Chair: Questions from the board? Member Aguilar Madrono. Member Aguilar Madrono: Chair Bienvenu, this view is actually perfect because one thing that was striking me as kind of odd on the right side of this photo is the pattern of the windows. There's such a large gap between them that doesn't really seem to be consistent with the patterning of the existing windows. I was wondering if you could just speak to that, and then also just kind of the windows in general. Like, I'm looking at the proposed south elevation. It looks like each story has two windows, but they're not aligned. I'm just wondering if there's a reason that that's needed. Applicant: Mainly because of the interior layout, that's why the windows are placed the way they are. Member Aguilar Madrono: What is behind that large gap in the rendering we were looking at a second ago? Applicant: I don't think the renderings have a... Oh, you mean behind the big space between the windows on the second floor? Yeah. There's like a wall that separates units that floor. So, right in the middle, bathrooms on that side have window, shower on the result right now. Member Aguilar Madrono: Okay, thank you. Member Beach: Just to follow on to that, the proposed south elevation for units four and five has a similar odd window placement and door placement, for that matter, that they're off-center. Is that also due to interior? Applicant: Yes. Yeah, I guess in my comment, sorry. Member Beach: Yeah, four and five. All of the door and window placements seem to be off-center, asymmetrical. Yeah, there, I'm on the right-hand side of this slide. Right side. Applicant: Mhm. Okay. Member Beach: Yeah. I guess for me, what's... It just seems that, maybe you're saying as much, that these are all designed for the interior to be as desired. Our purview, of course, is for the exterior. So, it makes little sense to my eyes that these are sort of off-center. There's no apparent reason from the exterior for those not to be centered or mimicking the placement of the windows on the adjacent contributing structures, which are, you know, there's a lot of windows on those structures. Here, they seem kind of sparse. I mean, the general design also seems, especially with the two-story elements, like pretty uninspired, just kind of a block wall next to the 215, which has a lot of character, and even little 29, whatever it is, 219, 219A. Or this, the small, this, it's the smallness of that little building that I think that adds to the streetscape, and the reason in my mind that we designated that as contributing was it was just a very diminutive building. I think the additions that will connect to this building and the one behind it, although not visible in your rendering from Washington, will have an effect. I mean, there's a lot of sky above this, and it, you know, next to 215, which is a two-story building, it's always appeared very tiny. So, I think all of these changes just don't work in my mind, and I think they jeopardize the status of the neighboring buildings. I appreciate the effort to move things to the rear, but I think if those were one-story buildings, and it probably compromises your vision for renting the property at capacity, but I think that would be a lot more appealing. Applicant: So, you're concerned about the height of the buildings behind 19A? Member Beach: The height and the design. Applicant: See that? See anything there? Those buildings there. Member Beach: I understand. But I mean, you can see 215 in this picture. You'll see something there. And as you walk around the property, I mean, there's a long walkway to the north. That's, you know, a beautiful long walkway. You'll certainly change the character of that pass-through. Okay. Questions. Okay. Thank you. Members of the public who wish to speak on this application may step forward to the podium. Applicant: Sure. Go ahead. My intention with the 219A is to do a hip roof, but I could not meet the requirements B and Z for putting a hip roof. They have a number system points, and I couldn't get enough to get the hip roof. That's what I wanted to do. I wanted to really match that building, that hip roof. I couldn't do it. Thank you. Chair: Okay. Yes. Oh. Director Lamboy. Director Lamboy: Thank you. I have a question for the applicant. Is this the point architectural point system that you're referring to? So, in the rest of the city, the architect point system applies, but in the historic districts, the Historic Districts Review Board determination applies. So, the point system would not apply in this particular case. That was part of... So, in the planning and zoning worksheet typically talks about setbacks and all of that sort of... I'll take a look at the one that was submitted and reviewed. Applicant: They were adamant that was... Director Lamboy: Typically, we don't run across that, but I will see what the form says. I'll look that up. Okay, members of the public, you've been sworn in. Just state your name again for the record, please. Elizabeth West: Elizabeth West. I'm in, actually, I'm in the, I call it South Capitol, but it's the Don Gaspar area. And I walk in both areas, so that's where I'm from. This is, this is an addition to the streetscape that's quite dramatically big feeling. And I, and I, and I, it sounds as if the applicant was, is trying to make an effort, is trying to figure out what's going on, and that's terrific. But kind of relating to what I said earlier, this is part of the give and take. There are some aspects of this project that look kind of appealing to me. I'm, I'm thinking in that area. This was a cute little item, and that will change that. However, a lot of the other buildings around there, if some of the things that you all have been talking about could be incorporated, I think would be benefited by a somewhat bigger building here. And I, I can't tell myself terribly well visualizing it, but it seems as if the largeness from the street, the setback of the second story works, but maybe not from the other sides as you walk around. And apropos of where windows are on the outside, I'm kind of in favor of building for the streetscape and then figuring out where the rooms go and how they configure. So, I would love to ask the applicant just quickly, or just put it out there, that sometimes a challenge, say, for in a bathroom area, is it forces you to look at, okay, how do I want people to walk in here? Where do I put the door? Where does, therefore, the window going to go? And I have a pet peeve. I think doors into restrooms do not open onto somebody sitting on the toilet. You can always move the toilet in relation to the door. And I've had cocktail party discussions where I've said, "Now, I'm going to go up there and look at your house, and we're going to, we're going to look at and see what you could have done." So, that's a very particular thing, but I don't know what is behind the space there. I, I think you said a bed, or there's a wall. I understand that. Maybe one room could be a little bit smaller, and the, in other words, I'm for the streetscape. So, but thank you for this work. Okay, bye. Stephanie Benonato: Thank you. Stephanie Benonato. I agree with Elizabeth West that said it'll dramatically change the streetscape, and I don't really hear any discussion about hardship or how this really doesn't negatively affect the public. We already have a fairly big development going on right there in that area. It is going down that walkway. It was extremely controversial. It took many meetings for the board to approve it. I'm not sure why you need more than 50% add-on to 219. I don't hear any discussion about that. I think that too is a second story. And then you have this very square building that's 219A that's totally generic and really unappealing and doesn't really fit in with downtown at all. And to keep referring to 215, 215 is a historic building. It is not a new building. And so it's not even supposed to be considered in sort of the height calculations, all kinds of things. And yes, it would be nice to sort of reflect some of those details, but it doesn't make it okay to have a big building next door. And again, we don't see the fire, supposed to be a fireplace. Is it a gas fireplace? Where's the venting? You don't see that in that diagram. You, I don't know why you have to be an extra 8 inches above. Can't you make the basement lower, step down to the first floor, and then you can lower the second floor and be at the height level, so you don't need an exception? I mean, there's a lot of alternative designs here that have not been considered. And it seems like both staff and the owner think that, well, we have a right to develop, so we should be able to develop to the maximum. But this is a historic zone, and it's important to fit into the streetscape, especially in downtown, especially on Washington Avenue. Thank you. : Thank you. Anyone else from the public? I see none. Yes, you may respond if you like. Sure. : There is no, you go around that building, you will not see any of that for the new building that Market Street, Market Street new restaurant right there next. That's where this is coming to face, you know, with my back to Market Street. So if you walk out towards Washington Avenue, you don't see anything. You will not see there. : Thank you for that. Director Lamboy, : Thank you. There was a Planning and Zoning review that was done on April 28th, and there was no mention on points on the forum. I do know for a fact that those architectural points don't apply in the case of historic districts precisely because we have standards relating to compatible construction. And there would be no reason potentially other than the fact for a hipped roof, not having a hipped roof, other than the fact that it might exceed the permitted height for the ordinance. Okay. : So, it's back to the board. Yes. Member Aguilar Madano, : Do you have a quick question? Thank you, Chair Bian Venu. I have a quick question for staff because I unfortunately wasn't able to attend the site visit. Were there story poles? : Chair Bian Venu, Member Aguilar Madano. No, ma'am. That's my fault. I didn't ask Mr. Evans to put them up. It didn't even cross my mind, and I should have. : Okay. : I apologize for that. : Okay. Thank you. : Yes, ma'am. : I can make a motion. Okay. : Yes. Please proceed. Yep. : In case number 2025-0873-HDRB at 219 and 219A Washington Avenue, I move to postpone this case to a date certain, and would ask the applicant to take into consideration some of the board's comments tonight, which included height, massing, window placement, potentially it sounds like roof type and profile style. And I don't, and I would also encourage, I guess, story poles, since it seems like height is still going to be a topic of conversation, that another site visit, since we're postponing this, would give you an opportunity to install some story poles and make your point about it not being visible. : Second. : Thank you. I would just make a comment that I think that story poles, and I understand you're already apologizing, but I just think it should be a matter of course that story poles are always required in the event an exception is being requested for height. I mean, I think it's good practice on any two-story building, but I think it's essential when an exception is requested. And I don't think it's even appropriate for the board to consider a height exception without story poles. So just for future reference, that would be my view. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion on the motion? Roll call vote, please. : Member Aguiler Madrono. : Yes. : Member Mather. : Yes. : Member DNET. : Yes. : Member Beach. : Yes. The motion has passed. Chair. : Do we have a date to provide to the applicant, Director Lamboy? : Thank you, Chair. You read my mind. So, we do have that the earliest available would be September 9th, given we have to produce everything and review it, or September 23rd. Those are the two September meeting dates. : I don't think it probably matters to the board. Does the applicant have a preference, sooner or later, between the two? Earlier. Oh, later. Okay. So, we'll go ahead with the second date, and hopefully you have enough direction. If you don't, please confer with staff. I think they have a probably a pretty good understanding of what the board's issues are. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate your patience. Clarification. That would be 9/23. September 23. : Yes, ma'am. : All right. Moving on. Let's see. Last case of the evening is 2025010874 HDRB at 423 and 12 A West San Francisco Street. And Senior Planner Duran, it's your case again. Close out the evening for us. : Chair Bian Venu, members of the board, thank you for this evening, and thank you all the public for being here. The single-family residence and garage at 423 1/2 West San Francisco Street, Unit A, are listed as contributing to the Downtown and East Side Historic District, with the south and east elevations designated as primary on the main structure, and the north and west elevations designated as primary on the garage. The main residential structure was constructed around the 1880s on a 0.08 acre parcel, and comprised of approximately 1,993 square feet of heated space. The main residential structure was built in the vernacular and Spanish Pueblo Revival design style, as seen by the rectangular building shape, adobe construction material, and recessed 30 over one windows. Now, in this proposed renovation, the applicant is requesting on this south facade to remove the non-historic portales. They're also requesting to restucco the structure. And here is the north facade. They're not going to touch the north facade. We're going to keep it as is on the mural here at the east facade. Now, this is a primary facade, and we requested an exception to widen this window, in which they did request for ADA compliance and for accessibility into the courtyard, and which they did address. On the south-facing facade, they are going to be making alterations to the windows and doors, and also infilling a doorway. Now, on that infill, they're proposing on closing it off and restuccoing over. We did request an exception for that as well, which they did address. Here is their kind of mechanical area on this structure. They're going to replace some of the coyote fencing here, and change out the windows, as well as install an HVAC unit and fix the canales in kind. So the development of this property throughout time, in 1884, the structure was established. In the 1930s, we have record of this adobe structure as it extends, and then it kind of got lost in the record, but now the homeowner is bringing it back, and the architect has brought it back forward. We have status and now the alterations in which they're proposing. So here in the existing and proposed south elevation site plan, we can see the removal of those portales. Here on the north elevation, no proposed work. They're going to keep the mural as is on the existing east elevations. Here's the shows you where they're going to be widening and creating French door divided light door entryway where that three over one window is at, as well as a yard wall, a low-hanging yard wall for access into the courtyard, which would be 3 feet. Now we have the south-facing facade. This is the primary, also a primary facade. And as you see on that north, the east, on that farthest right door entryway, they're looking at infilling that door entryway, in which we requested an exception. And the windows will be three over one and divided light doorways on the existing west elevation. You could see where the removal of the portales are going to be and the wall. Here we have on the garage the existing north, east, and south elevations. They're not proposing any work on any of those. On the existing west elevation, which is the primary, as well as the north facade, they're going to be doing some work on the doorways and the historic assessment. They're going to just be repairing that garage door in kind as is, as well as the low-hanging yard wall. The exterior finishes that they're proposing is L-Ray sand. Now they are looking at restuccoing the structure. Staff is making the recommendation that they restucco the structure in kind to its current architectural design style. This structure has a unique style to the type of texture in which they applied the stucco. Staff is recommending that be implemented in the same manner. The applicant is proposing a smooth surface, and the applicant can share more on that information with you. So, these are the colors, the Bear Wave Top for the window sills and the Bear Wild Truffle for the door for the wooden doorways. Here is a rendering of the wooden gate and garage door. Here is a rendering from the applicant to show you what they're proposing on that south primary facade and the garage door on that west-facing primary facade. With that, staff recommends approval of the proposed project and finds that all the exception criteria have been met and that the application complies with Section 14-5.2D, general design standards for all historic districts, and 14-5.2E, Downtown and East Side design standards. Thank you. Staff stands for questions. : Thank you for your very thorough presentation, which is much appreciated. Questions? Questions this time? Applicant, you may step forward and be sworn in. Will you please raise your right hand, state your name and address for the record? : Walter Clump, 501 Rio Grande Avenue. : Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? : I do. : Thank you, Chair. He's been sworn in. : Much welcome. : Thank you for your patience tonight. Never great to be the last one on the agenda, but appreciate you hanging in there. : Just happy to be here. : Okay, good. So, tell us what you'd like to tell us in particular. I guess you obviously agree with staff's recommendation, so just tell us anything you'd like to add. : Okay, great. So, my client, Ellen Yarl, intended to be here tonight, but she couldn't due to a family emergency back in California. I have a few comments from the presentation. One was the colors. I don't, on the screen, for some reason, the Bear Wave Top color came out really saturated, and it's quite a pale blue color. So there are numerous examples in downtown, in the Downtown and East Side Historic District, with a sand stucco finish and a pale blue. So that we were, that was the intention for the color choices. So sorry that those came out a little bit saturated. And also I wanted to mention on the infill door that is already halfway filled in. So there's never been any permits or anything pulled for this building. So where we're infilling that door has already been drywalled on the inside. So, when you open up the storm door, you walk into a wall. So, just for a little bit of extra context, my client bought this building in a state of disrepair. It had never been thoughtfully restored. So, we're just trying to get it, tried to restore the historic integrity of the building. So that is, that's our intention for this project. And then finally, I wanted to comment on the stucco that staff recommended. And we hired John Murphy as a historic consultant on the project. And he wrote a letter in response to staff's recommendation on the stucco, which reads, "Dear Ellen and Walter, I'm concerned about the staff recommendation to retain the brocade style stucco finish. The existing stucco exhibits a textured brocade or Spanish lace pattern created with a skip trowel technique. This is a late 20th century decorative treatment common in Santa Fe only from the mid-1960s onward, and has no precedent on 19th century plastered adobe buildings. Its appearance is more closely associated with STM or Bellam tracted houses built on the south side in that period. Historic adobe surfaces similar to the 423A house were finished with a hand-troweled smooth or subtly floated coat, often lime-based, producing a planar surface that kept the building's form and proportions visually prominent. The current textured finish is historically inappropriate. It introduces a visual busyness foreign to the building's period and obscures the craftsmanship of the original walls. A more appropriate approach would be to restucco using a traditional cementitious plaster, such as LRA 2030 sanded stucco, applied in a smooth or lightly floated finish to approximate the appearance of a 19th-century adobe plaster coat. This would restore a historically compatible surface while maintaining the protective function of the stucco. John Murphy: And so we're going with the proposing a smooth textured. I stand for questions. : Thank you for that. Paul, did you want to address the stucco finish issue? : Chair Bianvenu, members of the board, yes, sir. And Mr. Murphy eloquently states that he shares his assessment. However, given the status that was recently done on the structure and the current state of the structure and the stucco architectural style that was implemented during the time it was stuccoed, staff recommends that the owner, when they do restucco it, match this similar stucco style. We do appreciate Mr. Murphy's assessment, and I think it's very eloquently stated. However, given the current status of the structure and the condition, staff stands by that recommendation. : Thank you, Director Lamboy. : Yes. The only thing I, thank you, Chair Bianvenu. The only thing I might be able to offer is in the HICB, there's a photograph of the woman who lived there for a long time, and it was estimated to be approximately 1981. That stucco pattern was there in 1981. So, you know, either there's got to be proof of what was before or what is now in terms of determining how to make changes to historically contributing or significant. : Is it, does the current application have a restuccoing request? Okay. And did you specify the nature of the stucco? So when you, when staff, you said that you recommend approval, did you mean except for the stucco? : Chair Bianvenu, great question. In the application request and in the staff recommendation, in the staff recommendation, it says, "Staff recommends that the proposed stucco be installed utilizing the same rough texture of the existing stucco to retain the historic character of the building." : I see. And so, in their request, in the applicant's request in number one in the staff report, "The main residential structure stucco the east, south, and west facades of the exterior with cementitious stucco color sand in a smooth texture." Staff relayed to the applicant that staff recommends that it be done in the rough texture that it currently has. : Okay. Okay. So, if I, if I just restate staff's recommendation in the report then, to be what I think is what you're saying, is that you recommend approval on condition that the proposed stucco be installed utilizing the same rough texture as the existing stucco. : Yes, Chair, that'd be correct. : Yes. Director. : May I add one extra thing? In the HICB, under photo 16 on page 38, there's a photograph of many layers of stucco. And so that might be a hint of what was there previously. And you can see underneath that there's a rough texture there as well. All right. So, I think I understand staff's position is that unless proven otherwise, you believe the rough stucco pattern that currently exists is part of the contributing status and historic. : Yes, Chair, subject to proof to the contrary at a later date. Okay, sure. You can respond. Yep. So, regarding the comment on the condition of this being approved on the stucco, it's our, it's our wish to move the project forward. So, my client, myself, and John all wish for a smooth texture to restucco the building, but if that were the sole condition to move this forward, we're willing to use the rough stucco. : Understood. Thank you for the clarification. Member Aguilar Madano. : Thank you, Chair Bianvenu. I was actually just going to say that I don't think I've seen an application from you before, but I just wanted to commend your packet. I thought the application was put together really well. Always appreciate a good existing versus proposed, you know, side by side, and I thought you did a really great job of calling out the details like the finishes and the stucco in multiple places in addition to your rendered elevation. So it was a really great application. : Thank you. Anybody else? Yes, Member Beachhead. : I just have a couple of questions. Thank you. Can you just confirm for me that the east facade is not visible from the street? : That's correct. : Okay. : The whole building is not visible from the street. : Right. Okay. : That one's especially. : Right. And then it appears that almost all the windows are non-historic, except for some historic jams and sashes. Correct. Okay. And then the proposal for the replacement is an aluminum clad wood window. : That's correct. : Yes. Okay. There's a couple of pipe, like they look like pipes that are coming up on the proposed south elevation at the corners of the primary facade and then again on the sort of secondary massing. Are those vents or are they, are they forward near the face of the building? No, they're to the side of the, so there it's a, it's on the west elevation. So that's existing. Yep. : So I'm looking at the east, south, I'm sorry, the south facade elevations, and so the, so there's like three masses, but there's two new pipes, it appears. : No, there's no new pipes. Okay, those are existing. They're just not shown on the existing. : Oh, okay. That's a, that's a mistake on the drawing. : Yeah. : Those are there. : Those are, those are existing. And. : Thank you. : And wanted to just demonstrate. : Okay. And then with respect to the stucco, will you keep the, the, the main, especially the, the, the tallest part of the building has a prominent sort of cap at the parapet? You're keeping that? Yes. : Yes, we are. : Okay. And then the last thing I had was with respect to the color. So is the blue color you're proposing matching the existing or is it a lighter shade? : It's a lighter shade than the existing. : It's, it's lighter and paler than the existing. The existing is, it's currently saturated and. : Maybe not, maybe, but, but blue. This is a pale sky. : Okay. I, I know there's been, I'm not a color expert, but there's been some sensitivity to particularly Santa Fe blue or blue. I'm not sure if this qualifies as that, but does anyone have some insight into the color? You know, should that, is that color historic? Should it be retained or is this sort of lighter shade of blue acceptable? Any, any board member or staff. : Address that issue. : In able to, Chair Bianvenu, Member Bish, we're considering to keep this color window the same. Would that be something the applicant would be? : I think that really just the question to you as I understand it is, do you have any opinion as to whether the existing color is of historic nature that should be protected? : Thank you. : Well, Chair Bianvenu, Member Bish, that's a great question. I, I don't know how I would answer that. I would have to ask. : Director Lamboy. : Thank you, Chair. I'm just looking over the photographs we have in the HICB, and there is a picture from the 1990s that has a lighter blue on an exterior door that accesses the kitchen that may be something that was used previously. But you are correct that it should be somewhat compatible with what was there historically or currently. So, and I'm looking for the picture of the lady in the 1980s. Just one moment. At that time, they were white. So, it seems to me that it could go either way. When, what day were they white? In the 80s. Okay. So, the color is not historic. Is that what you're saying? Okay. : I think that answers the question. : It does. Thank you. And then just one last thing. There's a couple of photographs of the windows that have, I don't know if it's a grate or a trellis in front of them. Is that part of that attached to the building? Is that staying or going? : The existing photograph? : Yeah. They don't look historic. : They're, yeah. And those are not, they're not historic. : Okay. : No assessment. : Okay. Thank you. : There are no further questions from the board. I'll open it to public comment. Please step forward. State your name for the record. Two minutes. : Hello, Elizabeth West. I was just thinking about the colors that we're looking at here, and I've been noticing all night long there's, and I can see what's on the computer and then I can see what's on your screen, and it's way more saturated. I mean, some of them are just orange when they're should be sort of a different color. So, you all know how to take care of that and adjust things. The back, the, there, there's a wall there with two windows. I've forgotten where it is, and it's not in front of me right now. And then two very similar either windows or doors. Looks very static. It's kind of odd to me. Is that, is that something that was there before and they're keeping it? Is that it? I'm so sorry. I don't know where to, how to refer to it. Do you know what I'm talking to? Yeah, I think so. It was, it's, it just feels kind of odd-looking. Anyway, while you're looking for that, I have a third comment. Anyway, is that, is there a leeway when you're doing the rough, the rough stucco? I've seen so many different kinds, and they're, some of them are just extraordinary and others aren't. Yeah, that's not it. But anyway, I, I was wondering if there's a leeway. Plus, the blue marking when you brought up an example looked much smoother than some other of this lace vine stuff. Whatever. Boy, that's kind of casual, isn't it? Sorry about that. Does anybody know what I'm referring to? I've forgotten the elevation where there's the center part on either side of the building. It's slightly different, but the middle part is statically balanced, and it just felt odd. That's it. Bye. : Oh, it's, I think south right there. : Okay. Thank you very much. Next. Turn that off and just go ahead and finish your thought. Thank you. Right. Seeing no further members of the public wish to comment, it's coming back to the board at this time for discussion and or preferably a motion. Ready? Make a motion. Denver Metrono. : Case number 2025-010874-HDRB at 423 and a half West San Francisco Street. I move to approve the proposed project and find that all exception criteria have been met with the condition that the stucco texture be matched per staff's recommendation unless the applicant can prove that a smoother texture existed prior. : Hey there, we'll second. : I want to clarify what you mean by prior. I think we've established that the current is historic. So, do you want us, are you going all the way back to original or at any time prior to the stucco that's here, even though this stucco is historic? And, you know, I was just reading the, for further discussion on that. I was just reading our stucco guidelines, and it does state that existing stucco on a contributing building is to be preserved. I don't think that doesn't mean that your motion isn't appropriate if you can prove that it's not historic or otherwise not worthy of protection. I would be comfortable, I mean, back to the construction of the building, if it can be proved that it originally had smooth stucco, I would be comfortable with approving a new smooth stucco finish. : Okay. : We have a motion. : All right. I think that with that clarification, did we have a second? We did. And did you have a? : Just a point of discussion. I think with respect to stucco colors, we often allow for an applicant to demonstrate, you know, the presence of another color based on layers of stucco in the house that, you know, was there before what's there currently. So I think the texture could be considered in the same way. So if the applicant can find smooth stucco underneath the brocade stucco, that would be a justification for that, too. Okay. Further discussion. Roll call, please. Member Aguilar Madrono. Yes. Member Mather. Yes. Member Degen. Yes. Member Beach. Yes. The motion has passed. Chair: Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you very much for hanging in there with us and for your presentation. City Attorney Ribbleid. Thank you, Chair Baminu and Member Aguilera Madano and applicant. As far as proving that there was a previous stucco texture, previous stucco color, I need to know who makes that decision. Would be sufficient for the staff to be able to approve a different stucco texture, a different stucco color without the applicant having to come back before the board. Thank you, Frank. Attorney Rubble. Yes, I would make the motion so that the applicant can submit photos to staff for approval. Okay, everybody agrees to that. That's what I'll put in the findings of fact. Okay. Hearing no objection. Okay. Thank you. All right. Great. Good luck. Next item number 10 is discussion items. I don't think we have any. Item 11, matters from the board. Are there any? No. Next meeting is August 26, 2025. Is there an objection to adjournment? We are adjourned.