Historic Districts Review Board Meeting Tue, Sep 9, 2025 · Historic Districts Review Board https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/572 == Executive Summary == The Historic Districts Review Board meeting covered a range of topics, including procedural matters, informal design reviews, and formal decisions on property alterations and historic status designations. A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to addressing an appeal from Camila Kennedy regarding a denied status review for her property at 140 Romero Street, where the board discussed the complexities of reconsideration and rescission of past decisions. The board also spent considerable time reviewing new construction proposals, particularly focusing on adherence to design standards and the granting of exceptions, as seen in the detailed discussion for 425 A Street regarding corner windows and rounded corners. Key decisions included approving the demolition of a non-contributing shed at 127 Duran Street and a severely dilapidated contributing structure at 511A Camino Senumbre due to 'demolition by neglect.' The board also designated facades for three buildings at 222 Palco Street and approved alterations for 241 Maynard Street with a specific condition on roof color. A notable outcome was the conditional approval for 1341 Canyon Road, requiring the applicant to revert to previously approved divided light windows and doors after unauthorized changes were made. == Key Decisions == - Approved the meeting agenda. - Approved two sets of findings of fact and conclusions of law from February 11th, 2025. - Designated the east, south, and west facades of Building A at 222 Palco Street as primary. - Designated the original portion of the north facade and the east facade of Building B at 222 Palco Street as primary, excluding all non-historic materials. - Designated facade F4 and a specific portion of facade F3 (from the east corner up to the first small jog to the north) of Building C at 222 Palco Street as primary, excluding all non-historic materials. - Approved the demolition of a non-contributing shed at 127 Duran Street. - Approved the application for 241 Maynard Street with the condition that if a red roof is used, it must be a deep orangish-red mimicking a rust color, with the final material product submitted to staff for approval. - Designated the main residence at 528 and 530 K Corvo as 'contributing,' with the east and southeastern facades (including the portal, excluding non-historic doors/windows) as primary. The workshop and garage were designated 'non-contributing,' and the yard wall was designated 'contributing.' - Denied the exception for corner windows to be less than 36 inches from the edge for 425 A Beta Street. The application was otherwise approved with conditions: corners to be rounded (minimum 2.5-inch radius), trim color to be lighter (e.g., bronze) and submitted to staff, garage door color similar to the house's wood elements, and window reveals of at least 2 inches depth with rounded corners. Revised plans reflecting these conditions must be submitted to staff for approval. - Approved the demolition request for 511A Camino Senumbre, finding that the criteria for demolition and the exception criteria for demolition of a contributing building had been met. - Approved the application for 1341 Canyon Road, conditioned on all windows and doors being true or simulated divided lights as shown in the originally approved application. == Motions & Votes == - Approval of the meeting agenda — Passed (unanimous voice vote) - Approval of two findings of fact and conclusions of law from February 11th, 2025 — Passed (unanimous voice vote) - Motion to designate F2 (east facade), F3 (south facade), and F4 (west facade) of Building A at 222 Palco Street as primary — Passed (3-1) - Motion to designate the original portion of the north facade and the east facade of Building B at 222 Palco Street as primary, excluding all non-historic materials — Passed (4-0) - Motion to designate facade F4 and facade F3 (from the east corner up to the first small jog to the north) of Building C at 222 Palco Street as primary, excluding all non-historic materials — Passed (4-0) - Motion to approve the demolition of the non-contributing shed at 127 Duran Street — Passed (4-0) - Motion to approve the application for 241 Maynard Street as submitted and recommended by staff, with the condition that if the roof is red, it must be a deep orangish-red mimicking a rust color, and the final material product for the roof must be submitted to staff for approval — Passed (4-0) - Motion to designate the main residence at 528 and 530 K Corvo as contributing, with the east and southeastern facades (including the portal, excluding non-historic doors/windows) as primary facades. The workshop and garage were designated as non-contributing. The yard wall was designated as contributing — Passed (4-0) - Motion to deny the exception for corner windows to be less than 36 inches from the edge for 425 A Beta Street, and otherwise approve with conditions (rounded corners, lighter trim color, garage door color similar to wood elements, window reveals of at least 2 inches depth with rounded corners, and submission of revised plans) — Passed (vote count not specified, but implied as passed) - Motion to accept the staff's recommendation and approve the request for demolition for 511A Camino Senumbre — Passed (4-0) - Motion to approve the application for 1341 Canyon Road, conditioned on all windows and doors being true or simulated divided lights as shown in the originally approved application — Passed (5-0) == Public Comment == Public comments covered several key themes. Camila Kennedy detailed her denied appeal for 140 Romero Street, expressing frustration with the process and the board's designation of her garden wall as 'contributing.' Several neighbors and community members spoke in favor of granting Ms. Kennedy's request for a higher fence, citing safety concerns. Stephanie Benonato expressed strong opposition to rescinding board decisions, questioned the City Council's overturning of an HDRB decision, and raised concerns about unapproved fencing. Gayla Beal advocated for stricter criteria in designating primary facades. For 241 Maynard Street, Stephanie Benato questioned the 'barn red' roof color and suggested considering elevation changes for the proposed wall. For 528 and 530 Kaya Corvo, the applicant expressed a desire for the property to remain non-contributing due to architectural inconsistencies. Elizabeth West and Cheriel Stephanie Benato commented on the proposed new construction at 425 A Street, criticizing sharp edges, prominent garages, and the applicant's 'pushing against the guidelines.' A public commenter expressed distress over the 'demolition by neglect' of 511A Camino Comere and questioned the owner's history. Stephanie Benato urged the board to require the applicant at 1341 Canyon Road to revert to originally approved window changes, citing the precedent of unauthorized work. == Topics == - Historic Status Reconsideration - Demolition and Rebuilding - Unauthorized Construction Work - Window and Door Specifications - Canyon Road Property Changes - Historic Material Authenticity - Property Safety Concerns - Board Decision Authority == Full Transcript == This meeting of the Historic Districts Review Board. Today we are September 9th, 2025. Raya, may we have a roll call, please? Yes, ma'am. Madam Chair Rios. Here. Vice Chair Bianu. Here. Member Cherry. Here. Member Dagnen. Here. Member Mather. She's expected, I believe. Member Aguilera Madrono. Excused. Member Back. Excused. You have a quorum, Chair. Thank you very much. Are there any changes to this evening's agenda, staff? No, Chair Rios. Is there a motion to approve the agenda? So moved. Second, please. Second. Thank you. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say no. Thank you. We have no minutes on this agenda, but we do have two findings of fact and conclusions of law, and they are both from February 11th, 2025. Any changes to these, either staff or board? I don't see any hands raised. So, is there a motion to approve both of these? Megan moves to approve. Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Say no. Aye. Thank you. Matters from the public. If you have anything to say in reference to H-Board matters, you may come up and speak. Hello. Hi. I'm Camila Kennedy, and I live on 140 Romero Street in Santa Fe. I had a status review on June 10th of this year, and I did try to appeal that status review. Due to a technical error, I did submit the initial form on time with two days to go, and then my appeal was denied because I was told I did not do it right. However, I highly disagree with what the board decided to do for that status review. And I'm asking today that the board, and not just me, but my neighbors also are asking the board to reconsider the decision to make every single wall that faces the street of my home, as well as the garden wall, a contributing structure. This was done against the recommendations of John Murphy, who I hired to do the survey of my property, as well as the staff member Lanny, who asked that the house be left non-contributing, but the wall be made contributing. Again, John Murphy asked that it all be made non-contributing and remain non-contributing. A reason that I disagree with the board's decision is that the front wall, the garden wall, is made out of cinder block. It is not. It's historic in that it's old, but the materials used to make that wall, I could go to Home Depot tomorrow, buy, and build a new wall. And building fake historic structures is not within the code for the historic districts. I brought today a piece of adobe from my home. I did some non-critical structural or non-structural work, and so I have this example that is a historic piece of material that is a contributing thing to my neighborhood and to the historic district. The Romero family used their hands to make that brick. The cinder block on my front wall? No, it's just cinder block. I also discovered after losing my appeal and being denied my appeal that the requests, the exemptions that I was going to have to request to make my home just a little bit safer, adding the adding coyote fence to the top of the wall, removing a side of the wall that lines the driveway, and moving the gate three feet over. Again, I don't need to destroy the wall, but I would like to alter the wall to make my home a little safer. Each one of those exemptions would cost me $250 to bring up to the board. I am going to interrupt you at this point, and I'll tell you why. It's rather unusual for an applicant to come to us. Did you indicate that this was heard in June, or repeat the date? Yes, ma'am. And I recently found out that my appeal was denied. Okay. I have been asking about the appeal for multiple weeks and only recently found out that it was denied. Okay. So this doesn't happen very often, and I know that there are certain things under Robert's Rules that we must follow. And luckily tonight, we do have the city attorney with us, or Maggie Moore, excuse me, not the city attorney, but she can help us with this process. And I am going to turn it over to her because this is a kind of an unusual matter, and I'm hearing you kind of repeat the case and telling us from the very beginning of the case from scratch all the way to I am. Why you feel that it should be non-contributing. But I'm going to turn it over to Maggie. I just want to say I was finished. Thank you very much. And I want to see what she has to say if it's, and also I might ask Attorney Rubel, we do have the assistant city attorney here, to tell us, is this appropriate to be going on in this manner tonight? And if you will help me out and help the board out in reference to this, please. Thank you, Chair Rios. Yeah, so I do believe that the appeal was not found to conform to the time for appeal. And there has been a final action on this request. And so I'll let Frank add, but I don't, there is no process within the code to rescind a decision. And the appeal process is the remedy for applicants to appeal a decision. And I believe Robert's Rules might have some guidance on it, but there's also a timeliness element as well, where because this was considered in June and it's now September, that the option to motion to rescind is not available to us at this time. Yes. And do you happen to know if the process in reference to the appeal fell on the applicant in terms of the time that the applicant did not appeal timely? So the appeal process is entirely up to the appellant, if you will, to meet the requirements. And the Land Use Director is charged with reviewing the appeal to ensure conformity with the ordinance. And so through that process, the Land Use Director determined that it did not conform with the ordinance. So, but she did not file the appeal on time. Correct. Okay. Frank, what can you help us? Ma'am, can I ask you, was that heard on June 10th? It was heard on June 10th. Yes. That was the second item in the docket after the big white building. Okay. With respect to the appeal process that's set forth in the code, the appellant has 15 days after the findings of fact are approved. In this case here, we have not approved findings of fact and conclusions of law on that project or on that status review. So the appeal window opens 35 days after the hearing takes place. So the hearing took place and the vote was made on June 10th. The appeal window would have opened on July 15th and would have closed on July 30th. So if the appeal was not filed on that time or did not meet the particular guidelines for the appeal, it would be rejected without consideration. Now, under rare circumstances, the board member who made the vote can move to reconsider his or her own vote. And I'm looking at Robert's Rules of Order. And where a process is not set forth in our own rules and regulations, it defaults to Robert's Rules of Order. And I'm looking at Robert's Rules of Order, Section 37, regarding motions to reconsider. Section 37:8 reads that a motion to reconsider has the following unique characteristics: Except in committees, it can be made only by a member who voted on the prevailing side. And except in committees, it must be moved either on the same day the original vote was taken or on the next succeeding day within the same session on which a business meeting is held. We have had, I think we've had five board meetings since then. So the time to appeal has passed, and the time for the board member to make a motion to reconsider has passed. There is case law to the effect that there has to be finality in land use decisions, and generally you find when the appeal deadline is run and the motion to reconsider timeline is run, that's that has to be the final decision of the board. So, what I'm hearing from you is there is nothing that this board can do at this moment in reference to rescinding that motion because there are time constraints. That if there was a motion to rescind, it would have to occur either at the end of the meeting where we heard the case or perhaps at the following H-Board meeting. Well, that's a motion to reconsider. A motion to rescind is another, is governed by another rule. And in contrast to the case of the motion to reconsider, there's no time limit on making these motions after the adoption of the measure to which they are applied, and they can be moved by any member regardless of how he voted on the original question. When previous notice has been given, it is usual to wait for the member who gave notice of these motions to move them. But if he does not, any member can do so. So in that matter here, a member of the board can make a motion to rescind. But motions to rescind or to amend something previously adopted are not in order in the following circumstances: when it's been previously moved to reconsider, or when something has been done as a result of the vote on the main motion that is impossible to undo the unexecuted part of an order and be rescinded or amended. But the significant thing about this here is that a board member would have to make a motion to rescind. There would have to be a debate, and then there would have to be a vote on it, and I think it would have to be placed on the agenda pursuant to the Open Meetings Act. So, if you read, they can be moved by any member regardless of how he voted on the original question. So, Attorney Rubalid, are you telling us that there is an option to place this on the agenda and hear it at the upcoming meeting? If it is done without previous notice, which is the situation here, the motion requires a two-thirds vote or a majority of the entire membership for its adoption. And so, as I read this here, if we have five members here, a majority of the entire membership, which is going to be four, would all have to vote to rescind the previous. But that is something that would have to be placed on the agenda and advertised. Yes, the Robert's Rules of Order doesn't have anything to do with the Open Meetings Act, you know. So the Open Meetings Act places another batch of restrictions or at least requirements on a motion like this. Right. So with this applicant coming forth tonight, and I don't know if the other two people behind her are wanting to speak on something different or the same matter. I am wondering, Attorney Rubalid, if we can continue on this line of questioning or if we are going to consider this at an upcoming date. Well, I think it would have to be placed on another agenda, but I would like to do a little bit more research on it. I'm, you know, reading. But can we continue with this, with this line of questioning or statements of the applicant? Well, she, to me, it seems like she is reiterating some of portions of the case. Right. Respectfully, ma'am, we can't hear it tonight. You know, we can't have a debate. No, I understand that. But can she continue with this, with her whatever she has to say this evening? I just have one point. It's nothing, I don't want to reiterate. You said her time, there's a time limit, right? Is that right? Did her limit run out? No. Under matters from the board, I do not, I mean, matters from the public, I do not set a time limit. Okay. I can't set a time limit. But you say, you are indicating that you have one more thing to say. Just one thing. I know for a fact that I emailed my application to a member of the staff before the appeals window was closed. I did miss one little portion in the application. I'm very busy. I will take that hit in the appeals process, you know, pro, whatever, that you have to email a different email. I understand that. But I checked in as soon as I sent the email, and I checked in a week later, and I checked in, and then after multiple weeks, I was told that my appeal was denied. So I am doing this as timely as I possibly can. Okay. So this will have to, we will have to speak again to the, hold on, Amanda. We will have to speak again to the city attorney's office and see what is going to transpire in the future. I understand. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. Amanda, I just wanted to ask Mr. Rubel if it would make sense to do a motion from the board to pick a later date, or if we just go a little further down the road here. What's the smart way to do it as far as the Open Meetings Act, etc.? I would make a motion if that was more transparent, but I just, you'd be the man to know. My understanding is the chair would have to ask for it to be placed on the agenda, and then it would come up on the agenda for a debate on a motion to reconsider or a motion to rescind, rather. Right. And it's important that if you're going to do that, Madam Chair, you would have to ask for a debate on a motion to rescind. But then it may come up and a board member would have to make a motion. If no board member makes a motion, or a board member makes the motion to rescind and it doesn't get a second, then there would be no rescission. And can that be done at this meeting this evening? No, it would have to be placed on the agenda for the next meeting. Okay. If you so request. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. We'll move on to other people in reference to whatever they have to tell us this evening. Richard, My name is Richard Martinez. I'm an architect here in town. I usually don't speak at the public forum when I have a case coming up later, but I just wanted to mention that this board has rescinded one decision of mine back in 2023. We, I had, I believe it was the case where the house was considered contributing, and the board made pieces of the facade on all four sides primary. And because that didn't allow any changes to the house, because they couldn't be changes within 10 feet of primary facades, the board did change, rescind their decision on that project. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Yes. Next person. Hi, I'm Ms. Kennedy. No, not very well. If you'll just bring that mic right to your mouth. Okay. I'm here. I'm Ms. Kennedy's neighbor. I live two doors down, and I'm just asking that you, speak up. Okay. I'm asking that you grant her request, and I want to say that there's a large security issue involved, and that on Saturday, I went down to her house, and someone had dressed and undressed and left their clothes and human excrement outside of her, and you know, I'm just really concerned about her safety, and I hope that you will grant her request and not have to wait too long. Thank you for your comments. Thank you, Madam Chair, Board. My name is Robin Smith. I live around the corner on West Manhattan, and Camila Kennedy is the kind of person we want in our neighborhood, and we want to be able to afford to have a safe home in Santa Fe. So, I urge the board to please reconsider this decision and allow her to do what she needs to do to make her property safe. She's a single woman. We want her in the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. My name is Elizabeth West, and I'm not here to speak about that previous item, but I was happy to let other people go ahead of me. And I have two little comments to make. One is sort of a question. I was hoping that the request for having a discussion about whether or not to address the Soldiers Monument status review, and I was hoping that that isn't going to be forgotten. So I'm putting that out there. I don't know what the proper procedure is. I don't want to approach any one of you individually or even group-wise. So, that's that. And then I thought it would be nice. It's been sort of a weird day for me, and maybe it is for other people too. So, I thought I would mention something amusing very briefly, and you probably have noticed it. Every time I look at my favorite chapter, Chapter 14, I notice it's the only one in that long list of good chapters that is written in Arabic numbers. The others are all in Roman numerals. And I'm just wondering what that means. I hope it means that we will honor our Arabic inheritance. It's not really a joke, but it's sort of a joke. Thank you very much for what you're doing, and thanks for letting me be a little bit odd. Thank you, Elizabeth. Hello, my name is Mary Lane. I live at 132 Romero Street, a couple of doors down from this situation. I live in a set of condominiums, 23 of them. And I think I can speak for everyone that we would really love for there to be a higher fence as has been requested, because we have had so many break-ins at our place, and we know it's spreading throughout the neighborhood, and I'm very sure that the way it's going to be presented and created will be a wonderful addition to our neighborhood. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone else? 30 seconds on the same topic. I'm Janie Cravens. I live at 134 Romero Street. And I won't repeat anything others have said, only to share there are many houses on our street that have fences already well above the four-foot limit. That evidently is part of how we try to do things now. I'm sure they came in before you guys were to supervise what happened in the historic district, but nonetheless, they were there. And as soon as I put a lock on my Latio fence, I didn't have any more night crawlers in my backyard. It's made a real safe house for me. I do have some of our homeless neighbors sleep on my front sometimes, but that's okay. Thanks. Thank you very much. Anyone else? My name is Joan Aon, and I have a business at 133 Gomero. It's across the street, and the same as they were saying, that there's a lot of homeless people that show up at night, sleep, and I think Camila, as a single person, should be allowed to have a feeling of security, and like, I know she'll do a wonderful job, and it'll look really well. So I feel for her, and I'm just requesting the same. Thank you all very much. Anyone else want to voice their opinions on anything related to Historic? My name is Meiselle. I'm actually being heard later tonight, but just as I understand it from the lawyer gentleman, we have to, or she, somebody needs to ask you to make a ruling tonight to vote to bring this into the next agenda. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. So, do we have to request that, or does that just happen? It's okay. It's going to happen here. We'll have, we'll have to see how this transpires a little bit later on this evening. Okay. Perfect. Thank you so much. And then you will see whether it will be, what will happen. It will be on an agenda, or it will not. Okay. Okay. Anyone else? Anyone else online? Yes. Cheerios. Stephanie, go ahead and unmute and go ahead. Thank you, Stephanie Benonato. I was not going to speak on this issue, but I am going to speak on the issue for a few reasons. Number one, I think if, for in Mr. Martinez's case, he came back and asked you to reconsider your decision the next meeting, and you decided, whoever, somebody who made the motion, agreed to take it off the table and reconsider. It was not a rescission. And I think it's a very dangerous precedent that you're setting to even consider this. But my understanding too is that when you appeal, you have to take two original copies down to the city land use, have them stamp it in, and pay for it. So if you don't pay for it on the day you file, then your application is not complete. And you can pay online, but that takes you getting an invoice and then paying that. So, that takes a few days, and it's not considered complete until it's paid for. And I don't think you've ever rescinded anything. And the next step really for the applicant would be to appeal it to district court if it's timely done. I think they have 30 days from the issuance of the denial to go to city, to go to district court. And the idea that somehow the fencing is going to be making the single woman safer. I remind you that at 614 Pojoaque de Peralta, it was the same issue. The fencing was put up so that the woman would be safe. People are actually breaking into her house as well as trespassing on her property and destroying property. And by putting that fence up, it actually stopped that from happening. But you all did not approve that. And your staff said that you had to consider other ways of making yourself safe, and that your safety couldn't be a general concern, but had to be unique to the property. The other thing I wanted to talk, so I think all those things need to really be considered before you start rescinding decisions. You'll be here forever if you do. The other thing I wanted to bring up is that the city council did not approve your decision on Houghton Street, 1030 and a half Houghton Street, to keep that contributing. I found that to be kind of distressing. I didn't think the city council even had a clue as to what contributing meant. And I don't know that Mr. Rubel explained it very clearly, because he basically, when asked, said, well, didn't kind of that the same outcome would probably occur, but that's not true. And we all know that the primary facade when it's contributing is preserved, and that a contributing building, because they, the city council was saying that the history of the ownership was confusing, and that also seemingly influenced their decision. And ownership, I mean, may have something to do with it, but it's really that really applies to significant buildings. It's really was the footprint original, and was the primary facade or the openings in the primary facade unchanged? And I think that needed to be emphasized. And it really needed to be emphasized that the roof could be raised, the foundation could be improved, everything else could happen except that that front facade, you could replace things in kind. But you could not change the openings. I also saw online that night there was a coyote fence that was approved apparently that was at the boundary line of the two properties. And then I've noticed since walking down the street, there's a second fence that's halfway down the driveway that's wood that's curved. And I'm wondering which fencing was actually approved, if either. And the one halfway down the driveway is, well, first of all, the coyote fencing is not in keeping with the neighborhood at all. And it's tall. It's probably at least six feet tall. And then the other one is halfway down a driveway. That's a driveway, a parking, and access to the back house. And four cars are supposed to be able to park on that driveway. And with the fencing, they, they were basically parking in part on the driveway. You're not going to be able to do that. So, I asked, and maybe Mr. Moino can report on that next time, or Miss Moore, as to who approved that, and did you approve two fences or just one? Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else online? Hearing? No. Cheerios. Thank you very much. We are going to move on to staff communications, and there are two items under staff communications, and present please. Yes. The first item for staff communications, 515 Pojoaque de Peralta, with Rebecca Wood to be presenting. And Gary, these are simply informational items, correct, that the board is just simply listening to this evening. Yes, sir. And Gary, can you tell us why we are listening to these two items this evening? I would have staff collect that. Sorry about that. That was Amanda Romero's case in the past. Chair Rios, members of the board, this is at 515 Pail de Peralta. It had come before you previously for a status review, and Director Lamboy has instructed if they can come for an informational item for you to provide comments for the applicant previous to them making their case. So we are simply providing comments and not in the form of a motion. Is that correct? That is correct. Thanks. And that also goes for the next informational item as well. Thank you. Is that mic on now? It's on. Yes. Yes. Thank you. While we're loading up the file, apologies for taking longer. The reason why we're having, why we've come before you, is the building we're working on, we feel, is very important historically. And when you see the photographs, you'll understand. We appreciated the previous hearing we had that gave clarity on significant facades, and we just want to keep you in the loop as we move this project forward, as it is an important project. Thank you, Chair Rios and board. As Amanda mentioned, we were here last month on August 12th for a status hearing. We're here again for an informal information session. It's not exactly the same board, so just a few background slides on the location. This is 515 Pail de Peralta, right down the street from the Scottish Rite and the Federal Courthouse. The existing structure consists of a brick house, original brick house from 1889, facing the street, and then a series of additions and outbuildings to the north behind it. The primary streetscape presence is of the original house, which is elevated above the street by the steeply sloped site. A quick recap of the August 12th status hearing. The main house was found to be significant, excluding facades belonging to additions on the north side. Two outbuildings on the site were found to be non-contributing. Yard walls were found to generally be non-contributing, except for the stone yard wall along Pail. So to graphically summarize that, the blue lines show the primary structures, and the red lines show the non-primary and non-contributing structures. So today we're here to discuss three items. We're hoping that the future of this project involves the renovation of the significant original house, the demolition of non-contributing structures, and a proposed addition on the back. And we're hoping to get initial thoughts on the massing, location, and proposal of all that. Here's a floor plan of the existing building. The yellow marks the original significant structure, and the blue marks the outbuildings that were found to be non-contributing. We're proposing that the structures marked in blue be demolished and replaced with an addition. We're also proposing to renovate the original house. This will accomplish several things. Structural repairs are needed to the rubble stone foundations and brick walls. The porch in particular, which is on the south, is in danger of falling off the building. To remedy this, we're proposing rebuilding and extending the existing stair and terrace along the south, as shown in this plan. We've got some elevations coming up. This will reinforce and add new structure to the historic foundations. The new layout of these stairs is symmetrical, like the original stairs seen in early 1900s photos, and will also provide ADA access to the house, which is currently not accessible. Thirdly, the house is currently split into three apartments, as shown in this plan, and we propose to return it to its original single-family residential use. North of the plan, north of the house, embedded in the sloped site, we're proposing a two-story addition. The first story of this addition will be completely buried and will lightly touch the north facade of the historic house. This will also create private outdoor courtyards protected from busy Pail. Here's a plan of the upper story, which will consist of an outdoor roof deck that connects to the grade, uphill grade, along with a guest suite and art studio. Next up is some elevations on all of these. The existing elevation is on the top, and the proposed elevation is on the bottom. This shows the proposed rebuilt stairs and sight walls along the south. Also to make the point that the walls and windows and doors of the historic structure are not proposed to be changed, only to be repaired. On the west side, you can see the addition being added in the back is deeply embedded in the site. At the top of it, it's only one story tall on the north, and then on the west, the addition includes a two-car garage that will be accessed from the existing driveway. These sections also show, with the existing on the top and the proposed on the bottom, how embedded into the site the addition is proposed to be. This will also help stabilize the hillside, but it serves to conceal the new addition and make sure that the historic house stays primary. We have some diagrammatic views showing how the massing will appear. Here's a view from the west with the Wells Fargo to the right. The proposed addition is outlined in orange with the existing house in yellow. And it's also worth noting the future development at 511 Pail, which will block completely from this direction, from the southeast. The existing is, the house is very prominent. The additions are barely seen. The proposed addition will again be tucked behind the existing. Finally, a view straight on from Pail. The proposed addition is completely concealed by the historic house. So, to reiterate, we're hoping to get initial feedback. We understand this is non-binding, but hoping to hear the board's thoughts on the demolition of the additions, the renovation and priorities of that for the historic house, and the basic massing and height of the proposed addition. Thank you. Thank you. This is another thing that's rather unusual, having sat on this board for a bit of a while, having an informational item such as this come before the board. Occasionally they do come, but they are very, very few and far between. I almost feel that this was a presentation of an actual case before the board. But I do have some questions. What is the square footage of the existing significant house? The existing house is about 1,800 square feet. And the proposed addition? Let me pull it up. The proposed addition will add 1,400 square feet of living space, 650 square feet of garage and storage, with an additional 900 square feet upstairs in the form of a guest suite and an art studio. So the proposed addition, is any of that touching the existing? It is touching the existing. If I flip back and forth, here's what's currently there with the blue proposed to be removed. And I don't know if you can see my mouse, but these, it's a kitchen and a study that would be touching just these two spots along the north facade where the additions will be removed. And is the portion that you are proposing, the new portion, is that in square footage, is it bigger than the existing? It is bigger. And by how many square feet? Do some quick mental math, maybe by about 1,000 square feet. Including a garage. And in terms of height, would you give us a comparison? Sure. So the height given to us by planning was 23 feet. Given the steeply sloped site, we're allowed to add four feet. 23 feet of the existing. Sorry, the existing is 21 feet tall. The maximum height provided by planning for an addition on the site is 23 feet from the grade at the front of the house. With the potential addition of 4 feet given the steeply sloped site, we're proposing a building that's 6 feet taller than the existing. Let me see what other board members have comments. Anybody? Yes, Amanda. Miss Wood, I'm sorry to be ignorant, but what is the building in front of you? I know what it is. That's that weird lot that's across from Wells Fargo. What is, so that'll fully block the view of the house from at least coming that direction. Is that correct? Yeah, based on the development plan of the that was approved for that site and some drawings we got from that, that will be a 24-foot tall condominium development, and based on some very preliminary massing, that should completely block both the historic house and the proposed addition. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Member. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, thank you for your presentation. I agree with Chair Rios. This is unusual. It feels a little bit like we're being asked for an advisory opinion on an application that's already been developed, but not yet formally vetted by staff, which is our normal procedure, and then having recommendations given to us. The only time I can remember that happening is when we're proceeding under the provisions for capital outlay projects. You probably experienced that when there's actually a procedure set forth in the ordinance. But I, you know, I appreciate the idea that getting some preliminary feedback can be helpful in design process. I would say we definitely can't decide on demolition without a full-blown application being before us and a recommendation from staff. But, you know, we see in the packet that you've already, you already have an engineer's report that would strongly support your view. So I think that staff can advise you as to what they would recommend and how we would probably approach that. But I don't know how much of this design you've already run through staff. Who's this, who, what staff is assigned to this case? We're working with Amanda Romero. And if I may just say, the info session was recommended to us. Yeah, I didn't mean to put any burden on you. I know that that was, you were just coming here because you were asked to, which, so not at all putting any blame on you. But who is the preservation division staff that's handling this matter? Amanda. Okay. So I guess the things that jump out at me, and I would assume maybe you've already talked to the applicant about it, is I believe that the code provides that with significant structures, additions have to be lower than the significant structure. This is higher. So an exception would be needed for that. I think that we know you can't attach to a primary facade. The applicant already addressed that. That would need an exception. I think for significant structures, you can't have a footprint larger of the addition that's larger than 50% of the main structure that's significant. This is almost double that. So clearly that would be an issue. And I think there may be an issue about the dimensions of the primary facade compared to the dimensions of the proposed addition under our code as well. So given all that, I mean, this would be a stretch. I guess one other thing I would say is that additions are under our ordinance are required to be, to be similar in style to the structure they're being attached to, but not indistinguishable. So that's the standard. This one, I don't think is quite similar yet. It is distinguishable, but I think you probably would need more work to get to achieve the similarity requirement unless you're seeking an exception there too. Thank you, Member Ben. Any other comments? Member Cherry, no other comments. Ask a question, follow-up question. When you say similar, is that referring to particular characteristics or a particular? I'll read you the code. Additions shall have similar materials, architectural treatments and styles, features and details as the existing structure. Great. We intentionally did not develop that. That's a common misconception, I think, because there is an idea, especially you're all architects, you're very familiar with the idea that there are some preservation standards that want a strong differentiation between the old and the new. That's a huge subject of controversy, as I'm sure you know. But our ordinance already kind of gets past that issue because it specifically says similarity in all of those aspects, but it does add, but you need to be able to differentiate them. So that's a very fine tightrope to walk, but that's, you're the professionals. I know you can do it. In reference to this, my comment would be you can complement the significant building, but definitely distinguish, because that significant building should stand on its own without impeding from, without competition from the other building. Agreed. From the new building. While we're here, could, if there were any thoughts on the proposed rebuilt stairway in the front, is that something that there were any thoughts on? Rios: And Chair Rios and Madame Applicant, I should bring to the applicant's attention that these advisory, when you have an advisory discussion like this, the comments of the board members are advisory only. No one board member speaks for the entire board. And it has happened in the past that applicants hear some comments from some board members and they assume that so long as they tailor their application to those comments, their application's going to pass. And that's not necessarily true. So that's a risk you take, you know, asking the board for input with respect to a particular item. You're going to get some individual board members' comments, but the board cannot take a vote on it tonight because it is not on the agenda for a vote. It is only on the agenda for a discussion item. Okay, understood. Thank you. So nothing that is said here is binding. Okay. I would even say should be taken with a huge grain of salt because it really is just one person. All you've really heard is one person's opinion on a seven-member board. So that doesn't probably get you very far, but I would work closely with staff on this. I think that they can give you all the advice you need. Well, thank you for your presentation this evening and we look forward to seeing you with the actual case before us. Thank you. Thank you. The next informational item is located at 219 and 219A Washington Avenue. Chair Rios, members of the board, thank you for this evening. Thank you for all the public being here today. So I asked Mr. Evans to come back to the board to present an informational item given the input that was given at the last case where it was postponed. This may help him clarify and clear out any miscommunication or misinterpretation and allow him to then come at the next hearing with his final design set for review. So Mr. Evans is here to share his proposed design sets. He's got two designs that he will share with you this evening and for open for comment and some guidance and just some discussion and then he can come back for the board at the next hearing. Thank you. I'm Robert Evans with Eleanor Design Services and there were some issues that came up in our last hearing and I just wanted to address those and not necessarily get it, yeah, it's going to work, but just so we know what's going on. The first item is, well, let me explain. 219 Washington Avenue, I'm sorry, 219 was a business occupancy and it had a chiropractor in there. It's 897 square feet. It was a garage and before that it was a stable. There is also a 100 square foot shed attached to the rear for storage they have there on site. It's really old and we're going to put a new thing there for a bath and for laundry. The 215 hip roof Nebraska style that's been there was renovated in 2020 and they came before the board in 2019 to a seven-unit mini-hotel. So people come there a day, less than a week, and they stay. 215 is already in business and the owners Michael and Dennis Price wanted to actually, they wanted to get more units for their business. So we were renovating the 219 into three units which was approved. We're coming to the board, came to the board, or an addition on the back of that 219, two-story addition. Now when I came originally the height was an issue because I had nine-foot ceilings in both buildings and I've reduced those to eight feet and on the addition I'm still keeping a two-story and then the standalone building behind it, 219A, we can go either way. You know, there were some suggestions about style. In my original proposal, I did not, we were just going to restucco the building, take the ivy off, do a new door. And what happened is, well, let me back up. Sorry. Went to 219 for three units and then two units, one on the bottom of the addition and one on the top of the addition. Now I've got the height of that with the reducing the ceiling heights to 19 feet which is under the 20-foot max for historic. That would work. I'm a little concerned about what was just said about, I don't believe that the east elevation is contributing or primary. So that's where the addition is coming off. Okay. And then the back and the bigger building is behind that. Now the bigger building again, I went down to eight feet for the two-story rendition. That is the bottom right. Two-story addition is there. What I'm proposing also is the territorial hoping on the top which matches, which is matching SE's building there next door. There was some suggestion to do that because it's on that side and then the other side will be the hip roof. The big building in the back will be the hip roof 219A. This one that's, yeah. And this is the one story. No, we can, we can go to one story. We're only going to get two rooms on the bottom floor. And this is 23 feet. Still going to need an exception, three feet over the, over the limit because of the hip roof. Not sure, you know, two-story is going to be 464. So trying to get some guidance on one story, two story for the brick building. That's still in play or not or I can come back I guess on third and we can discuss that. Just trying, I would love to be able to get, you know, I'd love to be able to get this done in the next, but I understand there's a lot of moving parts. Worry except the two on the left are not on the right. Action fight like restock one story probably all white can't hear. Let's see. So, And that is your main concern this evening? In reference to one story or two stories. I'm sorry, what was the question? That is your main concern. Yeah, that's the main concern. And you know the other things we can, we can work with. Okay. Again, me personally, I feel a bit uncomfortable even offering comments because I realize that you're trying to get through with your project and coming before the board in the future when it is a true case that you want some input from the board so to make sure that your case passes, is so that you're, so that you're, have a better idea of what the board wants. But none of these comments this evening are binding. None of them, we are, people are may and may not make comments in reference to what you have presented this evening. And as I said earlier, it is rather, it is rather unusual to do this. I personally feel much more comfortable with an actual case coming before us and hearing from the applicant and having the board make a motion and a decision in a motion. But let me see what if any of the, from what they heard this evening, if they have anything to comment or to add. Board members, any comments or in reference to this particular case? Member Bend the News. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, so I agree we're in the same boat and I also want to emphasize this is not your fault at all. I completely understand why you're doing what you're doing and you had, you know, the staff's full blessing to do it that way. So, not a criticism at all, but it is difficult. And I can say here that it's doubly difficult for you because the two members, as I recall, that were most concerned about the style and the height aren't here tonight. So, Exactly. I don't know how they would respond to what you've done. I personally think it's a huge improvement what you're proposing, but I'm again one of seven people, but that's, that's my take. It doesn't mean I know whether it'll be approved or not, even by myself until we see an actual application and a recommendation of staff. But I think, you know, I commend you for really taking the board's concerns to heart and working hard on it. Yeah, this is my first historic case. Well, you're doing great. I work with an architect in town mostly. Sorry we can't be of more help, but I agree that it's just a difficult spot to be in when we don't have a full application before us. Thank you. Member Benu, other members have any comments to offer? Sir, I think, you know, I'm sure that the staff would be happy to continue working with you on these ideas. So, you have help at hand and anything they say you can take to the bank because they're not in a public hearing trying to cast a vote. Sounds good. It will be helpful to you, I'm sure. Thank you. Thank you much. Okay. Any other comments? The other members? No. No other comments? Well, we thank you for being here this evening and we hope when you present the actual case that the outcome that you will be satisfied with the outcome. Okay. Thank you. See you in two weeks. We have nothing under old business and we have seven cases under new business. The first case is Amandas and it is located at 222 Paco Street. Thank you, Chair Rios. Members of the board, if you could just give me a moment to get this up, we'll get started. Okay, Chair Rios, members of the board, I'm ready to get started here. This is for case 2025 0110 046 HDRB or 222 Palco Street, units A, B, and C. All of these units are designated in contributing to the Westside Guadalupe District. Here we have our facade diagram. I don't know how clearly you can see it from there, but as shown in your packets, we're just going to break these down building by building and then go facade for that. And I'm requesting that in your motion, there be three motions made, one for each building if possible. So, first we're going to start with building A. And this is the north elevation of building A. We have the east elevation of building A and that is the of the facade of the building. And then as suggested by staff, the south and west facades known as F3 and F4 of building A requested to be primary and this is the west elevation also requested as primary for that building. Moving on to the next building, we have building B, which is considered three in your HCPI. So there's no confusion on what building we are. So this is the west elevation and the south elevation for building B, also known as three in the HCPI. The north and the east facades are being requested by staff as primary. Picture shown here on the presentation is the north and here is a picture of the east. Staff is asking to exclude the portal. And then finally we have building C which is also known as one. This is the south elevation and the west elevation. Staff is requesting building C be the primary north F1, F2, F3, and the east considered F4 in your facade diagram map. Staff recommends the, to recap everything, staff recommends the historic status of the structures be maintained at and as contributing and to designate the primary facades for building A as the south and the west, south F3 and west F4 facades for building B, the north F1 and the east F2 facades. And for Building C, the north F1, F2, F3, and east and F4 facades for 15-5.2C designation of significant contributing or non-contributing status within the historic districts. I stand for questions. Mayor: Thank you, Amanda, for your presentation. Board members, do you have any questions for Amanda at this point? It appears they don't have any questions for you. And I see that Gayla is right behind you. Gayla, if you can get sworn in, state your name and your address, please. Gayla Beal: Good evening. Gayla Beal, 320 Aztec Street. Mayor: Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? Gayla Beal: I do. Mayor: Thank you, Madam Chair. She's been sworn in. Gayla Beal: Good evening. I would like to request a bit more restraint on the primary facade designations for these projects. I would appreciate that on Building 1, is that Building 1? Building A, Building 2, that only the west facade that actually has original windows that are still extant on that west facade. The south facade F3, I don't believe either of those openings still have their original window or door. So that's my request for that one. On Building B3, I know that in the staff report the non-historic material is considered not to be, will not be considered contributing or a primary, which I appreciate, but I still feel that the changes made to the front facade, the east-facing facade, is a bit beyond repair. I think it's only contributing if it's repaired, and that puts the onus, that's not a real thing. It's not the way it's, it's not the way it is today. And I feel like it's like what we wish it were. And so we're making it primary based on what we wish it were. And then on Building C1, the facade that I find the most characteristic of this building is actually the west facade, which is F4, four or five. Who can see? Yeah, that one. Yeah, the west facade F6. The F1, 2, 3, 4, they've been obliterated. That portal has been filled in. The windows are nothing. There's, I mean, they're, they've been completely changed and truly the only characteristic of the building that I find interesting is the west facade. Otherwise, I agree. I guess I didn't agree with him. And for questions. Mayor: Gayla, would you kindly reiterate what you said for the B, the side? Gayla Beal: The back building. The, so can you get the picture up, Amanda? If you would indicate what facade you feel is primary. I think the primary facade or the one that has the most character that's characteristic of this building is the, is the north, that one north facade. I feel like the, while I would love for the west or east-facing facade to be primary, it's a wish. It's, it's not actually what it is anymore. And so it's, it's what it could be or what we want it to be, but it's not what it is today. If that makes any sense. Thank you. Are you done with your presentation? Okay. Board members, do you have any questions or comments? Member chair. Member: Yeah. Gayla, can you extrapolate a little on what you mean by you think it would be a wish? Gayla Beal: Can you make the picture? No. So, if you, if you look here, the, in order for it to be a primary facade indicative of what the style was, this wonderful Spanish Pueblo Revival style where they, they stylized the sloping of the top of the parapet, it's been roofed over. And so in order for this facade to really look the way that it should or did or would have, you have to not only remove the roof, you have to remove the portal, the door, the windows, nothing. So it's just the outline truly that is left. I think that it doesn't have to be a primary facade for the outline to be saved. And it just feels to make this the characteristic, a characteristic defining part of this building just seems to me wishful thinking. Member: Are you indicating that the undulating parapet on this is not original to the? Gayla Beal: No, I believe it is original, but it, but it has been so demolished over the years that there's hardly any left of it. So, in order for it to be set back to its original form, it has to be restuccoed. You're, you're making the premise that this is a primary facade. You're basing it on what it could look like, not what it actually does look like. Well, a lot of these buildings, definitely on our tour today, we noticed they obviously need a lot of tender loving care. But we have to look beyond that to see what, per staff's report for Hickby, anything that we have to put our hands on or to put our fingers on to see what it has, what is represented of the original structure. I was wondering on Building A, I felt that we should, perhaps the board should consider the east, the front structure. This to me is just, it's extremely simple. It's a small building, but it's got one door. And I believe that opening probably is, is historic. Correct. That opening, that door. Amanda: Yes, Madam Chair, that is correct. Gayla Beal: No, the door is not historic. The opening is. Member: Yeah, the opening is. I'm not saying that the door is, but that the opening to that and in its front facade, I think you were indicating the west facade, which is not publicly visible. It does have casement windows. I think this is, yeah. Oh, no. That's not the one that I. Gayla Beal: That's, that's the one because it's the most. These are the windows represent the characteristic of the 40s when this building was built. Mayor: Well, let's see. I don't vote except in case of a tie. Let's see what board members, what other comments they have. Any other comments? Member: Are we making comments now or just questions for the applicants? Oh, I don't have any more questions, but thanks for your explanation. Member: Nothing further. Mayor: Anyone in this audience wishing to comment on this particular case? If so, come forward. No one. Is there anyone online? Murios: We have Stephanie Benonato. Mayor: Stephanie, you need to get sworn in. Stephanie, will you please state your name and address for the record? Stephanie Benonato: Stephanie Benonato, PO Box 1601, Santa Fe. Mayor: Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? Stephanie Benonato: Yes. Mayor: Thank you, Madam Chair. She's been sworn in. Stephanie Benonato: You know, I actually went and looked at these buildings because the property is for sale and that one building, the first building, the small square building to me, I don't even know that it should be contributing because it is just a square box basically. And I can appreciate that that first, the opening with only the door could be primary, I guess, if you want to leave it contributing, but I don't see that square box actually contributing to the streetscape at all. On the back house, the one with the mission, the undulating parapet, I agree with Gayla that it is so, it is so overcome by other additions. Yes, you could remove the portal, but it also has that shed-like addition on the one side that's well within 10 feet of it. And to me, the only real primary facade on that building is the part on the north where there's the chimney and the two windows. I think that should be primary if you're going to leave that contributing on the, and that house, the number two house, as well as the one, I guess it's C number one on your Hickby. I believe both of those have been added on to more than once and post 1970s in some cases according to John Murphy's report. And the porch on the, I guess it's the street, I'm sorry, I think it's the street-facing facade. I mean, it obscures the openings and if you go in, you can see that what is now a window was a door. So, even the openings have been changed on that. And, you know, again, no one's mentioning John Murphy's report, but he actually recommended that house not be contributing at all, although it was an artist's studio and has some historic interest because of that. So I, I'm again saying that perhaps the smallest building should not be contributing at all. That the back one should only have the north part of the north facade be contributing. And then on the front house, I, I'm not sure that which facade you would actually say was contributing given the number of additions and the hiding of the, of the main facade, the one that you would actually see, I believe, from the street. Thank you. Mayor: Anyone else online? No. Board members, if you don't have any questions or comments, I will entertain three motions for Building A. Do I hear a motion for Building A? Member: I can make a motion. Mayor: Yes, Member Cherry. Member: In case 2025 01146 011046 HDRB 22 Pakio Street, regarding Building A, I would propose the primary facades. I have, I have to get to it on my computer because I can't see that screen. Bear with me. To be F2, F3, and F4. You indicate that in terms of. Mayor: F2, the east facade, F4, F3, the south facade, and F4, the west facade. Member: Yes, sir. Building is, I'm talking about Building, sorry, let me back up. I'm talking about Building A and. Mayor: We are addressing Building A. Okay. Okay. Building A, which is also Building 2. Correct. So, we have a motion. Is there a second to this motion? Member: Second. Mayor: Member Den second. May we have a roll call vote, please? Amanda. Member: Are we going to discuss it? Mayor: To interrupt, but you, can you repeat that motion because I believe you were going off of the wrong building at the time. Member: Building, restate it. F2, F3, and F4 is what I said for Building A2. Mayor: Okay. So, you're, okay. Thank you. Member: Yeah. I, we have discussion, Madam Chair. Mayor: Yes. Member: Since we're breaking this down one by one, I, this is a difficult case. I just want to say upfront, these are very special properties in a way. They really speak to the compound and just a handmade development of that with extremely simple vernacular structures. All of which, you've been here for a while, you know I bent over backwards to protect. This is a little harder than most because these, these buildings are, you know, they're not in wonderful repair, first of all, and they, I don't want to get into what can and can't be done with them, but let's just say that I, I would be concerned about over-designation in this, in this particular instance more so than in some because of the limited footprints here. And even though I do think, you know, from the site visit, I do tend to agree that F2 of Building A is a very distinctive facade and character defining. F4 has the historic, important historic windows and F3 has very prominent facade that's visible from the road. And as much as I would like to protect all of them, I would, I think in this case I will go with staff's recommendation and the Hickby's recommendation of limiting it to F3 and F4. So I just wanted to say that to explain how I would vote on this. I don't know if anyone else wants to discuss before we vote. Member: Yeah, I can explain my thought process there is in regards to the opening. You know, I think that that equally valuable to this structure, the, the, the window material and that historic material is the massing and the openings. So that's, that's where that comes from. I do find that that east facade is, is very unique and characteristic of buildings of that type. And I, you know, I also think from looking at the Hickby and just looking at the construction there that these three buildings were probably all initially roughly the size of this original building, or this, this Building A. I think Building C, you know, the, the front section was probably the, the east section, the street side section was probably, you know, the initial part of that building and, and the F2, the, the east side of the, the building, Building B was probably, you know, very similar. So, to me, that building retains a lot of what's original and characteristic about this as a compound and as a structure. In relation to what the applicant stated, that the south side has been manipulated in regard to the window material being removed, I totally agree with that. But I feel like there's value in that the openings are probably original in massing and in size. To me, that has equal value to the materiality of the windows that exist on the west facade. So I actually think that if visibility is a priority, then potentially the west facade could be the facade that wouldn't be primary because it's not visible. But it just so happens that it has the historic window material. So that was my train of thought of following staff's recommendation, but then also agreeing with the comments that were made regarding this east facade being very characteristic. So that's why I made the motion stand. Chair: Thank you. Anyone else? No further comments. So, Member Cherry is indicating the east facade, the west facade, and the south facade as primary. Staff indicated the south and the west. So the motion is east, south, and west. And you seconded it. May we have a roll call? Member Benu: No, for the reasons stated. Member Cherry: Yes. Member Dman: Yes. Member Mather: Yes. Chair: The motion has passed. Thank you. And now we have discussion and a motion for B. I'll go, but feel free to jump in. So, my motion would be in case 2025-011046 HDRB at 222 Palco Street B. I would move to adopt staff's recommendations and designate and maintain the status as contributing and designate the north and east facades as primary, excluding all known historic material. Do I hear a second? Megan: Second. Chair: Is there any further discussion? I would make a comment that my only comment on that one is I think that the north facade, only half of it really has characteristics, in my opinion, that warrant being primary. The back half does not. So I would feel like the north facade of that building should not be primary. Any other comments? Let's roll call vote, please, on the motion. We have a motion and a second. Can I just ask for clarification? The HCPI calls out the original portions of the north facade. Is your recommendation including the entire north facade or only the original portion of the north facade? That is the entire north facade. And what is the original portion of the north facade? I will let the applicant answer that, but I do believe the original portion is, or the addition portion is, on the right side of the chimney, the east side of the chimney. Okay. So in that case, let's see. What do I need to do to modify the motion? I think I need to resend the motion, and I need a second on the, I need an agreement from the seconder to resend. Is that correct? And also, would you want me to restate it? I can do either one. I think you can withdraw the motion. It's, I would say withdraw, use the word withdraw as opposed to resend. Okay, I'll withdraw the motion, but I still think the second, the person that seconded, needs to also agree. The second agrees to withdraw the motion. Okay. Okay. So I do want to modify that, that, consistent with the information in the packet, that the north, the original portion of the north facade would be contributing, and I mean, would be primary, and in addition, the east facade primary, excluding all non-historic materials. Yes. Second the motion, DGEN. And if there's no further discussion, we can have a roll call vote, please. Member Bianu: Yes. Member Cherry: Yes. Member DGEN: Yes. Member Mather: Yes. Chair: The motion has passed. Thank you very much. And we will address building C. I'll make a motion. Chair: Please do. So in case 2025-011046 HTRB 2022 Palakio Street regarding building C or number one, I make a motion that facade F4 and facade F3, up to, exactly how to do this, but from the east corner up to the first small jog to the north, be primary. Is there a second to this motion? Second. Is there further discussion for additions? Clarification. Did you exclude non-historic materials? No, but I would accept that as a friendly amendment. I would propose that as a friendly amendment. It's your friendly amendment, excluding all non-historic materials. I accept. May we have a roll call vote, please? Madame Chair, does the person who seconded the motion approve of the friendly amendment? She does. Okay. Tun: Thank you. Roll call vote, please. Member Benvanu: Yes. Member Cherry: Yes. Member Denon: Yes. Member Mather: Yes. Chair: The motion has passed. Thank you very much. Thank you, Gayla. Thank you. Another unusual happening here this evening. This young lady, the applicant for Rometo Street, I don't feel that she should be waiting through the rest of six cases this evening. I think that we need to make some kind of a statement in reference to what's going to happen to her. As I understand from the city attorney, we cannot discuss anything unless it's made part of the agenda. You were discussing something which was under matters from the floor, but that is the way I understand that the process should, that we should follow. I'm not saying that we're not going to hear your follow-up on trying to iron out this issue, but what I am saying is that I believe I'm correct in indicating that the city attorney has told us that we cannot proceed on anything that is not on this agenda. Am I correct? Member Benu or Attorney Rubali. Madame Chair, that is correct. You or the staff would have to request that a discussion regarding recision of the June 10th vote regarding this property be taken up, and that will have to appear on an agenda. At that time, it will have to be decided whether the board should, whether anybody from the board wishes to make a motion to rescind, and whether it gets a second. And I believe if it is rescinded, there will have to be another hearing as to the status of the property because all you can do is rescind what you previously decided. We could not even really bank any kind of decision this evening because it's not an item that is, that has been on the agenda. That is correct because that would run afoul. And I just feel that it's unfair to the applicant or us for you to continue hearing those cases if nothing is going to happen tonight. But it is something that we'll have to discuss with staff and with the city attorney to see what prevails. Madam Chair, can I ask a question? Chair: Yes. Yes, Member. Question of staff. Who is the staff member on this again? Or maybe it's for Director Moore or Makino. But my recollection is that this case was, all we've done so far is a status case. So, does the applicant, you can explain to the applicant, and maybe already have, that the status doesn't necessarily prevent any modifications to the wall. Is that understood? It's correct. The issue is that the cost is prohibitive for her. Cost of what? Well, the cost of what? Cost exceptions. To work on a contributing wall. Oh, okay. Yeah. Well, let's see if we can, we can discuss this. Can I ask one question? It was my understanding that you needed to rule on pushing this on to the next agenda or onto a future agenda. Can we get a vote on that, please? Chair: Are we voting or ruling on that? I think that it was my understanding it was a vote, but of course, he's the expert. Yeah. And I don't think it's a vote. I think it's, it's, it's that, correct me if I'm wrong, Attorney Rublade, but that what could happen at this hearing is a request could be made to hear it. Madame Chair and Member Cherry and Ms. Kennedy, right? I'm looking at a set of rules and procedures for city committees which have been adopted three times by resolutions in 1984, 1990, 2009, which essentially read that in order to place a matter on an agenda, the staff, either the staff has to place it on the agenda with the approval of the chair, or the chair has to request to be placed on the agenda. And that's how something gets on an agenda. So, so what, what could happen tonight is the chair could request that it could be put on the agenda. Is that correct? Well, that can take place tonight, or it can take place, it doesn't, that doesn't have to be in an open meeting. Placement of something on the agenda can be between an email between the staff and, Right. But the placement on the agenda doesn't require a vote. It's just, That is correct. Placement on the agenda is, Also say, I can leave it up to staff. Yeah. Or, or it can happen like you were saying earlier, Cherios, after you meet with staff and the attorney, if you wanted to. Right. So, feel that this is a matter that needs to be addressed. We don't want to leave you in limbo, and this is my, my feeling. You're a fellow citizen here, and you're asking for something, and I feel that staff and the city attorney are the ones that should put it on the agenda. Okay. And, and, and that can be done. They can address it quickly and decide what's, what will happen. Okay. And, well, Madame Chair and Miss Kennedy and Member Cherry, I don't have a, I don't have a vote on that. I can advise the staff whether they're proceeding legally or illegally, but it will be up to the staff, or it will be up to the chair, or it will be an agreement between the staff and the chair. It's basically an administrative decision, which doesn't have to be done right this instant. That is correct. So, I think for me, tomorrow, I can call, I can talk to the city, to Mr. Rubilit. He's an assistant city attorney. He's the one that advises us here. And perhaps Mr. Ruby and I need to talk to the city attorney and the staff to see how we're going to proceed, and we will notify you, okay? So that you don't have to sit here through cases. Okay. So the next case is Lanny's case, and it's located at 127 Dudon. Is that applicant here? Oh, and it's Gayla. Lanny, Thank you. Okay, so this is case 2025-011031 HDRB for 127 Duran for demolition of a shed. Duran Street is a narrow street lined with low yard walls with fencing on top, as well as a combination of coyote fencing, wrought iron, metal gates, and chain link fences. The residence sits on, and residences sit an average of 7 to 10 feet from the street, and are a combination of vernacular and Spanish Pueblo Revival styles with flat or hipped roofs and divided light windows in earth-tone stucco. The single-family residence at 127 Duran Street is listed as non-contributing to the Westside Guadalupe Historic District. The property holds an accessory structure which is also listed as non-contributing. The accessory structure is the subject of this case. The HCPI dates the accessory structure on the northeast corner of the property to post-1978 and states that it is constructed of concrete block. The roof is supported by posts on the dirt floor. An adjacent frame lean-to storage room is covered with gray coat stucco. Upon a recent site inspection, the entire accessory structure appears to be unstable. The property was reviewed by the HDRB for historic status on February 11th of 2025. The decision of the board was to retain the residential structure and the accessory structure as non-contributing and designate the wall at the acequia as contributing. The applicant proposes to demolish the entire accessory structure. There are no plans for a replacement structure at this time. Staff finds that the application complies with section 14-3.1 for demolition of historic or landmark structures, section 14-5.2D general design standards, and 14-5.2I to I for the Westside Guadalupe Historic District Design Standards and recommends approval of the proposed project to demolish the shed. Thank you, Lanny. Any questions for Lanny, board members? We have no questions right now. Gayla, I'm going to guess that you agree with Lanny's recommendation. Do you agree? Okay. Do you have anything more to add? No. Any questions for Gayla? No one. Anyone in this audience wishing to comment on this particular case? No one. Anyone on Zoom? No. Board members, I will entertain a motion, please. Yes, Member Dena. I move that item number 3025011031 HDRB at 127 Duron Street in the Westside Guadalupe Historic District, which is non-contributing, be demolished due to lack of viability. I will second. Is there something further to add? A friendly amendment, add that findings be entered that the demolition criteria set forth in 14-3.14G have all been met for the reasons set forth in staff's recommendation. Accepted. We both agree. Accepted. Thank you. Anything else? Roll call vote, please. Member Bianu? Yes. Member Cherry? Yes. Member Degen? Yes. Member Mather? Yes. Madam Chair, the motion has passed. Thank you very much. The next case is located at 241 Maynard. I guess the applicant is moving forward. This is Lanny's case. This is case 2025 011032 HDRB for 241 Maynard for a remodel. The property at 241 Maynard is on the corner of Maynard Street and Don Felix Street. Maynard Street is lined with fences and yard walls that are set back from the street with enough distance to have sidewalks, though few exist. The fencing consists mostly of chain link with a few board and coyote fences. The yard walls and fences range from 40 to 72 inches in height, with the street average at 60 inches. The houses are mostly Spanish Pueblo Revival and a few vernacular style. The roofs are a combination of flat roofs with parapets, several of which are undulating, and pitched roofs. Most of the residences are single-story, low-height homes, though there is a single two-story residence across the street from the subject property and a capital at the other end of the road. The stucco colors are earth tone, with paint being mostly browns, whites, with some green and blue. Don Felix Street is lined with mostly yard walls, with one chain link, one picket, and a few board fences. All are set back from the street with a sidewalk. The pedestrian gates tend to be wood, and the one vehicle gate is a metal frame with wire. The fencing heights range from 36 to 72 inches, with the street average being 56 inches. The property at 241 Maynard has a single-family residence which is designated as non-contributing to the Westside Guadalupe Historic District due to its age. The residence is behind a 40-inch high chain link fence on its northwest and south property lines. The east property line holds an unfinished yard wall of varying heights. The residence was constructed in 1984. It is a simple rectangular building with a bump-out on the south end of the west elevation and a small porch around the double front door. Just to the north of the bump-out, the windows are all single-pane vinyl windows with white trim on the east and west elevations. There is a single entry door on the south elevation and no openings on the north elevation. The roof is pitched with gray asphalt shingles and visible rooftop appurtenances, including skylights, satellite dish pump piping, and large solar panels. The wood elements are painted in a light turquoise green. The only previous case for the property is a temporary structure that was approved in 2019, and that structure has been removed. The applicant proposes the following exterior alterations: to construct a 67 square foot addition to a height of 14 feet on the west elevation. That's located where the bump-out is. Then to construct an 86 square foot portal to a height of 13 feet. The maximum allowable for this property is 15 feet 1 inch. Replace the front double doors with a single arched door. Replace the dining room window with the kitchen door that they're planning to remove on the east elevation, and install the dining room window that's planned to be removed into the primary bedroom on the north elevation. Install exterior stairs with metal handrails at the new east elevation door and at the new west elevation portal, and replace the existing gray shingle roof with a metal prop panel roof in a barn red color. They plan to remove the solar panels and install three skylights which will be publicly visible due to the pitch of the roof. The profile of the skylights will be approximately 6 inches to 8 inches in height. The skylights will be low and flat along the pitch of the roof as required under section 14-5.2 I1D4. And then they plan to construct a yard wall with wood pedestrian and vehicle gates to the maximum allowable heights of 56 inches along Don Felix and 60 inches along Maynard Street. This is what the yard wall is planned to look like along Maynard with the pedestrian gate. The same style will be along Don Felix. The yard wall does meet the regulations for the site visibility triangle under section 14-7.1F of the zoning code. Staff recommends approval of the proposed project and finds that the application complies with section 14-5.2D, general design standards for all historic districts, and section 14-5.2 I for Westside Guadalupe Design Standards. We stand for questions. Thank you, Lanny. Any questions for Lanny, board members? I will reserve my question for the applicant. Applicant, Mr. Martinez, please get sworn in. And if the owner wants to speak as well. Perfect. Will you both please raise your right hand and then each take your turns, state your name and address for the record. Richard Martinez, PO Box 925, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Okay. And then you next, please. Montoya, PO Box 772, Espanola. 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? Okay. Chair, they've been sworn in. Richard, what do you have to tell us? Something to say, but before I do, the drawings that were shown on the screen are awful. In the past, I have been congratulated for how beautiful my drawings are, but the way that the staff and the screens and the line weight and everything makes the drawings look terrible. I hope that you have all seen my actual drawings in your packet. But I have big copies here. If I could pass those around, I would be grateful. How big are they? 24 by 36. I'm just going to give these to the board. You feel that they're fuzzy, the ones that we see from staff? I'll pass these. I saw on the screen dropped lines. They made lines darker. They just look awful. So, I'm just passing that around. Okay. First, I want to say that the first thing when you see this house on the corner photograph, the first thing that you see when you see this house on the corner is that you notice the chain link fence. That's the first thing. And the second thing you notice is that the house is very cookie-cutter, sort of a house. It has no style. It's definitely not in the Santa Fe style of house. And we plan to change both of those things. We have a wall that's going around the street that will replace the chain link. That wall is shown on the drawing that I passed around, and it's clearly shown on the... 5 feet, correct? It will be 5 feet. Yes. One street we were given 5 feet height. So I made it 5 feet height. The other street we were given 46 inches height. I would like it all to be 5 feet. That would be great. Rather than have it drop down as it goes to another street. Remember that there is no backyard to this house. The house backs right up to the neighboring property and to the wall that's there. Can you pull up that, please? And so that means that the private open space is on the street side of the property. And so it would be nice to have privacy from that street, to have a wall that's consistently 5 feet rather than having the wall step down 4 inches on one side. We're also going to do an entry portal and a living room bump-out. That's much more than the... Can you show that elevation, please? That was on the photograph on the drawings that I sent you. There you go. Yes. So, I have to apologize for what the drawings look like on the screens. They look much better on the paper and electronically, but those bump-outs, those additions to the front of the house, along with the fact that we're going to redo the roof in a very sort of barn red, a brownish red color, means that there will be more of a personality to this house. There will be enhancement to the neighborhood, to the house, all these things: the wall, the bump-outs, and the portal in the Santa Fe style, and the dark deep red roof beyond it. And I think that all these things are intended to enhance the view of the house from the street. And I stand for any questions. Oh, but the owner's father, the owners could not be here, and the owner's father would like to speak. My name is Raymond Montoya. From a father to the new landowner, Isaac. And his plans are to follow all the rules and beautify this house more by putting a wall and fixing the front end of the house and the wall. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Montoya. Board members, do you have any questions for either one of the...? The other thing I need to say is I'm really happy that my son is moving back from Boston closer to home. Okay. So he can start a family. Okay. Any questions for either Mr. Montoya or Mr. Martinez? Yeah, I have a question for Mr. Martinez. Yes, Member Cherry. So, I'm noticing the parapeted roof of the addition and how it intersects with the pitched roof on what would be the east side of the parapeted roof. Is that, is there a cricket there? That's a parapet. There's no drawing showing the east side of that roof, of the parapeted roof. Right. That's between the peak of the pitched roof and the... Oh, the east side. No. Yes. Does the new metal roofing run onto the roof of the parapeted roof, or does that parapet go all the way across and then there's some kind of cricket there? Yes, the pitched roof does run onto the additions, but only partially, and then it's crickets, flat roof beyond that. So there it is. So it does, there is no parapet on that side. Just runs right in. It runs right on there. And then so that what we're seeing in the drawing is what we'll see. We won't see an additional cricket up against between a parapet that would be on the east side of the addition and the west roof of the existing house. That's right. I tried to indicate that on the site plan which does show the roof. Okay, I see. Thanks for the clarification. Any other questions, board members? There are none. Is anyone in this audience wishing to comment on this particular case? No. Anyone online? Yes, Cheriel. Stephanie Benato. And she's been sworn in. Stephanie, make your comments. Can you hear me? Yes. Yes. Great. I think these additions to the home are really helpful and will make it more in keeping with Santa Fe style and, as Richard has said, will give it some character. I always do wonder why it has to be a red roof, though, and not something that is more natural, in the sense of like blue or, I don't know, nothing so shocking as red. And I don't consider barn red to be a deep red. And then in terms of the walls, I would think that if he wants to go higher on the wall, the owner wants to go higher, that there had to be an exception if it wants to go over the 46 allowed. And I also wonder how long that run is on either street and whether there has to be a change in elevation or something to break up the wall. And maybe the board members could ask that question. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Gary. No. Cherry. Board members, if you have nothing further, a motion is appropriate. And we are passing around the color of the roof appears to be, as Sister Martinez said, reddish-brownish. And I will entertain a motion. I'm not ready for a motion, but I have a question. So, the red color of the roof did stand out. The proposal for red color did stand out a little bit on the site visit. There are some red roofs. If you look down the street, you can find one or two, but by and large, that's not a color that's seen much in that particular streetscape on either Don Felix or Maynard Street. How fixed is the applicant on it being a red roof as opposed to a galvanized roof like the one across the street or brown? I don't get the sense that they're fixed on that. However, the red roof is intended, the barn red roof is intended to mimic a rusted metal roof. It's not intended to be a bright color at all. It's not intended to be a new roof, like a galvanized color, but intended to look like a weathered, rusted metal roof. Okay, that's the idea. Well, that's helpful because red roofs, by almost by definition, they're designed to be something of an arresting effect, right? They're designed to stand out. That's the whole point of a red roof. And that's not what we normally want in this area, especially since, you know, sometimes people think of Westside Guadalupe as being a very colorful district, but that area actually isn't all that colorful. And I'm afraid because it's such a prominent location. And just let me say it's a very nice design. You're definitely improving the property, but it is a very prominent location. And that roof is going to really, really stand out from quite a few different viewpoints. And I think I could see something that's a very deepish, sort of weathered-looking red as opposed to a bright red. It's always hard to know with the color samples exactly how accurate it is and to what extent this is the actual product. You know, because every manufacturer has different colors and different names for their colors. But I guess I'd be inclined to be okay with the red roof if it was a very brownish, deep, perhaps weathered-looking reddish tone. That was the idea. We picked out the standard color that was the most brownish red, not like a cherry red or something. I just think that the blue roof or a green roof... I wouldn't want the green or blue. ...would be awful. But this is intended to be like an old rusted metal roof. That's the idea. Yeah. No, I think that's okay. I think the galvanized roof would have that feel too, like the one across the street, which is a new roof, but you know, it kind of blends in nicely, but I could live with what you're suggesting. And I was also going to point out that I think that's correct about the wall, is that an exception would be required to have that raised to the level. So that we, it's not even on the agenda. So it couldn't be done tonight. Oh yeah. I just wanted to mention, given what the discussion was earlier, that I had a case in which the exceptions required a fee of over $6,000 on that case. I'm just letting you know. Okay. Well, that's good information. But if you want them all the same height, you can always lower the one on Maynard Street. But I know you want the privacy. So, Well, okay. I do want to say something about color. So, the Westside, I'm a longtime Santa Fean, born and raised here. And the Westside Guadalupe Historic District did have a lot of color. In more recent times, the Westside Guadalupe Historic District has become like the rest of the city of Santa Fe, brown in color, but they did have a lot more color in that. But now people prefer the brown color, but that did have a lot of, I remember. So anyway, and member Benu, what are you saying about the wall? Well, the applicant has suggested he would like to bring up the wall on Don Felix, four inches, to the same height as Maynard Street, but the height calculations have already been done and that's the reason for the difference in the two heights and we wouldn't, we don't have the authority to alter that. Okay. Tonight is five foot. What's on the proposal, though, is five foot. Five feet. All the way around. So what's being proposed on... The proposal does have five feet only on the Main Street side. Oh, I see. Stepping down. Eight on the... And the applicant was suggesting that he would like it if we could give him another four inches. But my answer is, we actually can't do that even if we wanted to because it's not... But earlier I thought you, I thought I heard you say 46 on the... Oh, I meant 48. That's right. Gotcha. Okay. I'll go, I'll make a motion. Okay. 2025011032 HDRB 241 Maynard Street. I move to approve the application as submitted, as recommended by staff. But I just want to condition that on the roof being a, if it's to be red, that it be a deep orangish red, mimicking, aesthetically speaking, a rust color. And that that final material product that's being proposed for the roof should be submitted to staff for final approval to be consistent with that. Second. Second. Oh, we had two seconds, I think. Right? So, who did second? Cherry seconds that. Anything further? Nothing further to add. Roll call vote, please. Member Benu. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Dagnen. Yes. Member Mayor. Yes. Madam Chair, the motion has passed. Thank you. Thank you, Richard. Thank you. Next case is located on Kaya Corville 528 and 530. Well, on our, yeah, it was just the screen. Paul, you have the floor. Thank you, Madam Chair. Bear with me one moment while this PowerPoint. So, Madame Chair, members of the board, in case number 2025 010 0 0110 1 043 HDRB at 528 and 530 Kaya Corvo. I'd like to share with you the streetscape. The general streetscape at 528 and 530 Kaya Corvo consists of a mix of Spanish Pueblo Revival and Territorial architectural design structures constructed from the 1930s to 1950s. The structures are generally constructed of adobe block, wooden vigas, wood frame, and concrete masonry block with low raised stucco yard walls from the street to the entry of the residences. Several structures have red terracotta tile for portals and entryway roof material, making this a uniquely special characteristic on this street. Common architectural elements include but are not limited to round parapets, brick coping, bull-nosed corners, wrought iron elements, recessed picture, and divided light windows. Most of the structures in this streetscape are one-story, but two-story structures are visible. The area is highly vegetated with mature trees and seasonal plants. The site description of 530, 528, and 530 Kayak Corvo is generally can generally be described as a multi-residential structure with a workshop at the rear of the property. The current residence at 528 Kaya Corvo is the main residence and 530 Kayak Corvo is the address apartment. The structure was built in 1950 out of concrete masonry units as per John Murphy's analysis. Although there are two addresses, the current owner occupies all of the spaces including the house and the apartment. The workshop was originally a shared garage with the residents at 532 Kayak Corvo. It is partitioned in half and access is from the east elevation. There are two non-historic greenhouses and metal shed structures constructed at the rear of the property. These structures are not being considered for status as they do not meet the age requirement for historic status and therefore it is not, it is not, and therefore it will not be addressed in this presentation. So here we have the north elevation, which in Mr. Murphy's report has the least architectural, how do I say, the least important architectural design elements and consists mostly of massing and steel casement windows. And here is the east elevation facing a Sacred Heart School. And so this is the most prominent facade of the structure as it states in Mr. Murphy's report. Unique to this portal is the terracotta tile, the red brick coping of the structure that Territorial style-esque of the architectural design style. However, there are some pop-out windows that were previously installed in the 1980s. And here we have the west facade. And in this west facade, we have the steel case windows, the entries to 530 and 528 Kaya Corvo into the backyard. And they have the most representative of the original architectural design style. Here we have the garage and in this garage, there was an addition, but I was able to find in Mr. Murphy's report that the addition did happen in 1975 there or abouts. So it does meet by 1975. This addition was on this structure, which does give it the 50-year date range for contributing status. Here's the bump out of that addition and work it now serves as a workshop. Here is an entry door on the north facade to gain interest into that workshop. So here are the two elements in which staff is making a recommendation. Those two areas that are in red. One is the yard wall, recommending contributing status of the yard wall and that east facade including the wraparound portal. Here we have the April 20, April 6, 1975 aerial photograph in Mr. courtesy of Mr. Murphy's report showing the addition that was added to that workshop, which does give it that 50-year mark as we as discussed at the site visit. And here we have our staff's proposed facade diagram showing the illustrations in red showing the contributing and primary facades in yard wall and the yellow excluding non-primary. However, if the board, if it pleases the board to make the garage a contributing structure, staff recommends the east-facing facade where the two doors are located. With that, staff recommends the historic status of the main residence and yard wall be upgraded to contributing. Designate the east and southeastern facades including the portal and excluding non-historic doors and windows as the primary facades number one and two on the facade drawing and designate the workshop as non-contributing per 14-5.2c designation of significant contributing and non-contributing status within historic districts. Thank you, board. Staff stands for questions. You, Paul, for your report. Any questions for Paul? Board members, it appears not at this moment. Applicant or applicants, please come forward and get sworn in. Okay. Will you please raise your right hand? You as well. Thank you. State your name and address for the record. Will you please speak into the microphone? Jutton, 1219 Sraod Road, Santa Fe. Thank you. Susan Lamden, 615 Kayo, 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? Please answer into the microphone, each, please. I do. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. They've been sworn. Thank you very much. Good evening, board. Thank you for reviewing this property for historic status. Just a little bit of background. We actually started this project about five, five and a half months ago, and we had an initial site meeting with planner Paul back in April 4th. At that point, all systems seemed to move along, go ahead. So we actually embarked on a design process, and only when I was starting to get ready to submit for historic hearing did we find out that we needed a status review for this property. So we kind of had to backtrack a little bit and do this status review before moving on. So, bear with me for a little bit because I'm just going to read out a few points, and some of it might be reflective of some of our design intentions for— That we cannot go into this evening. We are simply addressing the status. Okay. We do not want to, we cannot go into that. That is not what was advertised. Just one point, a couple of points of clarification from Paul's presentation. The house is an adobe style, not an adobe structure. So it's a concrete masonry unit structure. Okay. As kind of reflected in the updated HCPI. The other thing is that the garage is not shared between properties. There is just a zero lot line. So there is a wall that is shared between 528, 530, and 532 to the south. Okay. So the updated HCPI prepared by John Murphy recommends that a property be designated as a contributing structure. However, we would like the board to consider retaining the property as non-contributing, which is what it is right now, for the following reasons. Though it's kind of more than 75 years old, the house doesn't seem to exhibit a consistent architectural character. If you read through the HCPI, the intent might have been Pueblo Revival. However, the territorial brick coping detail is there. The Spanish tiles are there. The doors and windows don't have any exposed lintels, nor does it have any kind of trim around them. So the existing style mix seems to be really neither here nor there. The windows, as described, are a mixture of all steel frame single pane windows, which are the dominant style. One wood-clad window under the portal on the east side, and then the aluminum frame garden windows that kind of pop out from the building service. So there is this mix of window styles that's existing. We had a window assessment done by Ray Patterson, who incidentally also assessed a number of properties on that same street, and he determined that some of the neighboring properties have indeed changed out their windows to wood-clad windows, and he himself actually recommended in his assessment that it would be acceptable to change the existing steel windows to wood-clad windows. The existing thin rod iron, the rod iron detail, the posts that support the portal, again, they introduce another stylistic element. I mean, they're more Victorian. So again, and we intend to change these out to posts because structurally it's not great. At one end, the beam is actually dislodged from the wall itself. So the structure of that portal needs to be assessed and redone. And we would like to put wood in basically to match the character of the neighborhood. The CMU walls of the house are entirely uninsulated, and as part of our project, we would like to insulate the house. But to do this, if we have contributing status, we would be technically covering up historic material, so that might present a complication. And then, without, yeah, I'll skip this point. And then finally, for the east-facing garden window, the owners have actually grown quite accustomed to that existing kind of pop-out window, and so they would like to expand that idea and make a bay window, and actually an actual— We can't go into that tonight. We cannot go into what you're planning on doing. Okay, that's fine. That's fine. So just to conclude, it seems like the property, if the property were to be designated as contributing, it might present more challenges for all of us, as well as the board, to ultimately create a more stylistically coherent, well-scaled, and energy-efficient house. So that's basically what I'd like to just introduce into the discussion. Thank you. You just called me by my nickname. My legal name is Susan. If you could talk right into that mic. My legal name is Susan, but I go by a nickname, Shulie. And I just wanted to introduce myself and explain our connection to this property. My partner, David, has lived in one side of the duplex for 35 years, and I was a school teacher here. He's a woodworker, and we were blessed with the family resources to purchase the property also through the generosity of the former owner, who was there since '74. '74 is when the deed was transferred. And, you know, we don't want to make anything that would not fit with the character of the neighborhood or the character of the house that we have been with and loved for 35 years. So, I just wanted to make that point. So, thank you. Oh, there were a couple questions that came up at the visit today, and I wanted to apologize for inadvertently breaking your protocol by answering, trying to answer questions or making suggestions myself when my memory, in some cases faulty, remembered something different from what Paul had said. So, I just wanted to offer you my apologies as well. So, thank you. No problem. Thank you. So, if I'm correct, staff recommended on the house the east elevation. Is that correct, Paul? Madam Chair, that is correct. The east elevation on the garage, the east elevation, the workshop, no primary facade, no contributing, non-contributing. Madam Chair, if it's the pleasure of the board to make that east facade on that addition, that would be the pleasure of the board. It is older than 50 years, so it would meet the criteria. And the wall stays at the same height, it's contributing. That's what your recommendation is. Yes, Madam Chair. Let's see. Board members, do you have any comments or questions for either the applicant or Paul? Appears not. Yes. One more little thing. Yes. I think Paul is also recommending that the east wall, the yard wall facing Kio, be designated contributing. However, it is an exposed CMU wall that is kind of crumbling. So, I'm also, if possible, that that be excluded as a primary facade. Thank you. Any, oh, yes, ma'am. I just wanted to read from Mr. Murphy, John Murphy's report, where he said the later shop addition and the front yard wall are non-historic and carried no status. And he says that on the first page. And then on page 14, he says, the garage and the attached workshop were recommended for non-contributing status. He says about the yard wall, "While the concrete block yard walls are of historic age, they possess limited architectural significance and are also recommended as non-contributing." So that's just something to put into the record. Anyone in this building, in this, wanting to comment on this particular case? Not this building, this room. No. Anyone online? No. Board members, if you don't have any further questions or comments, I will entertain a motion, please. I'm ready. Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, so I am persuaded by staff's thorough analysis that is mainly consistent with the HCPI as well. And based on that, I will move in case 202501101101043 HDRB for 528 and 530 K Corvo, to designate the main residence as contributing with the east and southeastern facades, including the portal, but excluding the non-historic doors and windows, as the primary facades as indicated by numbers one and two on the facade drawing. I would designate the workshop and garage as non-contributing, and for the reasons given by staff, and I would designate the yard wall as contributing, noting that it is exposed CMU, and that the contributing status relates to the design and dimensions of the wall that are historic, but not to the fact that it is not covered with stucco, and that designation should not preclude stucco-ing that wall, which is consistent with the ordinance. Do I hear a second? Second. Anything further? I have a question. Member Cherry. Discussion. Are you, just a first, a clarification. So your motion includes facade in the facade diagram number two, but not number three. Is that correct? Yeah. I think it's just numbers one and two. Let me check. Just confirm that. Yes. Why would you exclude three? Three, I just feel like it's, it's fairly predominant in the street. Where's Paul? I thought that there was a differentiation in the historic status of the, of the east, no, the south facade, and that's why you were separating out the south, let me get this right, the southeastern portion. Am I right? Madam Chair, Member Benu, that is correct. So we have facade one and facade two, that southeastern, they are the character-defining elements on this structure. Now, facade three, as the portal extends westwardly, you have a window from the 1980s that abuts out. You have a steel casement window. And so you have some characteristics, but that southeastern corner, you have the original portal, the Spanish tile, the same openings, the same historic openings, and we want to preserve those character-defining elements on this structure. Are you seeing with your motion? Well, I think I do think it, as is being brought up, that it's arguable that you could include additional parts of that elevation, but I will stick with the motion based on staff's recommendation. Roll call vote, please. Member Benu. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Denon. Yes. Member Mather. Yes. Madam Chair, the motion has passed. Thank you all. Next case is located at 425 A Street. Madam Chair, the applicant would like a little clarification. Is that possible? Pardon me. Never mind. My apologies. Thank you. And is the applicant here for 425 AEA? The applicant. Okay. Lanny. Okay. Okay. This is case 2025011033 HDRB for 425 A Beta for new construction on a vacant lot. A Beta Street is a narrow one-way dirt road lined with high yard walls and foliage overgrowth. The gates include a single vehicle gate of metal and wood and pedestrian gates of wood. The houses are Spanish Pueblo style single-story homes with a variety of white, blue, and green trim colors. Most of the homes have protruding vigas and portals with wood elements and natural stains or painted brown. 425 Abeta Street is a 0.46-acre vacant lot in the downtown and east side historic district, just south of the corner lot at Abeta and Camino del Poete. Currently, the property is fenced with a tall chain-link fence and is overgrown with a variety of vegetation. The applicant is proposing to construct a 2,239-square-foot residence to a height of 15 feet in a Spanish Pueblo style with a mix of divided light and single-pane windows, a flat roof with parapets, and an earth-toned stucco. The corners of the building will be sharp corners with no bull-nosing. The divided light windows are integrated divided light with muntins that are not easily removable. There are corner windows planned in the kitchen on the northwest corner of the west elevation and at the master suite on the southwest corner of the south elevation that will be publicly visible. Therefore, an exception is requested to section 14-5.2E2B for publicly visible windows at less than 36 inches from a corner. They plan to construct an 866-square-foot garage to a height of 12 feet 10 inches and construct a covered 9-foot 6-inch high breezeway between the garage and the residence. They will construct 551 feet of portals with wafer-style roofing, install skylights (which will not be publicly visible), and install ground-mounted HVAC on the east elevation. The HVAC will not be publicly visible due to the angle of the building. The southern corner window on this drawing, which is just to the left of the portal, may be publicly visible. Therefore, the exception is requested for this window. Without the building actually being there, it's hard to tell whether or not that would be publicly visible. The second corner window is here under the portal and will be publicly visible as it does face the street. These are our proposed colors, and staff finds that the exception criteria have not been met and recommends denial of the exception to place the two publicly visible corner windows at less than 36 inches from the corner. Otherwise, staff recommends approval of the other elements of the application as they comply with 14-5.2D general design standards for all historic districts and 14-5.2E downtown and east side historic district design standards. I stand for questions. Lanny: Are some of these windows non-divided light proposed? Yes, the non-publicly visible windows are planned to be single-pane windows. Okay. And are those under the portal, or are there some that are not under a portal? Some are not under portals, but they're at the rear of the building, so they will not be visible. Okay. And this house you described as Spanish Pueblo Revival, correct? I did, but I don't believe it is. It's more of a recent Santa Fe style than it is the old style. So, one of the prominent elements of a Spanish Pueblo Revival style home is rounded corners. We always have rounded corners, and that area right there, in particular on Eighth Street, if you want this building to be in harmony with the buildings that are close to it, that are on the other side, they have rounded corners. They have thick walls. And perhaps we can ask the applicant why the owners chose to go with non-rounded walls with very sharp corners and also with non-divided lights. Even if they're not publicly visible, they are allowed to have non-divided light under portals, but the other windows should have divided lights. The design standard states that only the publicly visible windows are required to be divided light. And which are the ones that are publicly visible? The publicly visible ones are all divided light, including the ones under the portal. Okay. Other board members have questions or comments at this point for Lanny? Me, Chair. What's—sorry, maybe I missed it, but you said—I heard you say the corners are square. What's the window detail on the cornering of the windows? Are the windows flush with the exterior plane of the stucco? Are they proud of the stucco, or are they set back? And is that detail bullnosed, or does it have a square corner detail? What's that window stucco detail? I'm going to have to have you verify that with the applicant. Thanks. Thank you. Any other questions for Lanny? None. Applicant, would you step forward and state your name and address and get sworn in? One second. He wants to do a presentation. Is this visible? No. Hi, T. Can you help with this possibly? You want to—you want to again while we're— Do it. Okay. Will you please state your name and address for the record? Raja Bose, 212 Lorenzo Lane, 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, Madam Chair. He's been sworn. Mr. Bose, you have the floor. We're in good shape here like this. So, I just want to make a quick presentation. Thank you for your time. I know it's already late. I think as the architect of not an existing building, but a completely new structure in a historic district and a significant part of a historic district like this, one is challenged to take a look around and make something that is considered to be harmonious, which I think is kind of the main adjective that gets used, and I think is the goal here. And actually, before I start, to member Chair's point, I think I don't know that we're—I don't know that the owner is insistent on a perfectly sharp bullnose versus a more rounded profile regarding both the corners and the windows. So I will say that the drawings and the renderings reflect a very sharp detail, mostly due to the schematic nature of the model itself, and that some of these finer details aren't there. So I would just like to say that we're open and certainly don't want to die on the hill of the bullnose or not. Just quickly, I'm Raja. I'm an architect here in town. I am from Santa Fe originally, and I live in this district, and I love my town and my district. So I hope that you hear what I have to say in that light. So I just quickly want to talk about preservation in this town. The HPD that we're all involved with right now was actually not formed until 1956. And at that point, when they were looking back at things that were 50 years old or more, which I would call the historic past—so I'm going to use that term for this presentation, but not 20 years ago past, but the historic past, so 50 years, 100 years—they looked around, and this is actually what they would have seen, right? Late 1800s architecture. This was the original territorial capital from 1886. This is the new what became the Bataan building that actually looks like this today. This was a beautiful, prominent, kind of Victorian structure, I would say, from 1882, which even after the National Historic Preservation Act that I feel like we're very much in the spirit of here, nonetheless, in the late '60s, was, you know, re-Pueblo-fied, let's say. And I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it's a synthetic history. It's not actual preservation of the architectural style as such. For instance, this is, you know, that we all know and love this corner of the Plaza, and this is what ended up. So, you know, we all know the story of the Palace of the Governor. Okay. So now we're in 2025. And so as an architect, I'm looking back to 1975, which is already 50 years ago, and beyond. And so in an effort to not forget the actual architecture and buildings that have been built in this district, both by prominent people as well as normal citizens, let's say, I want to look back at what actually happened and make a meaningful reference there if there's one to be made. Now I know that I'm asking for an exception, specifically for the corner windows, right? This is really what this is about. We, you know, the rest, you know, we can put grills in the other open windows, whatever it is, but the real issue with this house, I think, and for you guys as the board, will be these corner windows, right? And I appreciate that staff has not recommended it because it doesn't follow the rules. So, I'm here to make an architectural case with you. And so, bear with me for just two more minutes. So what is the character of this district? Part of it is building features. Some of it is the construction methods of the time. Other components are significant people who actually lived, owned, worked in those buildings. This is a building that's near and dear to me. It was John Gaw Meem's own home and office that he basically continually evolved from being a bachelor in the '30s to his wife basically saying that, "Hey, I need a living room and a kitchen here," and he basically expanded this building throughout that time. This is a beautiful instance of not only a corner window, but actually two complete glass walls that I actually don't think was an enclosure of a portal in this case. I think it was actually architecturally intentional, and I believe that it has a certain charm with the Pueblo massing in a way that if we're considering the historic past to be from 1975 all the way back, then this is an extremely important structure. In 2019, actually, John Murphy helped write the nomination for it to be part of the New Mexico State Register of Cultural Properties. So, another interesting case of what is almost, I would consider, nearly 100% a Stamm house or some version, with a beautiful steel window here, corner window that, yeah, it does speak to the time that it was built. It's a new technology. It's a finer profile. You know, they have that thin structural corner member in there that is interestingly still recessed from the mass, right? It's not like a bona fide post. It's part of a window system that actually wraps the corner of a Pueblo mass. This is on Otto Street, same district. Another beautiful example, you know, architecturally speaking, I would call this almost Territorial Pueblo mid-century, kind of hybridized into what I think is incredibly important, or at least very character-contributing building to this district. And this is on Delgado Street. So this is like, you know, a lot of people walk up and down it from Canyon Road. I—maybe you're not supposed to do this—this is actually my own project, but I think that I'm allowed to reference it because it was a contributing building when I got it, and a number of you were on the board then and that helped accept this. And so at that time, we were actually required to maintain and preserve the corner window, which we did with great enthusiasm. Okay, and then I threw this in here. I know this isn't a historic building. I know this was built like, what, not even 15 years ago. However, extremely prominent building. It's on the corner. It has corner windows, which I think this is kind of an interesting inversion of the corner window. It's actually the inside corner that's doing the continuity of the window. But both corners facing Canyon and Alameda conjoining Pueblo are actually corner windows, which, you know, I'm sure you know Craig Hoopes, a well-known architect here. And, you know, this was obviously passed by some version of this board. And it's a really contributing characteristic building. Okay. So, so this is my argument. Here are the locations. So, you know that I'm kind of picking from all over the district. And I just wanted to bring this quote up that actually is in the staff packet that was given back to me prior to this meeting, which, and this is about Otero, but it kind of was a similar response to all these examples I gave, which was, "Oh, well, that example is a historic window and therefore protected through the historic preservation standards of the historic districts ordinance." My point there is exactly, I agree. These corner windows are historic material and they contribute to the character of the district, according to me. The only other thing that I wanted to incorporate here tonight with you guys is that you, the board, are here because the design district rules are there to get things going. But then ultimately, if they were non-discretionary, then there wouldn't be a board, right? And there wouldn't be a path to exception. So the way I feel about that is that this is a starting point. If you have no idea what you're doing, you can at least follow these guidelines and the outcome will be roughly Santa Fe Pueblo style or whatever. But I think I'm trying to push it a little bit with the architectural story of this building. And I'm asking you, the board, to grant the exception on the premise that it is a meaningful piece of architecture that is really trying to relate to its surroundings. And I just threw this in there because it's easy to do. So, this is our elevation stripped of the corner window, but also stripped of all the grills because technically we wouldn't need any of them under our portals. And we wouldn't need to follow the glazing percentage criteria either. And, you know, this would be perfectly allowed without any exceptions. But we're trying to do this instead, which we think is much more beautiful and tasteful. And this is what's requiring the exception. And so I think as a board, you're as much here to prevent this from happening as you are here to help me make this happen. So that's the design and that's my story, and I very much appreciate your time. Well, I'm sure I appreciate your comments, and I'm sure the entire board appreciates your comments and the history that you just gave. Board members, questions? Yeah. Mr. Rose, I have a question. Yes. Of the window of the wall. Yeah, sorry. I wanted to address that. So I think the basic assumption here was to trim the sheathing back, put the nail fin directly on the buck, and then have two inches of rigid outside of that. So that gives you three and a half inches from nailing fin to outside of stucco. That would be just like building it with the typical two by six plus two inches. Okay. So the front edge of the window is about two and a half inches back from the plane of the stucco. Are you talking glass? Are you talking cladding? The cladding, the nosing on the cladding, because that would sit about an eighth forward of the fin. So yeah, let's say half to three. Yeah. Two and a half inches back from the plane of the stucco. Yeah. Okay. And then, and then that would be everywhere, obviously. Then your current proposal states clearly that you want square corners, but you'd be willing to accept a rounded. Yeah, that was, I think, incorporated by staff in order to check all the boxes. I think maybe I confirmed over email that that was generally what we were thinking, but it's not a non-issue. Thanks. Other board members have questions or comments? Member of Benu. Oh, way into the discussion. Yeah. So, you brought up a lot of philosophical points about our ordinance, and it's always interesting to have philosophical discussions about that. I guess just to take a kind of a high-level approach to responding to some of that. We're a volunteer board who's charged with implementing the ordinance. And the ordinance sometimes is a bit vague and sometimes does provide for some subjectivity. But sometimes it's pretty clear. And one of the things that is pretty clear is that buildings in the downtown and East Side district, whether they're old Santa Fe, traditional Santa Fe style, or recent Santa Fe style, are supposed to emulate adobe construction. And that really is the genesis of all the other subsidiary rules. That's the genesis of the three-foot rule. It's the genesis of the deep reveals. It's the genesis of the amount of the percentage of glazing on a facade. All of those are really just ways to codify the fact that it wouldn't look like an adobe building if it didn't have those features because structurally it wouldn't work. So, you know, would we as a board, I don't think, you know, I think it's a completely legitimate question to say aesthetically that that corner window, for example, is attractive. And as you point out, we've protected those in the past when they're historic. But they are specifically prohibited by our code. So for us to decide that because it's attractive, we therefore find that we should permit it would be in essence, in my mind at least, the board rewriting the ordinance, which is a governing body's responsibility. And the alternative to doing it that way, and the other problem with it, is not just that we were rewriting the ordinance, but that there'd be no standard for then limiting it to that specific property because really we'd be saying corner windows are great because everyone could ask for a corner window at that point if our justification was the one you've presented. Well, it takes a lot of work to get this far. Yeah. So, so that would in essence mean that we are from now on allowing corner windows, which would be in direct contravention of the code. But the alternative is to apply for an exception. And the problem is that one of the exception criteria is that you need to have a hardship. And, you know, that's a pretty strong, high burden that needs to be demonstrated that's greater than just, I think it would look better. Which kind of brings me back to the other issue. It is a nice design, as you pointed out. You've done a nice job with the divided lights and so forth and so on. And so, look what it could look like if all I did was follow the code. But we're always hoping, and the ordinance hopes, that people will not think, "Oh, I need to make ugly buildings to conform to the code," but we will say the code is just a set of restrictions that I can do anything within. And we hope that you as an architect, and a creative one, will do something beautiful with it. So, we'd hate to think that we have a sword hanging over our head that says if we don't grant an exception, I'm going to make something ugly to prove that I don't like the ordinance. And to be clear, I didn't show it as a threat as such. I just showed it to reinforce that the board has a critical position in deciding things like you might well deny it even though it falls well within the code, and I would expect you to. And that's all I meant by that. Yeah, rather than, and I appreciate that. I do, and I took it that way too, that not that you were, you know, doing anything untoward. Because again, I think you obviously have a very good design sense. And what I'm trying to emphasize is just you can make a beautiful building, even one that has never been seen before in the district, within our ordinance. And that's what we're always hoping to see. It doesn't have to be a cookie-cutter building just to conform. Those are some restrictions, but then you can do a lot within those restrictions. And I'm always surprised we don't see more creative interpretations of buildings that completely meet the standards of the code, but are beautiful new buildings. We just don't honestly see that very frequently, sadly to say, in my opinion. So, more power to you if you can do that. I just, I think maybe you were going to make a comment to something I said before I go on, so I want to give you an opportunity. Thank you. I think maybe you actually moved on to say it anyway, but I don't by any means request that you rewrite the ordinance or that you treat all cases differently. But since there is an exception, and the first criteria of that exception, admittedly, I'm not going to sit here and tell you that there's a hardship, okay? I'm not going to. Which unfortunately is your burden. Yeah. So for us, I can't, I'm not going to even pretend to outwit you on that one. But the first criteria is that it does not destroy or disturb, or what are the technical, the character of the district, right? It does not damage the character of the district. I think it is. And so in answering that, and by pointing to other instances, if not also significant instances, including the home and office of the father of the Santa Fe style, one could argue then I truly believe that it could be accepted by the board as an exception and not damaging the district, and that you would have upheld your duties in that. Okay. I think maybe you might be right for that one exception criterion. Yeah, but the rest. You do need, as again, this comes back to the board being just a group of people implementing a code. We have to follow what the code says, and it says you need to carry the burden of demonstrating that all of those criteria are met. And that's what the governing body decided in its wisdom, and we just don't have any ability to rewrite that. So, just moving on a bit, the trim color, we usually don't agree to what is, I think you call it a charcoal. But it's kind of more or less black, which I think is another contemporary element. And I, you know, appreciate that you're trying to give it a contemporary flair, but would you be willing to agree to a lighter color for the trim? Yeah, like a dark bronze. Something, something lighter than a charcoal, dark charcoal or black, but yeah, sure, bronze. Yeah, I mean, you know, out of respect for everyone's time, we're obviously pursuing as many exceptions despite the fact that we may have conditions or whatever. So, yeah, I think, absolutely acceptable. Good. And what about the garage door? I didn't see anything called out for what that material is. Yeah, I don't think it was. I think the idea is that it would be a similarly dark, if not actual wood, then wood adjacent coloration that would basically match the darker wood contrasting structural elements and or cladding color. Okay. Wood is, I don't think we require wood, but it's always preferable if you can do it compared. Yeah, I'll have to defer to the clients. No, I don't, as I say, I don't think we required that, but we would, I do agree with you on the color even if it's not wood. Yeah. And then the only other thing I kind of noticed was the, in addition, I would have brought up the corners and the reveals. So, it sounds like we're fine there. You're accepting the rounded corners. And again, the reason for that is the code says it's supposed to emulate adobe construction, and so a sharp corner just. I have a question because in the specific distinction that they make there is the so-called recent Santa Fe style. Right. More similar to that first elevation I showed. And in, and not, I'm not just talking about the windows, but even like a kind of portal which has no exposed structure, and you know what I'm talking about, that kind of. And I do feel like the lack of a bullnose is kind of a feature of that more recent style, but I can't back it up with code. I'm for some reason not putting my finger on it. Recent Santa Fe style intends to achieve harmony with historic buildings by retention of a similarity of materials, color, proportion, and general detail. The dominating effect is to be that of adobe construction. So even, even recent Santa Fe style is required to emulate adobe construction. And again, then, then we get all the specifics implement that concept. So, I know that's what you're expressing is a very common, again, another common misconception. We trust a bunch of them tonight, but the recent Santa Fe style, the idea is that it's still supposed to look like an adobe building. It just doesn't have to be made out of adobe. That's in essence what recent Santa Fe style is, with a few other minor changes. What about the exterior chimney? Is it rock clad or something? No, I think the idea was that— Excuse me for interrupting. Can we put up the elevation of the building, please? Is that enough to minimize the headache? So, sorry. The idea was that it would be of a similar, well, not similar, exactly the same stucco. Oh. Whatever the—for some reason I thought I saw in the elevation it looked like it was rock clad, but that's fine. That's all. To be fair, I am missing the stucco hatch. Oh, man, gotcha. But yeah, no, no third material. But, you know, I think it's a nice design all in all. So, you know, don't take—I hope it didn't sound like I was being critical of what you're doing. No, not at all. So, I think that's it. Thanks. Could you tell us again the color of this stucco? Yeah, I believe we said "toon," which is just one of the Sto colors. It's kind of a—I don't have it in this presentation, but yeah, it's kind of a not controversial color. On the approved list. Are you done with your questioning or any other questions? Questions or comments? Anyone in this room wishing to comment on this particular building? Will you please state your name and address for the record? Yes. Elizabeth West, 318 Senna 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? Yes, I do. Thank you, Chair. She's been sworn in. Thank you. I noticed about the color that there was a clarification. It says it's really—it's close to being white, but it's not really white. It's very white-looking. And that, combined with the sharp edges and the fact that the garage is sort of prominent in a way that, since I'm not an architect and I'm not on the board, I am allowed to say these things. It has a little bit to do with my opinion about the placement of things. We don't see a lot of the trees that are there already in the image from above, and in the drawings, you don't see the trees, so I have to imagine that there's going to be some softening of the building. But it's—and then referring to the corner windows and pointing out the Po de Peralta Canyon Road connection, that was a real goof saying yes to that. Those windows are way too big. And so that was a goof. I don't think it's very smart to point out that. It just reminds me of the goof on the plaza with all those windows that go almost down to the street. That's a goof, too. And why—why do we have this code? Why do we talk about making it reminiscent or feel a little bit like adobe? It's because we like that. It's part of our history, and it goes way back to Arabic times and to homedone versions of a kind of elegance of the John Gamme house. I guess it's on the Santa Fe Prep property. I think one of my children did pottery there or something. But the difference is that the rounded edges around the windows and around the edges of the house are very much more reminiscent of adobe. And as I—I like the feeling of adobe. I really do. So I'm very happy about that part of the code. I think that's my only comment. I think it's a really good start of a drawing. I'm impressed with the presentation. It's fancy. I think that's great, but it feels a little bit to me—and I'd love to hear what the applicant would say about this—but it feels a little bit to me as if it's pushing against the guidelines instead of using the guidelines. That's my comment. Thank you, Elizabeth. Anyone else here wishing to comment on this particular case? No one else. Anyone online? Yes. Cheriel Stephanie Benato, may you speak now? I guess I think I'm unmuted at this point. You are. We can hear. I appreciate some of the comments from the board. I think that people do confuse recent Santa Fe style with mid-century modern, and that it really—it's the type of material that's allowed, but the look should be of an older adobe building. And it's nice to point out the original Capitol building and galleries, which are—I think what the PO and Canyon is as a gallery—which are given a little bit more leeway, and as Miss West said, perhaps was a goof. And often that happens. But I—I think that the rounded corners are important, the recessed windows, and I do think that the exception criterion have not been met. Again, all of them have to be met, not just one of them. And I would wish that the garage was a little bit set back and not sort of in the same plane as the main part of the building. And again, I think that kind—it felt—it did feel a little threatening to say, "Well, if I can't get this window, you know, this window that's less than three feet from the edge, then I'll just take away all the divided lights." I think that would make a poorer outcome. And hopefully the architect was just kind of pointing out what would happen if they followed exactly what was required as opposed to what was aesthetically pleasing. I—yeah, and I appreciate that the HVAC or whatever it is, mini splits, whatever they're putting in, is on the backside that's not visible. I always find it really distressing when you're looking at these supposed homes in historic districts where the HVAC mini splits are right there in your face. So, and as for John Gam, that seems to me like a sunroom, and that is a specific use and was probably built before the code was actually enacted. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else online? No. Cherios. Thank you very much. Mr. Rose, question. How do you access this property? From where? From what street? From A Beta. It will be from right there, that little—yeah, believe it or not, because that's the only—that's the only right of way that touches this property. Because Camino del Ponente is like a whole property up, right? And actually, it's quite inconvenient because Aeta is actually a one-way north. So, if they were to never break the one-way rules, which of course they never do, but they would have to go like fully around. But yeah, anyway, long story short. So will all those trees that are presently there, will they be removed? No. No. Trees that are in the building pad, obviously. Okay. I don't—no, no, no, no. The driveway just makes a little 14-foot or 12-foot wide punch. Okay. Through. I'm just thinking about the prominence of the garage. So, is it your view that you'll enter the property, there will be trees, and so the prominence of that garage will not be that prominent? Yeah, I see what you're asking. I mean, the driveway is short and simply designed. So, as you square up with the driveway proper, yeah, you'll have a clean shot of the garage door. There's no way to put a tree right in between. But yes, about maintaining a high level of vegetation in general, and like even just to the degree to which this house is like exposed is limited, as you guys saw on your field trip today. From how far back does the house actually start? Can you turn on the presentation, please? Those five pixels are about—I think it's about 60 feet because so for graphic sake, that's 20—that's a 20-foot setback. Oh. Oh, sorry. But it's more than 60 feet away from the lot line, the garage. Board members, if you have no further questions or comments, I will entertain a motion. You eager to make a motion? Well, I'm not eager, but no one else raised their hand, so I will jump in. 2025011033 HDRB 425 A Beta Street. Okay, so I would have findings entered—move to have findings entered that this exception criteria for the corner window have not been met for the reasons given by staff, and therefore the exception is denied to place the two publicly visible corner windows at less than 36 inches from the corner. And I would further move that the application be otherwise approved with the additional understandings as agreed to by the applicant during the course of the hearing: that the corners will be rounded, and I would say that would mean a minimum of a 2 and 1/2 inch radius; that the trim color will be made lighter, such as a bronze color, and that would be submitted to staff for approval; that the garage door be similar in color to the wood elements of the house. I think that covers everything. Otherwise, application is approved. Is there a second? Second, DNA. And is there anything further to add? Oh, and also that there be reveals on all the windows of at least the depth that was indicated by the applicant. I think it was two inches. And that the corners of the window reveals also be rounded. Thank you. Member Terry, you're raising your eyebrows. Do you have some— I was just wondering if the second was going to second the additional— Well, I guess I was waiting for—yes. Second, except a question for Member Cherry. Two inches. That's a lot. Said two. Still. You said you said two, but but but— Two and a half. We said two and a half. So— Oh, yeah. I'm sorry about that. Go ahead, Madam Chair. I was just going to say, and for the radius, two inches, is that what—is that a proper indication of the curvature? Yeah, it is. Is it a proper way to refer to the radius to the—to the curve of the bullnose? Yeah. Yeah. And 2 and 1/2 inches is, I would say, adequate, minimal, but adequate. Minimal, but that's what I agree. And this is something where, you know, as long as we're talking about this, I really think that we need to just establish once and for all a radius that applies to all projects. Or a range. It could be a range, yeah, but a minimum and a max, at least a minimum, but so that we don't have to do this ad hoc with every application. It should be if we say rounded, that that's understood to mean a range of okay, certain inch radiuses. So that's something I'd like to get. Madam Chair, would the—this is a question for the staff, thank you—would the ordinance speak to that, or does it just say rounded? Does it have a measurement in it, do you know? It doesn't have three what— Madam Chair and Member Negone, it does not. What the—what the ordinance reads is that it has to emulate adobe construction. So, and you know, adobe construction is just inconsistent with real sharp corners. So— So it doesn't really— It's somewhat implied. If you're observing the rule, it doesn't really matter. Yeah, definitely. What I suppose it's open to interpretation, but just generally, traditionally, adobe construction doesn't have real sharp corners. Thank you. So, anyway, we have— However, the actual radius is undefined. That's why it gets discussed often. Mariah, may we have a roll call, please? Member Benu. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Dagnen. Yes. Member Mayor. Yes. Madam Chair, the motion has passed. Sure. Yeah. Is there—I guess if once the corner windows are modified and they comply, is that another hearing or it can you—it's condition. So I can do that with staff. Yeah. Yes. Oh, you have approval now. It's just that the corners need to be rounded according to at least a minimum 2 and 1/2 inches. Yeah. And so I guess I should have window— I didn't corner windows. What? Oh, the corner windows. They have to comply. They have to comply. Yes. No. No. I—I'm—that's not my question. Yeah, they don't. You—you're not required to have another hearing as long as you meet the criteria in that area of the building. So, what I should have said, and I didn't, I'm glad you pointed this out, is that revised plan should be submitted to staff for approval. That solves that problem. Oh, very, very important about the revised plans. They do need to be submitted. Yeah. So, you don't need to come back before us. The revised plans consistent with the way the project was just approved. You'll need those anyway for your permit. Okay. Next case is located at 511A Camino Comere. Is the applicant here? Yeah, I think that is your case. May we hear it? Yes. Can you put up the... Thank you. Okay. This is case 2025 011034 HDRB at 511A Camino Numbre for demolition of a contributing structure. Camino Sombre is a narrow dirt road running north off Camino Sanakasio. The road is a slight hill, so Camino Sanakasio is higher than the subject site. Therefore, most rooftops are publicly visible with skylights, various roofing materials, satellite dishes, and other rooftop appurtenances. The lots are fenced with a variety of yard walls and coyote fences, most of which are taller. The houses are mostly vernacular in style and low in height, though there are several two-story sections to some residences. There is a combination of divided light and single light windows in a variety of green and natural colors. The single family residence at 511A Camino Sin Numbre is currently listed on the GIS map and through previous case documentation as contributing to the downtown and east side historic district. The status appears to have been designated with the district's updates in the early 1980s as there are no cases to clarify the status. The single family residence to the south, 511 Camino Sinre, was constructed in the 1920s of Adobe and had a major remodel in 1989 with additional work in '94 and 2005. The property at 511 Camino and Numbre may have been constructed about the same time given the two structures are connected, but the HCPI holds no information on a structure and there are no cases for the property on file. There is no documentation for review regarding the other neighboring lots. I did provide all of the HCPIs for that area and they are all pretty much blank. Staff usually would request a new HCPI and a status review with primary facade designation for properties before any request for demolition or remodel. However, in this case, the condition of this property dictated that the status review would not impact the request for the demolition and the applicant has opted to request an exception to demolish the contributing building. The structure is constructed of adobe with stucco and has two chimneys and a metal roof. The street facing facade holds a wood panel entry door, a block window, and a second small entry door. To the north of the main entry, what was a window that is now boarded up. The roof and other fenestrations have been missing for some time, so that the interior of the building is dirt and rubble. The adobe walls are melted at varying heights around the exterior of the building. Looking at the photos from the 1989 case for the neighboring lot, this residence appears to have been maintained at that time. It's difficult to tell from the Google image from 2007 the exact condition of the overall property, but it is obvious from the 2013 image that the building has been in disrepair for at least 12 years. There is evidence that the building was maintained over time and this appears to be demolition by neglect. The applicant proposes to demolish the residential structure. An exception is requested to 14-5.2D1A for demolition of a historic structure. Staff finds that the exception and demolition criteria have both been met and recommends approval of the exception to 14-5.2. to D1A to demolish this contributing residence and staff finds that the application complies with section 143.14 demolition of historic or landmark structures. I stand for questions. Thank you, Lanny. Any questions for Lanny? None. Applicant, please get sworn in. Hi. Please raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record and speak right into the microphone. Michael CR, 62 Castanada Avenue, San Francisco. Michael, do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalty of perjury? I do. Thank you, Chair. He has been sworn. Good evening. And do you have anything more to add? Not really. It's just that my wife and I really love the district. It's been fascinating listening to the work you guys do and we're willing to have an opportunity to contribute to preserving this neighborhood. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant board members? None. Anyone in this audience wishing to comment on this particular case? No one. Anyone online? Oh, somebody. Did someone in this room want to comment on this case? Yeah. Yes. Scary. Yes. Cherry. Stephanie Benato. You may speak. Thank you. I find it distressing that there was demolition by neglect in the 21st century. And I'm wondering how long this owner has had this property and to talk about preserving the neighborhood. You're not preserving the neighborhood. You're going to destroy the building and then do something different. Perhaps do a little mini mansion there. I'm wondering because I think you've done this before in buildings that were demolition by neglect where you required that the original footprint be kept and that if other additions were going to be added on that the applicant would come back and then get permission. So, I think that again to just allow a building like this to just fall away, which is really what has happened here, is really, really sad. It reminds me of the houses on Palcoa Street that you've just made contributing that really I think somebody's going to come in and ask for demolition because they're in such bad repair. And I do think again at least the preservation of the footprint so that it remains in character with the neighborhood would be at least something to offset the really sad demolition that has a demolition by neglect that has occurred. Thank you. Thank you. And Gary, you said there was no one else. No one else. Thank you. Board members, what are your wishes? I will entertain a motion. It appears you didn't have any questions. One, two, three, four. Somebody. I'll make a mo. Oh, good. There we go. Member Degen regarding case number. This is member Degen speaking. 2025 011 034 HDRB 511A Camino Senumbre. Recommend accepting the staff's recommendation and accepting request for demolition. Hey there will second indicate anything about the exceptions. No. Well, But I guess I have to Criteria. Yeah. Criteria of the Well, I have to know. Let's repeat what they are then. The Okay. I have to say that out loud. Sorry. Excuse me. I'm kind of new here. I accept the staff's comments regarding exceptions. Is that enough? Is that right? That's close. I'll just offer How about a second coming to save me? Just A second. Right. Yes. I'll just offer a friendly amendment that by be honored that the exception criteria for the that the criteria for demolition have been met as for the reasons given by staff in the report and that the exception criteria for demolition of of status building have also been met for the reasons given by staff. Thank you. Thank you. Roll call vote please. Member Benu. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Degen. Yes. Member Mather. Yes. Madame Chair, the motion has passed. Thank you. Can I just make a comment? So, you know, the demolition by neglect is a huge problem. It's and I know that from the packet that this property is just being is under contract. So it's not the applicant's responsibility but it is always put our hands are always tied when this happens when it's reached this point. If it hasn't quite reached this point we clearly have the authority to require a restoration. This one is beyond that as this as the engineers report pointed out. I think the only remedy, thinking about this when I was driving away from the property today, is that just as staff and the enforcement division find code violations when people are doing unauthorized work that I I'm sure you're always looking as well for this problem. And I think that's very important because something like this has obviously been decaying for at least a decade now. And so I think if if staff sees that, I hope they would bring it to the board's attention or just proceed directly to enforcement action. And then secondarily, I would hope that any neighbors I mean there are lots of neighbors on that street saw that what was happening to this building that they reported to the city so that the city can take appropriate action. I think those are the only two real avenues to prevent this from happening. Good point. Follow I have a follow-up question for staff to that comment. So regarding retention of an original footprint. If a building were if if we were to deem that that that you know that an applicant who in in similar situation to this had to rebuild on a similar footprint after the building was demolished. How would the zoning code be affected because there'd be a setback from that adjacent building or setbacks from the property lines? So, in other words, it seems to me like there would be some code conflicts there with other code departments if and it's just a general question to inform us. Thank you, Chair Rios. While Frank's looking at that, I could generally speak to that concern. Board member Cherry because when we when we if there are either like a lot coverage or setback standards that are currently non-compliant, the demolition will like erase the legal nonconformity. And so the rule is that whatever is replaced must meet the current standards. I can't speak to this any specific nonconformities that exist on the property. I don't know if the the case planner, you know, identified any on the property with regards to setbacks or lot coverage. Well, that's some part why I asked the question because the building that's been approved to be demolished is adjoining the neighboring structure. So, clearly if you removed the existing structure, you'd have to meet a 10-ft setback from per fire. Right, A five foot setback. There's a non-conforming structure On one side. It's going to remain, but now the non-conforming structure that exists is going to be demolished, which is going to push them into a 10-ft setback from their design standard. I'm just curious because I wouldn't it was suggested by a member of the community that that has been something that had been done in the past, but I just don't think we can blanket do that if it conflicts with other codes, constrict them to a specific footprint if you know they won't be able to get a permit with what we approve because it conflicts with zoning codes. Yeah. Yeah. Chair Rios and and board member Cherry, I I certainly appreciate your concern there. I don't know if Frank has anything to add or this one. Yeah. Frank, you have a comment? Well, Frank, Chair Rios and member Cherry, the only thing I can tell you is that Hboard zoning and and setbacks and that sort of thing typically aren't presented to the H board. They have to go to a zoning review before the the project is submitted to the H board. Right. I guess I'm just saying if if in this case we were to say you've got to rebuild on the existing footprint, it would sort of handcuff the the property owner into being able to do nothing because Well and I'm certain you you don't want to do that. But I heard Ms. Benonado's comment about requiring that a new structure be built on an existing footprint, but I don't know what the basis for that is in the code. The code just gives three exceptions, I'm sorry, three demolition criteria, which you have clearly considered. One of them is, of course, the state of repair and structural stability of the structure under consideration, which I think was pivotal here. But then you might consider how the streetscape is going to be reestablished, but actually telling the applicant it has to be built on a particular footprint, I do not see a basis for that in the code. Okay, thanks for the clarification. So, if you saw that property, it's not very big. It's going to be a small house. Yeah. So, I mean, there's just... You're from San Francisco, so you're used to small houses. They asked for three stories. Just kidding. Okay. Okay. Well, thank you very much. And our last case this evening is located at 131 Canyon Road. Thank you, Chair Ria, members of the board. I am here in regards to case 2025-011047 at 1341 Canyon Road. This is in the Downtown and East Side Historic District. Just a little background on the property. This property was formerly known as Losto Dooj Ranch, and the principal structures that you see here on the site plan were built in Spanish Pueblo Revival style in 1928-1929, and they are significant to the Downtown and East Side Historic District. So we are now discussing the garage, which is a freestanding four-bay garage, and that was labeled as non-contributing in 2018 by the Historic District Review Board. Also in 2018, the case came in June of 2018. The case came before this board as a garage conversion into a studio, and they had yard walls and fences and windows changed out. So, there was an administrative approval done by staff to extend the board action at that time, and that has been expired. And then the inspector has put a red tag on because the work was continued that was not approved. So that's where we stand currently. I would like to point out here in the red area is the portal that is being requested to be put on. That is, I believe, a 458 square foot portal. So I'm just going to go through each of the elevations here. This was the original plan prior to the board's approval. As you see here on the mid to right side of the east elevation, you is the portal being requested, and there are two windows here that will not be under the portal, and they are not divided light. However, it is not publicly visible. And here is the floor plan. It's a very open floor plan. So again, the applicant is proposing to construct a 458 square foot portal to the height of 10 feet 10 inches on the north and east elevations, the installation of exterior doors to be natural wood and color stained, a 4-foot yard wall built in CMU stuccoed in L-ray buckskin, and installation of exterior lights, bronze in colors. They are going to be installing windows on the west elevations and the south elevations. And here is a picture of the exterior lighting. I stand for questions. Any questions for Amanda, board members? So Amanda, the work has already been done. Not completely, Chair. Not completely, but... Not completely. So there was work done on the original approval from the board. They had had that extended, that we could no longer extend it further. And then there was some work done that deviated from your original approval. They were red-tagged, and a stop work order was issued. So it is standing as in need of further construction. So I have a question. Member Chair, when you say they're going to be installing windows on the west, sorry, on the east and the north facade, are they going to be installing different windows than those windows, or... No, they are installing, they have installed windows that were not approved in your previous approval. Right. So the windows, the windows shown with the divided light in the packet are the windows that were approved in the previous proposal. Yes, the packet material does include the previous case which was approved by this board, and what you see here is what is proposed for the existing, is what it is now. So these are, these are already installed but being proposed as opposed to the already approved proposal. Correct. Thank you. Any other questions? Applicant, please get sworn in. Hello. Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record. Michael, PO Box 2765. 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 penalty of perjury? Thank you, Madam Chair. He's been sworn in. Yes, sir. You have anything more to add to what Amanda just indicated? Nothing more beyond the, from what I understand. I'm a friend of the family and trying to help them get this advanced through. From what I understand, the building was in such a state of disrepair that it was starting to fall into the neighbor's property, which is why the son and contractors came in to straighten the building, but then kept going. And that's where this differentiation came of what was approved and why this was red-tagged. They've recognized now that they need to actually do things properly and go through the process. And so that's why we're trying to do this here. Any questions for the applicant, board members? No questions. Where's Elizabeth? Did she want to say something? No, she doesn't. And is there anyone online? Yes, Chair. Stephanie Benato, we speak. Hi. Am I unmuted? We can hear you. Okay, great. I think that you should look at the original approved proposal and require the applicant to make the changes to the windows that were approved. And I think you just did that on, I can't remember, it was in South Capitol, maybe Gildersleeve Street, where the windows got changed out by who knows, the worker, the contractor, the owner, and you are making them replace them in kind. And I think it's appropriate to do it here too. And I wonder the other windows that we're seeing in the elevations, are those the ones that the board approved prior, or are these new proposed windows? And then I guess you look at the portals separately since they are being proposed now and they have yet to be built. But again, I think just letting people pretend like they didn't know that there was a historic approval when they actually got plans approved, weakens your authority and doesn't really help with historic preservation, especially in this area, which is, you know, it's Canyon Road, it's Upper Canyon Road, but still it is Canyon Road. It's an important part of the historic part of our town. Thank you. Thank you. Board members, if you have no questions or comments, a motion is in order. I have a question. Yes, member. So the, right now there's a door kind of halfway installed in the north elevation. Is that the proposed door at this point, or no, there's a... Member Terry, the door that you are referring to, the opening is there, however the door has not been put in. I believe I have a picture of that for you here. There you go. In the north elevation, you see the, the opening is there, but the door has not been installed. Okay, because there was, I thought I saw a divided light door there today. Like a wood door right in the opening, not installed. That was being proposed. Or something different. Yeah, that is not the door that's being proposed. I'll pull this up here in the drawing. It is the wooden solid door. Okay. Can you, can you show the previously approved door that was? No, but it is in your packet. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Sure. Thank you, Chair. No, no more questions. Yeah. Thank you. So, if you have no further questions, the motion is, I'm ready for a motion. Motion. Member motion. Yeah, I mean, I'll just preface the motion by saying that the problem here is unauthorized work. And to me that creates, you know, I have two concerns. One is work being done when that, that's specifically contrary to what had been approved, and I think knowingly, because the applicant was knowledgeable enough to request extensions to get the work done, and then when they finally did the work, they just didn't follow the approved, either what they had proposed or what was approved. I think that's a dangerous thing to reward, and that, because it does create an incentive, I think, on the part of builders to do something different than what's approved and then request approval after the fact. The second concern I have about that is that this went before a prior board, and they reached a decision that they thought was the appropriate remodel here based on what was presented to them. And I think that there's reason to be differential to prior board determinations unless circumstances have changed or it's a clear-cut case in the current board's view that the earlier decision was in error. So to me, the only, the differences that jump out to me are the lack of divided lights. I know there's some minor alteration in the openings, but I don't think it's necessary at this point to redo the openings unless someone disagrees with that. But I do think it's necessary to return to the approved divided lights. So with that preamble, I will move in 2025-011047 HDRV at 1341 Canyon Road that the application be approved, but on condition that all the windows and doors are divided lights as shown in the originally approved application. Is there a second? I'll second it with, I don't know if it needs to be a friendly amendment or just a clarification that the divided light windows are either true or simulated divided light, just to specify snap-ins to solve, to, to remedy it, but actual divided lights or... True. True or simulated. True or simulated, but not snap-on buttons. Not snap-on grids on the outside. Yeah, I would second that. Member Benu. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Member DNET. Yes. Member Mather. Yes. Madam Chair, the motion has passed. Discussion items. Yeah. No, Chair. Thank you. Matters from the board. Anybody? No. Thank you. And our next meeting is September the 23rd. And do I hear a motion to adjourn? Second. Or all those in favor to adjourn, say aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you. Thank you, everyone.