Historic Districts Review Board Meeting Tue, Mar 25, 2025 · Historic Districts Review Board https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/580 == Executive Summary == The Historic Districts Review Board met on March 25, 2025, handling a full agenda that included administrative housekeeping, several active property cases, and policy discussions. The board welcomed new member Scott Cherry, approved meeting minutes from June 2024 through February 2025, and approved findings and conclusions from cases heard in October and November 2024. One case (1010 Camino Sanakasio) was postponed, and an ordinance discussion was replaced with an upcoming awards presentation. The board reviewed several active cases with mixed outcomes. A pergola and window modification at 416 Oscia Lane was approved unanimously. A portal addition at 925 Eia Madre was postponed to April 8th pending submission of detailed construction drawings to confirm that translucent polycarbonate roofing material would not be visible from any angle. A window replacement resubmission at 329 Oro Street was continued to allow the city attorney to research whether the board has legal authority to rehear a substantially similar application that was previously denied. The board also unanimously denied a retroactive approval request for extensive unauthorized alterations at 214 Old Santa Fe Trail, ordering the property to be restored to its condition prior to any unapproved work on staff record. Policy discussions covered outdoor display regulations near historic districts, updates to the Land Development Code, the Green Building Code, and the Santa Fe General Plan. The board also approved a procedural change to use voice votes for routine matters like minutes and adjournment. Recurring public commenter Stephanie Benonato raised concerns throughout the meeting about voting procedures, quorum interpretation, specific case details, and the need for strict enforcement of historic preservation standards. The next meeting is scheduled for April 8, 2025. == Key Decisions == - Agenda amended to postpone case 2024009916 (1010 Camino Sanakasio) and replace ordinance discussion with a heritage preservation awards presentation - All meeting minutes from June 11, 2024 through February 25, 2025 (8 sets) approved, with one spelling correction to the September 24, 2024 minutes - Findings and conclusions approved for 12 cases heard in October and November 2024 - Case 2025009941 (416 Oscia Lane) pergola and window modifications approved unanimously as submitted - Case 2025009943 (925 Eia Madre) portal addition postponed to April 8, 2025 pending detailed construction drawings confirming polycarbonate roof edge will not be visible from any angle - Case 2025009946 (329 Oro Street) window replacement continued to an unspecified future date to allow staff and city attorney to determine whether the board has legal authority to rehear a previously denied application - Case 2025009947 (214 Old Santa Fe Trail) retroactive approval request denied unanimously in its entirety; property ordered restored to condition prior to any unapproved work on staff record - Outdoor display regulations added to Phase 1 or Phase 2a of the Land Development Code amendment agenda - Procedural change approved to use voice votes without objection for minutes and adjournment rather than roll call votes == Motions & Votes == - Approval of meeting minutes from June 11, 2024 through February 25, 2025 (8 sets, with one spelling correction) — Passed unanimously - Approval of findings and conclusions for October 8, 2024 cases (2 properties) — Passed unanimously - Approval of findings and conclusions for October 22, 2024 cases (4 properties) — Passed unanimously - Approval of findings and conclusions for November 26, 2024 cases (6 properties) — Passed unanimously - Approval of Case 2025009941 (416 Oscia Lane) pergola and window modifications as submitted — Passed 4-0 (Cherry, Mather, Dagnet, Aguilar Madrono all yes) - Postponement of Case 2025009943 (925 Eia Madre) to April 8, 2025 pending detailed construction drawings — Passed 4-0 - Continuation of Case 2025009946 (329 Oro Street) to an unspecified future date pending legal research — Passed (vote count not recorded) - Denial of Case 2025009947 (214 Old Santa Fe Trail) in its entirety, with adoption of staff findings and order to restore structure to pre-unauthorized alteration condition — Passed unanimously - Addition of outdoor display regulations to Land Development Code amendment agenda — Passed (vote count not recorded) - Procedural change to use voice votes without objection for minutes and adjournment — Passed (vote count not recorded) == Public Comment == Stephanie Benonato was the most active public commenter, speaking on multiple agenda items throughout the meeting. She raised procedural concerns about the board's quorum and voting rules, arguing that a majority of all members present—not just voting members—should be required to decide questions, citing New Mexico Supreme Court cases and Robert's Rules of Order. On the 416 Oscia Lane case, she questioned the pergola's square footage relative to the lot and metal protection details on wood beams. On the 925 Eia Madre portal case, she objected to the translucent polycarbonate roofing as non-harmonious with historic district standards and cited precedent of similar materials being rejected. On the 214 Old Santa Fe Trail case, she emphasized that property owners are responsible for tenant actions, that red-tagged violations cannot be ignored, and urged denial and full restoration. An anonymous speaker also supported restoration of the Old Santa Fe Trail property, expressing concern about its historic character being compromised. Elizabeth West of 318 Senna Street was present to be heard on the 214 Old Santa Fe Trail case but no specific comments from her were recorded in the summaries. == Topics == - New Member Introduction - Meeting Minutes Approval - Findings and Conclusions Approval - Unauthorized Structure Alterations - Outdoor Merchandise Display Regulation - Land Use Code Amendments - Voting Procedure Dispute - Agenda Amendments - Historic Preservation Awards - Parking Sign Compliance - Historic Trees Jurisdiction - Street Vendor Standards - Meeting Procedure Streamlining == Full Transcript == # Historic Districts Review Board Meeting ## March 25, 2025 We are live. All right, I'm going to go ahead and call this meeting into order. I had an echo, but I've fixed that. I am calling this meeting to order. We're now in session in the Historic Districts Review Board meeting duly noticed for this evening, March 25, 2025. I'm John Benvenu, serving as acting chair in the absence of Chair Rios, who is under the weather tonight. May I have a roll call, please? **Staff:** Absolutely. Chair Rios excused. Acting Chair Benvenu here. Member Biche excused. Member Aguilera Madrono here. Member Dagnet here. Member Mather here. Member Cherry here. You have a quorum, Chair. **Chair Benvenu:** Thank you very much. As you may have noticed, we have a new member we'd like to welcome to the board. Mr. Scott Cherry has been appointed by the mayor and approved by the governing body to serve a two-year term on the Historic Districts Review Board. I'd like to welcome him to the board. Mr. Cherry has appeared before us many times from the other side of the podium, so we all know each other to some extent. It's going to be a great pleasure to have you with us on this side, and we look forward to working with you. If Chair Rios were here, she would ask if you wanted to make any comments to introduce yourself to the public, but it's completely up to you. **Member Cherry:** I've been working in the Santa Fe Historic District for about 18 years. I've been in business in Santa Fe here for about 18 years. I've been in front of the board many times, and I'm just really happy to be able to serve the community and participate. **Chair Benvenu:** Great. Thank you very much. We have an agenda that's been duly published. Are there any changes to the agenda? **Staff:** Yes, Chair. Item number eight under old business—actually under number seven, staff communications, evolution of the City of Santa Fe Historic District Ordinance will not be done tonight. In its place, Amanda will be speaking about the awards coming up. And then on old business, item A 2025009916 HDRB 1010 Camino Sanakasio has been postponed. **Chair Benvenu:** Great. Board members, may I have a motion to approve the agenda as amended? **Member:** So move. **Member:** Second. **Chair Benvenu:** Member Aguilera Madrono seconds. Thank you very much. Roll call vote, please. **Staff:** Member Aguilera Madrono. Yes. Member Dagnet. Yes. Member Mather. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Motion has passed. **Chair Benvenu:** Great. Next on the agenda are approval of minutes. I'm going to have to take these sequentially because some members of the board were present for some of these meetings and not others. We have quite a few to go through. Thank you, staff, for pulling those together and presenting them to us, which comes close to bringing us up to date. Let me start with the June 11, 2024 minutes. Are there any changes or comments? Hearing none, do we have a motion to approve? **Member Madrono:** Madrono moves to approve the minutes from June 11, 2024. **Chair Benvenu:** Is there a second? **Member:** May there second. **Chair Benvenu:** Roll call vote, please. **Staff:** Member Cherry. Yes. Member Mather. Yes. Member Dagnet. Yes. Member Aguilera Madrono. Yes. Motion has passed. **Chair Benvenu:** Thank you. Next is our minutes of June 25, 2024. Are there any changes? Hearing none, may I have a motion? **Member:** Iron moves to approve the minutes from June 25, 2024. **Chair Benvenu:** Second? **Member:** May there second. **Chair Benvenu:** Roll call vote. **Staff:** Member Dagnet. Yes. Member Mather. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Aguilera Madrono. Yes. Motion has passed. **Chair Benvenu:** Next is July 9, 2024. Are there any changes? May I have a motion? **Member:** DNA moves to approve. **Chair Benvenu:** Is there a second? **Member:** Aguilera Madrono seconds. **Chair Benvenu:** Roll call vote. **Staff:** Member Aguilera Madrono. Yes. Member Dagnet. Yes. Member Mather. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Motion has passed. **Chair Benvenu:** Next we have July 23, 2024. Any changes? Is there a motion? **Member Madrono:** Madrono moves to approve the minutes from July 23, 2024. **Chair Benvenu:** May there second. **Staff:** Roll call vote. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Mather. Yes. Member Dagnet. Yes. Member Aguilera Madrono. Yes. Motion has passed. **Chair Benvenu:** August 13, 2024 minutes. Are there any changes? You have a motion? **Member Dagnet:** Dagnet moves approval. **Member Aguilera Madrono:** Aguilera Madrono seconds. **Staff:** Roll call vote. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Mather. Yes. Member Dagnet. Yes. Member Aguilera Madrono. Yes. Motion has passed. **Chair Benvenu:** September 10, 2024. Are there any changes? Motion, please. **Member:** Move to approve. **Member:** Second. **Chair Benvenu:** May there second. **Staff:** Roll call vote. Member Aguilera Madrono. Abstain. Member Dagnet. Yes. Member Mather. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Motion has passed. **Chair Benvenu:** Minutes of September 24, 2024. Any changes? **Member:** Yes, Mr. Chair. I happen to notice Mr. Katz's name was not spelled correctly on page 62 of that month of minutes. The A is missing, and he's a former member. I'm sure he would be happy to know that he's going to be immortalized correctly. **Chair Benvenu:** Any other changes? I have a motion to approve as amended. **Member Madrono:** Madrono moves to approve the minutes as amended for September 24, 2024. **Chair Benvenu:** Is there a second? **Member:** Hey, there seconds. **Staff:** Roll call vote. Member Aguilera Madrono. Yes. Member Dagnet. Yes. Member Mather. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Motion has passed. **Chair Benvenu:** November 26, 2024 minutes. Are there any changes? May I have a motion? **Member:** Move approval. **Member:** Second. **Staff:** May there second. Roll call vote. Member Mather. Yes. Member Dagnet. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Aguilera Madrono. Yes. Motion has passed. **Chair Benvenu:** Thank you. February 25, 2025. Are there any changes? May I have a motion to approve? **Member:** Move. **Chair Benvenu:** Is there a second? **Member:** Hey, there seconds. **Staff:** Roll call vote. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Mather. Yes. Member Dagnet. Yes. Member Aguilera Madrono. Yes. Motion has passed. **Chair Benvenu:** Thank you. We got through the minutes. We also have quite a few findings and conclusions. I'm going to lump these together in three categories. The first are findings and conclusions from cases that were heard on October 8, 2024. That's case 2024009128 HDRB at 410 Camino Cabra and 2024009129 HDRB at 544 Indian Road. Does anyone have any proposed changes? Hearing none, may I have a motion to approve? **Member:** Move approval. **Chair Benvenu:** Do I have a second? **Member:** There seconds. **Staff:** Roll call vote, please. Member Aguilera Madrono. Yes. Member Dagnet. Yes. Member Mather. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Motion has passed. **Chair Benvenu:** Thank you. Next set is C through F. These are findings and conclusions from cases heard on October 22, 2024. The cases are 2024009042 HDRB at 645 Garcia Street. Case 2024009207 HDRB at 710 Canyon Road. Case number 2024009209 HDRB at 626 Gomez Road, and case 2024009208 HDRB at 505 Apadaka Hill. Are there any proposed revisions? Hearing none, may I have a motion to approve that set of findings and conclusions? **Member:** So move. **Member:** Seconds. **Chair Benvenu:** Thank you very much. May I have a roll call vote? **Staff:** Member Cherry. Yes. Member Mather. Yes. Member Dagnet. Yes. Member Aguilera Madrono. Yes. Motion has passed. **Chair Benvenu:** We have a group of six findings and conclusions from cases heard on November 26, 2024. Those are in order: Case number 2024009321 HDRB at 1 Plaza Fatima. Case number 2024009376 HDRB at 907 Don Miguel Place. Case number 2024009378 HDRB at 835 East Alameda Street. Case number 2024009369 HDRB at 345 Garcia Street. Case 2024009372 HDRB at 1182 Sarah Borgora Road, and case number 2024009381 at 532 Don Gaspar Avenue. Are there any proposed changes? None. May I have a motion to approve that set of findings and conclusions? **Member:** Move approval. **Chair Benvenu:** Thank you. Second? **Member:** May there second. **Chair Benvenu:** Great. Thank you very much. May I have a roll call vote, please? **Staff:** Member Aguilera Madrono. Yes. Member Dagnet. Yes. Member Mather. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Motion has passed. **Chair Benvenu:** Very good. We are through the findings and conclusions. Next matter on the agenda is matters from the public. If there are any members of the public in the room that wish to speak, please come to the podium and try to keep your remarks to two minutes. Thank you. **Stephanie Benonato:** Can you hear me now? Okay. Stephanie Benonato. I brought up to you last time about the voting that you're supposed to be doing here when you have a quorum of four people, minimum quorum. And it says again, when a quorum is present at any meeting, the vote of a majority of members present shall decide any questions brought before such a meeting. Mr. Rubilee invited me to share any research that I did on this matter, so I'm doing that. His reliance on a 1951 schoolboard case is really factually and legally weak, to say the least—inappropriate and irrelevant, really, because in that case, the state board had five members that were voting members. So they had five members, two ex officio members—one was the governor and one was an elected school board official—and they did not have any procedures. So again, very different than this board, which has a very specific rule here in a resolution. What they said is, if there isn't—and I've given you this and I've tried to underline it so you can see—to summarize, it says that they were following the normal procedure that they followed, and that when there is no procedure, then you use Robert's Rules of Order, basically. Robert's Rules of Order says that ex officio members shall not be included in the count when determining the number needed for a quorum, and they shall not be counted when determining if the quorum is actually present. So basically, you had five members. They voted 3-2. The ex officio member voted to abstain. So apparently in this case in 1951, you could vote for, against, or abstain if you were ex officio. In this case, the member abstained. This is not the case when you have a 2-1 vote with four members present. The actual rule that applies—and we know from Member Benvenu, now acting chair, that the city has added a word into that sentence and they say it's the vote of a majority of voting members present. That's their rationale. However, there's a rule for statutory interpretation which is the relevant rule and has been existing for decades. I gave you just a few cases: Date versus Meest, which is a 2007 New Mexico Supreme Court case called the plain meaning rule. It says that statutes are to be given effect as written without room for construction unless the language is doubtful, ambiguous, or an adherence to the literal use of the words would lead to injustice, absurdity, or contradiction. This was about whether it had to do with bribing public officials and employees and legislators and judges—what were not mentioned. The state wanted it to apply to judges, and the court looked at the definition of public officer, employee, and it specifically exempted judges and legislators. So they say no ambiguity. I have two more cases. First, State versus Lopez. In determining legislative intent, we first look to the language used and give effect to the plain meaning of that language. Under the plain meaning rule, if the plain meaning of the statute is clear and unambiguous, we refrain from further statutory interpretation. Moreover, when a statute at issue is complete and makes sense as written, we do not read into the statute any words that are not there. So the insertion of the word "voting" into this resolution about how you vote is inappropriate, actually improper. State versus Carroll, which is a 2015 New Mexico Court of Appeals case, basically says the same thing. **Chair Benvenu:** Miss Benonato, your minutes are up, please. You have it in writing, and pursuant to the minutes being up, please. **Stephanie Benonato:** Yes. I'm going to have to ask you—I just want to do one more thing because this is a city code for the city. You have a super majority there that requires five. Please leave the podium. Forum of five is up again. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the room that wishes to speak? Is there anyone online? Chair Benu: No, there are no hands raised. Thank you very much. Next matter on the agenda is staff communications. Chair Benu and board members, I would just like to remind you that April 8th we will come before you with the nominations for our 2025 Heritage Preservation Awards. I also want to remind you that March 31st is the deadline for nominations. I have so far received one nomination from this board. I would ask if you could please all participate and provide us with any nominations that you may have. Staff is working on a list to provide to you of things that have been approved. There may be addresses or things that you might want to submit to us that may not be on the list that we give to you. So still give your nominations and votes even if they're not on the list provided. You'll get an email from me tomorrow afternoon with those addresses. I'm also still working with you all in coordination on who will be presenting the awards. If you would like to volunteer, please email me as well. Do I stand for any questions? Thank you for your participation in advance, and thank you very much for all the work that you put into that project and all of staff. Miss Limbo: Thank you, Chair. With reference to the presentation that Mr. Mochino is going to be making tonight, Mr. Mochino and current planning staff and I are working to prepare for the phase one update of the land development code. We're almost over the finish line so that we can start the public hearing process, which includes this board as well as the planning commission, the city council, and city council committees. There is a lot to go over. The purpose of that presentation, which we'll refine and provide to you next time, is to provide an overview of the historic district ordinance—where it has come from and how that fits into the ordinance that is being proposed. No major changes have been made other than some refinement of the design standards that we worked through with the committee. We will present to the entire board as well. We anticipate at this point that hopefully by the end of April or beginning of May we will be at the governing body. The other project that we're working on as a department is the green building code update, which I believe you all had an educational session on. That is related to the international building code and is going to be going to the city council for review and approval as well. There are many changes. We also had the kickoff of the Santa Fe general plan update. If you're interested in participation or being a community partner, please go to www.santaforward.org and look for all the information there. Thank you. Chair: Great. Thank you very much for that update. Next item on the agenda is new business. I would like to inform the public as well as the applicants that if you disagree with the decision of the board tonight, you almost certainly and possibly for some members of the public have a right of appeal to the governing body. The deadlines and procedures for an appeal are set forth in section 14-3.17 of the city code. You can also discuss those deadlines with staff or the city's attorney's office if you have any questions. With that, let's proceed to the first case on the agenda, which is case number 2025009941 HDRB 416 Oscia Lane. Mr. Duran: Evening, Chair Benu and members of the board. Thank you for being here this evening. In case number 2025009941, HDRB 416 Oscia Lane is a single family residence listed as non-contributing to the Downtown and East Side Historic District. The main residential structure was built in 1946 on a 0.11 acre lot and totaled 1,735 square feet of roofed area. The structure was built in the Spanish Pueblo vernacular architectural design style, as seen by the adobe block and wooden viga construction materials, flat roof with rounded parapets, and recessed doors and windows. The structure has been altered from modifications in 2002 and 2005. The main structure does have elements of the original construction, and some are evident on the east portion of the north elevation. With the current request and previous alterations to the structure, there is minimal historic presence on the streetscape. On the north elevation, the applicant presented the removal of a sliding glass door and infilling it, then adding a small window in that location. The proposed location here was the entrance on the east elevation where the residents park, giving you an overview as you enter into the property. Here we have the current pergola with very strong wood beams. However, they're starting to rot out, and the applicant is proposing a 497 square foot pergola portal addition. It will be roofed with a torch-down roof system and drainage out into the yardscape. Here we have the south elevation with a sliding glass door, and here we have the west elevation. As you can see in these two elevations, this is the proposed 170 square foot pergola addition. The pergola meets all zoning requirements and historic design standards. Here's a site plan presented by the applicant showing the proposed pergola portal addition that will encompass approximately 497 square feet on the north and northeastern elevations, and then we have that pergola addition to the rear of the house at the south and southwestern elevations of that 170 square foot pergola. Here we have the proposed floor plan showing the construction footprints of those construction elements. Then we have the existing and proposed north elevation to give you an idea of what's currently there with the pergola and then the addition of that portal. Here we have the existing east elevation and the removal of the yard wall, giving a better idea of exactly what that pergola portal addition will look like. Here's the existing and proposed south elevation showing the extent of that pergola addition with an open roof system, wood beam, and wood construction material. Then we have the existing and proposed west elevation showing the extent of that pergola. Given this application, staff recommends approval of the proposed project and finds that the application complies with section 14-5.2D, general design standards for all historic districts, and 14-5.2E, Downtown and East Side design standards. Thank you. Staff stands for questions. Chair: Thank you very much for the thorough presentation, board members. Does anyone have any questions? Member Cherry: I do. Is there any kind of cladding or protection on the back pergola proposed? Any kind of metal over the top of those beams? Mr. Duran: Chair Benu, member Cherry, I believe the applicant is proposing copper drip edge protection for the wood beams on the portal on the southwest side. The pergola staff would ask the applicant to share that information with you. Member Cherry: Thank you. Great question. Any other questions? Chair: Okay. May we have the applicant come to the podium and be sworn in? Applicant: Hello. Can you please raise your right hand? Please state your name and address for the record. Applicant: 1523 Tile Street. Chair: Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? Applicant: Yes. Chair: Thank you very much. Cherry's been sworn in to answer that question. Applicant: Yes, we usually like to put at a minimum on top of a pergola a galvanized cap, which you can't see. They just put a strip. Chair: Pardon me, sir. Excuse me. Could you speak a little bit more directly? Applicant: Is this better? Chair: A little better. Thank you. Applicant: Yeah. So we put a layer of anodized bronze colored cap if it can't be visible. You won't see the cap on these because they're right on top of the beams. If it's exposed, we usually like to do copper. Otherwise, it's a straightforward project. We're not really asking for anything out of the realm of Pueblo style. Chair: Very good. Do any members of the board have questions for the applicant? Anything else in addition? Satisfied? Okay, great. Are there members of the public in the room who wish to be heard on this application? Miss Benonato: Please come to the podium. State your name and address for the record, please. Miss Benonato: Benonato, PO Box 1601, Santa Fe. Chair: Thank you. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? Miss Benonato: I do. Chair: Thank you. She's been sworn in. Miss Benonato: I had some questions because in that first photo there are arrows going to the doors and the windows, and I wasn't sure whether those were put in without permission or why they were being pointed out. I'm also wondering how far away from the building the pergola is. I wonder, and I know this might be out of your purview, but I think the square footage seems to be overwhelming on that lot—well more than even 50%. I just wonder how that can really be allowed. I'm also not sure on the pergola. Are you talking about metal on top of each piece of wood to protect the wood, or not a sheet of metal over the wood, which would be almost a portal but not attached? These are some of my questions, and I would hope that some board member might ask the applicant those. Thank you. Chair: Do you want to address any of those? Mr. Duran: Sure. Chair Benu, members of the board, Mrs. Benonato, thank you for asking those questions. For the first one on the presentation, they're removing the glass sliding door, infilling it, restuccoing over, and then adding an additional window that currently exists on the property right by the other glass sliding door. It's a 2 foot by 1 foot window—a very small window on that facade. For the zoning requirements, staff worked extensively with the applicant to address any zoning setback requirements. The applicant was able to address all of the zoning requirements, and the current planning team did sign off on the PZR with the square footage. Current planning and staff worked with the applicant to address that. I believe they're right at the 40% square footage. They're at 38-39%, so they meet that requirement. Thank you for asking that. And Chair Benu, what was the other question? Sorry if I missed. Miss Benonato: The sheeting on top of the pergola. Mr. Duran: Oh, the sheeting on top of the pergola will not be attached as a sheet. It will be attached per beam. So I imagine 4 inch by 12 foot long stretches of metal on the beams to preserve each singular beam. But it will not be an extension of an entire roof—just a preservation of the wood beams as best as can be. Chair Benu, members of the board, Miss Benonato, I believe that is four to five feet from the main structure. It's not attached to the structure, and they have within 6 inches or further to attach. But they're not attaching to the structure and they meet the zoning requirement setbacks. So, thank you for that. Does the applicant have anything they wish to add to any of the presentation and answers to questions given by staff? Applicant: No. We got approved but with the PZR we played by all the city codes and rules, so we should be fine. Okay. All right. Anyone else in the room that wish to be heard? Is there anyone online? Chair Venom: No. All right. Raise hands raised. Back to the board. Does any board member have any further questions or comments? If there are no further discussions, may I have a motion? Member Aguilar Madrono: I'd also like to thank the applicant. Your submission was really clean and easy to understand. So, thank you for all that effort you put into it. In case number 2025-00009941 HDRB at 416A Lane, I move to approve the application as submitted. Is there a second? Member seconds. Great. Miss, any further discussion on this motion before I ask for a roll call vote? Seeing none, may I have a roll call? Member Cherry: Yes. Member Mather: Yes. Member Dagnet: Yes. Member Aguilar Madrono: Yes. The motion has passed. Chair, thank you and thank you to the applicant. Next item on the agenda is case number 2025-009943 HDRB at 925 Aia Madre. Is the applicant in the room? Great. Mr. Duran, would you please proceed? Chair Venom, members of the board, in case number 2025-009943 HDRB, 925 Aia Madre is a single family residence listed as contributing to the downtown and east side historic district. The 94 ft main residence was constructed in the late 1930s on a 0.15 acre lot. The architectural design style of the main residence is Santa Fe Pueblo Revival as seen by the adobe block and wooden viga construction materials, flat roof and rounded parapets and recessed doors and windows with divided lights. On November 26, 2022, the board approved a detached casita addition. In this application, the applicant is requesting that a portal addition in between the main residence, the main contributing residence and the casita addition be constructed. Here we have on the northeast elevation of the courtyard where this pergola will be constructed at 925 Aia Madre, the casita's east elevation. Currently there is no work going to be taking place on here, but you can see the construction materials in the backdrop of what they're proposing to build the portal addition. Here is the 925 Aia Madre main residence, the south facade. This is the primary facade of the structure. Here's a good overview photo of the courtyard, the casita addition, and the main residential structure. Here is where the 178 ft portal addition will be constructed. Here is a 1984 HDRB historic photo of the main structure. Here we can see in the 2005 aerial the main residential structure, the construction of the yard wall to the south, the courtyard yard wall. There was a pergola previously constructed there that attached to the casita which has now fallen down and fallen into disrepair, and now the applicant is proposing this 178 ft portal addition to connect the two structures. In the existing and proposed site plan it shows the proposed portal addition in between the two main structures. Right now it's just open space with flagstone flooring. Here we have the existing and proposed floor plans showing the extent of the addition of the portal. The portal will be detached. It will not be connected to either structure. The roofing system and all of the portal structure itself will be entirely wood, but the roofing system will be a translucent twin wall polycarbonate roof. Here we have the existing and proposed north elevation in between the main residential structure and the casita. Here we have the existing and proposed east elevations showing the extent of the portal addition in between the two structures, and I believe the drainage will be draining to the east. Here we have the existing and proposed south elevations from the casita and the existing and proposed west elevations showing the extent of the portal in between the two structures. And here we have the facade diagram for 925 Aia Madre. Staff recommends approval of the proposed project and finds that the application complies with section 14-5.2D general design standards for all historic districts and 14-5.2E downtown and east side design standards. Thank you. Staff stands for questions. Thank you for your presentation. Do board members have any questions for staff? Vice Chair Benvenu: Did you have any discussion with the applicant about the clear roof? That's the only thing that strikes me as a little odd and I'm wondering what the thought process was there. Chair Venom, member Aguilar Madrono, great question. That polycarbonate clear roof, I don't think I've seen any in the historic districts and it's not publicly visible. So staff was reviewing this application. Given the location in between those two structures, there'll be no public visibility. And so I didn't see an issue with it. I could see there's other roofing material that can probably be more fit for the downtown and east side on a contributing structure on that parcel, and this type of material is different. So given that staff understands that it's not publicly visible and so the impact is there's no impact, we present it to the board that we move to approve if the board sees fit. The applicant might need to answer this too, but the profile of the proposed translucent roof, is that disguised by any beams or metal or would we see that thickness of the clear roof? Chair and Venom, member Aguilar Madrono, I believe it'll be hidden underneath the parapets on the sides covered by the parapets and then wood beams would hold the structure, but the roofing would be on top so there wouldn't be—I don't believe so. Maybe we'll have the applicant just clarify that when other board members are done with comments. Thank you. Any further questions or comments for staff? Seeing none, may the applicant please come to the podium and be sworn in. Hello. Can you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record. Gregory Weights, 925 Kayarco, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501. Thank you. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? Thank you very much, chair. He's been sworn in. Thank you. Welcome, Mr. Weights. Is there anything that you would like to add to staff's presentation? Yes. The translucent was to bring light to that area in that transition so it wasn't continually in the dark, and because it's not like other areas—other than at 12:00 where the sun would be sort of penetrating that area in a severe way. As far as the visibility, the flashing system would cover all the edge of that so you wouldn't see anything out of the ordinary. You wouldn't know till you got underneath the portal first. Is there anything else you wanted to add? Turn it over to questions. No, I was just trying to address the question in terms of the profile. Yep. Yeah. Great. Thank you. Member Stegman: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is more to staff. Thank you. Do we have another example of this type of pergola with the translucent material on top of it? It just seems unusual to me. Maybe our newest member who is professional in the construction business could speak to that a little bit. I don't mean to put you on the spot, but I don't know. That's fine. Yeah, I think what I'm hearing and what I would have curiosity about is how's the edge of that roof concealed, which is what I'm hearing you're saying—is that if you're not flashing system, okay, it goes over the edge system that would go over the top of the panels. Okay, bent come down. So a metal flashing around the perimeter over the edge of the translucent panels. Yes. Yeah. So then what I'm hearing is that from the—because there's no detail here, so it's hard to understand that. But that there would be a metal drip edge of what I would assume we would want a proof color or that conceals, that covers, that closes off the end of that material so you wouldn't be able to see the translucent material from anywhere but underneath or in the air. Well, Scott, have you seen any of that in the historic district done that way before? I mean, is it like a polycarbonate composite like two-wall greenhouse kind of material? Yeah. I'm not 100% sure is what I would say. I know there's some greenhouses and there's some historic greenhouses. My recollection is they're glass, but the ones that I've been in— Thank you. Thank you. Member Aguilar Madrono: Vice Chair Benvenu, member Cherry is correct. I think this board has approved this material for greenhouses in the historic district, but I've only ever seen it for a greenhouse. I guess my thought is, you know, if you would like light to be able to infiltrate into this space, why not use a more traditional method like latias? It's a main house and a casita, so it's not like it's a garage where someone is coming back and forth super frequently and they need that protection from the elements. So because it's a casita and a main house, I'm less inclined to approve this unusual material in this way and would opt for something more traditional like latias if you want some open frustration. Or if you want something solid, we could talk about what that might be. Latias would compromise the space that's available to make that profile, that section happen. So in other words, that would add an additional 4 inches on top of a roof. You would want a roofing system underneath that, right? So that would just—yeah, that would. And also just increase the cost on something that's functional more than any design. So I see it as functional and trying to keep the cost down and at the same time bring light in. I think if there was a happy medium, it could be that, you know, the perimeter could be done in your typical roof. Meaning wood decking, you know, throw some, you know, all of the waterproofing elements on top of that and then cutting up these skylights or light areas to it. That could be an option, but I understand that they would want to have light in that area between the two two houses. It's what they desired. So I address the client's needs, concerns, or issues, desires. Member Aguilar Madrono, was there anything further before I turn to another board member? No, I don't think so. Just pointing out that it's a contributing structure, you know, which requires us to take a harder look than if it were non-contributing. So, you know, it is in all honesty, it is just not visible from the street. And it's not on the contributing side on sort of—I don't see. I mean, as far as profile from what someone would see, they would see something that looked like your typical pergola roof or portal that had drip edge flashing. Member Cherry: Yeah. I like about that solution is if you're going to have a regular, say, bray style roof and then add skylights—because my assumption is you're trying to protect it from the weather somewhat. You'd see the skylights would be more obtrusive than that flat material with this obstructed drip edge. So I like the fact that you're using that material flat so it doesn't have a profile like a skylight which would—if even not being visible from the street, but maybe some things that aren't really visible from the street have some tiny aspects you won't see that with this. So I like that. I think my question— # Historic District Review Board Meeting Transcript **Chair:** My only question I have is, is it attached to the existing structures? **Applicant:** No. It's self-supporting. It's freestanding. **Chair:** Freestanding, yeah. My only concern would be when I was on site, I noticed that there's drainage in that area that goes to the west and the portal drains to the east and has a downspout with a gutter. So that water flow is going to have to move all the way back across, against the footing of the contributing structure. So there's some concern. I don't have a problem with the structure. It's more about the water mitigation in regard to how it might degrade the contributing structure. **Staff:** I think that the permit set would definitely address any of those water-related issues, movement of water. **Chair:** Thank you. Any further questions from the board at this time? Are there any members of the public that wish to speak on this application? Miss Benonato, please come to the podium. **Stephanie Benonato:** I really wish Miss Rios was here for her institutional knowledge. First of all, a portal has to be attached to something. It's not freestanding. You've had this discussion many times about how portals have to attach to a structure. I think you should look up that definition before you decide that this is okay. Additionally, materials used are supposed to be in harmony with the existing style and structure, and this is not. The other thing is about using this kind of material. I do remember a greenhouse—I can't remember where it was, Canyon Road or maybe Millie Tar—but they had this exact kind of material and they had to remove it. There was another discussion about a greenhouse and they had to put glass on the greenhouse. I think you could use member Aguilar Midano's suggestion that you roof it over, attach it to one or the other of these structures so it will actually be a portal, and then you could use either some flat material, glass, flat glass, or perhaps a low-profile skylight. You could probably even use some of this material if it was small enough so it's not overwhelming but still having a roofed area. Again, I think it's important—whether it's visible or not—that the material is in keeping with the structure itself to produce harmony within the structure. I know from sitting here listening to this board that this kind of material has not been approved in the historic zone for roofing or for purposes of bringing light into some place. Thank you. **Chair:** Thank you. Are there any other members of the public who wish to be heard? Are there any members of the public online who wish to be heard? Thank you. Any further discussion on this application, board members? **Member Aguilar Madano:** Thank you, Vice Chair Bambanu. I might have a question for staff. I don't like the idea of this becoming like a stucco parapet with skylights. I think that would be worse than what we're looking at. Ideally, what I would like to see is this be a true portal with wood construction, something like latias. So my question for staff is, do we have any guidance in the code on breezeways like that? I don't think this should turn into a stucco parapet with skylights. I don't think that would look right. Is anything in the code that gives us guidance on that? Is it allowed in this, like a breezeway between a contributing structure and a casita? **Staff:** Chair Beneu, member Aguilar Madano, I think what is most important to remember here is that we do have a contributing structure. This doesn't completely attach those two buildings, but it does create the effect of attaching them. A more modern material does communicate that this is not part of the historic structure. It would not overtake the historic materials that are permitted in the downtown east side historic district. The operating language is rarely relative to public visibility. As to the flashing and all of that, if it was in an approved color, that might address the visibility of that particular installation. Yeah, this is a hard case that doesn't have any easy answer, but that's our perspective. Thank you, Heather. **Applicant:** Yeah, I would like to add that as far as materiality, the columns are circular and the supporting beams are—I don't think that anything of that is out of the ordinary for a contributing structure. The only thing in question is the flat translucent roof. The idea was that would not be seen by anyone other than people inside and underneath that structure. I hear the objections, but at the same time the objections actually have no relationship to visibility—what's being seen. That's what I'd like to point out. **Chair:** Thank you for that. If there's no further discussion, I would entertain a motion from the board. **Board Member:** Mr. Chair, thank you. This is not a motion. Clearly, we are having a difficulty. We appreciate so very much your cooperation and intention. The dilemma is what we just talked about. I don't need to repeat it. I'm having a little bit of a problem with it. On the other hand, it cannot be seen from the street, as you pointed out. Preservation is a gift to the community when it works for everyone well. So I think we try to be accommodating within the parameters that we are obliged to honor as we consider these applications. I'm just making a comment. I don't think I want to make a motion yet. Maybe someone else does. It's a difficult case. It's not the end of the world, but it sets a tone. It sets a precedent. So we need to keep that in mind. That's all I want to say. Thank you. **Chair:** Thank you. I still need a motion. The options are either to move to approve the application as submitted, move to deny the application, move to approve the application with conditions, or move to continue to another date. **Member Aguilar Madano:** Thank you, Vice Chair Bianu. I don't have a motion yet. I was looking in the code. Perhaps I'll ask staff just to expedite this. I was looking for an area in the code. Do we have an area where materials should be harmonious where it isn't specific to publicly visible portions? **Staff:** Chair Beneu, member Aguilar Madano, I was looking at the design standards for the downtown east side historic district. The overall dominating effect is that it's wall-dominated. The overall finishes should be of an earth-tone nature. The operative word is publicly visible. The facade of any building shall be of one color, which color shall simulate light or earth, dark or dark earth color. It discusses texture. Really, it's silent for not publicly visible facades. Once again, keeping the integrity of the two historic structures and communicating that clearly through a different material might be a good approach in this particular case, so that we know going forward that the contributing structure and the casita were two different epochs or times of construction. **Member Aguilar Madano:** I have another question for the applicant. In the elevation proposed—what appears to be the north elevation—where I'm seeing these tapered rafters. It looks like you've got post and beam construction with four round posts and then the horizontal beams that those are resting on. Then they look to be what I would call some planks that go from the longer posts, spanning the longer posts, and then there's what I would call like a tapered rafter above that. Is that correct how I'm seeing that drawing to create the pitch of the roof? **Applicant:** They would have to be over the beams—rippers, right? So those, like the one on the—they rip to nothing. So you see what I'm saying? **Member Aguilar Madano:** It's been drawn where you die the ripper at the beam before the last beam. Okay. So above, right at the inside edge of that beam where the rafter bears on the beam, it's going to be like an eighth of an inch or half an inch or something thick. Okay. So it's drawn as it would be represented. My feeling is as strong as it's represented because one, as you can see, it's pretty tight in there, and two, because we would be sloping essentially the translucent over the ripper. Typically, that ripper would have a minimum dimension at the end like an inch and a half or three inches or something like that. But your intention is to just rip it to zero. **Applicant:** Actually, I'm going to be honest. You probably know that doing design detailing is that all of that would get worked out in the mix, right? But what I'm showing here is that it's quite visible. If I have to move something down an inch to accommodate a ripper that a contractor requires, okay. So yeah, I just wanted to make sure those weren't steel or something because they're down to like a very narrow profile. So okay. No, thank you. **Vice Chair Bambanu:** Um, I may have a solution. I think what I'm hearing from this board is everyone's a little bit on the fence because we want to accommodate this, but it's also dealing with a contributing structure on one of the most prominent streets. I think we still have a lot of questions about this profile. I think that's what this really hinges on. We need confirmation that this translucent roof truly would be invisible at both ends. My motion would be to postpone this case until the next hearing and would ask you to provide a more zoomed-in detail of how this translucent piece of material interacts with the flashing, just so the board can feel more confident that it won't be visible from any side in the profile. **Board Member:** Second. **Vice Chair Bambanu:** Would the next date be amenable for the city if I propose April 8th? **Staff:** Yes, that's correct. That's the date. **Vice Chair Bambanu:** Is the applicant okay if I propose that date or would you like me to leave it open-ended? **Applicant:** That's fine. **Vice Chair Bambanu:** All right. In case number 2025-00009943-HDRB at 925 Eia Madre, I move to postpone the case until the next hearing on April 8th and ask that the applicant provide at least one construction detail of the roof profile to indicate that the translucent material edge will not be visible. **Board Member:** Second. **Chair:** Any further discussion before we vote? None. I would ask for a roll call. **Member Cherry:** Yes. **Member Aguilar Madano:** Yes. **Member Mather:** Yes. **Member Dagnet:** Yes. **Chair:** The motion has passed. Thank you, applicant. Great. Next case on the agenda is case number 2025-009946-HDRB at 329 Oro Street. Mr. Duran is the applicant in the room. Chair Beneu, members of the board, yes sir. Okay, please proceed. **Staff:** Thank you, Chair Beneu. Members of the board, in case number 2025-009946-HDRB at 329 Oro Street, the single family residence is listed as contributing to the downtown east side historic district with the north, south, and west facades designated as primary. The structure is a modest 1,048 square foot structure constructed between 1935 and 1936 in the Territorial Revival architectural design style. It features adobe block construction material, brick coping, stretcher dental stretcher courses, and an entry porch facing the street to the west. An addition was made to the southern portion of the structure in 1945. On September 10th, 2024, this case came before the board. The board adopted staff's recommendation that the exception criteria have not been met for the replacement of historic windows. The request was therefore denied on the primary facades, but all other aspects of the application were approved with a friendly amendment to the non-historic, non-primary facade windows. The board clarified that replacement of the windows shall not be vinyl, as stated in the packet. The windows shall be wood windows as accepted. This motion passed unanimously with the full board. This application has come before the board today in almost complete entirety the same. The only difference is that instead of vinyl windows, the applicant is now looking at wood-clad windows. However, in the design set that the applicant provided, the Anderson design shows vinyl material in the wood-clad windows. Staff has concerns about what they're proposing to install and replace these historic windows with again vinyl material in the description of the windows. Three of the facades are primary. In the assessment by Ray Patterson, facades C through I are all historic windows and are repairable. Non-historic windows on non-primary facades can be replaced, and the board made that motion. We are coming before the board again with almost the same case and information. Given what the board has already seen and the motion the board has already made, staff is recommending the same recommendation that the historic architect made: that all historic windows be repaired and that non-historic windows that are unrepairable be replaced. Staff finds that the exception criteria have not been met and recommends denial of an exception to replace historic windows on the primary facades of the contributing structure. **Chair Benu:** The question I have is if this has already been reviewed by the board pursuant to an application, and findings of fact and conclusions of law have been entered denying the request to replace the historic windows on the primary facades in kind, what is different about this application that would allow it to be heard a second time? My concern is that if we permit that to take place, reapplying and asking for the same relief that was sought in the first application could extend indefinitely. There would be no prohibition on someone continuing to ask for the same thing until they finally got a board that might approve it. That is certainly not a procedure we normally consider. A case that has been resolved should be resolved, especially if it has not been appealed to the governing body. How can we hear this case at all if it is essentially the same application that the board has already issued a decision on? **Staff:** Chair Benu, thank you for eloquently stating that. Staff did discuss this with the city attorney, and the direction was that due process for the applicant needs to be met. However, the city attorney did not agree with that. They recommend that this case, given that findings of fact and conclusions of law have been entered, should not come before us. Staff stands that the applicant, given her due process, should come before the board. If the board makes the same determination that was given eight months ago, she has the opportunity to appeal to the governing body, and then we can move that forward. **Chair Benu:** So if I understand what you're saying, that is staff's position, but the city attorney has a different point of view. Is that correct? **Staff:** Chair Benu, members of the board, that is correct. **Chair Benu:** At this time, I would like to hear from the city attorney. **City Attorney:** Chair Benu, Assistant Director Moore and I reviewed this when the application came in. We looked at the review and approval procedures found under Section 14-3 regarding rehearing of the existing same case. Unfortunately, only in the case of rezonings is there a time frame in which an identical application cannot be resubmitted. This is something we need to fix in the code. But this is how the code is written right now. When it comes to any other development approvals, such as those with the historic districts review board, there is no minimum time frame before it can be reheard by the board. From that perspective, staff is of the opinion that it is compliant with code if they were to reapply. I know the esteemed attorney's office also has some perspective. **Attorney:** Thank you, Chair Benu and members of the board. I must say the question as to whether legal principles like res judicata or collateral estoppel apply to hearings before a land use board are not necessarily decided with specificity. I could not find a case that decides those issues when it comes to an application to a land use or historic district review board in a case parallel to this particular one. I did find a case where a historic district review board case was taken to district court, and the doctrine of res judicata was applied. The case was thrown out at the district court level. Whether the land use board could have heard it all over again was not necessarily answered. My concern is that I do not see anything under due process principles that requires the same hearing to be made twice if the board has already made that decision. It also seems that if the code prohibits somebody from appealing more than once, and their opportunity to appeal came and went and they did not appeal, essentially what they are doing is applying to the board to get a new finding of fact so they can appeal a decision that they could have appealed the first time but did not. I am concerned that this sets a bad precedent. I do find that the doctrine of res judicata, as I said with respect to land use hearings that have gone to district court, is respected in the state of New Mexico. But that does not necessarily answer the specific question. I think it is an open question. I am just concerned about that precedent at this time. **Chair Benu:** We obviously would find it an absurd interpretation of our land use code to nullify the deadline for filing an appeal, which is what this would do. Under the interpretation staff has given, there would never be an appeal deadline because you could indefinitely continue to file a new application and reset the clock every time. That literally cannot be the proper interpretation unless we are going to find the code to have an absurd provision embedded in it. That is my main concern. Proceeding with a decision tonight would in effect reset the clock, which I do not think should happen in this case unless it is clear, as opposed to being ambiguous, that that is the only proper procedure for the board to undertake. At the very minimum, I would suggest that the board should continue this matter if it does not feel it has sufficient information to decide how to proceed. **Member DNA:** Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is there someone here representing the ownership tonight? **Staff:** We have not asked yet. You have someone here. **Member DNA:** Okay. And about due process, we have been hearing a lot about due process. If you turn on the television these days, it seems to me that due process was executed and received. So my opinion is if that is the case and our attorney has just confirmed that, I do not even know why we are hearing it. **Chair Benu:** Any other comments from the board? **Member Cherry:** I have a question for Director Lamboy and probably the applicant and for staff. My experience historically is that if an application comes to the city and is denied, it can be reapplied for if significant change is made to that application. That has been my experience of what has been practiced: if there is significant change, the case can be brought before the board with those changes. What I am not super clear on, but what I think I am hearing, is that this was brought forward with vinyl windows and now it is identical except that the change that was made was that it changed to an aluminum-clad wood window as a replacement in place of what was originally proposed as a vinyl window. **Staff:** Chair Benu, member Cherry, that is correct. **Member Cherry:** And then the other factor that I am hearing is that the windows that are there have been deemed by the assessor as restorable. So it is still proposing to replace a repairable window. **Staff:** Chair Benu, member Cherry, that is correct. **Member Cherry:** Thank you. **Staff:** Thank you, Chair Benu and members. I think it might be important to review the conclusions of law that the board made in findings of fact that were approved January 14th for a hearing that took place September 10th. There are windows A, B, and F. Window A is on the east elevation and door number one. Window B is on the north elevation and door number two. Window F is on the south elevation and door number three. These were all deemed to be non-historic or not on a primary facade. The board approved a restucco of the entire structure. The board denied an exception signed by the applicant denying replacement of historic windows on the north, west, and south facades. Those were windows C, D, E, G, H, and I. Replacement of the windows, which was approved, were the non-historic windows on the non-primary facades, subject to the condition that the replacement window shall have wood and not vinyl frames. So I believe if the applicant is presenting non-vinyl frames on non-historic and non-primary facades, the board may wish to consider that. But it seems to me that it is a settled matter that the historic windows on the primary facades, which required an exception, had that exception denied, not because of the replacement material but because the windows were repairable. Changing the window material does not change the application in a material manner or the board's decision. **Director Lamboy:** Yes, thank you, Chair Benu. Certainly, as I mentioned, the code needs to be fixed. It is our obligation to look not just at the historic district ordinance but also at the other components of the code relative to submission of applications. It has been our practice that it must be significantly different. The question was posed to us whether that could be resubmitted, and it is not significantly different. It does get closer to the overall intent of having the same appearance, although the packet that the applicant submitted is contradictory between the detail that was provided and what was written in the letter. Chair Bian Venu, members of the board, there are significant concerns here, and I understand what you're saying. The clock would not stop ticking forever, and that is an accurate representation. That is the perspective of our determination, but we are happy to defer to the city attorney's office and this board as to the proper decision. My personal solution would be to continue this matter and let the staff and city attorney work out a solution to this problem. The board hearing the matter has consequences even if it's denied. The board should not enter into that process unless it's quite certain that there are no other available options and it's required to hear this matter again. It looks like we may have another comment. Chair Bian Venu, members of the board, it has come to our attention that member Mather has left and is no longer here. Will that still constitute a quorum? Is she gone for the evening? Yes, chair. She had to leave. We still have a quorum. Thank you for the information. Okay, where are we at? Any further comments by the board on this matter before I proceed? It's premature. I can wait. Let me ask about that. If there were a motion to continue this matter to a later date, would that be made now or do we need to hear from the applicant and the public first? In light of the fact that the conclusion of the staff and the city attorney upon further research might compel the board to decide not to hear this case again, I think that legal matter should be decided and the hearing should be continued without first hearing from the applicant or the public at this time. I believe that's not necessary. Thank you for that. Yes, we could have a motion from the board at this time if that's the pleasure of the board. Thank you. Member Dean, I will make an attempt at what I understand needs to happen. I'd like to make a motion that we not proceed on this case. I don't know how to word it because it's unusual. Mr. Chair, can you help me here? You might move to continue this to a later date without a date known at this time. It will not be a date certain. I think that's acceptable under the circumstances to allow staff and the city attorney's office to reconvene to discuss whether or not this matter can be heard by the board and secondarily whether it must be heard by the board. Based on that determination, either reschedule this for a further hearing or deem the application closed. In the spirit of working with our friends and neighbors in the community, perhaps the second option you just outlined is the way to go. Have the city attorney come back and clarify. Am I saying that correctly, Mr. Rule? Is that what you'd like to do? That's sufficient. Yes, we will clarify after a discussion with the staff. If I get a second, we can proceed on that. Yes. I guess the way I would frame that, if it's acceptable to the moving member as well as staff and the city attorney's office, is that a determination be made by staff in conjunction with the city attorney's office that this matter either should be rescheduled for consideration by the board or deemed to be withdrawn so we wouldn't hear about it again if that second decision is made. Yes, staff and the city attorney's office as well. I second the motion. You're making the motion. I have to be careful. But you just said it so well, counselor. Is there a second? I second. All right. Any further discussion on the motion that's been made? None. I'll take a roll call vote. Member Cherry? Yes. Member Moreno? Yes. Member Denet? Yes. The motion has passed. Chair, thank you very much. We appreciate that and we'll just wait to hear from staff and the city attorney's office. I presume we'll hear whether or not it gets rescheduled for hearing at a future date. We will do that. Thank you. Okay, the next and final matter for applications is case number 2025009947 HDRB at 214 Old Santa Fe Trail. Is the applicant in the room? Yes. Please proceed. Mr. Duran, Chair Bian Venu, members of the board, thank you for being here this evening. In case number 2025009947 HDRB, 214 Old Santa Fe Trail is listed as a contributing structure with the north facade designated as primary to the Downtown and East Side Historic District. The original structure was built post-1912 in the vernacular architectural design style as seen by the wood frame and stucco construction materials, recessed doors and windows, and four-over-one historic windows on the north facade. The original structure was a modest residential home and was converted into a commercial storefront in the 1940s. A two-story apartment addition was added to the structure in the early 1970s. The structure was given contributing status in 1984 with primary facade designation in 2021. The structure has undergone several additions to the eastern and western facades, changing the original design. However, the structure's northern and southern facades are relatively intact, showing the original fenestration, construction materials, and architectural style. Chair Bian Venu, members of the board, in this case at 214 Old Santa Fe Trail, this has been a long ongoing process for approximately two years. The applicant has been working diligently for the property owners. I need to clear up some general things. As I go through these videos, I will share with you some work that has been done without a construction permit, without Historic Districts Review Board approval, and generally illegally. On the north primary facade, we have a low-hanging planter wall. This wall extends three-quarters of the duration of that facade and abuts out about two and a half feet, stands about two and a half feet tall, and varies in undulation throughout that facade as it heads east. This was done sometime between the early to mid-2000s into around 2023. The original date of construction is unknown. Here's a view looking eastward toward the Loretta Chapel as you can see in the background. Currently, it holds not necessarily landscape planting but relatively merchandise and artwork. On the east elevation, which has been quite a concern, is the public visibility. Here is the original storefront with French doors opening to a recessed plate glass window underneath the old portal. Here's the east elevation as built. The owners took out the French doors and plate glass window and installed plate glass doors and another plate glass window underneath the portal. It's important to note that these doors are not in keeping with the historic design standards under 14-5.2E. Windows can be, but doors are not allowed. The windows go straight to the ground. Generally in the Downtown and East Side Historic District, an exception is required for windows to go straight to the ground under the three-foot rule. On this east elevation, there's also a middle gate. Rod iron is allowed—given across the street at the Loretta Chapel there's rod iron—but here is a ten-foot tall steel gate. Any middle gates in the Downtown and East Side Historic District need to come to the board for approval for Santa Fe style and non-conforming material approval. These gates do not meet code standard. Here's another view of the gates. Here's the as-built planter wall on the south property line that abuts next to the south. We also notice there needs to be ADA accessibility with a handrail to clear those steps. Here you can see the gate and the undulation on that south facade and the middle gate on that south elevation. Here we have the existing elevation to the rear. In the rear, there was a fire that took place a few years back, and here's the remodel of that area. Here is a previously HCPI form from Mr. Murphy showing the structure in 1975. Here we have that north facade. No work has been done on that facade. It still holds true to that except for that low planter. The windows—the three-over-one wood frame windows—are still the same as they were then and are today. Here's a photo that Mr. Murphy provided from the HBI survey showing the portal and those territorial style wood beams on that north facade. Nothing has changed on that north primary facade as well as that rock lining wall for the parking, which came up in discussion at the site visit. That rock wall had been there for some time already, as well as the rod iron across the windows. Here are some concerns that came across staff during recent site visits. On August 25th, 2029, the board approved the construction of three-foot tall pilasters in front of the structure at the eastern facade with the condition that they be stuccoed with cementitious stucco and confirmed by staff. Currently, the pilasters have stationary glass cases with exterior rock work and not cementitious stucco. Second, we have the glass door on the north elevation that's not called out in the design set proposal letter. Signage needs to be reviewed and approved by current planning. Hardscape needs to be reviewed and approved by terrain management. The height of the existing black middle fence and gate is a maximum allowable height of eight feet. Currently, that gate stands above that. The windows touch the base of the ground and need an exception. A handrail ADA compliant on the south elevation needs to exist. Here are some concerns that were brought up today while we were walking the site. We have the original site plan and here's the as-built site plan. In that as-built site plan, the glass door needs to be called out. The low planter along this would need an exception to a primary facade. You have the portal, that low planter on the southern facade, and then the pilasters. Here we have the original first floor plan and here we have the as-built first floor plan with the same callouts. Here we have the original north elevation and as-built north elevation. That low planter wall really impacts that primary facade. The original east elevation and as-built elevation. These plate glass windows on 214 Old Santa Fe Trail impact the entire streetscape. Whether you look to La Fonda, whether you look at the Loretta Chapel, whether you look at the Hotel Santa Fe, whether you look at all the other structures along that streetscape—what this does is set a precedent that we'll do things illegally, we'll do things without a permit, we'll do things without approval, and then we'll come back for approval. We need to set a precedent that this is unacceptable. We have the original condition of the rear north elevation and as-built condition of the rear north elevation. We have the as-built east rear south elevation and the original east rear elevation. # Transcript No changes here. We have the Asbel rear north elevation and the original east rear north elevation. That's called out by the applicant of the new glass window glass doors. The glass doors need to be called out. So given this and the other neighboring property at 216 Old Santa Fe Trail, staff finds that all the exception criteria have not been met and recommends denial of the application as it does not comply with 14-5.2D general design standards for all historic districts and 14-5.2E downtown and east side design standards. Thank you. Staff stands for questions. Thank you very much, Mr. Dan, for that presentation, which was very thorough. I'm just trying to make sure that we know exactly what's being presented here tonight. If you could just go back really quickly to, I think you were showing the rear glass door that's facing the street, and I don't think that's before us tonight. It looked like it used to have a divided light door and now, Chair B—yes. Is that before us tonight? Chair Beneu, members of the board, all of it's before us tonight. That would be as well. Okay. So the applicant is asking for approval after the fact. Well, first of all, I should establish: were those approved? Was that change approved that we're looking at right now at that rear door? Chair Beneu, members of the board, no, sir. So the applicant is also asking for retroactive approval from the board for that as well as the front facade on the street. That is correct. Yes, sir. Just want to be clear. So, the way you've presented the case, you've divided up the requests for exceptions into two categories. One is the planter on the primary facade. Are there two planters on that facade? It looked like— Chair Beneu, members of the board, there's a planter on the north primary facade and that's where they would need an exception. But was there more than one planter on that facade? When we were on site today, I thought there was—they're connected, so we consider that one planter the whole length of the facade. That is correct. Yes, sir. So that's one. And then secondarily, you're asking the board to consider whether the exception criteria have been met for the metal gate and the windows and doors on the northern facade, and those seem to me a little bit different. But I think you're putting them together into one category because of the fact that they're on the same facade. Got the idea. Chair Beneu, members of the board, yes, sir. Instead of sending five exceptions, we're just asking for that on that east elevation under 14-5.2E downtown and east side design standards. So the metal gate would have to come before the board for downtown and east side design standards. Sure. The glass, the three-inch, the three-foot rule—those doors, the glass doors and window, those would need to come before the board for approval for 14-5.2E. So instead of just—we'll just put it all under one 14-5.2E downtown and east side design standards and address those for the windows and the metal gate. Okay. I mean, I guess I see why you've done it that way to try to simplify things, but they do seem to raise different considerations in trying to decide what exception criteria have been met for those two design features. But at any rate, that's fine. I just want to clarify for the board: those are the two groupings of exception requests that are before the board tonight. The other thing I just wanted to point out was you did a very thorough job of describing the ways that staff believes these changes do not conform to the code requirements for the district. I think you also should mention one that I also think applies, which is the general design standards for all districts under subsection D. That has two important provisions that pertain here which relate to alterations. One is that no alterations to a contributing structure be made that could cause it to lose its contributing status. That's something the board needs to take into account here in deciding whether or not to approve retroactively these changes—whether or not it would still be a contributing structure. Because if so, the board is not permitted to approve them. The second is that no alteration of features and spaces that embody the status shall be made. That's a standalone mandate separate from all of the other ones that you've brought up about the design standards. I think I've always read that provision to be broader than the primary facade. The primary facade designation does not necessarily encompass all the features and characteristics that make a building contributing. In fact, we often wrestle with that because we have reasons to believe that lots of facades have important characteristics. But we're cognizant of the fact that if we start designating every single elevation as a primary facade, it would be impossible for anyone to ever be able to modify the house. So I just think it's important to clarify that an owner is not permitted to alter characteristics that embody the contributing status even on non-primary facades such as the eastern facade here. That's just something I wanted to point out for the benefit of the board in considering the application. Does anyone else on the board have any comments or questions for staff before we proceed to the applicant? Not at this time. I guess I do have one more question for staff. You brought up a few other issues that you think are violations in this case. The pilasters in the front that were required to be stuccoed and are not. And then the permanent glass cases that were attached to those pilasters—the original application according to the packet said that those were removable and would only be on site during the day during working hours. So is that something before us tonight or is that something you're just bringing to us for informational purposes? Chair Beneu, members of the board, I believe all of it's coming before the board tonight. Now, in particular, these are just observations staff had at site visit, and in general, it may change tomorrow, to be quite honest. So we don't know what will take place on that property, but currently these are some red flags that popped up to staff today while we were out at the site visit, and just sharing that—okay, there's some issues here that are ongoing. This presents doing illegal work without city approval or board approval and not in keeping with what they've been approved to do. These are just some concerns that were brought up today that the board and the public and staff needs to know, and that's taking place. So it's not necessarily something that would be—well, I'll leave it up to the board whether they want to incorporate any of those concerns in the findings if they find them relevant to what's being requested of them. Thank you for that. Member Aguilar Madano. Thank you, Vice Chair Beneu. I guess my comments are related, so I'll go ahead and just make my comments now. Mr. Padilla, you are in a tough position and I know that. So my comments are not directed towards you. You are in a tough position and I don't envy it. Speaking of the pilasters, I also noticed those actually just today. I hadn't read the entire application as far as the history, but those caught my eye as something that I wouldn't expect the board would approve. So as I was looking through, I find that it was another red-tagged case in 2009 for those pilasters where the owner came back to the board asking for retroactive approval like they are tonight. And the board was rather gracious that night and decided to grant it with a condition that there would be cementitious stucco. And the owner never did that either. So as far as I'm concerned, the pilasters are not compliant. And so I think that's on the table. My understanding is that when an application comes before the board and something's not compliant, we have the ability to request that it be brought up to code. So I think this is a dance that we've clearly been doing since 2009. Sometimes we do see applications that are red-tagged and owners who genuinely made a mistake and didn't realize—I just nominated a project tonight for the historic award that was red-tagged. So not holding that against this project at all. Some people genuinely make a mistake and the board recognizes that, and I think we're always trying to work with them. This case and one of the ones we heard last time is not one of those. I'm sure this has been happening before 2009, but just quickly looking, I can see that we've been having this back and forth since then, and I can't see a way that we're going to approve any of these changes tonight. And thank you for your thoroughness, Paul. One question: when was this work red-tagged? Chair Beneu, members of the board, I believe this work was originally red-tagged in 2023. Okay. The work that we're looking at right now. Yes, sir. Okay. And the photos in the application, when were those taken? You know, these photos—some are more recent than others. This bottom photo of the original structure came in 2022, 2023. These ones came in 2024. What about photo 10 in the application? Photo 10, Chair Beneu, member Cherry—is this photo 10 on yours? Let me look. It's a photo of the door on the—me see. No, photo 10 is on page 29. It's a door. Is that—my presentation slides may be a little different. Could you give me a description, sir? It's the back door facing the—right at the end of the stairs on the north side. So staff has the design set but does not have the—oh, it's a photo from the Hickby. So it says right there May 22nd, 2024. Would that be correct that that photo was from May 22nd? Chair, member Cherry, that's correct. And it was red-tagged in September of '23. My understanding was October 2023, but I could be wrong. Members of the board, I believe it was last year sometime that it was given a notice of violation in 2024, and the only previous notice of violation was in 2009. Chair Beneu, member Cherry, that's a great question. I would have to do more research to find that, but if anybody were to give a red tag within the last 20 years, it would have been our manager Gary Mokino. I don't recall that red tag, but okay, there it is. Thank you. Thank you, member. Chair, anything else from the board before we turn to ask the applicant to come forward? Director Matino. Yes, Chair Beneu and members of the board. I would also like to talk about section 14-5.2C regulations of significant and contributing structures, and it's under section F, restoration of status. If a property owner makes changes to a structure without proper city approval, which results in lowering the structure status, staff or board may require the property owner to restore the structure such as in the form of status restored. Yes, I agree that applies. So that's something that the board can actually order, has the authority to order, beyond just denying an application. Thank you. Anything else? Okay. The applicant, please step forward and be sworn in. Please raise your right hand, state your name and address for the record. John Padilla, PO Box 22986, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Thank you. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you, sir. Chair, he's been sworn in. Thank you very much. Good evening. Would you like to add anything to staff's presentation? Chair Beneu: Yes. I would like to request that the district's inspector clarify the date of the violation most recently issued for 214 Old Santa Fe Trail. Chair Beneu, members of the board, Anthony Mesus, our historic inspector, gave the citation April 12th, 2024. Okay. Thank you. Further, Chair Beneu and members of the board, I'm here before you tonight to clarify a couple of items. One is that the referenced red tag or violation from 2009 has nothing to do with the current owner. The current owner has only had the property since about 2022—only had it for two years. I know that violation is in the packet. The packet also references that staff represented a habitual practice that my owner has undergone since he has owned the property. I wanted to make it very clear that the previous violations had nothing to do with the current owner. I understand those jewelry boxes or cases out in front of the property—how the board would have approved that back in 2009, I have no idea, but it has nothing to do with the case before you tonight. The other thing that I'd like to bring to your attention is a number of the items that staff member Duran has presented this evening are items that I was not aware of. The list that was presented earlier—would you go to that list, please? The seven points that are on here are items that are not part of the submittal that I have before you this evening because I wasn't aware that the historic district's purview was terrain management. I did not know that other items such as the glass door—the glass door has always been in the application, has always been part of our submittal. The other thing that I want to make clear is that the reason that north door—the north glass door on the north elevation—is not called out in the design set. It's not in the north elevation. It is in the east elevation on the north side of the building. So to call it the north elevation is incorrect. It is the east elevation on the north side of the primary facade. I already mentioned the 2009 case—item number one had nothing to do with my client. Signage—yes, there is current signage that is there. We had never been told that the signage was in violation. The signage that is there has been there historically. So I'm wondering why that is an item that is now before you as an item of concern from historic staff. Item number four, the hardscape. The hardscape is an attempt by the owner to repair spalling concrete that is on the ground, the walking surface for the public coming back in with the substitution of larger formatted tile to be able to provide a safe travel path for customers and the public approaching the building. The height of the existing fence was referenced as 10 feet tall by staff. It is not 10 feet tall. It's about 7 feet tall at its highest point. Windows touching the ground requires an exception. That's what is before you this evening. ADA handrail—I didn't realize that we were dealing with ADA accessibility handrail. The south side where the gate is—it's a nonpublic access point. Therefore, accessibility is not an issue there. Access is through the main door that is and has accessible accessibility through the current building. I'm before you this evening to work with historic staff and to work with the historic design review board. My owner has made it very clear to me that he is not here to ask for any special exceptions or any special attention. His tenant made these changes. His tenant made the changes for the front east non-primary elevation and the changes of the door on what was called out as the two-story apartment that was added to this building. Those changes were added because of a fire that was started by homeless individuals who entered through the south side of the building, hidden from the public through the doors—the green door and the window that was there. They entered there, started a fire in that back building that engulfed the downstairs area. So the doors that were replaced on the north side—or the east elevation, north side of the primary facade—were changed because of a fire. It wasn't changed because of a desire to just put brand new doors in. My owner, my client, understands that these were done without a building permit. But to get to a building permit, we have to come before you first to get approval. We understand that it is asking—not asking for forgiveness, but asking that the historic design review board work with us to get to a point to get an approval so that we can submit for a permit for what we've proposed or what we agree needs to be the proposal. The other thing that's brought out is exceeding the glass that's in the storefront—that it's not allowed in the district. It does clearly say that if it is under a portal, it can exceed the 36-inch dimension. Unless I'm not understanding the rule correctly, my understanding is that larger glass openings are allowed below a portal. It has clearly been stated multiple times by myself and by staff that that east facade has a portal. Photos were shown of the existing portal dating back a number of years. That portal has been there ever since I was familiar and engaged in this project working for this client. I'm before you tonight to work something out. I want to get to a point where I can submit a permit for review and approval. And member Agilad Madrano, thank you very much for your statement earlier. As you know it, this is not how I operate. My client had contacted me to assist him in remedying the problem that was created by a tenant unbeknownst to him. The work was done. We need to fix this. We need to make it right. And we're before you this evening to go over that. The metal gate is something that has been called out as not really being in the district. Well, it's right across the street. Metal is used. Yes, I know it's wrought iron. And just adjacent to us to the north where the low rock wall in the parking lot is, the gallery on the corner has tall wrought metal gates, has tall ironwork there. So to say that it doesn't exist in the streetscape, I beg to differ. Chair Beneu, I agree with you. The landscaping was identified as an item that we should discuss clearly, and then the gate and the windows and doors are thrown in the same category. I'd like to discuss them individually if possible to try to get to a solution this evening. It was stated that those landscape walls, the low landscape walls, did not have any landscape in them. Well, the pictures clearly show that there is landscaping in there. Granted, it's minimal. They do utilize it for showing their product. It's done all over the district. Product is shown well in the commercial sections of the district. The landscape areas do show their product to the public. It's important that the public be able to see what they have to draw them in. Yes, the north facade has the landscape planters that were added. We'd like to get to a point—we did not feel that the historic integrity of the primary facade that was called out as a north facade was damaged by the low wall because you still see the architectural elements that are called out and were historic that continue to be there even from the older 1975 photo that was shown. Those openings are still there. They're still there. There is now a low landscape wall in front of that. Granted, it was built without a permit. It was built without a review and approval by the board. So we're here before you to discuss that, to talk about that, and hopefully get to a point where we can have a resolution that works for my client, works for the public, works for the district. The low walls were called out on the north wall, but there are other low walls on the east side, and they are abutting the 216, which is our neighbor to the south. Those walls are abutting that area. They are not up against the south wall of the building, which is also a non-primary facade. With that, I stand for questions and I stand ready to work with the board, work with the staff to find a solution that works. We're looking for some help. We want to be responsive. We want to present a project that can be reviewed, approved, get to a building permit, and we get on down the road. Thank you. Thank you. Just a couple of quick questions. You've brought up on numerous occasions the issues of ownership and who was involved and who wasn't involved. So I've heard you say you're representing the owner. You're representing someone who was not the owner in 2009. Correct? Correct. But was the owner when these changes were made that are before us tonight. Correct? Correct. And you've also said he did not approve of these changes. Is that your testimony? Correct. He had no knowledge of them. The tenant made the changes. I'm asking, did he have any knowledge of these changes? Not aware of that. He's told me he did not approve them. Who's the tenant? The tenant is Wild Horse. I don't work for the tenant, so I don't know his name. Is it a business called Wild Horse or is that a corporate name? I don't know. You've never worked with them at all? You don't know who that is? I know it's Wild Horse. You've never met the tenant? Oh, yeah. I've met him because I've had to go in there. Who is it? His first name is Jack. Jack what? No idea. I don't work for him. I know. I'm just—you've met him, but you've never—all you know is his name is Jack? Yeah. And I've never worked with him. Okay. But your client is saying he's responsible for this unauthorized work. Correct? Correct, sir. And you don't know of anyone else who did the work? Who was the contractor? I was brought in to help them with the situation that was created for the owner. No, I understand that you weren't the contractor or the architect, right? Who was? Don't know. No knowledge of that. No, sir. You've never inquired of your client? Chair Beneu, I don't know what you're trying to get me to. You have raised the issue of ownership and who is the innocent parties here, and conveniently the guilty parties are not in the room where we can ask them questions. So I'm trying to find out from you who these people are because this goes to the good faith of the applicant coming before us tonight. I am the applicant. No, you're the representative of the applicant. The agent of the— Exactly. The applicant is the owner. No knowledge. The gentleman's name is Jack. Okay. And it looks like on site—and this came up before us on the last case, the 216. It looked like the same work had been done at the same time to replace the windows and doors that you were also retroactively seeking approval for on behalf of a different client. Was that work done by this tenant? Who was that work done by? That was done by the tenant, which is the owner of the building. # Board Meeting Transcript **Chair Benu:** And was that in coordination with the work that was done at 216? **Applicant:** That I don't know, sir. Do you know whether it was the same contractor or architect? I mean, I'm here before you. I was representing Lewis West previously, and I didn't know the 216 was going to be a part of this discussion. I would have brought my file on that one, but Lewis West was my client at 216. **Chair Benu:** And then, I mean, just—and I wasn't sure if it was in your application last time or in staff's report—but there was a discussion about the fact that there were other non-divided light windows on the streetscape at 2, and they were all identified as 214, 216, 218, 222, and 228. Was that what you guys were presenting? Was your application prepared? **Applicant:** Chair Benu, that discussion was on a different case. This case that is before you this evening is the first time we have brought this. The last one that we brought in for 214 Old Santa Fe Trail was for a downgrade status that did not get approved. **Chair Benu:** Well, I'm talking about the last case where there was a request for retroactive approval of the storefront windows and doors that were installed without authorization. This 214 before you this evening is the first time for the glass doors that were installed without a building permit. **Applicant:** 214, but then 214, but 216, the same request was being made, right? **Chair Benu:** 216 is a whole different case. I understand being in question about 214 because it relates to the streetscape. One of the things that the board is asked to do is decide whether this is consistent with the streetscape. And my understanding was in the last application that there was an effort made to say it's consistent with the streetscape because of the other buildings that are adjacent to it. But it appears that all of those other buildings were also altered without authorization. **Applicant:** Chair Ben Venue, if we want to talk about 216 Old Santa Fe Trail right now, I'm ready and willing to talk about it with you. Would you like to discuss 216? **Chair Benu:** I'm asking about whether or not all of these windows and doors in 214, 216, 222, 218, and 228 were all done at the same time by the same contractors. **Applicant:** I have no idea. **Chair Benu:** Okay. 216 was before you and was denied. My client has decided to work with staff to move it forward. There is no appeal going forward. Lewis West had made it very clear to staff that it will go forward as a new case as requested to bring it in compliance. **Board Member:** Why are we bringing 216 and testimony from 216 into this discussion? Not really sure what your— **Applicant:** I just explained it. It is because all of these buildings comprise the streetscape, and you are requesting an exception based on the idea that these are not harmful to the streetscape because there are other similar windows and doors. And I'm attempting to establish whether those also were done without authorization and therefore should not be considered part of the streetscape for our purposes. **Applicant:** Ben Venue, I don't know when the other ones were done. I was brought into 216 after the fact. 214, I am brought in after the fact. What happened in 218, 220, 224, 228? You have no knowledge. **Chair Benu:** I think I've said that a couple of times. I just want to be clear. That's your testimony. So the we'll talk about the other case later, but I would be concerned if, because we talked about this at the last meeting, that this not come before us repeatedly with new applications with new designs at different times and therefore never be restored to its original status. So I hope you're saying you're going to come before us with a request to restore it to its original status. **Applicant:** Chair, Chair Ben Venue, members of the board, my case right now is for my client, which is the owner of the building that I am working for and have been working for. Our case before you this evening is for consideration of the work that was done there. If it's the decision of the board not to approve that, my client, the owner of the building, is willing to do what they have to do to get it to a position where it can be approved. **Chair Benu:** Okay, that's good for the board to know. If the board decides not to approve these, it can also state what would be required to be acceptable. I don't have any other questions this time. Anything else from the board or the applicant? **Board Member:** Yes. Let's go to staff first, and then I'll come back to the member. **Chair Benu:** Chair Benu, members of the board. I would like to state, because we're talking about the ownership in 2009. Marks, the applicant who's the current owner for this, came before the board with the same agent requesting approval for those pilasters in 2009. The same—not this agent that you mean, not Mr. Padillas. He looks like he does not want to be responsible. 2009, in the report that went before the board for those pilasters, was the same owner and that the current owner for two years for the same property. I think that's accurate, right? And I verify and I believe it's the same agent for that same owner in 2009. That's in the packet. **Staff Member:** Yeah, it is. But you could do that. Find that separately if you don't mind, Paul, and then in the meantime I'll ask member Aguilar or give the floor to member Aguilar Madano. **Member Aguilar Madano:** Thank you, Vice Chair Benvanu. The first thing I was going to say: if it truly was a different owner in 2009, then my apologies for misrepresenting that in my comments. It sounds like that is to be determined. If that is the case, yes, my apologies. I'm going to start with some questions for staff. Hopefully a pretty straightforward one. Has a maximum height been calculated for the streetscape, and what is it? And I know you might need to get back to me on that. And then also, Attorney Rubilade, a general question. How is this handled if ownership in fact has switched hands and the previous owner has outstanding non-compliant renovations? Can the new owner be held responsible for those if the direction of the board is to require that the owner bring it back into acceptable status? **Attorney Rubilade:** I don't think an owner can get out of restoring compliance status to a structure just by selling it to another owner. The new owner takes it, so long as there was notice given to the previous owner. A new owner takes it with the non-compliant status with knowledge of the non-compliant status. All of these are a matter of public record. These are in the historic review districts, and I don't think there's any precedent for a new owner to say I didn't know about this, so I don't have to fix it. **Member Aguilar Madano:** Thank you, Attorney Ruby. That's—and I can tell you that liens can be applied to a structure, and the structure can be required to be sold in what you call an in rem proceeding, in which it's not relevant who owns the structure. The in rem proceeding is against property. **Member Aguilar Madano:** Thank you, Attorney Rubble. I don't feel like I have my thoughts fully organized, but I think we're probably going to be having a continuous conversation, so I'll touch on what I've thought of so far. I might chime in later again. You are correct. Is he still in here? Oh, sorry, Paul. You were perfectly hiding. Mr. Piaz, you are correct in that the windows under the portal don't have to be true divided lights. My issue with that is still the ratio of stucco to glazing. I don't know if there was an exact calculation in this packet, but just eyeing it, it looks like the glazing requirement—that ratio is not going to be met. That seems like a doable fix in my mind. I think one of the things that the board probably has had an issue with in the past is also the glazing coming all the way down to floor. Again, I think of that as a pretty simple fix—just a new door fixture. I also have an issue with the pilasters. And if I'm understanding Attorney Rubelade correctly, those were outstanding and never compliant from the previous owner. So I think we would be able to request that those be looked at. And my proposal for those would be for them to be removed. I know that there was a conditional approval prior, and the conditional approval was cementitious stucco, but since that was never met, I think we can look at that again. It's not something we would approve today, and that's how I try to look at these red tag cases, like Vice Chair Benvanu so elegantly pointed out one time. We try to review them not as a punishment, but: is this something we would approve as a new case tonight? And that's the lens I'm looking at this through. That is it so far. And then the low landscape wall. That one seems pretty black and white to me because it's attached to a primary facade. So, not to say I have an issue with a low landscape wall, but the fact that it's attached to the primary facade of a contributing structure is an issue. **Chair Benu:** Member Aguilar Madano. **Member Aguilar Madano:** I think for us, with the storefront plate glass doors and window under E on the design standards for the downtown and east side, it says: "Windows, doors and portals on publicly visible portions of the building and walls shall be of one of the old Santa Fe styles, except that buildings with portals may have larger plate glass areas for windows under portals only." This is a French door plate glass system. So the doors themselves are plate glass windows. So that doesn't meet the code standard. It's our concern. **Chair Benu:** Thank you for pointing that out, Paul. Paul, did you find anything in the packet relating to the 2009 case? **Paul:** I haven't looked. **Chair Benu:** Okay. And if you just come back to us when you have. And so about the height, please, Paul. **Paul:** Well, the height is 8 feet max for commercial buildings in the historic district. And what was the calculation done for this streetscape in particular? Given that it's a commercial building and it's on the property line, it would be the maximum is 8 feet. **Chair Benu:** Okay. That would be the max. Thank you. Yes, member Cherry. **Member Cherry:** Mr. Mackino has his hand, right? **Director Mackino:** Oh, yes. Members of the board, there has not been a height, street height calculation for that address. **Chair Benu:** Sorry. Can you repeat that? **Director Mackino:** Yeah, the wall height calculation. There has not been one done on that street with that particular address. **Chair Benu:** Okay. But what Paul was saying: the fence max, if it's more than 20 feet back from the streetscape, then it can go to the maximum allowable. And is this 20 feet, Paul? **Paul:** Yes, ma'am. **Chair Benu:** So the question in terms of this gate and fence is more the materiality, potentially like the color, not so much the height. That's what we're looking at. **Member Aguilar Madano:** Chair Benu, member Aguilar Madano, it would be the materiality. **Chair Benu:** Okay. Thank you, Paul. Just a clarification then on this issue about the door and the window under portal. So I think we need to conceptualize these differently, as you just said. There's the door issue and there's the window issue, right? So with respect to the door, I don't believe, based on what you just said or what I've reviewed, that there's any provision for a glass door, even under a portal, being a dimension of glass more than 30 inches in any direction. Is there? That applies only to windows, is that right, Chair Venue? **Paul:** That is correct. When doors, since they're not addressed in the design standards for the historic downtown and east side, they would need to request an exception because the code doesn't state they can. Given that it doesn't state they can, they would have to request an exception to that, right? And then taking the window separately, I mean we have a couple of issues there that the board needs to resolve in terms of the exception. But just to be clear on what the code permits: it first of all does permit under a portal tall glass. The board may approve glass greater than 30 inches in dimension. Correct? That's permissive. That is correct. In other words, it's not mandated; it's allowed. It is permissive from the board. Okay. And then what about the 30-inch rule from the corner that still applies to the windows and the doors, or the three-foot rule? I'm sorry, Chair Benu. From staff's understanding, the three-foot rule applies here. So they meet the three-foot rule here. However, it is our understanding that when these plate glass windows touch the base of the ground, they need to come before the board with an exception for that. But it's more than touching the ground. We've never permitted it to be within three feet of the ground unless an exception has been granted, which I can recall at least one time that was the case. But typically, it's not. It's more than just not meeting the ground. So I assume that it's always been determined that that is a corner of the facade—the ground where the facade meets the ground—still needs to be three feet in height from there. Is that not correct? Chair Benu, staff would have to do some more research on that for you unless other staff can respond to that, because in the past we've required exceptions to even get within a couple feet of the ground. So we must be basing that on something. Yes. Chair Benu, with reference to doors and windows: doors are the only ones that can go down to the ground. It's typical of adobe construction that an opening other than a door go all the way down to the ground. So what has been applied in the past is at least three feet in height. There was a case that was over on the plaza that was at issue and required an exception. Correct. So that was the previous case that you were right about—the one on the corner. And the reason was that there were some in that streetscape some other more plate glass type storefronts nearby. Okay, so it's a three-foot rule basically. That's all I have for right now. Thanks. Okay. So anything further from the applicant before I open to public comment? Board members? I've heard a number of times that would require an exception or certain items. The glass does not go to the ground; it goes to the floor. So just to be clear, I know we say ground, but it's not ground. There is no ground there. It is the floor, the interior of the lease space. It's been said a number of times we need an exception. I believe the exception has been requested. The meeting was even posted as an exception requested. So to say there—I mean, there has been an exception requested for the items that you've asked for. No, I understand that you've referenced, Chair Benu. Yes, I meant I wasn't disputing that so much as just to say that that is the code requirement for the board's benefit. So they need an exception, and this evening is the first time that I hear that there is a three-foot rule from the floor to glass or openings of any window types in an elevation. I've always heard and understood the 36-inch rule from the corners of the building to an opening. I've always dealt with that. That's one that I know and I use in design. I've never used that or been aware of that from a floor to a window. Now, in a residential component, if it's a sleeping room, there's a maximum height that it can be from the floor. So this is the first time I hear that. All right. Yes, Director, Chair Member. So with reference to the three-foot rule, this is more of a rule of thumb when considering the dominating effect of adobe construction. And you know, in the case of storefront windows, although this was originally a residential building and was designated as such as it's related to its residential use, although it has been converted to a commercial use, store windows typically had the base. If you walk around along San Francisco Street, you see that all throughout the streetscape. And so this type of feature is not found where it goes to the floor in the downtown and east side historic districts. It may be in other districts, but not the downtown east side. Okay. Thank you very much, Chair Benu. Yes. Just to re-share with you for the 2009 case: I need to redact my phrase. Mr. Padilla was the applicant. It was the current applicant for this case who was the applicant for that 2009 case. So the ownership is similar, or the owner at that time was different, but the applicant was the same person in which Mr. Padilla is representing today. The clarification. Are there any members of the public in the room that wish to be heard on this case? Please step to the podium and be sworn in if you have not yet. Yes, ma'am. Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record. Elizabeth West, 318 Senna Street in the South Capitol. 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 was just walking the other evening on the plaza, and so I was at that famous corner with the windows that go all the way down to the floor or the ground floor. Or was it the second floor? It looked like they go down pretty far. And they've sort of added, by the way, insult to injury as far as I'm concerned, by putting cute, beautiful lights all around it and emphasizing the metal. So that kind of was with me when I was listening to all this. And I sort of feel sorry for the original building that's been made into a commercial building and then has been abused with gigantic sheets of glass. So I think you are dealing with this very well, and I happen to agree with your line of questioning. I know it must be frustrating. It's frustrating for me in the audience to hear the tremendous amount of confusion as a result of going ahead and working on something to such a degree as we see in front of us here and then hoping that it will be okay. If I hear them correctly, I'm hearing them say they'll be willing to do pretty much anything to make it go back to where it should be. That looks like an expensive proposition to me, but doable, and I would welcome that. So good luck with this. I do think that pretty much everything needs to be denied. Thank you. Stephanie Benonato: I heard Mr. Fabia say that the owner did not approve of the changes, but he didn't say he didn't know about them. And again, if you have a tenant, you're really responsible for what the tenant does. It should be in the lease someplace. You just can't walk away from it because the tenant did it. Nor can you walk away from the fact that you had a fire. People with structures have fires. You still have to comply with the code when you redo it. And something that was red tagged in '09 and has never been corrected is not an approved non-conforming use. It is just nonconforming and is in violation. I would ask, as with Miss West, that you don't grant exceptions here and that you require the windows to come up and that there be a mass displayed in this front facade in particular. I would also ask that the advertising—the placement of sculptures or whatever these objects are in the planters—be removed, and that the window or door where they have that triangulated top and then the door that you also look at. I point out that one on Old Santa Fe Trail right at the plaza. I believe Mr. Padilla was the agent there, and the rationale was that they had to display goods and that's why they needed to have it go all the way to the floor as opposed to the ground. And they've never used it to display goods. It's just there, and it really detracts from the harmony of the streetscape. It detracts from the idea of a historic structure. And I would urge you not to grant exceptions for anything here and that you require the applicant to come back—I think as you did in the other case recently—and resubmit so that it actually complies with the historic design standards. And I appreciate that you pointed out the larger one in D that gives you more authority to look at the whole as opposed to just a primary facade. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there anyone else from the public in the room that wishes to speak? I see no one. Is there anyone online? Chair Benu, nobody has their hand raised. Very good. Did you have anything further? Mr. Padilla, on behalf of the applicant, not putting you on the spot—it's just that you approach the podium. So I just wanted to make sure before I turn it over to the board. Chair Benu, I believe we've gone through the items, the additional items that staff had added to the presentation this evening. Thank you for the clarification. As I said, in 2009 I was not a part of that. Whoever the applicant was, the owner was—I don't know. I wasn't a part of it. So I thank you for that clarification. The owner that I am representing again has asked me to assist him with some type of way to get what we've developed approved or to a point where we can get it approved so we can go forward with the building permit or work with staff to be able to come to a solution that works for everyone. With that, thank you for your time. Yes, sir. Mr. Duran, Chair Benu, members of the board. Mr. Padilla, thank you. I believe it's staff's recommendation under what our manager stated earlier to restore this structure. That would be staff's request, and if the applicant is willing to do so, I'm sure we can make this work. That's good to know. And when you say restore the structure, do you have a date in mind? Restore to the condition as of when? I believe the latest before the plate glass windows in this picture here was in 2023. So we would request that it be restored to the 2023 design. Are there no changes that were made prior to the 2023 changes that are an issue tonight? I believe the middle gate is not in this 2023, and we can work with him with the gate and with the low planter. However, that storefront needs to really be reconsidered. Does the staff have a position on the board's purview over the eyelashes who are not which do not conform to conditions the board imposed? Staff would ask the board to make a recommendation, and staff would stand by the board's recommendation. Okay. I'm going to need a motion. Or there's discussion—let me know otherwise. A motion, and you might want to break it down into a few subcategories for clarity, or maybe not. Maybe it can all be done in one. I'll leave it up to you. That's my job tonight. Anybody want to? Okay. Are you going to make a motion, Madlin? Yes. So go ahead. Yeah, I'll be Member Agalar Madron. Oh, no. You were going to go ahead. Is that what you said? I was going to defer. Yeah, that's what I thought. She wants you to go ahead. So Member Agalar Madana will proceed. Thank you, Vice Chair Benu. Mr. Padilla, again, I'm sorry. The position you're in, I think you made a compelling argument as you could for your client. Okay. In case number 2025-00009, actually, I'm sorry. I need to stop my motion to ask the applicant a question, as I believe we do. # Historic District Review Board Meeting Transcript **Chair Benu:** Do you have a preference if the board is not going to approve this tonight? Would you have a preference in terms of denial versus postponing and coming back? **Chair Ben Benu, Member Aguilar Madrano:** We want to come back. I think I had made it clear that I was not looking for denial this evening. There is no intent to do anything counterproductive. If there is a motion by the board to ask us to work, we're not afraid to work, but a denial throws this whole thing back to square one and that's something we would not want to see. **Chair Benu:** Okay, great. May I ask you a question? This is out of order. Sorry. Mr. Ruby, could you tell me legally, is there any legal implication on one of those two choices? In other words, if we deny, which you do not prefer to have, Mr.—I'm sorry. Can you tell me, would that work? I mean, if we make a denial or decide to deny everything whatever is on the docket, will they be able to do their work with the staff? Or I guess I'm saying, is there a preferred way to do this because we want to work with them? **Attorney Ruby:** I don't know that. Would that make a difference which way we go legally? Legally, I think one of the main things is if you deny this project, they can redesign the project and they can present it to the board again with material differences in what was presented tonight. But my understanding is then they would have to pay another fee and go through the whole application process again. **Chair Benu:** Okay. Right. **Attorney Ruby:** Whereas if you postpone the project with the applicant's implicit approval, then they can go and redesign the project and present it again without going through the whole approval process and pay an additional fee and get a new case number and that sort of thing. Now, I'm not sure what's taking place in municipal court with respect to the notice of violations. But the municipal court may have to proceed unless the applicant makes a pitch to the municipal judge at—we're trying to get this redesigned so that we get the historic district review board's approval, in which case that may have a bearing on how the municipal judge handles that. On the other hand, that is something that my understanding is that is something the applicant would have to request from the municipal judge or the property owner would have to request. **Mr. D.:** Now if you postpone it, they come back with some design, they can keep coming back and keep coming back and keep coming back. See, the goal here is to restore this structure. That's the goal. So if the applicant is willing to restore this structure to its original condition back in 2023, we'll work with them. But staff would recommend that you recommend denial because if you recommend denial then we can force it to the court and the court—because they can do like the other applicant and keep sending back the same applicant and never really getting anywhere. But once you deny it, then the court gives that order that you need to restore that structure to its contributing original status. Well, then now we're making headway. Now staff can enforce that. **Chair Benu:** Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Did you want to continue with your motion or not? **Ben Benu:** Yes. I know the statement that staff member Duran just made was their desire. He says staff—that is our desire to bring it back. I don't think that's allowing my applicant due process to come back in and work with staff to find a solution that works for everyone. That's Mr. Duran's personal opinion and that has been stated many times. So I really welcome the board's position and decision. **Chair Benu:** Sure. Thank you. No, but just to be very clear, two things. One is staff always makes recommendations to the board, which is what staff just did, and the board relies on having recommendations. Doesn't mean they always abide by them. Secondarily, it's never taken as a personal opinion, but rather as a considered judgment of the entire preservation division when staff speaks to us. So with that clarification, this is very consistent with the way we always operate. **Attorney Ribble:** Yes. Attorney Ribble, Chair Benu, and members of the board. I heard Mr. Padilla mention due process and I assure you the city attorney's office and the staff and the board should always be mindful of due process. But due process does not require more than notice, an opportunity to be heard by an impartial tribunal, and an opportunity to appeal to a higher tribunal. So due process only requires that he have the opportunity to come in and make his presentation and call his witnesses and answer questions and present whatever drawings and so forth he wants. But the idea that an applicant gets to come before the board over and over and over again is not—that's not required by due process. **Chair Benu:** Okay, I appreciate that. If the applicant and the board can work out something by which he gets more time then you can do that. Nothing says you can't do that, but due process does not require more than one hearing. **Attorney Ribble:** Sure. Thank you for that clarification. And if the board does decide that these changes are detrimental to the public welfare, then that's an ongoing injury as long as this matter continues. So I'm going to turn back to member. If you'd like to make a motion, I'll take a stab at it. **Member:** Pardon me. Sorry. I'm trying to make it simple. So let me just say what I think I've heard you say and what we've all said. I will recommend denial and hope I get a second. And I am clear about respecting the willingness of the applicants to work with the staff. It's not only an intelligent decision, it's a cooperative decision and it could be a good story in a year or two that there's been some changes and we're happy with it. So I'm just going to say denial. And part of that motion would be understanding that the applicant will work with the staff to recover what was and to become compliant with our law and our ordinance. Do I have a second? **Chair Benu:** Before we do, I just want to see if I can make sure I understand the motion. So the motion is to deny the application in its entirety. Sounds like yes. Don't let me put words in your mouth because I do want it entire. And then secondly, I assume that means because we have to—this is coming before us with the request for exceptions—that the motion would include findings that the exception criteria have not been met. Is that fair to say? And as discussed at the board meeting and in the staff report. And then finally, there's also an additional request to staff to ensure that the structure be returned to its condition before the unauthorized changes were made. Is that what I understand the motion to be? **Member:** Beautifully said. Is there a second or first? It sounds like maybe discussion. **Point of Discussion:** **Member:** Can we clarify the former status being restored? I would like to see the status restored prior to the unauthorized construction of the stone pilasters, which was in 2009, but I don't have an exact date of when they were constructed. **Chair Benu:** I accept that. I'm only—I'm happy to get feedback. I think that was a question perhaps directed towards staff and the city attorney, but it may be two separate issues about restoration. One is the pilasters as a standalone restoration issue and then everything else is a pre-2022 restoration because we don't really know what might have taken place between 2010 and 2022. Right? At least there's been no record. My only thoughts, but I'm happy to hear clarification to member Aguilar Madrano's weary from staff or from Mr. Duran. **Chair Benu, Member Aguilar Madrano:** We have the construction permits for the pilasters here and we have—believe at the time Mr. Rash gave the approval for the pilasters with that condition. Install three high and I believe that took place. My understanding is they were constructed in November of 2009. My question was since it was approved with a condition but the condition was never met. Correct. **Member:** Did— **Staff:** Yeah. So I'd like to make a comment. My observation at the site today regarding the pilasters was that they had been stuccoed at some point in time. And I'd be curious to know if that—they had been approved to be stuccoed, if there was ever a record of a final inspection of them being stuccoed. **Director Mochino:** New and member Cherry. Yes, they have been approved and finalized with the final inspection, but that was with the stucco, not with the rocks that are there now. Right. It appeared that the tile stone or cultured stone or whatever's cladding them now was applied over stucco. So they had been stuccoed and then that had been applied afterwards. **Member:** That is correct. Okay. Can I make a few more comments? **Chair Benu:** Sure. **Member:** I know we're in the middle of a motion, but I want— **Chair Benu:** No, it's fine. Point of clarification a little bit and then some reference. So just to consolidate this, my understanding right now is that this can be approved, this can be denied, this can be postponed, or that it can be required of them to remove all of the things that have been done without permission. That there's actually four options on the table as opposed to normally where there's three. Right? **Chair Benu:** Okay. Of a regular case I would call it. Yeah. Right. The last one is more unusual. Yeah. And order to restore, but it is provided for in the code. Right. But it is one of the options in this particular—I would say. Yeah. It's an option. I don't think it would be because it sounds like it's in addition to the others as opposed to in lieu of others. Right. **Member:** Okay. So that's—I guess I see it is the way the motion is being made is denying the application to retroactively approve these improvements and in addition to order restoration to its pre-improvement status. Okay. I guess I have separate kind of orders there. Okay. And then can I ask Attorney Rublade and Director Lamboy for some clarification on that as well because I heard you were the one that brought that up. **Director Lamboy:** Um, Director Lamboy, I believe that that's another option. I just—as opposed to approval, denial or postponement with conditions—that another option is restoration of how it was prior to the unpermitted illegal work. I think it would just make a better record if you make that decision that this has to be restored. You should state that in your motion. On the other hand, if you don't state that, the municipal court through a red tag and notice of violation—and the violations have been issued—can also accomplish the same thing. But just to make a good record if that is something that the board agrees on, that should be stated. **Chair Benu:** Okay. And it would be in addition to a denial or it would be in lieu of? **Director Lamboy:** In addition. Okay. You know, obviously if you approve, you can't very well require him to restore its previous condition. Sure. But you could postpone with and say under the condition that it be restored to its original or whatever the condition prior to the illegal work. I don't want to say original. I think a postponement is just legally—if you postpone you postpone everything. You know, it's—I don't know that it is consistent to make a decision on one thing and postpone on the other because I have to do a finding of fact and conclusion of law. His appeal deadline starts running and governing body really shouldn't be in a position of having to hear an appeal when there's still some component that hasn't been decided. **Chair Benu:** Understood. Right. That's clear. No, I understand. Thank you. **Director Lamboy:** Yeah. Generally, an appeal means everything has been decided. There isn't still something with the initial hearing board that hasn't been decided because then they have to appeal again if they don't like the second decision. Understood. So, Egler Madrona, did you make a friendly amendment to the motion or just a comment? She only commented, but I was about to make a friendly amendment. Your clarifications, I think I have a better way to phrase it, but we can keep going. I just wanted the motion restated since we've had discussion, and I was trying to figure out if it was restated with a friendly amendment or just restated. So, if the motion could be restated before you continue, that would be helpful for me. Thanks. Just a point of procedure. I think we need a second and then it could be a request for a friendly amendment. So, are you seconding the motion that has been made and then seeking a friendly amendment? Keep in mind you can second a motion and still vote against it. You can second it just for the purpose of having discussion. I think what member Cherry is requesting is that the motion be stated again just since we've been having discussion. Is that allowed? It is. I'll state it a second time. It had three components. The first component was denying the application as submitted in its entirety. The second was adopting as findings of fact and conclusions of law the recommendations, the findings, and mission statements put forth in staff's report and articulated in addition by staff and the board at the meeting tonight. And third, to order that the structure be restored to its condition prior to the unauthorized alterations. So what is the friendly amendment? Let's first clarify the motion. That was your motion, right? After you help me with it. Yes. Thank you. And then now are you seconding and then going to make a friendly amendment? Agilad Madrono will second and propose a friendly amendment. The friendly amendment be that the structure be restored to condition prior to any unapproved work on staff record. I think that way we don't have to get into the details of an exact date or which exact items. It leaves it that any unapproved work needs to be restored, that staff has on record with the oversight and working with the staff on that. Of course. I can accept that. Thank you. Okay, so we have a motion and a second. Does the board have any further discussion prior to roll call vote? Anything else? Nope. Hearing none. First, we'll take a vote and then we can see if we need to clarify anything. Roll call. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Aguilera Madrono. Yes. Member Dagnet. Yes. The motion has passed. Chair, thank you. Yes. Go ahead, Mr. Pedia. Chair Benu, I have a question. With the denial, this case is over, correct? I need to start from scratch with a new submission to historic preservation. I don't know about this. Was that the intent of what was proposed this evening, that we basically use nothing that we've had before? We have to come back with a new presentation as opposed to understanding where we're at coming out of this meeting going forward? We could make the renovation everything that you've just acquired through a denial. Now we have to start from scratch with a new case, with a new application, with new— That was my intention. No, I'm sorry. Let me answer the question. So we're not going to explain the motion. The motion was stated on the record. We don't get into the intent of the moving party because everyone voted on it. It's not only the moving party's intention that matters. It's what was stated and voted on. The only thing that I can say definitively is yes, that would mean that this case is complete. All the other speculations as to what the board intended or desired would be out of order. That was not challenging the board at all. I just wanted to make clear, and I guess from staff, that this is a new application that I need to move forward. You should consult with staff and they will be happy to explain exactly what the status of your structure is at this point in time. Thank you very much. Sorry, I'm not talking into the microphone. Let's see. Next is discussion items. Are there any discussion items? I assume that refers to discussion items from staff. Is that what this is a placeholder for? Because the next matter is matters from the board. So I don't think it's discussion items from the board. Yes. Chair Benu, there are staff communications, but discussion items also allow for staff to ask questions, for instance, on a code interpretation or what have you. That's not related to a particular case, but it's never used. So I might just in the future do discussion items with the board or from the board. Are there any discussion items? There are not. That's what I was inferring. Let's see. Matters from the board. Anybody? Nothing. Oh, yes. Member Aguilera Madrono. Vice Chair Benu, I did have a question or maybe just some a request for you all to look into. There is a new parking sign on Washington Avenue for the underground parking lot. Are you aware of it? And if you could just look to ensure that it complies with standard. We are aware of it as of today. I saw it going by and I told Inspector Moesta to look into it. It's current planning who does the approval of signs. So we'll look into it. Thank you, Gary. Anything else? I have a matter. You know, it wasn't appropriate to bring up in the context of case 9947 because it wasn't directly related to the application, but I've always had concern over the proliferation of sculptures and rugs and knickknacks and moving objects all over Canyon Road, one place, but specifically near the plaza and specifically on Old Santa Fe Trail where there are sometimes 100 or 150 separate sculptures being arranged in front of the fronts of these buildings. And then there's now a similar commercial enterprise at the corner of Acequia Madre and Camino del Soul where the entire parking lot is full of rugs and objects and carts and things. Again, literally hundreds of different objects, and then the walls are covered with them as well. I don't know if there are any regulations on this. I'm particularly concerned about near the downtown and plaza area. This is very detrimental to the historic character of that area in general and often to the very specific building that they're covering all day long. And in looking, I know we have signage standards, but I've never personally been able to find regulations to specifically address what can and can't be put out in front of your business or hanging from the walls and roofs during the daytime to advertise your business. So I'm just asking, are there any regulations that govern that? And if not, is this something that's going to be or could be and should be addressed in the upcoming amendments to the land use code? Chair Benu, you bring up a really good point. Actually, there's been concern from members of the council as to the same. So in the current code, just a quick research, outdoor display goods for sale really isn't dealt with comprehensively. There are some standards for retail structures over 30,000 square feet, for instance Walmart or what have you. But we don't have anything particular to historic districts other than display in the windows. So that would be a good item to put on our list for the phase one or phase 2a updates. Just so you know, once phase one is adopted, we are going to actually break down the subsequent phases as we deal with the key issues. So it's not one huge document that you and the other boards and commissions will have to look at. Frank reviewed our code as well. But we will actually have more digestible pieces to review. So we'll definitely put that on the list. Okay. So I'm really glad to hear that. And so the answer is what I thought, that there actually isn't very good regulation at this time for that kind of thing. So it's not that people aren't necessarily even out of compliance in a way that could be enforced. So is that something that, you know, we—that someone like myself or the city council members or members of the public that have concerns about this—should they? Is this already sort of on your agenda and on your radar as something to address in the update? And by you I mean the division preservation division and the land use department, or is it something that we who are concerned should be mentally marking as something to bring to your attention at a later date? Venue, it is something that we have a large list of things. It's on the list to be addressed that we've comprehensively put together. I will make sure that this is specifically stated. You know, there also is opportunity with the different members of the city council. One of the members or more can submit a resolution directing staff to do an intermediate amendment code amendment, not have it come through as part of a bunch of amendments. So that might be happening with outdoor dining as one. So there's that opportunity as well. Okay. Well, I guess I would just complete the thought and then I'll pass the baton here. But I guess to me this would not—I would see it as something to approach in the context of the larger picture of the amendments rather than a standalone item because to me it really gets at what are we trying to accomplish here in our historic districts now that many, many, many years have gone by since any of these issues have been addressed and we have a whole new historic district in essence as far as what people are doing within it. So that's the way I would view it, and it would be great if it's just sort of on the division's list already as an item to be discussed as opposed to waiting for someone to bring it up at a meeting far down the road. And there are some standards for street vendors which I would have to reacquaint myself with to determine whether that's a good approach and could be a quick and easy fix. But certainly we can strategize on something that might be a text amendment that's relatively simple or whether it's going to be part of a larger process. Okay. Thank you. Yes. Member DNA. Thank you. That's a great concern. I share it with you, and I was just going to add perhaps the public safety committee or public safety might be more appropriate to address it down the line. I don't know. Or a group of people including our team and people like that. That brings up a very good point. For instance, our public works and fire life safety, if there's something that's being blocked like a fire lane or if a sidewalk is being obstructed, they will go out and enforce these things. But if it's on private property, there's no tape in our organization. Thank you, Vice Chair Benu. Just for the record, I wanted to state that I agree with the previous two statements. I had already jotted it down in my personal ongoing list of things to bring up in hopefully the code amendment. I also agree it could be a potential safety hazard, especially tripping hazards with some of these things that are placed on the ground. And I will just also add, since we're talking about code amendments, I'm always a proponent of—I think we should have jurisdiction over historic trees, either of a certain age or of a certain caliber. But don't worry, I've got it on my list. Oh, you want it on Heather's list though? Yeah. I guess I was meaning more in terms of this board being able to have some authority in regards to historic landscapes, which I think we have so many historic trees, especially in the downtown east side district, that really make the character of our district. To be discussed later. Thank you. Very good. Next meeting is April 8th, 2025 and I will entertain a motion to adjourn. I'll make a motion to adjourn. Seconds. I guess we'll do a roll call. Just as an aside, even though there's a motion pending, City Attorney, I personally when I'm chairing meetings don't seek pursuant to Robert's Rules of Order either roll call votes on minutes or roll call votes on adjournment, but rather just do both without objection. Is that something that we can streamline some of these meetings with? I'm only following the procedure that I've seen the board engage in, but I personally don't think they're required and I think it's very inefficient use of our time. Well, Member BNB New, I don't know that a roll call vote is required other than voice vote, but I think it's a good idea to ask. All those in favor say I. All those opposed. If I could, I think the rules of order and that way I prefer to do it when I'm chairing a meeting is to ask if there are any objections to adjournment. Hearing none, we are adjourned. It's very similar and the same with minutes. Are there any objections to approval of the minutes? Hearing none, they're approved. That is specifically provided for under the rules. I just want to make sure that's not in conflict with any of city policies that you're aware of and board of adjustment. Don't do that. Okay. Just for the future, I think we can make this a little more streamlined. Sounds like a stylistic issue. It's a stylistic issue. It's a time issue, too. Okay. Yeah, that's all I have. Did we vote? No, we didn't. Roll call vote, please. Since we're still under the old system, Member Cherry. Yes. Member Aguilera Madron. Yes. Member Dagnet. Yes. Motion's approved. Chair, thank you very much.