Historic Districts Review Board Meeting
Tue, Jun 24, 2025 · Historic Districts Review Board
https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/583

== Executive Summary ==
The Historic Districts Review Board addressed several key items, including the design of Route 66 Centennial banners, which raised concerns about aesthetics and historical accuracy, leading to a request for a revised design. A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to a complex application for 206 McKenzie Street, involving exceptions for a steel carport, window and door replacements, and a proposed parapet height increase. The board approved the carport with screening conditions and the HVAC, gate, and restucco items, but postponed the parapet discussion for a redesign due to concerns about its visual impact and deviation from previous approvals. The board also reviewed applications for 492 Arroyo Tenorio and 964 Acequia Madre, approving the former and postponing the latter due to unapproved alterations on a primary facade, prompting an investigation by staff. Finally, the board designated primary facades for a residential structure and its accessory garage at 539 Garcia Street.

== Key Decisions ==
- Approved the construction of a new detached steel carport at 206 McKenzie Street, conditioned on screening from McKenzie Street.
- Approved roof-mounted HVAC units, a new pedestrian gate, and restuccoing the exterior at 206 McKenzie Street.
- Approved specific window and door replacements and restorations on the east, south, and west facades of 206 McKenzie Street, with provisions for ADA compliance.
- Approved the application for 492 Arroyo Tenorio as submitted.
- Designated the south facade of the main house at 539 Garcia Street as primary.
- Designated the garage at 539 Garcia Street as contributing with the south facade as primary, excluding non-historic materials and the garage door material.

== Motions & Votes ==
- Approval of Amended Agenda — Passed unanimously.
- Approval of May 27, 2025 Minutes — Passed unanimously.
- Motion to approve the construction of the new detached steel carport (height 8 feet 8 inches with roof-mounted solar units) as submitted, with the condition that it be screened by a zoning-compliant yard wall such that the carport and solar panels are not visible from McKenzie Street at 206 McKenzie Street — Passed unanimously (4-0).
- Motion to approve the roof-mounted HVAC units, the new pedestrian gate on Mackenzie Street, and the restucco of the exterior to match the existing stucco at 206 McKenzie Street — Passed unanimously (4-0).
- Motion to postpone the item regarding the parapet height increase for a redesign at 206 McKenzie Street — Passed unanimously (4-0).
- Motion to approve the replacement of specific windows and doors and the repair/restoration of others on the East Facade (Windows G, H, I, PP, SS, TT; Doors 6, 19) at 206 McKenzie Street — Passed (3 Yes, 1 No).
- Motion to approve the replacement of specific windows and doors and the repair/restoration of others on the East Facade (Windows J, K, E, FF, Y, Z, BBs, QQ, RR; Doors 7, 8, 9, 18) at 206 McKenzie Street — Passed (3 Yes, 1 No).
- Motion to approve the replacement of specific windows and doors and the repair/restoration of others on the South Facade (Windows X, V, U, T, S, N, M, L, Q, HH; Doors 10, 11, 12, 14), including second-story windows and changing door 14 from restoration to replacement, at 206 McKenzie Street — Passed (3 Yes, 1 No).
- Motion to approve the replacement of specific windows and doors and the repair/restoration of others on the West Facade (Windows A, B, ZZs, OO, NN; Doors 1, 2, 3, 4, 104A), including new greenhouse windows and door, at 206 McKenzie Street — Passed (3 Yes, 1 No).
- Motion to approve application 202510496 HDRB at 492 Arroyo Tenorio as submitted and recommended by staff — Passed unanimously (4-0).
- Motion to postpone case number 202510497 HDRB at 964 Acequia Madre to a date certain (July 22nd) — Passed unanimously (4-0).
- Motion to designate the south facade of the main house at 539 Garcia Street as primary — Passed unanimously (4-0).
- Motion to designate the garage at 539 Garcia Street as contributing with the south facade as primary, excluding non-historic materials and the garage door material — Passed unanimously (4-0).

== Public Comment ==
Public comments included concerns about the clarity and aesthetic appeal of the Route 66 banner designs, the environmental impact of vinyl banners, and the lack of historical reference in the designs. For 206 McKenzie Street, public commenters opposed the metal carport due to its material and potential impact on the streetscape, and raised concerns about the proposed parapet height dominating the facade and obscuring windows. There were also comments about the ambiguity in window assessment reports and the importance of preserving repairable historic windows. For 964 Acequia Madre, a public commenter expressed no objection to the roof material change but sought clarification on potential solar panels. A public commenter also reported difficulty accessing online meeting packets.

== Topics ==
- Route 66 Banners
- 539 Garcia Street Status Review
- Banner Design Standards
- Historic Preservation Ordinance
- Garage Primary Facade
- Historic Home Renovation
- Banner Material Concerns
- Jose Dolores Garcia Estate

== Full Transcript ==
Hi T, will you let us know when we go live? We are now live. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome, everybody. It's 5:31, and I call this meeting to order. We are now in session with the Historic District Review Board meeting, duly noticed for this evening, June 25, 2025. I will be serving tonight as acting chair in the absence of Chair Rios. May I have a roll call, please?

Vice Chair Ben Venu: Present.

Mary Ellen Degman: Present.

Scott Cherry: Present.

Member Bishide: Yes.

Member Mather: Yes.

Member Ajano: Excused.

And, uh, Cherio, I mean, Cherios, excused. Thank you.

Chair: Quorum. Thank you very much. We have an agenda that has been duly published. Are there any changes to the agenda, board members or staff?

Staff: Yes, Chair. Under new business, item C, I will be doing the presentation. Lanni McCauley is not here, so I will be doing the presentation for her. And then item 10, discussion items, has been withdrawn until further notice. That's a general plan update.

Chair: Okay, thank you for that. Is there a member to motion to approve the agenda as amended?

Member: Move.

Member: Second.

Chair: Seconds. Thank you. Roll call, please.

Member Mather: Yes.

Member Cherry: Yes.

Member Degen: Yes.

Member Bishide: Yes.

Chair: It has been approved. Thank you very much. Next on the agenda is approval of the minutes for May 27, 2025. Are there any proposed revisions or objections to the minutes as circulated? Hearing none. May I have a motion to approve?

Member: So moved.

Member: Second.

Chair: May their second. All in favor say aye.

Members: Aye.

Chair: Any opposed? Thank you. That motion carries. Next on the agenda is approval of findings and conclusions. I believe there were none submitted in the packet. Am I correct? Okay, we will skip over that agenda item. Next on the agenda, number six, is matters from the public. Is there anyone in the room that wishes to speak tonight? Please step to the podium. I see no movement. Is there anyone on Zoom that wishes to address the board? I see no hands raised on Zoom. If anyone in the Zoom meeting would like to speak during matters from the public, please raise your hand now. If not, I don't see any hands raised. Thank you. Thank you. No matters from the public.

The next item on the agenda, staff communications. Item A, Old Pedos Trail, Old Santa Fe Trail Plaza, West San Francisco Street, Galasto and Curios Road. The City of Santa Fe Tourism Division requests a recommendation to the governing body of the design for banners honoring the original pre-1937 path of the Route 66 highway. Who will be addressing the board? Director Lamboy. Thank you. Please proceed.

Director Lamboy: I'm here on behalf of the Tourism Department to present to you a celebration for the 100th anniversary of the pre-1937 route of Route 66. So the city has obtained funding from the Tourism Department of the state, as well as through our tourism lodgers tax revenues, to provide for the posting of banners for the celebration. So the route would be generally up Old Pedos Trail, down Old Santa Fe Trail, around the Plaza, back out Galasteo. So due west on San Francisco, out Galasto, which becomes Crios, and it goes all the way to Interstate 25. So that was the historic route of Route 66.

And so, consistent with the code requirement that all banners be approved, reviewed, and approved by this board in the historic districts, this would be going to the governing body for final approval, but it is incumbent upon this board to act on all things in the historic districts. So there was a lot of discussion with the City Attorney's office. There is a component of the code that requires a font as recognized by the city. And what was interpreted, so the code isn't very clean in that particular case, what was interpreted is that it would have the City of Santa Fe logo as the font that would be used as accepted by the Land Use Director, which was never really clarified when that section of the code was written. So, in collaboration with the City Attorney's office, you'll see two versions. One version is with the City of Santa Fe full bull seal on the lower right, and the other one has just the portion of the seal, the central portion of the seal as well. So, you'll see also measurements on that first drawing that has the entire seal to give you an idea of how big these banners will be. And the duration in which they'll be up is for several months for the 100th anniversary of the Route 66 routes, I guess, the highway. So, which was a big important part of our heritage and something that the city wants to recognize. And I'm open to comments from the board, any concerns, comments, what kind of recommendation you might have.

Chair: Well, okay. Thank you for that presentation. Just for clarity on what the board is being asked to do. So, the background of this design is what exactly? Who designed it and who's already more or less pre-approved it?

Director Lamboy: So, it's Chair Ben Venu, not pre-approved it. So the way the banners language goes in the ordinance is that they're permitted throughout the city with governing body approval. You may recall, well, I don't know if you recall, but there used to be a provision in the code that prior to 2014 that no banners were permitted in the historic districts, and Gary and, you know, his predecessor Phil Santon used to spend a lot of time citing people for banners. So, then it was determined that the city in its own projects could utilize banners to advertise events, you know, that the city is part of. So it is a state and local event, but the city is definitely involved. So, but the governing body likes to hear about whether these banners would be acceptable in the historic district. So this board will be providing a recommendation to the governing body.

Chair: Yeah. So I shouldn't have said pre-approved. I know it needs to be approved still, but who's, who's gotten it to the place that right now being presented to us?

Director Lamboy: Oh, yes. I'm sorry. That was designed by our, our, in collaboration with a graphic designer, our Tourism Division with the City of Santa Fe, because there, if for some reason my document's different than the other one, but I think it's the same design. There's two types and, and, and just I'm giving you both possibilities. One is with the seal and one is with the shorter heart of the seal as well. So, it's just that I, I got this most recent draft today. So I, I wanted to bring it to you all as soon as possible to get your feedback.

Chair: Sure. So the Tourism Division has designed it, and did they go through multiple possibilities and settle on this as being their best version of what they think would be the very best banner?

Director Lamboy: Yes.

Chair: The reason I'm asking is because the board doesn't want to do graphic design. They would normally just want to decide, does this fit our historic traditional styles and what the ordinance lays out is what we want to see in the downtown and other historic districts or not, and not really get into, well, I love the red, but I don't, you know, why does it have that border? And that just would be inappropriate.

Director Lamboy: The sign code does state that we, there can be no more than two font styles and no more than three colors, with one of the colors being similar to the background of a building if it's on a building, like with the La Fonda celebration that happened several years back. So, but these will be on street lights, similar to the veterans banners that are throughout town. We also came to you several years ago requesting your input and whether you feel like that would be an acceptable design to have those veterans banners located in the historic districts.

Chair: Right. And as I recall, the board was, didn't particularly care for the designs. But because it was so last minute, the board did not want to stand in the way of them being put up. That the decision was to allow them, but not for future purposes, that we would want to see a better design if they were ever going to come back to the downtown area.

Director Lamboy: Yeah. And this isn't last minute. So that's,

Chair: No, no, this is great. This is a great way to do it. Okay. And how far apart will they be spaced?

Director Lamboy: I have a map here. I'll bring it to you. So the spacing itself will depend upon the road. So like Old Pedos Trail, the light standards are further apart, but for instance, in the Plaza, everything is much closer. So the spacing in the historic district will be approximately 200 feet, every 200 feet, whereas on Old Pedos Trail, it's much larger than that, and same with Crios Road. So the spacing just varies. Yeah, I'll pass this around to the board members, but I mean, they're pretty close together, at least in the downtown area. There's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight right around the Plaza, and then another seven or so right down San Francisco Street before it turns to Galasto. To be honest, that was a comment I made was a number of them in the historic districts. And so they were working on that. They wanted to present this version, but if there are comments from the board, certainly they're open to.

Chair: And how long will they be up for?

Director Lamboy: For about four to five months.

Chair: Okay.

Director Lamboy: Throughout the summer and early fall.

Chair: Okay. Board members, reactions. Just to be clear what's being asked, would you like a recommendation from the board by tonight?

Director Lamboy: A vote for if that is the pleasure of the board tonight, but if it is the pleasure of the board to postpone it to a subsequent meeting to think about it, we certainly can do that today.

Chair: Sure. Okay. Comments. Member Beach.

Member Beach: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This might seem trivial, but does this meet the three-color rule? I see sort of two yellows. The background of the Route 66 and then the yellow border seems to be a different color, equaling four different colors.

Director Lamboy: Chair, Member Beach, I guess, I guess when we were looking at this, I mean, that is a very good point, but we were looking at it as just hues of yellow as counting as one color.

Member Beach: That's fine with me. I just want to make sure we're in compliance. Thank you.

Chair: Thank you for pointing that out. Thank you. Yes, Member Degen.

Member Degen: Thank you. I just want to make a comment. I'm, I'm, first of all, I'm glad you're doing this. This is wonderful. But there seems like an awful lot of them. So, I'm going to trust the wisdom of the staff to determine with future approvals, the number. It just seems a lot, but it'll be great.

Director Lamboy: I can communicate that and, and, you know, bring that back to you as to the results of that.

Chair: Yeah. Why don't you pass that around so everyone gets a chance to see? Other comments. Member Mather, any comments?

Member Mather: I, I, I guess this is just a matter of taste. So, but I, I, I like this design more. It just feels more cognizant to me as far as where the logo of the city is and running along the same color font, et cetera, and not being sort of outside of the box. Agree. It's just a, that's just a taste thing. It's not, not a rule thing.

Chair: Thank you for that. Member Cherry, any comments? Maybe you want to look at the map first. Take a second and then. What are they made of?

Director Lamboy: I don't have that information on me. I, I think it's just a typical banner material.

Chair: Like a vinyl.

Director Lamboy: Like a, a vinyl. Yeah. Nothing extraordinary.

Member: Heather, will they'll both be the same size, right? It's just a graphic issue.

Director Lamboy: Yes. Okay. Correct.

Member Cherry: I, I guess my, my, my curiosity in the materials is I just, I'm just not fond of the idea of printing a bunch of plastic banners that eventually, I don't know, make it to the ocean or somewhere, you know, that's my only comment.

Chair: Okay, thank you. Yeah. What kind of supports will they be on? How are they going to be set up?

Director Lamboy: Yes, Chair. So, it will be similar to the veterans banners in that they'll sort of have attachments that come out from the pole, and so there's, there's an attachment to the pole, light pole, light standard, and, and then the, there will be a bracket here and a bracket there.

So, it will just be sort of enclosed in that bracketing. Okay. So, every mark, every location marked on the map, corresponds to an actual light pole. Yes. Oh, okay. All right. Do you know whether we approved the banners for La Fonda's centennial celebration recently? Were they vinyl? Do you have any recollection? Yes, they were. I guess my, you know, they're not going to be up for very long, so I don't think it's going to have any long-term impact on the historic district. I don't personally think it's an incredibly wonderful design. It doesn't look, it doesn't really speak to anything. It doesn't speak to the historical associations. It doesn't speak to the current. It neither speaks to 100 years ago nor to today. It's just kind of an odd set of fonts and geometric devices. So, and I actually think it's a little bit even hard to understand what it's acknowledging, the way Route 66 is vertical and Centennial is across in Santa Fe. I would not put those together as being, "This is the centennial of Route 66," necessarily. So, I'm not sure they're really getting the point across, but maybe it will be different when they're just one after another, all in a line, following a certain route. Pass along those comments. Okay. Yeah. I just don't love it. I don't think it's going to add anything to the downtown or to the city or to this celebration, but I also don't think it's particularly worth fighting over.

Yes. Member Mather, I'm just wondering if this graphic spoke to anything from the original signage from Route 66, or was it sort of tomorrow's version of yesterday, if that makes sense?

Chair Bayside, I'm sorry, Member Mather. I think it was the latter. Yes, it was a version of yesterday. I'm trying to think in my head about the signs that we do have on Route 66, the brown ones, the highway signs, and certainly a big part of that heritage is sort of like the neon culture that are associated with the Grand Old Highway, but part of that is really a huge part of the heritage, but it doesn't have historic district color reference. So, I think that was one of the factors that they considered, but it would sort of be cool if there was a neon reference. Yeah. I mean, there are some, there are some really obvious iconic references for Route 66 typically, and I don't see any actually, any of them being referenced in this design. So, okay.

Does anyone want to have a recommendation made to the governing body?

I just wanted to add. Thank you. Sorry, just a point of clarification. I was just checking the sign code section, which is 14810, and it says that that section does not apply to banners. So, the three-color rule that we generally apply, or that we apply always to signs, doesn't apply to this one. I just want to clarify.

That's interesting. Yeah. Just in terms of the direction that I gave to the tourism group is that it is important to be consistent with other signage and that was a good metric to use. Yeah. I mean, if these were all going to be on Cerrillos Road, I think you would have a whole different design. I mean, the whole issue here is that it's going through the historic downtown that's not really normally associated with Route 66 and has its own design standards. So, I do think they're in a bit of a quandary there, trying to satisfy what you would normally do for a Route 66 celebration and also being appropriate here. So, just a thought. Any recommendations?

The other option is I can speak with the tourism group and bring, take back the feedback.

Bring something back if you would.

Yeah, maybe that would be better actually, is just to give them some of the feedback. It was pretty loose. I don't think it was much direction, but just have them present what they considered to be a more final design so we know, no, they've really considered all possibilities and they're convinced that they've got the best design. All they need is approval.

Perfect. I will definitely do that and I'll make sure that Randy Randall or one of their group comes and some questions I wasn't able to answer. So, the lesson learned there for me is to have somebody from their team here as well next time. But I really wanted to get an early sort of take on this from the Historic Districts Review Board because that's an important component of it. It's so appreciated when we go through a process like that instead of getting something at the last minute. So, thank you for that.

Okay, good. Was that sufficient feedback?

Yes, that is sufficient. I'll report back to them tomorrow and come back to the next H board meeting with a report.

Is this something that we need public comment on that is going to be provided at the governing body, but as always, it's up to the chair. Certainly, you have the ability to request public comment.

Well, I'd be fine with public comment if anyone has any. So, if there's anyone in the room that wishes to comment on the design, you can step forward. Yes, ma'am. Please step forward. You do not need to be sworn in or, I don't think, no, there's no evidence being presented here.

My name is Elizabeth West. Anyway, I came in a little bit late. So, and it was very nice of you to hand me a copy of this and I was looking at it. I said, "The centennial of what? What is this? The city of Santa Fe 66 years or what is that?" So, I actually found the sign kind of confusing, but then I like to think out of the box, so I get myself in funny situations there and once it's explained, I sort of understand it better. But I thought Commissioner Mather made some good comments. Actually, you all did. So, I appreciate Ms. Lamboy being so flexible, bringing it in early. I love seeing that anywhere in our government. So, thank you. And I think it's exciting to have this. My first impression was, and of course, I'm like a lot of people, I don't really like vinyl or plastic or things like that. That is mostly my problem, but it seems like other people agree with me. However, the wings of this centennial sign swinging out on either side are a little confusing to me. So, I love figuring it out. Well, it could be an intersection, Route 66. The color connects it. I can figure it out, but I would love to see some other ideas. So, I love that you said that. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments. Anyone else in the room that wishes to comment? I see no one. Is there anyone on Zoom that wishes to comment on this particular agenda item?

Yes, Chair Bianu, we do have one hand raised, Miss Stephanie Benonato.

Hold on a second. Okay, Miss Benonato, you should be able to provide your testimony.

Thank you very much. Stephanie Benonato, can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay. First of all, I have to say I had trouble getting into Zoom. It wouldn't recognize the ID number to begin with. I had to go in through my own account. But I appreciate the discussion here. However, when I download the packet, there's nothing there. It's just the agenda repeated. I cannot see any of the plans of anything. I cannot see a copy of what this proposed vinyl signage looks like. I will say that Route 66 did go down Old Santa Fe Trail. It did circle around the plaza. There's a place on Marcy and Washington that was a gas station there. Certainly. It went out Alameda to El del Campo. I don't know if it's or this, I don't know if it's what the, is it Calle del Oro where the city housing is, but that was a field that people camped out in. So, there are actually parts, and then it went down Cerrillos Road. So, there are parts of the downtown that were part of Route 66 and it does depend on which version you're looking at. So, if it followed that version or whatever version they take, perhaps putting these signage up is at least in keeping with the history. However, I find this kind of signage to be distracting and sometimes, like with La Fonda, kept up longer than the one year that they promised and like on Guadalupe Street where there's still that kind of signage up, but it doesn't really do much in terms of attracting your attention. It's just something that's visually distracting. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Benonato. And if you were unable to access the Zoom meeting earlier in time for public comment and wish to make any now, I would allow you two minutes.

Thank you very much. I do want to say that I'm still wondering why there are big HVACs like at 300 Galisteo, El Sendero on Old Santa Fe Trail, the Georgia O'Keeffe Museum that are not being screened. I have brought this to your attention now for well over a year. I also want to point out that on the Garcia Street case that you had last time where you allowed somebody to take down two feet of a historic wall for safety reasons that it was never explained how taking that down and still backing out would make it safer and that your staff absolutely said that safety was not something unique to any given property and that other design issues needed to be considered. Also, in terms of sustainability, in terms of that project, it went from an eight-foot portal to a 12-foot wide portal with the alleged excuse that it would keep the door from being wet. But again, if we're looking at sustainability, an eight-foot portal would be plenty to keep a door from getting wet and might have allowed some solar gain into that house. So, if you're balancing sustainability and historic preservation, it seemed that that whole criterion was ignored. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your comments. Anyone else on Zoom? Thank you. So, we will proceed to item eight on the agenda, which is old business. And I will advise the applicant and members of the public that you may have a right of appeal to the governing body of any decision that is made by the board. You can find the deadlines and procedures for appeal in section 14-3.17 of the code. So, the one item under old business is 2025010494 HDRB at 206 McKenzie Street. This was heard at our last meeting. My recollection is that the board continued the matter for further review of the window assess, window and door assessment report that was provided at the meeting and also to conduct another site visit. So, I think the status of this is that nothing has changed in the application. Can you confirm that? Senior Planner Duran.

Good evening, Chair Bianu and members of the board. That is correct. The recommendations by staff is the same and followed up with the site visit that was, that had taken place on Monday. And thank you, Braden and Mindy and the owners for allowing us access to the property and showing the members of the board and staff a tour of inside the structure and seeing kind of the core of the core of this unique residence. Now, members of the board, given that our current recommendation is the same, would you like me to move forward with the presentation that we currently had, or would we like to just get right into where we're at?

Yeah, I personally don't think there's any reason to go over the presentation again. The board just heard it two weeks ago. So, what I would suggest that we do is have the, have the board proceed to begin considering the application. We've heard from both staff and the applicant already. We can hear from both staff and the applicant again in response to any specific questions that the board has, but I don't think that we need to go over the whole presentation by either party again. Okay. Is that acceptable to the members of the board? All right. So, I just want to put this in a context because this case is rather complicated.

At least I think it is. There are six essential exterior groups of exterior alterations that are being requested, three of which require exceptions. They're all found on page 11 of the staff report, which is page 14 of the packet. I'm just going to go over them real fast so we all know what we're talking about.

The first is to replace all the doors and windows. That requires an exception under 14-5.2D1A for the removal of historic material. The second is to construct a new steel carport within the existing auto court. That also requires an exception under 4-5.2E to permit the use of metal for the structure in this district. The third group is changing the overall height by 3 feet 3 inches of a previously approved parapet on the McKenzie Street facade from 14 feet 1/2 inch to 17 feet 3 inches high, and I think it's actually a slightly different design. An exception is also requested under 14-required under 14-5.2 to D2C. So those are the three that require exceptions in order to be granted.

The fourth item being requested are roof-mounted HVAC units. The fifth item is to construct a new pedestrian gate on the McKenzie Street facade. And finally, we have restuccoing the exterior with a new stucco to match the existing. I think we should take these one at a time and even have a separate motion for each of them just to keep us all on the same wavelength. But I would hope that we could still at the end of the day have all of the, whatever the outcome of those motions is, incorporated into a single document of findings of fact and conclusions of law as opposed to six separate findings. Will that be doable? Even though we're going to go in six motions, they can all be in one.

Okay. Finding a fact and conclusions of a law, there's no problem with that. It's all part of the same presentation and case. Good. Then let's proceed that way because I think it will be easier for the board to work through these six items, but I don't want to complicate the findings. So let's go ahead then. I'm going to skip over the first one because I think it's the most complex, just because there's so many doors and windows, and proceed to item two, which is to construct a new steel carport, which requires an exception for the use of metal.

I'm going to open this for board discussion and potentially a motion, but just be advised, I will allow staff and the applicant to weigh in at any time they so desire, and questions to be asked of them as well. So board members, who wants to make any comments or prepare a motion relating to the carport?

**Chair:** Yes. I should bring to your attention that I will have to break out each exception and explain the criteria for each exception. It'll be in one document, but that can be in one set of findings of fact and conclusions of law.

**Chair:** Okay. Thank you. Makes perfect sense. Thank you. So, let's address the carport. Members of the board, any thoughts, discussion?

**Member Beach:** No. Yes. Member Beach. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think the carport, I don't have any concerns about the steel framing for that, or the solar panels that are proposed on top, provided that it's hidden by the surrounding yard wall, which I think according to the drawings, it would be, but only with, and correct me if I'm wrong, only with an additional CMU coursing at the top of the wall to make that wall a consistent height. I just wonder if it's already an 8 foot 8 wall, I believe. Is there any issue with increasing the height of a wall that's already quite tall?

**Chair:** Member Beach, that's a great question. At our previous, at our first site visit with staff and the contractors, that was our greatest concern with this steel carport is that they would need to raise it, currently at its current height, to a maximum of 10 feet in order to cover that steel carport. It's in the BCD zoning district, which allows them 8 feet. So there are some considerations that take place there that it would need, it would need to be non-publicly visible in order for us to approve this exception, and they would have to meet the zoning requirements for that yard wall. So there may be some further, whether they go to the Board of Adjustments or how they may, how they meet that criteria, there's some more further, there would be more processes in which they would need to meet in order for that to be met.

**Member Beach:** Thank you. So would it be appropriate for us to include in a motion that we, a condition that the carport not be visible from McKenzie, you know, subject to other approvals that dictate the allowable height of the wall or?

**Chair:** Member Beach, that would be correct there.

**Member Beach:** Thank you.

**Chair:** Thank you. Any other comments from the board? Yes, member Cherry.

**Member Cherry:** Yeah, I have no problem with the carport. I think the carport's a good idea and adds functional parking and sustainability component with solar in a really graceful way that's separate from the structure. So, I'm all for it. And obviously in this particular case, the issue is whether the exception criteria have been met as well by a preponderance or by whatever the standard is, the applicant has the burden. So just throwing that out there, but I understand you'd be saying you think the exception criteria have been met. Yeah. Yeah. I do.

**Chair:** If there's no other comments from the board right now, I guess one complication of the way I'm breaking this up is that we're going to need to have public comment on every one of these six motions. So, I'm going to ask public comment to be limited to a minute or so just because we're going to have six sessions of that. So, is there anyone in the room that wishes to comment on the first agenda, first item that we're considering, which is the new steel carport on this particular proposal or the applicant?

**Braden Furry:** Hi, please state your name and address for the record. Braden Furry, PO Box 238, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

**Chair:** Thank you, Braden. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalty of perjury?

**Braden Furry:** I do.

**Chair:** Thank you, Chair. He has been sworn. Thank you very much. So, just addressing the steel carport and the exceptions board for listening to us tonight. Just a clarification, the building is in the BCD McKenzie Street district, which does not have a maximum height for a yard wall. There is no limit for that. So, our intent was just to raise it enough to hide the carport from the public viewing. It's hard to tell with that existing yard wall because there's a lot of ivy and growth on it. It's actually many different levels. So, we would be making that more uniform at one level, just high enough to hide the carport and solar panels.

**Chair:** Okay. Thank you. Anyone, any other members of the public? No. Anyone on Zoom wishing to comment on this one item? Still carport. Yes, Chair Bianu. We have Miss Benonato. Miss Benonato, you may proceed. If you could limit yourself to one minute, please.

**Chair:** I'm sorry. Miss Benonato needs to be sworn in. Oh, yes. Thank you. Please, please swear in the witness.

**Chair:** Stephanie, please state your name and address for the record.

**Stephanie Benonato:** Stephanie Benonato, PO Box 1601, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

**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 penalty of perjury?

**Stephanie Benonato:** Yes.

**Chair:** Thank you. She has been sworn. Thank you. Thank you very much. Please proceed.

**Stephanie Benonato:** Yes. I'm opposed to having a metal carport on this property, which is a significant property, an important. Metal is really not an approved material and detracts, even though it's not connected, but detracts from the historic nature of the building. I find it really hard to believe that on one part of the BCD there's 4-foot high walls and there's no wall height on this one. And it seems like it's probably going to have to go up to about 10 feet, which that's already a narrow street. And it would seem to me that makes it sort of like tunnel-like, all to avoid being seen. And I would think that they could find some other places to put these solar panels or, and I understand it's an issue of sustainability, but there's no real need for it. It's a want. It's a desire. And if it works, it works. But if you have to get all these exceptions and have to go up to 10 feet, then maybe it should not really be considered because it's not really in keeping with the rest of the streetscape that doesn't have these high walls.

**Chair:** Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Anyone else on Zoom?

**Chair:** I see no other hands raised.

**Chair:** Great. Thank you. So if there's no further discussion, I will entertain a motion on the first item. Yes, member Beachside.

**Member Beachside:** Thank you, Mr. Chair. In case number 2025 010494 HDRB at 206 McKenzie Street for the item concerning the construction of a new detached steel carport to a height of 8 feet 8 inches with roof-mounted solar units within the existing auto court. I move to approve the application as submitted, noting that staff has determined the exception criteria to be met, and I agree with that, and conditioned on the, with the condition that the carport be screened by a yard wall that is of a height compliant with the underlying zoning, such that the carport and solar panels are not visible from McKenzie Street.

**Chair:** Thank you. Is there a second?

**Member DGEN:** Member DGEN second.

**Chair:** Second. Thank you very much. Is there any further discussion on this motion? Seeing no further discussion, I will ask for a roll call vote, please.

**Member Mather:** Member Mather, yes.

**Member Cherry:** Member Cherry, yes.

**Member DGEN:** Member DGEN, yes.

**Member Beachside:** Member Beachside, yes.

**Chair:** Yes, the motion has passed. Thank you very much. So, I'm going to now jump over and combine items four, five, and six because I think they're relatively simple. I'm not saying non-controversial, just simple. First is roof-mounted HVAC units. The second is to construct a new pedestrian gate on the McKenzie Street facade. And the third item six is restucco the exterior with a new one to match the existing. Any board discussion on those three items? Not at this time. Is there, does the applicant or staff wish to speak on those three items? No.

**Chair:** Thank you. Applicant, anything to add to what we've already talked about in last meeting?

**Applicant:** Nothing.

**Chair:** Okay. Thank you. Anyone in the room wish to speak on those three items? No. Anyone on Zoom?

**Chair:** Yes, Chair Bianu. We have Miss Benonato.

**Chair:** Thank you. Miss Benonato, you may proceed.

**Stephanie Benonato:** Yeah. Could you just repeat the three items? I'm sorry. I had.

**Chair:** Okay. So yeah, they're the, they're four, five, and six in the staff report, but they are the first is roof-mounted HVAC units. The second is to construct a new pedestrian gate on the McKenzie Street facade, and the third is to restucco the exterior of the entire structure with a new one to match the existing.

**Stephanie Benonato:** So my understanding is the HVAC units that again you have to raise the parapet and maybe I'm wrong about that and if I am I apologize because again I can't see anything. All I see is the agenda. There's no, it says packet but there's no drawings. There's nothing there. There's no application. It's really poorly presented to the public. I have no problem with the pedestrian gate as long as it's in keeping with the what was there nor the restuccoing which obviously needs to be done.

**Chair:** Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Yeah, I was actually confused. Well, let me say first of all, I was able to access the packet online. So, does any, did anyone else have difficulty accessing the packet? Okay. And staff is not aware of any problems with the packet. Staff verified the packet the day of and today. Okay. It is. Well, I think maybe then Miss Benonato, it might be a problem on the computer that you're using or the connection.

At any rate, that would be a concern, obviously, if the public wasn't getting access. So, what about the question of the—I don't think this requires raising of the parapets—but can staff explain, or applicant please, actually, to fully screen the rooftop units, a parapet would need to be constructed. But that was administratively approved through a prior submittal. Okay. So, that's the reason we're not considering that. That's already been agreed upon. Just when the mechanical, it just was the rooftop units themselves were never brought to the board. Understood. Thank you for the clarification.

With that, do any board members wish to have further discussion before a motion, or to make a motion? I open the floor.

**Member DNE:** Yes, Member DNE. Thank you, Chair Bianvenu. Regarding item 2025-0104954 HDRB at 206 Mackenzie Street, I move approval of the three items that we have outlined. I'll look for a second.

**Chair:** Thank you for that. Is there a second?

**Member:** I will second.

**Chair:** We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion before we proceed to a vote? I'm asking the board, not the—

**Member:** Maybe just a friendly amendment just to clarify that this is for the roof-mounted HVAC units, the new pedestrian gate on Mackenzie Street, and the restucco of the exterior to match the existing stucco.

**Chair:** Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Would you accept the friendly amendment?

**Member:** Accept and second.

**Chair:** Okay. Thank you. So, that is the motion. If there's no further discussion, I'll ask for a roll call vote. Member Cherry.

**Member Cherry:** Yes.

**Chair:** Member Bishide.

**Member Bishide:** Yes.

**Chair:** Member Mather.

**Member Mather:** Yes.

**Chair:** Member Degen.

**Member Degen:** Yes.

**Chair:** It has been approved. Thank you very much. Just because I'm trying to make this confusing, I'm going to go to number three. You can see I'm really just trying to save the doors and windows for last because I think they're the most complex. But number three does require an exception, and this is one that the one item that staff has not recommended approval for. So, I'd like staff to address this item. This is changing the overall height from 14 feet 1/2 inch, which was existing, to 17 feet 3 inches high. And I think that was all—I think that the 14 feet 1/2 inch was to a board-approved modification, if I'm not mistaken. Is that right? Or was it what was already there?

**Staff:** Chair Bianvenu, that is correct. The board did approve a previous modification of the—

**Chair:** Okay. And as I said in the introductory comments, I think that this is not only a change in height, but isn't it a change in design as well?

**Staff:** Chair Bianvenu, that is correct.

**Chair:** Okay. And would you explain to the board the reasons for not recommending approval?

**Staff:** Chair Bianvenu, members of the board, the change in the previously approved—

**Chair:** If I could interrupt you, you might as well put up a picture of the elevation. Can you put up the—Thank you. So, here is the proposed north elevation. Let's see if I can get the—

**Staff:** Okay, Chair Bianvenu, the previously approved north facade, that architectural element and design style that was previously approved on the existing, which is the north elevation that's on above, staff and the board did not have any issues with this design. It was approved. However, now the as-built design coming before you now for approval here on the bottom elevation showing the revised design. And just to give some background, this was done pre-board approval, and it needed to get done in order to finish off this facade. At the site visit yesterday, the current infrastructure, they needed this 3 feet 3 inches in order to provide screening for rooftop appurtenances. Now, staff has some concerns with the architectural design. It's raising what was currently approved. It's changing the character on that northern facade, and there are concerns about that. So, we're not recommending approval. However, there is an element of the applicants needing this in order to provide the necessary screening for their rooftop appurtenances, their skylights is what they're proposing. So, and it is an as-built design, so it's already built. And staff did not recommend approval of this design.

**Chair:** Okay. I mean, you're not, if I understand you correctly, you're not just saying you don't like the design, but you're saying the exception criteria have not been met.

**Staff:** Chair Bianvenu, members of the board, that is correct.

**Chair:** Yeah. I mean, I think you're saying both. That's part of the reason that you're saying the exception criteria have not been met because you think that the design will actually injure the public and this primary facade. Yeah. I would—So, why, if it's needed to be higher to screen rooftop appurtenances, how was it approved without that additional height when the board addressed this very issue several years ago?

**Staff:** Chair Bianvenu, I'll allow the applicant to speak to that.

**Chair:** Was there consideration of these skylights at that time, or were those also added after the fact?

**Staff:** Currently, Chair Bianvenu, currently there are no skylights added. It's an open space as of right now.

**Chair:** Oh, do you know whether—I'm going to ask the applicant to—but do you know whether they were a part of an original plan that was approved in whatever year it was?

**Staff:** Chair Bianvenu, I believe they were approved. Yes, sir, and they would have been approved in 2022.

**Chair:** Okay. Well, let's have the applicant address those couple of questions. What I'm trying to understand is, as approved in 2022, were the skylights also approved, and would they have been visually visible?

**Staff:** Chair Bianvenu, they would have been hidden behind that parapet.

**Chair:** Oh, they would have been hidden. So, why is the additional height required then?

**Staff:** I believe it's structural. Oh, in order to hold the integrity of the building and the adobe and the current structure and the current framing of the structure as of today, they had to raise it to 3 feet. I believe it has to do with structural integrity of or the adobe at this point.

**Chair:** Okay. Well, we can talk to the applicant about that. But I will just make the observation that I agree that it is a very strong alteration of the design characteristic of that facade. Anyway, so applicant, do you want to address what we're talking about here? Provide any light you can shed on this?

**Applicant:** I'd be happy to. Just for some background, the portion of the building that is behind this, the wall in question, back in the early 1900s, was actually an open alley. And sometime in the 1940s, we're not sure what year, it was enclosed by the owner at that time. What the current owners are wanting to do is bring the look of an open alley back to that, to hark back to the way the building was at the beginning, but it can't be an exterior space anymore. So, our resolution for that would be to put in glass skylights or a glass roof that would basically disappear as much as possible for anybody using the space inside. So, it's as if you were outside again as the building was originally. The skylights in the previous submittal were approved along with this design. Since then, the wall that was there that we were adding to basically disintegrated through lack of maintenance beforehand for years past and negligence from a previous construction process. So, now that we are—now that we had to rebuild that wall because it was basically destroyed, with the new skylight structure behind, and the way it would need to drain—so it does not drain to the street, we have to drain onto this, to the adjacent roof—it has to be high enough to get over that roof, be able to be flashed. And so, that's what determines the height of this wall is first the height of the glass roof and then the wall in front to hide it. So, the design as being submitted is the same design of the wall. It's just 3 feet 3 inches higher to—before with the previously approved design, the top of the arch that was submitted was more in line with the facade that you see on the left, which was on the east side. Now, by pushing it up, we feel that it actually sets this part of the building apart more because between the two sections of the building, we have two different heights. This now pushes it into between, whereas before it was kind of in line with the one before and kind of, we felt, got a little lost in the existing facade.

**Chair:** Yeah, I think it—I mean, I guess I do agree with you saying that it makes it more prominent, but that, you know, what corresponds to that is it makes the other feature less prominent, which is what is the, what you think of as the facade. Now, it sort of gets dominated by that new structure that you're building. So, when you talk about a wall being that disintegrated, is this just basically the wall on the street? I mean, could you just point to me what disintegrated that required someone to rebuild that entire feature?

**Applicant:** Yeah, this little area right—this little area right here is—

**Chair:** I'm not seeing any pointer on this. Is it just me?

**Applicant:** Oh, right. Yeah, you can just use your the old-fashioned way. Oh, right. Pardon me.

**Chair:** You'll have to come back to the microphone and pick you up for a minute record. Yep. Thank you. I do. Yeah. So, thank you for pointing that out. I think we know which exact spot you're talking about. So, go ahead.

**Applicant:** So, yeah, so that portion of the wall was compromised by—it was open to the elements and basically was destroyed. So, we—it needed to be rebuilt, which was what was previously approved. But now that we have gone back in and with all the problems with the building that we've uncovered since the submittal approval, it—we had to reevaluate how that space worked, which required the raising of the parapet, the raising of the skylight behind. They're all interconnected.

**Chair:** Okay. I mean, I guess that's the part that I get hung up on is why that wall couldn't have just been rebuilt exactly the way it was approved by the board the last time, or and still couldn't be rebuilt exactly the way it was approved, other than wanting to add the skylights.

**Applicant:** Well, the skylights were already always there. It was once we got into the building and through a lot of other problems had to remove plaster and stucco is when we realized what was compromised underneath. And once we took the necessary steps to reinforce the existing structure, it then created a lot of differences in the original design. I just want to point out too, we are infilling between two different styles. So, to try this design was trying to take a little bit of both, simplify, but yet give it a little bit of interest. The real main requirement is that it just be high enough that we can screen the skylights behind. We like this design, but we would be open to any other modifications as long as we can have the height needed.

**Chair:** Do we have something in the packet that shows what the board approved last time? The one above actually shows the—is actually a copy of the previous submittal. Is there any way to enlarge that? I should just look at it on my—Okay. Thank you. See, it's very—I think that the part we're talking about is very, very faint on the original design. Yeah. Somehow it got a little lighter. And was that—that was—wasn't that what was already existing, or was that going to be built?

**Applicant:** No, that was going to be—there was a part of a wall that was existing, and we were adding to it, but now that it got destroyed, we're rebuilding the whole thing.

**Chair:** Okay. Okay, I understand now. Okay, thank you for all the clarifications. Any board members questions for the applicant on this one item?

Mr. Chair? Yes. Member Dagnen. Thank you. Perhaps I could ask, if you don't mind, sir, Paul Duron, could you elaborate a little bit on how this changes the historic nature of the north facade?

Chair BM Venu, Member Dagnen. Great question. Let's see if I can go back to what currently is there. So this is the current facade, given the, well, this was pre the construction. Now, staff's consideration, pardon me, so we have evaluated the applicant's response and the previously approved design. Pardon me, that it was in 2021 that they got board approval for that design. It had a lower parapet, and that lower parapet allowed the fenestrations from the designs on that northern facade to, how do I say it, it gave it a, it didn't take away from what was currently there.

The new design, however, staff finds is it takes over that primary facade, and that becomes conflictual to what we're trying to do, right? We want it to be aesthetically pleasing, but we also want that integrity of that north primary facade to be intact. Now, to create a new facade on that that is trying to replicate, as well as trying to replicate, but also it overwhelms that northern facade. And I think it's not consistent on what the board previously approved. And so that direct decorative feature on the parapet is not sufficiently distinguished from the historic feature on the adjacent parapet. And that was the concern from staff, that it takes away, detracts from that primary facade and what is currently established.

Thanks, that helps. Thank you. Thank you, Member D. Any further? Nope. Thank you. Members of the board, any other questions for the applicant or staff on this item?

Yes, Member Beachside. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, I was on the board when the 2022 design was approved, and I think a large part of the reasoning for that approval was that the design allowed the historic roofline to be dominant. So, it's, you know, less, it's shorter than the original building to its left. I wonder if now, if it's not possible to keep that roofline below that level. And I'm sorry that it's already built, but, and I know that was a considered decision and took advantage of the skill available at the time to build this in Adobe. So, I appreciate that. But I wonder if you all considered just differentiating the connection between two distinct buildings with something that differs in design, like even exposing the steel skylight structure. I don't know what that looks like as a side view, but I almost think it would be better to have a really sort of modern, contemporary connection because it appears on the inside, and thank you for the internal tour, but it appears on the inside that the objective is to have sort of a contemporary take on an outdoor space that used to exist. You have a steel glass roof and a living wall, which are more modern interpretations of outdoor feeling spaces. And it might just be possible to acknowledge that on the outside without trying to hide it. Was that ever part of the design process?

Yes, we discussed all of that. Our primary focus was just to hide the skylight because that's pretty much what, as we've always understood, was the direction that was preferred. We are definitely open to simplifying this facade, changing it slightly if needed. But yeah, the original directive was just to hide the skylights behind so they weren't visible from the public. And the curve that you see there was just a simplified, just to kind of speak to the facade next to it, but to not be the exact same. But certainly we prefer this, but if a simplified profile or design would be acceptable, we would definitely be open to that.

Thank you. Question, Member Cherry.

Yeah, I have a question. Is the archway that's drawn in, is that a recess or does that go all the way through?

No, that's just a recess that simulates the existing recess on the facade to the left.

Thank you. Anything else? Any members of the public wish to address the board with respect to this one item? Yes, ma'am. Emiloster, please state your address for the record.

1102 Pedress Roas.

Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalty of perjury?

I do.

Thank you. She has been sworn, Chair.

Thank you very much. What would you like to tell the board?

I just want to clarify that this is, we are happy to make accommodations whatever the board recommends. If the steel structure is acceptable, and you guys were there, you saw how we had to shore it up. It's not just the front facade that was compromised. It's the whole perpendicular wall that, as one side of the passage, is completely compromised. And the skylights had to be raised because a concrete bond beam had to be put in the top to be able to hold the structure's integrity. So that was the origin of the whole thing. And if it is the board's will that we take that down and the frame is shown, we're okay with that. I'm also okay with any other modifications that you would require. It really was that we thought we had to hide it, and if you would like us to hide it a different way or not, happy to do that.

Thank you. Yes, there actually is a requirement to hide them. So an exception would be necessary if they weren't hidden. So you were correct about that. So you have kind of two conflicting requirements to get those skylights. One is they can't be publicly visible, and the other is the board's already told you what the height of that parapet should be. So that's the state that we're in. Any other members of the public that wish to speak that are in the room? You were, was that just a public comment before? I can't recall.

Public. Yes, please be sworn then. I mean, it was important, of course. It was. Yes. My name is Elizabeth West. You should, I should let you go first. Sorry. Please state your name and address for the record.

Elizabeth West, 318 Senate Street, NFA.

Elizabeth, do you solemnly declare and affirm the testimony you have in regards to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalty of perjury?

Yes, I do.

Thank you, Elizabeth. Thank you. And please let us know what you have to say. And I should have said earlier that we try to limit our comments, public comments, to two minutes. So,

Oh, two minutes. Okay. I thought you were going to say one minute for this, but in this case, you're right. We are limiting to one minute for because we're going through these sequentially in one case. Yeah. In my new life, trying to pay attention is still a challenge. I think this is why we have the H board, and I am so thrilled that Santa Fe has the Historic Districts Review Board because getting a conundrum as complex as all of this is a challenge where one thing is being required and another thing is being required, and they apparently are at odds. But actually, those at odds, it doesn't sound like you can hear me, but can you hear me? Yeah. Okay, great. When things are at odds, then designers, architects, and you all can really go to work. And I have had a lot of different reactions to this design, but I have come around to thinking that what they've come up with here is actually quite interesting. And it admits that there are two conflicting things that are going on, and here is a fairly traditional way of coping with that particular conundrum. And I like the slight undulation that is happening that's hinted at. And it's just a funny old building, and I think this is a nice, funny little addition that's actually quite attractive. So that's my comment.

Thank you for that. I see no one else in the room. Oh, please step forward and be sworn. Please state your name and address for the record. Speak into the microphone, please.

Sarasone, and my address is 2794 Cay Deas.

Thank you. Roman, can you, do you solemnly declare and affirm the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalty of perjury?

Thank you, sir. He has been sworn. Welcome back.

This is a very interesting conundrum, and I think it's an opportunity to maybe explore some other design options. I wasn't in love with the approved plan, and just elongating the transition between these two important parts of such a phenomenal historical edifice, I think, is worthy of some explorations that might be able to make good use of a transitional design that doesn't meet the exact standards that are applicable here since they're contradictory. So, I would challenge the architect and the owner to see if they could come to a solution that would be an enhancement to this important facility.

Thank you. Thank you. No one else in the room stepping forward. Is there anyone on Zoom that wishes to speak to this item?

Yes, Chair. We have Stephanie Benonato.

Miss Benonato, you may proceed.

Thank you. I am opposed to this exception being requested. I agree that it dominates that facade. It is the primary facade. It hides some of the windows or obscures some of the windows behind it. The openings, the window openings itself in that little addition, are larger than what was approved before. And really, the hardship is something about the structural integrity was compromised. But again, even putting in bond beams doesn't mean that you need to raise it three and a half feet. What it is really is that they want a glass roof there. And it's not glass skylights, it seems, but glass roof. And something about drainage, but a quarter inch per foot is plenty for drainage. And so none of this actually seems to really add up to needing an exception. I think it probably was a mistake that the board allowed an exception to begin with, but I think that they should go back to the originally approved design, which is lower and doesn't overtake the historic part of this facade. And if they have to do away with the glass roof, that's okay. They have plenty of glass in this building, including in the addition that they're proposing at this point. So I don't think it's a hardship in any way, shape, or form. And a structural compromise of a wall doesn't mean that you need to add three and a half feet to a parapet or to a facade. And the idea that you would even suggest allowing steel to be exposed on a primary facade, in my opinion, is pretty outrageous and absolutely not in keeping with the requirements of the district.

Thank you. Okay. Anyone else on Zoom?

No more hands raised, Chair.

Okay. Thank you. Board members, further discussion.

Yeah, I'd like to make some comments.

Sure. Go ahead, Member Cherry.

I guess one to the applicants. And I have a question for Braden. I guess my, I'd start with the question. If that were to be a different facade height, how high would it need to be to conceal the roof? Meaning, I'm assuming the high part of the roof is on the west side, the low part's on the east side. So, the arch, which is in the middle, currently is the highest, isn't how high it would need to be. Is that,

No, we could, we could remove the arch and make it more of a flat parapet, and it would still hide the skylights. And the height would be to the bottom, yeah, the bottom, the spring where the arch springs from, and kind of the ogee, and there's a little flat space on each side. That's the height that it could, that's the minimum height it needed to be.

Okay. Yeah. Some, I guess with that, that's a great piece of information to have if there was, it helps visualize what sort of the requirement is for your glass roof, which my comments would be, I just, I appreciate the glass roof. I think it does a lot to honor the building.

after the tour, that was very helpful. I also understand the construction challenges that you're facing and having to drain that area of roof onto the other roof and the height requirement. I think it's beneficial for the building to have that. If you weren't to have a glass roof there and you needed to drain the water, you'd still need to drain the water. You'd still need a roof, and it would be a shed roof that's not what's been there before, or I don't think very appealing looking. So you would still need some kind of parapet facade, whether it was an arch or flat or anything to conceal that.

In that respect, I don't really mind what's going on on the inside because that's not relevant to what we're exposed to or charged with looking at. So, yeah, I like the current design. I could also see, and I don't want to leave you with ambiguity. I'd love to leave you here tonight with a way to go forward, and I certainly don't want to design it. But yeah, those would be my comments. I think from a construction standpoint, it's been well thought out, and it's very functional. Having some form of facade there that's a parapet, so to speak, whether it be curved or flat, was a good solution for that area. Thank you.

A good point. The only other way we could drain that roof would be onto the sidewalk and onto the street on a north facade. And that's what caused all the degradation to begin with. Correct. Yep. Any other board members with comments? Further discussion? Is there a motion on this item anyone wishes to make?

Yes, Member Beat. Not a motion, but I guess I would like to know from the applicant. We've heard a couple of options for alternative designs, either what Member Cherry was suggesting with a flat parapet, maybe removing the niche, or a more exposed design. Would you be willing to think about those suggestions and come back with an alternate design for review and approval at a later date?

Yes, absolutely. We actually have discussed as an alternative the flat and removing the alcove, just so it's at its minimum height for the screening of the skylights.

Yeah. What is the minimum?

I don't know that off the top.

Well, it must be the height of the outer radius of the arch, probably shown there. I forgot my glasses. Is that 123?

Yeah, the outside, the outer dimension on the right, on the new elevation. So that would actually be lower than the height of the arch that was previously. Correct. Yep. Yeah. So that would really help with maintaining the dominance of the feature to the north. And in fact, I think that what was currently existing when the board reviewed this was a flat, was something flat in that space. So, okay.

Well, with all of that, Member Vicha, do you wish to make a motion?

Sure. Yeah. In case number 2025 010494 HDRB at 206 McKenzie Street, with respect to the item for, sorry, an increase in the height of 3 feet 3 inches of the previously approved parapet. I, finding that the exception criteria have not been met, I move to postpone this item for a redesign and to request that the applicant come back with some alternate design suggestions that minimize the roofline as much as possible while hiding the steel structure behind, and/or an alternate design that the applicant prefers for consideration, noting that the exception criteria might be required for exposed steel items.

Second.

Edmond. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion from the board on the motion as stated? No. I'll ask for a roll call vote. Member Mather, yes. Member Cherry, yes. Member Bishide, yes. Member DGEN, yes. The motion for item number three has passed. Thank you.

Thank you, board. Should we schedule that for a date certain?

Well, Chair Bmanu, under these circumstances where the board postpones a decision, we have to ask the applicant to state on the record if they consent to the postponement because they are entitled to a decision one way or another, because otherwise their appeal deadline starts running, and they can't appeal, and that essentially, you know, puts a stop to their project. So could the applicant state on the record whether he objects to this or whether he, you understand, I mean, the idea here is that the applicant can just demand a vote so they can take an appeal rather than having this delayed. So we need your consent unless you wish to go directly to the governing body.

Just to clarify, this would be for just this item.

This one item. Yeah. No, we consent to the postponement.

Okay. Thank you.

If staff also could ask that we would do a different case number for that particular item so that way it doesn't affect the findings for everything else going forward.

Sure, that makes sense. And would we still be able to schedule it? Wouldn't that require a new notice period?

Yes. So it would be the following hearing, which would be the July 22nd.

Oh, we can still do it on the 22nd.

Yes, the ETH has already went to the paper, but I believe July 22nd. Let me verify that date, please, Chair.

So, I just want to take that back to the applicant. Do you understand that this will be heard on July 22nd at the earliest? Is that acceptable still?

Yes.

Applicant, if you could just tell, I just wanted to give you another opportunity here to make sure that you accept that.

Yes, we're postponing to July 22nd. On that 22nd, we're good. Thank you.

All right, then we have one item. Oh, yeah, Member Cherry. All right. Can I just get clarification on that? Just to make sure, are we asking them to bring back one alternate design, or what I heard was some other design options? So I just want to make it clear what we're going to expect to see and what you guys are going to expect to produce because I heard maybe a couple of different options. That's what I heard in the motion. I just wanted to clarify that.

Yeah, I'm always a little shy of clarifying motions because they've already been stated on the record. But I understood it to be that it was inviting the applicant to redesign and come back to us with whatever they want to present, however they want to proceed in that regard.

Fair enough. Okay. So you understand, I think that, and if we can go on to our last item for this case, which is replace all the doors and windows for which an exception is requested under 4-5.2D1A for the removal of historic material. We've had a presentation by staff and the applicant on this item. There's been a site visit. There is also a report from the window assessor. Board members, I would like to turn it over to you at this point for discussion and questions you have for staff or the applicant. Anybody? Member Cherry?

Yeah, sure. I can start. I guess I'd start with a couple of questions. Can you clarify what's being proposed for window J? Sorry, there's a lot of windows. I got to re- You don't have to tell me exactly our problem. There's a good 50-some. Well, with doors included.

While you're looking for that, I did want to just remark that in looking through the packet, one thing that I don't think was mentioned at our last meeting that I think has some significance is that in the last board meeting, same one where the parapet was approved, there was also a discussion about the windows, and the applicant at that time sought to repair the historic windows and replace ones that were non-reparable that had deteriorated beyond repair. And that was what the board's action approved. So in essence, I think there's some argument to be made that we're revisiting an issue that's already been decided and ruled upon.

Window J. Currently, when the owners bought the property, it was a boarded-up hole. So what we're requesting to do is just infill with a window that matches what was there historically.

Okay. And that also matches the rest of the windows on the building. Okay. And would that window be constructed to match the, my assumption is the window that was there matched the window on that facade.

Correct. Yeah. It was the divided light double hung.

Right. So, and you've proposed a Marvin factory window. Is that correct for that?

Yes.

Okay, with wood exterior and painted the same color as the rest of the windows. Okay. And would that have, are those, I just want some clarification on those windows because there was a, there was a drawing of that, but not a detail. And when I think of in kind, I think the muntins are the same width, the same profile, the same mill design. And that rarely occurs when you go with a factory window. You have to typically have a window replicated to, for it to truly be in kind.

Correct. The reason we went with Marvin is because for some other cases that have been in the past here in Santa Fe, they were able to recreate windows in a factory construction that did match historic sizes of mullions, widths, divisions, and the like.

Okay. And you think that they could do that for this project?

Correct. Yep. That's what we have been told by Marvin.

Okay. And then I see the, the door, there's a couple of different numbers now on everything because Ray has got some different numbers than you've got. So I just, I'm going to talk about your numbers just so we can understand. But you've got the door 100, correct? What, how would that be constructed? Like what is it? What, what are the materials in the?

Actually, that, that door is wood and it's existing, will be put back in place.

Oh, okay. Just because the photo has, it's not there. So I don't.

Yeah, it was taken out for the construction of inside the building. So those are in storage and will be reinstalled.

Okay. So that door is not being requested.

No, that's not a, yeah, that's not a Marvin door.

Okay. Okay. Um, yeah, just because I think that's another thing that was very confusing in the first go around is the, in, in you, the proposal that you guys have says just replace all doors and windows, and there's clearly some that aren't being replaced. So, I'm just trying to really clarify, I understand, clarify that. Um, yeah, and I guess, um, as far as, as far as that's concerned, those, those were kind of my only two questions of ambiguity, and my comments would be, um, that I, I feel like, um, this is obviously, it's been stated so many times, but super important building. It's, it's a beautiful building, and I, and I also want to say, I think that the applicants are, uh, and you guys are doing a really good, careful job, um, to preserve it. I do feel like the windows are an important part of the historic integrity to, and, and there are some windows here that are worth preserving. Um, and I understand, uh, the limitations that those windows have as they are old. Um, and, and that, you know, they're going to condense moisture on the inside in the wintertime, and, uh, um, they're just not going to be as energy efficient or as tight. Um, but I also understand that there are really very sophisticated, good ways to restore those windows. Um, so I, I do feel like there are a number of windows here that, that deserve preservation, um, along with a number of windows here that, that, uh, deserve to be replaced. Um, and, and I, I think that some of these windows that, that are, um, they're actually in really good shape from a degradation standpoint, um, should remain. Are, are, are you guys, I guess one question I have is, are you guys willing, is that something you guys are willing to, to work with? Is some of these windows being retained, or is the, is the replacement of, of more or less all, most of the windows?

The issue was more about the way the window was installed into the existing wall. Because they're so old, they're not flashed, they're not insulated, and just the building materials of the building itself. The reason for the replacement of pretty much all the windows was that in order for the building to be stable for the next 100 plus years, this is just something that because they are old, we can't get away from. The only way to remedy that is to remove the windows and flash them properly. But once you do that, it then destroys the window. So for the building to be stable for years, decades, a century to come, this was how we felt was the best way to do that and not compromise the stability of the building itself and allow that to be a more durable structure.

Okay. Yeah, I guess I would respectfully disagree with that on certain windows. I think they've been there for close to 100 years and they're not what's injured the integrity of that building. I didn't see any evidence, like, I don't want to talk about each particular window individually, but most of the windows on the south facade seem like they're in really good shape and not showing a lot of evidence of leaking moisture in through the interface between the window and the wall.

Well, as required, we did have a historic assessment done by an expert. So, going with his recommendations and the way he educated us on the condition of the windows that are there and possible remedies, we are just following his recommendations in the report.

Okay. Yeah, I understand that. I think that's it for me for a moment, Jerry.

Yeah, just on a small point of clarification so everyone's on the same page. Forgive me for repeating what you already know, but the basic idea here with window replacements is always we have to look at three things, really. First of all, are we talking about a primary facade or not? Because if we're not, strangely enough, windows and doors have a different set of rules that apply to them, even when they're historic. If they're not on a primary facade, if they were just a piece of wood as a decorative feature on a non-primary facade, well, that might be preservable under our ordinance or required to be preserved because of the fact that we have a prohibition on removing historic materials, no matter where they're located. Strangely enough, our ordinance carves out windows and doors for different treatment. I think it's a drafting error. But it does say that windows, it does call out specifically windows and door replacement as being differentiated as to whether or not it's on a primary facade. So, if it's on a non-primary facade, essentially there's not a lot that can be done to protect them if someone wants to remove them. On a primary facade, the general rule is they must be repaired, is the standard formulation, and only if they're non-repairable are they allowed to be replaced, and then they must be replaced in kind, meaning exact duplicates. So that's in this particular case. So we need to look at first, are the windows and doors in question on a primary facade? In this particular case, it's almost a significant building because almost the entire structure has primary facade designations, with a few exceptions, of course. And then secondly, if it is on a primary facade, is it historic? And then thirdly, if it's historic, because if the answer is no on whether it's historic, then it has the presumption of being replaceable. If it is historic, then the next question is whether it's repairable. So that's sort of the flowchart of dealing with all of these windows and doors.

Yes, Member Beach.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to add to that, if we can take the window assessment as true, I didn't try to line these up, but the window assessment does identify which windows are historic and which are on primary facades. And for those on primary facades that are historic, he's assigned a rating of "fair," which is defined as having 30 to 40% deterioration, making them not repairable. So I think if that's all accurate, that in this case, where we, when faced with cases like this, we often require repair on the primary facades but allow replacement on the non-primary facades. I think we are in a position where the primary facades are not repairable, that they would need to be replaced in kind with respect to material and style. And I think that that's what the application intends to do.

Yes, thank you, Member Beach. So I guess that does raise a question in my own mind, and maybe staff can address this. The coding for this particular window assessment is P for premium, S for satisfactory, F for fair, and U for unsatisfactory. And I'm confused about the difference between the fair and the unsatisfactory, because fair, well, its definition is confusing to begin with. It says, "Putty, glazing, cracking, and missing at 30 to 40% of the sashes. All sashes, frames, and casings have some members, 30 to 40% completely deteriorated." And then it stops there. But the unsatisfactory says, "Casing members have more than 30 to 40% deterioration beyond repair." So, I mean, that seems to cut in two different directions to me, that the fair is repairable by calling it fair and by not saying it's beyond repair, and yet he's also saying that some parts of it are 30 to 40% deteriorated. So does anyone have any clarification for me on whether or not on this particular window assessor's coding?

Chair BM Venu: Members of the board, no sir, we do not have clarification on the way that he is coding per the windows. But generally, this window assessor has this curriculum that he devises, and it's usually the premium, satisfactory, or unsatisfactory. So this is his, this is their common way of defining the condition of the windows, but staff doesn't have an interpretation for his way of assessing the windows.

So what I guess what I would like to know from staff is how we apply his characterizations to the ordinance. Would you, you know, what we're charged with determining is whether the windows are repairable or not.

Chair Bianu: And members of the board, it is staff's understanding that it's the 30 to 40%, as Member Bishide had stated, that on primary facades, if they have a good condition or fair condition and are repairable, staff recommends repair. If they are not repairable with 30% or greater and they need to be replaced, staff recommends replacement, given the historic assessor's assessment. And on primary facades, it's always if you are removing the windows, you do have to come before the board with an exception for his removal of historic materials.

Well, yeah. So we're all in agreement on that. I guess that historically there's just been a policy of applying that 30% rule. I don't think it's written down anywhere. But at any rate, I still don't know how to apply that to fair and unsatisfactory because he's using these 30 to 40% figures, but it wouldn't make sense to me to call a window fair and then say it's not restorable. So I would think that unsatisfactory is what corresponds to not being repairable.

Chair Venu: Staff would agree.

Okay. All right. So if we were going to transfer this, translate his coding into our language, a window that's designated as U would be something that could be replaced in kind under our ordinance. Something that's designated as P, S, or F should be repaired or restored. Do I have that right, staff? And I know we're only, I do know that we have a complication here. We're talking really just about the wood members being repairable and restorable, but I understand that the window assessor and the applicant are making a sort of a secondary argument that, yeah, even if we could repair the wood, it doesn't get us where we need to go because taking them out is going to compromise the structural integrity. So I separate issue there, but I'm just trying to focus on the repairability and restorability because that's what our ordinance speaks to.

Chair Bonu: Members of the board, thank you for sharing that because I believe that is where staff made the recommendation of the removal of the windows and replacement in kind because of that impact to the structure. And so given that windows P, S, and I believe you said F, but those windows, they all have historic sashes and jambs. Many of the sills are buried in stucco and will need to be removed to make these windows seal properly. If the units are removed, the jambs will be destroyed because the jambs are the buck in the adobe. The adobe and the interior plaster is showing signs of deterioration from water getting in around the existing jambs due to the lack of flashing and moisture from condensation because of the quantity and size of the single-glazed windows. Now, he goes on to follow the best solution to protect the integrity of the structure is to remove these units and replace in like and kind all wood windows with divided light and insulated glass. These windows are located on the non-primary elevations. So that's tricky because there's three elevations that are primary on this structure. It's almost significant. And so taking into consideration what he's trying to say here, whereas staff takes into consideration the best solution to protect the structure. And so what is the best solution? Now, with these repairable windows, if they can be repaired and replaced, if they can be removed, repaired, and replaced in the box, well, that's great. That's possible. However, that may not be possible given the assessor's assessment. It seems like once you remove them out, the pintle and adobe block that is where these wood-framed windows are installed, it impacts it adversely. And now they have to get reorganized and get a whole new window and place it in there correctly. Now, that may be the case. So staff is recommending that these exception, the exception criteria have been met to make this move for the removal. However, walking the site, you see that the windows are, well, generally most of them are painted shut. They're non-operable. However, to what extent they can be repaired, staff's recommendation is unknown. We would depend on the window assessor, and given that he made the statement, "The best solution moving forward for this structure is to replace in kind," staff is making that recommendation, Member Cherry.

Yeah, I disagree. And the reason I disagree, there's a couple of reasons I disagree. One, there's a large majority of the windows in the historic buildings in Santa Fe don't have bucks. And they've been here for, a lot of those windows have been functional for over 100 years and are totally repairable. So if that were the argument, if that argument was true, then we'd, that'd be a great argument to just take all a whole bunch of windows in Santa Fe out. So I just, I just happen to disagree with it. And I think from my observation, if we're, if we're charged with preserving what can be preserved, what is intact, what's not 30% degraded, there's certainly a certain, and on primary facades, there's certainly a certain number of those windows that don't meet that criteria, that are not degraded to 30%. And I don't believe, I just think that argument of, well, the window, because of how it was originally constructed into the building, is causing a problem that hasn't, the problem didn't exist for a really long time, but now it exists. That's not what changed.

I think they're retrofit flashing. I know there are retrofit flashing, retrofit weather stripping, and stucco application that's being proposed is quite good at interfacing the perimeter of that buck. So I just think it'd be a little bit dangerous if we use that as a deciding factor. I think the deciding factor that we're looking at that's in the code is what's the degradation level of those windows. Are they on a primary facade and can they be restored? And that's pretty much exactly what the ordinance says.

Chair: Member Cherry, thank you for saying that. That was very eloquently stated, and we greatly appreciate your consideration and your thoughtfulness because you're in the industry. You're the expert. You're the expert in this field, and we glean on you for this guidance and wisdom. We're not the experts in this field in as much as understanding the bucks, the pentile, the adobe construction, and the installation of—we review the plan set and the design set. But you are the firsthand expert on this, and so you know best. When you were walking the site, hearing your thoughtfulness, considerations, we were all listening to you and understanding this. So we greatly appreciate that, and for the public and for the board members and staff to learn from you and move this case forward. So I really do appreciate that.

Now, if you don't agree with staff's recommendation, that's great. However, making a recommendation or a motion in order for the preservation of the structure is really—and if that's repairing these windows in the BGKP assessment that we were given from the owners, or in the yellow tape or the green tape or whatever ones are necessary—well, that's great because that's giving the applicants a motion moving forward. Okay, and now we have a step moving forward to repair these windows and move this case forward for the preservation of this structure because the more inclement weather we have, the more damage is going to be done on this property. Thank you for that.

Thank you, Member Cherry. I would say that the board is traditionally very jealous of protecting windows and doors whenever possible. They are an extremely important aspect of the historic integrity that once removed and taken away is never regained. So we are very careful. I think that's why we've been disappointed with the rule that hopefully will change in the next go-around that seems to treat primary facades differently because that allows perfectly good historic windows to be trashed because people have a misguided notion that they want modern double-pane insulated windows, even though we know that is not a significant impact on the insulation value of the house and conversely has a huge impact on the historic integrity and the appearance of the home. So that's why we tend to try to be as objective as we can be on looking for an assessment report that does tell us whether they're repairable or restorable. And I do agree that it's dangerous to go to the next phase of saying, "Sure, they're restorable, but once you take them out, it's hard to put them back in without altering the structure." But that's just a conundrum that has to be dealt with. And there are ways to deal with it. They can be—just like new windows are going to be put in here—so there will be ways to also put historic windows back in there as well, if the will is there. That's just my opinion, but anyone else with further thoughts on the board as to this?

And I will say that when we've dealt with this in the past, there's just no real getting around at some point going through the windows one by one on the assessment report and looking to see: are they primary, are they historic, and are they repairable? And making those decisions. So that ultimately is probably what needs to happen here.

Yes, Member Cherry.

Member Cherry: I want to make two more comments. One is, I think the charge is to preserve historic material that can be preserved, and the windows are historic material that can be preserved. I also think that I know that these windows were installed in an era where things were serviceable. So the interior trim comes off, the balances can be replaced, the ropes can be replaced, the pulleys can be replaced, the sashes can come out of the frames in situ and be repaired. I know there are certain windows that had some damage caused by the previous construction project. And but what I'm getting at is, and that can't be rebuilt, material that's been removed, but certainly those windows were intended—they came out of an era where they could be serviced, where they could come out and they could be reglazed and they could be refinished. And I it's just a different way that things are built nowadays to be disposable. And those windows were certainly built to be serviced. The certain ones of them—I don't want to say those windows in the whole structure because there's a lot of different things going on in that structure.

Chair: Thank you for that. Anything else from the board? Questions for the applicant or staff? Okay. Did the applicant want to respond to anything?

Applicant: Yes. Sure, just a couple things. One, besides just the integrity of the bucks and the wall around it, there has been a lot of damage done to the windows themselves as part of the profiles and the design of the window from excessive scraping over the years trying to do things to the windows that were not good for them. So those are the types of things that we can't preserve because those are gone. They can't be added back in. Profiles, shapes of the frame and such. And I'd like to say, yes, sure, there's always the possibility that parts of them could be taken out, replaced—or I'm sorry, not replaced—repaired and put back in. But it's a huge unknown, and we run the risk of trying to do that, and then we find out just what this assessment says is that they need to be replaced and can't be repaired. And now we're in a worse situation at that point because now we're further down the line. Not only extending the construction, we're now exposing the building further and longer to the elements for just the specific things that we are trying to avoid. So again, by having the assessment done and having the assessor do his report, that's what we are trying to follow is what he has done. And yes, he's got a possibly—he has a little bit of an ambiguous rating system, but his summary does say for all the windows that he does recommend they be replaced for various reasons. So, I mean, there's things that aren't readily just seen from sight. For instance, anything within the frame itself, just looking at the sash and the trim isn't going to give you the whole story for every window. Whereas, he's gone in and actually done exploratory investigations into the wall, next to the windows, into the window. Though, you know, we're required to have an assessment done, which we did, and the assessment is recommending that the windows be replaced. So it seems a little cut and dry to me in this case just by a summary—reading a summary is cut and dry. So I just like to make that point.

Chair: Thank you for that. Okay. Anyone in the room that would like to speak? Yes, ma'am.

Speaker: I wanted to make sure that the board understands that we are not driving the replacement of the windows. It's not coming from the owners. We want to take care of this building the best that it can. I'm not an expert on windows. Mindy is not an expert on windows. Braden's not really either. He's got some good insights. So we pick an assessor based off the approved list. What is our recourse? We don't follow that. Well, then what do we follow? And on what criteria and what basis? It gets kind of confusing for us, really. I'm not driving the replacement. I want to do what's best for the building. I gave the expertise to the assessor. If you all are saying that assessor doesn't have the appropriate expertise, then I'm requesting that you give us an alternative to get that expertise. I don't have it. Thank you.

Chair: I could make an analogy there.

Member Cherry: Sure. Go ahead, Member Cherry. I think you can have different professionals in the same profession that have different opinions. And that this happens to be my profession, historic window restoration, and I'm also one of the approved assessors. So my observations, which are cursory but also there's a lot of exposure there, there's a lot of ability to look, and a lot of those windows were open when we were on our tour. I do think you have options. You could get another window assessment. I would abstain because I've already been involved at this level. And there's only one other approved assessor, but you could do that. And again, I totally appreciate your wanting to restore this building, and I really feel like I see your intent and honesty and desire to revive it. I again, I don't think—I'm not sitting here saying I've looked at all these windows and none of them, you know, they're all fine and they should all be replaced. I don't think that at all, but I do think there are specific windows. I could list them. I don't—that it's complicated. I'm happy to do that. There's a lot of windows, but I do think there are some windows there, there are quite a few windows there. There's a family of windows there. There's a grouping of windows there that are in my observations, which were I would say cursory but also, you know, not—I got pretty up close to them at the visit that you guys allowed, which was great. There's some windows that in my opinion have the ability to be restored, which helps preserve the integrity of that building.

Speaker: I certainly am not going to argue with you. I'm sure you know a whole lot more than I do. It's mainly like, okay, so how do we go forward? So I respectfully request the board to give us an avenue and a path. If you are rejecting your own assessor, then please give us an alternative path. And if that would be you, Member Cherry, right on. Let's have you over.

Chair: Well, can I just respond to that? So yeah, I think just to clarify where what this discussion is about here on the board, I think that the idea is that the board does tend to rely very heavily on any approved window assessor's assessment of the repairability of a window. And so that that part of the report is something that typically the board accepts. If it says repairable, they accept it's repairable. If they say non-repairable, they accept that. But the second aspect of the of his additional information is more, in my opinion, it may be repairable, but I still don't think it's the best solution because, you know, for various reasons he gives for different ones. And I think that's what the board is sort of weighing here is the difference. They're not necessarily contesting the assessment of repairability so much as that secondary one of, yeah, it can be repaired, but is it a good idea or would it be better just to start all over with new windows? That's that. And I also just wanted to clarify that Ray Patterson, nor anyone on the list, is not our assessor that, you know, we didn't pay for them. We didn't talk to them. They're just on an approved list for an applicant to hire if they so desire. But I hear you 100%. You're just saying, how do we as an applicant or a member of the public know what to do?

And so I'm completely understanding that. That's very important that you know how to proceed. And I think we could give you a way to proceed tonight, which is to make a motion and get a path approved. And you may agree with some of it, all of it, or none of it, but it would give you somewhere to go forward. I would. Thank you.

Okay. Anyone else in the room that wishes to speak on this topic? Yes, ma'am. Please step to the podium. Still try to limit to one minute if at all possible.

Elizabeth West again. I have a question about this. I think I understood you to say, Mr. Bianu, that when an assessor says, "These could be repaired, but I suggest, since it's borderline, evidently, in that gentleman's point of view, I suggest replacement." Does that give the people who are trying to fix this building the opportunity to go back to the assessor, maybe, and say, "Could you be a little more explicit? How much ambiguity is in here? How much wiggle room is there?" And I don't know, if I were faced with that, I would probably go back to the assessor and say, "What you said there was somewhat ambiguous. Am I interpreting that correctly?" I'm curious. I just think that's interesting. I really think it is important what you're addressing, and I also hear what they're saying. So, what I would do if I were in their position, I'd go back to the people I'd hired and say, "I really need to sit down with you. This has got to be clarified a little bit more." And you might find out that this person, I don't know if it's a he or she, would end up agreeing with you, Mr. Cherry. I don't know. An idea. Thank you so much for your comments.

Is there anyone on Zoom that wishes to speak to this item? Yes. Oh, someone else in the room. I'm sorry. Before we proceed to Zoom, thank you.

Raone, please step forward. I'm on Satisone. I think the ambiguity on this decision comes down to the assessor's report not stating the percentage of degradation. And an answer could be to have the assessor say, "This is 32% degraded," or a more thorough degradation threshold identified by the assessor.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Yes, I was going to make a comment, but I'll withhold until after public comment is over. Anyone else in the room? No. Zoom, please.

Yes, Chair Bianu. We have Miss Stephanie Benonato, please. Excuse me, Stephanie Benonato. I agree with Mr. Cherry's remarks, and I think the staff sort of misinterpreted the law to say that you're supposed to be preserving just the structure. You're also supposed to be preserving certain windows on primary facades. And if they are repairable, then they should be repaired. And it's 30% or less. If it's, excuse me, degraded more than 30%, then they can be replaced. Also, the rationale about having to take the historic window out and make a repair, say of the sill, and then put it back, somehow that would degrade the building. It would happen whether you took it out and replaced it or whether you took it out and took, put a wholly new window in. So, to me, that is totally a circular argument. And I did go to Chrome, and I can open the packet, but I'm not really seeing, or maybe I haven't found, the window assessment. But if it does go, I mean, I'm assuming it should go window by window, and that you have the information there to make a decision tonight, or as suggested, perhaps ask the owners to take it back to the expert they hired and have them be more specific window by window. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Well, board members, further discussion, Member Beachside.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to clarify, I think according to the report, there are seven windows on the primary facade that are historic. I believe one of those, the largest window, the applicant is not proposing any change to. Window G is the giant window that's just staying as is. So, then there are six windows. And the way I read the, I mean, I'm just, I rely on the assessment as well. The way I read that difference between the fair and the unsatisfactory is that fair is 30 to 40%, whereas unsatisfactory is greater than that range. So, he says, you know, some members have more than, he uses that word for unsatisfactory. Anyway, our criteria has been historically to at the 30 to 30% mark. So, I was, I'm willing to accept this assessment, you know, and knowing that the applicants are going out of their way to try to do the right thing here and seem willing to do repairs if that's what was recommended, I don't, I don't know how you second-guess an expert report that you, that you have in hand. So, while I would like to see what's repaired, repairable, repaired, I don't see that we have any evidence to that fact before us tonight.

Oh, thank you. Member Beachside, I, I'm still, yeah, I think you're right about that 30 to 40, but it still doesn't add up to me because he says the window that they're keeping is an F, which is fair. So, it can't be, I don't know that, I don't know if that's just a choice on the applicant's part to, to keep a window that I don't even know how you would replace that window, but yeah.

Can I respond to that?

Sure.

That is a really big window in the Hazel Hyde studio, and we're making that decision because we had a lot of community members come and speak to us about that particular room, and we had people that were moved to tears. You would be surprised how many of them. And one of the things that they, we heard a lot is that the community was no longer allowed in the building after a certain point, and how much sorrow and grief people had about that. And what they particularly love are those windows, and they were so happy to be back in that building. At that time, Mindy and I decided that we had to figure out a way to allow these windows to stay and figure out how to do it so the building would stay. So, the, the window itself actually is a skylight on one part, and then it turns and it goes into a window. We put a modern contemporary skylight on the top over those other ones. So, we did not have to take them. You can't see that we did that. It just is solely to protect those windows. The ones that have been, that are on the vertical plane are a little challenging. We've done some repair. We probably need to get someone else who is an expert that can help us shore them up a little bit. They do leak, but we are committed to those because of how much they mean to the community. So, just a clarification on that particular window.

Yeah, thank you for that. I appreciate that very much. My comment and all the work you're doing on the building. Yes, Member Cherry.

Yeah, I think that's, that's a great point, and what it really illustrates is, is that window is repairable, just like the other windows that I think are repairable. That's my opinion. And, and the reason, the reason that that window, even though it might have, according to the assessor, this level of degradation that makes it replaceable, there's a willingness on your part to repair it. And, and so what all I'm saying is, is if there was an equal willingness to repair these other windows, I actually think it would, it would, you end up with a better structure if that, if you repaired the windows that, that are, in my opinion, seemingly repairable.

Okay. So, could, could you guys look at, hey, I'm sorry, I'm not addressing you properly. Before you go there, Member Mather had a comment.

Would it be worth, if it pleases the board, would it be worth having a conversation with Mr. Patterson about his assessment? Just, just throwing it out there. He has come before us before, but I, you know, if there can be a resolution tonight, it would surely be preferable. So, do you, you have the summary page seven of eight? There are windows B, G, P, K, R. Those are the ones that we're discussing. Correct.

I think, I think we're discussing all of them, but when you, you're referring to, before we go forward, what I just want to make sure we're staying on track here because we've been talking about this case for a long time. What is your intention at this moment?

My intention is to wonder if we try to repair those that are in the same line of list with G that we do give it our best shot, but we go ahead and replace the others if the Fs, you're saying everything coded F.

No, no, no, not necessarily. These are the, in the summary on page seven. I don't really know what they're coded. Sorry.

Oh, okay. Well, that's really a problem. You're, I think it's the same that in the, so, it's the third set of windows. It goes windows, doors. No, I see. Yeah. And it says they're historic and located on a primary facade is the first line, right? Yeah. I mean, I think essentially what you're looking at would correspond to his report as being windows that are marked, that are on primary facade, are historic, and number three, are marked F or fair. So, what we are considering is taking that set of windows and trying to repair those and going ahead and following his direction on the rest to replace, but giving our best shot to windows B, already working on G, K, P, Q, and R.

B isn't on a primary facade, though.

Well, I'm going by his summaries. I have to, I'll take your word, but I don't know how to do this. Yeah. Well, I mean, I would encourage you to, if you want to repair them and they're on a primary facade, but we're getting a little, I think what we need to do is have the board decide if that's the approach they want to take because we don't know yet. So, but I understand exactly where you're coming from. You're just trying to get some sense of how do you solve the problem that some of these definitely need to be replaced under any circumstance, and others the board seems to be having trouble with? Yeah. So, maybe we can just get, if there's no more discussion, a motion on the table.

I'm happy to make a motion.

Okay. Please proceed, Member Cherry. I guess I, maybe a, maybe a tiny bit of guidance. Because there's, there is some ambiguity of, I, I think I'd like if it should be a window by window. I mean, I'm happy to make that a window by window motion, but it might be too, it might be pretty complicated and difficult to follow and pretty long. But, but I kind of don't see another way to do it. I personally would do it that way. You've got, if you, you're looking at page 152 of the packet, which is the report. Every window or door is marked from A all the way to Y, and everyone is, you're, you're starting, you're using the report, not the plan, right? Because, because it's in, it's sequential window by window, but you can do it either way you want. Just that I think you need to address the three factors, which is primary facade, whether they're historic, and whether they're repairable.

Yeah, I think I, I would just, maybe what I would do is group them into, what I would, what I would motion to go ahead and do that replace versus what I would motion to repair. So, in case 2025-010494 HDRB, regarding the request for replacement of doors and windows, I would make a motion to approve the replacement of window A and door DR1, which is the number on the assessment of that door, but there isn't one, I don't have one on the plan for that. So, door 108, door 107, window B, ZZ or ZZ3, ZZ2, ZZ1, door 104A, window C, window E, window F, window X2, window X1, DD, all the DDs, DD1 through DD10, window Y, window Y, window U, door 138, door 130B, all the TT windows, E, FF, window R. And I would approve the restoration of or repair restoration of door 118, W2, W1, T3, T2, T1, S3, S2, S1, P, O, N, M, L, K. Door 135D, I, all the double Os, O1, O2, O3, O4, O5, all the double Ns, N1, N2, N3, all the double Ms, M1, M2, M3, all the double Ls, LL1, LL2, LL3, all the double Ks, KK1, KK2, KK3, JJ1 and 2, I1, HH3, HH2, HH1, GG3, GG2, GG1, QQ1, QQ2, and RR.

And then I left out J, which I would propose to be re-added in kind to match K. In regards to the gates, which are 141B, I think I might have misspoke here regarding 135D as a gate. I think I said that should be replaced. I would agree with that, but those are a little bit different. Those are those two gates on the east facade that the proposal was to remove, take them apart, and rebuild them. I don't think they should be taken apart. I just think they should be lowered and reused as is. I think they retain a high level of integrity and historic significance in their state. But I think they could be lowered to accommodate the ADA requirement and infill the wall above.

Yeah, and I think I got everything. I might have missed. Oh, no, I didn't. I did miss one. Hold on. SS, I didn't get a, that's the one window I didn't get a great look at. So, is there any way to have a common description apply to the groups that are in the allowed to be replaced group and the only repair group? In other words, would they all correspond, would the required to be repaired group all correspond to the report that they are listed as, as opposed? It doesn't correspond. It doesn't correspond. No.

Okay. So it's an individualized assessment that's well, somewhat, because there are different conditions happening. Like, so these, as Pamela was referring to it, these windows in the second group of windows in the assessment, BGPQR, were, according to the assessment, there was profile removed. They were, well, whatever happened, they were damaged during the previous construction to a point where they cannot be replaced. So, and the material is still there, but they can't be replaced. So, if you were going to apply a grouping to those, I think those could be replicated. Okay. You need me to clarify that?

Yeah. Motion, second. Dagnon. Magnus. Okay. So, there's a motion and a second. I will not attempt to restate the motion. It's on the record. Is there any discussion from the board before we proceed to a vote? Yes, Member Beatshide.

Okay, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the, I'm sure you've, I can see by your color coding that you've put a lot of thought into this, and I can't follow the motion. I don't, I don't know what all that means. I think that there's some of the windows probably in that list that are non-historic. There seems to be quite a few on the assessment that are non-historic. And I don't think we have the ability to require the repair of those in addition recommended to be replaced. I mean, my only concern is for the primary facade, which is very consistent with our precedent. Obviously, it'd be nice if we could require all windows that are historic to be replaced, but our practice has been to limit those requirements to the primary facades. And I know this building has a lot, but many of those are not publicly visible. They're inside the large wall or they're in a courtyard. So, I think for me, it would be more helpful to try to group these by which ones are on the historic and on a primary facade and are repairable. And that last criteria, I struggled to see the evidence for that in what we have in our packets. And I respect your opinion. I just don't know how to use it.

Yeah. And I, I mean, it's, yeah. And I'm, I'm not, I'm really not trying to make this more confusing, more complex, although I feel like I have. But I would say that I've approved all the replacement on all the non-historic, non-primary facades. Let me, yeah, be specific. On all the non-primary facades in that alphabet soup that I just delivered. Yeah. Yeah, I think that's what I mean. I agree, and that's kind of what I was trying to get at earlier, is that I think it's just, we need to group these into three, into three buckets here. Whether they're, which you've done apparently, primary facade or not, and then is it historic or not, and then is it repairable or not. And I mean, that's why I was asking if your groupings corresponded.

Yeah. I mean, maybe even though it just makes this huge long motion, I could add another description based on the facades. That'll make it easier for everybody. Or is there a possibility of a motion that is allowing all windows that are listed as being on non-windows and doors that are on non-primary facades?

I don't think so.

You don't?

No.

Okay. Go ahead.

Because there's windows, for instance, so on the north facade, right? H3, H2, and H1, the ship sailed, those are gone. Those are those three windows that are underneath the colonial style, right? They don't exist. They're on a primary facade. No. And what's the, and what's the code for them? That's what I was going to say. Yeah, they, they, they're non-existent. Well, how did he code them, though? Oh, that's what I would go by. If they're on a, if they're on a primary facade, did he code them as historic? And they don't exist? Well, are they even listed in his report? What are, what are they designated by letter? H. Okay. So H, he has in his report that that is non-historic. So that would be just a way of, of just category of repairable. I mean, I guess I can't answer that question for you because I haven't, I haven't looked at it like that. I looked at the windows individually on which facades they were on and what was being requested.

And Chair Benvvenu and Member Cherry, I see no reason why you can't break the windows out according to the facade and their status and vote on clusters of, you know, five or six or 10 at a time. See if everybody agrees and then decide which windows you haven't agreed on, I guess, and make us, see if somebody else wants to make a motion with respect to them. Maybe clearer, because so break this up into multiple motions. Yes, you may want to say on this facade with respect to these windows. I can do that easily, and I think it may be the record would be clearer if you want to try. Member Benvvenu, we do have a motion on the floor. Did you want to vote on that? And then, wait, we have a motion, but we don't have a, and then we had a second. Oh, we did have a second. Yes, we did. We're having discussion on a pending motion. So, we can't proceed to a new motion unless that motion is withdrawn.

Thank you, Chair. Could, could a friendly amendment be made to that, to that motion? Can I, no, parliamentarian, can you amend your own, a friendly amendment to your own motion?

I think it should just be withdrawn and restricted. I think if both the person making the motion and the person who seconded agree to a withdrawal, it can be withdrawn.

Oh, it can definitely be withdrawn. I think that's just an easier path to go down if you want.

Yeah, I, I can withdraw the motion in the, in, I agree, as long as I don't have to repeat it.

Okay. So, that motion has now been withdrawn by the moving party and the seconding party. Okay. So, I'm, I'm going to make a new motion regarding the case, 2025010494 HDRB. I'm going to make a motion regarding the windows on, and yeah, I suppose I'll just go by facade. So, regarding the windows on, I'm sorry, is it, I don't want to mess up the facade versus elevations. So, is there a facade map that's designating facades with specific?

Yeah, Chair Benvvenu, Member Cherry, thank you for asking. So, in the code, in 14-5.2 D5, it says windows, doors, and other architectural features. Then it goes on to say, "For all facades of significant and landmark structures and for the primary facades of contributing structures, little I, historic windows shall be repaired or restored wherever possible. Historic windows that cannot be repaired or restored shall be duplicated in the size, style, and material of the original." I want that to be taken into consideration here as we're making this motion that we have to, we can't, I don't know if it's the board's purview to make non-historic windows on non-primary facades or on primary facades restored given the code citation. I'm, I'm not, I think we're all in agreement that interpret. No, that's exactly right. That's why I've said that there are three factors. One is, is it on a primary facade? If it's not, you can do whatever you want with your windows. Could you give me access to the PowerPoint? If it is on a primary facade, then the question is whether it's, thank you, it, and if it's historic, then the question is whether it's repairable or not. That's the three questions. There's, there's not a facade map. I mean, there's the, there's Braden's existing site plan, which to my knowledge, there's not a sod map. There's the, there's elevations, and then there's your H5.01, which shows the facades that are primary, but there's not a Paul or a map. This is a question. Is there a facade map that shows like we use to identify facades at this board, me saying facade A, facade B?

Chair Benvvenu, Member Cherry, the current, the current facade diagram that we have is this one here. All the, we don't have one that's designated as one, two, three, but it would be north, east, south, right? So, I'll be, I'll be making these motions, but there'll be four motions. And there's four elevations. Their, yeah. A little bit of the challenge is there's four elevations, but there's some nooks and crannies where you can't see windows. So, I'll just throw windows in hoping to get them all. Yeah, I would start with the north elevation. On the, on the first floor, which is, it's not on, I believe it's G is the big window, correct? Yeah. So, I just interrupt if we, you can pull up page 157 of the packet. That is, that's the diagram that shows a letter for every window, 150. And that, that corresponds to his report. It's actually 157 or 158. That's the first and second floor. So, you can go by that's in Ray's, Ray's report, right? Gotcha. I can do that as long as they, as long, and then we have a consistent way of referring to every window. Yeah, I don't want to go back and forth between like the, the drawing numbers and Ray's numbers because there are some differences, right? I can, so I can say, I'm going to, I'm going to, and basically just so you understand what the, what he's done there is he starts with A, which is on the west facade, right? But I'm, but I'm going to go by facade. Right. But I'm just saying he starts with A. A is on the west facade, and then it goes counter, it goes clockwise from there. A, B, C, D, E, all the way around the building. Right. So, would you prefer I start with the west before he gets to the second floor? Right.

Chair Benvvenu, Member Cherry, is this the, the historic assessment here? Is this what pull down? Yeah, it's page 157 of the packet, I believe, because that's what my printout says. It's, it's right at the bottom of the table or the drawings. I didn't see them in what you've got there, though. Here's our 157. But this is the window assessment. This is not the staff report or the applicant documents. What is it that we can get for you? Would it be the applicant? So, it's Ray's red lines is what we're, we're trying to find one consistent window identifier that can be referred back to. I think I'd, I'd prefer to go off Braden's plan. Go ahead. Do it however you want. That's just right. But the door numbers are a little different. Different eight motions. I'm sorry. Yeah, I think I, Member Beach wanted to interject. So, maybe she just as an idea. I feel like if, if we didn't have a differing window assessor's opinion on the board, this would be pretty cut and dry for the rest of us that are just looking at the, the packet that we have in front of us, which is the evidence of the case as I understand it. But I'm just going to try to make a, a motion that's, I agree, is quite simplified, but it's just the best way I have of understanding it.

So, I think that Member Cherry had the floor before. Do you want to concede the floor for that, or do you want to continue?

I'd like to make my motion.

Okay. The document has been pulled up for your pleasure.

I'd like to make my group of motions. That's the document up there that I was looking for.

Go ahead. Give it a try.

Okay. So, now we're going to base it off this, just so we have something that everybody's referring back to. And I've already said the case number. Should I restate that?

Oh, no, it's right here. I got it. Okay. Yep. So, in case 2025-010494 HDRB regarding the north facade, I make a motion to approve the applicant's proposal to restore window G, install new windows in the H location. H is the next window down there. Does everybody agree that that's an I? Yeah. Restore window I. And then, since we're doing it by facade, so that was regarding the first floor. And then regarding the second floor. I feel like something's missing from this. Is that correct?

The second floor is on the next page.

Right. I see that, but I only see part of the building. Oh, that's because it's only... I got you. Sorry, I'm there again. Restoration to restore window PP, to replace... Oh, and restore window SS, and replace windows TT. And give me one second. Restore door D, door 19. And I think I got everything on that. So, that's the motion.

I will second.

We have a motion to second. Any discussion?

Oh, sorry. I did leave out D door six, which would be to restore, which I think you're already doing. It's not historic according to the window assessment.

Right. 419 is not historic. I think window I is non-historic on the north second floor north elevation.

Okay. Let me look at it real quick. Okay. Yeah. So, let me restate the motion. It's been seconded. So, the motion would be to leave... Thank you, Braden. Leave to restore window G, restore door 6, replace windows H, restore window I, restore window PP, restore window SS, replace door 19, and replace all the TT windows. I think I got that whole facade.

I will second.

So, I just want to point out that are you intending to restore non-designated non-historic windows? I mean, is that... I just want to be clear that that's the intention, and that wasn't an error.

Can you tell me which one you're referring to?

I was one that jumped out at me that's listed in the report as non-historic. That's a... Yeah, I... Yes, okay. You're intending to include that anyway.

Yeah, I don't see any evidentiary material in the window assessment of it being non-historic. There are some windows in here that in the assessment, and this gets into different territory, but typically the historic nature of the material is designated by the historian. So, the evidence material in here in the window assessment regarding history is noted on some of these windows and doors. For instance, it says this is a door that was from 199. There's some evidence listed in the note. And to me, that window looks... it looks of the same time era as window G. So, yes, both steel windows.

All right. So, that's the first motion. Is there a second?

Member Mather already seconded.

Any further discussion? Roll call vote, please.

Member Degen?

Yes.

Member Bishide?

No.

Member Mather?

Yes.

Member Cherry?

Yes.

The motion has passed.

Okay. Next. Okay. So, should I call these out, Frank, as like motion A for the windows, motion B for...? Is that...?

You could say motion with regard to facade.

I'll just say A, B, and C. So, that was motion A. Just make it clear which facade. Actually, just say motion. Identify the facade you're dealing with or the elevation.

Okay, that sounds fine. So, in 2025-010494 HTB, in regard to the door and window replacement of the east facade, I would make a motion to replace as proposed window... the... how should I state that? Add a window in the existing opening in location of window J. Retain door number seven and lower them as necessary for ADA requirement. And I'm on the first floor, by the way. Replace door 8. Restore window K. And retain and restore door 9 and lower in its location as necessary. Replace E. Replace FF. Replace door 18. And so, I think I jumped to the second story before I was done with the first because of how the building nooks around. So, I'm just going to finish second floor and go back. So, replace or restore QQ, restore RR. And that takes care of the upstairs. And then back to the first floor. Yeah, but I didn't get Y, which would again, this is because it's on... Replace Y, restore Z, restore BBs, all three of them. And I think I got everything on that facade. All right.

I think the only ones that I noted that were listed as non-historic in that group was... Oh, maybe there weren't any. No, I think I got either.

I will second.

Roll call vote.

Member Bishide?

No.

Member Cherry?

Yes.

Member Mather?

Yes.

Member Degen?

Yes.

The motion has passed.

You next. So, in case 2025-010494 HDRB regarding the south elevation on the first floor, I would propose the replacement of X, both X's, and the restoration of D14, V, U, T, S. Or sorry, let me have a point of clarification here. V and U in the drawing, Braden, say they've already... that work's been completed. Is that the work completed was the stucco on that wall?

It was a previous one to investigate the stucco application.

Okay. I'm sorry, I misinterpreted. Let me clarify that. So, yeah, I'm so I'll restate that. Replace X, repair and restore door 14, V, U, T, S, N, M, L. And sorry, there's... see, there's these little... these little nooks like door 12 and Q above is really on the east facade, but it's... I mean, it's or elevation, but it's on this facade. So, I'm sorry. You're just going to have to give me a minute. And D10, 11, and 12.

Say those again.

D10, 11, and 12. And replace Q. Just want to make... Yeah, there's one nook there that doesn't show up on the elevation, but it's on the facade.

The only thing I wanted to point out is I don't think door 14 is on a primary facade. 14. It looks historic, but for some reason, I think that's excluded from the designation of primary facades for it. Is it?

I think so.

Okay, let me just verify that. Do it faster. Oh, you're correct. So, the replacement... So, I'd amend that to be the replacement of door 14. Great. Okay. Thank you. Discussion.

Oh, second.

I will second. Thank you. Discussion.

I just want to note that everything proposed for restoration in this grouping is associated with the assessment that the jams will be destroyed when they're removed from the Adobe.

Yeah, I think they can be restored without removing the jams. I think that's a possibility. However, I didn't do the second story. So, since that's been seconded, because you can... well, you can amend. Okay, I'll make an amendment if it's accepted by the seconder. Add the second story.

Yes.

Yes. So, I would restore on the second story of that same elevation, M, L, K, G, and HH. And again, there's... and I... Okay.

Second.

I will second. Discussion. Roll call vote, please.

Member Degen?

Yes.

Member Bishide?

No.

Member Mather?

Yes.

Member Cherry?

Yes.

The motion has passed. Thank you.

So, we have the west facade. That's west elevation is left, right? That's it. Yeah. So, I should have this memorized by now, but on 2025-010494 HDRB, I move to allow the replacement of... on the west facade elevation, allow the replacement of A, door one, door two, door three, door four, B. There are some windows that aren't on raised that are here. The ZZs. Are those... CBF and the replacement and/or installation of those doors and windows and the ZZs and what's on the plan as 104A? I believe, Braden, is that... sorry, is that one on the west facade? 104A? It's not on... it's proposed new. It's the greenhouse windows and door. Yeah, I'm approving them to be new. So, that's... and then let me do the second story. And the restoration of double O's and double N's. That's it. Is there a second?

I will second.

Discussion.

Yes, Member Bishide. I know we're halfway through this. I'm just going to state for the record, I sort of object to the way that we're proceeding here. I feel like we're replacing the entire window assessment that was part of the packet with a new assessment, which I mean, might be just as valid. I just... I'm not sure we're getting all the windows and doors here. The numbering seems a bit off. And some of these are... you know, have historic sashes and jams, but may not be historic in their entirety. I just wanted to make that comment.

Okay. Thank you. If there's nothing further, I'll take a roll call vote.

Member Degen?

Yes.

Member Bishide?

No.

Member Cherry?

Yes.

Member Mather?

Yes.

The motion has passed. Thank you.

I think that covers everything on this case. I'm sure you'll... applicant will have some questions. So, hopefully, staff will be able to answer them for you and give you some clarification when this gets put into writing and findings and conclusions. So, that concludes that agenda item. Thank you for your patience and all your help tonight. Good luck. And let's move on on the agenda. Thank you all who are attending and especially applicants for your patience. Sometimes it just takes a long time to work through these cases and get everything done. So, find moving on to number nine on the agenda, which is new business. Case A is 2025010496 HDRB at 492 Arroyo Tenorio. Senior Planner Duran, this is your case. Is the applicant present? Great. Please proceed.

Chair Bianvenu, members of the board. In case number 2025-010496 HDRB, the single-family residence at 492 Arroyo Tenorio is listed as non-contributing to the Downtown and East Side Historic District. The Santa Fe County tax parcel map identifies the structure as being built in the 1900s on a 0.11 acre lot and comprised of 2,274 square feet of roofed area. Mr. McDonald completed a detailed history of the property and records the original structure was built pre-1960s, but the exact date is unknown. The original structure was built in the Spanish Pueblo Revival design style, seen by the adobe block and wood construction material and flat roof with rounded parapets. The 1985 plat map of the property shows a patio addition to the north and a breezeway addition connecting to another room to the east. The 1985 floor plan shows the addition of a new kitchen, study room, guest bedroom, and portal. The extensive remodel changed the original footprint of the structure, which is no longer visible. The proposed new addition request will not impact the current state of the structure and will harmonize with what is currently visible. Here we have the entrance into the... into 492 Arroyo Tenorio. When you walk into these patio, this courtyard doors, you then enter into the north facade. And here is that north... north facade. To get to the area where the location is, you have to wrap around this property. And here is the south elevation where the applicant is proposing a 110 square foot addition. Here is the breezeway or the walkway into the towards the south facade. This is our west facade. And Mr. McDonald was able to establish a really good detail of the development of this structure.

The original structure sat back in the southwest of this property parcel. As we look at it, there was a little garage to the front of it, but it was a very small structure. The 1985 plat map shows that this property then became quite larger. The original footprint was established, but then they added a breezeway, kitchen, portal, a new bedroom, guest room, a study room, and so forth, which then engulfed that original core structure.

Here we have the proposed 110-foot addition. Here is the proposed site plan that shows where that addition will be. Here we have the existing and proposed south elevations. The existing elevation shows where the current chimney is, and the proposed addition shows where a new window will then take place, and that chimney will then be encapsulated. Here we have the existing and proposed west elevation. Here on the proposed west elevation, it shows you the abutment of that new addition and the extension of it extending out.

Here the applicant is proposing stucco, L-shaped fawn door, and window cladding to be white, which is consistent with the structure, and exposed wood will be Cabots semi-solid stain. Staff recommends approval of the proposed project and finds that the application complies with 14-5.2D Historic Districts Design Standards. Thank you. Staff stands for questions.

Thank you for your presentation. Does anyone have any questions for staff?

Nope. Thank you.

Applicant, would you like to step forward and add anything?

You need to be sworn in.

Hi. Please state your name and address for the record and raise your right hand.

McDonald, 488 Arroyo Tenorio.

Thank you. Will you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you are going to give in regards to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalty of perjury?

Yes.

Thank you. He has been sworn.

Do you have anything you would like to add?

Would you like to add anything? It's been a long evening. I have nothing to add. I think this is a pretty simple one here.

Great. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant from the board? Seeing none. Is there anyone in the room that would like to address this application? Anyone on Zoom?

Chair Binu, I don't see any hands raised on Zoom.

Thank you. We'll entertain a motion.

Member Beach: Yeah, Mr. Chair, in case 202510496 HDRB at 492 Arroyo Tenorio, I move to approve the application as submitted and as recommended by staff.

Thank you. Is there a second?

Second.

Second.

Okay. And roll call vote. Is there discussion? No. Roll call vote, please.

Can you clarify who was the second? My ears caught Member Cherry first.

Thank you for that. Member Mather, yes. Member Cherry, yes. Member Bishide, yes. Member DGEN, yes. The motion has passed. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Good luck. Good night.

Next item on the agenda, 9B, 20225010497 HDRB at 964 Acequia Madre.

Senior Planner Duran: Chair Bian Venu, members of the board, one moment, please. In case number 2025010497 HDRB, the single-family residence at 964 Acequia Madre is listed as contributing to the Downtown and Eastside Historic District with the north and east facades designated as primary, excluding non-historic materials. The main structure is noted on the Santa Fe County Tax County Parcel Map as being constructed pre-1900s on a 0.13-acre lot in the Spanish Pueblo Revival design style and comprises 5,848 square feet of roofed area. The construction of the structure includes a low traverse gable roof comprised of several different types of roofing material, wooden double-hung windows, and white territorial wooden trim. The current roof condition is in disrepair with several major leaks seeping into the main residence. The applicant proposes a roofing material that imitates the historic type and color while providing the necessary upgrade.

Here we have a view of the main structure from Acequia Madre, and I think this doesn't give the greatest, but you have that crimp seam roof, most likely the original roofing system on this structure. Then you have a replica on the portal, which is more recent, from I believe 2019. And then you have galvanized as well as torch down roof on the backside. So it's kind of an amalgamation of roof systems on this current structure. Just to share, here on the portal is what the applicant is proposing to install across the entire roofing system to be all one roofing system.

Now, here's from the east and north primary facades. We have the eastern facade. We have the southern facade. And here you can see the low-pitched roof and some of that galvanized roofing system. And here we have on that western facade. Now, here's a facade diagram. We're showing you this on the contributing, what the primary facades are. But for this application request is for the removal of historic materials and to replace roof materials not in kind.

So here is an aerial photograph, a current aerial photograph of 964 Acequia Madre, showing the portal addition, the main structure, and the additions throughout time, showing the different type of roofing systems. What the applicant is proposing is to install a crimp seam roofing system, a 26-inch gauge that will now provide the necessary treatment for this roof. Here is the type of roofing system in which the applicant is proposing and the manufacturer specs.

Just to share, let's see if I can get into my email. I thought the applicant, he shared some information with me that I thought was pretty important. I don't know if I'll be able to get into my emails, but there was a family of raccoons living inside the roof and some other, I apologize. Maybe it's this one. Can you show this video, please? And would you be able to show this video as well? Don't show the wrong video. If you say you're in Buzzard, here we have a little family of raccoons just kind of living on that back western facade. Unbelievable. Four pups, I think. All right. Well, there's two of them. There's three. There's four. Thank you.

So, given the current application request, staff finds that all the exception criteria have been met and recommends approval of the application as it complies with 14-5.2D General Design Standards for all Historic Districts and 14-5.2E Downtown and Eastside Design Standards. Thank you. Staff stands for questions.

Thank you. Does any member of the board have a question for staff?

Yeah. Harry, can you scroll to the photo you have of the front facade, the north elevation? Is this one better or is this one? Yeah, that one. Let's see. Are these in here because I'm not seeing? Yeah. Okay. Thanks.

Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you. Anybody else questions? Applicant, would you like to add anything?

Hi. Please raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record in the microphone. 64.

Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in regards to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalty of perjury?

Yes, I do.

Thank you. He has been sworn. You're welcome. Mr. Mendoza, do you have anything to add?

She's concerned about her roof. Speak right into the microphone, please. Well, the customer, I'm just a general contractor, and she's concerned to protect her house and passed the request to you about replacing the whole roof. And that's it.

Does any board members have questions for the applicant? No. Anyone in the room wishing to speak to this matter? No. Anyone on Zoom?

Chair Bianu, we do have a hand raised. Miss Benonato, please proceed. You are recognized.

Thank you. I really don't have any necessarily objections to redoing the roof in one material. I did want to make sure that there weren't any like solar panels up there. It's kind of hard to see, not on the portal, but on the section of the roof beyond that, whether there are solar panels or not that would be visible from the street. I think it's just roofing, but again, it's just maybe the angle that makes it look that way. And I can affirm that raccoons are a real problem. My daughter and son-in-law, who live on Don Gaspar in the historic house, had raccoons going into their roof as well and eaves, and it took a lot to get those raccoons out and to stay out. So, I can appreciate this owner's problems. Thank you.

Anyone else on Zoom?

Thank you, Chair. I do not see any other hands raised.

Thank you. I have a question.

Yes, Member Cherry. Go ahead.

Sorry, just a question for the applicant regarding the color of the roof. Is it proposed to be red or is it natural galvanized steel?

Natural galvanized. The proposal, and would that include a new roof on the portal, or would that remain red?

It's going to be everything new.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Member Cherry, did you have a comment or question?

Yeah. Paul, when's this photo from?

Chair Venu, Member Cherry, that video is from, I believe, 2014. This photograph here. Yes.

Okay. The 2024 was covered in snow, and the other photographs that I could find showing this roof system, the earliest one with this clarity was the 2014.

Do you have a recent photo of this facade?

The most recent I have would be this Santa Fe County Tax Parcel Map roof photograph from today.

Oh, I'm saying the most recent photo you have of the facade.

This would be from 2022. This, that one there. Yes.

Okay. Because that's, this is a little different, but I'm pretty certain that north elevation that's in this existing photo isn't the north elevation that we saw when we were there. There was a door where that window on the right-hand side is, and where the door is now, there was a window.

Member Cherry, say that one more time. I'm sorry, because you said the door is where the window's at, and the window is now where, when we were there today, there was a window where that door is, and there's a door where the window, if you're looking at the elevation, where the window on the west side is, that window on the right-hand side, and I noticed, I believe, was like a big wooden double door now, and there's a window where the door is in this photo.

Now, I noticed on the site visit there was scratch coat around the windows here. Mr. Mendoza, would you be able to speak to any of the work that's taking place on the exterior?

Well, what I know, she bought it a few months ago, the house. It's about three or four months, and she is, when she called me about the roof, that's all I know.

So, we don't know when the door was replaced with the window and the window replaced with the door.

Chair Bian Venu, Member Cherry, no, sir. And as far as I know, from when I've been out there to get on the roof and work with Mr. Mendoza, it's been about the last two months. So, in the last two months, it must have been within the last two months because when we were out there looking at the roof system, there was no scratch coat. There was no work taking place on this structure as far as I know. So, that's something that I'll have to reach out to the homeowner.

And yeah, I mean, that's just an observation that I had on the site today is like what's in this proposal as existing is different than what's actually there. And what's actually there looks like it just occurred.

We'll work with our historic inspector, and we'll make a site visit and see what's going on over there.

Okay. I suppose that could be, that's a separate issue from the roof at this point in time, but it would, it is concerning that there could have been changes made without approval.

When was it that this case came before us for a status review and a primary facade designation?

Chair Bian Venu, this case came before the board in 2022.

Okay. So there's been an alteration of the primary facade since then without approval.

Chair Bian Venu, that's correct.

And the board has the authority to require any change to be undone and have the property returned to its original condition, correct?

Bian Venu, that is correct.

Okay, so we need to have that brought back before us once you have an answer as to what happened.

Yes, sir, we'll do.

All right. Anything else before we get to a motion? Any other discussion or questions?

Yes, Member Beach.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm just wondering if it is appropriate for us to go ahead and approve a change at this point, considering the packet is different than actual conditions. I know it doesn't affect the roof. I wonder, maybe if the staff can guide us on that. Should we postpone this and hear everything at once?

I think it's completely within your prerogative to do it that way.

Yeah.

Okay, Chair Bian Venu, Member Bishai, that's a great question. I would have to ask my direct leadership to see the direction I would need to take forward.

Yeah. Did anyone want to comment on that? I mean, my view is that it's certainly within the prerogative of the board to postpone a decision on the request before it, especially since exceptions are being asked for, until there's clarity on what changes may have been made to the primary facade and how they will be addressed to rehabilitate the structure. So anything from staff on that?

Could we confer among ourselves?

Absolutely.

All right. Okay.

Chair Bian Venu, we've consulted. Yes. You know, it is your discretion to do what you want, but we think that acting on this individual case with regards to the roof will not impact a future case coming forward for an exception, should that be warranted. And it doesn't, that potential change doesn't pertain to any of this request to replace the roof and those exceptions that are required. I also think Paul's confirmed that we can send somebody out tomorrow and go through the appropriate procedures, you know, if there has been work done to the primary facade that needs to come forward in a separate case, which would be the appropriate path as well. And to link these two may delay the necessary repairs that are needed on the roof versus any kind of restorative work that needs to happen to the primary facade.

I have a question, Member Jerry. Yeah, thanks, Maggie. I have a question regarding that. So in that scenario, how, like if there's a determination on the roof this evening, how is the applicant, I'm searching for the right word, required to come back based on that other work? If somebody goes out and they just get a red tag, how do they?

So that would be, we would issue, you know, either if they weren't going to voluntarily come back with something, we would issue a notice of violation, a citation, or, you know, and go through that process. And if need be, we could hold permits. But again, I mean, I think given the evidence that we've heard tonight, there does seem to be a real need to repair the roof as well.

Okay, thanks. Members of the board, the process will be a red tag automatically. The project has not been complete yet. So we'll have the inspector go out tomorrow, issue a red tag, and they'll give them two weeks. Within that two weeks, if they don't respond, they will get a notice of violation and they'll get another two weeks. And if they don't respond, they will be issued a citation and that'll probably force them to come into the board. So that'll be the route we take.

Okay. Thanks. Thanks for the clarification. It can take quite a while though, right? Is the thing. And yeah, I guess my concern with that is like possession is nine-tenths of the law. You know, if they get a violation and they, you know, it's just, it's like we were just talking about, it's kind of rampant that these changes just occur with no permitting. And I, it just seems like if there's no leverage to get them to come back in here, there's a possibility that they get a red tag and they get a violation and they just color it the color of the stucco and that's the end of it. If it were, if it were just postponed, when would be the next time it could be heard?

That would take, excuse me, Member Benvvenu or Chair Benvvenu, that would be determined on what type of application that that would need because if it would need additional exceptions, then it would need to be noticed at that. Otherwise, you would be able to do date certain, but we have to go through the application process and determine what was done, when it was done, what permission they did or did not have for us to make determination. So at this point, it would be the July 22nd hearing.

Chair Bian Venu and members of the board, as a new case, that would be very advantageous. And I don't think the applicant who's here today representing the owner would be the one for that to facilitate that job. And I don't, I don't know how we would go. I think our first line of order would get this citation and violation. I don't know if we could give a date certain and they could meet that. I don't know if the homeowner is not here to represent herself or the home. The roofer is here to represent the owner as the applicant, the agent for the owner. However, I don't know if we could give a date certain.

Yes, Member Dgnon, Paul. To the best of your knowledge or memory, have we approved a request while at the same time we are aware of the fact of these violations? I mean, I understand that there's a problem here, but do we give further permissions to do something when we're trying to address the unapproved other actions that have been taken?

Chair Bian Venu, Member Dgnon, that's a great question. I don't know if we have.

And Chair Bian Venu and Member Dgnon, yes. My perspective is nothing you do here tonight can stop the land use or code enforcement out in citing them. You can approve this roof, you can deny the roof, you can postpone it, but there's nothing before you to tell land use or code enforcement you can't go out there and cite this or you can't go out and continue to investigate this. That is an independent action. And what the municipal court does is independent of what you do here tonight. Thank you. You're not sacrificing anything by making a decision one way or another here tonight.

I think what would be, I think what the board's concern is, is they're sacrificing this potentially ever coming before them again and having it just proceed according to the city's own schedule of whether they red tag. And I have seen red tags just never turn into anything. I mean, I'm thinking of a couple very blatant violations that have been red tagged and they're still there three years later. And so, I think that's the board's concern is that they would like to address it now. And they do have that. I would just point out they do have that authority. It's not just the city's authority. There is a code provision, restoration of status. If a property owner makes changes in a structure without the proper city approvals which result in the lowering of a structure status, staff or the board may require the property owner to restore the structure. So I think that the board could, based on a record that was before it, rule that it was unauthorized changes have been made. It has resulted in an alteration of the status and order it to be restored separate from red tagging. It's completely separate procedure.

Chair Bian Venu, I guess the concern I have is that that's not on the agenda tonight.

Right. They couldn't do that tonight. That's the whole point we're talking about postponing. That's why we're talking about postponing so that that could come before the board and without, because if the board rules tonight, then they don't have that opportunity to, how would that ever come before the board again?

Well, Chair Bian Venu, I understand your concern about that. So, but I just reiterate what I said. I mean, if code enforcement, they need to investigate this. I would discourage the board from making a decision on that issue without the investigation and without it being on the agenda. But I'm saying that I, I don't think anyone is going to make that decision tonight. What we're, what the board is deciding is whether or not to postpone a decision on the matter that is before it in order to have this come before it with the sufficient facts to be able to decide whether or not it should order the property to be restored in conjunction with the request that's before it because it may impact the exception criteria, right? How could it not impact the exception criteria if the board thinks that unauthorized changes may have changed the status of the structure? Obviously, that affects whether the exceptions have been met or not. I don't know even how the board could make good decision.

Chair Bian Venu, members of the board, that is a guarantee they will be back. By postponing it, you'll get a guarantee them coming back. That is true.

Okay. Further discussion. Yes, Member Bishai.

Ready to make a motion if that's right.

Please do.

In case number 202510497 HDRB at 964 Acacia Madre, because the application appears to be incomplete in that the drawings do not represent all changes made to the structure to date, and in light of the fact that this is a contributing structure, the changes requested tonight affect the primary facade which seems to be altered. I move to postpone this case to a date certain, to a date certain, and request that the applicant come back with a full, or a combination of the applicant and staff, with a full explanation for the changes that have been made and any further board action required to address the gap in the materials we reviewed tonight and the on-site conditions we observed today.

Second.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Further discussion. Roll call vote, please. Staff has a clarification. Would you like me to do the roll call vote or get the clarification first?

A request for clarification. Do you? Yes.

I think, well, we have a, we have a motion and a second. I think we should, okay, vote on that and then.

Member Mather.

Yes.

Member Cherry.

Yes.

Member Bishai.

Yes.

Member, or Member Dgnon.

Yes.

The motion has passed. Thank you. So the clarification that this will be two separate cases that come before you. The case that you have postponed will be a date certain and that date certain was not named. So is that going to be the July 22nd? Clear. Okay. And then the second was named, but go. Thank you. The second clarification, the new case will have a new case number and that you want that brought to on the same hearing. Correct.

Okay. Why exactly does it need a new case number?

Because this one has already been public noticed, so we can't change the caption. And if you want to add stuff to this, it would need a new case.

Well, I think it's the same matter coming before the board. It's still a request. It's just the board wants more information to decide the motion to the application.

But you would be, if you would bringing it before you to add additional items that need to be noticed. So if, say it had an exception, all exceptions need to be noticed. I'm not sure what the new item is. I think they're just asking for more information to decide more information on the roof or you want, no, on the primary facade.

Primary facade affects the decision on the roof, right? Do I understand correctly? That's right. The drawings in our packet reflect what appears to be a previous condition of the house. What we saw on site is different from what we have in our packet, which I consider to be an incomplete packet. We have the minutes from the status review, but we don't have anything indicating that those changes were approved, and we need to somehow get to the current facade in order to consider the replacement of the roof because it's primary. I think that was the board's pleasure.

But I mean, I could see a reason for a new case number if what was being—if you think that what's coming before the board next time is a new status review based on the fact that unauthorized changes have been made to the—and that would all be to be determined, right? That's why I don't know if that's where we're at yet because we don't know for—we don't have a record that actually establishes that either unauthorized changes were made or that it affects the primary facade. So, more information is needed.

Okay. Right. Thank you. No, I think that this is—I think this is fine. It's just—and I completely defer to staff, though. If you think that a new case number is needed, that is 100% your judgment. I would defer to you completely.

We'll make that determination as we look more into it. Thank you.

No, I definitely don't take anything I said to mean that I want to overrule your determination. You know the procedure inside and out. So, thank you, sir.

And as we do, we'll follow the code, and if we decide to—as this code states that staff can make that determination to say you need to go back to what was there before, right? And then we can just come back just for the roof if we get that determination from the applicant. Yes. So, yeah, I think we all—I just want to make sure we're all on the same wavelength, and then I know that you'll know how to do it properly once you know what the board—if you're clear on the board's concerns and the direction they want to go in. So, good.

Okay. So, the motion has—I mean, the application has been postponed. Thank you. We'll see you again, and we'll move on to matters from the board. But did Director Moina wish us to address the board first?

Yes, we do have one more case. We do.

Oh, I'm sorry. I was going to skip right over you. Item C. I know. Wouldn't that have been terrible? I am so, so, so sorry. I was overanxious to get to the end here. I thought 2025-010489 HDRB 539 Garcia Street. Senior Planner Mccolia is not here, and Director Moina will be presenting. Please.

Correct. Yes. And members of the board, this case is 2025-010489 HDRB 539 Garcia Street for status review and primary elevations. The single-family residence at 539 Garcia Street is listed as contributing to the Downtown and East Side. Can you get the PowerPoint up? Okay, let me continue.

The single-family residence at 539 Garcia Street is listed as contributing to the Downtown and East Side Historic District. No primary facades have been designated on this residential structure. The accessory structure has not been assigned a historic status or primary designation. The Spanish Pueblo Revival style home was constructed in the 1940s using adobe as part of the Garcia family compound. A rear addition was constructed sometime between 1958 and 1966 in a ranch style at a lower height than the original structure. After 1978, a bay window addition was constructed on the west elevation along with two window opening changes. According to the 2025 Historic Cultural Preservation Inventory, HICPI, the south elevation porch appears to have been reconstructed at an unknown date due to the types of materials used in the construction, including mill plates and pre-cut corbels. The windows are a combination of wood, aluminum, and vinyl. The residence is one of the original homes located in the Jose Dolores Garcia Estate Subdivision, Lot 2, which was developed to accommodate Garcia family members from the Garcia family ranch. In the northwest corner of the lot sits an adobe one-car garage in Pueblo Revival style, consistent with the house style, also dating to the 1940s. The windows are wood sash windows, with one being a three-over-one window and the other a one-over-one window.

The applicant requests the following: status review with primary facades designation, if applicable, for the residential structure; status review and primary facade designation, if applicable, for the accessory structure. The residence and accessory structure combinations were constructed at the same time in matching style. The lot is one of the first to be developed in the Jose Dolores Garcia Estate Subdivision, which is indicative of the family compound development in Santa Fe, where the homes are built for the family and divided from the original family tract after the residences are constructed. The residential structure retains its original footprint and shows its development over time, except for the bay window and the rear addition. The entire structure has not been altered from the original historic.

The res—hold on, go back. Staff recommends the historic status of the residential structures be maintained as contributing, with the south facade, which holds the greatest historic integrity, as a primary facade, and that the accessory structure be designated as contributing, with the east facade as primary, per Section 14-5.2C2, designation of significant contributing or non-contributing status within the historic district. That stands for questioning.

Thank you very much. Does anyone—any board members have questions for Director Moina? No. Thank you. Applicant, would you like to add anything to staff's presentation? You're not obligated to, but you're welcome to. No, we have to have you. If you do want to speak, though, we'll need to swear you in. Probably a little stiff from all the sitting. Sorry to keep you waiting so long tonight.

Hi, please state your name and address for the record and speak right into the microphone.

Penny Rimby, 533 Garcia.

Penny, do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in regards to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalty of perjury?

Thank you.

She has been sworn.

Thank you very much. Would you—welcome to the board meeting, and again, apologies for such a late night. Sorry you're at the end of the agenda. What would you like to add, if anything, to the presentation?

I'd just like to say this is our second historic process in Santa Fe. First, we got the 533 Garcia, the old Pete Don Jose Garcia's house, and then we fixed up the filling station over here and put in Norte. And so, and then we live in a historic house in Albuquerque. So, what we—and we got to know Tina, who lived in the house 539. So when Tina moved out and we had to go into some sort of care, we thought it'd be wonderful since all our kids were coming home with their real friends and whatever. So, we have four kids, and they were all coming home, and I was up for Christmas and couldn't get in my bed. There were so many kids there. So, I said, "That's it. I'm going to go talk to Tina." And she was gone, but her aunt was there. And so, we then—that's when we offered to buy the house because they needed the money to keep her in assisted living. That's—I know when you see the house, you wonder what in the world is she buying that for? But we love the house. We love the Garcias, and we love being on that street.

Great. No, it's a charming house. So, I'm glad that you're doing the work on it. Do any board members have questions for the applicant? So, we're here for status review and primary facade designations on both the house and the garage. Did you have anything that you agreed with or disagreed with in staff's recommendations on those two items?

I think the front door was something that we—we wanted to because there's a post right in front of the front door. So, can I have her talk about it?

Sure. But she'll just have to be sworn in. Yep. Please. Yep. Thank you.

Hi. Please state your name and address for the record.

Viva Bowman, 47 Old Road, Lamy, 87540.

Thank you. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalty of perjury?

Thank you.

Thank you and welcome. Do you have—what can you tell us about the door?

So, I will be the general contractor for the remodel, and one big desire we have for that west-facing wall is to move the viga that is directly in the center of the front door. I think it shows in the packet.

I just want to stop you for a second because it sounds like we might be starting to talk about plans for the future, and we do primary facade designations and status designations. We don't like to hear about what the future holds. That will come before us in the next go-round. So, got it. So, what—but you—what you could address, if you have any—if you want to, is whether or not you agree that the facade that has been recommended to be primary be primary, and whether you think any matter should be excluded from that designation.

I think we agree with the face that has been designated on the garage. I personally disagree.

Okay. Please tell us why.

Mostly because it's a really deteriorated side of the garage, and ideally, we're making that an accessory dwelling.

That's what we don't want to—no, sorry. Sorry. Sorry. So, so you're disagreeing with even a—I mean, in your ideal world, it would not be a contributing structure. It would be a non-contributing structure. Okay. Sorry. First time.

No problem. No, it's completely understandable. All right. Anything else? I appreciate your—thank you for your input. Does any board member have questions for—yes, please. Member Beach.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a clarification for staff. Has this—this property has been designated contributing already, and we're just doing primary facades tonight? Or are we doing both status and primary?

So, the main residence is already contributing. It just needs primary. Okay. The garage needs status and—

Okay. Thank you for that. I guess my opinion is on the garage, if that is to be contributing, I do feel like the south facade that faces the street, consistent with the main house, would be the more appropriate primary facade. I think that the reason to designate that would be to preserve the position of a garage as a garage and have it read as a garage. That sort of deep-set driveway is something that is unique to the streetscape. So, I would say we should designate the south rather than the east on the garage.

Thank you for that. Any other comments or questions from the board? Thank you. Seeing none, is there anyone in—you can now—you can have a seat. Thank you for your—for your assistance. Is there anyone in the room that wishes to speak to this application? No. Is there anyone on Zoom?

Yes, Chair Bianu. We have Stephanie Benonato on Zoom.

Thank you. Please unmute her, and you have the floor.

Excuse me. Thank you very much. I just want to say that I appreciate Member Cherry catching the changes in the house prior and the case prior, and the board taking what I think is appropriate action to find out what happened in this case. I agree that the main residence should remain contributing and that the facade that faces the street with the portal should be primary. And I also agree with Member Bishid's suggestion that on the garage, the one—the facade facing the street should be primary rather than the one that's designated.

Thank you. Anyone else on Zoom?

Chair: I do not see any other hands raised.

Great, thank you. Further discussion or a motion, please.

Yeah, I'd like to ask a question to Member Beach. Is there a reason why or why not you wouldn't want to vote both the recommended facade of the garage, the east facade and the south facade?

I think that the south facade is sufficient to recognize that as a garage. I think my philosophy is that we designate sort of the minimal number of facades, especially on a very small building, that preserve the characteristics that are important about that structure. The south facade has both a door and a garage with headers. I would exclude the garage door material in this case. That's my logic.

Thanks.

Thank you. Anything else from the board? I will entertain a motion. Member Beach.

Thank you. In case number 2025010489 HDRB at 539 Garcia Street, I move to designate the south facade of the main house, which is already a contributing status, as primary, and to designate the garage as contributing with the south facade as primary, excluding the non-historic materials and the garage door material.

Second.

Thank you. Further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, roll call vote, please.

Member Cherry: Yes.

Member DGEN: Yes.

Member Bishide: Yes.

Member Mather: Yes.

The motion has passed. Thank you very much. Okay, there you go. Sorry you had to wait so long for them, but good luck. Good night. Okay, now we can get to matters from the board. Any matters from the board? Nope. Our next meeting is July 8, 2025. Any objection to adjournment? We are adjourned. It was a long night. I knew we were long.