Historic Districts Review Board Meeting Tue, Jul 22, 2025 · Historic Districts Review Board https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/584 == Executive Summary == The Historic Districts Review Board meeting saw several key discussions and decisions. The board approved the replacement of a dilapidated roof at 964 Acequia Madre with a uniform 26-gauge ribbed Galvalume metal system, after extensive discussion about material and color. They also approved revised parapet alterations at 206 McKenzie Street, increasing its height by 8 inches, and upgraded the historic status of 619 West Alameda Street to 'contributing,' including a pentile well on the property. A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to a fence height issue at 222 Palco Street, where the applicant sought to install a 6-foot coyote fence, exceeding the average streetscape height. After a lengthy debate on ordinance interpretation, streetscape calculations, and the definition of hardship, the applicant chose to continue the case to a future meeting to present revised plans. Public comment included strong criticism of a previous board decision regarding a bridge and a request for a historic status review of the Soldiers Monument. == Key Decisions == - Approved the application for roof replacement at 964 Acequia Madre with a 26-gauge ribbed Galvalume metal roof (Metal Sales Galvalume number 41). - Approved the revised parapet alterations at 206 McKenzie Street, raising the parapet by 8 inches, with a concrete cap matching the building color. - Upgraded the historic status of 619 West Alameda Street to 'contributing,' designating the south and west facades as primary, and giving the pentile well a 'contributing' status. - Granted a continuance for the fence issue at 202 Balco Street to the August 12th, 2025 meeting. - Formed a two-member subcommittee (Member Dickman and another volunteer) to oversee the design of a footbridge. == Motions & Votes == - Motion to approve the amended agenda — Passed unanimously (Aye). - Motion to approve the minutes from June 24th, 2025 — Passed unanimously (Aye). - Motion to approve five findings of fact and conclusions of law from February 11th, 2025 — Passed unanimously (Aye). - Motion to approve the application for the roof replacement at 964 Acequia Madre with the Galvalume material (Metal Sales Galvalume number 41), including a friendly amendment that all exception criteria for the removal of historic material had been met — Passed 5-0. - Motion to approve the application for the parapet on the north facade (14 feet 9 inches tall) at 206 McKenzie Street, with the cap being concrete in the same color as the existing building, incorporating staff and applicant responses to exception criteria as formal findings — Passed 5-0. - Motion to adopt staff's recommendations for 619 West Alamita Street, upgrading the structure to 'contributing' with the south and west facades as primary, and giving the pentile well a 'contributing' status — Passed (5-0, with Members Benu, Aguilera Madrono, Mather, Cherry, and Dagnet voting Yes). - Motion to grant a continuance for the fence issue at 202 Balco Street to the August 12th, 2025 meeting — Passed unanimously (5-0). == Public Comment == Stephanie Benonato provided extensive public comment, expressing strong disappointment with a previous board decision concerning a bridge, questioning staff's ability to ensure accurate recreation of historic elements, and criticizing project timelines and consultants. She also commented on the 964 Acequia Madre roof replacement, questioning a past facade change and expressing concerns about metal roof colors. For 206 McKenzie Street, she found the new parapet design 'disconcerting.' Regarding 619 West Alamita Street, she supported staff's recommendation for the well's contributing status and emphasized that privacy is not a valid hardship for fence exceptions. Elizabeth West requested the board initiate a historic status review of the Soldiers Monument in the Santa Fe Plaza. == Topics == - Fence Height Regulations - Roofing Material Replacement - Pedestrian Bridge Design - Soldiers Monument Review - Staff Communication Postponements - Governing Body Appeals - Subcommittee for Footbridge == Full Transcript == Okay, I think we're ready to go. We are live. Good evening, everyone. I'm calling this meeting to order. We are the Historic Design Review Board, Historic Districts Design Review Board, and today is July 22nd, 2025. May we have a roll call? Mariah: Madam Chair, Rios. Here. Vice Chair, Beni Venu. Here. Member Aguilera Madrono. She is coming. She's going to be late. Okay. Member Mayther. Here. Member Cherry. Here. Member Dagnen. Here. Member Beecher. Excused. Thank you, Madam Chair. You have a quorum. Thank you very much. Any changes to the agenda? Yes, Madam Chair. Item 7A will be postponed. Staff communications under new business. Item B, 2025-010763 HDRB 515 Pale del Peralta will be postponed to a date certain of August 12th, 2025. Item C, 2025-010764 HDRB will also be postponed to August 12th, 2025, date certain. And item D, 2025-010493 HDRB will also be postponed to August 12th, 2025, date certain. Thank you very much. Is there a motion to approve the agenda as just amended? So moved. Is there a second? Mayther, second. All those in favor of the motion say "Aye." Aye. Aye. Those say "No." Thank you. We have minutes of June 24th, 2025. Changes to these minutes? Anyone? It appears not. Is there a motion to approve? Mayther motions. Daglin, yes. Approve. Seconds. All those in favor say "Aye." Aye. Opposed say "No." Thank you. We have five findings of fact and conclusions of law. Changes to any of these? Anyone on staff or on the board? It appears not. Is there a motion to approve all of these? They are all from February 11th, 2025. Who to approve? No. Mayther, a second. All those in favor of the motion say "Aye." Aye. Aye. Aye. Those say "No." Matters from the public. Is there anyone in this room that wishes to speak on anything referencing Hboard concerns? Stephanie Benonato. I just wanted to make some comments about your decision last week on that bridge. I found it to be really unfortunate how it progressed, and I wonder how the staff cannot have a doubt and bring it back to this board when they're supposed to make sure that it's recreated exactly as it is now. I mean, is somebody out there photographing it in great detail? Is somebody out there actually drawing it, measuring each grout line? Because otherwise, I don't see how your staff could possibly be without doubt that whatever they're presented is exactly what is there, maybe currently. The other thing that I found really appalling was that here you're supposed to have these professionals, and everybody is just, there's layers and layers of the consultants. Some just supervising others, maybe doing something, but it took seven months to get the money. They said the fiscal year began at January 1st of 2024. They said they didn't get the money until the end of January for the planning. So, they did nothing even though they knew they were going to get it. And then to design a pedestrian bridge that was about 250 square feet, it took them five months to design that and to get it specked out. I can't, it's really hard to believe that that isn't incompetency being exemplified in a city process. And it was pretty clear that the design that was semi-accepted or the alternate design with the stone was something that was just done at the last moment because of the comments made at the public hearing, that they weren't even, despite having all these experienced professionals on the team, they didn't come up, they didn't have an alternative should you not have allowed them to have a non-contributing status. And again, to me, that is arrogant and a waste of everybody's time. And I have to say that it was, the whole process was incredibly disappointing. And I really hope your staff does have some doubts and brings it back to the board for its approval. Thank you. Thank you, Stephanie. Anyone else in this audience wishing to speak? None. Anyone on Zoom? Chair Rios, I do not see any hands raised for this item. Thank you very much. And as indicated under staff communications, that item has been postponed. And under old business, we have Paul presenting the first case. Paul, this is located at 964. Thank you, Madam Chair. If I may, may I come up and hand out some documents for you? Madam Chair, members of the board, the property owner at 964 AIA Madre has handed these documents out for your review, given the decision of the board to postpone at the previous hearing, in which we will address any questions from the board members this evening. Could you help me out with the PowerPoint presentation, please? Thank you. In case number 2025010497 HDRB, the single-family residence at 964 AIA Madre is listed as contributing to the downtown and east side 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 parcel map as being constructed pre-1900s on a 0.13 acre lot in the Spanish Pueblo Revival design style and comprises of 5,848 square feet of roofed area. The construction of the structure includes a low transverse 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 street view, which is the north elevation, and here we have the portal and the roof showing two distinctively different roofing systems. Now, the roofing system on the house outside of the portal is the original roofing system, and the new, the roofing system on the portal is the 26 gauge proposed roofing material for the entire structure. Here we can see that north and east primary facades. Here we see the north facade. Here on the north facade, we have a torched down roof that is on a pitch, as well as a galvanized steel. And here we have a portion of the west facade. Here's a facade diagram showing the north and east facades. And then we have that frontal view again showing the original roofing system and the proposed, which is on the portal. Now, here's an aerial imagery of the different roofs that are currently on this structure. And the applicant and homeowner are proposing to make them all one roofing system. And in this, they requested two exceptions, or the removal of historic materials and to repair the historic materials in kind. Now, here is an image of the materials that they're looking at, at a 26 gauge ribbed roofing system. In this case, 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 east side design standards. Thank you. Staff stands for questions. Thank you very much. You indicated that there were different roofing materials presently on these roofs. Would you tell us what those roofing materials are? And would you also tell us which of those roofing materials takes up the most roof space? Madam Chair, that's a great question. So the original roofing system is that old, it's, gosh, the exact name for it. It's a steel roofing system that comprises of most likely the original footprint, and that would be approximately 800 square feet of the current, of the original structure. Paul, is that called prop panel? Yes, ma'am. But I believe it would even be older than prop panel. It would be a sheet metal with a rib down the centerline. And I believe Member Cherry had a good description of this type of roofing system. Now, so we're looking at about the original 800 square feet. And then we have some torch down on the north addition, which comprises of roughly around 600 square feet. And then we have corrugated steel roofing system, which comprises of approximately 2,000, if not 3,000 square feet of this structure. And then on the Northport tall addition, we have this 26-inch, 26 gauge roofing. Now that would be that sheet metal pro panel with the center rib, which is approximately 400 square feet. So we have the steel corrugated roofing system would be, would be the, what would be the most abundant roofing system on that property. That's what the applicant wants. The applicant is proposing something similar to the portal addition on this north elevation, and that is going to be a 26 gauge center rib to mimic the historic roofing system that is on there. But I'm sure if the applicant, when they come up to talk to you, if that's something that the board would, they would like a steel corrugated as well, if that would work. I believe. What is the color of that? This would be a natural steel color, and staff, and they're open to options of the red color, if that is the pleasure of the board. Thank you. All the board members have questions at this point. No questions. Applicant or applicants, would you come forward and come to the podium and get sworn in? Hello. Will you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record. Jenny Thomas, 964 ACI Madre, Mexico. Sorry. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Thank you, Madam Chair. She's been sworn. Good evening. And I will ask you and everyone else who's going to speak this evening to really talk right in front of that mic. Okay. So we can hear you and the recorder can pick up everything. Thank you. You were asking about the color. I'm open. There's a house, two houses away from me, and they have a kind of a brown metal color, if that's more amenable to the board. Currently, it's a kind of a rust. Yeah. Did you have anything further to add to what Mr. Don just told us? No, just that I understand from the last meeting there was some concern that I had maybe switched the front door and the window configuration, but that was done before I bought the house. Hence the second handout, which is a screenshot of the Zillow ad. I found the house. You'll see that the red circle is the front door as I, as I bought it. So, I didn't add that on. It was the previous owner. Let's see if board members have any questions for you. Any questions for the applicant board members? Yeah, I have a question. Mr. Chair. So there's on the documentation we have, it shows that some, it shows various profiles, but it's not super clear which profile you're choosing of the metal sails. There's, there's just handwritten notes on these with arrows pointing towards the image two. There's two different profiles of the image two. There's the striated and the minor rib. And then there's the classic rib. There's an arrow to that as well. So, is it, you have a profile picked out? We're trying to make it just one, one, how you would call it, one slope. Yeah. I'm not, I'm not asking about the slope. I was asking about the profile of the roofing. Will you, will you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record in the, in the microphone, please. Go ahead. So, get close to the microphone and please state your name and address for the record. My name is Manuel Mendula. My address is 4203 Wela, Colorado, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. He's been sworn in. Good evening, Mr. Mendoza. Can you answer the question that Mr. Cherry is posing? He's wanting to know what specific roof material you are proposing to use. Okay. We have a page that's the material we are going to use, but it looks similar to the portal, to the portal north side portal. If you're looking at that picture in color, it's similar to that, but in metal color, or similar to that. So there's four different options of that roof profile in the paperwork that you've provided. There's 12-inch wide and 16-inch wide, and they're striated or minor rib. Is it? Yes. It's... Which one are you proposing? Well, I'm proposing this one. Sorry. Two of them. It's a 16-inch. The one we propose is the 16-inch. And striated or with the ribs, minor ribs? Okay, thank you. So, I heard 16-inch striations. Any other questions, board members? Member Benu. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I'm sure this has been answered already either tonight or in the packet, and I missed it. But, you know, our job normally when we allow replacement is replacement in kind. So, meaning as close as possible to what exists. I think I understand that one of the problems here is that there's a mix of roof types. So, could you just run me through what the different roofs are? Yes. That exist? One is a corrugated, like that kind of old-style roof, and another one is very similar to the one we propose. I think we can see it in the photos. There are like three kinds of metals, two, three metals kinds, plus there is one like a gravel, all kind of gravel, and it's and torches. Yeah, this one in the middle. Okay, let me see this one. Where this one is a gravel and I mean the old style with the gravel roof. And this one is corrugated, this one and this one is corrugated. This one is an old style that I don't know the type, but it's now it's like looking like a brown because it's the oxide color or something like already rust, so we cannot see the color. I don't know the type. Is that this one is the new kind of roofs and it's very similar to the one we proposed, the one from the portal. This one is similar to this one but with color, with a metal color, and this is the color we propose, this one. This is the color. Not sure we can see what you're pointing to, but I think I'm kind of following. So when we come to the metal roofs, what is the dominant? Okay. Okay. So, you're going with brown. I thought that you were going with just galvanized as your preferred. Although I understand you're open. No, that's fine. But I thought your preferred was just straight galvanized Galvalume. Oh, is that the color? So, is that that's just that gray or silvery color? It's, yeah, this company offers two different galvanized colors. One is the Galvalume, which is... Oh, yeah. Barely bright, and the other one is the galvanized, which is a more... More dull. We've heard the term natural a couple times, which I don't think really applies. I think better to look at the chart and I see it now. Yeah. So I would just consider that your typical silverish gray galvanized roofing material, and that that's your preference. To me, that's more often seen on a portal or on a shed or more utilitarian buildings than on an entire house. It's not to say it doesn't exist there, but I guess I'd be a little bit more inclined to go with a brown if there's something that's already existing to match in that color. You think it's just rusted? And if you have to speak, you have to speak into the mic because we have to get it. The North Portal is currently a kind of rusted red color. Rusted red. Or weathered red, you could say. Yeah. You really have to talk into the mic because we lose you. The recorder loses what you're saying. Okay, I think I understand. The question, the applicant, do you... Sorry. No, go ahead. Your preference is the metal color, or you are wanting a color, or you want to hear the board indicate perhaps a color? Well, we were going to go with the natural color, but if the board has a different recommendation, I'm up for listening to it. See if we can find it. Sorry about that. You have the floor. I was just going to also add in response to your comment earlier, just to be clear, I don't think this was, or the intention of the board was to postpone this because we thought you, the owner, had done anything wrong necessarily. We just needed to know whether that change had been approved, and it turns out that it was approved, and it didn't really matter so much who did it. We were just trying to determine whether or not a primary facade had been altered without approval because that could impact the decision. So just wanted to clarify that that was the reason for the delay. Thank you. And Paul, the total square footage of this roof is 5,800 plus square feet. Madam Chair, that is correct. Thank you, Madam Chair. So just to confirm, in this aerial, the dark brown is what's getting replaced. The sliver of the faded red above, is that getting updated at the same time or is that part remaining in place? All going to be replaced, so it's all uniform and one material and one level instead of very many. Okay. So just those two sections, or is there also part of the corrugated? Also the corrugated. Okay. The whole thing. The kitchen is leaking, which is the bottom left where it's kind of a silver color. The vents are leaking there. So, that's got to still be replaced. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, board members? Anyone in this audience wishing to speak? If so, come forward. Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record. Stephanie Benonato, PO Box 1601, Santa Fe. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes. Thank you. I wasn't clear about the change in the door window, and it was sort of skipped over in the presentation. I understand somebody else did it prior, but was it approved or was it not approved? And I'd really like the board to be really clear about that. I know that 5,800 square feet is a lot to have just a single type of roof on it, but the historic part of this building has the corrugated dull corrugated metal. And I believe that is what the owner is proposing for the whole roof. And I think that's appropriate. I don't really think the color, like especially red, is appropriate. I was looking at some on Acequia Madre the other day, Acequia Madre and Delgado, that have red metal roofs, and they really just don't, they don't look historic, that's for sure. And they don't actually really fit in to the character of the neighborhood. I know they were approved, but I'm pleased that the owner would want to use the actual historic type of material to do the whole roof. And I would ask also in terms of sloping, is it going to be a peaked roof now? Is it going to be mostly flat? What really is this roof going to look like? Because it looks like it has different configurations on it. Thank you. Anyone else in this audience wishing to speak? No. Paul. Madam Chair, members of the board, thank you, Stephanie, for sharing that information. You're right. I should have started this presentation by sharing to the board members that at the previous case, and at the previous site visit when we walked the site, it appeared that there was some work, some work that has been done on the primary facades, and I did not catch that during my review, during my internal review, previous case research. I didn't find it in our database. I found work that took place on this property since 1994 up until 2022. And the case that I found in 2022 was for status review and primary facade designation, but wasn't for the work that took place on that property. The next day, the property owner, Ms. Anjani U. Thomas, provided the HDRB action letter of the work that had been approved and the permit set of the work that took place. So, I should have started off this hearing for this case with that. And truly, and Ms. Thomas, my apologies for not making that clear at the last hearing, which has brought you back here today. But I thank you for being here and Mr. Mendoza for being here as well. And thank you for your patience. And Stephanie, thank you as well for your comment. For the roofing system, talking to the property owner and the applicant, the 5,800 square feet is incorrect. It's actually 1,700 square feet for this parcel, for this roof. The total roofed area for 964 is second. So just to clarify that, it's a total of 1,700 square feet, give or take. Thank you. Member. Thank you, Madam Chair. Paul, pardon, you just clarified something that I kind of guessed at because I happen to know about that kind of stuff. So, good. But can you point out then exactly what portion of what we're looking at of all those roof surfaces there? To be clear so that we'll know where what is the 1,700? Is that reddish horizontal panel above where it says 964 Acequia Madre? Madam Chair, Member Degman, if I walk up to the screen here, I'll point it out to you. If I may. Okay, thanks. That's what I was wondering. And what about that? Wait a minute. All of that. That's 1,700 square feet. Yeah, it looks like more. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Any other questions, board members? Still in public comment right now? Yeah. Thank you. Yeah, if anyone is on Zoom and would like to comment on this case, please raise your hand. I don't see any hands raised. Thank you. Board members, if you have no further questions, I will entertain a motion at this time. Don't all speak out at once. Yeah, I can make a motion. Sure. Cherry, looks like you're ready. Yeah. So, in case 2025-010497 HDRB for 964 Acequia Madre, I would move to approve the application as submitted with the Galvalume material as the color. Is there a second? I second, with just a friendly amendment that there be a notation that all exception criteria have been met for removal of historic material for the reasons set forth in the staff report. Accepted. Can you be a little bit more specific on the color? Oh yeah, it's the metal sales Galvalume number 41. Roll call vote, please. Vice Chair Benu. Yes. Member Aguilera Madrono. Yes. Member Mather. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Dagnen. Yes. Madam Chair, it has been approved. Very much, and thank you, applicants. Next case is located at 206 McKenzie. Is that applicant here? The applicant is here. And Paul, this is also your case. Please present. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, in case number 2025-010494 at 206 McKenzie Street, the mixed-use commercial and multifamily complex at 206 McKenzie Street is listed as contributing to the downtown and East Side Historic District with the north, east, and partial southern and western facades designated as primary. The original structure has been identified in the 2005 Historic Cultural Properties Inventory HCPI survey form to have been constructed pre-1766 to 1846 with several changes from the 1930s and 1940s into the present. The unique eclectic nature of the structure and location on the Grant Avenue and McKenzie Street streetscape has made this structure a standalone complex unmirrored by anything seen in the downtown and East Side Historic District. On the June 24, 2025 case, the board approved items 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 in the staff report. The board postponed item number 3 in the staff report to change the overall height of the parapet on the north primary facade. The applicant has come back to the board with a new design for approval of item number 3. So here is the north elevation in which we will discuss the new proposed design of the facade. Here in this northern elevation, where the wooden door is, is where the new proposed parapet will be. And here are the other elevations of the structure. As we discussed this at the previous case in June, there were some concerns about the overall height. So here's a primary facade diagram, and on that north elevation, the entire elevation is primary. Now, the previously approved, here's a site plan, and it shows all the work that's been approved on this property. Now, here we have what the applicant brought before the board in June for these alterations. Now, on the above was a previously approved parapet that took place in 2021 at a previous board hearing. So, in the June hearing, they came before the board on the bottom elevation of the raised parapet that was postponed for today's hearing, in which the applicant has brought forth a new design, which shows here. Now, this new design of the new parapet, from the original previous, well, from the previously approved parapet in 2021, raises this new parapet approximately 8 inches. The previous design option was for a 17-foot 3-inch tall parapet. This design, as staff has reviewed it and as we talked with the applicant, we believe that this, we find that this design accentuates the property and that north facade in greater detail than the previously proposed design. And we believe the architect has done a good job in replicating and designing something that speaks to the vocabulary of this structure. So the applicant requested the exception, and staff finds that the exception criteria have been met. And so, staff recommends approval of the proposed project and finds that the application complies with Section 14-5.2D, general design standards for all historic districts, and 14-5.2E, downtown and east side design standards, and the exception criteria have been met for all exception requests. Thank you. Staff stands for questions. Paul, so this request is also to replace doors and windows. Aside from raising this portion 8 inches, it's also replacing doors and windows. Yes or no? Mayor: No, ma'am. No. No, ma'am. Okay. Okay. Any other questions? Board members? Other questions? Applicant, if you'll come forward, please. Will you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record. Braden Furry, P.O. Box 238, Santa Fe. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you. Good evening, sir. Do you have anything more to add to what Paul just told us? Good evening, board. Thank you for hearing this again. Yeah, just to recap, in 2022, we had an approved facade that's shown on the top portion. Through construction, we found that we needed to raise it a little bit for structure behind. We first came back with the one he had shown previously, which was trying to meld more of the Spanish Baroque on the left instead of just the rounded parapet on the right. So at the last meeting that I was at in June, the board had asked that I come back with another design that minimized this parapet wall. So I have and brought it back, and it just is the minimum height that we need to hide the structure behind and is just a simple flat parapet that matches more in line with the rest of the building. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Member Bman. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the redesign. I think it's a great improvement, and I can tell that you took the board's concerns into account. What's the, I can't quite tell because my drawing is very blurry when I blow it up, but what's the treatment of the parapet? It's a, it's a cap that is in line with the Baroque on the left, but it is just to, it's to make the top of it more durable than if it just stuck out. It'll be concrete in the same color painted. Okay, great. Thanks. Any other questions, board members? None. Anyone in this audience wishing to come forward and speak? Stephanie, you've already been sworn. I understand that the architect and the owners have come back with a different design. I think it's somewhat better in that the windows, excuse me, the windows on the back facade or the setback part of the building or facade are visible. However, I find it disconcerting. It doesn't really match the, the, the sort of flow of the rest of the wall. And I almost think that just lowering it with a similar design that was approved in 2022 curve would be more in keeping with that facade. And I understand that they're saying they're not changing out the windows or doors, but really it, it looks like a different, it looks, they look to be different sizes than, than they are and not necessarily the same in kind. So those are my comments. Thank you. And I have to say, I think that the board, I understand this is a very big building complex, et cetera, but the board has spent an enormous amount of time on this building. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak? Come forward. No one in this audience. Anyone on Zoom? If you would like to provide a public comment, please raise your hand. I don't see any hands raised. Chair Rios. Thank you. Motion please for Limmersburg and Toronto. Thank you, Madam Chair. In case number 2025-010494-HDRB at 206 McKenzie Street, I move to approve the application as submitted for the parapet on the north facade, which is shown at 14 feet 9 inches, and noting that no other improvements or exceptions are being asked at this hearing, and that the cap will be in concrete in the same color to match the existing building. Do I hear a second? Second. Okay. Anything further to add? Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a friendly amendment again to incorporate the response of the applicant as well as the response of staff to each exception criteria as formally adopted by the board as findings. Point of discussion. Sure. Was, I thought exception criteria weren't being asked anymore since the windows and doors were. It's also for an increase. Three. Okay. It's also for an increase in historic material. Accepted as friendly. Thank you. Alrighty. Roll call vote please. Member Dagnen. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Matherather. Yes. Member Aguular Madrono. Yes. Member Bianu. Yes. Madam Chair, the motion has passed. And thank you, applicant. And thank you, Paul and Lanny. The next is yours under new business. And is the applicant here? 619 West Alameda. The applicant is here. Sorry, Chair Rios, we just wanted to confirm who seconded that motion from Meo. So who seconded the motion? Was it Mr. Cherry? Okay, thank you. We just want to make sure we got that for the record. Thanks, Miss Lanny. Computer's a little slow. Okay, this is case 2025-010664-HDRB for 619 West Alameda Street for a status review. The property at 619 West Alameda is located across from the Santa Fe River Park. The houses, the other side of the park is where all of the residences are located. The houses range in style with the most prominent styles being Spanish Pueblo Revival and vernacular in this area. Most of the residents are lower single-story buildings with an average height on a streetscape of 12 feet 8 inches. The street is lined with low yard walls with an average height of 3 feet 10 inches. And the yard walls are stuccoed concrete masonry units that are colored to match the corresponding building. The single-family residence at 619 West Alameda is listed as non-contributing to the Westside Guadalupe Historic District. The Spanish Pueblo Revival structure is constructed of adobe and pentile. A rectangular wood-framed addition previously located on the north side of the structure collapsed in 2024. Aside from its foundation, all parts of this addition have been removed from the property. Additionally, there was a shed on the property which was also removed in 2024. The adobe portion of the residence was constructed about 1943 with the pentile addition being constructed by 1951. The wood-framed addition appears to have been constructed in 1975. There are Viga ends at the exterior and interior of the adobe north and south walls. Though the interior portion of the Vigas appears to have been removed at some point. The north wall has projecting roof joists on the pentile addition. All except for one window are wood double-hung single-glazed one-over-one windows. The two front doors on the south may be handmade wood frame and panel with a glazed flower petal design. The western rear door is a frame and panel, and the eastern rear door is a hollow core wood door, probably because it was interior previously. All windows and doors are recessed, and the windows have projecting concrete window sills. The two front doors have two small steps. Roof drainage is a single sheet metal canal on the north elevation. The exterior walls are cement stucco on chicken wire with paint on the stucco. The property holds a front wire fence with a wire gate. Noting that this fencing gate have also been removed from the property, a side chain link fence, short cast concrete posts, a couple of wood posts, and possible remains of a stone boundary. The residence is typical of the streetscape. There's also a pentile-lined well on the west side of the property. Its origin and details are not available, but given that it is of pentile, it was most likely constructed at the time of the pentile addition in 1951. The 1950s saw a significant increase in well drilling, in part because the state allowed farmers to transition from dryland farming to more water-intensive crops, which transformed, of course, the agricultural landscape. The state further allowed homeowners to start drilling and use a certain amount of water annually. This well may be part of this step forward in water usage. Unfortunately, there are no photos provided of the well. There are no cases on record for the property in the Historic Preservation Division files. Currently, the applicant is requesting a status review with primary facade designation, if applicable, for the residential structure. The southern portion of the residence holds the greatest historic integrity of the building with the adobe construction, Viga ends, double front doors with corresponding windows, inset windows and doors, and concrete window sills. The front doors are handmade. The west facade shows the growth of the building from adobe to the pentile addition and holds historic inset wood windows with concrete. Well is most likely from the 1950s and is unique to the Alameda streetscape. Therefore, staff recommends the historic status of the structure be upgraded to contributing with the south facade and the west facades, numbers three and four on the diagram, as primary. And staff also recommends a contributing status for the pentile well in order to protect it per Section 14-5.2C, designation of status within historic districts. I stand for questions. Much Lenny, what did you indicate about the pentile addition? What did you say? Pentile addition constructed in 1951. But what did you say in terms of preserving it? As well. Pardon? Do you mean the well or the addition? No, the addition. Right. So, that would be making the west facade primary. Mhm. In order to show the transition from Adobe to pentile in the building. Thank you. Any other questions for Lanni? Have a question? Yes, Mr. Cherry. Why did you not recommend the east side as primary? It's not as visible. Any other questions? I said it is not as visible as the west. Applicant, please come forward and please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record. Scott Irving. I live at 25504 Camino Alfredo here in Santa. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you very much, Chair. He's been sworn in. Thank you. Good evening, sir. And you heard Lanni's report? Yes, I did. And do you agree or disagree and why? Yes, we'll accept those. It's fine. We just kind of need a status so we know what we can do with the property. We have had to call the police. We've owned this property for about three years. We've had to call the police to clear out homeless people three times. The SWAT team was one of those three calls because they started a fire inside the structure. We would ask if it was possible for the well not to be given the designation because we have cleared homeless people smoking fentanyl out of the well specifically. The police can verify this. So, at any rate, we don't know really how to protect it because it's away from the building out in the middle of a small site. So, my only request to you is that if that well is to be preserved, how am I to do so? It is in the driveway. Thank you very much, sir. Any questions for the applicant and any suggestions in terms of the well? Anybody? I'm looking at you, Mr. Cherry, since you are the builder. Yeah, I mean, well, as far as how to protect the well, it would just be to create some kind of barrier. Will you allow me to put a steel cover over it or something along those lines? This is modifying it historically. That's why my question. Yeah, I think the well is certainly unique to that area and it certainly warrants serious consideration for preservation as it is a historic structure. I think, yeah, there could be a lot of different ways to protect it, to keep people out of it, to keep people from falling into it. Of course, those are all concerns and that's part of, you know, owning a historic property is they're going to have unique features like this that Sure. That have to be dealt with. Because of its location in the driveway, is it possible that it could be driven over in the future as it is or was before we purchased the property? Madam Chair, Madam Chair, point of order. Yes. I think we're getting beyond the status review into the next step. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You understand? You have to, I think all that you'd have to kind of request your reasoning and proposals. Yes. If I can say this evening, we are doing a status review on the property including the well. So, and then at if you come before us at another hearing, then we can discuss in detail options of what you'd like to do. The only reason that I asked Mr. Cherry is because you brought that up and so I just wanted to know if that could be protected. Yeah. Yeah. To answer your question bluntly, I think it's possible to protect it for sure. Okay. Any other questions for the applicant board members? None. Anyone in this audience wishing to comment, come forward. And thank you, board member, Vice Chair Benu, for keeping me in line. Stephanie Benonato, I support the staff's recommendation, make this a contributing building with the south and west sides being primary to protect the pentile. Well, I think that particularly on the well, the south side, the one that faces the street is really, it really contributes, I believe, to the streetscape and is character defining. And the fact that it transitions from Adobe to pentile on the west, I think is also important to preserve and to note as well as the pentile well. I just want to add a little thing about wells. I used to own 604 Galasto Street and it was from the 1890s. And in the 1930s, two rooms were added onto the west side and I had a major leak from the iron pipe, water pipe. And I wound up pulling up all the flooring and in the back under one of the bedrooms was a well that was cedar lined and then rock and cedar. It went down 20 feet and they never filled it in. So, things do get covered over that are of significance that, you know, would be nice to keep visible or at least acknowledge the presence of. I strongly urge that you protect the well as well. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else? No one else in this room. Anyone on Zoom? Thank you, Chair Rios. If anyone online would like to provide public comment for this case, please raise your hand. No hands raised. A motion is in order. Board members. Member Benu. Thank you, Madam Chair. Case number 2025 010664 HDRP at 619 West Alamita Street. I move that the board adopt staff's recommendations, upgrade the structure to contributing with the south facade and west facades, which are indicated as facades three and four in the diagram as primary, and that the pentile well also be given a contributing status. Second. Roll call vote, please. Member Benu, Yes. Member Aguilera Madrono, Yes. Member Mather, Yes. Member Cherry, Yes. Member Dagnet, Yes. Madam Chair, the motion has passed. Thank you very much. And thank you, sir, and good luck on your project. 222 Palco Street. And Amanda, this is your case. And is the applicant here? Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. This is 2025 010698 HDRB at 222 Palaka Street in the Westside Guadalupe Historic District. The applicant is requesting to install a coyote fence and a vehicular gate to a height of 6 feet where the maximum allowable height is 4'7". Exception is requested to 14-5.2 D9 AI E. The previous fence shown here is visible in the photographs on the historic cultural property in inventory form in 1998 and building in inventory form completed in 1985. This case is a result of a red tag issued by the historic district's construction inspector. The applicant had removed the 6-foot cedar plank fence and was erecting a 6-foot coyote fence in its place. This photo is what is currently on site as well as this. It was verified after the site visit today that this property is one legal lot of record with two addresses. On this photo, you will see the site plan reflecting where the gate is, which goes along the, I want to say the, the east side. Here's an additional drawing that was not included in your packet to show the fence in the gate. Site visibility would be reviewed at building permit. The gate is proposed to be inset 2 feet into the property to avoid removing the Siberian elm. Staff finds that all exception criteria have not been met relative to the proposed height. Otherwise, the staff is recommending approval of the application as and complies with 14-5.2D general design standards for all historic districts and 14-5.2I Westside and Guadalupe design standards. I stand for questions. Thank you, Amanda. And is this just going to be put this proposed fence on one side of this home? Yes, it will go along to right where that 4-foot wall begins along the home here. And then we'll continue on to through this section to the end here. And So, along the whole fence or along the whole property line? Okay. And the streetscape, the average is 4'7". So, in other words, they're lower walls rather than 6 feet. Correct. There are many walls on that along the street that you could see are lower walls of 4 feet. Thank you. Member Gard Mana. Thank you, Madam Chair. I didn't see these elevations in our packet. Is this a vehicular gate at the bottom? Yes, ma'am. And is that also Latias? Yes, it also is going to be K Latias. Okay. So, it'll kind of just disappear into the fence. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. And that vehicular gate is at what height? That would be 6 feet as well. Any other questions, board members? It'll be Latia fencing on steel frame to answer clearly. Thank you. Gayla, please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record. Gayla Beal, 320 Aztec Street. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you. Could you please turn on the Elmo for Good evening. Thank you for seeing me tonight, for hearing our case. I would like to, can you hear me? All right. I would like to respond slightly or somewhat to the staff responses. I don't agree with a staff response on number two. There wasn't one on number one. I didn't quite understand why it was less injurious to not replace a falling down fence than applying the code current code. It seems that it would be less injurious to do both, but one to fix the fence is would be a good thing. On number three, while we could have considered landscaping and other ways to separate the property from the street, the landscaping would not contribute to security. And I reason why I'm going through this whole thing, thank you, Paul, is that I took pictures of all of the properties on Palco Street. Fortunately, it's not very long. And I put a 6-foot tape over some of them. The very first ones actually are over 8 feet tall off of the off of Alto Street. So, the first three properties are over 7 feet tall. I would, I don't, I don't have my magnifying glass, but then I started just putting my 6-foot tape measure against every wall. And there's a wall that is like the top right-hand wall you can see is a dog-eared cedar fence painted on top of a 4-foot or change stucco fence. That's over 6 feet. The next one down to the left, the second row on the left is actually a coyote fence. There's just a, you know, 2-foot section of coyote. I agree that there's not much of it on the streetscape. And then the low walls, the very bottom one on the left is directly across the street and it is over 5 feet tall. That's a 6-foot tape. And then the one to the right is the one directly adjacent to our property, which is, you know, less than 4 feet. And it goes on. So, so my point really is to say that saying that a particular style fence that's not that's not is that is not that's not appropriate to this streetscape in my estimation is is not entirely correct. That there this streetscape actually has almost every every fence type and every wall type and almost every height type. And so there are two or three at the most. Let's see. None on there or one on this page. So, you know, four at the most walls that are less than 4 feet tall and the others are higher than that. So, if we, I just don't, I want to just make sure that I that I present that argument as well as I can that there are varying heights on this street, even though I know the historic height is 4'7", and but there are many many taller taller walls here. Those that concludes really my my arguments for why we should be able to have a 6-foot tall coyote fence on this property. Thank you. Thank you, Gayla. Members of the board, do you have questions for Gayla? Member Cherry: I have a comment and probably a question for staff, and maybe Frank or Council Rublade. We had a discussion at our site visit today regarding this and how wall heights are calculated. It was brought to our attention that the wall heights of previous exceptions are not used in the calculation. We don't have any purview to which walls were used in the calculations or which walls may be of exception. My question for staff is, are walls that potentially were built without a permit or without permission taken into that calculation as well? How is that accounted for so that we can get a perspective of exactly what's being used in the calculation? Madam Chair and Member Cherry, thank you very much for the question. The wall height is calculated according to a formula that is found in 14-5.2D9. It's buried down in there, but I can find it. It's D9, which is specific to height, pitch, scale, massing, and floor step max. So, we're looking at D9, I believe it's C. Let's see. I'm sorry, D9B, little two. When determining streetscape, the following structure types shall be excluded: institutional buildings originally constructed to house a hotel, residential multiple unit buildings with a non-historic multiple stories, non-historic pitched roof, auxiliary buildings such as sheds, existing structures approved by way of a variance or exception, and yard walls and fences whose height is inconsistent with the predominant height of yard walls. Yard walls and fences on an applicable streetscape. So, there are a lot of exclusions. It doesn't specifically read that a structure that was built without a permit cannot be considered, but if the height is inconsistent with a predominant height of yard walls and fences on the applicable streetscape, it should be excluded. There's nothing that indicates that an applicant can build a fence or a wall as high as the next highest wall or fence on the streetscape. It has to do with, again, this is buried way down there. This is D9, I believe it's C2C. Yard walls and fences shall be limited to a height that does not exceed the average of the height of other yard walls and fences in the streetscape. So, it has to do with how the average is calculated. Now, of course, the board can approve an exception for a higher wall or streetscape, but exceptions for height, pitch, scale, and setbacks, there are six exception criteria, not just three. But does the previous citation, the exceptions within the previous citation, apply to the other? I don't recall the numbers, and does it apply to the second, what's used to make the calculation? So, in other words, does what's used to make the, does that previous text, which is accepting walls that were built with an exception or implied walls that were built without a permit? Yeah. The average under D9C has to exclude yard walls and fences that are built, that are approved by way of a variance or exception. Those are not to be calculated in the average. Yeah. Okay. And so, I guess my understanding is the intent of this would be so that the streetscape walls don't grow over time and we get a corridorification of these roads in Santa Fe, and it maintains the character. I think one thing that's just contextually hard to understand with the photos that you've presented, and we don't know which walls were used to calculate and which weren't. There's nothing that indicates that in the packet. And then the photos the applicant presents that are representative of taller walls, we don't know if those are actually being used in the calculus as well because they could be accepted because they were built with exceptions or potentially accepted because they weren't built with a permit. So, anyway, that's just my thoughts and comments. No definitive question for the applicant there, but Chair Rios and Member Cherry, there should be a streetscape height calculation. Do we have that? It may not have been in the packet. Seven inches was the wall height calculation made by Gary Bino, but there should be a chart. I'm curious. Yeah, I've seen that. It's usually a map and there's, each wall is indicated, but I've never seen on one of those where it's stated, "This wall is exempt from the calculation because it was built with an exception," or, "This wall is exempt from the calculation." It just shows the height in feet and inches, or in inches, of each wall that was used in the calculation. And typically, the ones I've seen include all the walls. So, Well, and Chair Rios and Member Cherry, I understand what you're saying, and I've seen some height calculation charts or maps that every wall was included in the calculation, but I know that there is a fence or a wall in there that was approved by way of an exception. And for some reason or other, the calculation's still in there. So, under the code, that should be excluded. Okay. Thanks for the clarification. Member Pinion: Thank you, Madam Chair. So, yeah, I think that this discussion is really the crux of the issue. Just in response to the applicant, I mean, we are, unless you're presenting an argument that the height calculation is in error, then I'm not sure that it's relevant to our decision what other walls may be nearby that are as high as what you're looking for. So, is that the argument that you're presenting, is that they made an incorrect calculation? No, it's called streetscape, and it's, it's mentioned quite often in the responses that staff had to my, to my responses to the criteria. So, it's about streetscape. I mean, if you could go down the street, my guess is that all of the walls on the street were built without a permit because they're all just to stick on. There was a city of, Just to stick on my question first. Streetscape. It's about streetscape. It's not about height calculation, it's about streetscape. I think that when staff is referring to streetscape, they're referring to a height calculation that's based on streetscape. So, it's true that the ordinance can also refer to streetscape for harmony and other issues, but I don't think that's what's an issue here. I don't think staff is making the contention that just as a subjective judgment, this is too high for the streetscape. I think they're saying it is in excess of the 4.7 or the 4'7" calculation of what's permitted in the streetscape. I'll read it to you. A 6-foot coyote fence does not provide for the least negative impact. On the contrary, it is divergent from the overall character of the streetscape. This is in response to, so that's in response to the exception criteria and responding to your, the applicant's response on each criteria. So, the first issue is just, Which is the exception criteria. The first issue is just whether or not this is permitted. And so, you know, I'm just trying to go through a little bit of a flowchart as to how I as a board member and the rest of the board needs to decide the issue. So, the first, the first issue is, well, the ordinance specifically says that a nonconforming structure, and including a wall or a fence, can only be removed but not just simply replaced. Right. And this is a nonconforming structure according to staff's calculations. Not, I mean, I have no independent knowledge whatsoever. So, that's why I asked you if you have independent knowledge that the calculation is incorrect, that would be relevant. I do not. I understand that their position is that it's a nonconforming structure that exists on site right now because it's in excess of what is permitted in height. So, okay. And then so that means that it can only be demolished, it can only be removed. And so, in essence, what's coming before the board would then be a new fence, and that new fence now is subject to the exact same height calculation, which is 4'7". So, in order to have any fence that's in excess of 4 feet 7 inches, the applicant would have the burden of demonstrating that all six criteria have been met, right? And, Okay. And so, I guess what, what, what hangs me up on that, and you know, I'm trying to be, you know, extremely sympathetic to an applicant's perspective here because I can understand why every individual property owner, I think, always prefers to have more privacy. It's very rare that someone wants a low fence or wall because that's really not protecting, protective of the property owner so much as of the public. And so, I completely understand the idea that, yeah, I would really prefer to get back to that six-foot high fence, but a bit of the problem is that if the grounds for that is that it's more private, I don't see how that wouldn't apply to every single application that would ever be submitted because there's nothing unique about this property other than that it already had a fence there. But that's already addressed in our ordinance, which is once that non-conforming structure goes away, you start from scratch. So, it just seems to me that granting the, I mean, if the basis for the exception criteria is that it's a need for greater privacy, that same intention would apply to every single person that wants to build greater than the allowable height. And that would in essence mean we would be rewriting the ordinance the way I see it. So, so it's not that I'm unsympathetic so much as I would, I perceive that to be an issue for the governing body to decide whether or not the height calculations are adequate. Thank you for your comments, member. And Gayla, did you have an opportunity to talk to the owners on perhaps lowering the wall, lowering the fence? Yes, I did. And what was their response? They're willing to, I mean, they would rather have a wall at this point if they have to build at the 4'7". One of the reasons that we went for the six-foot tall coyote fence was because we were sort of in a panic and we needed to get this done as soon as possible. And so, it seemed at that moment, not now, but at that moment, it seemed expedient to say, "Oh, we'll just replace what's there with the new," and then, "Oh, let's do coyote because it's aesthetically more pleasing than the dog-eared cedar." So, that's kind of where that started. They are willing to do a lower fence. They'd love to do a wall if possible, but they are willing to do a lower fence. And we can replace, we can repair the 6-foot fence that we still have remaining. And then we'll just have part of it be the 4'7" height. 4'7". The allowable height that came from the streetscape, and I see the calculations and they don't look out of ordinary, so I don't think that I could argue that they're incorrect. Thank you, Gayla. Any other questions? Member DA: Just a clarification, please, Madam Chair. Mr. Romero, this paper that we just received, this is actually the calculation. Obviously, it says wall height. Yes. Okay. But this is what the staff did. So, to Miss Beal's point, she as a professional just on a quick glance says that this looks right. Madam Chair, not that she's challenging you. That is correct. That is the wall height calculation that was used. Thank you. Furthermore, staff would be okay with them doing the wall or fence to a height of 4'7" and approved administratively if given directive of color and wall type by the board. Thank you, Amanda. Anyone in this audience wishing to comment? Stephanie Beninato, I appreciate the discussion here, and I do remind you 145A2, which has to do with non-conforming structures that include fences and walls, say they cannot be repaired or replaced. They can only be removed. So to say that you're going to repair part of a fence that's still six feet that's falling down, that's not allowed. It has to be removed. And then you start, as member Benu said, from the beginning, which is that you are at a 4.7 calculation. I also agree that privacy is not a hardship. Wanting privacy doesn't really constitute a hardship. It's a very long, uninterrupted coyote fence the way it looks, and at six feet, I think it's disruptive actually to the streetscape, even though there are other walls or fences that are there. Palco is a fairly small street; it's not highly used, so a 4'7" wall, I believe, would give people privacy on such a street with the amount of traffic that's on it. I know that you can grant exceptions, but I don't think privacy really qualifies for an exception. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else in this room wanting to comment on this particular case? No one. Anyone on Zoom? Thank you, Chair Rios. Let me check. Anyone, are there hands raised? I see none. Thank you. Thank you very much. Board members, if you have nothing further to add or say. Yes, members. I just wanted to make a clarification to Gayla that I know I heard you say that, obviously, there are a lot of unpermitted walls and fences everywhere in Santa Fe. I think that goes without saying. And I think that the conversation was just to gain some clarity of what's included and what's excluded. And I think, from my standpoint, the interest of whether it was permitted or not wasn't really the issue if it's being used to exclude it, but more if it was recently added as an unpermitted thing. So, for instance, who knows if the dog-eared fence on top of the wall on that street was permitted, but that's a very typical thing that gets done without permitting. And just wanting to understand if those wall heights are being used in these calculations and what's being used by staff to either identify that they are being used or not being used on these maps is important for me to be able to look at a streetscape like that with the information we're given and be able to make a really well-reasoned, measured decision on things like this. I would just for your comments. Yes, Gayla. I would just add that it doesn't appear that that fence was used at that height. It was used at the wall height of that dog-eared cedar fence. Okay. Yeah, that's good to know. And again, it's impossible to see that on this map. So, thanks for the clarification. Yes, member Pammen. A question for the applicant. So I see, for me personally, two possibilities here. One is to continue this case to the next meeting and have you present revised plans that meet the kind of along the lines of what you suggested, or a denial. And I say that because you may want that if you want to just proceed with an appeal. I think you're entitled to that if you would prefer that route. So, do you have a preference? Does the applicant have a preference? I believe we'd rather the continuance than the denial. Okay. For today, thank you for giving me that choice. So, with that being said, I will entertain a motion, please, board members. Yes, member Dickman. Thank you, Madam Chair. Regarding case number 2025-0698 HDRB at 202 Balco Street, I recommend that we grant a continuance for the disposition of the fence issue. Don't think I need to say anything else, but I welcome any further strengthening of that motion if you think it's important. I'd make a friendly amendment. Well, first I want to hear a second to the motion. There will. Yes, member Chair. That the continuance is so that the applicant can present an alternate fence or wall idea. Yes. Could we get a date for the hearing? Is that possible to add to the motion? Can we get a date to the next hearing? Do you think that's possible? Yes. If you do date certain to August 12th, 2025, I believe is the next hearing. Let me get my agenda. Okay. And I think that acceptance. Member Dickman is used to postpone the case to the next hearing. I accept that. I understand motion means the same thing, but that's what's used. Yes, Amanda. Nothing else. No, Madam Chair. Okay. So, it's postponed to August the 12th, and I hope that's fine with you. We haven't voted. We haven't voted. Oh, no, we haven't voted. Vote, please. Rya. Member Dagnen. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Matherther. Yes. Member Aguiler Madrono. Yes. Member Bianu. Yes, Madam Chair. The motion has passed. Thank you very much. Anything under staff, under discussion item staff? Thank you, Chair Rios. I just wanted to note that we had a member of the public arrive late for matters from the public, and so I wanted to give, or you know, ask the chair and the board if they wanted to consider that item. Sure. Okay. And who do we have? Miss West. Pardon? Miss West. Oh. Oh. Oh, it's Elizabeth. Oh, it's Elizabeth. Yes, Elizabeth. I don't think it is. If there's a green light, then it's on. Okay. Well, I'm a little embarrassed, quite frankly. I for sure thought I was going to make it to matters from the floor on time, and I found out that wasn't the case. So, thank you very much. I'm going to make this one minute. My comments are written down in a packet that I'd like to hand out to each of you and to you all here. But briefly, directly, and simply, I want to ask the Historic District's Review Board to bring forward a historic status review of the Soldiers Monument in the center of the Santa Fe Plaza. I think it's possible to do it. I would like to hand out a packet that will explain things. And the reason it's heavy is because I have John Murphy's long HC Hick report, and some of you have seen it. There are a lot of photographs, but it's an interesting history. May I, I don't know the proper procedure. Okay. Thank you ever so much and happy reading. Oh, thank you. Would you all staff would like some too? Great. And would you, I made plenty. You can have one. Thank you very much. That was quick. Oh, that was quick. Thank you, Elizabeth. Thank you for the late night reading, Miss West. So, matters from the board. I would like to make a suggestion, and this has to do with, oh, but I want to wait till Scott gets that. Well, I can, I guess I can go forward and just repeat to Scott. I think that we should have a two-member subcommittee from the board in reference to the footbridge, and that is my recommendation so that we can, Scott, I am suggesting that we have a two-member subcommittee in reference to the footbridge, and I was going to suggest you as one of the members, as one of the persons. What's the time commitment? To overlook the footage? What is the, the, oh, oh, you're saying to overlook the, like to overlook the construction? Design, the design of the foot. Oh, the design. Yeah. And I'm willing to volunteer, and I'm wondering if you are. Yeah, I would do that. And if that's okay with the city. Yes, Madam Chair. So, I would like to, okay. So, we are a team, and if you will keep us informed, city, of the progress so that we can be there. Yes, Madam Chair. We'll make sure to include you on that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Our next meeting, as stated, is August the 12th, and do I hear a motion to adjourn? Madam Chair? Yes. If I may, I wish to bring to the board's attention that the appeal hearing on the matter involving the coyote fence, which was denied at 6:14 Pande Peralta, has been postponed a couple of times, and that should be heard during the agenda for the governing body meeting, which will take place on July 30th or last Wednesday. And my experience has been that land use appeals are the last item on the agenda. So they do take place kind of late at night, but it is. Frank. Anything else that is pending? There will be another appeal which involves the status review at 10:30 and a half West Hton Street, and we are looking to place that on the agenda for the first governing body meeting in August, which I believe will be August 12th. I should, I can double check that if you'd like. That's going to be the same day as our meeting. No, August 13th. Okay. Okay. No, it'll be the night after our meeting. Anything else, staff? Nothing else. So, motion to adjourn. Move to adjourn. Neither will second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. Thank you, board members, for your thoroughness. Thank you.