Historic Districts Review Board Meeting Tue, Sep 23, 2025 · Historic Districts Review Board https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/586-historic-design-review-sep-23-2025 == Executive Summary == The Historic Districts Review Board convened on September 23, 2025, addressing several key items including agenda adjustments, approval of past minutes and findings, and staff updates on the Land Development Code and General Plan. A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to reviewing specific property applications, with detailed discussions on architectural designs, material choices, and compliance with historic preservation standards. Key decisions included the approval of a bathroom addition at 549 1/2 Agua Fria Street and a new single-family residence at 643 Garcia Street, with specific conditions regarding corner radii and trim colors. However, applications for 126 and 128 Camino Santiago, involving window replacements, additions, and garage conversions, were denied based on staff recommendations due to concerns about exceeding historic footprints and obscuring original structures. The board also voted to elevate the historic status of 532 Caya Corvo to 'contributing.' A contentious case involving unpermitted work at 121 East Santa Fe Avenue was postponed to November 18, 2025, due to insufficient and inaccurate documentation. Board members expressed frustration over the extent of unpermitted alterations on a significant historic property and mandated the applicant provide comprehensive, accurate drawings and documentation for future review. Public comments throughout the meeting raised concerns about communication, legal processes for board decisions, and the balance between historic preservation and modern living needs. == Key Decisions == - Approved the agenda as amended, including the postponement of item 8A (2025-0873-HDRB 219 219A Washington Avenue). - Approved the minutes from August 12, 2025. - Approved Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law from February 11, 2025, and February 25, 2025 (for 512 8th Street). - Approved the addition of a 250 sq ft bathroom to the north facade of 549 1/2 Agua Fria Street. - Approved the construction of a 4,668 sq ft single-family residence at 643 Garcia Street with conditions: minimum 2.5-inch bullnose corners, deeply recessed windows, clear-coated wood garage doors, and a lighter trim color (e.g., bronze) for exterior windows and doors to be submitted to staff for final approval. - Denied all exception requests and other aspects of the application for 126 Camino Santiago, including window replacements, additions exceeding historic footprint, and a freestanding garage. - Denied all exception requests for 128 Camino Santiago, including window replacements, an addition within 10 feet of the primary facade, and exceeding 50% of the historic footprint. - Designated the main residential structure, garage, and southern yard wall at 532 Caya Corvo as 'contributing' to the historic district, with the east facades of the main structure and garage as primary. - Postponed the case for 121 East Santa Fe Avenue to November 18, 2025, due to insufficient and inaccurate documentation regarding unpermitted work. == Motions & Votes == - Motion to approve the agenda as amended — Passed (unanimous voice vote) - Motion to approve the minutes of August 12, 2025 — Passed (unanimous voice vote) - Motion to approve Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law from February 11, 2025 — Passed (unanimous voice vote) - Motion to approve Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law from February 25, 2025 — Passed (unanimous voice vote, with one abstention) - Motion to approve Case 2025-010945-HDRB (549 1/2 Agua Fria Street) — Passed 5-0 (Vice Chair Ben Venet: Yes, Agar Madrono: Yes, Member Degen: Yes, Member Mather: Yes, Member Cherry: Yes) - Motion to approve Case 2025-01946 HDRB (643 Garcia Street) as submitted with conditions — Passed 5-0 - Motion to adopt staff's findings and deny all exception requests and other aspects of the application for 126 Camino Santiago — Passed 5-0 - Motion to adopt all of staff's recommendations and proposed findings for 128 Camino Santiago, denying exceptions for replacing historic windows, constructing an addition within 10 feet of the primary facade, and exceeding 50% of the historic footprint — Passed 4-0 - Motion to designate the structure at 532 Caya Corvo as contributing, with facades one and two as primary, and to designate the south wall as contributing and the garage as contributing with its east facade as primary — Passed (vote count not specified, but indicated as approved) - Motion to postpone Case 2025-01122-HDRB (121 East Santa Fe Avenue) to November 18, 2025 — Passed 4-0 (Member Cherry: Yes, Member Benvenuto: Yes, Member Agamano: Yes, Member Degen: Yes) - Motion to adjourn — Passed (unanimous voice vote) == Public Comment == Public comments raised concerns about the communication of Zoom link changes for online participants and questioned the legal basis for rescinding board votes, suggesting that reconsideration or appeal are the proper procedures. A public member also highlighted the city's land use director's authority to waive or reduce appeal fees, implying similar authority for exception fees based on income. Specific to property cases, public comments included support for the design at 643 Garcia Street from neighbors and community members, while others expressed reservations about moving away from traditional historic preservation and questioned specific design elements. For 126 and 128 Camino Santiago, public comments largely supported staff's recommendations to deny exceptions, citing previous concessions granted to the applicant and concerns about potential encroachments on easements and utility access. For 121 East Santa Fe Avenue, public commenters expressed strong distress over the unapproved alterations and their potential impact on the property's historic status. == Topics == - Recision of Votes - Land Development Code Update - General Plan Update - Historic District Design Standards - Historic Property Additions - Stucco Material and Color - Public Comment Procedures - Appeals Process - Unapproved Work on Historic Properties - Accuracy of Drawings - Railings and Fences == Full Transcript == Let us know when we can go live. We are live. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to this meeting of the Historic Districts Review Board. Today we are September 23rd, 2025. Amanda, may we have a roll call, please? Madame Chair Rios, here. Member Aglam Madrono, here. Member Dnen, here. Vice Chair Benvvenu, here. Member Cherry, here. Member Mather, here. Member East, excused. You have a quorum, Madam. Thank you very much. Are there any changes to the agenda? Yes, Chair Rios. Just an information for the Zoom link is now going to be https://santam-g.zoom.us/J81870454328. And under old business, item number 8A, 2025-0873-HDRB 219 219A Washington Avenue has been postponed. Thank you. And what Gary read is a new link if you're online. And the city evidently got a new link. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay. Thank you very much. And we provide that, the city provides that as a courtesy. So with those changes, is a motion to approve the agenda as amended? Moved and second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. And oppose say no. Thank you. We have minutes of August 12th, 2025. Changes to this minute? Anyone? It appears no one has changes. May I hear a motion, please, for approval? Move to approve as submitted. A second. Lamadana seconds. All those in favor say aye. Aye. I'll say no. Thank you. We have two findings of fact and conclusions of law. The first one is from February 11th, 2025. Changes to those? No changes. And all those in favor of this findings and conclusions say aye. Aye. Those say no. The next ones are from February 25th, 2025. And that's 512 of 8th Street. Any changes to any that's no changes. Motion, please. Okay. Move approval. Move on. May there will second. And all those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Aye. Oppose say no. Abstain. Or abstain. Matters from the public. Anyone in this room wishing to come forward and talk about something that's probably bugging you, having to do with H matters reservation? I know it's on. Stephanie Benonato. I heard that the Zoom link just got changed, but I hope it got reposted because just changing it in this room isn't going to do anybody who's online any good. They can't get to the new link. And then the other thing is, and I was doing it quickly, but I looked up recision or rescind a vote, and I could find nothing in the city code about rescinding a land use decision by a board or the commission. And I would really like it if Mr. Rubel would actually quote the law to you all so that you actually know whether you have the authority to even consider rescinding a vote. My understanding is in administrative law, you can ask for a reconsideration, and that has to be done within a certain amount of time. And otherwise, you appeal, and that's the procedure. You appeal the governing body, then you appeal to district court. And I think having this idea of a recision coming back months later is a really bad idea, bad precedent. And I also was disappointed that nobody pointed out to the applicant on Romero Street that the city land use director can waive or reduce fees for appeals. And so I would assume that they would have the similar authority to waive or reduce fees for exceptions if your income is that low. And I would assume you have to show some kind of income standard to get that reduction. And in terms of reconsideration, I think it should be based on some legal issue, not just, as in the case that was pointed out by Mr. Martinez, that he didn't think enough people were there. If he thought that, and I think that the case was, it was a 2-1 vote, therefore there were not three people voting. A majority of the members present did not vote in one direction or another. That would have been a legal reason. But just not having, not thinking there was enough people, everybody could come back and say that. You'd be rehearing cases forever. Thank you. Thank you, Stephanie. Anyone else in this audience is wishing to come forward? No one. And is there anyone online? Chair, there's no. Thank you, Heather. Staff communications. You have anything? Yes. Thank you, Chair Rios. Members of the board, we will be bringing forward the land development code update for a review. We had a study session previously, but we will be bringing it forward for review within the month, the coming month. So, I will try to send that information out to you as soon as possible so you will have time to sit with it, to review it, and to ask any questions. So, that is the hope. We've also reached a major milestone on the general plan update. The assessment report is complete. We had our first session with our technical working group and the planning commission on the next stage, which is visioning. And that will be kicking off. And I, there is a survey for visioning that is has been sent out by the city. I'll send it out to the boards and commissions, and so you can also participate. And I encourage the public to do so as well. That's it. Thank you. Thank you, Heather. Anything else? Chavios, thank you. Thank you. We'll move on to new business, and we have six cases this evening. I do have to tell you two things. One is if you are a member of the public and you are going to comment on a case, I'm going to limit your comments to two minutes, and Amanda will help me. That's if you're a member of the public. The other thing is if you disagree with the decision that this board renders this evening, you do have the option to appeal. You would be appealing to the city council, and I would suggest that you talk to staff, and they can guide you in that process in terms of time. There will be time constraints. So, it's a good idea if that is the route you want to take, that you talk to staff. And the first case this evening is located at 549 and a half A. Is that applicant here? And the applicant is here. And this is Paul's case. Paul, Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the board, members of the public. Thank you all for being here. Greatly appreciate your time. Bear with me one moment. Chair, if you could bear with us one moment. We're just having a little difficulties. Chair Rios, members of the board, in case number 2025010945 HDRB or 549 and a half Awa Fria Street, a single family residence at 549 and a half Awa Fria Street is listed as contributing to the Westside Guadalupe Historic District with the southern facade designated as primary, excluding non-historic materials. The Santa Fe County tax partial information on the property describes that the main dwelling and garage at 549 Awafria Street were built in 1867. Mr. Murphy's 2025 Historic Cultural Property Inventory HCPI survey report identifies the main structure and garage as being built in the 1920s. Mr. Murphy shares that the Adobe garage was converted into a small cottage in the 1940s with additions in the 1960s. The current structure at 549 and a half Awa Fria Street is described as a modest Pueblo Revival style building comprised of approximately 1,000 square feet of roofed area constructed from adobe block material with a stuccoed exterior. Now, the applicant has provided the design set for the board members for review, and they're looking at adding a 250 foot addition to the north side of the existing structure. So here off Awa Fria Street, if you head north at 549 Awa Fria, you travel down this humble dirt road, and in the back is the 549 and a half converted garage into a single dwelling. And this quintessential Santa Fe style, Santa Fe Pueblo Revival style home has a really exquisite rock wall in the front of it and has the elements of the deep recessed windows and doors, rounded parapets, and flat roof. Here is where the applicant is proposing that 250 foot addition on this north primary, on this north non-primary facade. Here is that east elevation facing the boundary line. Decking in the back. And here's a 1930 Sanborn map showing the garage addition and the main residence. And just photos through time, courtesy of Mr. Murphy's HCPI report. Here is the primary facade diagram showing 549 and a half hour Fria Street and the designation back in August 12th, 2025. Here is the proposed site plan by the applicant showing the 250 foot addition to the north elevation. Here we have the existing roof plan in which the applicant has provided that roof. Here we have the existing and the proposed floor plan showing that new 240 foot addition for the bathroom. And here we have the existing and proposed north elevations showing the extent of that north addition. The existing and proposed east elevations showing the extent of that addition being built to 12 feet 6 inches. The existing and proposed south elevation where no work will take place on the primary facade, and the existing and proposed west elevation showing the extent of the addition as it extends northward. Staff recommends approval of the proposed project and finds that the application complies with section 14-5.2D 2D general design standards for all historic districts and 14-5.2I Westside Guadalupe Design Standards. Thank you. Staff stands for questions. Very much for the report, Paul. So this house is located behind 549 Awafria as you stated, and the public visibility is minimal to the front of the house, I would say, unless you go down the driveway. And in reference to the proposed project, I would say no public visibility from a public way. Correct. Correct, Madam Chair. Any questions for Paul, board members? None at this time. Sir, if you'll come forward and get sworn in, Please raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record. Bob Kger, 3068 Plaza Blanos. 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, Madam. He has been sworn. You speak right? Yes. Good evening. And do you have anything more to add to what Paul just told us? Nope. Well, board members, do you have any questions for Mr. Kger? No. Yeah, I do. I saw that. Member Cherry. Thanks. Hi. I saw that the stucco color is a Stow Stucco color, and it says matching the existing stucco, but the existing stucco appears to be a traditional stucco. Is that true? Or is there a Stow on the building already? I'm sorry. I had a hard time hearing. He's wondering if the stucco color that you are proposing matches the house. Does because it's a, it's a standard color that was came really close. Yeah. And I would ask everyone this evening, just talk right into that mic. Don't be afraid. It's a standard. Including board members. Standard color that we just happen to be really close to the existing color, and we put a color chip into the application. Okay. I guess my question was in regard to the existing color looks like a traditional cementitious stucco. Is it or is it a synthetic? It's synthetic. The existing. Yeah, the existing that we now is re, the whole house was remodeled in the last five years. And then sold to my clients. So you indicated that the stucco right now on the home is not cementitious. The whole stucco system is cementitious. Yes. But the color coat. Is what we call synthetic. It's polymer mod. You have anything further? No, just to clarify. You're just, you're just proposing to re, to color the new structure and leave the existing stucco. Is that correct? Okay. Thanks. That's all. Any other questions? Other questions? Anyone in this audience wishing to comment on this particular project? If Stephanie Benonato is coming forward, you need to get sworn in. Please 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're giving in regards to this item is the truth and the whole truth, and do this under the penalty of perjury? Thank you. I think that it's a modest addition, but I'm a little unclear because if it's that small, then why is it, from what Paul said, it seems like it was going to go beyond both the east and the west side, even though it's mostly... Stephanie, we cannot hear you. Okay. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. So, from what Paul said, it sounded like the addition, although it's small and on the north side, that it was going to be affecting both the east and the west side. And yet, I didn't really see how it affected the west side in the drawing. So, maybe that could be clarified. Thank you. Paul. Sure, Rios. In regards to Miss Benonato's comment on the plan set here, maybe we start here at the proposed addition floor plan. The extension on the north elevation extends out north approximately, I believe, 10 feet north. However, on the west, you will be able to see that extension on the west, given that the floor layout of the house is uniquely shaped like a cross. So that northern extension it butts out, and so you can see it from the west elevation. But because this property is to the north of 549 Agua Fria Street, there is no publicly visible access to this property. So the addition itself will not be viewed from anybody from any public right-of-way. It's kind of just an addition in the backyard. Thank you for that clarification. Yes, ma'am. And if there was no one else in this audience wishing to speak, I will entertain a motion from the board. Member Dickman. Thank you, Madam Chair Rios. I move that we approve the request for 2025-010945-HDRB at 549 and a half Agua Fria Street. May there be a second, and is there anything further to add, board members? There's nothing further to add. May we have a roll call vote, please? Vice Chair Ben Venet. Yes. Agar Madrono. Yes. Member Degen. Yes. Member Mather. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Madam Chair, the motion has been approved. Thank you, Mr. Kger. Your project passed. The next case is located at 643 Garcia Street. Is that applicant here? Yep. Paul, that's also your case. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chair Rios, members of the board, in case number 202501946 HDRB at 643 Garcia Street, the vacant lot addressed at 643 Garcia Street is located within the Downtown and East Side Historic District. The proposed single-family residence is approximately 4,668 square feet of roofed area on a 0.60-acre lot. The property is within the three-lot Windmill Hill subdivision, which includes an established residence on lot one and another single-family residence on lot three, which went before the Historic District's Review Board in 2024. The subdivision is set back from Garcia Street and is accessed via a private drive. The site is further concealed behind an existing 8-inch high coyote fence along the subdivision's north, east, and south boundaries. The proposed residence is composed of multi-blocked tiered masses with the garage up to the main structure, with the highest portion of the building at the center. The proposed structure will have divided light windows and bull-nosed corners consistent with the streetscape study at a minimum of 3 inches. Several outdoor covered open spaces are proposed. A cistern is proposed to be attached to the building to provide landscape irrigation. So here is our lot two proposed development. Here is a general overview of the location in the Windmill Hill subdivision. And this Windmill Hill subdivision is such a unique piece of landscape. It's quite wonderful. So in this lot two, this proposed lot, here's our proposed site plan. And here we have the proposed lot zero and lot one. Lot zero on the right-hand side showing where the garage is, where the cars come in from the gravel road, and then lot two or lot one showing the makeup and buildup of the floor plan, the proposed site. So in that, in lot two, north elevation, here we have divided light windows. The maximum height of the proposed building is being built to 15 feet 10 inches, and the massing is tiered back to give that recent Spanish Pueblo Revival style. Here we have on the east, on the proposed east elevation, they have that Santa Fe River cobble rock stone making up the walls and the cistern with the divided light and the open bay windows underneath the portal, giving that Spanish Pueblo Revival style design common in which we see in the Downtown and East Side Historic District. Here we have the south elevation showing the extent of the cistern connected to the main residence, as well as an overhang and the canal sloping to the south. And we have the west elevation. This west elevation showing a covered area with open glass doors, divided light windows, and the tiered structured masses. Here the applicant is using, proposing stucco and suede Santa Fe River Rock Cobble. And I believe that is the wood natural stain. So with that, staff recommends approval of the proposed project and finds that the application complies with section 14-5.2D.2D general design standards for all historic districts and 14-5.2E Downtown and East Side design standards. Thank you all. Staff stands for questions. Thank you, Paul. Board members, do you have questions at this point? Benu. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm looking quickly through the packet. Are the materials shown? Yes, Madam Chair, Member Bian Benu, the materials should be shown in the applicant documents. So all of the detailing, structural exterior elements are made of wood. Is that right? Madam Chair, Member Bian Benu, that is correct, and they're stained. Okay. So they're clear coat, and the river rock treatments are on the cistern and wall. Is that right? Madam Chair, Member Benu, it appears that the river rock material extends from the cistern and the walls, but it does look as it appears to be on masses on the structure itself as well. Okay. So maybe we can get some clarification from the applicant on that. Sure. And the corner radiuses, you said it's going to be rounded corners. What radius is being proposed? Staff recommends the minimum of 3 inches, and the applicant may share another dimension that they're requesting. Okay. Thank you. Yes, thank you, Aguilar Madano. Thank you, Madam Chair. Paul, apologies if you already said this, but are any of the facades publicly visible? Madam Chair, Member Aguilar Madano, that's a great question, and I think we had this question before on this property, but no, ma'am, I don't believe so. Okay. And do you know the garage doors, what is the material on those or color? I believe these will be wood and clad, and I'll ask the applicant to speak to that. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. My question is for attorney Rubal Lead or Heather. What does the ordinance tell us in reference to wall space versus window space? Chair Rios, in section 14-5.2, I believe I was just looking at this in the code, there shall be no more than 40% of the facade area that is occupied by windows, just in order to have the appearance of mass like you would find in traditional construction. Does that answer your question? Yes, it does. And Paul, do you know if in fact that this project falls under the ordinance in reference to wall space, window space? I believe it does. I believe it does. And I believe it is under 40%, and I'll ask the applicant to speak to that, but I believe it is less than 40. Member Cherry. Heather, can you clarify, is that on every individual facade or overall? Traditionally, there are two things at play. Chair Rios, Member Cherry, the first thing is how we apply the definition facade for historic status, that is one thing, which there would be facades that wouldn't comply. But on the other hand, traditionally how this is applied is per elevation. So in this particular case, you know, I was just looking at the drawings, I believe that the east elevation has a large amount of glazing, and the north elevation as well, that could be potentially getting close to that, but I'm not certain that it actually is in excess of 40%. I think there's a portion of it is underneath the... that is excluded in terms of the 40% rule. Okay. So it's calculated by elevation, not facade. Yes, that is correct. Okay. Thank you. Paul, can you put up the east elevation on the screen? Yes, Madam Chair. Here's the east elevation. It may be worthwhile to have the applicant clarify. Any other questions at this time? Applicant or applicants, will you please come forward and get sworn in? The east elevation is no longer on the screen. Can you please... Thank you. Sir, please raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record. It's Graeme Hogan. My name is Graham Hogan, and I live at One de Bajo de Oro in Pojoaque, New Mexico. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in regards to this item shall be the truth, nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalty of perjury? Thank you, Madam Chair. He has been sworn. Mr. Hogan, good evening. What do you have to tell us on this project? Pardon me, Madam Chair. Well, you have the floor. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, board members. I want to thank you for your time and your dedication to maintaining the integrity of the architecture in Santa Fe. My name is Graham Hogan. I'm the architect on the project with Studio GP, and I've been working with Michael, the owner, on developing the Windmill Hill lots. So, this is an overview image of the Windmill Hill subdivision. We're developing lot two. There's lot one down to the south, as Paul noted. We're developing lot two, which is on the west end of the lot. And then there's lot three, which is in the northeast corner of the lot. And as you can see from the road coming in, Garcia Street is all the way out here, and the Windmill Hill subdivision is at the dead end of a private entry road into the subdivision. The subdivision has an 8-foot tall coyote fence that runs all the way around the three lots. The one exception to that is there is a view corridor, which I'll get into later, from the adjoining lot that on this edge of the lot. So this portion doesn't have a coyote fence, but a coyote fence does surround the rest of the lot, which gives more privacy to the lot as well. Here's an existing site plan and a proposed site plan. So the existing site plan is a vacant lot. Lot two, you can see, doesn't have any structures or anything on it. It has landscaping on it. And we're looking at locating the house on the south end of the lot over here. There is a view corridor on the north end of the site here. So, if you look over to the proposed site plan, this is the four-bedroom custom home that we're looking at putting on the site. It's a 4,668 square foot house on a sloped site. The site slopes pretty significantly from the south end of the site down to the north. Across the entire length of the site, it drops. There's nearly 20 feet of fall from the lower corner to the south to the farthest corner to the north. So, the really great thing about this site, I mean, there's lots of really great things about the site, but one of the things that we really wanted to capitalize on this site is at the higher end on the site, you really get strong views towards the mountains. So there's good views to the Sandias Mountains to the east and distant views to the Jemez Mountains to the northwest. So we wanted to capitalize on that. So we've located the house. We've tried to basically make the house on one level. It is a two-story house with a lower-level garage, but really the primary house is all at one level, which is set at the upper elevation on the site. So these are two floor plans of both our upper level and our lower level. You can see to the south here, this is the main entry to the house on the south. So we have our primary entry into the house under a wooden covered portal, and that opens up to a living room in the middle of the structure, and that has really good views out towards Santa Fe Baldy and the ski area to the northeast. The living room opens to a central open space, which is a kitchen dining room space, and that space opens to an exterior patio space to the south, which will have really good sun access on that side. And then on the dining room side, it opens to another covered canopy patio space that opens to the views to the ski area and the Sangre de Cristos to the east. And then there's a small family room space to the north of that space. And then arranged along the west side of the house are bedrooms. So we have a bedroom suite in the south corner here, another bedroom in the middle portion of the house here, a small bedroom on the north part, and then the north end of the house is dedicated to a master suite, which will have a master bedroom, closet, and master bathroom space. And then just tucked behind that master suite is a staircase that goes down to the lower level. And you can see on the lower level plan over here, you have a two-car garage. So the cars would enter from the south here into the garage doors on the bottom. And then that opens to a gym and mudroom space that opens to the stairs that gets you back up to the main level. So this is our south entry elevation at the top here. So you can see this is our entry doors underneath our covered wood canopy. This is our rainwater system that Paul had referenced. So this is the Windmill Hill subdivision, so we wanted to make a reference to the windmill that is located on the site. Traditionally, in Western landscapes, a windmill is associated with cisterns. So that's where the nod to the windmill came to, and that will be a rainwater collection cistern. So we're looking at funneling roof water from the roofs into the cistern, and then that cistern will be used to irrigate the landscaping. The bottom elevation is the east elevation that we were referring to. So we really wanted to play to the spirit of what we believe the code is by trying to keep it heavy, mass-dominated volumes that are low in height. So we wanted to keep the building as low as we could, and basically, it is two stories with the lower-level garage, but really we wanted it to read like a one-story house, basically. So it's a series of tiered volumes that step from the high point, as Paul noted, in the living room area that then steps down the hillside as it slopes to the north. And then the garage is this space down here. So we tucked the garage, it's really notched into the landscape. So it'll be excavated out, and the back part of it will be completely subterranean there. And we're cladding those walls with the Santa Fe River cobbles because we really wanted to minimize the presence of the garage space. We wanted to really incorporate it into the landscape and make it feel as much as the landscape as possible. So the river rocks that are cladding that exterior wall of the garage on the east side, we're also using the river rocks in some landscaping walls around the site and the rainwater system. And just to comment too, it was brought up earlier about the 40% of the glazed area in the facade. And it's my understanding that that 40% area is required in publicly visible facades. It's our understanding that none of these facades are really publicly visible. But that being said, I did run a calculation on it a while back, and it was under the 40%, but I would need to verify that 100% if that comes up to be an issue. And then these are the other two elevations to the house on the north, the north elevation. So this is the view that you would see when you come up through the entry gate. We have the two garage doors for the garage down here, and we are looking at cladding those in wood. So that'll be wood with the clear coat finish. And then these are windows to the mudroom. And then you can see the stepped massing of the main floor plan on the upper level here. And then on the lower west elevation, this is the elevation that's pretty close to the existing coyote fence that's out there along the west property line. And this is at the high end of the site. So really the structure is very low from this end of the site. We have a very simple material palette. It's basically going to be stucco with wood accents and then the Santa Fe River cobbles. So for the stucco, we're looking at doing the Santa Fe approved suede color, which will be a smooth sand float finish on the stucco throughout the house. And as Paul mentioned, we are looking to bullnose the corners. So we want to again stay with the spirit of the recent Santa Fe style, and we're looking to round the corners on the structure. All the windows are really deeply recessed. So we have deep recessed corners, and we've really preserved the corners on the house. So we have a weighted masonry type of construction look to the house. And then the stone will be the Santa Fe River cobble that's common throughout the historic area in Santa Fe and specifically will match and be consistent with other cobbles that site walls that are immediately adjacent to the site and adjacent to the area. And so one request that we would like to make, we talked early on about bull-nosing the corners, and I know that Paul noted for 3-inch bull-nose corners. We are interested in doing 2-inch bull-nose corners. We've designed the house to the 2 inches, and we would like to keep it consistent and harmonious with the closest house to the site. So these are some images of the site, the house that you see where the star is. This is the house that has the view corridor that looks across the north end of the site here. But that house has the 2-inch rounded bullnose corners, and we would like our house to be consistent to that because that's really the only house that you can see through the portion of the site because of the 8-foot coyote fence that surrounds the site. So with that, I would like to thank you so much for your time and turn it over to any questions you might have. Mr. Dr. Hogan, thank you very much for your very thorough presentation. It's much appreciated. Are you wanting to put anything on the roof? Any visible rooftop appurtenances? We do, we will have two chimneys. So we do have, there's a small chimney that you can see on this portion of the elevation here. So there'll be a chimney that comes up from the living room fireplace. And then that you can see in the north elevation here, we'll have a small corner chimney that pops up from the master bedroom. But no skylights proposed? We haven't really gotten into skylights, but we haven't got that far yet. So no, we're not planning on any skylights. If and if we do get farther into the design and we want to add some skylights, what's the process for that? I would say that you would have to have low profile. Sure. And perhaps the maker of the motion could indicate that staff could review that. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Yes, Member Madano. Madam Chair, I have a question for staff that might take a couple minutes to look up. So I wanted to get it out there early. I do recall the case on the adjacent property last year and specifically about the corner radius, and for some reason, 4 inches is coming to my mind. But is there a way that you can look back to that case, and I believe we might have had it in the motion, and see what we approved for that corner radius? It was, I can tell you that because we just got a building permit on that, and that was part of the item that they made us put on the cover sheet for our building permit that we've just in the process of finalizing, but it was 1 inch is what was settled on. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah. So picking up on that, there was some controversy in the last go-round about those corners. There was, you recall, I think you were originally asking for half an inch. Staff originally said 1 inch would be acceptable. Then the applicant came before us for the half an inch, and by that time, staff had actually done a survey of the area and found out that 3 and 1/2 inches was the average. And now you were back to 3 and 1/2, and the board compromised by giving you the 1 inch that staff had originally indicated, but I think was very specific that that was not a precedent, but that was due solely to that miscommunication. So I'm very happy to see a very different plan this go-round. I appreciate that very much that you're really trying to stay within our style standards. Take your words to heart. Yeah, it's great. It really is. And I think just to start with the radius, 3 inches is what staff is recommending. 2 inches is what you're asking for based on the adjoining adjacent property. I think that our recent information about that area is that 2 and 1/2 inches is the average, and in recent times, the board has been fairly consistently specifying 2 and 1/2 inches minimum for a bullnose corner in order to achieve a rounded appearance consistent with adobe construction. So hopefully, if we get to that point, that's at least what I would be in favor of was a would be a minimum of 2 and a half inches, which is a compromise between what you're asking for and what staff was proposing. The deep window recesses is also very much appreciated. That's a critical aspect of the massing to appear to be made of adobe. And the garage doors, I don't think the materials were called out in the application, but you're saying tonight that they would be wood doors. That's right. They'll be wood clad. Yes. And so the only other thing I think is pushing the boundaries a little bit from what we typically approve is the black window and door trim. Historically, we've not approved that in this district as being inconsistent with the streetscape and district. So I would hope that you would be willing to have a lighter color and maybe something that would be more consistent with the garage doors because that's going to be a large expanse of wood, and you might want to have something that doesn't contrast too dramatically with that. So is there anything that would be a lighter color than black or dark charcoal that you would be willing to accept for trim of the doors and windows? It is, and yes, is the short answer to that question. But, you know, I've found in lots of projects I've done around Santa Fe and around the country and so forth, but, you know, we're looking at really accentuating that deep recess and getting that shadow effect from that deep recess. You know, I think that's important to really accentuate the mass of the building. I'm a little concerned that if we did a light tone on those, like a clear colored wood, that it might, it might distract from that a little bit. So, I think we would be open to going to a bronze or something lighter than that. That's often what we compromise at. Yeah, it's not, I agree with you actually. I think a too light of a tone would be a bad idea. But black, black and dark charcoal in particular really read as contemporary. I think we all agree on that. Agree. If you looked at any window manufacturer, they're going to say, you want contemporary, here's the black version of. Sure. Sure. Agree. So that's why we tend to want to create a more of a traditional look that's in harmony with the district. So that's great that you're also willing to work on that as well because it is just a matter of having something lighter than dark charcoal, but that you feel it complements both the stucco color that you've picked out and the style of the house and the surrounding house because it sounds like you're rightfully quite sensitive to the house next door. Absolutely. I completely agree with all that. Thank you. Good. And I also think you're right about the 40% rule on recent Santa Fe style applies when it is publicly visible. So you might not be actually restricted by that rule, but it sounds like because you're already operating with the desire to have something that looks like Adobe construction with that kind of massing, you've already designed it that way. So. True. That's a non-issue. True. Great. Anyone else? Other questions at this time? Anyone from the public in this room wishing to comment? Come forward. Please state your name and your address and you will get sworn in. Hitchcock, 636 Garcia Street. Gail, can you please raise your right hand? 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. He has been sworn. Chair, I am a neighbor who lives to the north of this property across the little private road that accesses it from Garcia Street. Our street number is given as Garcia Street. It used to be called Lasitas, but it got changed so that, I don't know, this before I lived there. In any case, you can't see this property from where I am at all. And I didn't even know they had fences around it because you can't see them. They're behind houses. And I support this plan. I think it'd be really good. Thank you, sir. Hi, please state your name and address for the record. Michael, my name is Doug McDall. My address is PO Box 99, Duka, New Mexico. Thank you, Doug. 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, Cherry Husbins. Hi. I'm very familiar with this property. I probably spent 25 years of my life up on this road. I've built nine homes there over the years, one of which is the neighboring home that you were talking about that they're very carefully trying to design it to match that. We were also the people that came up with the view corridor that was designated to not be developed on that property. I once owned that property and I've talked to the neighbors who are all friends of mine up in that area and the applicant has been very conscious of meeting with the neighbors and making sure that what they were doing was acceptable to the neighbors and really paying attention to them, which I really commend, very important in working in these neighborhoods. Primarily, one of the issues that were brought up to was, is it publicly visible? The answer is no. It's really not. But I mean, I guess if you go down to the gate, which is off a private easement, and you stand up on top of the gate, it might be, but it's really not publicly visible from any public right of way or even private easement back there. I know there was a lot of talk over the time with on this property and other properties and other properties that I'm involved in too on the east side and historic district about bullnose and instead of getting into a long discussion about Pueblo Revival style of John Gall me in the 1900s, early 1900s to mid 1900s and new styles, which I guess has a name of maybe New Santa Fe or something like that. I find myself as I'm getting older and I'm very much in favor of traditional Pueblo Revival style that I'm looking at a new generation of people that are coming in and they have new likes and dislikes and the patterns of historical style of setbacks and offsets and colors and things like that. They're still being respected, but there's little changes in maybe it's a little sharper. Maybe there's a little bit less of patterns that may be from the early 1900s. Of course, the Dong were from patterns of the Pueblo period and how did they come into that time? And so I really see as I as I'm getting at this age in my life, I really find that seeing these houses with a little bit more sharpness or some differences is nice because it's able to as you drive through these neighborhoods, you're able to see history, past history, present history, and those sort of things. And history is time. Time is moving. History is moving. So it's nice to see this. I want to commend them on their use of River Rock, those sort of things. Thank them for being good neighbors for the people up there and I think it's a beautiful design. Thank you, Doug. Miss Benonato has been sworn. Stephanie Benonato, I appreciate your discussion on the radius of the walls of the corners and I would be more supportive of having like a 3-inch radius. And although history is changing, we're really talking about historic preservation, which is a little bit different. And I just had a group of people on a tour on Monday and they were going, well, you know, one of the reasons we come to Santa Fe is because of the historic buildings. So to say, well, other people are coming in and we should like slide away from what is really traditional to accommodate them, I think is a big mistake. I also wonder, I just find it unfortunate. I like that the garage is down and you don't see it. I just think it's unfortunate that the cistern can't be by the garage so it'd really be out of sight and not imposing on one of the facades. And I wonder if there's any way actually to do that. And I just also want to remind you all that, you know, coyote fence around the subdivision doesn't mean anything in terms of seeing it or not seeing it because fencing is not considered permanent. And so that should really not come into your consideration. And I do find some of these facades to be looking like they have way more glass than mass. And I'm not really sure I understand something about it, not publicly visible. But if it is a facade and it's supposed to have a certain amount of mass, then I think there needs to be consistency. And I'm not sure that a canopy, whatever that really might mean, is sufficient to say, well, we don't have to worry about this giant piece of glass that has no divides because there's a 3-inch canopy over it as opposed to a portal. And so these are just kinds of issues that maybe at some point, maybe not on this case, but in the future, the board will consider and discuss more fully. Thank you, Stephanie. Hi. Please raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record. 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. She has been sworn. Hello. My name is Maggie, and Maggie Fine, and I'm actually a native of Santa Fe. I was born and raised here and I live on the east side and I also was called tonight to talk just a little bit about this design. And I do the Canyon Road Summer Walks, which is an event that is all about history and community on the east side and celebrating our amazing history here in Santa Fe. And I just want to say that this design and the applicant Michael and Ma, we also work with at our, we also have Santa Fe magazine and they are really, they have brought so much interest to the history of Santa Fe and trying to, and I've, I just fully support everything they're doing and I support this design. Thank you very much. Hi, please raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record. Hi, I'm Helen Rogers and I live at 637 Garcia Street. Thank you, Helen. 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. My husband and I are very supportive of Michael's house project 3643. We are the house that is on the view easement and is, and when we all the time we've been living, we have known that this property was going to be developed. We're not at all surprised with the house going in, but we were very supportive of it and we're very supportive of Michael. Please know that my husband and I are supportive of. Thank you very much. Anyone else in this room wishing to comment on this particular project? Anyone online? No. Cheerios. Members of the board, I will entertain a motion, please. Member Bman. Thank you, Madam Chair. Case number 2025 010946 HDRB at 643 643 Garcia Street. I would move to first of all have findings entered that this house has no public visibility on any of the facades. And with that in mind, I would move to approve the design as submitted with the additional clarifications agreed to by the applicant that, well actually I'll give one that I don't know that the applicant has agreed to, but that the applicant has agreed to round at bullnose corners. I would specify in the motion that that be a minimum of 2 and 1/2 inch radius. The applicant has also indicated that the design will have deeply recessed windows and that the garage doors will be made of wood with a clear coat finish and has agreed to a lighter trim color for the exterior color for the windows and doors than black or charcoal. And that should be a color such as bronze or an alternative lighter color to be submitted to staff for final approval and otherwise approved as submitted. Is there a second to? I will second. Anything further to add? Nothing further. May we have a roll call vote, please? Member Adela Madrono. Yes. Member DGEN. Yes. Member Matherther. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Vice Chair Benel. Yes. Thank you, ma'am. The motion has passed. Thank you all. Next case is located at 126 Camino Santiago and I believe the applicants are here and Lanni, this is your case. Just one second, please. Okay. I'm actually going to be presenting portions of the next two cases simultaneously in order to save some time and avoid repeating information. Because 126 and 128 Camino Santiago are a single structure with a common wall even though they are separate lots. So, these requests are for alterations to previously approved work that was done issued in 2024. So, Plaza del Monte was originally developed for retired members of the Presbyterian Church starting in the late 1950s until 1977. The earliest homes were planned by Clark and Register while the later ones were designed by Philippe Register after Clark left. The residences at 126 and 128 Camino Santiago were constructed as part of the Plaza Damonte compound in 1966 and are listed as contributing to the downtown and east side historic district with the north elevation listed as the primary facade. Previously, the property was a fourplex family residence with a shared laundry room. It has now been divided into two individual residential structures as part of a subdivision that was created in 2022. The building was designed with room block massing at the center to act as a hood over the laundry room and raised triangular party walls that divided the sections and bookended the building. A viga portal was on the front facade. The layout is unique to Plaza Delonte because the other apartment complexes are structured differently. These are the property lines on the 2022 subdivision plan. Laundry rooms in units 3 and 4 are to the east and create 126 Camino Santiago. Units 1 and 2 are to the west and make up 128 Camino Santiago. I do want to clarify that lot 14 on the west was originally addressed as 126, and lot 15 on the east was originally addressed 128 Camino Santiago. This is backwards from how the city normally numbers properties, and it has been corrected. So when you're looking at the packets, the previous case for 126 was addressed as 128 and vice versa. The original garage and carport unit at the rear of the building was approved for demolition in February of 2024 and no longer stands. Each of the two units came before the board in March of 2024 with a remodel design that was approved. Each case had exceptions to construct greater than 50% of the original footprint of the structure because the replacement garage units were being connected to the original home with additions. So, the overall footprints were increased by over 100%. They also had exceptions to remove historic materials and alter the openings on the primary north facade. Both cases were approved, and the exceptions were found to be met. Each of these cases had conditions of approval which currently influenced this recommendation from staff. These are that the north elevation existing steel casement windows that were being retained at the time should be repaired rather than replaced, and that the windows and doors throughout the project should be compatible with the original historic windows with the same light pattern, thin muntins and frames, and be sympathetic to the existing doors and windows. These are the elevations as previously approved by the board on the primary facade. The board approved the closing of the mechanical room doors, the replacement of the corner windows, and the repair of the main entry doors, as well as the construction of the yard wall represented here on the south. The board approved new garage units with the bunkhouse at 128 on the far west corner. The bunkhouse is the cluster of windows on the left of the lower drawing. The board also approved a freestanding carport at 126 Camino Santiago, shown in the upper left corner here. The additions are all on the southern portion of the original structure and are designed to a height that will show only minimally from the north primary facade. This next portion is specifically related to the property at 126 Camino Santiago for case number 20251103 HDRB, which again is the east portion of the structure. The applicant at 126 Camino Santiago is requesting to replace additional windows and doors and enclosed windows on the primary facade. New windows and doors will be a metal clad exterior finish with no change in size. The proposed windows are undivided double pane, and an exception is requested to 14-5.2D5A for replacing historic windows on a primary facade. This request is for the windows B1 and C1 as highlighted in the front here. They would like to construct a 105-foot addition to a height of 12 feet 6 inches. Exceptions are requested to section 14-5.2D2D for constructing an addition within 10 feet of the primary facade and the same section to exceed 50% of the historic footprint. The previously approved additions under the 2024 case have granted the applicant an exception to add additions at 100.5% of the historic footprint. This addition, added to the original approval, will exceed the historic footprint by 105%, which is a net 4% increase over the previously approved additions. This addition is designed to abut the contributing yard wall. It would also like to construct a freestanding 960-square-foot garage to a height of 15 feet, where the maximum allowable height is 13 feet 3 inches. A height exception was previously approved for the property to construct at 15 feet in the rear due to the slope of the lot under the 2024 case. Previous approval was for a carport in this location. The carport will not be constructed. This two-car garage is in addition to the previously approved three-car garage that is attached to the rear of the residence. They also plan to install exterior stairs and a roof deck to a height of 15 feet on the south residential portal, which was previously approved under the 2024 case. Staff is recommending denial of the windows. The proposed windows are undivided double pane windows where there are currently divided light windows. As part of the previous case, the board did request that these additional windows be repaired rather than replaced. Furthermore, there was a condition that those that were being approved be sympathetic to the existing doors and windows with the same light pattern, muntins, and frames. Currently proposed muntin pattern, or lack thereof, does not replicate the historic material and style. Staff is also recommending denial of additional square footage. The current proposed additional square footage brings the new construction to within 10 feet of the primary facade and causes the new construction to wrap around the core historic structure, which obscures the original building and its historic design. The original approval maintained all of the new square footage, most of which replaced the previous garage structure on a single rear elevation. This addition will eliminate the distinctive character of the bookend walls that are at each the east and west of the duplex on this east end. This distinctive feature is part of the reason this building is a contributing structure. I will note, at the field trip, I did make an error. The yard wall that they are removing in order to put in the garage is not actually that contributing yard wall. It is one that was previously approved in 2024. So, you're not planning to touch the contributing yard wall at all. For case 20250113 HDRB at 126 Camino Santiago, staff finds that the exception criteria have not been met and recommends denial of the exception to 14-5.2D5A for replacing historic windows on a primary facade, the exception to 14-5.2D2D for constructing an addition within 10 feet of the primary facade, and the exception to 14-5.2D2D to exceed 50% of the historic footprint. Also, staff recommends denial of the other elements of the application because the proposed rooftop feature is not compatible with the simplistic lines of the structure. The clean lines of the building conflict with the concentrated lines of the rooftop feature as they do not comply with section 14-5.2D general design standards for all historic districts and 14-5.2E downtown and east side historic design. I stand for questions regarding the case at 126. Thank you. Board members, any questions right now? Member Benu: Madam Chair, thank you. Yeah, just a simple question. So, it sounds like there's nothing in the application for this property that you're recommending approval for. Correct. Thank you. Do you want me to proceed with 128, or would you like to speak to the applicant on this one? Let's have the applicant talk to us. Please state your name and address for the record. John Padilla, PO Box 22986, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Mr. Padilla, 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, Madam Chair. He has been sworn. Good evening, John. Good evening, Madam Chair, and members of the board. Well, I'm before you again this evening with a project that has staff's recommendation for denial. However, I'd like to take some time and walk you through our ideas and how we would like to present this to you for consideration for approval or exception of the exceptions that we've asked for, as well as some revisions that we've stated. I'd like to just clarify that at the original meeting, this was, as Lanny mentioned, 128. This is specifically 126 Camino Santiago. That was really where the confusion kind of started with our process and in our project. Having worked with historic staff with the board for the original approval, we were notified by the city's GIS department that the way we had proceeded was not in compliance with how addressing should happen within the city of Santa Fe. So that started the process. We got that approved, crossed that hurdle, and just fine on down the road. So as we looked at, after that first approval, we started looking at the building permit process. So I immediately started reviewing the building permit review requirements with the city of Santa Fe, with the building department, and with historic preservation. One of the main things that I'd like to state is that after review of the project with the city's historic preservation and green code staff, it was determined that this building in the city's historic district with the status of design status designation of contributing is not required to meet the 2021 New Mexico Energy Conservation Code and the 2021 International Energy Conservation Code as amended by the state of New Mexico for the historic footprint of the house. So that causes a bit of a quandary in our design and our requirements to meet the current energy code for the expansion or the addition that we are proposing for the house. The house has a requirement to meet minimum R30 in the walls and R49 in the roofs. Well, that requires a significant amount of insulation and so forth. So, as we start developing our plans and start developing the required HERS calculation for this, or basically our energy calculations for this, we have a portion of the house that meets the current code, and we have a portion of the house that is not required to meet the code. So when we establish those ratings, we cannot meet that code because of the fact that the historic footprint is not in compliance. So therefore, calculations, etc., that we need to perform will not meet the current required HERS calculation. And you might say, "Well, they just add the insulation on the inside." I'll remind you that the city, I mean, excuse me, that the current ceiling height in that in the residences is 8 feet. So to acquire the necessary insulation that we need for this house, it'll end up being approximately 17 inches that will then reduce that 8-foot height to a lower than allowed by code condition. That's where the big one comes in. The existing house is CMU. It's probably core-filled. We haven't identified that yet. So, there's some rating. So, we could get some additional insulation rating by adding insulation to the outside, which is not allowed, or to the inside, which then ends up taking some additional square footage out of our footprint that is usable for the residents. So, I just wanted to share that as we start the conversation on this. Again, before you this evening are the amendments to this that request a removal of the non-historic front doors and residents and replace them with new doors in the existing openings, as well as windows in the existing opening. I don't know if you've been able to see or was shared with you the window and door assessment that was produced by Ray Patterson. If you haven't, it does say that the doors are non-historic. It identifies doors number one, two, three, four, five, and six as non-historic. So, to be required to change a non-historic door or preserve the non-historic doors does not make sense. We've already been approved to close one of those openings. So, as we develop the true main entry door, our concern is why are we having to preserve a non-historic door if the window assessment says that it is non-historic, and we're being, I don't want to say forced, but it's recommended that we preserve that door and utilize it. Also, the windows that we are asking for removal, there were already windows approved to be removed and closed, along with doors approved in the previous application to be removed and closed. Two mechanical room doors, since these were individual units, each one of the units had their own mechanical equipment room. So, those doors are no longer needed because the system that was in there no longer serves the needs of the current owners. So, those doors were required to be removed, and they were approved to be removed by the board. So, thank you for that. However, the windows that are there in the window assessment are single pane, have issues with condensation and moisture buildup that is affecting the interior finishes of the units at this time. So, our request is to help us meet that energy requirement by allowing us to change those doors, those remaining windows, with insulated windows that are in kind with the same muntin pattern as there, so that we can again help our position as far as the energy conservation code is requiring us to do. The new stair that's added to the deck area on the south portion of the residence over the portal is an addition that is not publicly visible. So, to deny our ability to access that portal deck seems a bit unrealistic. One, because it is behind the house. It is within the courtyard that is developed off the master bedroom, the second bedroom, and the living room space. It is also hidden by the new garage addition that was approved. So, unless you're standing on some third floor somewhere looking down into that unit, you'll see that railing. However, if you are walking on the public areas of the subdivision, the Plaza del Monte subdivision, you'll never see that balcony area. You'll never see the railings that are proposed. So, we ask you for consideration of that. Again, one of the main items is the fact that the historic portion of the house is not required to adhere to the current energy code requirements. So, we need some help, and we hope that you will help us to do that. So, the removal of the windows, again, I ask you to please let's reference the assessment that was done by Ray Patterson. In the report, it says the best option for the structure would be to replace the units with a window in kind with dual pane glass to cut down the condensation and preserve the structure. It also goes on to say the proposed alterations will not damage the character of the district because the style will be in kind, and the openings of the windows will remain as is. I think that's important. So, the proposed window replacement will help and support and continue to preserve the historic appearance and continue to preserve the elevation, the historic status of the home, and will not compromise that. In reference to the addition to the east side of the residence, the east side of the residence is the non-primary facade. It is proposed to be set at 7 feet off the primary facade, understanding that that's going to require an exception. The addition of the closet to the east side will be 7 feet off the north primary facade of 126. We feel that the proposed alterations will not damage the character of the district and will provide the owner with the space needed for a modern, livable residence. The typical house from this time frame had minimal closet and storage space, and the residence, which will be occupied by the owner and not placed on a short-term rental market, requires additional closet space for the family to exist there. The typical house of the time frame, as I stated, had minimum storage space, and therefore, we are requesting that you consider allowing the minimal addition of the closet to this project. Now, I will tell you that the option for a setback of 10 feet has been considered and has been looked at by our client. The client has decided that 7 feet is the better of the options because it allows the flow and the function of the closet space to the main bedroom of the house to flow and function much better at 7 feet. But it was considered, and we went forward with the 7 feet. I will also remind you that the original footprint of the house was just under, is 3,999 square feet of the combined two units and the laundry room. The original approved footprint with the addition in 2020, excuse me, the original footprint with the addition was 4,753 square feet. The current request for the closet on the east facade is 103 square feet, minimal, but making the function of the house much better for the owner that will reside in that residence. The proposed alterations, we feel, will not damage the residence, will not damage the current status, or negatively impact the streetscape and the development within Plaza del Monte. With that, I stand for questions. So, John, do you have elevations that you can show us, existing and proposed? Which elevation would you like to see? The most prominent elevation, the north elevation. Yes, for 126. So, these are the elevations. The one at the bottom is the building as it exists. The one in the middle is as it was approved in 2024. And then the top is the current request. I know what you're looking for. I believe, Madam Chair, is where is the closet? And that's a good question to ask. Where is the closet? You hardly notice it. If you look at the top elevation, if you look to the left, there's a dimension string that comes out there. It's going right through the closet. The closet has a lower parapet than the highest end parapet on that east facade. So, the impact is minimal. The other problem that I see with elevations is someone walking in the right-of-way will never see it straight on like this. That parapet that's there, that tall line, is an existing end east wall that is over 13 feet tall. You can never stand at a position unless you're on the property up against the house to see it in this fashion. When you're walking on the sidewalk, the sidewalk exists across the street in this subdivision. You will never be positioned in a point to where you can look at that corner and see the primary facade and that east addition in the same line. So, the closet is there. And I don't know if... And John, presently the windows are steel casement, and reiterate what you are proposing. I'm sorry. Presently the windows are still casement. Correct. And what are you proposing? Coming back in with a metal clad Sierra Pacific or equal that will be the same profile and the same muntin arrangement, in essence, replacing them in kind. Thank you. Let's see if other board members have questions. Member Cherry. Yeah, I'm looking at your sheet A2, and that what's up on the wall on the viewer? We know. Okay. Well, the sheet I'm looking for says proposed north elevations. Yes, that's the screen that's up. I just cut out all the... So, there's four elevations on this one. And the correct one on the very bottom says existing north elevation, and it shows the two mechanical doors. The one above that says previously approved proposed north elevation outside yard wall, and it shows the two mechanical doors not existing and that previously approved. And then the one above that says previously approved proposed north elevation, no yard wall, but the doors are present there. So, that's... That's, there's the conflict. I'm confused with that for sure. And then the existing north elevation shows no divisions of light on any of the windows with the exception of the window on the far right. And then the previously approved proposed elevation shows windows with divided light in the, with the yard wall, but without the yard wall, shows the windows without divided light. And then the proposed north elevation, no yard wall, which my assumption is for this proposal, shows the windows with no divided light and without the mechanical doors. So, it's thoroughly confusing to me is how I describe it. Madam Chair, Member Cherry, the proposed, this application, the proposed north elevation indicates the door, indicates the corner window. I'm going right to left, indicates the existing window that was allowed to remain, and then indicates the far left, the corner window that was approved, that was remaining. So, that is the proposal. The one difference is that we are open to the divided lights to be introduced into the windows that are remaining in the proposed north elevation, no yard wall. The window you see on the right, the far right, is unit 128. Okay, that's fine. I can understand that that's unit 128. So, I'm still seeing, though, you're now proposing eliminating a window. Is that, that's correct? And, because I see previously approved proposed north elevation, which is the second one down from the top, has four windows, and then the current proposed elevation only has three windows. The current proposed north elevation reflects what was originally approved. The previously approved should have the two double window, the two double doors, and the left window eliminated. And is a mistake. And it has, it has both because the mechanical doors on the previously approved in one of the drawings exist, and one they don't. Were they previously approved to be removed? Yes, they were. Along with the window to the left of those two previously approved to be removed doors, the window to the left of it is also approved to be. Okay. So, the, I don't, is the, is the, is the top drawing proposed north elevation really what was previously approved? That is correct, other than the fact that the divided, the divided light, the divisions or the muntins are not. Okay. So, the, so the top elevation was previously approved with the windows that are in the, let me, let me use the drawing symbols. Drawing four was previously approved with the window divisions of drawing two, light divisions of the windows in drawing two. Is that, that's correct? Without the wall shown. I apologize for the confusion. Yeah, I guess my only comment on that is, is, and I'm not, I'm trying to clarify what's going on here because it is confusing because there is previously approved. So, it's already confusing just in the nature that there's previously approved things. So, we're trying to differentiate between that and then, and then that drawing is, is, it's inconsistent with stuff that's shown that's previously approved that seems to be drawing error. So, it just makes it more difficult to get your head around it. That's all. Understood. And when the, when the application was submitted, it was confusing as to how do we want to present this so the board can follow what was, what was existing, what was proposed, what was originally previously approved, and what we are proposing now. So, as you referenced, Member Cherry, the elevation number four is the correct representation of what was previously approved. However, the windows do not have the muntins in them, the two corner windows and the one window in the middle. Any other questions? No, not at this time. Thank you. Member Lord McDonald: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to make sure that I'm understanding the garage. What's going on with that? So, what we had previously approved was a four-car garage, and what you're bringing forward tonight is that has been reduced to a three-car garage, and then there's a new separate two-car garage, a freestanding structure. So, for a total of five-car garages between the two. And is that all serving this unit? Is that correct? Madam Chair, Member Aguilad Mirano, this is a single owner. This is not a rental unit. This is a single owner. The owner has, and as we all know, garages, yeah, you may have a three-car garage, but you frankly park one or two cars in there because you're utilizing the third car area for storage or other needs. My client, because of the house itself and the nature of the existing residence, needs the additional square footage. And as you mentioned very clearly, the detached new garage will be for this resident. It's not rented out. It's not utilized by someone that is just wanting to keep a vehicle in Santa Fe. These are his, these are the owners, their private garages that they will utilize in Santa Fe. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? None. So, Lenny, do you want to go to, I'll give time for public comment in a minute. Do you want to go to the 128 specifics? You're going to have to do a motion for both of them. So, as long as we have motions for each case at the end, that would be fine. I don't know if it would be easier for you guys overall to do both at the same. You want me to go ahead and present the 128? I think we, yes. I think it'd be easier to just hear 126 to the end, have a motion. 28. I mean, we've seen, we're seeing them both. And they're very related. Yeah, I know they're very related, but I just, I think it might get really confusing if we get into the details of 128. I mean, to me, the details of 126 are already pretty confusing because of the previously approved items. So, okay. So, I'm going to ask for public comment for 126. Hi. Please raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record. Yes. Colleen Gavin, 130 Grant Avenue. Colleen, 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? Yes. Thank you. Madam Chair, board members. Thank you for your attention this evening on this matter. I'm here as a representative, Jenkins Gavin, and our client, Lasoya de El Castillo, who is the neighbor just to the south of the subject property. And what Heather previously handed out, some handouts that I just want to point out for the record. I know that easements and zoning is not your purview, but I need to enter this into the record. Basically, there is an existing parking easement that was established on Tract B, which is the tract that houses the two, excuse me, one, which is one project at a time, 126 Camino Santiago. And that parking easement existed. It was established in 1990. You have the plat in front of you. Behind that is the actual development plan for the Las Sequoa de El Castillo subdivision, excuse me, development. And you can see there, I've highlighted that parking easement that serves the property as a fire lane. With the codification and recordation of that development plan, that parking easement is now an established fire lane that must stay in place and not altered or blocked at any time. And then you can see with the Plaza del Monte subdivision, I can see that that parking easement is still established. So that parking easement has never been altered. It has remained in place as part of the legal lot of record for both Tract A, which is the adjacent property to the south, and Tract B, which is the subject property here. So I just want to put that in the record that that easement is in place and it cannot be hindered, altered, narrowed, or blocked. Thank you very much. Thank you. Yes, John. Yes, Madam Chair, members of the board, that was brought up, that item that Miss Gavin has brought up is was brought up at the previous meeting. We have since met with the fire department and the, and the fire department to talk about that. That is a parking easement. The building of Lascoy of El Castillo is built right to the property line, their northern property line. We have accommodated the tenants, the residences, the contractors, the maintenance people through that easement all along, have never denied the ability for them to access. Our meeting with the fire department clearly identifies that as a means of egress for emergency equipment and vehicles. We clearly understand that. Hence why we went forward and initiated that, that call, the conference with the Fire Marshal Gono Grigo to understand exactly what needs to be done. So that access through there is a limited access. We do not intend to build in that parking easement. We never have intended to build in that parking easement. And the gate that is there for fire access will be honored. They will, it will not be closed off. The residents currently use it to walk out and through. Maintenance people use it to walk out and through. But we will honor that. The owners will honor that access easement, ingress egress easement, parking easement. They do have parking. The only area that is able to park is directly up against the garage. Once you get past the garage, the transformers and so forth, it is a fence that divides their property from our property. So, we understand that. We appreciate the notification again that that exists. We have honored that and we will respect that. In no way do we intend to impede access through that. But you can't park in another person's property. Now fire egress, we need that egress also. Fire protection to our properties. So we will respect that. Thank you, John. Yes, Heather. Chair, thank you. I'd just like to bring up a point of order. I'd ask the applicant not to get up and speak during the public hearing portion or the public comment period. And he can just respond to all the issues. Okay. Yeah, Madam Chair, board members, may I just clarify a few things based on that statement by the applicant's representative? So, number one, the plans that you approved in 2024 illustrated pilasters, gates, and walls within that parking easement fire lane. And the applicant's representative was notified of that in 2024 formally. And so this information is not new. So our concern is just maintaining or making sure that that easement is maintained and that we are, we are compliant. Lasa del Castillo needs to be compliant with our development plan. Development plan is a legal document of requirements that we have to maintain safety and access to our property. So that's why I wanted to bring this before you this evening. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. Hi. Please raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record. My name is Onessim Vhel and my address is 126 Camino Santiago. 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 penalties of perjury? Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. He has been sworn. Madam Chair, board, thank you guys for your service. I appreciate you guys being here. It's pretty late and you guys are here working, so thank you. I'll be quick. I'm the property owner and I want to thank you guys for the previous approval. This has been a long process. It's been a little over two years now, and so, you know, we're hoping that we can get these final exceptions approved. The windows that we're talking about are, we want to keep them in kind and we just want to replace them, make them newer, but we want them to keep the historic look and follow all the guidelines and everything that we need to do. John's been very, very good. I know he's very familiar with you guys. I think he sat on the board at one time, and so he knows this. That's why we hired him as an architect specifically to preserve all of this stuff. We could have used a lot of different architects, but we chose him. And the closet, like he was saying, it's just a little extension. My wife's sitting up here, and I'm just hoping you guys will allow to have a little bit of closet space for her. It's 100 square foot, I think, is what John said. So, it's not a lot, and you don't see it. I did want to make one quick comment regarding the, the garage. The reason I'm wanting to change that carport into a garage is when we're out of town or we're gone and stuff, especially for what they talked about, that the neighbors come and use our yard and they come in, bring their dogs and all kinds of stuff through our yard. I want to kind of close it off so we can secure it a little bit better. Right? If it's a carport, it's just wide open. But if we change that to a garage, then we can lock it up. So, I'm hoping you guys will make those three exceptions, the change of the windows and the closet and the, the garage. So, thank you guys. Appreciate it. Thank you very much for your comments. So, Stephanie Benonato, I agree for the most part with your staff's recommendation to deny these exceptions. I think that you have bent over backwards to give exceptions in 2024, and now a year later, they're just pushing for more. And a closet in that big a house, I think you can figure out a way to get the master bedroom to flow without having to stick it out and put it only 7 feet from the primary facade. Especially since they say they could actually put it 10 feet back. The idea that they don't have to comply with the green code in the original part, then why are they stressing about adding insulation or raising the ceiling because they don't have to comply with it? And Ray Patterson didn't say that these were non-usable windows. He said it was a better alternative. And I'm a little disappointed because I think Mr. Patterson now has said this more than once in reports as opposed to looking at the standard that you're supposed to be looking at as to whether they can be fixed or not. And if it's confusing to people on the board, think how much it's confusing to people in the public to be able to comment on these things. Same thing with the garage. It's a three-car carport. Now they want five cars. So, if they want to enclose the carport, well, okay, let them enclose the carport, but let's not expand the number of cars on the property. And also with the idea of the upper deck, you might not see the railing, but you're going to see the people walking around up there. You're going to know the deck exists. And to me, it's, you know, I just don't know why people buy property that they can't actually use in a more modest way and have to like add on well more than 100% and want all these exceptions. I, it just feels like they should have tried a different property that would have suited them better. Thank you. Anyone else in this audience wishing to speak on this project? Anyone online? No. Cherry, board members, any further questions or comments? Member Cherry, I have a comment or a question maybe for staff regarding this easement. Is there's no real clear depiction on whether or not the proposed construction encroaches on that. Does it or does it not? From what I can tell, and the drawings aren't very specific, we would expect the construction drawings to be more specific. It appears that no construction encroaches, but these are more conceptual in nature. It's really important that this be maintained as open as well because this is a fire department access. It was discussed in the adoption or the approval of the development plan for the entire Plaza del Monte, as well as a development plan for La Sequoa or the El Castillo residences. There is a huge fire hose access point, and so the width needs to be maintained to allow for those large fire trucks to circulate. We will be definitely looking at that in the building permit once we have additional detail. Yeah, and the public authorities are overlooking that, correct? Yes, Chair. Yes, Madam Chair. Nothing else, Madam Chair. Yes, Madam Chair, members of Member Cherry. First of all, Miss Lamboy, I'd like to apologize for a breach of protocol in responding there. I apologize. I'm sorry. He asked. I allowed it. So I did ask, and I was allowed to speak. So my apologies. In reference to that, the development plan, the owners and I are aware of that. The position of the garage, the original position of the carport, is outside of that easement. It was at the line of the existing garage. We are not encroaching upon that. The width of our proposed addition is right at the width of the original garage that was part of the original, or excuse me, of the approved development plan. The location of the existing access door for fire protection will not be encroached upon. It will remain open, and access to that drive will be allowed for not parking, but it will be allowed for emergency entrance and exit. So, just responding to the question of encroaching, it is not encroaching. Thank you. Board members, if you have nothing further to add or to ask, I will entertain a motion. Member Benu. Madam Chair, I didn't see any other hands raised, so I will go ahead. Case 2025011103 HDRB 126 Camino Santiago. I just preface the motion by saying that this was a complicated case when it came before us originally. We spent an enormous amount of time on this already, several times, and the board is a different configuration now, but the board spent a lot of time to balance a number of requests that the applicant was making to a building that has contributing status and had primary facade designations. And that's not done in isolation, one window by one window. That is done to achieve a harmonious whole at the end of the day. And this feels like just a simple motion for reconsideration to me, especially with regard to the windows. And I think it would be doing a disservice to the board's prior work to reconsider the way all of those various factors were balanced in order to achieve something that gave the applicant almost everything they were looking for, and that preserved the contributing status of the structure in a way that the board was comfortable with. So that's just my general comment. Otherwise, I know that staff and the applicant have no doubt been working hard on all of these new requests to modify that original, those original findings and conclusions. And apparently that was unsuccessful, and now it comes before us with staff recommending that none of the exception criteria have been met, and no aspects of the application are recommended for approval. So, given all of that, I'm in agreement with staff's views. So, I will move that we adopt staff's findings with respect to all of the exception requests and the other aspects of the application, and that the exception to 14-5.2D5A for replacing historic windows on a primary facade be denied on that basis. That the exception to 14-5.2D2D for constructing an addition within 10 feet of the primary facade be denied on that basis. That the exception to 14-5.2D2D to exceed 50% of the historic footprint be denied for the same basis, and that the other elements of the project as set forth in the application be denied for the reasons set forth by staff. Second. Point of discussion. One question, it's so minor, but Patterson's report does say the window, excuse me, the door is not historic. It was a condition on our original motion that the front door be maintained, but now that we know it's not historic, I would be okay with letting them replace the front door. Is that a new report? I don't know. I thought that we were, I thought that the application only had the same report that we already reviewed, and that if we reviewed it and reached those decisions, then I don't know if there's new information that would cause us to reconsider. If there is, I would reconsider on that basis. It does have a date of 2023. So, it was probably. So, I assume that the board took that into account for whatever reasons at the last hearing, because I would otherwise agree if it's non-historic, the board should have allowed it to be replaced. I'd like to add something to that discussion, that I, there's no HICB here. I don't know if there was prior, but I mean, my understanding as a window assessor is to assess the condition and not report on the historic nature of that, with the exception that I can identify materials for when they were began to be used in construction, but whether or not a specific door window was installed in a specific location at a specific time would be the, really the role of the historian doing the HICB. So. We are in the middle of a motion, but this door issue was brought up. Do you have an answer? The window assessment is the same assessment that was in the 2024 case. The door. Yeah. The door is or is not historic. The assessment says non-historic. Non-historic. I mean, so what is your position then on that door? I'm assuming, I would assume that the board and previous recommendations, the staff took into account that fact and either didn't agree with it or otherwise overlooked it. So, what do we have an explanation? And I don't want to put you on the spot. You may have not even thought about this before, but that there is a discrepancy there. The point was that we were recommending denial for everything. So to say that you can replace a single door out of all of the requests seemed a little, you know what I'm saying? Like we're trying, we were denying, we were recommending denial for the entire project. Okay. All right. So yeah, I'll stick with the motion as originally phrased then, just because we're, in my mind, the motion is intended to adopt staff's recommendations. Have a motion. I agree. We have a second. There was discussion. Any further discussion? Nothing more to add. Amanda, we have a roll call vote. Member Cherry. Yes. Member DGEN. Yes. Member Benu. Yes. Member Mather. Yes. Member Argala Madrono. Yes. Thank you, Chair. The motion has been approved. Thank you. And we will move on to 128. Can you put the presentation up, please? Thank you. Okay. So, this next portion is specifically related to the property at 128 Camino Santiago for case 202511105 HDRB, which again is the west portion of the structure. The applicant at 128 Camino Santiago is requesting to replace windows and doors and enclosed windows on the primary facade. New windows and doors will be metal clad exterior finish with no change in size. The proposed windows are undivided double pane. An exception is requested to 14-5.2D5A for replacing historic windows on a primary facade. Again, this is the request for windows B and C, which are highlighted. And then they want to construct a 162-foot portal to a height of 10 feet 6 inches, where the maximum allowable height is 13 feet 3 inches. Exceptions are requested to section 14-5.2D2D for constructing an addition within 10 feet of the primary facade, and again for 14-5.2D2D to exceed 50% of the historic footprint. The previously approved additions under the 2024 case have granted the applicant an exception to add additions at 115% of the historic footprint. This addition added to the original approval will exceed the historic footprint by 122%, which is a net 7% increase over the previously approved additions. Staff is recommending denial of the windows. Closed windows are undivided double pane windows where there are currently divided light windows. As part of the previous case, the board did request that these additional windows be repaired rather than replaced. Furthermore, there was a condition that those that were replaced be sympathetic to the existing doors and windows in the same light pattern, thin muntins and thin frames. The currently proposed muntin pattern or lack thereof does not replicate the historic material in style. Staff recommends denial of the additional square footage. The current proposed additional square footage of the portal brings the new construction to within 10 feet of primary facade and causes the new construction to wrap around the core historic structure, which obscures the original building and its historic design. The original approval maintained all of the new square footage, most of which replaced the previous garage structure on the single rear elevation. This addition will eliminate the distinctive character of the bookend walls that are at each of the east and west ends of the duplex on this west end. This distinctive feature is part of the reason this building is the contributing structure. The other windows and door changes requested are on the previously approved additions on the south elevation. For the case 202511105 HDRB at 128 Camino Santiago, staff finds that the exception criteria have not been met and recommends denial of the exception to 14-5.2D5A for replacing historic windows on a primary facade. The exception to 14-5.2D2D for constructing an addition within 10 feet of the primary facade, and the exception to 14-5.2D2 to exceed 50% of the historic footprint. Staff recommends denial of the application as it does not comply with 14-5.2GD general design standards for all historic districts and 14-5.2E downtown and Eastside historic district design standards. And I stand for questions about 128 for Lanny at this time. Board members, none. No, Mr. Pavilla. So, rather than repeating a lot of the information that I stated in the previous case, 126, the same comments apply to this application. The issue of the green code, the issue of a desire to change those windows that were required to remain with modern windows, in kind, changing those windows in kind. I would also like to mention that the door that in the assessment, the main door that was required to stay as a historic door, in the assessment it is clearly stated, as it did in 126, that it is a non-historic door. So I would, I would like your consideration of that one. The portal, the portal that we are asking for consideration for, that was, that is exceeding the 50% footprint again because of the requirement that the current code be a part of our calculations. That is a direct west exposure. The doors that were approved there, we need to protect them. We need to mitigate the heat gain from the west. That is a direct west exposure with no significant landscaping to block any of that light coming through there or heat coming through there. So, a significant amount of heat gain. As I mentioned in the previous case, we looked at a 10-foot portal. Could it work? Sure, it could work. We stayed with the 7-foot offset so we would not have to move the current location of that door. We are open to a 10-foot setback. It would require us to clearly move the position of the doors in the existing plan, the approved plan. As I mentioned, it is something that we would consider, but significant is the effect of mitigating as much heat gain through that west exposure as possible to help us in complying with the required energy code requirements for the new portion of that structure. With that, I'll stand for questions. Thank you, John. Any questions for John at this time? Questions? Anyone in this audience wishing to comment, please come forward. Madam Chair, Rios, board members, I'll be very brief. I just wanted to point out that on the application for 128 Camino Santiago, on the site plan, which is sheet SP2, it clearly indicates a gate and walls within that 20, pardon me, that parking easement. I would very respectfully request that any applications that come forth for this property in the future clearly show how their proposed improvements align with the existing improvements that are adjacent in that Tract A, the Elastillo property. That parking easement and fire lane also serves access to, as John mentioned earlier, two very large transformers that are within a P&M easement. It also provides access to back-of-house access to the south property, as well as to parking spaces. Again, it is still a parking easement, as well as a fire lane. Thank you very much. Stephanie Benonato, I pretty much have the same comments that I made before. You have spent, or the board spent a lot of time on this project and approved things and gave away a lot of, gave the exceptions that the owners wanted. They should have realized that putting a lot of glass on the west side was going to increase heat gain. It's probably the worst side to put a lot of glass on. And there's certainly other ways of preventing heat from coming into the building, including certain kinds of shades on the window that you have to leave down during the summer to keep that from happening. They could come in and ask to change the openings there so there wouldn't be so much gain. So again, I am in support of the staff's recommendation to deny the exceptions. Thank you. Onesimo Vhill. I'm just, I guess, a little bit confused with this whole process. It's been a long time, a couple years that we've been going through this. And so it sounds to me like if I was to walk around my house, the windows in the front are going to be left the way they are, but then there's going to be other windows that are added to the house that are, that are obviously new windows, double pane, and and more energy efficient. And so it just seems to me, if I'm an observer and I'm looking at the house, it's like, wouldn't you want it to totally match to be historic? And that doesn't seem like it's going to be matching. The other thing that I'm a little concerned about is if the door was clearly stated that it's non-historic. I mean, you can go to my house. It looks like they bought it at Home Depot. This door that's been on there, it's probably been changed five, six times in the last 20 years or so. I just don't understand how we, we have to preserve that door, keep that door. So, I really would hope that you guys might consider, you know, at least allowing us to change the front door. Thank you for your... Anything else, John? Yes, Madam Chair. So, in the case of 128 Camino Santiago, please know that as I stated in 126, that we can accommodate that 10-foot setback and meet the requirements. So, I'd like you to consider that as you, as you deliberate on 128. I will state clearly that we are aware of the parking that exists currently. We are aware of the transformers that exist currently, and we are aware of back-of-house access and the continual participation and cooperation with Lasoa over the years to make sure that we do not block or impede any of that existing conditions. So we are, we are keenly aware of the existing conditions and will respect those. Thank you, John. If no one else is going to comment on this case in this room, and I'm going to guess that there is no one online. No one online. Cherios. Yes, Amanda. Thank you, Chair Rios. Members of the board, Member Matherther had to leave for a family emergency. Please let the record reflect that she has left at 7:42 and she will be gone for the remainder of the hearing. Thank you. I will entertain a motion at this point. Member Benu. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll go ahead and say that I do believe that all the comments I made previously about 126 Camino Santiago at 2025011103 HDRB and the history of that and the work of the prior board at the prior hearings should be respected. I can say in this case as well for those same reasons. I am a little concerned about the door. But to me, there must have been a reason why staff originally asked that that door be not replaced and that the board reached that determination. And if that was something that the applicant believed was erroneous, they, you know, they had the right to appeal that. And that not having taken place, I think again, this is in essence an application for reconsideration that I think is just inappropriate under the rules. And so this is just a bit of a conundrum on that door. But since we don't have the record of why that decision was made originally, I'm believe that it's appropriate to defer to staff's recommendation in this particular case. So I will make a motion in 2025 011105 HDRB 128 Camino Santiago that all of staff's recommendations and proposed findings be adopted with respect to the three exception requests and that the exception to 14-5.2D5A for replacing historic windows on a primary facade be denied on the basis of the exception criteria have not been met. That the exception to 14-5.2D2D for constructing an addition within 10 feet of the primary facade be denied on the basis of the exception criteria have not been met, and that the exception to 14-5.2D2D to exceed 50% of the historic footprint be denied on the basis that the exception criteria have not been met and the application be denied on that basis. Is there a second motion? Second. Second. Anything further to add? Roll call vote, please. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Ardla Mano. Yes. Member DGEN. Yes. Vice Chair Benvven Vanu. Yes. Madame Chair, the motion has been approved. Thank you very much, John. I think you know what your options are after this. So, I think you're well aware. Thank you. Next case is located at 532 Caya Corvo. Is that applicant here? Oh, John. Madame Chair, members of the board, one moment, please. Cherios, members of the board, in case number 2025011108 HDRB, the single-family residence at 532 Kaio Corvo is designated as non-contributing to the downtown and east side historic district. The Santa Fe County tax parcel map identifies the structure as constructed on a 0.16 acre lot in 1952 and comprises of 1,638 square feet of roofed area with a 368 square foot detached garage. The main residential structure and garage are designed in the Spanish Pueblo Revival design style as observed by the construction material, recessed doors and windows, flat roof, and rounded parapets. The previous statusing of the structure occurred in the 1980s during a drive-by statusing by staff, which was a common practice at the time in the historic districts. Mr. John Murphy's 2025 historical cultural property inventory survey report identifies several modifications and alterations taking place on the property from 1958 to 1996 with a bedroom addition, covered portal, and laundry room. A post-1975 wholesale window replacement and exterior insulation project occurred as can be observed presently on the exterior of the main residential structure. As for the garage, minimal changes have occurred and a post-1975 metal garage door is present while the opening is historic as well as the original footprint. The southern portion of the yard wall is historic while the east and north portions are recent and replaced a middle fence that was once along Kaya Corbo. There are no records of any permitted or non-permitted work done on this property in the historic preservation, historic preservation division or permitting files. Currently, there is a 1985 historic building inventory form completed by staff with nominal information pertaining to the structure and its historic significance. Here we have the north elevation. This north elevation as seen by in Mr. Murphy's HCPI form was established 1950 to 1966. This east facade is what staff is recommending as the primary facade. The historian also recommends the east facade given that it gives the most Spanish Pueblo Revival design characteristics on the streetscape. So staff is recommending the same as Mr. Murphy. Here is the south facade. And the yard wall here that you see below that south, south facade, staff is recommending as contributing. Here we have the west facade which is on the south, the northwest facade covered with the portal and the other west facade was an addition pre-1966 as well as the portal. Here we have the garage. This garage was built in 1952 along with the original construction of the main residence. The garage door is not historic. However, the opening is. So, staff is recommending that the east facade of the garage be designated as the primary facade, excluding the non-historic middle garage door. Here we have a 1958 aerial photograph. This aerial photograph shows the delineation of the southern yard wall, the addition, the eastern facade portal, the abutment of the on the north facade that that square, square portion that kind of abuts out on that facade. And then as we look in the 1966 aerial, you can see the additions of the bedroom addition on the western facade extending out and the porch as we see it today here in the 1985 historic building inventory form. This, this photograph was the photograph the staff took at that time showing the southern boundary wall was the same boundary wall that currently exists there today. Probably been restuckled, but the fencing that was on there was just some horse fencing along that Kaya Corvo streetscape. Here we have a 2014 photograph of that scene. So here is the proposed facade diagram at 532 Kaio Corvo. We are recommending the main structure and garage be designated and the southern boundary yard wall be designated as contributing with the east facades of the main residential structure and garage designated as primary excluding non-historic materials. With that, staff recommends the historic status of the main residential structure, garage, and southern yard wall be upgraded to contributing and designate the east facades of each structure as the primary facades numbers one and two on the facade diagram per 14-5.2c designation of significant, contributing, and non-contributing status within the historic districts. Thank you. Staff stands for questions. Thank you. And your recommendation also includes that wall, the wall that is, that is on the, let's see, that would be the cell site. Correct, sir. Yes, ma'am. And the garage. Yes, ma'am. Excluding the garage door. Yes, ma'am. That. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for, Yes, sir. Madam Chair. So, thank you, Paul. I'm looking at the page 19 of the Hickby. It shows the street view from 2014. And my questions in reference to the recommendation you have being that that east facade be primary excluding non-historic materials. Would you agree that the wood exposed on that east portal is all non-historic material? Madam Chair, Member Cherry, yes, sir. And I would also agree some of the work that has been done on that east facade, the windows and the doorway, those also have been changed. So we are excluding the non-historic. Now, the window openings are the same as far as staff understands historically. So staff is recommending that the windows and doors and other non-historic materials such as the wooden elements on the tall be excluded from that, such as on the garage door, that middle garage door, that be excluded as well, sir. Can you pull up the facade map really quick? Could you please put on the PowerPoint? Thank you, sir. So, okay, I see. So you're not recommending 11. No. Thanks. Yes, sir. Any other questions, board members? Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just trying to find anything in the packet that discusses the walls. So, I'm just curious what we know about them. Madam Chair, Member Benu, that's a great question. In the Hick, in Mr. Murphy's Hickp report, it doesn't address the walls. However, the wall we can see in the aerials, at least since the 1958 aerial, it's present. And as it goes to 1968, it's present. But on the north and the east, it's unclear. I don't believe there was present. And I don't know why. But then we know that in the 1985 HBI report by staff, there is no, the southern boundary wall is still present. However, now you have middle fencing along the streetscape. So, possibly there was originally in the 1950s and then it was removed for some reason and then they brought it back in at least post 2014. Okay, I am seeing figure six of the hit. It's an April 2014 Google Street View image that shows the front as a wire fence and not a wall. And compared to what this street or this yard looks today, it's quite a big change from what it looks like presently. Right. So, tell me again, I'm sorry. What's your recommendation on the south wall? Staff is recommending the south boundary wall as contributing. All right. Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Any other questions? No. Okay, Mr. here. Good evening again. Thank you for the time to review this with you. A number of good questions that were presented. My clients, the current owners of the residence, are here in the audience with us. The comment that the owner had made was the fact that a number of the improvements were done by the previous owner that purchased the house in 2015 and made the improvements in 2016, such as the north wall that was added, the change from the metal post on the portal to the current heavy beam and VGA post that were there. My owners have recently also worked with historic staff on restuccoing the walls that are there. As you see in the post facade diagrams, the south wall, excuse me, the south wall is only indicated a portion of it. So my question there is, is it the entire south wall that is considered contributing and why, other than the fact that a CMU wall existed there for over 50 years? The CMU wall, I really don't think added anything to the historic fabric of the neighborhood or the historic context of the neighborhood, or it served as an architectural feature unique to that neighborhood. So there's a question arises as to why that south wall is contributing. Frankly, I think it should remain non-contributing. The question in reference, oh, and there was also west walls and east walls that were built that weren't originally there as was shown in the photograph. That was a wire fence out there on the east facade. CMU walls being built, more contemporary type or modern type materials. In reference to the garage, other than the fact that it is older than, I mean, is older than 50 years and the opening still exists, but the existing feature, architectural feature that was there, whether it was a double door with glass in it, that no longer exists, other than just the opening that continues to be there. So my question is, why is that having to be elevated to a contributing status when there's no significant architectural element that helps to define and preserve the character or add to the character of that district? There are other examples within the district that have much more impact on the quality of and preserving that existing style, that architectural style that is indicative of that area and that streetscape especially. I just want to remind you that in the previous case of our neighbor's yard, our neighbor's status request that recently came to the board, that garage was identified as non-contributing. So I'm wondering why we would have two garages that, as you saw in the photo, abut each other and one would be contributing and the other would be non-contributing. So, I'd like, I would like the board to consider reconsidering the classification or identifying the garage as a contributing element that we would like it to remain a non-contributing structure. I'll stand for questions. But John, you agree that the east elevation is the primary facade, excluding non-historic features? Of the main residence? Yes. Okay. So you are in disagreement with the south wall and also the garage? And the garage status. Correct. Okay. And I think Paul is wanting to defend something. Madam Chair, members of the board, thank you, John, for sharing. I would just like to share that staff is giving the same recommendation that the historian gave for his evaluation. Mr. Murphy recommended the garage as contributing with the east facade as primary. The main residential structure as contributing with the east facade as primary. So staff is in agreement with the historical assessment for this project. And I believe the aerial did show that that south wall existed back in the 50s. Okay. The entire south wall. Okay. So just to just to follow up and Paul, thank you for mentioning that. A number of times I have been before the board and I have seen other cases that have come before the board where the historian's recommendations have not been followed through with. This is one, you know, I have the utmost respect for Mr. Murphy, but I disagree with him on the identification of the garage as a historic element that should be elevated to a contributing status. I feel and am in disagreement with our historian that the garage is not a contributing structure and should remain as a non-contributing structure. Thank you, John. Any other questions for staff or John? No. Public comment. Anyone in this room wishing to comment on this particular project, please come forward. Stephanie Benonato. I just remind you that each property is unique and should be considered separately and so what was done on another property does not necessarily influence your decision tonight. I think having the garage to the back is a pattern that was common in certain historic periods and so in that sense it and given that the opening is the same that it could be considered contributing and the same with the wall. I mean block has been used well before 1950, it's not like a 1990 material and just because it's block as opposed to adobe doesn't mean that it's not historic work and shouldn't be considered contributing. I guess the question is how much does it contribute to the character of the house and of the neighborhood? And I agree with the primary facade being the front one on the house, but there's also one facade where it's just a simple window in the middle of the facade. I'm not sure which facade it is, but in a case two weeks ago where there was just a door and nothing else, you know, that was considered to be kind of simplistic historic kind of approach or design element. And so I wonder about that particular facade whether that you should look at that and consider that to be a contributing or excuse me, a primary facade as well. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Evening. Hi. Please raise your right hand. State your name and address for the record. And bring that mic up. Thank you, Al. Do you solemnly swear 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. Is that mic on? Yes, ma'am, it is. Now, I wanted to point out that the two garages that we're discussing, our garage at 532 Cay Corvo and 530 Cay Corvo, they share a back wall. There is, it's clearly a zero lot buildup, but they share walls both interior and on the west side of the garage. And on September 9th, the neighbor's garage was deemed non-contributing. And I know, I'm not sure what plans they have for it. It has been used as a residence historically and I just wanted to point out some of those features for you to consider. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wishing to comment on this particular project? Anyone online? No. Cherios, also, I would like to mention that there was a wall and fence approval done through the historic preservation division in 2016 and also there was some maintenance and repair done also in the same year that was approved. Anything further to say or to comment on? If not, I will entertain a motion. Please. I'll make a motion, Chair. So I guess I would preface my motion by saying that I think the scale of the garage has value and the unique and the and the and how it's set back off of the street and the size of the opening. So I do think those things are valuable in the historic nature of how it relates to the neighborhood. I also feel like the wall does add to the fabric of that neighborhood. Whether or not it's CMU wall, concrete block, cinder block, what have you. You know that it's maintained its scale and its size and its integrity over that amount of time. Like it aids in in assisting in that historic integrity of of the character of that neighborhood. So with that said, in case 2025 011 08 HDRB 532 Kai Corvo, I would move to designate to follow staff's recommendation and the recommendations of John Murphy and designate the east east facades. I don't, the facade map's not up anymore. So, the east facades that are that are... Pardon me, could you please put it on the PowerPoint? Thanks, Paul. Thank you, sir. The east facades designated as, is that two and three, Paul? One and two. Okay, I see. As designate the structure as contributing, maintain the designation of contributing with the facades one and two as primary, to designate the south wall as contributing, to designate the garage as contributing with the east facade as primary as well. And actually this house had a non-contributing status. We're elevating. Oh, yeah. To elevate it. Thank you. Okay. For that correction. Is there a second to this motion? Second. And is there anything further to add? Nothing further to add. Amanda, roll call, please. Vice Chair Benu. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Agala Madrono. Yes. Member DGEN. Yes. Madam Chair, the motion has passed. Thank you very much. Thank you, John. The last case on the agenda is located at 121 East Santa Fe Avenue. And Paul, that is your case. May we hear your report? Cherios, would you like me to wait for a member cherry? Give him a minute or two. Okay, this is important. I'm sorry, we need a clarification. If that motion excluded the non-historic material that was recommended by staff. They said to adopt staff's recommendations. So, thank you. Okay, Member Cherry is back. Madam Chair, members of the board, thank you. Thank you, Dr. Trusco and Mrs. Trusco for being here tonight. In this case, at case number 2025-01122 HDRB at 121 East Santa Fe Avenue, the single-family residence located at 121 East Santa Fe Avenue is situated between Don Gaspar Avenue to the west and street to the east. The general development of this specific area took place in the early 1900s into the 1930s, as identified in the Santa Fe County tax parcel map, and is part of the Summon Edition, which represents one of the first American-style subdivisions in the district. The combination of Craftsman and Spanish Pueblo Revival style homes on this street make it a standalone streetscape and is mirrored anywhere else in the historic downtown area. The red brick pitched roofs with dormers and multi-storied structures, which include attics and basements, separates itself from what is commonly observed in the historic districts. Generally, the properties are bungalows and include wooden picket fences, porches over the entrance with wooden decking, wood frame, three-over-one windows, and brick chimneys. The vegetation includes mature fruit trees, cottonwoods, and perennial grasses and shrubbery. The applicant is before the Historic District Review Board as a result of the issuance of a red tag for unpermitted construction. What originally was a laundry room in a historic addition on the northwest corner of the house was replaced with a larger addition to accommodate an expanded space. What prompted the change was when the roof was replaced, structural damage was discovered at the location where the addition attached to the building. The roof of the structure, approximately 3,098 square feet, had been permitted administratively. So with that, we'll go into the discussion of this property. So the front page here is the 2016 view of 121 East Santa Fe, with the white picket fence, and this is before the Truscos owned this property. So now the current state of 121 East Santa Fe, as of today, is this is the look of it today. Here we have a state register property. So 121 East Santa Fe Avenue is a state-registered property as well as a National Register of Historic Places. It's listed on the state and national level. Mr. Trusco provided these drawings for review. And really what we want to take into consideration this evening is, and I'm going to zoom in here, is this addition here. And when we were at the site visit today, it's the addition on that western facade that has the cedar shakes and the window on the north elevation and on the west elevation. So this is the non-permitted addition. So with that, as we go through here, let's see, here is the southern facade. So this is that entry facade off of Santa Fe Avenue. So here is kind of a general idea of the work that took place. Now, the applicant will be able to expand on this much greater than I can. This has kind of been, I would say, initially was given a red tag in 2023, just an evolution of time. Staff was then, then myself, I was the planner who was assigned to the Truscos. I worked with them with an administrative approval that's in our draft packet. And so in the scope of work, we did the re-roofing of the property because they needed to re-roof. So when I first walked on the site in 2023, it was a construction site. There was a lot of work taking place on this property. Then we gave them quite a bit of administrative approvals so they could close up all the work that they were doing to preserve the structure, the roof, the dormers, some work in the back, some fencing. We were working with them as best as possible. And then in 2024, they withdrew their application. Then they came back and now we're working. Mrs. Trusco came, Heather, myself, Stephanie Perea, and Dominic Lopez from the permitting office described what information was needed with the PZR zoning requirements, legal auto record, all kinds of information that was needed. So then they're coming back before today, moving forward, to get the non-permitted construction work approved by the board. So then they can get their construction permit for approval for the work that was taking place on this property. And I believe that's kind of the general theme over this for the last two years. And the applicant will be able to speak to it more. I will have to lean on Gary and Heather a little bit on this property, given that it's been a team effort for everybody involved. And I believe we're trying to figure out the best route for it with this property. So currently, this is the state of this property. It's in cedar shakes. You know, there's some windows and doors, and they built this addition because of the roof issues with the roof. Now, I believe this was the original fence on the property, this red cedar paneled fence, and staff gave them approval to replace this red cedar paneled fencing with one in kind, which they did. But that's a, we'll discuss that here in a moment. But here's kind of the general scheme of what this addition looks like. The applicant is also requesting a stairway to put stairways on the decking on the entryway into the house to provide and a railing system so people can walk up into and out of the property safely. And here's the decking. Currently, there is no railing system on the property, and so they're requesting this proposed railing system and some modifying some brickwork and wood decking, as we can see here. And the railing system to meet standards for people coming in and out of the property and exterior lighting and some minor fixtures on that south-facing publicly visible facade. So currently today, at the site visit, we saw a non-permitted pergola addition, and we saw that the cedar fencing was not painted in kind or placed in the location where we also found an HVAC system that's publicly visible. So there's some concerns here, not sure if they're permitted or not. That's something that staff's going to need to take a further look into. But from what the 2016 structure looked like to what is currently there today, there seems to be some continued work taking place on this property without staff's approval, without permits, and that needs to be, somewhere along the lines, we need to talk about that. But I'll stand back from now and maybe the applicant can come in and address further questions. But I, oh, pardon me. So staff finds that the exception criteria have been met and recommends approval of the addition to the primary facade. Staff recommends approval of the other elements of the application as they comply with 14-5.2D, general design standards for all historic districts, and 14-5.2H, Don Gaspar Area Historic District design standards. Staff also recommends that 14-5.2CF, restoration of status. If a property owner makes changes to a structure without the proper city approvals, which result in the lowering of the structure's status, staff or the board may require the property owner to restore the structure such that its former status is restored. Thank you. Staff stands for questions. Thank you, Paul. So Paul, this house is significant, and which significant means that all facades are primary, and no work should have been done without coming before the board. Correct? Madam Chair. And did I understand you to say that staff was working with the present applicants, the present owners, working with them in doing certain things to the home that you felt were acceptable, and they did those renovations, putting in the roof, but not adding anything else to the property? Correct. That's correct, Madam Chair. And then they, without permission, went ahead and did a lot of work. How much square footage did they add without permission? Madam Chair, it's between 38 and 40 square feet on that addition. Okay. Towards the back. Yes, ma'am. And then also today on the field trip, we noticed that the dormers also had cedar shakes on the sides. Was that also added at some point? Yes, Madam Chair, that was added administratively. And in the 2016 photograph of the structure, 121 East Santa Fe, it had cedar shake dormers. Oh, it did have. Yes, Madam Chair. Okay. And that's all I have for right now. Member. Thank you, Madam Chair. Paul, do you know when the current owners purchased this house and took ownership? Madam Chair, Member Aguilar Madrono, that's a good question. I believe it was in '22, but I could be incorrect. Okay. And then similar to Madam Chair's question, I thought I had understood you to say at one point that you had also been working with them on some improvements that they wanted to do, but they decided to table those and put those on hold. Is that correct? Madam Chair, Member Aguilar Madrono, that is correct. It was tabled for about eight months, I believe. And were any of those improvements that were tabled, any of the things that were done without permission, or any of the things that we're being asked to approve tonight? As far as staff knows, no, ma'am. So what we're looking at for is the unpermitted work on the addition and the railing system. They were given administrative approval for several items, whether it be painting or repairing windows and re-roofing. So they were given those options, and I don't believe those all were exhausted. However, I do believe that several other items have now come into, maybe that HVAC system or that pergola. Some of these other things are now have been completed without any of our note. Okay. Thank you, Paul. Thank you, Member Dignan. Thank you, Madam Chair. Paul, I just want to make sure I'm clear on this. The staff is recommending approval so that we can make right what is all wrong. Madam Chair, Member Dignan, we are doing our best to work with the applicants and the preservation of the structure and trying to find this. How do we make this right, given that it's already done? However, staff recommending that the restoration of status on this structure also be taken into consideration as a recommendation. So if the work that they're doing on this property is going to lower this status of a state-registered property and a national registered property, well, then they got to restore this property back to its significant status. Okay. But wouldn't they have to do that anyway, regardless of our decision? Apparently not. I don't know. Ma, Member Dignan, that's a great question. Maybe Heather can help me here. Thank you, Heather. Thank you, Chair Rios. Member Dignan, with reference to the status of the building and whether it is potentially going to be harmed by the proposed work, that's up to the jurisdiction of the board, taking into consideration the applicant's comments and staff's recommendation. And if the board does find that the status of the structure isn't harmed by what's being heard tonight, then there should not be a concern. But if there is harm being perceived by the board, then that would be a different one altogether. Thanks very much, Cherry. Yeah, I guess a couple of different questions. One, I don't, I don't see the exception criteria being addressed in the packet. Is it, can you direct me to that? Madame Chair, Member Cherry, in the packet material, staff requested an exception for an addition onto a primary facade. They built on that northern primary facade, and they requested that exception. They addressed that exception, and staff recommends approval, that the exception criteria have been met. I guess what I'm asking, though, is I'm not seeing the six criteria listed in the package and responses by the applicant. Is that there? In the staff report, it should be in the staff report. If you look at my staff report, it should be on page three, pardon me, on page four it starts, and then it should end on page five. Okay, thanks. I'll look at that here in a minute. I just have two more questions. Is there a floor plan that was made available so we can see, because it's, you know, on the, I saw the drawings, I didn't see a floor plan, so it's somewhat difficult to see exactly where the starting and stopping of the construction work that already occurred was done. Floor plan status. Madam Chair, Member Terry, the applicant will be able to address further that these are the drawings that staff has received from the applicant. These are what we have to share. Okay, thanks. You, Member Chair. Oh, one more question, sir, on this drawing that you've got up, actually, it shows stucco. So above that mini-split condenser that's been tacked onto the roof, is that, was there a window removed there that was stuccoed in, or I'm not, I'm just trying to follow a construction history trail here. In the dormer. Right there. And see that there's a note, a handwritten note on that drawing. It says stucco behind the condenser where a window would have been. Oh, Madame Chair, Member Cherry, the applicant could speak to that. It may have been stuccoed over prior to their ownership. They may be able to elaborate on that question, sir. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I guess I was, you know, on site, it looked like the addition, I guess I was assuming that the addition in question was what is shingled, but in reviewing the packet after the site visit, I don't think that's correct. I think there was already a stuccoed wall on that that had been added to the brick original elevation at some time that's now been shingled over in addition to a little extension of that wall. Is that your understanding? So, for example, I'll just, if I look at page 707 of the packet. Of the packet. Doesn't know what you have. 70 page. It's a, it's a boundary survey plat. You have that. Your numbers, you don't have a, your packet isn't numbered. I, I, I don't have access to the packet, only the PowerPoint presentation. Okay. I don't have access to. I don't know where it fits in then. But there's a boundary survey plat if we can find it. And it looks like basically the, I guess, so what facade are we talking about here? The west facade, I think, extends all the way to quite, quite a length past that door and entryway. And then it makes a little jog at the very end of that. And I'm thinking now that it's just that little jog that got filled in by this addition. Is that right? And which is not, is not consonant with the shingling. I think that the shingling replaced stucco facade that was already there. So that the shingling does not indicate the addition. You follow what I'm saying? Madam Chair, Member BMU, I do. I, I'm looking here in the packet material. Let's see if I can pull up that. Or, yeah, there it is. So in this jog that you're showing. I think that's what got filled in on the northwest, that little northwest indentation. So if we look at that northwest indentation and then we get rid of the car point, and we see it from this view. So it comes out and then it, oh, it completes the rest of that facade. Right. So another, another way to look at this is to look at their photographs of what exists now in their application, because then you can see the section that's brick on that west facade and the section that's shingled. I don't know if you have that, but. On the PowerPoint or on their. Well, it's just their, their application. They provided photographs with annotations. Yeah. So it's just before those hand-drawn elevations, at least the way it came to us. So in the first current floor plan here. So we have the first current floor plan. Yeah. I don't know what that is. But let's not look at that for a second. I, I want to find the photographs of what exists right now that they submitted. Yeah, I think in the other direction. It's towards the end of their submittal. Okay. So, let's just find that northwest corner of what exists now. So, it would be the center photograph. You could try a different one because I'm looking at one again. I don't have the same numbers as you that really shows it. Yeah. No. Okay. Let's look at that one right there. Is there any way you can make it larger? Yes, sir. Let's see. Yeah. Sorry to be going through this, but I think what's happening, if I understand this correctly, is that the addition is really where those two windows are, and everything else that is shingled all the way back to where it connects with the brick was there already. It just was stuccoed. I believe the four windows were the four. Yeah, the four windows, four windows on the west facade, that basically the addition is where those windows are on the west facade. And that the point I'm trying to make is it, it, there already was an extension from that brick facade for, for almost that entire length, and they filled in this little indentation, basically, is what I think happened here. Right. And, and I believe, Madame Chair, Member BM Venu, this was the cause from the roofing. Right. And their theory is that that was necessary because in doing the re-roofing, they lost some of the supports, and so they had to extend those walls. Yes, sir. And it was brick, correct? No, I don't, I don't, I don't know what it was before, but I'm just trying to really get from my own benefit how much I think it's impacted the, the, the house and its significant status. Member Cherry, I. I guess one, um, sort of handicap that I see that we're facing is there's no real clear, uh, you know, existing or pre-existing and proposed types of drawings here or photographic documentary with the exception of the roof construction photos. So it's really, it's really hard. Really required. Yeah. So, it's like there's no floor plan. There's no, there's no, uh, it's what I'm, what I'm identifying is to me it's making it difficult to determine, uh, you know, we're spending a lot of time just trying to figure out with guesswork where it was before the, uh, the illegal work happened on it is, is how I see it. And my other understanding, um, was that this, well, I do know it's on the state and the historic register, which I know those processes and they require extensive photo documentation. So I would imagine that there's some photographic evidence somewhere, either Harvey Kaplan or, or, you know, somebody with the state or the, or the, or the national registry would have some pretty clear documentation of what this structure looked like, as well as my understanding is it was status significant partially for the purpose of tax credits. And, and so if it was when we statused it, I would imagine there would have been some photo documentation. I mean, I wasn't on the board then, but I would, I, I guess I'm, I'm seeing a lack of, in lieu of having as-builts that are trustworthy and accurate, I'm seeing a lack of information that seemingly could be easily obtained. It would be really helpful. Thank you for your comments. Other board members have questions or comments of Paul? No. Applicant or applicants, if you'll come forward, state your names, your addresses, and get sworn in. All right, please raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record. Kirsten Trusco, 121 East Santa Fe Avenue. Thank you, Kirsten. Do you solemnly declare and affirm the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and to this under the penalties of perjury? Thank you, Madam. She has been sworn. So first of all, thank you for staying so late and to the staff for collaboration. We did purchase in May of 2028, and take, pardon me, of 2023. We take very seriously the honor of restoring this home. My husband's a recovering CPA. I'm an active banker. We're very detailed, rule-following folks. We bought the house. We were told it had been a rental for 50 years, and it was really, really badly beat up. The roof was actively leaking. The walls in the section, and thank you, Vice Chair and View, for pointing out that the, um, the challenge was in that, that one corner. The previous, whomever did the work, had done it so poorly. I don't know, Paul, if there's pictures in, but there was rat feces and rat-like remains in those walls. Whoever put that, that back piece on, I don't know if they got it permitted. It was disgusting what it had done to the home. So, a big thank you to the team for administratively, administratively approving getting that roof replaced. Part of the problem was whoever did that addition, maybe back in the 70s, the angle was bad, and that's what was putting the ick into the walls. So when it was approved, the approved roof plan was that the roofline had to be extended a bit to correct that curve. The pictures in the, um, what we had submitted show kind of a funky curve in there. I don't know if the pictures of the rat feces and the rotted walls got in, but that was our understanding was that that was the little bit that had to be corrected. That was part of the approved roofing. When the, the roofers got there, the walls that had been supporting that back part that was added, you could push on the walls and they moved. So, in the pictures, and I'm sorry, I don't know what page the pictures are, it shows that break in the roof that had to be corrected. So, um, to the point made earlier, the amount that was added is a tiny corner that covered where that, that, uh, angle on the correction had to be done. So, our understanding was that extending that and replacing the rotted walls was approved. We follow rules. We know how to follow rules. So, I don't know what more you, you'd like us to show. Um, the, to the point made earlier, the section that you saw that has the shingles on it, um, it, it's a small part of that. The adobe that was there was showing. It was the brick, the original structure, then an adobe section on what had been added whenever. Um, and so the idea was that the shingles on that part in the back would match what was on the dormers and match what our neighbors had and be a transition from the brick house to the adobe part in the back. And we, we'd given, I, I think it was Mr. Mochino, and said, "Hey, can we, what do you think? Can we add this?" Um, we got that verbally. We did not get it in writing. So, we're, we're here trying to follow the rules as we understood them, and we are so grateful to the, the, um, team for working with us over this time. So, we can talk about some of the other things, but I think the roof and that little corner piece that was required to correct the roof is the, the main, that's what we thought we were coming here for tonight. And I'm sorry it's run so late. Questions, board members. Member Agil Medana. Thank you, Madam Chair. I tend to agree with Member Cherry that I'm leaning towards a postponement on this case. I just don't think we have the information that we always require in drawings and or lack of photos. I did find an old photo online, which has given me more pause. I think, you know, looks like it was stucco. It's now changed to the cedar shingles. More concerning is the addition of four windows, which has really changed what that facade looks like. It looks like it used to be a single door, is very simple. This corner is very busy now and a little chaotic. So I think we need more information before we can make a decision on this case. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Member Ben. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I do think that we do, but I think that even I'm just looking at the applicant's drawings and it's also contributing to my confusion that I expressed earlier because I don't think they're accurate. And so I really think we need to get some accurate not only floor plans but elevation drawings as well because the one I'm looking at that shows the west facade, I don't know if anyone can pull that up, but it just shows a very small, it shows the very small addition with the two windows abutting directly against the brick original house. And I don't think that's correct. I think there's a length there that used to be stuccoed out the west facade. Yeah. And because it just doesn't make, that just doesn't match up at all to me to the current elevation. Anyway, I don't know if you need to pull it up or not, but I think they're inaccurate. And yeah, there's the chimney details and so forth. It's just kind of a rough handmade drawing that I think got off somehow in trying to put it together. And as long as we're on that topic, one of the things being requested are railings and the drawings are extremely primitive and it really gives us no indication of what the railings would look like. So, we would need much more detailed drawings for that, I think. And the mini split, was the mini split approved? Because that's a publicly visible rooftop appurtenance. Does anyone know if that received approval? Does the applicant know? That was there when we purchased. Oh, it was there when you purchased. Okay. Yeah. So, it'd be a good one for the packet. That's what I'm saying. That's the whole point I'm trying to make is that there was a stuccoed wall that got shingled over. The shingles don't represent the addition is the point I'm making, which was hard to tell when we were there today. I assume that everything that was shingled had been added on, but really the shingles were applied over partially over an existing stucco wall. Sorry, from that photo it does look like something was added on. So that's Oh, no. And there's an addition. That's my point. There are two things happening here that just aren't clear from any of the drawings. Corner. You filled in the corner and you added shingles to a stucco part of the elevation. I have a question. So yeah, just to complete the thought, those are the things that I think definitely need to be clarified. And then there were other issues. I don't know if the other issues that were mentioned were concerns about unpermitted work are going to be addressed at the next go-round or not. But Do you mind if I take a couple of those? I don't know because I don't think they're before us right now. I think they should come before us, but I don't, they're not before us, are they, Paul? Anything other than what's in the application? Right, Chair, Member Benvenuto. Given our site visit today, I don't know where we're at with that. Okay. I'm sorry, what was the question, Member? I was just trying to, I know that Paul has indicated there are other issues beyond what's in the packet that he's saying are unpermitted work and I'm just saying if we can address those if we do decide to continue this to postpone this matter to another hearing for more information, it would be good to address those at the same time. Thank you. So the fence had been approved. It does need to be painted and the pergola was rotting and it's the exact same pergola that was there, honestly. So we should put that in. I don't think it's before us today. So I think it needs to come before us at the next go-round. So, I mean, I completely understand you're wanting to respond and clarify. I just think that it needs to be done in the context of a presentation from staff. All right. And did you have anything more to add? A couple of the things that had come up that are requests, that are open requests, are safety issues. The stairs are not to code and anybody coming into that house, if you guys had come up, you really, we do need to add railings and make those stairs code. The deck, apparently renters years back, because remember it's been a rental 50 years. Our neighbor said renters years back put the current deck over an already rotted deck and the neighbor pointed out, "Look, it's not going to last. It's already rotted." And they said, "We don't care. You know, it's a rental." So, the safety issues of the deck being out of code, the stairs being out of code, and not having a railing, and we've already had people fall off the deck. It's really hard to get insurance for an historic home. And our insurance company had said, "Could we please make sure that we bring up those safety issues again?" And that was some of what Paul brought up. And that's in the application. Mr. Chair. Yeah. What's the date on the photos that were taken of the roof decking being installed? That was about a year ago. Okay. We're very grateful that it was administratively approved because that roof was in such bad shape, actively leaking. Okay. So, these photos would be, you're saying that they are from September of 2024. They would have been between July and September. I don't recall the exact dates. Okay. Thanks, Gary. Members of the board, the roof was approved back in 2023. I remember doing an inspection then. That's the time that I did the red tag. I was the inspector then. I am going to ask for public comment at this point and Stephanie Benonato. Stephanie Benonato, I appreciate that you are going to postpone this until you get more information. I don't even understand because the drawing is very, it looks like there's a slope and then it goes out flat and I don't see that flat part at all in the photographs and to add that much on, it would seem to really imperil the status of this house. In fact, I think just having the shingles there imperils the status of the house. It doesn't fit. It's, I mean, it's not just different but compatible. It is not compatible at all. As is the HVAC or whatever it is up in the window, whether it was put in by the current owners or not. I think it's something that should be considered to be removed. And I understand safety issues and I'm assuming the deck means the porch on the front of the house. But I can see having better stairs and a railing going up to the porch, but I think most of the porches in that area don't have railings along the porch. And if they do, I would hope that they wouldn't be metal, that they would be wood and possibly like a picket fence in keeping with a picket fence. So, it's really distressing when you have a significant house that's been plaqued by national and state entities and it's just ignored and just going forward and just, "Well, we'll have to add this on." You know, there are emergency procedures that the owners could have followed if the wall was falling over or you brace it up and you replace the wall and you don't add on to it. So, I, it seems like a total mess. And I just have to also remind you that on that same street at Weber that there was a significant building that Gas and Oil added onto with white shingles and then you approved it so that there was this perspective need for an ADA accessible bathroom and it's still a white, they added on in white shingles too. And I've asked you to reconsider the status on that building because that whole back facade is, there's nothing there that's historic left and it feels the same on this house that maybe it has lost its status and, you know, if they're getting tax credits then maybe that should be a consequence. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to guess there's no one online. No one online. Okay. Board members, what are your wishes? Member Gil. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll make a motion if the board is ready. In case number 2025-01122-HDRB at 121 East Santa Fe Avenue, I move to postpone the case until a date certain. I would like to request that staff compile all work that has been done without approval. I want to look at this case holistically the next time we see it. I'd like to request that all of that work be indicated on revised drawings and that the applicant work with staff to ensure that the drawings submitted comply with the requirements as outlined online, including a site plan. And just, yeah, just ask, I even noticed small details like light fixtures I see were installed probably without approval. So, if we can just have a compilation of all of that so we can look at it holistically next time. Oh, yeah. That is required. Yeah, of course. I mean, I was able to find photos pretty quickly. So, I'm assuming we could have some photos of that corner prior to the changes included in the next packet as well. Is there a second to this motion? I'll second it with a friendly amendment that, yeah, just to reiterate, you said site plan, that we also get a floor plan and anything else that's consistent with a complete packet along with accurate drawings of the structure to scale, which I know is a requirement, but just because these are the drawings that got into the packet. I just want to reiterate that we'd like to see accurate, accurate drawings. And that's it. That's my friendly amendment. Yep. Accepted as friendly. Yes. And so the applicant's aware, all of those requirements are outlined. You can find it online where it will tell you the scale that the drawings are required to be and staff can help you navigate that as well. Is there anything further to add? Nothing further. Roll call vote, please. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Benvenuto. Yes. Member Agamano. Yes. Member Degen. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. The motion has been postponed. Is it certain? Oh, that's what I was going to say. Can we do this to a date certain? Heather. Cherios. Certainly you could do a date certain, but I would like to give the applicant opportunity to identify what drawings are needed and view them. So, you may maybe say within eight weeks or something like that. If you want to do something, if you want to have a timeline, but date certain might be I would advocate for a timeline. Member Agilana. Yeah, you're the maker of the motion. I'm assuming it might take some time to get these rules together because you may even want to hire an architect to draft them, which could take a bit of time. So I would be comfortable with eight weeks, but open to suggestions if So my question is, do we need another motion for that because we already voted on the previous motion? Madam Chair, Member Cherry, I do not believe so. If you said postpone to a date certain, we just need to set the date that is acceptable to the applicant. Well, the original motion didn't indicate a date. But now, Right, but it was postponed to a date certain. So, I just said a date certain, but like Gary's saying, we don't need a new motion. As long as the date I'm giving, which is eight weeks, is agreeable to staff. I don't believe we need any motion. We just need to set the date. December. We do need to express the date though. December 2nd. Is there a hearing on December 2nd? We have one hearing in December, and that is December 9th. Let's say December 9th. I would like to ask the applicant. I'm just assuming it would take some time to get drawings together, but I also don't want to hold you up if you think you could get them done sooner. And I don't want to make you wait until December 9th if you think you can get them done sooner. If the staff is willing to go more quickly, a lot of what you're asking for is in the packet I have in my hand. So I'm not sure. Maybe some of the stuff that we had didn't get in. We've got photos that you've referenced that we have. So I don't think it's, well, I'll ask the team here because it's their time as well. We say no later than December 9th. Sorry. Yes, sir. Thank you, Chair Rios. So the applicant did do the drawings to scale. They're just not professionally done, but the desire of the applicant was to do their own drawings. So just as a point of clarification, would you expect drawings by a professional or? Well, what I would just expect them to be accurate. I don't think there's a requirement that they're done by a professional, but there's clearly a chimney on the north roof line that's not on this drawing. The building, the volume to the left of the drawing to the north, is a pitched roof structure. It's depicted there as a flat roof structure. There's some, the shingled area is scale-wise clearly longer north-south in the photos and from being at the site than it's depicted here. So that might be to scale, but I just don't think it's accurate. And I wouldn't think that it needs to be professionally drawn. I just think it needs to be correct. Thank you for that explanation. And we need better detail on the railings. That's just, we don't, we can't tell what's being proposed. So in other words, if the applicant gets things done earlier, that's when they can get submitted when they are accurately done. Okay. And can I just add a comment, member, not to fixate on the railings, but on the topic, in the past, I know that in cases like this, especially in this district where railings and fences are not uncommon, staff works pretty closely in deciding whether or not to present it to us for approval based on the design. And so I would hope that in this case, staff works with the applicant on making sure that the railings are designed in a way that's harmonious with the house and the streetscape and the historical vocabulary of the structure. Madam Chair, if the motion was to postpone to a date certain, we need to set a specific, if we set it for December 9th, I think it would not be consistent with the Open Meetings Act to pull it up earlier than December 9th. But if we set it, say, for a date in October or November, we can postpone it again so that the public has notice that the hearing will take place on a specific date. Right? So then the hearing can be postponed again if everybody isn't ready. But if we say December 9th and we bring it up before that, the public is not being given adequate notice. So my recommendation to the board would be, let's set it for October or November, and if we don't have everything together, we can postpone it again. I would, I think that's better. Do you agree with that? Yep. Amanda, can you let us know what the dates available are in October? End of October. So about a month from now. Yes, member Agla Majano, members of the board, October 28th is the late October hearing. We have one hearing in November, which is November 18th. I will clarify my motion to change it from a date certain to October 28th. So noted. Thank you. Certain. And I have a comment to make in reference to member Benu's comment regarding the railing. This is a significant house, and you may think that is insignificant to indicate that everything should come before the board. I feel that it should come before the board, and if it's going to be approved by staff, perhaps a board member should be involved in that approval comments. I'm not sure what you're referring to. Are you talking about their prior administrative approvals that were given in this case? Because this... I'm referring to the railing. So the railing is definitely coming before us because it's part of the application. And I just wanted to make sure that it doesn't just come as, "Oh, and by the way, they want these railings." I want to know that staff is very confident that these are the right railings for that, and if they don't feel that way, that they work with the applicant to design them properly because the railings are so critically important to these types of buildings. I see what you're saying. I thought that you were indicating that staff could give their... No, no. I want staff to just make sure that they work with the applicant to design them properly before they're brought forward. Before they're brought to us. Yeah. Okay. So we have a motion and a second and the vote. May I check for a minute, Brett? Just let me know. He's not in town October 28th. Is it okay to take that November date? Is that available? The 18th. Let me double check by 18th. Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. November 18th date. Would that be okay for the motioner? Member Agala Majano. Yes, that's fine. Okay. So November 18th. The motion for date certain of November 18th. Okay. All righty. We're going to move on. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt again. I'm looking at a calendar for November 2025. The second and fourth Tuesdays are the 11th and the 25th. The 18th is the third Tuesday. Amanda, what's going on? According to the calendar, it shows November 18th. Somebody's not looking at the election. Well, maybe we just set an off date. November 18th is a Tuesday, but it's a third Tuesday. It is the third Tuesday. Yeah, the 11th and the 25th would be... So, are we talking about October or November? November, madam. Okay. Madam Chair, I'm looking at the Historic District Review Board hearing schedule. Yeah, we have a hearing November 18th, and it's an off date apparently because that may be due to the holiday at the end of November. One meeting in the month probably. Well, I think that November 18th would be, yes, it may be on an off week, but that is probably the reason the prior meeting was canceled for some reason. I don't know. So I noted that. Yes, I believe the room is not available the week before, and the following week is for a holiday. So it is an off week in November regarding this case. So the second week in November is Veterans Day. That's the reason why November 18th is the only available Tuesday. Certainly the date certain is November 18th. All right. Discussion items. Anybody staff? Nothing. And any matters from the board? Good thing. And our next meeting is October 14th. And do I hear a motion to adjourn? Adjourn. Denon. Second. Favor say aye. Aye. And I'm sure there is no opposition. Thank you. Thank you all.