Historic Districts Review Board Field Trip Tue, Oct 28, 2025 · Historic Districts Review Board Field Trip https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/891 == Executive Summary == The Historic Districts Review Board Field Trip covered a range of topics including agenda changes, approval of past minutes, and several project reviews. A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to the proposed Children's Discovery Garden and Gateway Pavilion at 715 Camino Lejo, which was presented for information only, and a detailed discussion on the remodel of 401 East Palace Avenue, which was ultimately postponed for redesign. The board also addressed concerns about the lack of an architect on the board and discussed the Land Development Code. Key decisions included approving various administrative items and several project applications, such as the remodel at 815 Dunlap Street, a yard enclosure at 412 Camino Don Miguel, and alterations to a previously approved plan at 826 Camino del Puente. The board also approved the demolition of non-contributing elements at 515 Peralta. Discussions frequently revolved around the interpretation of "in-kind" replacements for historic elements, particularly for doors and coping, and the appropriateness of modern designs within historic districts. The meeting concluded with a discussion on the requirements for Historic Cultural Properties Inventories and the definition of "historic" in the code. == Key Decisions == - Approved agenda changes. - Approved minutes from August 26, 2025, and September 9, 2025. - Approved findings of fact and conclusions of law for 423A West San Francisco Street. - Approved the application for 815 Dunlap Street, including exception criteria for replacing historic windows. - Approved the application for 412 Camino Don Miguel for a yard enclosure. - Approved the application for 127 Duran Street for a remodel. - Approved alterations to a previous approval for 826 Camino del Puente. - Approved the demolition of non-contributing elements at 515 Peralta. - Postponed Case 2025-010495-HDRB (439 Camino del Monte Sol) to November 18, 2025. - Postponed Case 2025-01353 HDRB (401 East Palace Avenue) to November 18, 2025, for redesign. == Motions & Votes == - Motion to approve agenda changes — Approved by voice vote (Aye). - Motion to approve August 26 and September 9, 2025 minutes — Approved by voice vote (Aye). - Motion to approve findings of fact and conclusions of law for 423A West San Francisco Street — Approved by voice vote (Aye). - Motion to table the case for 439 Camo del Montesol until the applicant appears — Passed unanimously. - Motion to maintain the contributing status for 1323 Paseo with facades F1, F2, F3, F4, F14 (excluding the AC unit), F11, and F10 designated as primary — Passed (Member Cherry: Yes, Member Dagnan: Yes, Member Aguilar Madron: Yes, Member B: No). - Motion to designate 925 Canyon Road as non-contributing — Passed (2 Yes, 1 No, 1 Abstain). - Motion to postpone the case for 927 Canyon Road for redesign — Motion seconded, vote in progress (Member Cherry: Yes, Member Dagnet: Yes). - Motion to approve the application for 815 Dunlap Street as submitted, including the exception criteria for replacing historic windows — Passed unanimously (Member Aguilar Madrono: Yes, Member Dagnet: Yes, Member Cherry: Yes). - Motion to postpone Case 2025-01353 HDRB (401 East Palace Avenue) to November 18th — Passed (5-0 vote). - Motion to approve the application for 412 Camino Don Miguel as submitted (with clarification about rounded corners) — Passed unanimously (4-0). - Motion to approve the application for 127 Duran Street as presented — Passed unanimously (4-0). - Motion to approve alterations to previous approval for 826 Camino del Puente — Passed unanimously. - Motion to approve the demolition of non-contributing additions, detached structures, small yard wall, and small stairs for 515 Peralta — Passed (with one abstention from Member Cherry). - Motion to postpone Case 2025-010495-HDRB (439 Camino del Monte Sol) to November 18, 2025 — Passed unanimously. - Motion to adjourn the meeting — Passed unanimously. == Public Comment == Gayla Beal noted the absence of an architect on the Historic Districts Review Board since February 11, 2025, and clarified the distinction between architects and landscape architects. Jennifer Berkeley supported the design for the Botanical Garden, finding it refreshing and fitting. Another public commenter expressed concern about the "winged parapet" of the Botanical Garden design, suggesting it "screamed modernism." Realtor Tara Woodruff argued against contributing status for 925 Canyon Road, citing its lack of traditional Canyon Road qualities, non-historic elements, and negative impact on market value. John Eddi expressed concern about the lack of character and massing in the proposed carport design for 927 Canyon Road. Mr. Johny corroborated the historic red brick and white color scheme of 401 East Palace Avenue. == Topics == - Botanical Garden Pavilion - Historic Building Demolition - Story Pole Requirements - Architect on Board - HICB Requirements - Land Development Code - Definition of 'Historic' - Meeting Logistics == Full Transcript == Getting ahead of time. We are live now. We'll try this again. Good evening and welcome to this meeting of the Historic Districts Review Board. Today we are October 28th, 2025. May we have a roll call, please? Chair Rios: Here. Vice Chair Bian Venu: Excused. Member Cherry: Present. Member Denon: Present. Member Aguular Madrona: Here. Member Mather: Excused. Member Bee: Here. Madam Chair, you have a quorum. Thank you very much. Are there any changes to this evening's agenda? If so, please state them now. Yes, Chair Rios. Under old business, item A, 2025-010 873HRB 219 and 219A Washington Avenue has been postponed. And also item E under new business for 456 Camino Don Miguel that has been withdrawn. Also item F, 1020 Camino San Acacio has been withdrawn, and item J is now going to be item E under new business. Thank you very much. With these changes being made, is there a motion to approve, please? Board members move approval. Madrona seconds. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Oppose say no. Thank you. We have two sets of minutes: August 26, 2025, and September 9th, 2025. Changes to any of these, either one of these, staff or board? It appears none. Is there a motion to approve both of these? I, Madrona, so moves. Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. And oppose say no. And we have one findings of fact and conclusions of law, and that is for a project at 423A West San Francisco Street. Any changes to this finding? No. Motion, please. Bee moves to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law for case number 2025 0102 HDRB. Seconds. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Oppose say no. Matters from the public. Is there anyone in this room that wishes to speak on matters related to H-Board? Hi, Gayla. Evening. I'm Gayla Beal. I'm an architect in Santa Fe, and I'm here to report that since February 11th, this board has not had an architect on its board, on the H-Board, since February 11th. I looked up the definitions of architect and landscape architect in Chapter 14, and indeed, they're separate definitions. A landscape architect is not an architect, and an architect is not a landscape architect. And an architect is what is required to be on this board. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else in this room wishing to come forward at this time? No. Yes, Heather. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to note that we have forwarded some names to the Mayor's office, and no appointment has been made as of yet. Thank you for that. Is there anyone online that wishes to speak at this time? Chair, no hands are raised. Thank you very much. Staff communications will be presenting. So, staff communications, we do have 715 Camino Lejo for an information only for the Botanical Park. And there are just a couple of announcements. The Phase 1 of the Land Development Code has been forwarded by all boards and commissions to the governing body. So that hearing will happen November 19th at 5:00 p.m. It will probably be a little later in the evening, but the hearing will start at 5:00 p.m. And the there are a couple of counselors who are interested in making the changes that the H-Board requested. And so we're working on supplemental information to the council to make those changes that were requested by Member Bee, John Bian Venu, as well as the entire board by nature of their of your motion. So, but at this point, it looks like we're heading for November 19th and adoption hearing, and we'll keep you apprised. November 18th is your next hearing. We'll definitely make an announcement or reminder then, and then as soon as we have the updated paperwork in terms of the memo, we will share that with you via email. Thank you for that information, Heather. And anything further? So we will go forward in reference to 715 Camino Lejo. Madam Chair, members of the board, good afternoon still. My name is Matthew O'Reilly. I am the Director of Real Estate, the New Mexico Department of Cultural Affairs. I represent the State of New Mexico, the Board of Regents, the Museum of New Mexico in this matter. I want to thank you for having us here tonight and for allowing us to present along with our tenant, the Santa Fe Botanical Garden, again this evening. Here tonight with me is Dr. David Young, the Executive Director of Santa Fe Garden, and Mr. Philip Weedle, the project architect. The presentation this evening will be the fourth meeting between the state and the city on this topic, including two HDRB public meetings, including this one, and two meetings with the H-Board's subcommittee members. As an aside, I'd just like to thank the city's Land Use Director and the staff of our Historic Preservation Division for their assistance in this process. As you are all aware, the proposed project presented to you again tonight will be constructed using state funds on state property, and the building constructed will be owned by the state. The State of New Mexico is in favor of this project as presented in both its form and its function and supports the design iteration of the building as developed through this collaborative process with the city, with state law. I would also like to note that the project design that you will be seeing tonight is supported by the board of the Historic Santa Fe Foundation and also has been found by the New Mexico Historic Preservation Division to have no effect on historic properties and to have no effect to the Camino Lejo new shed. Madam Chair, with your permission, Mr. Philip Weedle, the project architect, will now again present the project to you and explain the modifications made to the design response to the input received from board members and from city staff. Thank you. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, members of the board. Is my presentation connected here? Please, the presentation, the presentation screens in. Okay. Madam Chair and members of the board, my name is Philip Weedle with W. Gilmore Architects, and I'm here on behalf of the Santa Fe Botanical Garden and Department of Cultural Affairs to present the Children's Discovery Garden and the Gateway Pavilion that is proposed for the land on the southern edge of the Santa Fe Botanical Garden. The goal of the Children's Discovery Garden is to develop a space for passive and active experiential education and outdoor natural learning environment. Kenneth Francis from Surrounding Studio is the landscape architect leading efforts on that portion of the project. And then [clears throat] our team is working in collaboration with them in the development of the Gateway Pavilion, which is a shaded portal at the entry into the Children's Discovery Garden that provides support facilities. The existing site context. The existing site context, as you can see from Camino Lejo, there's existing pinion juniper woodland landscape in the area, and there's a ground-mounted photovoltaic array, which is essentially where the Gateway Pavilion is proposed to be located. This shows the views into the site from the public way. The existing site plan, we have the existing parking is the area to the north labeled number two. The existing visitor's center entry building is labeled number one, and then the Orchard Gardens, which is the original part of the garden. The solar array that we were seeing in the site context photographs is labeled number six on this diagram just for reference. We have an existing service path to the north of that existing kind of maintenance building, which is labeled five on this diagram. The proposed design for the Gateway Pavilion is essentially to locate a small gateway into the Children's Discovery Garden immediately to the south of that existing service path. And then the Children's Discovery Garden is located to the south of that. As I mentioned, the Children's Discovery Garden includes a series of exploration loop trails that'll have interactive play features, including a range of educational themes. In addition, it has kind of a central interpretive feature that is an interpretive acequia element just to the south of the Gateway Pavilion. Both the architectural elements and the paths and interpretive elements are largely working around the existing pinion juniper trees, preserving the majority of them in place. The proposed floor plan shows the kind of mass two-foot thick walls of the Gateway Pavilion. We have the kind of main gateway plaza, which is the central shaded gathering space that provides a shaded seating area for educational programs and visitors. To the right, there is a mural art wall, and then in the center is a water harvesting element that is capturing roof rainwater and storing that in a cistern. That's kind of a central educational feature within the Gateway Pavilion, and then we have the restroom facilities on the east side. So we wanted to briefly run through the original proposal that was presented back on August 12th just for context so we can kind of talk about the modifications that were made in the design since that original process. So in the original design proposal, we had proposed a material palette that included moss rock masonry, as well as smooth integrally colored stucco and weathered steel ramada and wall panels. The original elevations that were presented back in August, seeing the kind of stucco on the east and the west elevations, the moss rock masonry on the north and south with the weathered steel panels with the kind of ramada roof form and some of the 3D perspectives of that from the entry within the kind of Gateway Pavilion itself, and then from the south looking back across the interpretive element. So, since that time, just again to kind of recap some of the process we've been through over the last few months, which began back in June. We submitted our original presentation in July and presented it at the August 12th hearing. Since that time, as Matt mentioned, we've had multiple collaboration meetings with staff and with subcommittee from this board. I think some of the key feedback that we've received that we've tried to take into consideration in the revised design. I think number one, the discussion about wall materials and that stucco and stone being allowable, that the metal wall panels were not allowable within the district standards. The kind of reinforcing the color with the earth tone stucco and the natural stone wall dominated massive walls, and then the discussion about solar energy and how we kind of include solar energy but look for opportunities to try to screen that with parapet and also integrating it into the roof pitch. So all of those items are items we've tried to take into consideration with the revision that we're going to run through. So the revised design, we have proposed the material palette would include the moss rock stone masonry and the integrally colored stucco. We've removed the weathered steel panels from the project to try and be conforming with the district standards. And then the exterior elevations that you see here, if you look at the overall exterior envelope of the structure, we are currently at 68% stucco finish and 32% of the moss rock masonry. The east elevation in particular, which is the elevation that faces Camino, is 80% stucco and 20% moss rock masonry. And I'll just quickly run through kind of elevation by elevation so you can see the comparison between what was proposed originally and the revised proposal. So the east elevation that faces Camino Lejo, again, we removed the weathered steel panel and extended the parapet up to conceal the roof form on that east elevation. In addition to that, we did look at extending a band of moss rock masonry across the bottom to really emphasize the mass wall construction on the north elevation. So the upper elevation is the original proposal, and the lower elevation is the revised proposal. So again, we've eliminated the metal panel, and we've integrated stucco into the north facade and also created a parapet condition that will screen the solar panel on that north facade. Additionally, we have looked at raising the sill of the windows to reinforce the wall-dominant design. So the bottom sill of the windows has been raised up so that the wall extends all the way across, again, just to try to emphasize the wall dominance of the design. And then it's the same on the south facade. For both the north and south facade, we have retained the slope in the parapet for two reasons that we wanted to talk about. Number one has to do with the photovoltaic array. We are trying to screen the photovoltaic array but also not shade the panels, which reduces the energy production. We are really working to try and maximize the amount of renewable energy that we can generate with this. So the solar panels are integrated into the slope of the roof form as is provided in the district standards, and we're just following that with the parapet configuration. In addition to that, one of the main educational features of this structure is the water harvesting component. Given the 20-year drought that we're all facing, we feel like that's a really important message to teach children and families that are coming to visit the garden. And the water harvesting feature in the center is really the central educational element within this gateway pavilion. So the form of the parapet is also reinforcing that idea about water harvesting and the importance of water harvesting in our environment. And then lastly, the west elevation, again, removing the metal panels and then extending the stucco across that facade. So just quickly, a few perspective views. This is again the existing view from Camino Lejo looking into the site. We just wanted to demonstrate what the view is from the public way into the property. This is the updated rendering of that view into the site from Camino Lejo. This is with just the existing trees, and then actually this is with the proposed vegetation as is proposed on our landscape plans. Then the revised view as you're approaching from the north at the entry into Children's Discovery Garden. And as you're entering into that kind of shaded portal area, again, the mural art wall on the west side, the rainwater harvesting catchment there in the center, restrooms are to the left. You can see the Seikia elements beyond. Then a view from the south looking back to the north with the interactive Seikia interpretive feature and the gateway center. So I know this is a very small project. We are only, we're less than 600 square feet of enclosed space. Our roof area is 2,100 square feet. We're smaller than most of the single-family residences that surround its property. But it has very big aspirations in terms of what we're trying to teach in terms of sustainability message and what we're trying to teach to children and community. We think it's an important project for the garden, even though it's quite modest in scale, and appreciate your support and staff support to get to this point. So that any questions that the board may have. Chair: Thank you very much for your presentation. We appreciate it and appreciate all the what is being presented that we can actually see and the fact that you presented what the public can see from a public way. Is it your view that this project is compatible with the surrounding buildings that are there at the museum area? We believe that it is compatible with the surrounding areas. Certainly everything within the garden, the moss rock masonry is very prominent throughout the botanical garden and is also included on Museum Hill. You see that plaza, and multiple museums have included rock masonry within the construction. The stucco obviously is compatible within that. So we do believe that it is compatible with the context of what we see not only within the botanical garden but within the greater Museum Hill context. If you look at surrounding museums, the closest museum for us is the Folk Art Museum, which is immediately adjacent across the street, and certainly feel that this is compatible with that. It's quite small in scale compared to the surrounding museums. Chair: And would you characterize this building as being a bit contemporary in that what the parapet itself looks like? I think it's certainly trying to be sympathetic to the requirements of the historic district. So I'm not sure if I would necessarily characterize it that way. I mean, we really worked hard in our discussions with subcommittee board and also with staff to make sure that we're understanding the requirements of the district standards, and I think what we're presenting certainly falls within those standards. Chair: Okay. And I do appreciate the water harvesting issue. Thank you. Chair: That you are incorporating into this. It's an important, important thing for all of us is to for water harvesting. And also the solar panels that you are using. But let's hear from board members and see what they have to say. I know this is a work in progress, and these are simply comments board members that we will be making to help the applicant go forward with the project. So I will ask for those comments at this time. Member Beach. Member Beach: Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, just I was supportive of the project the first time we saw it. But I appreciate the effort to take into account some of the concerns of this board. I think it's a great project. I think it definitely fits the function of the museum and the mission. And I do think in its immediate surroundings with the Folk Art Museum across the street has a lot of moss rock, some very tall vertical walls. I think that that does fit the streetscape, and I appreciate that the view from Camino Lejo is quite minimal. Just a stucco wall. I don't think it would call any extra attention to the design, which viewed from the north and south is quite different than what we're used to seeing. But I don't think you'll see that unless you're inside the park. And it seems to fit as a, as you described, a gateway and a real kind of structure you would see in many parks. So thank you. Chair: Thank you for your comments, Member Beach. Any other comments? Member Don. Member Don: Thank you. Curious. Mr. Reedle, good evening. Could you elaborate just a little bit on the height of the structure? This is a very tall restroom. The highest point walls are 16 feet of floor. So I think not that tall, particularly in comparison to the surrounding structures. I think we're looking at it in the context more of the structures within the garden itself. There are a number of Armada structures that certainly within that scale are larger and just trying to make within that overall context appropriately. So it's 16 feet tall on the east side, and I think it's being put upon the west side. Chair: Thank you. Any other board members? Yes. Member. Member: Thanks, Madam Chair. Thanks for your presentation. It seems like you've really addressed the previous concerns. I like the concept. I think it has a good scale for what it is. I think I like the angled buttresses that you added to, appears to be the east elevation. Is that correct? It just it gives it more of a grounded feel, kind of makes it feel lower even though it's higher. And I appreciate that you've you the roof solution, I guess I would call it, that you made, even though I think in another context, the other roof design could be quite nice as well. Sure. Member: And then I'm curious. I also I appreciate the concealment of the solar panel, but do appreciate the wanting to keep it at maximum performance value. And was curious if you also, even though it's it's against sort of what historic's trying to do, which is conceal it, but in this particular architecture, it seems like it might it might be a type of building where you would want to show, you know, with the water harvesting, we've got that as well as solar. So. Certainly something we could consider, but I think one of the things about if you're suggesting something that's more of a faceted solar array, which is quite common, you quite often in that configuration start getting into self-shading situations. So we've found, we feel like that the best way for us to maximize the renewable energy capacity. We're actually looking at a racking system that can clip directly to the standing seam metal roof that allows us to keep it plain with the roof form, and it also allows us to kind of maximize the square footage of the foldable take array itself. So we feel like ultimately that's our best strategy. Member: Okay. Yeah, that to me looks looks really nice for what it is. I think the scale of the of the space, I mean, with the story poles there, it looks, you know, they look quite tall as sort of framing or poles often do, but once you put a roof on something, I know it can also ground it more and feel more. So I'm my my feeling is that that would happen once you once the was completed. I also think there's a good sense of space in this area that's going to be a meeting area. If it were much lower in there, it would start to feel awkward as a presentation area. So I think it's a good design. Chair: You member Terry member. Member: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for walking us through those changes. This case to me feels like one of those funny ones where I can see what you guys were trying to do and respond to the comments with the steel and changing it to stucco. But for for me personally, I don't think that it's landed at a as a better solution. Personally, I would almost prefer the steel. I think the butterfly roof and stucco is just it's a little odd. And then especially since you still have the big steel beams with the corrugated paneling roof underneath and then with the stucco on top. Yeah, I think I think I would have almost preferred an exception with the steel roof. And then like Member Cherry said, I think, you know, it could be an opportunity to explain these solar arrays as part of the interpretation of the site. With either design though, I think we're still going to run into the issue of needing an exception for the wall materials because it does specifically say that the massive walls look of of adobe construction, not stone. And also just wondering if you considered, you know, you've made, I think, a great effort, you and the team, to integrate and showcase traditional methods like the a demonstration of. And I'm just curious, did you think about the opportunity to like use true adobe for the walls and adobe blocks and even showcasing that in a window as another way to incorporate that into the interpretation of New Mexico design? And I appreciate, I do like that you guys raised the windows off the ground. I think that helped a lot with the massing, and that is all that's all I have for now. But in general, I like the scale of it, and I think it's in a good direction. I just don't know where we land with the steel and wall material. Board members, thank you very much for your comments. As I indicated, this is a work in progress. So, what is your timeline? We are trying to move forward as quickly as acceptable for everyone. Obviously, we know we have to go through this design collaboration process, but the intent was to move forward as rapidly as possible. We have state funding that has time limits on it. It's a desire by both the garden and the state to project forward as early as possible. Right, because when they're capital outlay projects, then you do have a timeframe. Exactly. And there are specifics that you have to meet, and obviously, we'll cooperate with you on those. So yes, Heather. Thank you, Chair. So, with reference to those capital outlay projects, the process is such that the HDRB provides recommendations, well, provides comments on the application if there is a disagreement. In the case of exceptions, we don't do that with state projects. So that's a tool that we use for our typical private projects. So, unless there is a disagreement about the design, then there is no need to invoke the next stage of establishing a state local committee. Okay. So at this point, it would be the board's jurisdiction to determine whether the design can proceed forward as is or whether that state local committee needs to be formed. Well, it appears by the comments that were made this evening that there is a discrepancy in reference to the project this evening with board members. I know that we're not going to make a motion on this, that you're simply taking comments from the board, but I always feel that it's important to hear from the public because this is our city, and I always feel that sometimes the public might even have important comments to make that you might take into consideration. Is there anyone here this evening that wishes to comment on this project? If so, please come forward at this time. Jennifer Berkeley, and I live in Santa Fe, and I also work up on Museum Hill. I wanted to comment that this is the first time I've actually seen this drawing and plan, and I actually really like it. I hear what you're saying. It might not fit exactly in the historic design parameters exactly, but it's refreshing, I think, and it fits really nicely in the Botanic Garden area. As they mentioned, as it relates to the Folk Art Museum, I don't really see a whole lot of visual discrepancy there. So, I just wanted to speak in support of it. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair, board members. I really appreciate the steps that have been taken by the applicant to soften the building, such as raising the windows quite a bit and bringing stucco in as a dominating feature. I do think that the stacked stone is a little out of place up there, but be that as it may, it's a natural material. Stuccoing over the structural steel is an admirable attempt at again softening the building, but I am still really thrown by the wings as they have been described, the winged parapet. Basically, I think that wing design is a hangover from the fact that it is structural steel, and it screams modernism to me. I'm being blunt here, excuse me. I wonder if the applicant would consider rather than breaking an angle of that roof to go with a shed roof, because when people see a shed roof in New Mexico, they know it's a shed roof. We know it might be a quasi-vernacular building. It wasn't built by architects trying to push modernism into the neighborhood. That's all. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Anyone else in this room wishing to comment on this particular project? Is there anyone on Zoom? Anyone online? No hands are raised, Chair. Thank you very much. Yes, Mr. O'Reilly. Madam Chair, members of the board, thank you for your comments tonight. With regard to the process moving forward, the state and our tenant, the Botanical Garden, is really looking for clear direction. Will we be asked to continue to make these sort of presentations, sort of staff presentation level presentations? Can the Historic Design Review Board say that they're okay with what they've seen tonight and allow us to move forward? Or are we talking about coming back for an actual public hearing where the HDRB will take a vote? So, one way or the other, we need that kind of direction, because as you can imagine, time is wasting state capital outlay, and it's quite expensive for the architect to continue to come by without some clear direction. So, anything the board can do in that regard would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much. I was wondering if it would be appropriate if staff has any comments to make in reference to this particular project. Thank you, Chair. So, one of the windows that were open was the code, and with reference to the historic review historic district standards, staff finds that those standards have been complied with because the different roof shapes are permitted in the historic review district as long as they are concealed from public view, which in this particular case, you see essentially the rear of the building, and you don't see the roof shape or form. When we had our subcommittee, I believe the applicant said that there was concern. We brought up the issue of a shed roof, and functionally, it would not work. So, within the framework of the historic review historic district standards and the context of moss rock and stone being used on other buildings in the Museum Hill development, staff finds that it does meet the historic review district standards. In this particular case, it may be helpful to have some form of vote by the Historic Districts Review Board, because if there's, before we would proceed to a state local board, it would probably have to be a majority motion that would determine that the board would do that. I've heard comments on both sides, and so maybe just for clearer direction, it may be appropriate to determine how the board would act. Would you want the board to address the motion to do it in the form of a motion? That seems to be the clearest way to move forward to me. I think Mr. Rubil has something to say. Attorney, Madam Chair, I think that the problem we have with that is it's just on the agenda as a staff communication. It's not on the agenda as a project. I don't think you can vote on it tonight because that would be inconsistent with the Open Meetings Act. It would have to be on the agenda for an approval. But because of the state local standards, what I was trying to get at is clear direction for the state. So maybe the vote is not the tool with which we do this. But, I could take a, if that's inappropriate, I could take a poll, and I think all members of this board expressed their comments, and as I understood it, there are three members of the board that approved of the way the project is moving in the direction that it's moving, and one member that had questions about the project, and that's Member Madrano, that it should move in a different direction. Am I stating that correct? Member Dman, that you are in agreement with, I'm fine. I think it's admirable that these applicants have gone to the lengths that they have. I was just wishing that the bathroom wasn't that big. That's all. I wouldn't vote against it. You know, it just seemed very, very tall, and it's on a high point, and it's quite visible from the road, but so what? I think you've done some good work, and if there's something we can do tonight to help move it along, I'm all for that. So I think that you are getting a clear picture of what the majority of this board has stated this evening, right? Yes, Member Reach. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just in an effort to try to clear up what may be a perceived inconsistency with the board, I don't have any objection to the steel use of steel on the roof, the butterfly roof. I think the butterfly roof is obviously a deliberate design element intended to demonstrate the importance of sustainable garden practices. So, I don't have any issue with the shape of the roof, and also would leave the choice of material to the applicant. I would support either steel or stucco. So I agree with Member Agar Majono on that point. I don't think we're at odds with respect to the material. So I do believe that you do, you feel, Mr. O'Reilly, that you got a clear picture of what this board represents this evening? I do now, Madam Chair, members of the board. I think if perhaps staff could follow up with some sort of letter summarizing what's been said tonight, that would satisfy the state in terms of its ability to move forward and understanding the wishes of the board. Okay. Thank you. Thank you all, and good luck with this project. And I have a follow-up letter. Thank you, Director. And I guess it will not be, or will it be necessary for a sub, for the subcommittee that was formed here, two members of this board, to continue meeting with the group? I believe I've heard clear direction from the board this evening. I'm not sure that it is necessary to have any more meetings. Thank you. I suppose if you run into any kind of problem, or if you need that subcommittee, that you can communicate with Heather, and the subcommittee will be available to you. Thank you all. Thank you all for this evening. We will move on to old business. I do want to say that if, when you're presenting a case, applicants, if you disagree with the decision that this board makes this evening, you do have the option to appeal, and that appeal would be to the City Council, and you do have to meet time constraints. So, it's important for you to communicate with staff so that you meet those time constraints. Okay. So, thanks. The case under old business that we're going to hear this evening is located at 439 Camo del Montesol. Is the applicant here? Gary, is the applicant here? I don't see him. If it's the pleasure of the board, we can table it to the end of the meeting. See if Mr. will show up. Is there a motion on the board, somebody to make a motion so that this case is tabled until, how about until the applicant appears? La Madron so moves. And second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Oppose say no. Thank you. We'll move on to the first case under new business, and that's located at 1323 P de Paratha. Is that applicant here? Yes, she is. Lenny, it is your case. Just one second. It's coming up. Can we put the presentation up? Thank you. Okay. This is case 2025-011226 HDRB for 1323 PO de Paralta for primary facade designation. The streetscape for the property is defined as extending from the southern entrance of the New Mexico State Capital building parking, going west to Galasto Street. The curve in the road truncates the streetscape. The property is located on the edge of the Donaspar Historic District, so that the majority of the structures to the north of the property are in the Downtown and East Side Historic District. The streetscape consists of a combination of residential and commercial properties. The commercial properties are located to the north and east of the subject property, while the residences are to the west and south. The street is lined with sidewalks on both sides of the street. The streetscape consists of a single yard wall with metal elements to the east, while to the west there is a combination of low stone walls, wood, and chain-link fences. Parcel sizes in the streetscape vary greatly with the building set back from the street. There are visible parking areas for commercial properties and parking in a driveway at the front or side of the residences. On the south side of the street in the Don Gaspar Historic District, there are lower single-level buildings west of Don Gaspar Avenue, where the buildings are taller with mostly two-story buildings. The Downtown and East Side Historic District on the north side of the road is mostly two or three-story buildings, including the public parking garage for the state buildings, New Mexico State Capitol, and a two-story Victorian residence with a few lower single-story buildings that serve as law offices in the middle. The commercial property at 1323 Paseo de Peralta is somewhat triangular in shape and is sandwiched between the Acequia de los Pinos to the south and Paseo de Peralta to the north and west. The property consists of 0.2956 acres with a contributing building in the Don Gaspar Historic District. The primary facades for the building have not yet been designated. The lot has retaining walls consisting of railroad ties and stone walls along the east and north lot lines at the sidewalks. A low yard wall capped with flagstone sits at the northwest property edge, and a 6-foot high coyote fence encloses the southern portion of the property. At the far east lot line is a wood fence with shrubbery blocking the view of the fence from the west. The parking area is on the northeastern and eastern portion of the lot. While it is accessed from the driveway on the north side of the building, there is a small monument sign on the east side of the driveway. The approximately 3,600-square-foot building consists of two original 1930s Spanish Pueblo Revival structures that were merged into a single structure with a 1988 1,800-square-foot addition. The building is a combination of adobe and wood frame with several pairs of wood French doors, wood casement windows with false muntins, and a north portal constructed of single post and beam construction, exposed lintels, and vigas. The addition is located between the original structures and is at a scale that blends in with the original structure and does not overwhelm the historic aspects, retaining the integrity of the original structures. The addition matches the southern building, making it difficult to distinguish between the two without stepping back to see the addition and the single light windows. To the south is a second original structure which houses larger vigas in the western wall and the southern portal to complement the northern portal. The original portions of the structure have slight undulation to their parapets where the addition does not. The property received archaeological clearance in 1989. There is a note in the HCPI of a 1990s addition. There's also a note regarding a 1988 case which was located. However, there are no previous cases on file. It is presumed that the 1988 and 1990s additions are the same addition since there's only one addition on the building. In an approval issued on September 9th, 2009, the building was approved to replace all viga ends on the south and west elevations. Some of the viga tails were removed at this time and were not replaced. In an approval issued on February 21st, 2001, the property was approved to have signs. The applicant requests primary facade designation of the contributing building. This drawing will show you the original two structures versus the new addition. Staff is recommending the historic status of the structure be maintained as contributing and recommends the north facades, including the portal facades F1, F2, and F3, the east facade known as F4, which are part of the first original structure, the northwest facade F11, excluding the windows but including the exposed window headers, and the south facade F10, including the portal and excluding the handrail of the southern original building, which are character-defining facades for the building as the primary facades per section 14-5.2C designation of significant contributing or non-contributing status within a historic district. Stand for questions. Thank you, Lanny, for your report. Board members, do you have any questions for Lanny at this time? Member BJ. Member: Thank you, Lanny. Is F4, the facade 4, visible from the public right-of-way? Lanny: A portion of it is. There's actually a fence that truncates it. Member: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions, board members, at this time? Anyone in this room wishing to comment in reference to this particular case? Oh, excuse me. How about the applicant? A very important person to comment. Apologies to you. Will you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record. Is that mic on, or just bring it right up to your mouth? Should I do that again? Please. Jennifer Salamini, 125 Lincoln Avenue. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. She's been sworn in. Thank you very much. I'm sorry about that. You heard staff's recommendations. The building is already contributing. Do you agree with the primary facades that she has indicated? Yes. And you do? And do you think you have anything further to add? No. I support staff's decision, and we will work towards making the necessary adjustments to maintain the materials and finishes consistent with the district standards. Thank you very much. Board members, do you have questions for the applicant? No questions. Now I can ask if anybody wants to speak on this project. Anyone here? And anyone online? No hands are raised. Thank you. Motion please. I will entertain a motion. Motion, Member Cherry. Member Cherry: Yeah. So in case 20251226 HRB, 1323 Paseo, I would move to maintain the contributing status with the facades of F1, F3, F4, F14 excluding the air conditioning unit, F11, and F10 to be primary. I get a second. Thank you. And is that in agreement with staff? It's the only difference from staff is the inclusion of the F-14 facade. Okay. So we have a motion and a second. Yes, Lanny. Lanny: Can you repeat which facades that is? Yeah, sure. F1, F2, F3, F4. I left out F2 prior, so thanks. F14, F11, and F10 with the exclusion of the air conditioning unit on side F14. Okay. So, we have a motion and a second. We have roll call vote, please. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Dagnan. Yes. Member Aguilar Madron. Yes. Member B. No, just because I think we neglected to exclude some elements that are not recommended by staff, like the windows. No. Indicate that again. Are you? Well, we already, we're voting, so I voted no. Madam Chair, the motion has passed. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Next case is located at 925 Canyon Road. And Lanny, that is your case as well. Yes, the applicant here. And this is also for a status review as soon as it comes up. Sorry. So this is case 2025-011227 HDRP at 925 Canyon Road for a status review with primary facade designation if applicable. The streetscape for the property is defined as extending from the intersection at Acequia Madre to just past Palace, approximately halfway to Camino del Monte Sol. The streetscape consists of a park and a combination of residential and commercial properties. The street has a sidewalk on the north side of the road at the eastern end and a walking path at the side of the road through the remaining streetscape. There is no walking area on the south side of the road. Fencing is a combination of styles with a wood fence at the park, rock walls, stucco walls, combinations of stone and stucco, wire and non-stucco CMU walls, coyote fencing, and some walls with latillas on top. There are some taller walls and fences ranging between 87 and 188 inches in height, as well as some very low walls and fences at 35 to 40 inches, so that the street average is 60 inches. The lots in the streetscape vary in size. Buildings are set back from the street by 3 to 10 feet, with most of them within 5 feet of the street. There are commercial structures located at the western end of the streetscape with the residential at the eastern end and central. The south side of the road is mostly Spanish Pueblo Revival style buildings with a few territorial styles. The north side is characterized by primarily vernacular buildings with a few pitched roofs and a few Spanish Pueblo Revival style. The residence at 925 Canyon Road is a non-contributing vernacular style two-story structure in the Downtown and East Side Historic District. The 1,558-square-foot home that was constructed sometime between 1950 and 1958 is located on 0.2038 acres. The residence sits at the front of the lot and faces south. The residence is constructed of a combination of concrete block and adobe with block massing, crisp edges, a pronounced seamed metal fascia, deep inset windows, which are mostly aluminum slider windows, three exterior single-leaf doors, and a flat asphalt roof. The north elevation holds the two-story portion of the structure as this is the lower portion of the sloped lot, which was constructed sometime between 1958 and 1966. The north elevation houses various sized windows and a small entry door and the early 1970s laundry room addition at the northwest corner. The east elevation houses aluminum sliding windows except for the one steel casement in the basement. The south street-facing elevation consists of the core 1950s construction with a central entry flanked by windows. The 15-panel door is covered by a decorative security grill. The windows are aluminum sliding units conforming to the rest of the residence. A non-historic 1984 plywood porch with a shed roof is located on the south elevation and wraps around to the west elevation. The west elevation, while part of the 1950s core structure, has been altered with additions and the porch. The chimney that bumps out is part of the original structure. The early 1970s laundry room addition introduced a new entry into the building and houses a single aluminum sliding window under the portal. The west and south elevations of the residence are obscured by a concrete masonry unit wall at a height that ranges from 5'9" to 6'10". This wall was constructed sometime before 1973, but after 1966. The rear of the lot is mostly dirt and is used for parking. There is a non-historic open shed at the very rear of the lot. The lot was previously farmland where squash and other vegetables were grown. Edward and Mary Vehil were deeded the land from Edward's father in 1961. Edward's father had owned the land in 1957 from Edward's grandmother, and the property was part of the Vehil family going back to Edward's great-grandfather Simon. It is unknown when Simon Vehil acquired the land because the 1897-98 White's map shows the larger property owned by Francisco Sena. Mary passed away in 2015, and Edward remained in the home until he passed away in 2021. The property was then deeded to their three children. According to the 2025 HCPI, the Vehil family history and the property is important, and the residence is more than 50 years old, but the building does not have any historic or distinctive character, nor any historic integrity because there have been too many additions that underscore the integrity and identity of the building. However, staff disagrees with the HCPI recommendation. All of the additions on the property are historic outside of the portals. The original 1950s adobe section of the building has deep inset fenestrations and is characteristic of the buildings on this streetscape. The additions with two stories at the base of the hill are typical of the time these additions were constructed and are characteristic of the streetscape. Staff finds that the structure contributes to this streetscape. The applicant is requesting status review with primary facade designation of the residential structure. Staff is recommending that the historic status of the structure be upgraded to contributing with the south and west facades of the original 1950s building as primary. It's noted as R5, I'm sorry, R3 and R4, excluding the non-original windows and non-historic per tall or section 14-5.2C designation of significant contributing or non-contributing status within historic districts. I stand for questions. Lenny, any questions for Lenny? Board members, it appears not. [clears throat] Applicant, will you come forward? Will you please raise your right hand, state your name and address for the record? Jordan, 1227 Palace Avenue, W. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes, I do. Thank you, Madam Chair. He's been sworn in. Mr. Jordan, it's nice to see you. We haven't seen you in a while. What do you have to tell us this evening? I thought the historic survey that was commissioned was very thorough. For as long as I've been doing this and as long as you all have to look at me all these years, I've never gone through this process. I would be baffled to understand how this vernacular structure contributes to the character of the district as outlined in the ordinances. But maybe you all can tell me something that the historian doesn't know or that the ordinance doesn't provide. I think the beautiful thing about this house are the adobe walls, the footprint that Mr. Vhill built by hand. I don't know if in your site inspection you had the ability or opportunity to go into the lower level where the adobe and stone is exposed, but it's beautiful. The original form of the house is within one inch of true square, which I find beautiful and simple. But I don't understand the desire to keep an unpermitted structure in that location. And so I can just answer questions for you all of what I know about the house, but it violates the code in the majority of aspects. So I don't understand how that would then be deemed contributing. Thank you, Mr. Jordan. Any questions for the applicant at this time? No questions. Anyone from the public wishing to comment? Come forward, please. Will you please raise your right hand, state your name and address for the record? Yes, my name is Tara Woodruff, and my address is 17 Matto Drive in Santa Fe. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? Thank you, Madam Chair. She's been sworn. Good evening. My name is Tara Woodruff. As I stated, I'm a realtor, and I was hired by the Vhill family to sell their home. I'm here to advocate against it being changed into a contributing status. The feedback that I've gotten over the two years that I've had it listed is that it really doesn't look and feel like a home that somebody would buy on Canyon Road. It doesn't have any of those qualities or elements that we would, as a realtor, look for in a contributing home. It doesn't have interior adobe walls. It doesn't have wooden elements or beautiful courtyards. It is adobe. That's really the only thing that could be one of the elements, I think, that you have on your website as crucial. It has aluminum windows, like Trey stated, a protruding porch, and then cinder block addition with the cinder block courtyard. Anyway, that's kind of what I've gotten from the feedback from people. It has been under contract a couple of times, and those contracts have terminated because of really the scope of work, but also the holding costs for a buyer to hold through this process, through the process to get it permitted and remodeled. Anyway, I really respect what you do as a board. I was born into a historically significant family in Lincoln County, and I know that probably boards all over the state look to you as the board where we have a lot of inventory of beautiful, beautiful historic homes. I just feel like this is not one of those. The value of the home, where you might think it improves the value, it does not. It probably likely would cut the value, and to me, that just seems at this time to do that to this family. Thank you for your comments. Is there anyone else in this room that wishes to comment on this particular project? No one. Board members, do you have questions or comments? Yes, Member Beach. Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't have any questions in particular, but I do just want to say that I agree with the HickP evaluation that was performed recently by John Murphy and agree with the applicant that this is not a building that should be considered contributing to the surrounding streetscape. What we see mostly is a very tall CMU brick wall. It approaches 7 feet in some places, I believe. That is also older than 50 years old. That is not something that this board normally looks to as a characteristic that should be retained. I think the two facades that staff's recommending as primary are obscured by new addition portals or porches that, according to the HickP, sort of underscore that it has no sort of real stylistic identity anymore. Those changes, possibly if they were reversed, it would be different, but they are not at this point. I guess I just would be curious to know if the current owners are related to the Vehills that's described in this report. Yes, they are. They grew up in the house. That, I feel like, carries a lot of weight, especially with a vernacular style house. The family's wishes, the family often knows, and I've found this over and over again in our experience on the board, that the family's understanding of the property and desires going forward really do. That's what made the house what it is today. And I think they're the best judge of what should happen to the house going forward. So I really, really support the applicant in this case, being related to those that created and made the house what it is, and going back to our sort of placing some importance on the cultural integrity of our historic properties. It's not just design, it's related to the people that live there. So, in this case, I disagree with staff and would recommend that this house remain non-contributing. Thank you for your comments. Yes, Member Cherry. I just had a question for staff regarding the reasoning. What was, Lanny, what's the, what are the main reasons for those two facades for the contributing recommendation and those two facades being primary? The reason for the primaries is those are part of the core building from the 1950s. So they show the actual historic building. And as we stated in the staff report, the reason for the contributing is because it has the deep inset fenestrations. It's characteristic of the building in the streetscape. The additions are historic. They are characteristic of the other buildings on the street. Thanks. Board members, any other questions or comments? Please indicate them now. I will entertain a motion at this time. Thank you. In case number 2025 011227 HDRB at 925 Canyon Road, I move to designate the status of this house as non-contributing. Yeah, that's it. Is there a second to that motion? The motion dies for lack of second. Is there a new motion? Madam Chair, I was actually going to second. I was just slow to button. A bit too late. It didn't die. She, Member Mai, made a motion to make this non-contributing, and Member Aguilar Madano supported the motion. Anything else to add? Nothing else. Do we have a roll call vote, please? Member Cherry. I'm going to abstain. Member Dagnan. No. Member Aguilera Madrono. Yes. Member B. Yes. We have a tie. Right. My apologies. The motion passes with two votes. The motion passes, Madam Chair. Yes, the motion passes because Member Cherry's abstention, he does not count as a member present for the quotient in deciding whether there is a majority in favor. So there you go. Thank you. Thank you. And Madam Chair, because you are required to abstain, you are not counted as a member present. That vote is taken among the three members who voted. I mean, that the equation is decided just according to the members who voted. Thank you for the explanation, attorney. And we go now to 927 Canyon Road. And Lanny, you seem to be the person that's presenting all these cases. I have one or two tonight. Just waiting for it to come up. So this is case 2025 011228 HDRB at 927 Canyon Road for Carport Addition. This streetscape is identical to the previous case. Would you like me to repeat it or should I move forward? Move forward. Fantastic. Thank you. [clears throat] Included as part of the record. Yes, thank you. Let's see. So, the residence at 927 Canyon is a non-contributing vernacular style two-story structure in the downtown and east side historic district. The 2368 square foot home that was constructed in 1967 is located on 0.18 acres surrounded by non-historic yard walls that were constructed as part of a 2015 approval. The residence faces south and contains an enclosed portal with large windows and an outdoor roofed room on the southwest corner. The east elevation has the primary entrance with sidelights on either side of the door. Each window varies in size. The eastern elevation is under a portal. The north elevation has the second floor with massing with various windows. The only two matching windows on this facade are the upper floor on either side of the chimney bumpout on the eastern end. The residence is stuccoed in Perex Buffalo, which is a light tan. The windows are trimmed in beige, and the wood stain on the property is a light walnut color. In case H1586, the residence was approved for demolition of the portals and construction of new entry portals on the east facade wrapping around to the south. The applicant is proposing to construct a 576 square foot carport addition to a height of 10 feet, where the maximum allowable is 18 feet. The carport will be located on the existing concrete parking pad and attached to the existing non-historic north portal roof on the southeast corner and will be open on all four sides. The framing will be painted light brown, and the roof will be TPO in a tan color. Per the discussion at the field trip, staff will point out that the lower portion of the roof to the parking pad is at 7 feet 6 inches. The remaining 2 feet 6 inches of the 10 foot height is the roof structure. So the story poles that were on site would be at the lower portion of the roof. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed project and finds that the application complies with Section 14-5.2D, General Design Standards for all Historic Districts, and 14-5.2E for Downtown and East Side Design Standards. Questions? Thank you. Any questions, board members? Member Cherry. So, I'm looking at, I don't know if I'm looking at, I think I'm looking at the same thing there. So, is the understand it says that that material is wood that we're going to be looking at. Is that just like a 2x12 or what, with a steel like a framing hanger attached, face-mounted, attached to the outside of it? Yes. Okay. And the ceiling material is what material? The ceiling would be plywood or what kind of wood? I believe it's OSB is what he's planning. Okay. So, it'll be a basically the finished look will be a rough frame structure with OSB ceiling material visible from underneath. That is my understanding. Yes. Okay. I guess I'm a little confused on how that complies with the district standards of... And you can also verify that with the applicant because it seems like Lanny wasn't quite positive of that. Is that correct? Well, I guess that's my understanding from the drawings, but you may want clarification from... Oh, of what the types of materials are. Yes. Okay. If it were OSB, visible OSB from the underside, and just raw framing lumber, would that comply with the district standards and staff's opinion as a frame? I mean, there's some more modern contemporary design looks that embrace an open frame dimensional lumber, but I've just never seen that proposed before as in compliance with the district standards. No. Gary, Member Cherry, that will not comply with the historic district as it would have to be just a 2x6 or whatever. That'll be in compliance. Not the OSB. But the two-by framing member would be in compliance. Correct. Yes, since it's a carport. Okay. And then is it, what's the finish? It's going to be stained. Okay. And sorry, can you remind me the color? It's a walnut to match the rest of the property. Gotcha. Thank you. Any other questions for Lanny at this time? Thank you. Lanny, can you tell us what the height is of the existing house where the carport will attach? The 10 feet is at the lowest point of the portals, and then the house is about a foot or so taller than that. Okay. And then in the photograph, I don't see where's the brown stain because it looks like the house, the trim is painted white. Is it just the portal posts that are being matched? Right. So the window frames are all white and that front is all white, but the posts and stuff for the portala are all in the brown. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Rios. I'd like to expand on Gary's discussion of the design standards. So with reference to the definition of building, it is a structure, parts of a structure covered and connected by a permanent roof and intended for shelter, housing, or enclosure. So a carport is slightly different in that it doesn't fall under, it's a structure but not a building. So it's one of those really gray areas of the code. Oftentimes though, we do get carports that are more ornamented and speak to either recent or old Santa Fe style in the downtown side historic district. All right. Applicant, will you come forward, please? Is the applicant here? Oh, online by chance? So Lanny, the applicant is not here. Actually, I have my hand raised online. All right, Mr. Welch, you may unmute. Hello. Please be sworn first. Thank you. Is that the applicant? Yes. Yes. Okay. Hi, sir. Will you please state your name and address for the record? Chris Welch, 732 Torretta Drive. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you. Mr. Welch, you have the floor. And if you want to tell us anything further about this carport. Okay. I just wanted to say that the wood material will be matched, matching the existing patio cover that it's attaching to. So it'll be painted the exact same color. Also, the ceiling of the other structure is painted the walnut color. So the ceiling of the new structure would be painted to match the same. Thank you. And I believe Member Cherry might have a question for you. Is it okay? So, is it painted or is it stained? So, it's a stain. Yeah, it's a stain. It's a thick stain. It looks like paint, but it's a thick stain. But it would be stained exactly the same color as the existing structure. Where on the existing structure is the stain? It's really hard to tell from the photographs. Yeah, the patio cover that's attached to the house, it goes around the house, is all wood frame and it's stained that light walnut color. So, you can see like the post where it's going to attach, the two posts and then the fascia. It's all the same walnut color. There's a white gutter that's kind of covering it, but... What's the ceiling material? So the proposed ceiling material on the new structure was going to be a T111 that looks like it almost looks like a tongue and groove and it was going to be stained to match the existing. Okay. Yeah, that's it's like a plywood siding product. And I think... Yes, but if, I mean, if you only wanted it, if you wanted it without the ceiling and stained, we could also do that if that's what you prefer. Did you have anything further? No, I'm okay. Do the board members have questions for the applicant? Not at this time. Anyone in this room wishing to comment? Mr. John Eddi is coming forward. Hello. Will you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record. My name is John Eddi. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes, I do. Thank you. Madam Chair, board members, excuse me for the creaky stuff. I worry about the structural integrity of this carport and I think that issue is for the building department issuing the permit overall. So, I don't think you really need to worry about that here. Am I correct about that? Okay. Well, they definitely have to go through building permit. Yeah. From a design point of view, I think this structure really lacks any character whatsoever for the East Side that makes it compatible with the East Side. There's no massing in the structure. It looks like it's 4x4 posts, construction posts, and I really worry about the spanning involved between posts, but again, it's not yours. But again, the lack of any kind of characteristic elements through the structure really make it incompatible, I believe, with the streetscape. The operative question is how visible is it from the public? That's all. Thank you. Thank you. Lanny, how would you comment in reference to the public visibility? It is very publicly visible. It is right. It is very publicly visible. How much of it are we going to see? The entire building. The entire. Anyone else in this room in this photo here? It's located where the two vehicles are. Just a minute. Member Cherry. Anyone else in this room wanting to comment? And anyone online? Yes. No one other than the applicant. And did you have something further, Member Cherry? Yeah, I wanted to, I'm just looking at the 3D model again. The one I'm looking at is page 446. Yeah, that's the one. So, I just, I guess I wanted to make a couple of comments. Some regarding what Mr. Eddi had to say. I would think that the structural integrity would be in our purview if something was being proposed that couldn't, you know, couldn't be built in the scale that this was. In other words, if there was a span of this beam that needs to be supported and that that's an impossibility, to which I'm not saying this is, but, you know, where if the this particular project, they're proposing three 11-inch microlams as the beams on either side. If that calculation didn't work, then it would have to increase in size. So it would be in our purview to approve, you know, what would work. So in other words, if we approved 11 inches, then it would be up to the structural engineer to figure out if they needed to add steel to make that work in some capacity or if it worked within the drawing. But I might ask Director Lamboy to comment on that in our purview. But that would kind of be my interpretation of a structural situation that we could approve something that can't be built in a sense because you can't make the roof line that thin. I'm not saying that that's the case with this, but I would say if we approved this, then it would have to stick to this dimensionally and the look on the outside. And if there was a structural steel solution that this didn't accommodate, it would have to be concealed. That would be my interpretation. Member Cherry, are you indicating that this, for lack of a better word, that this is very flimsy? No, I'm not at all. It would need to be specified or engineered. And the way the city does that is you either need an engineering stamp or you need to supply a span chart. So again, a little out of our purview, but my, what I'm getting at is I would, in response to Mr. Eddi's comment, I would think, you know, if we were to approve this, that we would be approving its scale and size and dimensionality, not how it's structurally built. Aside from the fact that the way it's drawn, the LVLs or the microlams, which are the structural members, are visible. So those are essentially plywood beams that are drawn here as visible. They have a waxy yellow coating on the outside which doesn't take stain. So I would question how well this structure would take a stain. The other thing I would comment on is to give the board context as the construction person on this board is T111 siding is the same siding that's on the two-story building on Old Santa Fe Avenue across from Conniey's, which is the plywood siding with the grooves in it. So I think everybody's probably familiar with that structure. So that's T111 siding, correct? That's T111 siding. It's a plywood material that's sort of made to look like wood siding. So that's what's being proposed for the underside, which is from the photo of where the cars are. It's directly on the street. So I'm just trying to provide some context into exactly what we're seeing here regarding what I'm interpreting through these three-dimensional drawings is a framing structure, a framing material structure with visible metal framing tie components and a plywood ceiling material underneath which would be visible and a microlam beam, which is a laminated, essentially a very thick plywood beam that would also be visible, that being my understanding is stained in a walnut brown color. Thank you for those comments. Anyone else? Member, let's hear from Heather. Thank you, Chair Rios. I mean, that's exactly the reason we have a contractor on the board. So what I would suggest that the applicant do is meet with our building division. Certainly, we require preliminary zoning review, but we don't require preliminary building review. And at this point, there's no drain. I would imagine, just looking at this on the surface of it, our building division would want to see some form of drainage. Terrain management would be involved as well. So I think there are some things with this application. Maybe Mr. Welch can come in, and he has his hand raised, just so you know, he might want to say something. But maybe come in and talk to the building division and see if we can't update the application. There's also no slope on the roof, and so that could be also a problem. Let me see what Member Aguilar Madano wants to say. Member Aguilar Madano: Thank you, Madam Chair. I also had a question about the slope on the roof. So, thanks for pointing that out, Heather, but I was also hoping the applicant could give us kind of a verbal description of the TPO material that's going to sit on top of these beams. I think we all kind of now understand what's being proposed on the underside, but what will that top material look like? The color, for instance. Chair: Mr. Welch, you may speak. Mr. Welch: Yes. So, the TPO on the top would be a tan color, matching the existing TPO on the house. The roof will have a slight slope, not enough to be noticeable from the street, but just for the TPO, the water will drain off on the front side. Also, just a comment to the design: it is a very basic design because the existing porch that the customer has is very basic. So, it's just matching what they already have. They have a plywood ceiling on their existing porch, so that's why we just wanted to match it as closely as possible. As far as the framing, everything's engineered to handle those spans. So everything, they can look up the charts and they'll see that everything's engineered. It's 6x6 posts, not 4x4. Everything's engineered for structural rigidity. Chair: Thank you, Mr. Welch. Any further comments, board members? If not, and if you don't have any questions for the applicant, I will entertain a motion. Member Beach. Member Beach: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just so I understand what staff is suggesting, that Mr. Welch needs to meet with staff to determine additional steps. I'm thinking I'm going to move to postpone for a redesign. And could that be incorporated into the motion? Chair: Yes, Chair Rios, Member Beach. Yes, that is correct. Member Beach: Thank you. In case number 202511228 HDRB at 927 Canyon Road, I move to postpone this case for redesign, indicating that the applicant should contact staff to discuss preliminary design building elements and consider the visible nature of this carport from Canyon Road for both pedestrians and vehicular traffic. The underside of the carport will be very visible, as will the side construction. It will almost dominate this property. I think that some attention to some details that would contribute a little character to the streetscape rather than the more simplistic approach that's been taken here so far. Is there a second to this motion? Member: Second. Chair: Roll call vote, please. Member: Member Cherry. Member Cherry: Yes. Member: Member Dagnet. Member Dagnet: Yes. Member: Member Aguilar Madrono. Member Aguilar Madrono: Yes. Member: Member Beach. Member Beach: Yes. Chair: The motion has passed. Thank you very much. And thank you, Mr. Welch. Mr. Welch: Thank you. Chair: We will move on to the next case, which is located at 815 Dunlap. Is that applicant here? And the applicant is here. Welcome. Okay. This is case 2025011229 HDRB at 815 Dunlap Street for a remodel. The streetscape for the property is defined as extending from the intersection of Irvine Street to the edge of the historic district, approximately 100 feet on the west side of South St. Francis Drive. The road has a sidewalk on the south and an unpaved walking space on the north. The street is lined with medium to high yard walls and fences. Yard walls are stuccoed to match the residence with which they belong. The fences are a combination of coyote plank and chain link. The heights of the yard walls and fences range from 40 to 72 inches, with a street average of about 60 inches. The properties are mostly residential, with only two commercial structures at the corner of South St. Francis Drive. The properties vary in size, and most have multiple structures with sides of structures close to the property line, but the fronts are set back from the street, with most setbacks at greater than 15 feet. The buildings tend to be vernacular or pitched, except for a couple of Spanish Pueblo Revival. The streetscape is an even mix of flat, pitched, and shed roofs. The colors of the stucco vary greatly, from a very pale yellow tan to a dark gray brown. The trims tend to be brown or white, and the wood elements are either a natural tone or brown. The 1,360-square-foot single-family residence at 815 Dunlap Street is listed as contributing to the Westside Guadalupe Historic District, with the east, west, and south as primary facades, excluding the door opening and greenhouse on the south elevation and the non-historic materials. The two accessory structures in the rear are listed as not contributing. The single-story main residence was constructed of Adobe in the 1930s, with a 1940s addition on the north elevation. The 1940s addition appears to have been constructed to have interior access to the basement. A solar greenhouse was constructed sometime in the 1970s-1980s on the south elevation. This greenhouse addition created a door where there was once a window. The residence is designed with a flat parapet with deep undulating points that conceal a low gabled roof. It originally had vigas that protruded on the west elevation, which were removed after 1985. There's also evidence of the bathroom window on the west elevation being altered and the infill of a northeastern window after 1985. The windows all have concrete lug sills for the most part. The windows are wood windows, with one vinyl window centered in the west elevation and one steel casement window on the north elevation. The 1940s addition does not maintain the deep undulated points nor the canales. It also has never had protruding vigas. The windows are higher on the structure than those in the 1930s construction. On the north elevation of the addition, there appears to have been an overhang or cover of some sort attached above the door, which has since been removed. However, the 1940s addition does have the concrete lug window sills, except for the window on the northeast corner next to the door. This window is not inset and appears to be a newer installation than the other windows. In the northwest corner of the property sits a 600-square-foot wood-frame garage structure, and in the northeast corner of the property sits a 400-square-foot adobe accessory structure. These two structures are non-contributing but are not subject to this request. In case 202510291 HDRB, the property was reviewed for status. The board designated the residential structure contributing and the east, west, and south elevations as primary, excluding the door opening and greenhouse on the south elevation and excluding the non-historic materials. They also designated the storage structure and the garage units as non-contributing. The board noted that if the greenhouse were to be removed, they would like the door behind it to be returned to a window. The applicant proposes to replace windows and doors, including historic windows on the primary facades. The windows will be white, Kynar-painted wood, true divided light with insulated glass in light patterns to match the existing windows. An exception is requested to section 14-5.2D5A for replacing historic windows. Window C is historic and restorable. The applicant proposes rehabilitating that window. Windows G and K are non-historic and will be replaced. Windows A, B, D, E, F, H, I, J, and L are historic but are beyond repair. It is the intention to replace those windows. The applicant also proposes to remove the non-historic greenhouse structure on the primary facade and reestablish the window on the left of the door of the south primary facade, located behind the existing greenhouse, which is a non-historic door currently. The window will replicate the window on the right of the door. They further intend to stucco the residence using cementitious buckskin, install ground-mounted HVAC on the north, and install a 48-inch high coyote fence on the north of the residence to screen that HVAC. The south elevation is planned to be reverted to the window and door combination that was most likely present historically. The vinyl window will be changed to match the other windows with divided lights. The fencing and HVAC system are on this north elevation. Staff finds that the exception criteria have been met and recommends approval of the exception to section 14-5.2D5A for replacing historic windows on primary facades and recommends approval of the other elements of the application as they comply with 14-5.2D general design standards for all historic districts and 14-5.2I for Westside Guadalupe Historic District design standards. Thank you, Lanny. Questions for Lanny. Board members. Not at this time. Chris, you want to get sworn in? Clerk: Hello. Will you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record. Chris: Chris, 58 Santa Fe Trail. Clerk: Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Thank you, Madam Chair. He's been sworn in. Chair: Yes. What do you have to tell us that Lanny didn't? Chris: I think Lanny's report was pretty complete, Madam Chair. Our original intention was to try and fix some of these windows, but the window surveyor said these are that's why we so. Chair: Questions, board members? There are no questions. I'm glad that you're removing the greenhouse. Anyone in this room wishing to comment on this case? No. Anyone online? Clerk: No, Chair. Chair: No one online. No questions for the applicant. A motion is in order. Member: I'll make a motion. Chair: You have a question? Member: No. I said I'll make a motion. Chair: Go ahead. Member: So, in case 2025-011229 HDRB, 815 Dunlap Street, I would move to approve as submitted. Member: I will second, noting that all exception criteria have been met. Chair: Thank you for pointing that out. And may we have a roll call vote, please? Member: Yes. Member: Member Aguilar Madrono. Member Aguilar Madrono: Yes. Member: Member Dagnet. Member Dagnet: Yes. Member: Member Cherry. Member Cherry: Yes. Clerk: The motion has passed, Chair. Chair: Thank you. Thank you, Chris. Next case is located at 412 Camino Montiso. Should be 401 Palace. Pardon? Clerk: I believe that should be 401 East Palace. It's item J on the agenda that was moved to item E. Chair: Correct. Yeah. Clerk: Item E is withdrawn. Correct. 456. Correct. Then we move item J to item E. Chair: So you are presenting, Amanda. Amanda: Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you. Madam Chair Rios and members of the board. This is for 2025-011353 HDRB, located at 401 East Palace Avenue at the Downtown and Eastside Historic District. This building is contributing, and it is a main structure and the garage. So I'm going to go down a list of items that they are proposing to do for the main structure. So it would be to remove the existing coping on the parapets and replace with new brick coping. An exception to remove historic material not in kind and replacing it not in kind is requested. Restucco the entire structure in sandalwood color. An exception for removing historic material and placing it not in kind is requested for that as well. And to remove and replace the existing front door, which you can see on screen now, which is on the south facade. The south and the west facades are primary on the main structure. And there is also a chimney removal on the structure that is located kind of mid-building. And they also want to re-roof the structure, remove two of the existing windows on the north facade and infill the opening, which is non-primary, and to restore all the remaining existing windows and paint to match the existing green. Also, on the west facade, which is primary, they want to push back a door so it is, or push forward a door, so they can do an interior wall. So it won't actually be an accessible door, but more of just to keep the facade. Here is a picture of the said door on the main residence, the east elevation, again non-primary. Moving to the accessory structure, which is a garage, they are wanting to do the same, which is requesting an exception for the stucco color and an exception for the brick coping and to change out both of the garage doors. Here is a photo of the requested garage door to be in walnut color, which is similar to the historic door that was placed there. Here is a picture of the middle picture is of the existing coping, and the photo on the left is a picture of the Smoky Mountain color that they wish to do for a replacement of the coping. To the right is the Sandalwood color that they wish to do with the stucco on both buildings. Here is a proposed site plan. As you can see, they're proposing a 3-foot wall, 3 foot 6 inches tall, mobile and mortar wall between the two buildings. That is set back enough to where there's no sight visibility, where staff does not have a problem with that wall. There is the gate for the wall. It is an iron gate. Staff stands for questions. [clears throat] So the site visit, can you go back to the site plan? The way the yard wall, so the garage, the south side of the garage is primary. Is that correct? The south side of the garage is primary. Correct. So the way it was described at the site visit was that that yard wall didn't intersect that south facade, that it went beyond it and intersected the wall, the east facade, and it's depicted differently there. It's depicted as it intersects the south facade of the garage. Can you clarify which one it is? Yes, Member Cherry and members of the board, the drawing has been updated, and it does come from the, I guess it would be the east side of the garage. The wall is going to come out of the east. So, So can we see the updated drawing? Let me see if I... One moment. While I'm pulling that up, does anyone have any further questions? Yes. Give us the date of construction again, please, of the original building. For both the building and the garage, that was pre-1937, Madam Chair. Pre-1937. Yes. And these two buildings always been, to your knowledge and to the research, white? Yes, Madam. With red brick coping. Yes, Madam Chair, members of the board. Thank you. And also, Amanda, the wall you're indicating is proposed to be 3 feet 6 inches. Yes, Madam Chair. So the gate would be how high? The proposed metal gate? The proposed metal gate would be what I'm seeing here is... 18 by 18. The gate would be about the same height as the wall. Is that correct? I can always ask the... Yes, we would have to clarify with the applicant. Okay. Member Dagnan. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Morero, to your knowledge, have we ever approved replacing historic coping? Thank you, Member Dagnan and members of the board. So the coping can be replaced, repaired in kind. And so that is where staff has the issues, that it is not in kind in color or also material. Material. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And Amanda, is your evaluation of the brick coping, do you feel that it isn't, for the most part, the larger percentage is in good condition? Yes, Madam Chair, Member. Thank you, Madam Chair. Amanda, could I just clarify the exceptions that are being requested and your opinion on those? For the main house, I understand there's three exceptions. One is for replacing the front door. That's for removal of historic material. Are you including in that the removal of the windows or the chimney? Do those require exception? No, because those were not a primary facade. Okay. Thank you. And then the second exception on the main house is for the color of the stucco. That's also for removal of the historic material. That is correct. And then the third exception is for the removal of the brick coping and not replacing in kind. That is correct. And then on the garage, the exception applies to both the garage door and the pedestrian door replacement. Yes. And that's, and you agree with the, that the exception criteria for those two has been met? I do. And on the main house, none of the exception criteria has been met. That it is not on the main house and it has on the garage. Thank you. Okay. Yes. Any other questions, board members? Amanda, yes. Garage door. You're indicating what they are, what the applicant is proposing is okay, even though it is not being replaced in kind in terms of the color. Is that correct? Yes. In terms of the design, it seems to be in kind with what was there historically. So we are, I believe that they have met that exception. Any other questions in the meantime? Jerry, if I just, um, going to the applicant presentation, thank Amanda to find the drawing. Okay. Okay. Applicant, will you come forward? Or applicants. Amanda will put you on hold for a little while. Okay, all three of you need to get sworn in. Okay, can I get all of you to raise your right hand? Take your turns stating your name and address and record in the microphone, please. Could you hear his name and I'll let that chair? You're good. Clearly. [laughter] But I'm sure if you got it, that's fine. Will you please one more time just so that... PO Box 8858, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Okay. Vista Ram Walter, 106 Plac... Tom Abrams, 10 Gold Bobby Circle. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yeah. Yes, I do. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. They've all been sworn in. Thank you very much, Mr. Lyons. Talk to us about this project. Okay. I think a couple things were missed. There's actually four exceptions we're requesting for the garage, two doors and also the parapet coping and the white. Speak right into that mic so audience members and especially board members can hear you. Okay. So there are four exceptions we're requesting for the garage. The two replacing the two doors and similar to the main structure, replacing the brick coping and restuccoing in a different color. Cool. All righty. What else do you have to tell us? Or did you feel that Amanda's report was thorough enough? We would like to replace the metal storm sashes on historic storm sashes with new wood storm sashes that'll be painted to match the existing green. All the windows will be restored except for the two that were removing on the north side, north facade of the main structure, the residence. The, yeah, and it's the house is going to take some structural, is going to need some structural repairs. I'm sure you guys probably noticed the crack, the structural cracking in some of the exterior walls on your field trip today. So that is going to be addressed. That's a focus of the project as well as to stabilize it. And the intention is to turn it back into a residence as it was when it was originally built in 1937. Question. What is the thinking behind wanting to change this, in my view, drastically from what the original historic house and the garage? In terms of wanting to change the brick coping and wanting to change the color? The brick coping is decaying, and in the judgment of the owners, it needs replacing. Had a coping expert look at the coping, and it is crumbling and taking water into the structure, which is why you see the structural cracks when you visit the, when you visit the house. There's diagonal cracking going on in numerous spots around the, around the house as a direct result of water coming in through the coping. Coping is crumbling. And he went and looked at it and he said, "I can't repair this. I have to replace it because once I start doing repairs, it just starts crumbling. So, we have to take the brick coping off completely." We, I would love to just be able to repair it, but he just said right away, not an option. So, And why would you not elect to, if that's the case, why would you not elect to replace in kind? I'm going to make an executive decision here. We will replace it in kind. I've been in contact with the brick coping people. Actually, I was on the phone with them today. I was trying to find something that was going to show some age. I was, I didn't want to replace it with something that was going to look brand new because we're replacing it and we want it to look authentic. We don't want to look like a new structure. I was trying to find something that had some look of age to it. And can you further describe that, that brick? That suggests, shows, has kind of an... It's sort of an off-color, but when we looked at, so when I looked at the, the chart that they give you, and then they gave us the sample, the sample was significantly different. And I actually called them today and they're like, "Well, it's kind of funny because every time we do a new lot of these bricks, they come out different. So it's kind of hard to look at a chart and know what you're going to end up with." But I have some samples right here of some, you know, some aged look that are a little bit more red if that's what you guys are looking for. So, we, we don't want to hold the, this whole project up over the brick color, but we know we have to replace that brick. And in terms of the color of the house, I chose the color of the stucco in the lightest color that was approved by Historic. You don't have a white approved color in your pre-approved stucco list. So, I chose the color that matched it the closest. If you don't want, if you don't like that color, we just want to move forward with a color that you will approve. It's really not a matter of really not liking the color. It's that this house, we're trying to honor the historicity of the house. The house was built in the 30s, and I have, I've lived here not since the 30s, but I have lived here all of my life. And that house has always been white. White. So the stucco color, we actually don't know what it is. It's paint. So, we don't know what it originally was. It may have been some sort of an off-white or something, but it's hard, it's very difficult to tell because there's layers of paint on it. Okay, we'll work together. That's what the pro, that's what hopefully this process will be, working together. Tried to find the lightest color that was on your approved list. And Heather, did you have something? Yes, Chair. First of all, the plan, the revised plan is up here on the screen so that you can take a look at it. The second thing also is that because this white color is part of the historic character of the building, it does not need to comply with the approved stucco colors per the district. That's more for new construction and non-contributing buildings. So the white color is a paint, but the overall appearance would be retained if it was a stucco that is white as well. So the change of the material is not as much of a concern to staff as is the color and the overall appearance of the house. Okay. Thank you for your comments. Board members, anybody having questions, comments, speak up for right now. Member: Madam Chair, I may have more later, but one for now. So, on the main house, on the west elevation, which is primary, one of the historic doors you're proposing to keep, but you want to infill that opening. So you want to move it closer to the outside. When that is done, I'm assuming the door is going to look like it's protruding beyond the wall because was it going to look flush like a functioning exterior door from the outside, or is it going to protrude beyond that wall at all? It'll still look like a functioning door from the outside. It'll just be closer to the... Okay, because in the drawings, the door is shown as protruding beyond the wall. So, I just want to make sure that that's not what it would look like. Okay. And then the drawings also show the two different designs in the elevations, but I did see the callouts that it's going to be the same door. So, just something for us to keep in mind in our motion that the elevation doesn't reflect that same design. Okay. Yeah, I only have what's in our packet. October 6th is the date. Maline, can I ask a question within that? Just, and Andy, could you just tell us how far back from the front of the face of the stucco you guys are proposing to have that, to move that door toward the exterior? It would be a couple of inches. We'll find some thin kind of insulated wall that we can do inside. So we flat wall and stuff inside. It'll be... Again, it'll be set right into that mic. Yeah, it'll be set a couple inches into the wall, but not the approximately six or seven that it is now. Okay, thanks. I just thought that'd be an easy way to clarify just with a distance that you're proposing that we can state in a motion. Any other questions, board members, at this time? And if you all don't have anything further to add right now, you could still keep talking, but I'm going to ask for public comment. Oh, yes. An observational comment. Yes, I did look at this building fairly thoroughly, and while I was there, and I think this photograph illustrates pretty well as well, this, my perspective as a builder, page nine of 22. I don't know if you can pull that up, Amanda. Is that of your staff report, Member Cherry? Or it's in the packet. It would be page 882 of the whole packet. But on, there's a, it's typed on the page as page nine of 22. One moment, Member Cherry. One moment, I will pull that up. So, Member Cherry, it's page nine or... Nine of 22, I believe. And is it the one with the elevations or the... No, it's a photograph of the stucco. It's like a stucco. Okay. Is this ends? Oh, that's the present. Okay. Oh, okay. About that. Thank you. Yeah. So, I think this, to me, this pretty, this is a great illustration of this, what I would assume is the original stucco or parging coats on this building, and it shows kind of all the layers. So, what I'm, what I'm feeling like I'm seeing on the base layer is a base layer of some kind of probably high lime content cementitious stucco. And then, I wish I kind of had a laser pointer, but on, in the upper left corner, there's a very white section, and then it's chipped away, and there's a little bit of a sort of a less white, off-white section. I would, I would, I mean, it's a, it's a pretty well-preserved layering of stucco. Sometimes you see these buildings and they've been stuccoed over like multiple times. So, contextually here, I would agree that there's probably some paint on the finish coat, but it was painted over an original white stucco. So that, that would, and, and whether that was a cementitious stucco or it was probably more than likely a lime stucco. I mean, I'm just, I'm just, this is, that's a presumption, the, the material makeup, but, but I, I do, I, from this and other locations that I saw similar on this building, I think that the likelihood that it was originally of that white or off-white color is pretty high. That's all, that's all I wanted to comment because there was some discussion on what color it was when other questions, board members. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a few comments. I know you'd like to get on with this project, so I, I, I hope that this is well received. I think there's a lot of work to be done here still. There's, you know, three exceptions for not replacing things in kind, which include the front door, the color of the stucco, and the coping, the brick coping, that, that apply to both the main house and the garage. You know, those exceptions could be eliminated by considering replacement in kind. I think a lot of this house, a lot of what this house contributes to the streetscape is in the, these very special details and finishes. And not honoring those in the proposal really makes it difficult for staff to agree with the criteria being met and for the board to approve these things. I think with respect to the front door, you know, that door matches the one that's on the garage. So, if that one's replaced in kind, it affects the garage design, which probably should match. I think, I'm sorry. Right. I'm talking about in kind. The front door has glass panes, whereas the current front door is a solid wood with some raised panels. And then I think the gate that's proposed, the steel gate, is far too modern for this house. So, I mean, what, what I would support is a, you know, a consideration of those details and a redesign. I don't think we can approve parts of this package because it is such a cohesive set of characteristics that should be reflected in both buildings. So, and that's my input for the discussion. I, I have a question too. Yes, Richard. Yeah, sorry. This, I just made a note. I sort of skipped over this question for Andy. You, you, and maybe I missed it in the package, but you stated that you guys want to replace the aluminum storm sashes, and is that, is that included in this? I guess might be a question for Amanda or maybe both of you, but... It is included in, in both the application letter, and I believe it's on the plans too. Okay, thanks. So, did he answer it, answer in the affirmative? Yes, it's, it's part of this. I just didn't, I didn't see any kind of detail, and maybe I just haven't seen it yet or I missed it of that. Is it... There was a detail of a wood section, a section of the wood framed in the, the material that I submitted. Okay, thanks. I'll, I'll see it here. I'm sure. Member. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question for staff or the applicant, but to make sure I'm understanding correctly, is that new gate being proposed on along East Palace? No, the gate is actually going to be set back as a courtyard gate. So, it will be publicly visible, but it is set back way into the yard. It is not along the street. I, so I see between the garage and the main res. It's a small courtyard gate. So it is not, it is not at the street. Okay. So the stone wall along East Palace isn't being touched, it looks like. Then that's remaining. That is correct, Member Glamrono. Thank you for that clarification. With that said, I do still agree with Member Beshai that I think the gate is too contemporary, especially just it's so adjacent to Palace Avenue, and it is still very publicly visible between those two structures. That's all for now. Thank you. I'm going to ask for public comment at this time. Anybody here wanting to speak on this project? Oh, did you, did you want something further? I'm sorry. Apologies to you. Go ahead and comment. So, did anybody read the exception letters that we wrote on all this stuff? Because the, the doors that you're seeing are not in kind. All those doors are functionally, they're almost inoperable because they're just old and weathered. That's why we need to replace the doors, and they're not original. They were, they were put in there in the 70s. So, we're trying to restore it to something that looks more authentic and territorial. If you looked at the picture of the door that we were trying to introduce, and we're doing similar door on all of the four that we're replacing on the... Do you have what is in the package? What do they look like? Can we put those up? We have, while she's doing that, do you think, do you have something further, sir? To its original intents. And, you know, it's been very difficult because a lot of these, a lot of these materials in this house is, is really structurally having problem. So, we're just trying to bring it back to a functioning structure right now and make it look authentically territorial. And in terms of the gate, that gate on the yard wall, it's a custom iron gate. We'll do whatever you think is correct, but the reason I picked that one is because it was done by Jake Hagen, and he did that on a house on a Madre. That's where I took the picture, and you approved it. So I was like, "Okay, well they approved this one. It's a custom iron gate. Very visible on this AI Madre, not," [clears throat] "and staff recommended a rod iron, a gate for that." The thing is this, we as a board, this is what we do in terms of going, looking at a home that is historic. And we can't just go, okay, well, this guy's, and I understand your plight, but we don't just rubber stamp anything that comes before this board. We, we carefully look at it, and we do, and I know that you're in a hurry to do this, but if we are dealing, if I might finish, thank you. If we are dealing with a historic house, we have to carefully look at that from all angles, and it includes facades, doors, color. And I would hope that you all that have worked here in Santa Fe are a little bit more conscientious about those, those elements. Okay. Would the board consider the stucco color that is colonial white? Would the board approve choosing a brick color right now so that we could proceed with getting this project started and table the gate choice and table the door choices for a lab later meeting? Approve the stucco color and the brick coping color so that we can get a permit and get working on this. Okay. Well, we will see where the board, I mean, I, they are the ones that make the decisions. I'm just the presiding officer here, and so we will see, and this is what happens through discussion, through evaluation, we reach a conclusion, and hopefully it'll be a good conclusion, and we do try to work with you, the applicant, after all, you are our fellow citizens. We're not trying to get into any kind of a, a fight here. So what can we move forward with? Well, we will see, because we still have to entertain public comment and further discussion. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, can I vote? Yes, Member Dickman. Thank you, Manager. I'm just going to make a comment, and please understand that we're all trying to reach the same goal. We live here. We love Santa Fe, and our job is to try to protect and preserve what we have, and also at the same time be flexible as much as we can, as much as our guidelines say. So I just want to say one short thing, and then I'm going to step back for a while. The main building, there are three main things that you want for exceptions: front door, the stucco, the brick coping, coping. What's left is the roof. So you can see why we have an issue here. We have to think of all of these. These are not little things. They change the entire character of the structure. Please, she is speaking. This is my, and then I will say thank you for listening. Thank you. So, yes, Member, yes, Gary. And members of the board, just want to inform you that Navajo white is the, the color that's can be approved by the board, and also the in, and also bright white. Yeah. And also, what white? Bright white. So, and then there's another one, I think it's candlelight, that can be approved. It's the white color as well. And it just needs to be, I think, to match the existing color might be the best. I think that's the best thing to say. I will entertain public comment at this time. **Member:** Thank you, Madam Chair. I just am concerned there might be a misunderstanding about what we mean when we say "in kind." For example, the front door, which needs to be replaced. We're not saying you can't replace that. You can replace that. It just needs to be the same in terms of the material and the style. So the design of the wood insets, the color, the wood itself, that needs to be the same. It can't be similar or different, right? That's all we mean. We don't mean you have to keep the brick coping that's failing. You have to replace it with something that looks identical. It can be new, but it needs to be identical. So I just want to make sure there's not a misunderstanding about what "in kind" means in our discussion. Thank you. **Chair:** Okay. Yes, Member Cherry. **Member Cherry:** Thank you. So I can understand your frustration, and we can see it. And so one thing I just wanted to say is, you know, there's a process. So right now we're asking questions of you and staff and public comment, and then we'll ask more questions, talk more about it. It's all just a process. So I just encourage you to be patient with that process, please, for this evening or not right now. This is volunteer work for me. So I think the other thing I just wanted to kind of distill down what I've heard so far, which seems to me to be that the applicant's amiable to a replacement in kind of the brick coping. The applicant's amiable to replacement of the stucco in an in-kind color. Is that correct? Okay. I'm just trying to clarify what I've heard because we've talked about a lot of different things. I still haven't seen this window screen, but that's okay. I think that's a minor thing. I also think that, just in my opinion, there is a path forward tonight for sure. You know, some things can be, it could be postponed, but it could be certain things are approved and certain things are denied. And if things are denied, I just wanted to inform you guys that it doesn't mean that you can't do anything. Like, let's take for instance, the gate. If the gate design was denied, you could still move forward with your stucco and your brick coping and your restoration work and come back with another gate solution. So there isn't no solution tonight is what I would think. I don't think, and this is a little bit in response to what Member Beachside said, is I don't think postponement's necessarily guaranteed. I just think if we go through this process and we continue to get the information we need to make a decision, then that's going to be the most efficient path towards getting somewhere tonight. So, but I did want to corral like what I've heard, which is the applicant's okay with, they've proposed these bricks that look more rustic, as they said, or more weathered, but they're open to replacement in kind. They're open to stucco in kind. So, with that, I just wanted to clarify that. **Applicant:** Thank you, board members. And yes, ma'am. I need information regarding the doors. The doors that you all seem to be enamored with are not only in horrible condition, but they're not original to the building. I do not have any understanding of why you want us to put in doors that look like that when the house was built years and years and years, 50 years maybe, before those doors were put in. Why do you not want us to put in a territorial style door? Thank you. **Chair:** I think those doors were characterized as historic in the evaluation of the whole, and that is what the board is basing that on. Amanda, did you have something further? **Staff:** Thank you. Even though they're not maybe original to the home, they are still considered historic because of their date and time that they were installed is historic. **Chair:** Thank you. I will ask for public comment at this time. It looks like John Eddie is ready to say something, and anybody else, please line up here. **Staff:** Chair, I'd just like to note that the storm sashes, I did pull it up so that she, it's in the packet. **Chair:** Oh, it's that, it's the, it's the photo. Okay. I was looking for a drawing. Thank you. Thanks for the clar. **Staff:** Okay. Wow. Thank you. **Chair:** Mr. Johny, you have been sworn in. **Mr. Johny:** Thank you, Madam Chair, board members. I think you're headed towards agreement here pretty quickly. The solutions have been presented by the board already, and I think they will be amenable to the applicants. I just wanted to corroborate that having walked Palace Avenue my entire life, I do remember the color scheme of this house being red brick and white my entire life. So, and I think they're going to be happy to put it back there. Obviously, replacing in kind, they're going to have to replace the brick. I know how it is when brick is 90 years old, 80 years old. It's a foregone conclusion, but they will be able to find a brick which matches pretty well that color scheme. And it is a color scheme that that house has presented with a streetscape for as long as I can remember. So, thank you. I think you're headed there. Thanks very much. **Chair:** Thank you. Anyone else in this room wishing to comment on this particular project? No one else? Anyone online? Chair Rios, no hands. Thank you. Board members, do you have any further questions or comments? If not, I will entertain a motion. Trying to get their thoughts together, I hope. And we do have exceptions to address. **Member:** Thank you, Madam Chair. I think before we try a motion, I think it's my assessment of the board that we're only willing to entertain a motion that removes three of the exceptions in favor of replacing the stucco, the brick coping, and the historic front door in kind. And I just would like to give the applicant an opportunity to let us know if they agree with that or not. **Applicant:** Where are we on the gate? Are we going to table the gate? **Chair:** No, we're going to, I'm entertaining a motion. We don't know what that motion is going to say, but Member Beachside is asking you if you are willing to replace the brick coping, the color, and the doors in kind. That is the question. Correct. **Applicant:** I just do not understand why you want to put 1960s psychedelic doors. **Chair:** Yeah. Okay. Were you going to be the maker of the motion? **Member:** Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to add on point of discussion, I guess I'm hesitant to piecemeal this because I don't see how even the stucco can be separated as an approval because on the north elevation, for instance, they're proposing to infill one of the windows. So they would need a decision on that prior to doing any stucco work. And then I also think that the garage door should remain white, which is different from what's shown. So there's been so much discussion and I think some confusion about what "in kind" means that I would be a little, at minimum, I'd want still staff's approval on the applicant's in-kind selections, but I lean towards keeping this as a holistic package and postponing to the next soonest available meeting that we have. **Attorney:** Madam Chair, there are legalities. If after the H board makes any approvals, we have to do something called a finding of fact and conclusions of law from which a permit can be issued. Then if, and then an appeal deadline starts running. And if you sever out this package, the appeal deadline may run on some things and not others. And it's just a very, it becomes a very convoluted process. So I do think that either, and I know the applicants don't want a postponement, but if they do want to redraw things like the doors and the steel gate, that may be the best solution. But I do think that the board should vote on this comprehensively in a single motion. **Chair:** We will see what board members want to do. So, Member Cherry. **Member Cherry:** Just for clarification, a postponement would be to repropose with the, what the applicant's being agreeable to regarding the commentary. Is that possible? Is that an option? Is that what I'm understanding? **Attorney:** That's a difficult situation too because when they come back before the board, we may not have all five of these board members present. You know, the two members that are absent may be here and some of you may be absent. We can memorialize certainly what the applicants have said in terms of replacing the stucco and replacing the brick coping in kind. So that may, you know, it's hard to say whether or not the panel that is assembled next time this is heard is going to find that acceptable. **Staff:** Chair Rios, so as I see it, there are several options here. There's the option to conditionally approve the application. The conditions being, I understand it correctly, regarding the stucco, the coping, and a garage door potentially. There is an option to, and also conditioning out that the metal gate would have to be brought back for additional review. There's a second option is that you can postpone the case to a date certain. That would be November 18th. And the applicant the week before, they will have updated all of their drawings to address the fact that there would be no more exceptions provided everything was replaced in kind. The applicant also could have the possibility of doing some more research on the doors that are being proposed for replacement, and it would just be a cleaner application for which the board to review in terms of all of the different criteria that the board has to consider. But, Madam Chair and Member Cherry, I also am wondering whether the staff, whether the board can approve some things conditionally, for example, replacing of the coping and stucco in kind, and approve some things like the doors and the steel gate on the condition that they be redrawn and presented to the staff or an administrative approval. Is that possible, Heather? If that is the pleasure of the board, that is a possibility. **Chair:** So they don't have to come back to the board for another hearing. You can. Yes. I think that Member Beachside was moving in the right direction in reference to her comments, and I will entertain a motion at this time unless you have further discussion. **Member:** Well, I just had one question for Director Lamboy. I thought I heard you say there were three options, but then you only said two options. Did I mishear? **Staff:** I believe Frank covered the third option. **Chair:** Okay. Sorry. So, any, yes, Member Gil Madonna. **Member Gil Madonna:** I was just going to make a motion. **Chair:** Oh, you're ready to make a motion. Okay. Sure. **Member Gil Madonna:** No, go ahead. Okay. Case number 2025-01353 HDRB at 401 East Palace Avenue. I move to postpone the case to the next hearing available hearing date, which would be November 18th. And would strongly advise that the applicants review the notes from this evening and take those into account. If you can try to minimize the number of exceptions or exceptions at all at the next meeting, I think that would greatly help your case. And it sounds like you are willing to do that. We're in the middle of a motion. And then if you decide to bring some of the other improvements forward, like the gate, I would recommend having another option for the board to consider since that was one of the things that was discussed tonight, as well as the color of the garage door. Just mentioning a few off the top of my head. Is there a second to this motion? I will second and maybe just add in a friendly amendment to allow or encourage the applicant to also do the research on the front door and the garage doors and present any evidence that is not historic at the next meeting. Accepted as friendly. Any other amendments? None. Vote please. I hear the vote. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Dagnen. Yes. Member Aguiler Madano. Yes. Member Beach. Yes. The motion has passed. Chair: Thank you very much. We'll see you on November the 18th. Okay. We are going to case 418, 412 Camino. Okay, I'm back. This is case 2025-011327 HDRB for 412 Camino Don Miguel for a yard wall. The streetscape along Camino Don Miguel has no sidewalks and the street is lined with fencing and yard walls. The fencing consists of Latia fences. The heights of the yard walls and fences vary from 30 inches to 107, with the street average at 5'4", which is the maximum allowable height. The houses are close to the street, with most in a Spanish Pueblo Revival style and a few in vernacular style. The majority of the houses have publicly visible portals and parking directly off the street. 412 Camino Don Miguel is a single-family residence listed as non-contributing to the Downtown and East Side Historic District. The property also holds a 2024 guest house in the southwest corner of the property. The Adobe constructed Pueblo Revival style main residence dates to 1947 with a cinder block second story addition and remodel in the early 1980s. The property is currently surrounded by a 6-foot high coyote fence. In case 20236625 HDRB, the main residence was approved for a 101-foot addition on the southeast, and the carport was approved to be converted to a guest house by retaining the existing adobe walls and roof structure with a new east wall and two windows to enclose the carport and a new door opening and window on the south facade. Previous administrative approvals include work on the guest house, window and door changes, parapet changes, skylights, re-roofs, and portals. The applicant is currently proposing to remove approximately 85 linear feet of 6-foot high coyote fence along the southeastern property line and construct a yard wall with stepped heights ranging from 4'7" to the maximum allowable height of 5'4" for approximately 85 feet along the southeastern property line. Each step in height is approximately 20 feet in length, creating single horizontal planes of 20 feet before changing planes. They also plan to install a 6-foot wood panel pedestrian gate between the residence and the new yard wall. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed project and finds that the application complies with section 14-5.2D, general design standards for all historic districts, and 14.52, sorry, 5.2E, Downtown and East Side design standards. Thank you. Would you reiterate the heights of the wall? They vary from 4'7" to 5'4". Thank you. Any other questions? No other questions. Gayla, can you please state your name and address for the record? Gayla Beal, 320 Aztec Street, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes. Thank you, ma'am. Good evening. I would like to thank you all for being here, and for letting me talk to you about these cases and facilitate my client's wishes as they are. So I thank you for doing this work, and I don't really have much else to say. I mean, Lanny said there was some issue about perhaps the planter. You could step back so that there's not just a continuous wall. We're happy to do that. We can curve it. We can just step it back. It's really just to enclose the yard. It's what we're after. And we're doing it within the 5'4" height. Thank you. Any questions for Gayla? Yes, Member. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a question for staff. I see that the gate is, I think it depends on which side you're looking at, but it's six feet to potentially 6'4". Does that, is that supposed to meet the same height requirements as the wall, which would be 5'4" in this case, or is it allowed to be higher as like a point of like an accent in the wall? The gate is interior to the property, but also, Chair, Member Aguilar Madana, there is a provision about yard walls and gates, and gates can step up higher. They can step up. Yes. Thank you. Any other questions? Not at this time. Other questions? Anyone in the audience? Richard, do you want to comment on the case? Just kidding. I don't know. He gave the thumbs up, and I'm going to guess there's no one online. Cherry Reos. That's correct. Okay. I'm not encouraging you to necessarily comment, Richard. You were the only one that I saw there. Board members, a motion is in order at this time if this is clear to you. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. In case number 2025-011327 HDRB at 412 Camino Don Miguel, I move to approve the application as submitted. Seconds. And I have a question for the applicant. Are those corners going to be, is this wall going to have, is it going to be rounded? As opposed to having done the detail, but yes, I would imagine that it is going to have. Would ask a cable nose tie would include that. Sure. Should I accept that as friendly or? Friendly. Okay, accept it as friendly. Second stands. Also, anything else? Nothing. Roll call vote, please. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Denn. Yes. Member Aguilera Madano. Yes. Member Beach. Yes. The motion has passed, Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Gayla. Then we go to 127 Duran. This is case 2025-011326 HDRB for 127 Duran Street for a remodel. Duran Street is narrow and lined with low yard walls with fencing on top, as well as a combination of coyote fencing, wrought iron, metal gates, and chain link fences. The residences sit an average of 7 to 10 feet from the street and are a combination of vernacular and Spanish Pueblo Revival styles with flat or hipped roofs and divided light windows in earth-toned stucco. According to the HCPI, the 1,100-square-foot residential structure was constructed originally in the 1930s. The structure started out as a square building, as is evidenced by the 1966 aerial photograph in the HCPI. The structure almost doubled in its size with the 406-square-foot 1985 addition. The HCPI indicates that a 90-foot porch was also installed in the 1980s, has since been removed. The remnant roofing material from the porch remains on the exterior wall. While the original structure was constructed of 12-inch thick adobe, the 1985 addition was constructed of concrete block. The windows in the adobe portion of the structure are inset into the wall where the newer construction windows are not. The windows are a combination of metal, aluminum, and vinyl. According to the HCPI, none of the windows appear to be original to the structure. The HCPI also indicates that the wood doors, 16-panel and the other faux plank, appear not to be original to the structure. Based on evidence provided in the HCPI, the lot was once used for farming and has a remnant acequia thought to be part of the Acequia Pública across the east edge of the property. According to the HCPI, a Duran family descendant subdivided a portion of the largest estate into the Duran addition, also called the subdivision, in the 1920s. Elena, Duran, Candelario, and Canana streets are all part of this subdivision. The homes in this area were constructed as simple adobe structures topped with tin roofs. The roads were unpaved, and sidewalks were not brought in until the 1970s. By the late 1930s, Grand Street had mostly filled in with homes. All the primary residences were owner-occupied, and the street was entirely populated by families with Spanish surnames. In 1938, a city directory indicates the presence of rear houses, smaller homes built at the back of the properties that were rented out to generate additional income. The primary residential structure at 127 Duran appears to be one of those smaller four-room homes built at the back of the property to generate income. After being used as a rental property, the home was split off from the front house, creating a flag lot configuration. From the late 1970s until her death in 2022, the property was owned by Martha Baca, who donated the proceeds of the sale of the property to local charities. The property was reviewed by the Historic Districts Review Board for historic status on February 11, 2025, under case 20259773. The decision of the board was to retain the residential structure and the accessory structure as non-contributing and designate the wall at the acequia as contributing. The property was reviewed again on September 9, 2025, under case 2511031 for the demolition of the accessory structure. The decision of the board was to allow that demolition. The applicant is currently proposing to construct a 459-square-foot portal to a height of 9'6" where the residence is 9'8". The portal will be on the east elevation and will consist of a beam roof over wood decking, local pine vigas and columns, and brick on sand flooring. The wood will be stained and sealed with natural stain. We will replace all windows with aluminum clad wood windows with simulated divided lights in blue. Install an eyebrow over the door on the north elevation at 3'6" deep. Install two skylights. The skylights shall not be publicly visible and stucco the residence in cementitious buckskin stucco. Re-roof the residence with foam roofing and construct a 4-foot high coyote vehicle gate at the street to replace the existing chain link gate. These are the color, exterior lighting, and skylight samples. Staff recommends approval of the proposed project and finds that the application otherwise complies with section 14-5.2D, general design standards for all historic districts, and 14-5.2I, Westside Guadalupe Historic District Design Standards. Okay, Lenny, questions for Lenny? None at this time. Gayla, a lot of words for such a small little structure. I'm happy to answer questions. We are keeping basically the footprint of the house and just rearranging some things on the inside, and then therefore the windows will also be rearranged. The portals will provide outdoor living space. The gate, actually, they are the ones, my clients wanted the sort of more metal gate that there's a picture of. They're not attached to how it is. They just want it to be off the street so that you don't have to park in the middle of the street to open the gate. So, Gayla, how deep is the portal? I think it's 12 feet. I'd have to look. 12 feet is my favorite dimension for a portal because it allows for seating, a table, and then you can still pass through. So it becomes a true living space. So that's generally where I start. Any other questions for the applicant? No. And I'll call for public comment, but there is no one here. I'm not saying you're no one, Richard. And oh, oh, there is someone hidden back there. Oh, sorry about that. You are allowed to speak if you'd like. And I'm going to guess that no one online. You're correct. Yes. Okay. Motion please. Someone. I can make a motion. Yes. Member Chair, in case number 2025-011326 HDRB, 127 Duran Street, I would make a motion to approve the application as presented. Second. Roll call vote, please. Member Beachside. Yes. Member Aguilera Madrono. Yes. Member Dagnet. Yes. Member Cherry: Yes. The motion has passed. Chair: Thank you very much. Thank you, Gayla. Next case is located at 826 Camino del Puente. I'm making up for not speaking to you guys last time. This is case 2025-011329-HDRB for 826 Camino del Puente for alterations to a previous approval. Camino del Puente is a short street that runs west of Camino del Monte Sol and terminates at Calle La Peña. The street is lined with medium to high yard walls and coyote fences at each property. The residences are set back about 10 feet from the street. The style of residences is Spanish Pueblo Revival with medium to dark brown stucco. The residence at 826 Camino del Puente is the sole Territorial style residence on the streetscape. The colors of the trim tend to be brown, white, or blue on the street. There are a couple of two-story residences, but most are single-story. The street is heavily lined with trees and vegetation in the yards. The residence at 826 Camino del Puente is a single-family residence listed as contributing to the Downtown and East Side Historic District. The structure is Territorial Revival style and is a simple rectangle. The south was most likely historically an entrance. However, with the enclosure of the porch, the main entrances are now on the north and the east. According to the 1991 inventory form, the structure is believed to have been built in the 1930s. However, it first appeared in the city directory in 1951. The 2,000-square-foot residence was originally a guesthouse for the property located at 828 Camino del Puente and was owned by the author Elizabeth DeHuff. There is some evidence that the residence was used as a school sometime before 1991. The north and east elevation architecture is simple and unchanged. On November 14th of 2023, the HDRB did a status review of the property, upgraded the residence to contributing, and assigned the north facade, excluding the windows and doors, as the primary facade. On February 13th of 2024, the HDRB approved a remodel of the property under case 24775, including on the east elevation, constructing a 675-square-foot two-car garage addition to a height of 14 feet 3 inches. They constructed a 120-foot entry portal to a height of 10 feet 3 inches that connected the garage to the current entry door of the existing house on the west elevation. They constructed a 103-foot addition at the same height as the existing house on the southwest corner. They installed a 5-foot 4-inch high stuccoed yard wall running along the west of the driveway that connected to the new garage entry gate at the south of the driveway, and installed a 4-foot high entry wall with a pedestrian gate at the northern end of the west side of the garage. Tonight, the applicant is proposing to make changes to the previous approval, case 2024-007775-HDR. Those changes include decreasing the approved garage from 675 square feet to 516 square feet and relocating the approved garage about 18 inches from the east property line in order to save several significant trees. They will decrease the covered area at the garage to 27 square feet from 51 as a result of the garage size change. That's the area that is at the front of the garage. They will enclose a 49-foot portion of the new approved portal for heated space, decreasing the portal to 114 square feet. They will increase the 103-foot addition on the west elevation by 29 feet for a total addition of 132 feet. They will install a new window on the south elevation and relocate the yard wall and pedestrian gate to the west to accommodate the new garage location. This is the residence's existing, approved, and proposed north elevations. The north elevation of the residence again is the primary facade. This is the residence's existing, approved, and proposed east elevations. This is the approved existing, approved, and proposed south elevation, and then the west elevation, the garage. So this is the garage elevation on the east as it was approved and then how it's going to be changed, which is not. And then the garage approved and proposed west elevation. And then this demonstrates the key areas of changes from the 2024 approved project. You'll see they're all circled there. The staff is recommending approval of the proposed project and finds that the application complies with Section 14-5.2D, General Design Standards for all Historic Districts, and 14-5.2E, Downtown and East Side Design Standards. Chair: Thank you, Lenny. Questions for Lenny? No questions at this time. Mr. Richard. Hello. Will you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record. Richard Martinez: Richard Martinez, PO Box 925, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Chair: Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? Richard Martinez: Yes. Chair: Thank you, Madam Chair. He's been sworn in. Thank you, Richard. What more do you have to tell us? Richard Martinez: Very, very short presentation. We got an approval for what we were doing at our meeting last February, February of '24. All the details of the new proposal are matching that exact application. Simply that the owners want to retain two large pine trees, and so we need to move the entry walkway over so that it reduces the size of the garage. The garage goes from a two-car garage into a one-car garage. So actually, it improves that, and it, and then we move the entry gate further forward again to miss the roots of these trees that they are trying to retain. And it means that the entryway, the entry portal that connects the garage to the house, it's longer. So we have a section of that to be heated space, like a little entryway, because right now you walk directly into the dining room of the house from that door. And so we're making a little entryway. And then they've also asked me to make one of the windows in the living room addition that we had gotten approval for to be a three-panel, a three-bay window rather than just a one-bay window. And so that change you'll see on the back of the house, not on a primary elevation. It's not visible from the house, from the street, for the public. And then also, we're making the master bath a little bit larger so we can put some closet space in that, in that addition. That's that little bump out at the, at the, goes on the, on the plan. And again, it's not visible from the street. It's just an area of the house that looks at the rest of the house or and the sidewall. So it's not visible at all. But other than that, we're just trying to save a couple of trees that we were going, we were planning to take out. Chair: Richard. Questions for Richard? Member Cherry: Yeah. So I'm just curious about the trees because when we were at the site, what was pointed out to me, and maybe I just misunderstood, was that we were saving the big Chinese elm that's on the kind of, on the corner of, to the southeast of the proposed garage area. But that's not the, those aren't the trees you're... Richard Martinez: That's not the tree. No, but we are saving that tree. It's... Member Cherry: Yeah. Richard Martinez: It's remaining. It's the two pine trees that are along the walkway. Member Cherry: Okay. And that's why pushing it over, you've got to get, you increase the distance between the house and the garage. Richard Martinez: Yeah. I showed, I drew those pine trees in my new, in my new floor plan. Can I, I'm going to walk over and point to those pine trees right now. Member Cherry: Oh, and then that gave you the space to add the heated entry. Richard Martinez: Yes. And so it, so it made the garage, the saving the trees made the garage much smaller and made the entry portal longer. And so I created a little heated space of that under that portal. Member Cherry: Thank you. Chair: Any other questions? Member Den. Member Den: Mr. Martinez, I think it would be fitting to congratulate you and the owners for deciding that trees are more valuable than a car parking space. I'm very impressed with that. Richard Martinez: Thank you. Member Den: I have one little comment. I pass that property all the time, but I've never really been able to see it because of fencing. And today we were privileged to go into the property, and it's just a lovely, lovely property. I thought, and the landscaping is really nice. Not overdone, just very nicely done. Richard Martinez: One of the owners is a landscape designer. Member Den: Oh, might have to go knock on the door. Okay. Yeah, I, I just was very impressed with that personally. Okay. No further questions for Richard, and I'm going to guess no one from the audience will talk at this time and no one online. And so a motion is in order. Thank you. Chair Rios, I would like to move that case number 2025-011354-HDRB. I'm sorry, maybe the wrong one. Let me get you the right one. 2025-011329-HDRB, 826 Camino del Puente. I move approval of the request. Member: I second. Chair: Okay. Member B. Member B: Yes. Chair: Member Aguilar Madroño. Member Aguilar Madroño: Yes. Chair: Member Den. Member Den: Yes. Chair: Member Cherry. Member Cherry: Yes. Chair: The motion has passed. Thank you. Thank you, Richard. Last case this evening is located at 515. That's Amanda. Amanda: Oh, yes, ma'am. Heather, you had your hand up. I just overheard Member Cherry talking about the tabled case, and we've reached out to Mr. Hoops, and we've not been able to get in contact with him. So at the end of the agenda, you can just postpone that to next. Go ahead. Okay. Thank you. Madam Chair Rios, members of the board, our last case of the evening. This is exciting. This is 2025-011354-HDRB at 515 Peralta, and this is in the Downtown and East Side Historic District. In front of you, you will see the primary street-facing facade. And we are, this is a demolition case. Sorry, I'm trying to move my mouse with the microphone. Okay, so just a little history. In 2025, the HDRB voted to retain significant status of the main residence, excluding the northwest addition and the addition on the other side facade and the structure shed structure and the garage structure. And those were considered non-contributing because the building lacked integrity in each of those motions. And here is the freestanding shed that was considered non-contributing. So this also is requested to be demolished this evening, as well as the garage. And our historic building manager, inspector, primary inspector agreed with staff that these buildings all were in order for demolition. And then there are a few low walls that were considered non-contributing as well that are being asked to be demolished with this application. I stand for questions. Applicant. Yes. Hello. Will you please raise your right hand, state your name and address for the record? Becca Wood: Becca Wood, 909 Rio Vista. Chair: Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? Becca Wood: Yes. Chair: Thank you. Good evening. And good evening. Do you have anything more to add to what Amanda just told us? Becca Wood: Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board for this late night. I have a whole presentation, but I think she did a great summary of what we're asking for. The two additions, the two outbuildings, the three site walls, none of which are contributing. And if you have any further questions, I can pull up the photos. Chair: Any questions for the...? Member: No, I guess I was just wanting to know if I can... Member Cherry: Oh, absolutely. Member Cherry, was the stair being proposed to be demolished along with the wall adjacent the stair? I know there was some conversation about that today. Yes, Member Cherry and members of the board, the stairs, not the stairs that are here on the contributing wall, but let me see if there is a better on the west side of the building. The west side of the building. Those are proposed to be demolished along with that wall as well. Yes, I do not have a better picture of it. Cherry, which stairs are you talking about? I'm going to see if maybe I can. I think it gets on the west side of the building next to the, they lead up to the outbuilding. Is it the little, the little group of stairs or the bigger group? The little group of stairs. There's a kind of a retaining wall of older, sort of multicolored brick. Yeah. Right. Yeah. And then there's that, that more maroon colored brick that the stairs are, and that the wall sort of bookends the stairs. Thank you. Any other questions, comments? Nothing further. Motion please. I'm going to say public comment. No one is commenting, so I will entertain a motion. I'll make a motion, Madam Chair. Member Beach. Thank you. In case number 202511354 HDRB at 515 Po de Peralta, I move to approve the demolition of the two non-contributing additions and demolish the two non-contributing detached structures along with the small yard wall and small stairs. Second. The small stairs. And the small retaining wall, right? Yeah, there's also a better way to state that. Did we miss the shed? Yeah, sorry. The staff's recommendation. Roll call vote please. Member Cherry. I'm going to abstain. Member Yes. Member Aguilar Madrono. Yes. Member Beach. Yes. The motion has passed. Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Last case this evening was that one. And also, I want to indicate that a 439 Camino dos, case 2025010495, was motioned to be put at the end of the agenda. But however, the applicant did not show up. So that case was never heard. Should we make a motion to postpone that? So do we have to make a motion in reference to that? Do I postpone it to a date certain? 1118. Okay. In case number 2025010495 HDRB at 439 Camino del Monte Sol, Lot 1A, I move to postpone the case to a date certain of 111825. Iron seconds. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Dagnen. Yes. Member Aguilar Madrono. Yes. Member B. Yes. The motion has passed. Chair. Thank you very much. Anything under discussion items, staff? There are no items from me. Good. Any matters from the board? Member Chair. So just to, I guess, put on the record and just potentially talk about with staff from today's field trip, we had a discussion about story poles and we got, we seem to have had a few cases recently where there was some confusion and Lanny provided us with the current packet which has the requirement for story poles. So that cleared up a few of these which were when they need to go up, which is the day they need to be up for the day of the field trip, and they need to be on the essential corners of the building. So that's a little vague, but one would assume, you know, if they show us the perimeter of the building, I think that that's how I understood that. And then the other one that came up today, which was a little odd that I might recommend some verbiage tweakage on this packet, was that it says that indicate the proposed height of roof. And one of the cases we went to today, the story poles went to the underside of the roof. So, you know, there was a discussion there of, well, they're meeting the requirement. They're to the proposed height of the roof, but they're to the underside of the roof. So it was just an observation that might clear it, might read clearer if it said to the top proposed height of the top of the roof. There's not. That has always been my understanding that they have to be at the height of the proposed building. It seems obvious, but it just, it happened today that ended up at the underside of the roof. And so anyway, it wasn't the end of the world, but it was just an observation. And then, To add to that, Scott appointed, it was clear that the applicant really tried to do what they were asked. I guess they just didn't understand as they went to very careful or buckets with the, so it was nice, but it wasn't tight. And then the only other question I have is regarding the requirement for when a HICB is required. Is there a specific requirement from staff for when a HICB is required? Because it also seemed like on a few of the cases today, there were antiquated HICBs that it would have been handy to have better HICBs. And I know that one of them was 20 years old and I know I've, from my experience on the other side of the podium, I've been required specifically at prior years to 20. So I was just curious what the current requirement for that. Jerry, Cherry, and Member Cherry, we do have, like we go through the whole thing. If we have a HICB that does not have enough information, we do require that, we do require a new HICB. So we go through that. So if you, in your analysis, if a HICB is 20 years old, you feel that it's got plenty of information or current information, it goes. Correct. Yes. We'll usually do the research on it and then if it has, you know, good enough information, then we go do that. And also, we do research on if it was approved by the board as well. We do that as well. Might want to state, even though this pay is 20 years old, we have researched the information and it, you know, you might state that just for clarification purposes for the boards. Yeah, I think my other comment would be, it's always not to, not to promote mandating more requirements, but it certainly is always handy to have the current HICBs because I think that gets into a different conversation, which I won't get into too much tonight, but this definition of the word historic. It seems like we use this, it's not defined in the code. And so we use the, we use the definition of historic to be more than 50 years old because historic buildings are defined as buildings over historic, over 50 years old. However, that term gets used to define windows and the, for instance, I would give the Canyon Road project. I'm not being specific on that. Just while it's looking that up, we could, the board could create a policy that says, "Hey, these over 20 years of age need to be redone just for clear guidance." Lots of times we'll evaluate the project and determine whether there's enough information to support the board's analysis of that project. But certainly if it is the pleasure of the board, you can designate that new HICBs are required within a certain time. Yeah, I would like, I don't know what the time frame is, but I think that'd be a great way to do it. So, What would you, what would you recommend? Does anybody else have? I'm just curious. I think it probably depends on what the application is for. So if it's for a simple thing that doesn't require an evaluation of status or something like that, we may not want to make a policy of like always requiring a new HICB because I think there's an added expense to the applicant to do that. Correct. So maybe, I mean, we always have the opportunity to request that they come back with a new HICB if we don't feel like there's enough. We can ask the applicant to do that and come back. But I think just like requiring everyone to have a new one, like if they're just, you know, doing something like in kind or, You know, maybe doesn't require like a lot of research on that, the overall status. Yeah, it's hard to make a requirement without it being a rabbit hole when you know. But I do. Being like I say, standing on the other side of the podium sometimes here, I think for me it's always helpful just to have a requirement. You know, if I know, okay, they want, if the HICB is older than 15 years, say or something, and staff wants me to provide a new one, I know that that's a requirement that's helpful as opposed to it being more loose like, well, if it's enough information, then we want one, but if it's not, because it's sometimes it's easier just to know, yeah, I want one. So I don't, I don't necessarily know if that's the discussion for tonight or if we, yeah. But it's something to think about moving forward and maybe in the, I think we can get more input from one of us. Thank you briefly, Madam Chair. Thank you. I think for those listening, maybe we should just spell it out. We all know what HICB is, but I want to take a shot at, I'm the new kid on the block until I'm not, right? Historic Preservation Cultural Inventory. What's HICB? Historic Cultural Properties Inventory. Close enough. No cigar. Close enough. Thank you. But that's an awfully long title. Yeah. The case I was referring to was the case on 925 Canyon Road, you know, where that, it was, obviously there's buildings that the building's historic and the windows are actually historic because they're over 50 years. Well, they're, they're historic if we're using the, if we're borrowing the definition that exists for historic buildings because there's no defined definition of a historic in the code. So I think it would just be a comment to have on record for the code, next step of the code rewrite to add historic to the definitions. No, you cannot. You had your opportunity to speak, buddy. Distinct. Mhm. Oh, so you're blaming us? I'm kidding. Yeah. Yeah. So we were nicer to you tonight, Mr. Martinez, than the state was. I'll have to ask them about that. Okay. Any other matters? Thank you for, I have one more information. Yes. I was reading about the story poles. It does state here to indicate the proposed height of the roof. Right. That's what I, that's what I said. The height of the roof, but it didn't say the height of the top of the roof because this is the story poles we saw today. Yeah. Went to the height of the bottom of the roof. So they, and arguably they met the requirement, but, Sort of missed the point of what we all kind of understood it should probably represent. Okay. Our next meeting is going to be November the 18th and I will not be here. I am going to go visit my daughters and November, I'm leaving November 17th unless, you know, with the situation that we have at hand these days at airports, unless they send me back to Santa Fe and I'll be gone till I'll be back December 7th. A little patient for me. And do I hear a motion to adjourn? Besides so moves and second. All those in favor say a loud I. Loud I. Loud. And those opposed say no. Okay. So we are adjourned. Not too bad. 9:15 for all the cases that we had.