City of Santa Fe Historic Districts Review Board met May 11.
Here are the minutes provided by the board:
CALL TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the City of Santa Fe Historic Districts Review Board was called to order by Cecilia Rios, Chair, on the above date at approximately 5:37 p.m. at a virtual meeting held at https://www.youtube.com/user/cityofsantafe.
A. ROLL CALL
Roll Call indicated the presence of a quorum as follows:
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Ms. Cecilia Rios, Chairwoman
Mr. Frank Katz, Vice Chair
Ms. Jennifer Biedscheid
Ms. Flynn G. Larson
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mr. John Bienvenu (Excused)
Mr. Anthony Guida (Excused)
Mr. Buddy Roybal (Excused)
OTHERS PRESENT:
Ms. Nicole Ramirez Thomas
Mr. Daniel Schwab, Senior Planner
Ms. Angela Bordegaray, Senior Planner
Ms. Sally Paez, Assistant City Attorney
Ms. Melissa Byers, Stenographer
NOTE: All items in the Committee packet for all agenda items are incorporated herewith by reference. The original Committee packet is on file in the Historic Preservation Office and available on the City of Santa Fe Website.
B. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Ms. Ramirez Thomas said Case# 3535 at 910 Old Santa Fe Trail was postponed to June 8, 2021 and Case #3461 at 459 Camino Manzano was postponed to May 25th, 2021.
MOTION: Vice Chair Katz moved, seconded by Member Biedscheid to approve the agenda, as amended.
VOTE: The motion passed by unanimous (3-0) roll call vote with Members Biedscheid, Katz and Larson voting in favor and none voting against.
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None
D. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: None
E. MATTERS FROM THE PUBLIC
Stefanie Beninato said she was disappointed last week with the approval of the seamed roof because she has relatives on that block, and everything is shingle. There may be one house with a weather roof, but is a different structure. The example given by the applicant has nothing to do with that streetscape. The Board should be consistent.
F. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
1. 2021 Santa Fe Heritage Preservation Awards
Ms. Ramirez Thomas said May is Preservation Month. The City participates along with the Old Santa Fe Association and the Historic Santa Fe Association on the awards. She presented a PowerPoint after which the Board will vote for each category. In the past the Board voted by ballot and staff tallied the votes for the awardees.
Attorney Paez noted this is public business and is within the scope of the Board’s duties and important to have their votes on the record. She recommended there be a nomination and a second followed by discussion as needed. She offered to help if there are any questions.
Chair Rios said in the past the ballots were confidential. She asked the Board members how they felt about that.
Vice Chair Katz wondered if there was opportunity after the presentation to discuss the candidates who should be nominated.
Attorney Paez said that is appropriate. This isn’t an action item in the same way of decisions on quasi-judicial cases and it is important to do on the record. She encouraged discussion after someone makes a motion. She recommended it be done this way because it is a ceremonial function and part of the open meeting.
Chair Rios said she prefers the confidentiality of the old way.
Ms. Ramirez Thomas began her presentation. She added she enjoyed visiting the properties because some of them had been her cases.
Architectural Preservation Award: Outstanding example(s) of restoration/ rehabilitation of an historic property.
Nominee(s): 460 Camino de las Animas.
Chair Rios suggested each category be discussed and voted on.
She noted the house is 100 years or older, and they did a lovely job. You can see all of the carvings and detail of the woodwork, and the carving on the inside of the windows. And she liked the white portal and stonework.
Vice Chair Katz said he wanted to nominate this because it is absolutely terrific. It is beautiful.
Ms. Ramirez Thomas said it was finished just in the nick of time, with a final inspection two weeks ago.
MOTION: Vice Chair Katz moved to select 460 Camino de las Animas for the category of Architectural Preservation. The motion was seconded by Member Larson.
VOTE: The motion passed by unanimous (3-0) roll call vote with Members Biedscheid, Katz and Larson voting in favor and none voting against.
Compatible Remodel Award: Outstanding examples of remodeling harmonizing with historic structures in the historic district.
Nominee(s): 107 Cienega St; 535 E. Alameda; 340 Delgado St.; 1150 Camino San Acacio; 210 Barela St.; 553 Agua Fria St.; and 908 Galisteo St.
• 107 Cienega Street (sensitive remodel to a contributing property)
Chair Rios liked the house because the wall is low and the house is not huge, and they added a low, see-through gate.
• 535 E. Alameda (in both the Remodel and New Construction Categories)
Vice Chair Katz said he was upset that the Board approved this and more upset recently when this project came back to make it larger. The Board denied because it would completely block the Ashley Pond house. City Council overturned their decision and for that reason, he could not support the nomination.
Chair Rios said the photographs with the lights on were nice.
• 340 Delgado St. (Severely neglected woodwork, windows and portal among many issues.)
• 1150 Camino San Acacio. (Noncontributing status was maintained and a sensitive remodel was done.)
Chair Rios liked the nomination because the remodel did not change the style of the building and the era could still be identified. She thought it was very nice.
Vice Chair Katz agreed the preservation was sweet, but thought there are more extensive examples.
• 210 Barela Street. (A major rehabilitation of a contributing property. The pitched roof was restored to the original flat roof. )
Chair Rios said the work was wonderful, and the rehabilitation is a classy look and looks nice.
• 553 Agua Fria Street. (This preserved the historic form and footprint and retained historic fabric to the greatest extent possible. The metal sash windows are retained in a unique manner and demonstrate this can be done elsewhere.)
Chair Rios commented that it was another great project.
• 908 Galisteo.
Chair Rios said they did a really nice job, and she liked the see-through gate. It fits nicely into the neighborhood.
Chair Rios asked if possible to nominate two in this category.
Ms. Ramirez Thomas said they can only nominate one, however this could be added to the running list of properties good for next year’s nominations.
Member Larson asked to see Cienega Street again. She thought this was a nice example of a low wall that still preserves the façade. Also, it shows the importance of cutting back vegetation. That protects the house in the future as well as enriches the character of the streetscape. She also really liked the paint color on the gate and door.
Vice Chair Katz agreed but thought there were many good choices. He thought the Delgado Street house was a fabulous job, but ultimately wanted to nominate the Barela Street house. It is a great preservation in bringing the roof back to the original flat roof.
MOTION: Vice Chair Katz moved to nominate 210 Barela Street for selection in the category of Compatible Remodel Award. The motion was seconded by Member Larson.
VOTE: The motion passed by unanimous (3-0) roll call vote with Members Biedscheid, Katz and Larson voting in favor and none voting against.
Chair Rios said she was happy this was nominated. The Board hears cases all over town and this nominee for Barela Street is located on the west side.
Member Biedscheid added that she appreciated the gentle tweaks to restore what was there on several of the remodels, i.e., Agua Fria, San Acacio, Galisteo. On Barela, she appreciated the extra effort to remove the pitched roof and the vision to restore its importance. She was glad they were recognized for that.
Compatible New Construction Award: Outstanding examples of new construction that harmonizes with historic structures in the historic district.
• 535 E. Alameda.
• 335 Gormley Lane. (The property was built in the Pueblo Revival style on a very narrow lot.)
Chair Rios said she grew up in that area and remembers when there were barely any houses there. They did a nice, sensitive job.
• 918 Acequia Madre Unit G. (This is a new development)
Vice Chair Katz said they did a beautiful job on this house. It is not overwhelming, and it is more sophisticated, and he was impressed with the space.
Chair Rios agreed. It is definitely Southwest style.
• 535 Apodaca Hill. (New construction is complete and a garage is being added under separate permit.)
• 814 Atalaya (Architectural Alliance).
Vice Chair Katz said he had a problem with the design of this house. From the road you see the garage and a very prominent roof deck on top of the garage, and the not particularly attractive garage doors. He noticed that it is for sale and is described as a contemporary house. That is not what he thinks of when thinking about preserving the area.
Chair Rios said she is always drawn to smaller projects or those more simplistic.
Member Biedscheid agreed. The small, infill projects she assumes are more difficult to design, catch her eye. She thought for that reason, Gormley Lane is a nice example. They didn’t hide the property and it fits the land. It is a hidden gem off of Canyon Road. She recalled the Board had admired the house on a field trip to see another house.
MOTION: Vice Chair Katz moved to nominate 335 Gormley Lane as the selection for the category of in the Compatible New Construction. The motion was seconded by Member Biedscheid.
VOTE: The motion passed by unanimous (3-0) roll call vote with Members Biedscheid, Katz and Larson voting in favor and none voting against.
Cultural Preservation Award: Outstanding examples of work toward preservation and/or understanding of Santa Fe’s unique cultural heritage. • 518 Alto Street. (Many different and interesting elements making it appropriate, including the restoration of adobe and retention of historic moments of Santa Fe that include the Loretto Girls School, the windows and doors, and people who had lived in the house.)
Chair Rios said she was glad this is receiving an award. When driving on Alto Street she always goes by to admire this house.
MOTION: Member Biedscheid moved to nominate 518 Alto Street as the selection for the category of Cultural Preservation Award. The motion was seconded by Vice Chair Katz.
VOTE: The motion passed by unanimous (3-0) roll call vote with Members Biedscheid, Katz and Larson voting in favor and none voting against.
Sara Melton Award: Outstanding examples of sensitive maintenance and rehabilitation of an historic structure.
• 314 S. Guadalupe. (Owned by the archdiocese and formally the Santuario School, among numerous other things. In a dilapidated state, the interior remodel was the most substantial. Despite significant challenges the property retains its character inside and out.)
Vice Chair Katz thought Ted Harrison did a great job.
Member Biedscheid agreed it was a beautiful building and a nice job.
MOTION: Vice Chair Katz moved to nominate 314 S. Guadalupe for the selection in the Sara Melton Award category. The motion was seconded by Member Biedscheid.
VOTE: The motion passed by unanimous (3-0) roll call vote with Members Biedscheid, Katz and Larson voting in favor and none voting against.
Chair Rios commented on the lack of a Mayor’s Award. Ms. Ramirez Thomas told her staff is working on that.
Chair Rios asked about the possibility of having the presentation award ceremony in person.
Ms. Ramirez Thomas said the hope was to hold the event May 20, but approval to get together wasn’t given. The ceremony will be postponed until approval and the County has agreed to host the event in the County building. They plan to provide tours of all of the restoration work. Staff is hoping to have some type of social element. In the meantime, awardees will be announced in the New Mexican and the Pasatiempo.
Attorney Paez confirmed she will keep the Board informed of any changes.
G. OLD BUSINESS
None
H. NEW BUSINESS
1. Case 2021-003534-HDRB. 810 Waldo Street. Don Gaspar Area Historic District. Steve Rivera, agent for Dan Jackson, owner, requests a primary facade designation on a contributing structure. (Daniel Schwab)
STAFF REPORT
810 Waldo Street is a single-story single-family residential structure constructed in a Spanish Pueblo Revival Style with contributing status to the Don Gaspar Area Historic District. The east façade, facing the street is the representative façade, the others being more functional in their layout. The windows to the right of the portal are historic, to the left are from a remodel in 2006.
The windows on the north and south sides are also historic, and believed to be original. The bathroom on the northeast corner is believed to be a later addition. The west façade saw a renovation in 2006 and the windows and doors are new.
In October and December 2006, the so-called “Historic Design Review Board” heard a case for this property (Case H-06-108 A and B). The property was upgraded to Contributing and the “East Elevations” were designated primary by Staff in the 20-6 report. Since the practice of the board has changed, Staff requests that the primary façade designation be re-evaluated.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommended designation of the east façade as primary according to the definition in Section 14-12. The Board may find, upon further testimony, that other facades, especially the east portions of the north and south facades should also be designated primary.
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF
Chair Rios asked to confirm that the bathroom was built in the 50s.
Mr. Schwab did not know a certain date, but the owners told him this was a later addition.
Chair Rios asked about the recommendations for the primary façade.
Mr. Schwab showed the north, primary, street facing facades. He indicated what represents the characteristics is the window in the portal, but the Board may find there are other aspects.
Chair Rios said this is representative of houses in the area.
Member Biedscheid asked if there is still a garage.
Mr. Schwab said the garage is still there but is contributing status.
Member Biedscheid asked if those facades would be addressed tonight, and if a primary façade was designated on the garage. In the minutes it mentions “east elevations”, plural. She asked for clarification.
Mr. Schwab agreed the minutes were ambiguous, but thought the east façade was designated as primary. He thought the practice at the time was what staff understood to be a primary façade and would probably just have been the front façade.
APPLICANT’S PRESENTATION
Steve Rivera, 2305 Brother Luke Place, Santa Fe, was sworn in. Mr. Rivera said he was the contractor who did the 2006 remodel. The garage at that time, is now a guest house and the Board required he keep the look of the garage door intact. The door is not operable, but the look is the same.
Chair Rios asked if he agreed with staff’s recommendation.
Mr. Rivera said they do agree with the east façade as primary, but do not agree with the north and south.
PUBLIC HEARING
Stefanie Beninato, PO Box 1060, Santa Fe was sworn in. She thought the east façade is the primary and some of the features are defining. She thought it strange to designate as primary and then ask for an exception. The north façade is somewhat interesting, but the south façade deserves contributing status.
BOARD DISCUSSION
MOTION: In Case 2021-003534-HDRB, 810 Waldo Street, Vice Chair Katz moved to specify the east façade of the building as primary. Member Biedscheid seconded the motion.
VOTE: The motion passed by unanimous (3-0) roll call vote with Members Biedscheid, Katz and Larson voting in favor and none voting against.
2. Case 2021-003535-HDRB. 910 Old Santa Fe Trail. Downtown and Eastside Historic District. Mark Brotton, agent for Elza and Michael Gross, request an addition, yard wall alterations, and hardscaping on a non contributing property. (Angela Schackel Bordegaray)
Postponed
3. Case 2021-003461-HDRB. 459 Camino Manzano. Downtown and Eastside Historic District. Martinez Architectural Studio, agent for Carolyn Kenny and Craig Smith, owners, proposes to demolish an existing non historic carport and construct a 565 square foot garage to a height of 13 feet, a gate and a kiva fireplace on a non-contributing property. (Daniel Schwab)
Postponed
4. Case 2021-003462-HDRB. 810 Waldo Street. Don Gaspar Area Historic District. Steve Rivera, agent for Dan Jackson, owner, proposes to replace windows on a contributing residential structure. An exception is requested to Section 14-5.2(D)(5)(a)(i) to replace historic windows on a primary facade. (Daniel Schwab)
STAFF REPORT
810 Waldo Street is a single-story single-family residential structure constructed in a Spanish Pueblo Revival Style in with contributing status to the Don Gaspar Area Historic District. The east façade, facing the street was designated primary by the board in case 2021-003534-HDRB and contains historic windows to the right of the entry portal.
The applicant now proposes the following items:
1. Replace historic windows on the non-primary north façade. The windows on this facade are from the 1950s but have not been subject to a window assessment, as they were presumed to be replaceable without need for an exception.
2. Replace the historic windows on the primary east facades, requesting an exception to Section 14-5.2(D)(5)(a)(1). The windows on the east facade are also from the 1950s and are described in the accompanying window assessment. The northern most window belongs to the bathroom which is believed to be a later addition to the, not part of the original structure.
The assessor concludes that the windows can be repaired and their energy efficiency best improved by installing storm sashes on the exterior. The applicant requests an exception for their replacement, arguing that this will restore a more harmonious appearance and promote energy efficiency. The applicant also requests replacing windows on the north façade.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommended:
1. Approval of the window replacement on the non- primary facade;
2. approval to replace the bathroom window on northern end of the east façade, it being not original to the house;
3. denial to replace the central historic window on the primary façade, as it is original to the house and can be repaired, finding that not all exception criteria have been met. The Board may upon further testimony find that all criteria have been met, in which case this item could be approved, meeting the design Standards in Sections 14-5.2(D) Historic Districts and 14-5.2(H) Don Gaspar Area Historic District.
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF
Chair Rios confirmed that the window assessment on all windows were they were repairable. She asked to see the existing and what is proposed.
Mr. Schwab clarified the assessment was only for the two front windows. He thought the applicant’s argument for the reason to approve a replacement was good; it will add more integrity to the structure and this window in particular, did not contribute to the harmony and style of the house.
Chair Rios asked to the see the existing and proposed.
Mr. Schwab said proposed is a 3 over 3 design. He said they could ask the applicant for more details. On the north and south, the central small window will be stuccoed over and eliminated and replaced with an identical pattern.
Vice Chair Katz asked Attorney Paez whether Code states architectural features on a contributing house, not on a primary façade, has to be preserved, but not windows. He thought that strange to preserve other architectural features, but not the windows.
Attorney Paez said in (D)(5)(a) it states for all façades, specifically landmark structures and primary façades of contributing structures, “historic windows should be repaired or restored when possible.” Historic windows that cannot be repaired or restored shall be duplicated and replaced in kind. She continued, “for all façades of significant, contributing and landmark structures, architectural features, finishes and other than doors and windows shall be repaired rather than replaced”.
She said she agreed with the statement. Code offers some protection of all sides of a contributing structure for architectural features, but not windows, other than on a primary façade.
Vice Chair Katz noted a graphic on the east façade shows the bathroom window and main window were both 1950s. He asked if both were done at the same time.
Mr. Schwab explained there wasn’t a lot of information on the house. This is based on material staff was given by the owners. The HCPI is old and is not detailed.
Vice Chair Katz confirmed that the dates for the two windows on the east side were unknown.
Chair Rios asked if the existing wood windows would be replaced in kind.
Mr. Schwab believed they would be replaced with aluminum windows with double glazing.
Member Biedscheid said she had the same question if the pattern and lentils are the same. She also wanted to know if the stucco is cementitious.
Mr. Schwab said his only information was what he was provided, and they would need to ask the applicant.
Member Biedscheid said based on what Attorney Paez read, the bathroom window if historic would have to be to be repaired rather than replaced.
Mr. Schwab agreed.
Member Larson asked to address the applicant to comment.
Chair Rios asked Mr. Rivera if he had anything more to tell them about the replacements.
Mr. Rivera, previously sworn, explained in the 2006 remodel they determined the bathroom was added later based on the construction of the room. The applicant wants it to be harmonious with the light patterns of the other windows. This and the window next to it in the bedroom, are the only windows on the east façade. The window is rotted out and refurbishing it would take a lot. On the middle window on the north façade, they requested removing it entirely. The window on the left of it is over the tub and they want to reduce it to half the size but keep the same light pattern.
Chair Rios asked Mr. Rivera to describe the light pattern.
Mr. Rivera explained they would keep the same light pattern but reduce in height.
Member Larson thanked the applicant for doing a window assessment. She agreed with Vice Chair Katz that windows are an important part of an historic building. She thought they should always be repaired before replaced, especially if not in kind. As his notes say, there are options that can increase efficiency. The removal of rotted parts would also do that. The Board has discussed trying to be more sustainable and repairs are always better than replacing. She asked Mr. Rivera to consider that. She is willing to bend on a change in the light pattern to make the house livable yet maintain the historic. She noted that aluminum doesn’t have the same effect as wood.
Chair Rios clarified whether Member Larson had said regarding the window assessment, that all of the windows should be refurbished rather than replaced.
Member Larson said yes, for sustainability and to keep the historic character of the house. She thought a thorough window assessment had been done. She would urge the Board to require repairing the windows rather than granting an exception to replace, especially when not in kind.
Chair Rios asked if the house would be cementitious stucco of the same color.
Mr. Rivera replied yes, cementitious in the same color, but in the hard troweled smooth finish they are seeing in remodels.
Chair Rios asked if the house has a sand finish.
Mr. Rivera replied it doesn’t, it has a smooth finish.
Vice Chair Katz was confused about Member Larson’s comments and didn’t think the Board could require construction and repair of windows not on a primary façade.
Mr. Schwab indicated they are only referring to the primary façade.
Vice Chair Katz said Member Larson had indicated that the applicant mentioned the bathroom window and the light pattern doesn’t match the other windows. The applicant said he wanted to replace it and he understood Member Larson to say she thought that was a good idea.
Member Larson said she was referring to the window on the nonprimary façade. In her opinion the bathroom window could go either way. But to be authentic and to communicate the history of the house, changing the window pattern isn’t the right decision. There wasn’t enough information to know if it is of the same period and she didn’t see a lentil or a lot of details. So, it may have been an afterthought when installed. There is not enough information to say that it should remain.
Vice Chair Katz said he is sympathetic to wanting double pane. He asked if possible to replace the glass on the other window with the divided lights when it is rebuilt.
Mr. Rivera said he could not answer that. His experience when refurbishing windows is the single pane glass is put back in. He talked with a man in town who does the windows, and he puts the single pane glass back in with a storm window on the inside.
Mr. Schwab said Scott Ernst did the assessment and recommended a storm window. He noted the packet had a photo.
Ms. Ramirez Thomas said Code allows the thermal pane as a replacement, but it depends on the muntin size and if the wood could tolerate the width.
Chair Rios asked Mr. Rivera if the windows on the east façade would be replaced with metal clad.
Mr. Rivera said yes, wood windows with metal clad on the outside and identical to the other windows of the house in brand, color, etc.
Member Biedscheid noted a window schedule on page 15 of the packet. The schedule says all six windows were assessed as older than 50 years. That includes the window on the primary façade. She noted unless an exception is granted they will have to be repaired per Code. She was also concerned there didn’t seem to be in elevation for
the north with the reduction in size of window #3 and the elimination of #7 window.
Mr. Schwab said he didn’t have the impression window # 3 would change in size. We need an updated drawing.
Mr. Rivera recalled the drawing had been given to Mr. Schwab. Mr. Schwab offered to look for it.
Ms. Ramirez Thomas asked if Mr. Rivera had something he could share on screen. PUBLIC HEARING
Ms. Beninato, previously sworn, said Code requires the drawings and she wasn’t sure how that could slip by. That can sometimes lead to trouble. She liked the idea that the storm window is on the inside. She agreed repairing rather than replacing would be better.
Dr. Jeremy Guiberto, 810 Waldo Street, was sworn in. He said he has lived in a number of historic houses. He wanted to tell the Board about living in the house, opposed to just looking at it from the outside. Some of the windows on the side might not be replaced, such as the ones in the kitchen. We like those, but we would like permission to change them with a like frame, as needed. The window in the shower is impossible and is rotting. They want to make it smaller to be copacetic with someone taking a shower without requiring a curtain over the window. All windows will be wood, they want wood windows.
He thanked Mr. Schwab for his help in explaining the process. He said on the small window in the bathroom, we believe it is a remodel, but not sure when it was done. It seems to be a mistake and is the only window with that appearance that is not multiple lights. In terms of restoration, even though they would not replace the window, the character of the home would be restored back to its original character at the time. They would like to keep the other window and hired Mr. Ernst to do the assessment to know what they could do. That is a bedroom that is difficult to keep heated so they asked if they could replace the glass with double pane windows. They were told by Mr. Ernst that wasn’t possible because of the density of the window. Mr. Ernst suggested putting a storm window, but the problem is the reflectivity. Also, encasing the window in a glass on the outside doesn’t allow opening the window for ventilation, and changes the look of the house.
Dr. Guiberto said we want to keep the integrity of the outside with the beautiful lentil over the top and the carved wood. They cannot do the double pane glass, and without that it will be difficult for someone to stay in that room. They have proposed changing the moving parts of the window on each side to match what was done in 2006. And the bathroom window would be replaced in a representative character of the Spanish Pueblo Revival home.
John Eddy, 227 E. Palace Ave., Suite D, was sworn in. He said again, this is a classic conundrum. He believed the applicant wanted to maintain the character of the house, and in fact, tried to restore it to be more harmonious. He believed the one over one window detracted from the harmonious aspect of the elevation, although historic.
Also, he thought the window was added when the builders were not sensitive to what they were doing. Code requires maintaining the window as is, but he could see by adding a broken light detail it would help immensely. Also, limiting the light design and reducing the window would make the house more livable. He suggested the Board take care in their decision to grant exceptions or not, in the interest of livability and harmony of the house. He thought it isn’t cut and dry.
BOARD DISCUSSION
Vice Chair Katz said he was confused on the bedroom window. He thought someone mentioned the storm windows would be on the inside. Also, he was confused what would be rebuilt and what would be replaced. He thought the owner said he was just replacing the sliding portion of the windows the same, but with double pane glass.
He asked for clarification.
Dr. Guiberto said he had a long discussion with Scott Ernst and putting a storm window on the inside is not historic. They want to keep the windows functional, and to keep the T portion of the window and the historic portion. If possible they would just replace the part that slides and would be willing to have it custom made.
Chair Rios indicated he also said all windows would be wood and replaced in kind.
Dr Guiberto agreed, except for outside cladding, they will be wood. He wanted everybody to feel good about this project.
Vice Chair Katz asked for clarification on the interior storm window. He said you wouldn’t see it from the outside and would not know there was an interior storm window. Dr. Guiberto explained it wouldn’t be historic from the inside and he cares about that and also the windows wouldn’t function.
Chair Rios said then, the storm window for the applicant would not be an option.
Dr. Guiberto replied correct and if they put the storm window on the ends they couldn’t open or close them, so why put that effort into restoring it. He wanted, if they restore a window, to restore not just the appearance but in function as well. He said we couldn’t think of another way to preserve the window. The mullions will have to be redone anyway and this keeps the look of the window and the historic parts key to its appearance.
Member Larson said a misconception about historic wood windows is they are inefficient and unsustainable. The fact is this window can be taken apart and replaced with other elements that improve the efficiency. She thought he would be more satisfied with the appearance and integrity of the historic material and it would be easier to maintain and repair the window. She thought the best decision is to repair the window.
Member Biedscheid asked to see the elevation
Mr. Schwab displayed the drawing.
MOTION: In Case 2021-003462-HDRB, 810 Waldo Street, Vice Chair Katz moved to approve the application as submitted in all respects and the two historic windows on the contributing façade, to approve the bathroom window being replaced with divided lights to harmonize with the house and that the exception has been met on the bedroom window in that the window would be repaired and the siding portions of the window replaced and retains the same light pattern but with double pane true divided lights.
Member Larson asked if “true divided lights” meant aluminum clad windows.
Vice Chair Katz responded, no it has to be a wood window and replaced fully in kind.
Mr. Schwab asked if all parts of the application had been addressed, including the replacement on the north and south elevations.
Vice Chair Katz said yes, the motion states approved “in all respects”. Member Biedscheid seconded the motion, for discussion.
Member Biedscheid said in the past the Board has allowed replacement of windows on non-primary facades to be replaced in kind. It is not a hardship to maintain one window of an historic house. There are options to putting storm windows on the inside, and was recommended by the assessment. It is a small price to pay to retain the authentic feel of the primary façade which contributes so much to the streetscape.
Member Biedscheid stated she is not in favor of the motion and preferred the applicant be required to repair the central historic window.
Chair Rios asked what type of glass the applicant would be required to use.
Vice Chair Katz said they could use double glazed glass but with true divided lights and only the sliding parts would be replaced.
Chair Rios said everything would be in kind except double glazed glass.
VOTE: The motion failed by majority (1-2) roll call vote with Vice Chair Katz, voting in favor and Members Biedscheid and Larson voting against.
MOTION: In Case 2021-003462-HDRB, 810 Waldo Street, Member Larson moved to approve the application per staff’s recommendation, Items 1-3 and window replacement on non-primary façade; to approve the bathroom window replacement on the east façade; and to deny the replacement of the central historic window because it can be repaired and would improve the efficiency and because the exception criteria had not been met. Member Biedscheid seconded the motion.
Vice Chair Katz said he supports the motion. He said if the January nights are as bad as the owner suggested, the interior storm windows could be put in when very cold.
Chair Rios asked clarification from Member Larson on the denial and if she would approve the window being repaired in kind.
Member Larson replied she would accept the window being repaired if in kind. Member Biedscheid also accepted the friendly amendment.
VOTE: The motion passed by unanimous (3-0) roll call vote with Members Biedscheid, Katz and Larson voting in favor and none voting against.
Chair Rios said she appreciated the owner’s comments about keeping the house.
Mr. Schwab asked to clarify if there was a statement on the proposal for exterior storm windows.
Member Larson explained there was not, but per the historic window elements, storm windows are appropriate for weatherizing the house. The storm windows should be installed on either the interior or exterior.
Attorney Paez said the Board doesn’t regulate storm windows because they are temporary.
5. Case 2021-003533-HDRB. 530 East Alameda. Downtown and Eastside Historic District. Sandra Donner, agent for Gayle Mills and Phil Haworth, owners, proposes to construct an adobe wall on top of a contributing brick wall. An exception for making changes to a contributing wall per Section 14- 5.2(D)(1)(a) is requested. (Daniel Schwab)
STAFF REPORT
530 East Alameda is a single-family residential structure with contributing status to the Downtown and Eastside Historic District. The house was constructed in a Spanish Colonial Revival style popular in California around 1934, with a red-tile roof, smooth stucco walls, arched openings and glazed painted tile steps.
On January 12, 2021, the Board heard Case # 2020-002974-HDRB in relation to the yard wall which extends along the northern perimeter of the property and to the south along the sides of the driveway and includes a small brick stair (the interior yard wall). The fence on top of the wall was not designated contributing. The bricks are concrete and are most likely made through a wire-cut process. A detailed description is given in the HCPI. The eastern portion of the wall dates from around 1958, while the western and southern portions are later, from around 1966. It is likely that at one time the walls were stuccoed. Small portions reveal traces of a stucco covering. Per Section 14-5.2 (C)(1), it is a historic record of its time, place through its materials, construction techniques of the bricks and craftsmanship of the wall’s concave mortar joints and as such has a high level of historic integrity. The Board designated the wall a contributing status.
The applicant now returns to the Board seeking approval for the following items:
1. Remove existing coyote and dog-eared cedar wood fencing along East Alameda frontage.
2. Remove existing concrete path along driveway.
3. Repair existing exterior stairs to basement.
4. Install a new stucco wall atop the existing contributing brick wall along East Alameda. The height will be to be a total of 78 inches, which is the maximum allowable height. The wall will be stucco colored to match house, a specialty color similar to El Rey “Desert Rose.”
The applicant requests an exception to Section 14-5.2(D)(1)(a), “the removal of historic materials or alteration of architectural features and spaces that embody the status shall be prohibited.”
5. Apply stucco along the length of the interior brick yard wall east side driveway brick wall in the same color as above. The brick steps will remain.
The applicant requests an exception to Section 14-5.2(D)(1)(a), “the removal of historic materials or alteration of architectural features and spaces that embody the status shall be prohibited.”
6. Install Endicott Brick pavers in location of removed concrete path along east side of driveway. Color #46 and Dark Iron Spot to be used.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommended that the exception criteria to Section 14-5.2(D)(1)(a) have not been met. Staff recommended:
a. Denying the yard wall along the street, finding that the exception has not been met; and
b. that the Board request a professional evaluation of the interior yard wall to assess whether it is repairable.
Mr. Schwab said to summarize his report, he questioned the integrity of the bricks and assertion that the wall is in such bad shape it has to be stuccoed over. There should be further assessment. With regard to point (a) he recommended it sufficiently damages the contributing status of the wall and not all options were considered, i.e., erecting a wall directly behind this wall, among others.
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF
Chair Rios asked to confirm that Mr. Schwab did not agree with the responses to the two exceptions. She asked to see a picture of the house.
Mr. Schwab replied that was correct. There was a discussion as to whether the house matched the wall, or the wall matched the house. They are not of a piece, but at that time the Board decided the wall did not need to match the house to warrant contributing status.
Chair Rios asked if the brick wall would be stuccoed on the inside or outside. And she didn’t see on the right side any latilla fencing.
Mr. Schwab said the stucco would be on the outside portion. He explained where the fencing was and that it was not visible. The portion that is not paved is on East Alameda and the view is from a paved road about 10 feet high.
Vice Chair Katz said he was confused by what is historic and what is contributing.
Mr. Schwab said his understanding is that both brick walls are contributing and historic. Nothing was assigned to the wooden portion.
Vice Chair Katz asked what exception was needed to remove the wooden portion of the wall.
Mr. Schwab explained an exception was not needed for removal, but one is needed to erect a stucco covered wall on top of an historic brick wall. His position is that will damage the historic wall.
Vice Chair Katz asked if the alternative would be to step the stucco wall a few feet back.
Mr. Schwab said that was correct, step back the wall an inch, or 3 feet.
APPLICANT’S PRESENTATION
Sandra Donner, 1611 Paseo de Peralta was sworn. She addressed Vice Chair Katz’s comment. When the wall was designated contributing in January this year, it was stated it is a low retaining wall and allowed people to see into the property. Putting a stucco wall an inch behind the retaining wall negates its contributing status. She found that contradictory to how it was designated and what was stated in the report. If that was the case, the wall is not contributing because it is a low retaining wall.
Secondly, the maximum height is 78½ inches and the owners don’t want to go higher than that and that would be too tall in this neighborhood. She respectfully disagreed with Mr. Schwab.
Ms. Donner asked to review the exception criteria, she spent a lot of time on it. The existing condition of the wall on Alameda is a combination of coyote fencing and dog eared wooden fencing mostly. The wall is not a low retaining wall and has no visibility over it, and the owners are not required to take the wall down, it can stay. The exception criteria say, “cannot damage the character of the district”. In terms of the character of the district, this is common. There are three walls within 600 feet of this house of low, stone retaining walls with stucco. There are no low brick retaining walls in this historic district.
Ms. Donner said in terms of preventing hardship, there is an excessive amount of dirt kicked up along East Alameda and because of the access to other streets, more dirt than on a street like Waldo. The house is set back fairly decently from the street, but there is dirt when the windows are open. The applicant wants to mitigate that.
The third exception criteria had to do with an existing condition that will remain an existing condition if the exception is not granted. The wood wall will remain. She is an architect and she worked for a constructional engineer and the second wall, the interior driveway wall, she would tell them, is not going to collapse. It is a 24 inch wall and is in very poor condition, but would not hurt anyone. The brick used hasn’t been made since the late 50s, early 60s. The wall is not brick, but concrete and has water damage. There are broken bricks and at some point the wall was stuccoed.
Ms. Donner said the home is lovely and with a lot of additive materials. The owners just want to clean it up and make it look as though it isn’t falling down. And they want to keep the dirt out of their home. She thought the exception requests are reasonable, and would hope the Board considers what she has said and what they have seen.
She noted that the brick wall along Alameda is not in bad condition, possibly because it is elevated. A clay brick doesn’t get water damage the same as concrete brick because the manufacturing process is different. She thought the wall was probably built 1959-1966, and the house was built in 1934.
Mr. Schwab responded with regard to the dust, that a wall could be erected behind the brick wall. That would minimize the dust and still retain the status of the wall. Regarding the bricks, the goal of designating a contributing status is to preserve material and a lot of this material could be preserved and the wall could be rebuilt. Bricks that are not able to be repaired could be replaced with modern bricks that will differentiate themselves from the historic bricks.
Vice Chair Katz said when the brick wall on Alameda was made contributing it did not include what was on top of it. He thought its status was not implicated because the wall was low, the wooden fence probably came after the low wall. The Board probably had no illusions they would be getting a low wall. He found the proposed stucco wall a more attractive way of achieving the current state. He asked the applicant if it was possible to step back the stucco wall. He thought it would enhance the brick wall and wouldn’t intrude much on the property and possibly be more stable.
Ms. Donner thought the request reasonable. The footing would be eccentric and more expensive to build but she thought the applicant would except that. She said the applicant wanted to do simple stucco and get rid of the brick and the hope of the exception was to keep the brick in the front as a compromise, allowing the integrity of the old material. They would keep the majority of brick that is in good condition and inside the property deal with the brick in bad condition and make a simple wall.
Member Biedscheid supported stepping the stucco wall back. She noted what appeared to be a wrought iron fence inside the dog-eared wooden fence along Alameda.
Ms. Donner replied she didn’t know about that but thought it wasn’t old.
Chair Rios asked where the wrought iron fence was located and asked if the wooden fence is in bad condition.
Ms. Donner explained pieces of the coyote fence flanking the gate are in fairly good condition, but the wood is cedar and not in great shape.
Mr. Schwab showed a photograph of the wrought iron fence that goes along the wooden fence. It was agreed it did not look historic.
Ms. Donner said it is like a bent steel.
PUBLIC HEARING
Ms. Beninato, previously sworn, said she appreciated the applicant being willing to step back the wall and if that happens, it appears the wood fencing would stay in place. She often comes down Alameda and found it hard to imagine it gets much dust. She is more concerned about the brick wall along the driveway. It seems to be degrading because of the retaining wall and she suggested the owners might want to waterproof the wall. She said the brick is a unique feature and is what makes the wall contributing. Making it a stucco wall will look like every other stucco wall and it will lose its character. She thought the Board should deny stuccoing the wall.
Chair Rios asked if Ms. Donner would remove the latilla fencing if the stucco wall is put behind the brick wall.
Ms. Donner said yes.
Chair Rios asked the height the wall will be behind the brick.
Ms. Donner said 6 feet 6 inches. She added her “brick guy” didn’t think the brick was fifty years old because the brick decays significantly and the condition of these bricks was too good to be that old.
BOARD DISCUSSION
Vice Chair Katz said he wasn’t sure how many bricks would need to be replaced and the wall didn’t look that bad. He had angst about stuccoing the brick. The continuity with the brick wall in front is important. When you drive by you see both brick walls through the gate.
Member Biedscheid said the east portion of the wood fencing appeared to wrap around the corner of the driveway.
Ms. Donner explained it is a development back there and this is a piece of a condo and there are mailboxes, pilasters and stone there.
MOTION: In Case 2021-003533-HDRB, 530 East Alameda, Member Biedscheid moved to approve the application with the following conditions: The new stucco wall along East Alameda be set back approximately a foot, and not be placed on top of the brick wall, at the discretion of the architect and approved by staff; to deny the second request to stucco over a portion of the driveway brick wall as it alters the historic contribution of the wall and the exception criteria has not been met; and to approve the request to remove the concrete path and replace with brick and repair the exterior stairs to the basement. Vice Chair Katz seconded the motion.
Chair Rios asked if the maker of the motion and the second was comfortable with the architect determining the distance between the brick wall and the stucco wall.
Vice Chair Katz made a friendly amendment that the new stucco wall be set back at least a foot and a half from the interior portion of the brick wall, and as far back as determined by the architect.
Member Biedscheid accepted the friendly amendment.
VOTE: The motion passed by unanimous (3-0) roll call vote with Members Biedscheid, Katz and Larson voting in favor and none voting against.
Member Biedscheid clarified the exception criteria for stuccoing over the retaining wall along the driveway had not been met. A setback is acceptable because it would not affect the historic. Also, the plan should be resubmitted to staff prior to application for a permit for the changes.
6. Case 2021-003539-HDRB. 302 Sena Street. Don Gaspar Area Historic District. Scott Cherry, agent for Julie Gallegos, proposes to construct a structure to a height of 17’-10" where the maximum allowable height is 15’- 8” on a vacant lot. The applicant requests an exception to 14-5.2(D)(9) (d) for a pitched roof and 14-5.2(D)(9) to exceed the maximum allowable height. (Nicole Ramirez Thomas/Angela Schackel Bordegaray)
STAFF REPORT
302 Sena Street is a vacant lot located in the Don Gaspar Area Historic District. The applicant proposes to construct and 1,153 square foot residential structure on the lot. The proposed structure will have stucco walls, divided lite windows, and a pitched roof. Exceptions to 14-5.2(D)(9) to build to a height of 17’-10 ½” where the maximum allowable height is 15’-8” and 14-5.2(D)(9)(d) for the pitched roof is requested when there are few than 50% pitched roofs in the streetscape. The applicant has provided responses to the exception criteria and they are provided at the end of this report.
The applicant proposes the following.
1. Construction of new 1153 sf. Residence with an attached 228sf. Portal
2. The building has a proposed height of 17’-10-1/2” and will require an exception as the maximum allowable height has been calculated at 15’-8”.
3. The roof will be a hipped gable, pitched roof with an 8/12 pitch which will also require an exception.
4. The exterior wall finish will be cementitious stucco, with “Bullnosed” rounded corners and bullnose return on the windows and doors, in the El Rey color “Adobe”
5. The windows and entry door will be Sierra Pacific simulated divided light wood construction, doors, casements, and awnings, clad in the color “Linen” which is a neutral white.
6. The exterior woodwork will be painted “Linen” (neutral white) to match the exterior windows and doors.
7. The Roofing will be 24” metal panels with a “5V Crimp” profile panel that mimics raised seam metal roofing in “Burnished Slate” which is a Dark Bronze color.
8. The fence will be 16’ pilasters stuccoed in the El Rey color “Adobe” with 4’-10” cedar Latillas with erratic height tops.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommended approval of the application and found that the exceptions have been met for 14-5.2(D) General Design Standards for all H Districts and 14-5.2(H)Don Gaspar Area Historic District.
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF
Chair Rios asked if a wall would be placed and at what height.
Ms. Ramirez Thomas said the wall will be 4 feet 10 inches and the fence will have 16 inch pilasters.
Chair Rios asked how far back the house will be from the sidewalk. Ms. Ramirez Thomas said the setback is 7 feet.
Member Biedscheid said this had been before the Board before and staff recommended at that time the exception criteria was not met. She did not see a lot of difference in this design and the previous and wondered what changed staff’s recommendation.
Ms. Ramirez Thomas said one element was there had been disagreement among staff on considerations. Since the case was denied this case was brought back with modifications. The most significant of those was a lower roof. One member felt the roof had a “top hat” appearance. Also, the rafters are now exposed and with the bottom pitch make it appear broader. The applicant could show where the height over the maximum comes in and the setbacks and the reason a 15’8” single-story house does not work on the property. The applicant is not interested in a two-story.
Chair Rios said the applicant has asked for a pitched roof exception. She asked to look at Google map to see if there are any pitched roofs on the street.
Ms. Ramirez Thomas said there are. She brought up Google street view and pointed out the pitched roof homes in the neighborhood.
Chair Rios asked to see the lot and the pitched roof on the house on the other side of the street.
Ms. Ramirez Thomas displayed homes to the west and houses with pitched roofs.
APPLICANT’S PRESENTATION
Scott Cherry, 2351 Fox Road, Suite 800, Santa Fe, was sworn in.
Chair Rios asked that he tell them in his presentation the difference between this proposal and the previous proposal.
Mr. Cherry displayed the lot and a model of the proposed structure. He explained the height of the roof was lowered and the rafters were exposed since the last presentation. The feedback and changes had been discussed with staff. The height limitation of the allowable calculated height is exceeded only by a portion of the roof peak.
He noted this lot is the smallest lot on the street and a visual aid was shown of how they nestled the project into the setbacks. The owner had requested to add storage and outdoor space on the property. There were no good options within the constraints of the lot for an accessory structure that also allows outdoor space. This pitched roof design allows the opportunity to add a loft space for additional storage which a flat roof would not. He displayed photos of houses within the streetscape with a similar pitch noting the variety of pitched roofs and different architectural elements.
Elevations of the exposed rafters and the wall were shown. The fencing was lowered for visibility. The site plan with the setbacks and adjacent buildings were shown. This design is to fit within the only available building envelope and used 48% of lot coverage of the 55% allowable lot coverage. He showed a perspective of the parapet allowable height and compared to the proposed pitch roof. He thought the parapet structure at maximum allowable height more imposing than the proposed pitch roof.
Mr. Cherry stood for questions.
Chair Rios thanked Mr. Cherry for the visuals, they were helpful. She wondered about the roof material.
Mr. Cherry explained it is a metal roofing V-crimp and mimics a raised seam roof with flat panels in between but not a total vertical seam on the top. It has a smaller V shape crimp and is dark bronze in color. That was the closest color they could get to the look of copper when it patinaed.
Chair Rios asked the how much square footage was gained for storage space. Mr. Cherry said it is in the exception criteria. He offered to find it.
Chair Rios asked if the neighbor to the left has a two-story house.
Vice Chair Katz said the house is up several steps from grade with a finished basement below, but it is not two-story.
Ms. Ramirez Thomas displayed the house in question.
Mr. Cherry indicated behind that house is another pitched roof. That house was also displayed.
Vice Chair Katz congratulated Mr. Cherry on his work. He asked if the loft area is for storage.
Mr. Cherry replied it is storage plus, it doesn’t have a lot of room. You can have a small home office and could be dual-purpose for storage, or office space or, a potential sleeping loft. The area to the east is attic space for storage that is about 78 square feet, and the loft area is 126 square feet. It is a total of about 200 square feet of storage.
Vice Chair Katz asked if a basement storage space was considered.
Mr. Cherry said that was considered. But first, it would be expensive and second, it would be impractical. Because of the stairs it would eliminate a lot of square feet.
PUBLIC HEARING
Stephen Beili, 449 Camino Don Miguel, was sworn in. He said he designs houses in Santa Fe and had lived on Galisteo at the end of Sena. He was familiar with the lot and the street and used to covet the lot. Currently he is designing a house on a tiny lot in another historic district. He is very aware of challenges designers face meeting the zoning requirements while trying to create a reasonably sized house. This design does a fantastic job addressing those challenges. He hoped the Board would grant the height variance considering it is a small portion above maximum.
Ms. Beninato previously sworn, said she understands the design is slightly different, but again the reason for the pitch is for office space. That doesn’t necessarily require maximizing the lot; that is to get a reasonable return. A two bedroom, two bath house is reasonable living space, and the applicant knew it is a small lot ahead of time. She couldn’t see the difference. The Board should find the criteria was not met.
Julie Gallegos, 300 Sena St., was sworn in. She said she owns the lot and has lived next door for several years. She was born and raised in Santa Fe and wants to stay in the neighborhood. She said they appreciate the location and have lovely neighbors. Their family has grown, and they want to expand onto that lot rather than move out of the neighborhood. They see this as a multipurpose, multigenerational project that will help their family have more space. It is also a place she can accommodate her aging parents. They will need more assistance in the next year and she could manage that if they live next door.
Ms. Gallegos said they have been working with Mr. Cherry to meet their needs without compromising the neighborhood or the style. They have worked hard to remain sensitive to the character of the neighborhood and spent time walking the neighborhood to observe the mix of styles. It is not their intention to compromise. They hope to be an asset to the character of the neighborhood. She thanked the Board for their consideration.
BOARD DISCUSSION
Member Biedscheid said she wished that the member of the Board that is an architect was present. She recalled having a lot of discussion about the scale at the last meeting. She asked Mr. Cherry to compare the scale of this house to the rest of the neighborhood and if he thought it harmonizes or does not. She thought the addition, which isn’t similar to its surrounding houses, might be the best way to fill a vacant lot. It adds to the diversity and doesn’t look like it was always there. A two bedroom two bath house is typical of this neighborhood and it is a great use of space that is livable.
She said what doesn’t fit is the size of the proposed fence and vehicle gate. She thought 4’10” too tall for the short walls on either side of the property. Although across the street were some about at that height, it looks like it blocks the house from the rest of the street. She thought less than 4 feet high was more in keeping and she also didn’t think this neighborhood has a lot of vehicle gates. The neighbors have open driveways which she thought would look better with this property.
Chair Rios asked to see the vehicular gate.
Mr. Cherry displayed the gate which looks like the fence.
Chair Rios asked for comments on the pilasters. She didn’t think they were often used in this neighborhood and she asked about the height of the house compared to other pitched roof houses. She agreed the neighborhood had a variety of types of homes. Some have pitched roofs, and some have flat roofs and there were bungalow styles, etc.
Ms. Ramirez Thomas agreed the pilasters are low and generally are cinderblock and stucco.
Chair Rios said because of the small lot, the applicant couldn’t make a huge house, compared to some houses.
Ms. Ramirez Thomas showed the existing coyote fence along the alley and the back of the property and various fences and walls in the area.
Mr. Cherry commented that a consistent element in the streetscape is the inconsistency, it is eclectic with a lot of variety. The design decisions for the pilaster coyote fence/wall, was driven by a pre-existing coyote fence. The house next door has outdoor space against the street with the low wall. The owner wanted a little more height and variety, and the fence is the calculated height. The pilasters serve two purposes, one to use the existing coyote fence in the front and back, but that isn’t homogenous. And two, is to support the proposed gate structures for the vehicles and pedestrians.
He noted on the scale with regard to the building, he does not like to build to the lot lines, and they haven’t done that. They used only 48% of the 55% buildable area. The lot necessitates by scale, some aspects of building to be setback. He did not think the scale of the building out of keeping. Other pitched roof structures on the street are higher, one on Don Cubero is at 19’ 6”. He thought everything has been considered and the exception request is in keeping with things aligned with the neighborhood.
Chair Rios asked the height of the fence and gate.
Mr. Cherry said the fence is 4 feet 10 inches and the gate is lower. He thought it looks better to have the fencing shorter than the pilaster.
Member Biedscheid asked if the vehicle gate shared the neighboring property’s driveway.
Mr. Cherry said no. He referred to the site plan and noted the proposed gate structures and that the parking for this lot is independent of the other lot. He added another reason for the pilasters was for structure to support the gate and to tie into the existing coyote fence. The gate will probably be steel with latillas attached.
Member Biedscheid said she understands the need for the pilasters on either side of the gate. It is a short distance across the front of the house and seemed a consistent height. And the vehicle gate is not in keeping with the neighborhood.
MOTION: In Case 2021-003539-HDRB, 302 Sena Street, Member Biedscheid moved to approve the application with the following condition that the new coyote fencing in the front be no taller than 3 feet; to approve the exception for the pilasters and pedestrian gate, but deny the construction on the vehicular gate; and finds that the exception criteria for height and the pitched roof, per staff’s report was met. Vice Chair Katz seconded the motion.
VOTE: The motion passed by unanimous (3-0) roll call vote with Members Biedscheid, Larson and Katz voting in favor and none voting against.
Mr. Cherry asked for clarification regarding the fence being no more than three feet across.
Member Biedscheid apologized and said she intended to say no taller than 3 feet in height.
Mr. Cherry said there would be no need for a pedestrian gate without a vehicular gate. He asked if they could get staff approval on an alternate fence within those requirements.
Member Biedscheid said that was acceptable to her. She asked if staff would be comfortable with that.
Ms. Ramirez Thomas stated she understands the fence should not be higher than 3 feet; there will be no vehicle gate, and staff could determine and approve if there is a pedestrian gate, and possibly the gate will no longer have latillas and pilasters.
Mr. Cherry said the vehicle gate was part of an enclosed yard space for children to play. Now it will be open to the street so he assumes his client will want to create an alternate fence structure. He asked once that is created, if it could be approved by staff or should he return to the Board.
Ms. Ramirez Thomas displayed the driveway with the proposed vehicle gate.
Mr. Cherry said the yard will be open and therefore there could not be a dog or children in the front. The owner will probably move the fence between the two properties, but he needs to discuss that with them. He assumes there will be an alternate design to enclose some of the yard.
Member Biedscheid said her main objection is the vehicular gate on that street. She understands the desire to enclose the yard and possibly there could be some setback. She thought it would be better to come back.
Chair Rios asked how the other Board members felt.
Vice Chair Katz thought the design would work with the setback and wondered if it would work with a wrought iron gate.
Chair Rios thought Ms. Ramirez Thomas would be able to work with the applicant, but that is the decision of the Board.
Vice Chair Katz agreed. He thought Mr. Cherry could return to the Board with a clearer plan with the guidance given.
Mr. Cherry said at this point he would come back with the fence as a separate case or will build the fence up to the driveway. But he will make an altered plan for the amended fence for the corner section where the parking interfaces.
Chair Rios thought that plan was acceptable. Member Biedscheid agreed.
Chair Rios said Mr. Cherry could move forward with the rest of the project without the vehicle gate, or he could return to the Board after discussion with his client.
I. DISCUSSION ITEMS
Attorney Paez said the appeal on Guadalupe will appear at City Council on May 12, 2021 and 1299 Canyon Road is anticipated on May 26 at Council.
J. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD
None.
K. NEXT MEETING: May 25, 2021
L. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Rios adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:00 pm,
https://santafe.primegov.com/public/portal
