Mail letters to Letters, Santa Fe Reporter, PO Box 2306, Santa Fe NM 87504, deliver them to 132 E. Marcy St., fax them to 988-5348, e-mail them to editor@sfreporter.com, or use our online form.
BUILDING A CASE
Like Debbie Shapiro [Letters, Aug. 23:
], I welcome a greater dialogue about historic preservation. I also respect that-as a member of the Historic Design Review Board-she emphasized the board does "have to follow the ordinance" and wants to "set the record straight." However, she is obliged to discuss the code from a factual basis and to get this "straight record" accurate. Her letter fails on both counts and I feel compelled to respond.
In reference to a rewrite of the ordinance, Ms. Shapiro claims that a redraft was executed in 2005 but was "shelved by the city for lack of funds." This is unhelpfully simplistic. A draft re-write was initially fully funded but failed because consensus on the details was never reached before funds were exhausted. It is misleading for an HDRB member to dismiss this complicated history as merely financial hardship.
Second, the following points (supported by minutes from the HDRB meeting) explain the details to which Ms. Shapiro refers in her letter:
1. "The driveway leads directly to the entrance of the house." The driveway, in fact, leads to a gate that opens to a courtyard through which one arrives at the front door, in a sequence prevalent within the historic district.
2. "Height 14' at the entrance not including the planters that make it look taller." The height calculation provided by city staff allowed a 14'-8" building above the existing grade. The design clearly "follows the ordinance" as it is 8" under the allowable height for this site. The planter walls retain the existing slope up to the building pad, which we reduced by 2 feet from the original grade. The height was never an issue at any HDRB meetings.
3. "A cantilevered roof forming a portal with three sliding glass door sections (no divides) underneath is the defining feature of the front elevation." The portal is not cantilevered. It is supported on one side by a wood post and by building structure on the other. The ordinance allows undivided glass under a portal [SFCC 14-5.2(E)(2)(e)].
4. "Walls all being long and flat, including patio and yard walls." The longest wall length on the street-front façade is 16 feet and it is interrupted by an 11½-foot portal. The longest unbroken wall length is 46 feet on the side property line.
5. "The windows on nonvisible elevations are aluminum clad wood with divides." Technically, the ordinance is written to address portions of a building visible to the public, not interior or exclusively private areas within a property. However, the HDRB recently decided to apply the code to all façades of a building, regardless of public visibility. Nowhere in the ordinance are aluminum clad windows prohibited. The painted finish proposed at the second HDRB meeting was not a concern.
6. "No mention of sustainability in design or landscaping." This is factually wrong, and misleading. The current Historic Design Ordinance does not legislate beyond design appearance. Sustainability, while certainly an aspect of this design, was never an issue with the HDRB. The building was to be constructed of Rastra (a masonry wall system with high R-value containing recycled materials) and incorporated roof water collection but, as it is not pertinent to the HDRB, this was not indicated on the drawings.
I have designed over 20 buildings within the historic district over the past 13 years. Until this case, all were approved by the HRDB, with few revisions. I am proud to design buildings that comply with the code, respect their architectural context and reflect the time in which they have been built.
Debbie Shapiro's letter reveals much. Her disregard for democratic process displays an indifference to fair play bordering on contempt. That a mayoral appointee has used the public media to disseminate false and misleading information-about a project heard by the board on which she sits-is disturbing. The ordinance may, in fact, need rewriting and board member Shapiro-or any board member-may have specific points they want altered. I respect this. However, our system obliges us to change law through a public process, and then apply those laws fairly, accurately and with good judgment, without indulging personal bias. No board member may choose to ignore prescribed elements of the written law, mislead or misrepresent legal proceedings to the public, or act in an arbitrary manner when applying the law. The validity of the law and the authority of the HRDB are not in question. The application of the law and the fair administration of the board's authority are.
Trey Jordan
Santa Fe
The Reporter welcomes original, signed letters to the editor. Letters (no more than 200 words) should refer to specific articles in the Reporter. They may be edited for clarity and space. Please include address and phone number for verification purposes; these will not be published.
