Historic Districts Review Board Meeting
Tue, Feb 10, 2026 · Historic Districts Review Board
https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/1160

== Executive Summary ==
The Historic Districts Review Board meeting covered a range of topics, including postponed agenda items, upcoming workshops, and code updates. A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to Case 532 Kaya Corvo, where the applicant sought approval for a substantial garage addition and other modifications to a historic residence. The board ultimately denied the garage addition and a window alteration for this property, citing concerns about its impact on the contributing status of the garage and the number of exceptions requested. 

Another contentious discussion involved a mural at 320 Peralta, which was painted without prior approval. The board debated its jurisdiction over murals, the definition of a mural versus a sign, and the precedent such an approval might set. A motion to approve the mural failed due to a tie vote. The board also approved an addition to the Frank Applegate House and a remodel at 424 San Antonio Street, while postponing a case due to the applicant's absence. The meeting concluded with a discussion about reconsidering a previous historic designation and the status of a mayoral appointment to the board.

== Key Decisions ==
- Amended agenda approved unanimously.
- Denied the request for the garage addition and the alteration to the window on the primary facade for 532 Kaya Corvo (Passed 5-0).
- Approved the application for the addition to the Frank Applegate House at 408 Camino del Monte Soul as submitted (Passed 5-0).
- Motion to approve the ADU at 645 Garcia Street with a minimum 1-inch radius bullnose failed (2 Yes, 3 No).
- Motion to approve the ADU at 645 Garcia Street on condition that the corners have bullnoses in the minimum amount of a 2.5-inch radius passed (3 Yes, 2 No).
- Motion to approve the mural at 320 Peralta failed due to a 2-2 tie vote (Member Cherry Saint recused).
- Motion to adopt staff's recommendation to deny the mural application failed due to a tie vote (2 Yes, 2 No).
- Approved the remodel application for 424 San Antonio Street as submitted, with the addition of replacing a non-historic window on the north facade with a historically appropriate one (Passed 5-0).
- Postponed the 302 Camino Cerito case due to the applicant's absence (Passed 5-0).
- Motion to place the reconsideration of the historic designation for 924 Po de Pra on the agenda for the next meeting passed unanimously (5 Yes).

== Motions & Votes ==
- Amended agenda approval — Passed unanimously (All members Aye)
- Denial of garage addition and window alteration for 532 Kaya Corvo — Passed 5-0
- Approval of addition to Frank Applegate House at 408 Camino del Monte Soul — Passed 5-0
- Motion to approve ADU at 645 Garcia Street with minimum 1-inch radius bullnose — Failed 2-3
- Motion to approve ADU at 645 Garcia Street with minimum 2.5-inch radius bullnose — Passed 3-2
- Motion to approve mural at 320 Peralta — Failed 2-2 (Member Cherry Saint recused)
- Motion to adopt staff's recommendation to deny mural application — Failed 2-2
- Approval of remodel for 424 San Antonio Street as submitted with window replacement — Passed 5-0
- Postponement of 302 Camino Cerito case — Passed 5-0
- Motion to place reconsideration of 924 Po de Pra historic designation on next agenda — Passed unanimously (5 Yes)
- Motion to adjourn the meeting — Passed unanimously

== Public Comment ==
Stephanie Beninato expressed disappointment that the City Council did not uphold the board's decision regarding window replacements on a Grant Street property, advocating for consistent application of the board's long-standing practice. She also expressed skepticism about the family's need for such a large expansion at 532 Kaya Corvo, suggesting alternatives and opposing the replacement of a garage door with a full-size window. For the 645 Garcia Street ADU, she advocated for a bullnose consistent with the area's average (3-6 inches) and suggested more south-facing openings. Regarding the 320 Peralta mural, she argued it was too startling and incongruous for the neighborhood. Other public comments included Elizabeth West praising the 532 Kaya Corvo proposal as a "sensitive attempt at infill" and Ms. Rivera highlighting conflicting city code language regarding murals, suggesting grandfathering the current mural until a formal policy is in place. Michael Blum, owner of 645 Garcia Street, emphasized the desire for harmony between the ADU and the main house. Stephanie Benato also praised the design for 424 San Antonio Street.

== Topics ==
- 532 Kaya Corvo Case
- Historic Districts Ordinance Code Update
- Reconsideration of 924 Po de Pra Decision
- Window Repair and Replacement Policy
- HDRB Workshop
- Agenda Changes
- Public Comment Procedures
- Awards Nomination Deadline
- Completed Projects List
- Obelis Special Governing Body Meeting
- Appeals Process
- Architect Appointment to Board
- PZR Requirement for Applications
- Meeting Roll Call
- Meeting Adjournment

== Full Transcript ==
Please let us know when we are streaming.

**Mariah:** We are live.

**Chair:** Good evening all and welcome to this meeting of the Historic Districts Review Board. The meeting is now called to order. May we have a roll call, please? Mariah.

**Mariah:** Yes, ma'am. Madame Chair, Rios.

**Chair:** Here.

**Mariah:** Vice Chair Benvanu.

**Vice Chair Benvanu:** Here.

**Mariah:** Member Beachide.

**Member Beachide:** Here.

**Mariah:** Member Cherry.

**Member Cherry:** Here.

**Mariah:** Member Agular Madrono.

**Member Agular Madrono:** Here.

**Mariah:** Member Dn.

**Member Dn:** Here. Madam Chair, you have a quorum.

**Chair:** Thank you, Mariah. Are there any changes to the agenda?

**Mariah:** Yes, Chair Rios. Under new business, under, let's see, item B, 2026-011831 HCRB 1489 Upper Canyon Road has been postponed, as well as item D, 2026-011825 HDRB, 619 West Alama.

**Chair:** Any other changes? No. Is there a motion to approve as just amended?

**Member:** Oh, sorry.

**Member:** A second.

**Chair:** Sorry. All those in favor say aye.

**Members:** Aye.

**Chair:** And oppose say no. We don't have any minutes on this agenda. We don't have any findings and conclusions. Any matters from the public? Anyone in this room wishing to address the board about anything that board related? It appears not. And what about anyone online?

**Mariah:** Yes, we do have the public that would like to speak. Stephanie Beninato. Stephanie, you may unmute.

**Stephanie Beninato:** Thank you. Can you hear me?

**Chair:** Yes.

**Stephanie Beninato:** Good. I wanted just to talk a little bit about windows. And I was sorry to see that the City Council did not uphold your decision on the windows at the large house on Grant Street, the one that had the 54 windows or more. And I think in part it was just poorly explained because it seemed to me that the window assessor's category of fair was one 30 to 40% degraded. That if there had just been the sticking to your practice, which has been in years and years that you've done this, if it's more than 40% degraded, you get to replace it. If it's less, then you repair it. And I understand that we have expertise on the board and about windows, but I think that sticking to that rule, that practice that you've been following for years, would help simplify things and keep it consistent and make it easier for the council to uphold your decisions. And I saw last week too, I just think it was kind of messy the whole discussion. And that again, sticking to your practice will make it a lot more, will make it easier for everybody to understand and perhaps window assessors will start understanding that they need to create categories that correspond to that, those percentages. Thank you.

**Chair:** Thank you. Anyone else online?

**Mariah:** Chair Rios.

**Chair:** Staff communications. Do you have something to communicate to us?

**Mariah:** Yes, Chair Rios. We'd like to remind the staff that we will be hosting a HCB workshop on 3/17 from 2:00 to 5:00 in the Council Chambers. I don't know if you received the email. I know Benu, Member Benu, cannot make it in the afternoon. We could get some suggestions when you all could make it. That'll be helpful. And then, reminder from Manda is just participate in the awards nomination. The deadline is February 27th, 2026. And then, we'll be sending along a list of projects that have been completed, their final inspections.

**Staff:** Correct. I'll get with Anthony, the inspector, to see which ones are completed.

**Chair:** You, Mr. Mo, question, should have asked you first here. Excuse me. I just wanted to make sure the date. Is it March or February 17th?

**Mariah:** The workshop is March 17th.

**Chair:** Thank you.

**Mariah:** From 2:00 to 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.

**Chair:** May change that.

**Mariah:** Yes. Also, tonight we'll either be using the old code or the new codes, but we'll let you know which ones are going to be used for presentation. Okay. And then on the next meeting on February 24th, there's going to be a special governing body meeting for the obelis. So, the start time will be at 6:00 instead of 5:30. We're hoping that we can start at 6:00, but cross our fingers. Okay. And that's all I have now.

**Chair:** Thank you.

**Heather:** Yes, Heather. Thank you. So, the effective date of the code update was January 1st, 2026. So, you will start seeing cases with new code references for 2026. And that incorporates the changes that were made to the ordinance minus the district standards. So, which will be entertained in phase two. So, we will email a PDF copy for you so that you can have a copy of the code at your fingertips as you're reviewing cases for future.

**Chair:** Thank you both. Anything else? We have nothing under old business, but we have six cases under new business. And the first case is located at 532 Kaya Corvo. And prior to starting that case, I do need to tell you that if you disagree with the decision that the board renders this evening, you do have the option to appeal. You'd be appealing to the City Council and I would suggest that you get together with staff and they can guide you through the appeals process. Also, I will limit public comment to two minutes and Mariah will help me with that. She'll just raise her hand or blow a whistle or something. Thank you. So, the first case is Paul's, but I understand Paul is not, is sick and who will be presenting?

**Heather:** I'll be presenting 530.

**Chair:** Okay. Thank you. You have the floor, Heather.

**Heather:** Thank you, Chair. The single-family residence, garage, and southern yard wall at 532 Kaya Corvo are designated as contributing to the Downtown and East Side Historic District. At a previous meeting, the HDRB designated the east facades of each structure, the single-family residence and then the garage, as primary facades. The site is approximately 0.16 of an acre and it was built in 1952 and comprises 1,638 square feet of main residence and a 368 square foot detached garage. The main residential structure and garage are designed in the Spanish Pueblo Revival design style and is observed through the construction material, the recessed doors and windows, the flat roof, and rounded parapets. This is an illustration of the existing north elevation. This elevation would be facing toward the abutting neighbor. And this elevation also includes the garage as well. So, which also has abuts the neighbor but shares a building with what was once a garage on the neighbor side. This is the elevation, the east elevation, the primary facade that was designated by the Historic District's Review Board. At that meeting, the HDRB excluded the windows because the windows that are in place now are non-historic windows. In the historic cultural properties inventory form, it was noted that previously there were steel casement windows in the openings. This is an illustration of the south elevation. And the yard wall itself is right on the property line. And you can see the windows are recessed significantly. And in 1995, there was an addition on the west elevation that was constructed. And on the right picture here, you can see that addition from 1995. It attaches to what was the smaller historic residence there at the intersection of the two, well, right underneath the patio there, as was the extent of the area of the addition. This is an illustration from 1958 of the house. And you can see here that the garage was detached. And prior to the addition of the back porch and deck, as well as the addition of that single-story addition that's on that west elevation. You can see the relationship to the street is similar to the relationship of other structures in the streetscape. Kaya Corvo was developed pretty much at the same time or over several years, but the architecture or the urban pattern is very different from what you would find in other areas of the East Side Historic District. And also the addition here in 1966, there is a presence of a primary bedroom addition. My goodness. So, I picked up this case. I will do some research and get back to you as to the addition's construction date because it's there 1966 and or maybe the applicant can help with that situation. And then for this is an illustration of the the Google Street View of the property. There used to be a wire fence around the the front of the property. An illustration of or a photograph of the garage. In addition is proposed on the left-hand side of the picture that'd be tucked back behind the garage structure itself. An exception is being requested to reduce the required setback on a contributing building from 10 feet to approximately 3 feet. And then there's also an exception that is being requested for the addition size to be greater. Typically, an addition and the preservation standards can only be 50% of the footprint of the historic building and in this particular case, it will be larger than the footprint of the the historic garage structure. We don't know if those two garage structures were built at the same time. So, for the purposes of the Historic Districts Ordinance, we're considering the garage itself, what's on the property as the building that's being judged for the historic preservation standards. And this is an illustration of the primary facades as well as the overall facade map. And you can see that the yard wall is more recent as evidenced by that Google Street View picture. And then, you know, the primary facades being highlighted in red, which are the, you know, front of the building and the front of the garage structure. And this is the site plan, the floor plan, which has been provided in your packet as well. And is on this floor plan, you can see the garage structure and it's a conversion and the overall square footages illustrating that the proposed addition is larger than the garage structure itself. And the elevations you can see with the windows that are reflected on the east facade, that being that primary facade. All windows that are proposed to be replaced are the same size with the exception of the window sort of at the center of the facade. Typically, according to historic preservation standards, evidence must be provided that if an opening were proposed to be reduced in size, that historically that opening was that size. So, we have collaborated with the applicant and we no evidence has been provided to date that that opening size was ever different from the opening that is currently there today. And the applicant is also on another primary facade proposing an infill. The garage door is proposed to be replaced with a window, a series of three windows and some panels below to communicate its original function. For the addition as well as for the changes to the primary facade on this structure, staff does not recommend approval. For the rest of the work, staff recommends approval pending. Getting additional information on that front window. And the different elevations are in your packet, can be found in your packet. And that concludes the staff presentation.

**Chair:** Thank you, Heather. So, is this a wholesale replacement of windows throughout the main residence?

**Heather:** Yes, Chair. That is correct.

**Chair:** And also doors.

**Heather:** That is correct. And in reference to the openings, openings are historic, but perhaps the windows are non-historic.

**Chair:** Yes, Chair, that is correct. As we visited the site today, the deep recesses are consistent throughout the entire building. The windows though are an anodized metal window which are not historic windows and so they were replaced at some point.

**Chair:** And they are proposing to be replaced with?

**Heather:** With wooden clad divided light windows.

**Chair:** Thank you. Any other questions? Member Beach.

**Member Beach:** Thank you, Madam Chair. Heather, when you're assessing the 50% of the historic footprint, whether or not it's greater than or less than that, are you, would you consider that like a 1966 addition to be part of the historic footprint or does it, is it referring to the original house if it, if that's known?

Chair Rios, member Beachside, in this particular case, the addition is to the garage itself. And so because they're two separate buildings, we take that calculation separately. So if an addition were being proposed to the main residence, then it would be 50% of the footprint of the existing footprint of the main residence, given the 1966 edition.

That's great. Thank you.

Any other questions? In reference to the exceptions, does staff feel that the applicant has met the exception criteria?

Chair Rios, with reference to the garage structure, staff does not recommend approval because staff feels that the exception criteria have not been met. With reference to the infill of the window on the primary facade, staff is seeking additional information from the applicant before making a recommendation.

Thank you. Applicant or applicants, please come forward and get sworn in. Hello. Will you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record.

John, you want to answer?

986.

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 very much, Chair. They've been sworn in.

Thank you. Evening, woman. My name is Al Salomony. I alone, youngest son, only joined us.

Thank you. If you'll raise that mic closer to your mouth, that would be...

Yes, ma'am.

I wanted to address the board in this instance and visit about the exceptions, principally about the garage exceptions that we requested. But first, I want to point out, we have maintained homes in New Mexico for over 23 years, during which we've never operated a vacation rental or had any type of accessory dwelling unit. During these years, we spent an enormous time in Santa Fe and grew to love the city and its history. So when the opportunity arose to purchase a home in Santa Fe, we were delighted. As we looked for a home in Santa Fe, it became clear that we did not want to live in a remote area, on an acreage in a gated neighborhood. As retirement approaches, we plan to spend our time here in Santa Fe, certainly including holidays and special events for children and grandchildren. We chose this location in Santa Fe due to its proximity to our adopted church, Crystal Gray, that we attended often. We also chose it due to the proximity to the art community, as my wife's an artist and was an art teacher to elementary children over the years, and due to the close-knit community. As an added benefit, the house is within hearing distance of the bells of the Cathedral Basilica of St. Francis, lies in the eastern shadow of the second tallest tree in Santa Fe County. For the past one and a half years, we've met almost all our neighbors around us in the close community. We've become great friends with many of them. We chose this house knowing it was too small for our family with the intent of adding a room, adding rooms for our three children, spouses, and our three grandchildren, one hopefully on the way. The house was non-contributing and had a detached garage that could be converted and enlarged to accommodate a house. So for reference, here was a picture of the house in 2014 before the second owner of the property bought it in 2015. The house came to our attention in 2024 through a longtime friend of ours that lives just down the street from us here in Santa Fe. Through friend connections in the Santa Fe community, we were able to purchase this house before it went on the market. Our friend resides in Santa Fe nine months out of the year and has introduced us to numerous people and organizations here in Santa Fe. We purchased this house in 2024 with the intent on making a positive impact in the community as we invest our time and resources in Santa Fe. We were introduced to John Padilla through our friends here in Santa Fe, purposely sought out experienced Santa Fe architect to assist us with our addition plans for the house by incorporating strictly historical elements. Plans focus on enlarging the house in a manner that incorporates historic Pueblo Revival style, which has been so well put on each side. 2016 to 2017, this house and property modified to its current condition by the second owners. The house work was completed by the second owners in 2007. Ashley improved the house and lot work was completed strictly, work completed strictly adhered to the architect Pueblo Revival style. The plan presented to you tonight incorporates many of the historically identified aspects of the Pueblo Revival architecture style seen in surrounding homes and neighborhood, and calls for the development of a backyard courtyard with east and west facing portals, new wall built east-west along the north property. Although already shielded from view by the existing wall, which will be removed, this new wall will completely shield the backyard from view and will also shield the garage from view. Coupled with our addition of our second bedroom that extends north, the backyard and garage will be out of public view. The south property wall adjacent. This is important in our quest to enlarge this garage. The south property line wall adjacent to the proposed addition is 8 and 1/2 feet tall. It runs 33 feet down to the southwest to the southwest corner. At the southwest corner of the property, the wall running north is 9 and 1/2 feet tall, 14 1/2 feet, and it drops to six feet and runs to the northwest corner of the property. This wall is unseen due to the 13-foot to 20-foot tall trees along the west property. To the north of the proposed addition, the backyard is bounded by the garage, a 10-foot 6-inch tall structure. As you can see, the proposed addition is shielded from view. Currently, the backyard hosts 11 mature trees. We developed the addition plan in such a manner so that only one tree will be required to be relocated. The 60-year-old apple tree. As you know, many of the homes in the north, let me back up. Let me, let me back up one and just get back about that. In this photo, this is the 8 and 1/2 foot wall, south side of the property, southwest corner, runs 14 1/2 feet north. Then the 6-foot wall runs behind the block. So, here's the trees that I just visited about. So, as you know, many of the homes in the neighborhood have garages that have been converted and added onto. This garage, which will not accommodate most modern cars, will be converted into a bedroom. The exceptions we are seeking are to place a south-facing door 7 feet west of the garage's south corner rather than 10, an exception to the 50, and additionally an exception to the 50% maximum allowable square footage addition to an existing structure. In this case, a detached garage. The location of the proposed door and garage addition are not publicly visible now and certainly will not be when the new east-west wall is constructed on the north property. Also, this bedroom addition will shield the garage. Regarding our exception request to exceed the square footage for a one-bedroom, one-bath addition, I want to point out the following. We're adding on to a 368 square foot detached garage, not a main dwelling. The garage sits on the far northwest corner of the lot. The 262 square foot exception request is for a much-needed bedroom and bathroom to accommodate our children and grandchildren. Again, the addition is completely hidden from public view, but will be built to architecturally and seamlessly blend in to the neighborhood. Most importantly, the building design landscaping will incorporate centuries-old elements of Santa Fe. Now attached here, I have some letters of support, but first I have to point out, we're celebrating a 100-year anniversary. Susan's father, grandfather, first came to Santa Fe in 1926. And here's his picture in the plaza. Of course, a couple grandkids moving around town. Susan and I, along with our family, chose Santa Fe as a location where we want to stay. It's our intent to move to Santa Fe and establish our family's presence for years to come. My desire is to see three ecstatic young ladies on pink bicycles break through Christmas bells enjoying the annual farolito. Thank you, guys. Let me, I will not go through this recap, discussed it, but I do want to point out some letters of recommendation. This first letter, and I'm sorry it's hard to read. I'll read it. It's from Miss Willow Howard, who is our south neighbor. As I have looked at the plans, I support your remodel and the two exceptions. One, one of adding a door 7 feet west of the southeast corner of the garage rather than 10 feet, and the other to exceed the 50% addition allowable to the existing garage, 262 square feet. Second, and notable letter came from our northern neighbors, and this is Susan Landram and David. I'm Susan Landram, I'm sorry, the new owner of 528, 530 Calle Corvo. My longtime partner, David Kazak Paloski, has lived at 528 Calle Corvo since 1990. Will continue living there after our own upcoming renovation. We have reviewed the modifications that Alex proposed. Not only do we support their changes, but we see them as inspiration for the western portion of our driveway transitions to our backyard. We fully support Salmon's request to convert their garage into a bedroom since it's been decades since we've seen it used. That garage adjoins a corresponding structure on our property. Itself was long ago converted from a garage into a studio. We also support their request exception allowing them to exceed the addition to that new bedroom. We agree with the Salmonys. Another exception allowing them to insert a door on the south-facing wall of that bedroom garage will give them and us more privacy. And I have a couple letters, I'm wearing you guys out, I know. But one is from a gentleman, his family's been in Santa Fe for seven years.

Sir, I'm going to interrupt you. I don't know how many more letters that you have.

Go through a bunch, but I'll, I'll save you.

So, they will be part of the record, but it's really not necessary for you to read every solitary word on it.

They will be part of the record. Save you from all the letters and support that we have from our neighbors and nearby friends living in the neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Thank you. I felt it was important for Mr. Ceremony to actually tell you why he wants, why he needs the addition. The Ceremonies will be residents, permanent residents here. It will be their primary residence. However, to be able to do that and to continue to reside in the historic district, it's important that they do remodel it to accommodate their family. As we all know, houses in the historic district over generations always were remodeled to accommodate the growth and the, and their family to, to be able to function in the spaces they have. So it's important to them with their larger family to be able to remodel the existing residence to be able to bring it up to date so that it serves their needs. It is also important for the larger family to be able to reside in, on, on the property with them instead of having to seek other accommodations in town, be it, you know, housing somewhere else, hotel, et cetera. So it's important that they do that. So therefore, it's imperative that we look at the possibility of expanding the garage. And that's what's before you tonight. The addition to the house, the main residence, the addition of another bed, of the bedroom, and actually creating, if we'll go to the floor plan, Heather, could you pull the floor plans up? Oh, certainly. It's, it's important to realize that this house was a very small footprint, as you saw in the, in the documents from the, the HICPY that was provided by Mr. Mur. So the addition that we are proposing allows them to truly have a living room, a dining room, a kitchen, a family room to allow the family to gather within the main residence, but also to modify the, the, the garage to expand the garage to provide them the accommodation they need for their children and for the grandchildren.

So it's important that they also secure the backyard so that the family functions can happen as they typically do in the backyard where they can gather. If we look at the floor plan, if we go to the main house, the window that is being proposed to change in dimension is reducing the height of the window because as you look in the existing plan, the kitchen and the dining room are literally side by side. The dining room is a small little alcove, which I really wouldn't call a dining room. It's basically a dining nook. The window is lower than the window in the kitchen. So, what we're wanting to do is to actually increase the size of the kitchen to be able to create a bigger footprint, therefore, also continuing the counter at the same level of the existing counter height, 36 inches across. So, it means reducing that existing window in the dining room by a few inches, and that's why we are proposing that and requesting an exception for that one window. Everything else, the existing openings, the historic openings, will remain the same. The historic openings will remain the same in depth, as well as width and height. So, the windows will be placed further back so that you still maintain the deep recess.

If we go to the garage, I mean, it's important that we get the additional bedrooms because we all know that when you have your children with you, the children's children need to have the accommodations also. So, it's important that we provide them some additional square footage. So, that's why we have, and as they said, specifically for the family, there's no desire, there's no intent to create additional income to use this as an Airbnb or short-term rental. There is no desire to do that. So, that's why we're seeing the addition of the bedroom and also the bathroom there so that it can be utilized by the family.

There is in the staff the main addition being 518 square feet. It's not 518 square feet. The addition is 444 square feet. The existing footprint is 360 square feet. So, if we're only allowed 50% of the historic footprint, we're 264 square feet larger than the 50% allowed. This request is one that we ask you to consider. We want to be able to allow the Salmonies to continue to reside for a long time in this residence, in this property, in the historic downtown and East Side, near the cathedral, near their church, which is Cristo Rey, near the elementary school, which is elementary school, and art teacher, very near and dear to their heart, to be in the neighborhood and continue to provide it. So, with that, I'd really request that the Historic Districts Review Board take the time, consider these options, and allow the Salmonies to continue to guide.

Thank you, John. Board members, at this point, do you have questions for Mr. Padilla or for the owner?

John, when you look down Calle Corvo and you're looking at the garage, your proposal, will it still identify as a garage?

Well, if you go to the site plan, the site plan is the best one to take a look at. So, if we go to the floor plan, you clearly understand what you see in the proposed plan. The dark line on the right is the CMU stucco wall that will be on the property line that will intersect the garage in the back. So, could you see the garage? Sure. If you were, what would that, if you were north and looking around and into our property? Yes, you would see the garage. You would not see the addition that's being proposed because of the fact of the bedroom that's being remodeled and added onto the north side obstructs that view. So, if you're standing directly in, you will see traces of the garage in the background.

And what is that door to the garage going to look like?

It will no longer be a door. If you go to the elevations, we're not proposing the door. The door was not listed as a historic door. It is the typical tilt-up door. It had some painting on it of multiple Pueblo scenes. There was no historic record of it as it being a significant artist that we're aware of. But what we would do is take that door, replace it with a window in the exact same opening. We wouldn't change the width, the height. We would respect the header that is there and we would take it to the floor. We actually had a proposal to shorten that height and have a wall that came up off the floor, but we went all the way down. We went to the floor to make it appear as if it was, not appear, but to look to be able to see the historic opening that was there, still defined by the width and the height of the door height below the header that exists. So, you would still read an opening, but it wouldn't be the historic garage door that was there. It would be an infill that we would be providing to provide additional light into that bedroom, which used to be the garage.

Thank you, John. Any other questions? Board members, Member Degen.

Thank you, Chair. Mr. Padilla, John, about that window replacing, you say the exact same measurements as the door of the garage. It's going to be a glass wall.

Madam Chair, Member Degen, yes, it is an infill of the garage. So, if you saw the door there, if you did a tour today, take that door off, leave the opening, and fill it with a window to provide light and air and circulation, air circulation into that bedroom conversion of the existing garage.

Well, thank you for that explanation, but I want to be clear that I understand this. It is going to be the size of the garage door, the window. Is that what you're saying?

The question is, is it the same dimension? Yes.

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Member Degen, the elevation is up, the garage and then the proposal. Okay. Yeah. Other members wishing to comment or ask a question? It appears not. Anyone in this audience wishing to comment on this particular project?

Elizabeth, please get sworn in.

Hello. Will you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record.

Elizabeth West, 318 Sena Street, Santa Fe.

Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury?

I do.

Thank you very much. I think this is an amazingly sensitive attempt at infill, and I salute the family and the architect for what they're trying to do here, and I'm therefore pretty positive about this. I'm trying in my current life here in Santa Fe to welcome infill, especially in the historic districts, that works as an inspiration, by the way, for other parts of town where they can look to what the historic districts are doing with infill. This strikes me as a pretty successful version of that approach. I guess I'm being motivated by the importance of considering our entire town. So, I'm working on how to approach it as one who also is very supportive of what our districts require. So, good luck with this. But I actually think this seems like a positive thing for me. Now, when people do say to be honest here, I also have a little thought in my mind that when we say, "Oh, we're not going to ever make this be an ADU or something," that could happen, and it still looks okay to me. I happen to be in favor of adding on places so family can be there, but I'm also in favor of owner-occupied ADUs and short-term rentals if need be. I have one, and I live on the property, and I believe in that. So, thank you very much. Those are my thinkings around this.

Thank you, Elizabeth. Is there anyone online that wishes to comment?

Yes, Chair Williams. Stephanie Beninato. Stephanie, please state your name and address for the record and prepare to be sworn.

Okay. Stephanie Beninato, PO Box 1601, Santa Fe 87504.

Thank you, Stephanie. 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, Chair. She's been sworn in.

So, I have a little bit different take on this. I'm kind of tired of hearing people how they've moved here and they want to tell you their whole life history and who they know and their family's going to be there, but their family's going to be there a couple of weeks a year, and in exchange for that, the whole historic ordinance should be accepted because their family needs a place to stay and they can't stay anywhere else. In terms of the garage, excuse me. If their neighbors are so wonderfully supportive, I'm wondering why they can't get a zero lot line agreement and push the addition back so it'll be at least 7 feet back from the primary facade. That would be one consideration or one suggestion I would make. I'm totally opposed to windows replacing the garage door. I think it needs to read like a garage, and there's certainly garage doors that have windows in them, and those windows could be opening windows.

Stephanie, I'm going to interrupt you for a little second.

Yeah.

In the past, we couldn't hear you very well, but now you are really loud.

Okay.

The volume a little bit.

I don't know if I can turn the, I can't find that right. But if I, am I a little bit further back? Is that a little better?

Yes.

Okay. So, I'm saying that I think the garage doors should read like garage doors, but that they could have opening windows at the top. There are definitely garage doors that have windows along the top. You could get light and you could get air, but still have it read that way. I think the setback needs to be more than 2 feet on that garage. And I do point out that in the house they've taken away one bedroom to make a big dining room. They have an office space. They have a family room and a very large second bedroom. And I don't begrudge them those things. But again, then to cry somehow that it's not enough or they need even more space and they need to go over the 50% rule and they can't set back enough. I just don't have a lot of sympathy or empathy for people who then will be inspiring others to ask for these exceptions as well.

Two minutes are up.

Okay. Thank you.

Anyone else online?

Chair, board members. Yes, Member Beachside.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question for staff and then a question for the applicant. I would be interested to know staff's opinion about whether or not the garage would lose its contributing status with this addition.

Arios. Member Beachside, certainly we've had historic garages have additions, but not to the degree, the size of the addition. So, in and of itself, the addition at a smaller size may be something that could be more sensitive to the historic building. The replacement windows for the garage door are problematic oftentimes. In fact, on this agenda, we're going to have a situation where the garage door is retained in place and then either it has some functionality so that there's doors behind it or it's just blocked off and it's accessed from a different location.

Thank you. And just a question for the applicant. There's three exceptions associated with the garage addition, and I wonder if you, or if it's possible on the site, did you think about constructing a separate building that's not attached to the garage in back of the house to sort of provide guest quarters that use the garage for a bedroom and maybe another building for whatever else is part of the floor plan?

Was that ever considered? I think that with that plan, you would avoid all exceptions.

>> The idea of an additional building. You brought that because we'd have to have additional bathrooms, additional best method to achieve our goal, but seek an exception. Okay. Thank you. Other questions or comments?

>> Member Petrono.

>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Before I get into my comments, I just want to make sure I'm understanding correctly the calculation for the main residence from staff. So, is the existing square footage 620 and then is the addition 421? But we're saying that minus 193 square feet from the portal that's there, that it's less than 50%. Can you kind of just walk me through that to make sure I understand it correctly?

>> Chair Rios, Member Aguilar Madrono, I'm going to have to take a look at the square footage as I picked up from Paul last.

>> Yeah. No, I can get back to you if you want to go ahead and proceed with.

>> Sure. Yeah, that would be great. So I will defer to that maybe towards the end of my comments. In general, I think this package, it's a lot, it's a lot of exceptions. And I think when you come, I appreciated your presentation. It sounds like you have a real love for Santa Fe, but I think when you come into a new community, I want to tread lightly, respect what's there. And this feels like a lot. It is a lot of exceptions. There are a lot of times where we hear cases where one exception is just being sought. So to hear this many, I know that you guys may not know that, but it is a lot.

I had some of the same observations about the footprint. We heard you say in your presentation that part of the remodel was because you really needed an additional bedroom. But the house does currently have a second bedroom, and it seems like the main house expansion is really due to the secondary living room, which is taking up quite a bit of square footage. So, that's why I wanted to ask staff to get a better understanding of where the main house stands in terms of that 50% threshold. I'm wondering if there are scenarios where maybe the main addition is a little more subtle, but you are able to do the garage because I understand that the garage isn't currently functional for modern-day vehicles. So, I just feel like so much of this district, these quaint small houses, that's what this district is. And I sympathize that it's not always optimal. My partner and I lived in a 700-foot house for 12 years. His father, just down the street from this, him and nine other siblings were raised in an 800-foot house. And so I just hate this trend now is that everything is getting bigger. And I fear in this district specifically that we're starting to lose the square footage of house, which was much more typical.

I definitely share, I would have a hard time finding an exception for replacing the historic material when you do have the window assessment that states that they are historic and that they had a category of either F or S, which means they would be repairable or in a condition that is usable. And I think other than that, I did want to ask staff if they had done a yard wall height calculation and then just have the applicant confirm what the new wall height, what the new wall looks like, the material, the radius, if it's going to match the color, just some more details on that wall. That's all, Madam Chair. Thank you.

>> Do you have those calculations? Chair Rios, I would like to confirm with the applicant on some of these things, but relative to the addition on the west elevation of the main property, there's an existing portal, sort of the overhang, as well as the deck. And all that would be enclosed. That's not historic. So, it would not be considered part of the historic footprint. So, but the applicant has stated that there is an addition to the historic footprint of 421 square feet, which is less than the 50% criteria.

>> What is the existing square footage?

>> The existing square footage is 1,619 square feet.

>> 1,000, I'm sorry, can you repeat that? 1,619.

>> Okay.

>> But that's, that's counting the addition as well, the current addition, right? Existing addition.

>> So the non-historic addition. So that is counting. So, as I was making my presentation, Chair Rios, Member Cherry, I noted that in the aerial, so it was a bit of a surprise to me that there is a 1966, the existing western elevation bump out, or that must be a room addition. Was there a 1966? So that is historic. The 1600 square feet is the 1966 addition and the original building.

>> No, the historic footprint is 1600 square feet. The original building, and maybe I can defer to Mr. Padilla to help with that one in terms of square footages, but the historic footprint includes that extra room.

>> Yeah, the 1966 addition.

>> But does not include the portal and.

>> Right. Yeah. Yeah. Madam Chair, the owner is 1300 square feet is the square footage without that back quartile.

>> Okay. If I may ask a question in the letter, you state the main residence has a historic footprint of 1619 square feet. So that is inclusive of the portal. And so we know the deck is not historic, but the portal itself, based on the materials, may be historic, although it's not shown in that 1966 picture. So I would defer to the applicant to maybe talk about when that was added by HFS. For the record, somewhere between 1966, a back bedroom is added in 1966. And they had a hotel for a covered patio built joining it on the north side. Second owners redid the decking, putting brick flooring on that covered pad, covered pad. Okay. Should I bring up the PowerPoint? Chair Rios, Member Sherry, one moment, let me bring up the PowerPoint because I think there is a covered porch that extends beyond the footprint, but it's sort of hard to tell whether it's a covered porch or deck. So let me pull up that 1966 photograph to maybe help. I'm looking at the historic cultural property inventory form. The other thing I can look at is we have some 1970s aerials that I can pull up while we're talking, and we can, I can get back to you. So, one moment.

>> Well, but it sounds like the proposed addition on the main house is under the 50%. So, it's.

>> Yes, it is less than 50%.

>> Yeah. So this, I think that's what the original question was, correct?

>> Right. 1300. So.

>> Yeah, I mean, not, it's not under by a lot or not, you know, but it is under.

>> Yeah.

>> But it's, yeah.

>> Yeah. So that answers the original question. So I guess my secondary follow-up to that was if there have been any scenarios where, I don't know, perhaps you don't have a second living room that would allow you to have another bedroom in the main house, since so many of the exceptions are with the garage.

>> Madam Chair.

>> Yes. Yes, John.

>> Member Aguilar Madrono, there are three exceptions for the garage. The main house has the one exception, which is for the changing of the dimension, the vertical height of the window in the existing dining room, what will be now the proposed expansion of the kitchen area. I know it's four, sounds like a lot, but there's three on one and one on the other. So it's still exceptions that are being requested. If nothing else, I will entertain a motion.

>> I have some, I have just a couple of comments based on absolutely what's been said. I guess I, when I look at this in the regard of preserving that building and how it relates to the neighborhood, I think the proposed addition to the garage makes it look completely different than how it reads right now. I also think something that's adding to that is the addition that's encroaching into the existing driveway. You know, you're losing that drive viewscape back toward the, what's now the garage. I think, me personally, I think that there's a lot of room behind the house to add on where it's, where it's non-primary facade areas. And whether or not there's, there's, my understanding is there's no plumbing in the garage right now. Is that correct? So, whether or not that, that, that, that addition was, or any work was done in the back of that property, it wouldn't, it's not dependent on being attached to that garage in order to have plumbing, would be my take. So without getting into a bunch of design options or trying to design by committee, I just think in general, retaining that scale and size of that house and the relationship the garage has is important to that property in my opinion. And that there's a lot of room back there for additions, additional space off the back that wouldn't require so many exceptions. Those are my, those are my comments.

>> Thank you, Member Cherry.

>> Madam Chair, Member. I mean, I take a little exception to the fact that the addition that is being proposed is called out as encroaching into the driveway. It is part of the development of the lot, which is part of the developable area that is available to the owners. We went through a number of scenarios. This was the best scenario that made the house function as far as the public part of the house and the private part of the house, the bedroom. So now it does function. And I think the idea of, well, you ought to put it in this spot and maybe it's better in another spot. I mean, we spent a lot of time working this out with the owners. We've spent five months waiting to get to this meeting. So, you know, there was, you know, we've had two postponements, one, you know, and none of them our fault. So, I mean, the owners, I mean, we've gone through this. We've looked at it. This works for them. This works for them to be able to reside at this residence. I really would ask that you take a look at it. And I understand there's exceptions. I understand that it's, it's, you know, the concern of setting precedents. I understand that, having been a member of the HDRB myself, I understand that, but I also understand in my years of being on the HDRB was also looking at the needs of the individuals and what it takes for them to function there. So, I'd ask that you take a look at that. It was also mentioned that these are historic windows. Well, if aluminum, aluminum sliders are historic windows with storm shutters on it that are, that are basically non-protecting or non-protective of the environment, interior environment of the house, I would really say that's a stretch to call those historic. We're replacing them in the exact same opening that was there except for the one. So, I'd ask that you, you know, give some consideration to my client's needs, my client's request. I think the idea of designing on the fly is not the right way to handle this. And we're, we're willing to work with, with the board as we may need to, but this is the design that they'd like to bring forward to consider. So, thank you.

>> Thank you, John.

>> Excuse me. Chairman Rios, just wanted to point out that the backyard is bounded by an 8 and a half foot wall to the south, 14 and a half foot southwest, headed north, 13 to 20 foot trees in the garage itself. This garage addition is completely out of view. You cannot see it in the road, won't be able to see it at all. So that was part of our design put together. This is very, thank you. Okay, board members, we have come to the time where I will entertain a motion.

>> Member Benu.

>> Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I'll go ahead and make a motion, just a few comments ahead of time. I think the issue here, and with all due respect and taking into consideration all the points that were made by the applicant, is that our job is to apply an ordinance. And the ordinance is pretty clear in this case. And the intent of the ordinance is also clear with respect to the status of the garage.

To me, the train sort of left the station once this garage was statused as contributing. That was not just the board decided that unanimously. It was staff's recommendation. It was your own historian's recommendation that that should be a contributing structure. That has very serious ramifications once that happens. As we all know, it doesn't mean that no changes can be made to a building. It does mean that those changes have to conform to specific requirements that are set forth in the code. And here, the very nature of what you're asking for is that there are three areas in which the desired changes to the garage don't conform with those requirements.

So, the question is, has the high burden been met of showing that all exception criteria have been satisfied in this case? For the reasons staff has set forth, I just don't think that we could reach that conclusion here. There clearly could be additional space attached to this very garage as long as it's still read as a garage and as long as there was a sufficient setback from the primary facade, as well as a small enough footprint not to exceed the 50% rule. So there is still work that could be done here that would preserve the contributing status. And that is the final element that I think is critical here: whether or not the status would be affected by granting the exception criteria. I think it's undeniable that the building would no longer have a contributing status because it would no longer read as a garage.

So, I'm sorry about that, but I do think that there are many opportunities for you to be able to achieve your goals with your property in other ways, if you're creative about how you use the garage and the backyard space, and perhaps even modifying some of the interior modifications that you're looking for. So with all of that background, I would move in 2025011246 HDRB at 532 Cay Corvo to deny the request with respect to the addition to the garage, finding that the exception criteria have not been met for all the reasons set forth in the staff report. I would find that the exception criteria have not been met for the alteration to the window on the primary facade, for the reasons that there's no hardship demonstrated for maintaining the historic opening, which is what the code requires. And that finding is subject to further evidence if the applicant wishes to present it that the historic opening is actually not historic. Otherwise, the application I would move to be approved as meeting all other requirements of the ordinance.

Eggman: Second.

Roll call vote, please.

Member Bianu: Yes.

Member Beach: Yes.

Member Cherry: Yes.

Member Aguular Madrono: Yes.

Member Dagnet: Yes.

The motion has passed. Chair.

Madam Chair, could I get clarification? Member Benvenu, a denial but saying that we have met criteria?

Well, I think that on the windows, he's okay in all the windows except the one window that was changed in size.

The opening.

Right, all of those have been on the garage. That was a denial on the garage that the exceptions have not been met.

I was just calling out the opening because that's the, as you pointed out, that was the only window modification that an exception was necessary for, and the motion found that the exception criteria for altering the opening had not been met. So the denial is basic, Madam Chair, Member Benu, the denial is basically a start over and submit from square one in my...

For the garage.

For the garage, but for the house, it was just that one opening. Other than that, he...

Clarification from staff: it is to start the process over for the garage design.

Yes, that is correct. The house itself, if the window size is maintained in that front window, then all of the changes have been approved. But with reference to the garage, that would have to be considered in another case.

Right. Otherwise, you would have wanted to have presented to us an interest in having your garage redesigned and postponed to a further day, which we didn't hear. Madam Chair, I didn't realize I could recommend what your motion could be.

No, it's not recommending what the motion is, but the only, all that was presented to us was to either approve or deny your plan. We didn't get any indication that you were willing to consider any alternative, which presumably you worked with staff on before you decided to request exceptions that staff recommended denial of.

John, as you know, you can resubmit in reference to the garage. Okay, thank you all. Next case is located at 408 Camino. Lenny, this is your case. Can you hear me? All right. This is case 2026 011829 HDRB for 408 Camino del Montesoul. Please note that this case was submitted at such time as to be under the purview of the 2026 Historic Districts Code from section 14-4.6. Six. Sorry, the computer froze. Give me one sec. Sorry, I have an error message. Give me just a second. Slide two. Okay.

The subject property sits at the intersection of Camino del Poente, Aia Madre, and Camino del Montesoul and has three effective street frontages. Camino del Poente is a short street that runs west of Camino del Montesoul and terminates at Ka La Pñena. The streetscape is lined with medium to high yard walls and coyote fences at each property. Residences along the streetscape are set back about 10 feet and are designed in Spanish Pueblo Revival style with medium to dark brown stucco and trim colors tend to be brown, white, bright, or blue. 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. I'm wanting to restart the program every time I try and change a slide. One moment.

Technical problems.

Yeah, it doesn't want to read the PowerPoint. Thank you. Okay. Next slide. Sorry. Along the Sea Madre streetscape, there are no yard walls on the north side and high yard walls on the south side. Buildings are set back about 10 feet from the street in the Spanish Pueblo Revival style with medium brown stucco and trim. There are a two-story residence and a single-story commercial building on the streetscape along A Seakia Madre. The Seakia Madre is lined with trees and vegetation in the residential yards to the south. The northern commercial property on A Secre has gravel and rock landscaping with sculptures on the interior of the sidewalk. Along Camino Delonte Soul to the north has two Spanish Pueblo Revival style structures, a vernacular style pitched roof structure, and two parking lots. To the south, residences have taller yard walls or coyote fencing along the street at the front property lines. There are some parking areas on the east side of the street. The buildings are a mix of Spanish Pueblo Revival and vernacular styles. The colors are medium brown stucco with either blue, white, or brown trim. I think we're ready for the next slide.

The structure at 408 Camino de Monte Soul, known as the Frank Applegate House, is a single-family residence located in the Downtown and East Side Historic District. The house is listed as contributing to the district. Primary facades are designated as the north and east facades, or facades 1 and 8 in the... I don't know that we're on the same slide. The house was built in 1924 and is constructed in the Spanish Pueblo Revival style. Among other houses on Camino del Montesoul, this subject property illustrates the inception of the Santa Fe style. A significant number of 20th-century artists lived and contributed to the style of the Camino del Montesoul streetscape. Among the artists contributing to the art and architecture of Santa Fe and the Camino de Montesoul neighborhood is the former owner of this house, Frank Applegate. According to the 1991 Historic Cultural Properties Inventory, the house was designed by John Gamin's architectural partner, Hugo Zer. Frank Applegate added the second floor in the 1920s. Aspects of the house that define the house's style include the cistode exterior, the battered walls and parapets, corner buttresses, and exposed lentils. The walls along the street frontages are non-contributing and non-historic, being constructed after 1983.

The applicant is proposing to remove the 75-square-foot lean-to shed on the southwest side of the residence and construct a 125-square-foot addition in that same location to replace the shed. The addition is on a non-primary facade and is not within 10 feet of that primary. The addition will be in the Spanish Pueblo Revival style to match the residence and will be constructed to a height of 10 feet, which is lower than the rest of the residence at 20 feet. The addition will be stuccoed in cementitious stucco to match the adobe residence's stucco. The addition will have an interior pedestrian door for access from the residence and a window on the south elevation. Recommendation: I'm not used to using paper. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed project and finds that the application complies with section 14-4.6 general design standards for all historic districts and 14-4.6 G2 for Downtown and East Side design standards. Thank you, Lanny. Any questions for Lenny? Looks like no questions. Applicant, would you come forward?

Hello, sir. Will you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record.

Christopher Pervvis, 180 Santa Fe Trail.

Thank you. 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?

We do.

Thank you, Madam Chair. He's been sworn in.

Chris, you have anything to add? Anything more to tell us?

Karen, no. Simple as we...

Any questions for Mr. Per? Anyone in this audience wanting to comment on this project? No one. Anyone online?

Yes, Sher Rio. Stephanie Beninato. Stephanie has been sworn, so please unmute and speak.

I have unmuted. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay. I hope I'm not too loud this time. I like the idea that they've taken down the shed and done something that's more in keeping with the house, but what seems to be overwhelming are the change in the windows. And I kind of wonder if there could be some kind of, I don't know, modification. I am assuming that's not visible from the street, but it just seems overwhelming glass. And all the same, and it, again, it's just kind of overwhelming. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else online?

No. Cheros.

Any comments? Any questions? It appears not. Motion, please.

I'll make a motion.

I'm sorry. I just want to clarify. There's no window changes on this building. I think you guys are looking at the wrong case. This is just the addition.

It's possibly because of Cherio's, with reference to the previous drawing, the previous elevation that was approved previously for the window replacement on the south facade. Madonna, did you want to make a motion?

In case number 2026-011829-HDRB at 408 Camino del Monte Soul, I move to approve the application as submitted.

Second roll call vote, please.

Member Benu: Yes.

Member Beach: Yes.

Member Cherry: Yes.

Member Aguular Madrono: Yes.

Member Dagnet: Yes.

The motion has passed. Chair.

Thank you. Thank you, Chris.

Next case is located at 64 Garcia. I see the applicants are here. And may we hear that case? Gary, you're presenting. Okay. So, I'm presenting for Paul. This is Paul's case.

And since he's out, we'll be presenting for him. Case number 2026-011832 HDRB 645 Garcia Street is located in the Downtown and East Side Historic District. Lot three, also known as 645 Garcia Street, is an open lot where a recently approved 3,680-square-foot structure was approved by the board in 2024. The lot is currently a construction site where the approved construction is taking place. The application is coming before the HRB for approval of a 657-square-foot structure to a height of 13 feet, with a maximum allowable height of 15 feet 10 inches.

[Technical difficulties]

Apparently, we're still having trouble. Just one moment. I'll pull it up. Okay. The applicant proposed the following exterior alterations: construct a 475-square-foot single-bedroom structure with a 144-square-foot patio and a 38-square-foot entry patio, comprising a total of 657 square feet of roof area. This is a slide of the proposed floor plan. You can see the structure on the bottom here, south side. This will be the north and east elevation, and the south and west elevation. Proposed project materials.

With that, staff recommends approval of the proposed project, in compliance with Section 14-4.6, General Design Standards for all Historic Districts, and 14-4.6 G2, Downtown and East Side Design Standards. Stands for question.

Chair: Thank you, Gary. Member Garano.

Member Garano: Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to ask my question early because staff might have to go digging. But I remember we spent a lot of time talking about the bullnose of the corners on the main residence, and I don't think we landed where we wanted to, but I feel like it was more than one inch, which is what this application is proposing. So, I was just going to see if staff could check our previous motion and see what that radius is that we agreed on.

Staff: I will do that research.

Chair: Okay. As I recall, it was one inch because staff had indicated to the applicant that one inch was correct, and I think that the board didn't want to go with a one-inch radius, but because staff had already told the applicant that one inch was okay, the board went along with that.

Staff: That is correct. The average that I did the calculation on was between three inches and six inches.

Chair: Thank you, Madam Chair. Were you completed with your questions? I didn't mean to jump in. Go ahead.

Member B: No, I thank you. I'm disappointed that it's one inch, especially now hearing what the calculations were. And now we're in the scenario of this is a new application, so we could have a larger radius, but then the guesthouse isn't going to match the main house, which would be odd too. So, what matches in Santa Fe?

Member Benu: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just want to make sure you were done. Yeah, I mean, I remember this history of this case pretty well, and it was a little convoluted, but I will disagree with the staff report. I know, Gary, that you, Director Makino, you didn't write it. But I don't think it's true to say it conforms with the design standards because we were essentially granting a quasi-exception for the main house in this particular case. And the reason for that was kind of an unfortunate series of events that took place where staff had originally indicated to the applicant that a one-inch bullnose would be adequate. The applicant wanted a sharp, even sharper than that, and that caused the staff to go and actually measure the bullnoses in the vicinity and then came back and said, "Well, actually, your bullnoses should be three to five, I think, or maybe three to six."

When it came then to us, the board took into account the fact that staff had previously advised the applicant that one inch would be acceptable and based solely on that, agreed in this particular structure to accept the one inch. But I was just reading in the packet, we actually have the board action letter, and it captures what I recall the board's comments were at the time, which was that the determination of the dimensions of a minimum of one-inch radius would be unique to the circumstances of the property, would not be considered in any way a precedent for what would be acceptable in this streetscape or district, or any other case to come before the board. So I do think this should be considered as a new case. I mean, it's very possible someone might argue, "Well, we should grant the same quasi-exception here that we granted the first time for purposes of having them match." But I do think that that would have to be the finding because I don't think it actually satisfies our standards as we understand them today. Would you agree with that?

Member of Emin: Yes, I agree.

Member Benu: And there was another lot that was across the driveway that came before us after that original termination, and I believe that we set a minimum radius for that structure. Do you recall what it was?

Member of Ebeneu: I think it was like three inches. I think it was...

Member Benu: Two and a half.

Member of Ebeneu: It was two and a half. Okay. So that's the history. That's all I have to add at this point in time.

Chair: Applicant or applicants, come forward.

Applicant: Hello.

Chair: Will you want to do that first? Please state your name and address for the record.

Applicant: My name is Graeme Hogan.

Chair: Thank you. 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, sir. You've been sworn in.

Applicant: Madam Chair, members of the board, thank you so much for allowing us to share our project with you. Thank you for your service as always. We are looking at adding a small casita to the lot at Woodman Woodmill Hill subdivision. So it's basically a small 25-foot by 19-foot by 11-foot tall block building that we're adding to the south side of the site. So you can see in the existing site plan, the existing house that was previously approved, that we sort of went back on some of the history, is down the hill here. It's a sloping site that goes from the south to the north. It slopes down. So we're looking at locating a casita on the uphill part of the site right here, which is down on the south end of the site. This is the overall site plan. So this is the area of work that we're looking at adding to the existing site.

To point out, there is a gate that comes down here that you may have noticed when we visited the site, but there are no publicly visible facades. This structure here will be completely blocked by the existing house that will be built here, even if you're standing at the gate back here. This is the floor plan. As was previously mentioned, there's basically a small one-bedroom structure that has a bedroom and a small little kitchenette on one end of it. And then we have a back bathroom and a small entry on the south side. So there'll be a covered portal entry on the south side here. And then there's a large recessed opening that opens to a small patio space out on the east side with a covered portal over that.

So these are elevations of the structure. This is on the south elevation. This is the main entry into the casita. So this would be the front door coming into it with the covered portal over the top of it. On the west elevation, that's the elevation with the big sliding glass. That'll be a sliding glass opening that opens out to a small little patio space that will also be a covered wooden trellis structure. And then on the west side, on the east elevation, we have two small windows. There's a small window out of the bathroom and a small window out of that entry foyer area, and that'll be pretty close to there. There's an eight-foot tall coyote fence just outside these windows here. And then the north, or the, yeah, the north elevation that's back down towards the house is really just a solid blank stucco wall.

So we are planning to design this and build this in the exact same character of the house. So we're looking at using the exact same stucco, all the same clear wood sidings. We're looking at, we do have a curved stone yard wall that we're looking at putting out on the along the west facade here that gives some containment to the patio space out here. And that will be the same local river stone that's around the community there and that we're using on the other projects in the Windhill subdivision. So, thank you again, and I guess I would open this up to any questions.

Chair: Are the lights not going to be divided?

Applicant: No, we aren't looking at dividing these lights.

Chair: No divide? No divisions? Is that what you said?

Applicant: No. Because we're trying to keep it consistent with the house that's down the hill. And as you may recall, we didn't do divided lights because there's no publicly visible parts to the house that's down the hill. In contrast to that, on the other house, you may recall, that's across from this, that's up on the hill, lot two, in the Windmill Hill subdivision, we did agree to do divided lights in that because we felt from that gate when you enter into the subdivision, that that facade actually is a little bit more visible from the gate when you enter in. So all those windows that you can see in lot two, we did agree to do divided lights on that. And as board Ben Venu mentioned, we are looking at doing two and a half inch bullnose on the lot two hill site, but we did keep the tighter bullnose on the lot three site. And since this casita is part of that lot, part of that house on lot three, we'd like to keep them in character with each other.

Chair: Other questions or comments? Board members.

Member Bman: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your presentation. Just a quick question. Can you just walk us through the detailing on the portals as you're calling them?

Applicant: Sure.

Member Bman: Of the dimensions of the lumber and exactly what's going on there. It's a little hard to tell from the drawings.

Applicant: Yeah, sure. It is a little hard. I apologize for that, but yeah, we're looking at doing clear, rough-sawn timbers. So there'll be 6x6 wood posts, and then we have some 4-inch by 12-inch wood beams that extend back to the house, and that'll have a covered lid on it, and we're looking to keep that a gravel surface on top. So that'll be the same roof that we're doing on the hill that's just down the hill from it. So we're keeping that consistent. We also have a covered trellis, you may remember, in the courtyard space of the house down the hill, and that all has the exact same detailing on it.

Member Bman: So it looks like the posts are doubled up, or is that, are they both, are they 6x6?

Applicant: They are. Yeah. So there's two, there's two 6x6 posts that run up, and then that captures a beam that runs right through the middle.

Member Bman: And are we looking at the header in the background? Is that...

Applicant: Yes, that is the header. So that's a, that's a wood header. So the deep windows that recess back in, that's, that's detailed with a wood header that goes over the top of it. So those beams for the portal there will go back and dye into that header. Yeah.

Chair: Other questions? Are we talking about the radius?

Member: We are. We have been.

Member: I just have a comment about the radius based on what's already been said. I think it seems as though just the circumstances are completely different, completely the opposite. If the quasi-exception, as you call it, or as it's has been called, was done because there was, you know, a promise made, so to speak, by staff that that hasn't occurred here. In fact, quite the opposite probably has. There's been quite a bit of direction toward with the examination of bullnoses regarding the other structures there.

There's been a lot of information presented for a larger bullnose prior to the application being made.

Mayor: Madam Chair,

Yes.

May we just add one more comment that's along these lines?

Carl, can I swear you in really quick? Carl, I think you need to get this one in. Will you please state your name and address for the record?

75.

Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury?

I do. Thank you very much. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt, but it's along the lines that you're talking about. I say this by way of background. Michael Blum is here. He's the owner. He and his wife own this property. They're doing all of the work on this, and you've seen them here before. I'm here on their behalf tonight, and I wanted to give some explanation because the board action has some language in it that Michael frankly has read in a way that perhaps you all disagree with. But it says on that board action to which member John Banu was referring, it says "this property." Michael and his wife understood that to mean, "Well, this property." It goes along with what Chairman Aguilar Medano said, and that is there's this tension.

Okay. So this structure, the main structure, has the 1-inch bullnose for the reasons that historically in the record, this property, this is part of that property. We read that as being part of this property. So that's why it's here. It's not a, we're not here on a "you must do this" or "you must do, you can't do that." We're here for the very reason that I think that you all consider. One, this property is not visible from anywhere. Two, when I say anywhere, anywhere public. And two, the issue of harmony for the owner is important, as the issue of harmony is for you all and the way you all look at it. I wanted to add that because it gives you a little context of why this design shows up. It isn't that we got direction, as member Cherry said, we didn't get direction a larger bullnose. We were interpreting the board's action in a particular way. I think that's important to your consideration as to why we're here with this application. That's the way that our clients read that board action. So, we stand for any questions specifically. If you have questions for Michael, that's fine as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Board members.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Quick question for staff. On the west elevation, it looks like we might be getting pretty close to 50%. Yeah, that bottom right one. Have we looked at the ratio of solid wall space to glass on this elevation? Member Madano, since this was Paul's case, I don't know the answer to that.

Chair: Member Aguilar Madano, there is a portal there. So there typically is a larger amount of opening that is permitted underneath the portal. So, although the overall proportions of glass to solid wall space are approaching 50%, I don't know what the calculation is. There is a portal there.

Okay. Okay. I thought the portal only meant that it didn't have to be divided light. I didn't realize that excluded it from that ratio.

Anything else?

No. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Anything else? Board members, I will ask for public comment. Oh, yes. Go ahead and get sworn in.

Yes, please state your name and address for the record.

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.

Sorry, me now.

Barely.

Okay. Hello. Okay. Madam Chair and board members, thank you for listening to our case tonight. We obviously discussed the history with this case, and going forward in lot two with this house, we really wanted to be in harmony and consistent with the house that's just 40 feet away. They are sort of looking at each other. There's no public visibility. They are behind this curved rock wall. With all of the other lots, lot two and the forthcoming lots, we totally respect and will do two and a half inch plus bullnoses as we discussed in the past hearing. We just thought that it was very important for the two houses as an accessory dwelling unit to match its main house since it is part of the same property. So thank you.

Thank you. Now I will ask for public comment. Anyone in this room wishing to comment? No. Anyone online?

Yes, Chair Rios. Stephanie Benach, who's previously been sworn. You may unmute.

Thank you, Stephanie Benonato. I would hope that you would require the kind of bullnose that has been calculated for the area. I understand that they want to match, but as one member pointed out, what does match in Santa Fe and a difference in bull-nosing is, I think, a very small difference in terms of the harmony of the two buildings to each other. But I think it does also kind of set a bad precedent. This is a new project. They didn't say when they came in before that, "Hey, we're going to build a guest unit and, you know, we're assuming we're going to get to do the same thing." This is a new project. I do believe the bullnoses should be done to what is found in the area, the average found in the area. I also am sorry that they're not taking more advantage of the south facing and putting more openings there. It seems also that the north facade, I know it's north, but to me it would be more aesthetically pleasing if it had a couple of small windows in there, also helping air circulation within the house since a lot of the openings are doors which are more difficult to keep open, say at night or when you're not there. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else online?

Board members, if you have nothing further, I will entertain a motion.

Commissioner, I'll preface my comments by saying that I think it's a little too late on this project to require it to go in a different direction. I think that for the same reason we wouldn't require divided light windows on this casita, we wouldn't because it harmonizes with the main house. I don't think a larger bullnose radius is going to change the fact that this is a very contemporary house, a casita that's going with a very contemporary main house. I think we expect the design details to match the main house, which they do, and this would be the one deviation. So, in case number 2026 011832 HDRB at 645 Garcia Street, I recommend, I move to approve the project as submitted with a minimum 1-inch radius bullnose as a condition. We'll hear a second.

Second.

You have a second. Roll call vote, please.

Member Penanu, no.

Member Beach, yes.

Member Cherry, yes.

Member Aguilera Madrono, no.

Member Dman, no.

The motion did not pass. Chair, I will entertain another motion. Go ahead.

Discussion perhaps.

Normally, if the staff had found that the average was 3 to 6 inches, I feel like I'd usually try to hit it in the middle. I don't know where the two and a half came from on the other property. I think that was just bargaining with the applicant at some point, and that's where we could get an agreement and get the project moving forward. But in this case, I would be willing to go on the lower end of the average at 3 inches, which is, but I don't see a reason to go with a two and a half if the staff has already made the effort to do that calculation and has come back with three to six. So, just for purposes of discussion, I would be fine with the two and a half just because this is, it's not a true compound, but this is a, it's three lots that are all being developed simultaneously. I think that there's reason for them to harmonize with each other. Since the board has already, for whatever reason, decided on 2 and 1/2 inches for a very close property structure, that in this particular case, I would go with that, especially since we haven't formalized yet some kind of a policy with respect to exactly how those neighborhood calculations are to be calculated as well as to be applied by the board. In fact, in the past, we've often just used the generic term bullnose or rounded corners. So, to me, 2 and 1/2 inches, especially given that there's a house on one side that's 1 inch, and then a house on another that's 2 and 1/2 inches, I would find two and a half to be acceptable in this case.

I know, and that's where I'm stuck. Visually, I want them all to match, but now we're past this point, and I feel like we are maybe correcting what happened last time. So I'm kind of of the mindset if we're going to do it the correct way, then staff has already given us a recommendation of the range.

I think that the staff had recommended 2 and 1/2 inches when that last case came before us. I can't guarantee that, but I don't think that was in opposition to staff's recommendation at the time.

Good. I'll make a comment.

Yes, member DNA. Maybe we get a clarification, Madam Chair, on the staff recommendation. Remember, Heather, was it or Gary, two and a half or was it three?

I don't recall that one either. So, that's, that was Paul's case as well, but I don't recall that one. I will do.

It would be a subtle difference in this case.

Thank you.

Do you have something, member chair?

Yeah, I guess I can kind of see both sides of the fence here, honestly. I, and it just illustrates the need for clarity because I don't think the two and a half came from a methodology of how we calculate bullnoses, like how we calculate heights of walls, right? We have a method for that. We have it's written in the code. This was a result of a one in particular case that they went out and did the research to come up with the two and a half inches. So it wasn't, it wasn't because the code directs that's how we determine a bullnose. So I don't personally really see it as a decision here either way as affecting a precedent necessarily. I think it's pertinent to this particular case, but we're noting that with this code update, we're going to try and create some clarity around a lot of things, including this. So, we have more clear direction on, you know,

With all that being said, I will entertain another motion, please.

I'll make a motion. Okay. Case 202611832 HDRB at 645 Garcia Street. I'll preface my comments by referring back to the board action. Although the word "circumstances" of this property is used in that board action form, which is prepared by staff after the fact, my own view from participating in that board action was that we were referring to the structures that were being, the structure that was being presented to us, and that we were limiting it to exactly the application as presented. So, it wasn't just the entire property that we had in mind of not setting a precedent for, but also, or not that we were allowing that for the entire property of the lot, but that we were allowing it for the specific structure that was presented to us because that's what staff had previously given guidance on. So, I do believe that this, you know, that the board at that time expressed a very clear understanding that its decision on the radius would not apply to future applications. In this case then, I would move that the application be approved on condition that the corners have bullnoses in the minimum amount of 2 and 1/2 inch radius.

We hear a second.
Yes, second.
Roll call vote.
Member Benu.
Yes.
Member Beachide, no.
Member Cherry, no.
Member Agular Madrono, no.
Member DNET, yes.
The motion has passed. Thank you, applicants. The next case is located at 320 Peralta. This is also Paul's case, but Gary will be presenting. Case number 2025-011418 HDRB 320 Peralta. The structure at 320 Peralta is constructed in the Spanish Pueblo Revival style and is currently serving as a short-term rental owned by Asad Orto Properties LLC. The structure is designated as non-contributing to the Downtown and East Side Historic District. Site plan showing the mural location. This property was cited in August of 2025 for the mural being painted on the building without approval. Murals are permitted in the historic district but must be reviewed and approved by the Historic District Review Board. A 2025 photograph of 320 Peralta. 2025 photograph of 320A showing the north and west elevation before the mural. It says the north elevation without the mural and the west photograph of 320 that showing the mural's north and west elevation. This will be the north elevation street side. This is the west, again, also visible from the street. Photo of 320 Peralta showing the mural's west elevation. With this being said, staff recommends denial of the proposed project and finds that the exception criteria have not been met for the exception requested to 14-5.2E1B exceeding a single color on exterior wall and 14-5.2E2E exceeding a single color on the facade. The application does not comply with section 14-5.2D general design standards for all historic districts and 14-5.2E Downtown and East Side standard. Staff stands for questions.

Thank you, Gary. Any questions for Gary? Looks like no questions right now. Applicant, could you come forward, please?

Hello. Will you please state your name and address for the record?

Charlotte Fox, 822 Camino Zobra.

Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury?

I do.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Good evening, Madame Chair Rios, respected members of the Historic Districts Review Board and staff, fellow Santa Feans. My name is Charlotte Fox, and I was born and raised here in Santa Fe. The city has always been home to me in every way that matters. I stand before you tonight with a full heart and deep humility to speak about the mural Orchard Sentinel at 320 Paseo de Peralta, a property that has been in my family for three generations and which we now operate as a small bed and breakfast in the business district. First and foremost, I want to offer my most sincere and heartfelt apology. When we commissioned and completed this mural, I truly did not know the property fell within the historic district boundaries. I had no intention of bypassing the rules or showing any disrespect to the board or the sacred work that you do to protect what makes Santa Fe extraordinary. I simply wanted to cover unsightly utility lines and power boxes while creating a warm, welcoming, and joyful entrance. I regret this oversight deeply, and I'm so grateful for the chance to stand here tonight and try to make it right. This property has been part of my family's story for three generations. My grandfather, Judge Robert Fox, and my father, attorney John Fox, both lived and worked here in Santa Fe, though not at this address. It has always been a quiet piece of our family's connection to this city. Today, as a single mother to three small children, I feel incredibly fortunate to be able to care for this place and help share a little piece of Santa Fe with visitors who come seeking the warmth and wonder we all feel here. To pay for the mural, I withdrew from an inherited IRA, paid the taxes in full, and put $13,000 into repairing the building and stucco, as well as $8,000 toward the artwork because I hoped it would add a small moment of beauty and welcome to our corner of town. The mural was painted by Wesa Barka, an artist who lived in New Mexico as a homeless youth and faced hardship here in our state. Through practicing his painting of murals, he found his way back, rediscovering his voice, his purpose, and his healing. He went on to found Genesis Mural Company and has spent years creating public art in Santa Fe, Albuquerque, and beyond. I'm sure you've seen another one of his murals at Beck and Bellow on Surios Road. Orchard Sentinel tries to honor the Tewa heritage of this land, our family's connection to Orchard Street, which was the name before, and the quiet, protective spirit of the fox. It covers an unsightly utility area and makes the property feel warmer and more inviting for the families who stay with us. This spring, we plan to keep going by planting hundreds of native plants and trees, continuing the work of caring for this little piece of our city, and leaving it better for everyone. I come before you tonight not to defend what I did wrong, but to ask for your understanding and grace. I am completely willing to make any changes, colors, placement, whatever is needed to bring the mural into full harmony with the standards. My children, our guests, and the community around us have already felt the small joy this piece brings. But I trust your judgment. Thank you for your time and for your dedication to keeping Santa Fe sacred and beautiful and for listening to me tonight. I love this city and its people more than I can express. And I want to be a part of keeping its spirit alive. Thank you.

Thank you. Board members, any questions for the applicant?

Yes, Cherry, I just have a comment. I'm going to abstain because I have a business relationship with someone involved in the property ownership.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a quick question for staff. Am I correct in understanding that any mural in this district would require an exception?

Rios, member Behide, there were two. It's difficult because the scale of the mural and the number of murals on the building led staff to request an exception. Not all murals. Typically, the Historic District Review Board reviews murals, had they had the opportunity to do so in advance, for compatibility, no impact to historic status of the building, and the like. So, because of the scale of the mural, staff determined that an exception would be appropriate in this case.

Okay. I just have a couple of comments, I guess. I think I've only seen one proposal for a mural come before the board in my time on the board, and it was denied because it was at quite a small intersection and it was right on the street. So I was reflecting back on that case when this one came before us and thinking that this one is on a much larger street, like one of the very largest streets, and it's set further away. I don't think a lot of people haven't even noticed it because I mentioned it to folks and they're like, "Oh, where is that?" So in that respect, I think that this is, I wish it had come before us initially, but I think it's a nice addition to a building that is otherwise sort of unadorned, and I don't think it's compromising any of the character of the building that's there. I also, you know, the mural that was on the building that's now the Vladem Museum was, you know, decried by the community and by the fact that we lost that. So I think the only way to sort of restore that part of the community's interest in public art is to encourage some additional ones in the city. And when they happen, and they happen by an artist with a connection to the city. I didn't know that part. I think that's quite lovely that a member of our community created this, which is consistent with what was on the Blatam as well. Just some comments of each other comments. DNA. This is a hard one because who doesn't like art and murals and who doesn't love Santa Fe? I actually, parenthetically, I'll just say for you, I'm really torn about this because I headed a nationwide public art program for the Smithsonian. So I'm devoted. However, you indicated that having been born and raised here, you were not aware that that was in the historic district. I don't know what to say about that because it seemed so obvious this number one historic district. But secondly, perhaps my opinion, if you had come to us and talked about it, it might have a different resolution. I'm just simply saying how I feel tonight, and I'm very regretful about the fact that I can't be enthusiastic. And one of the reasons is, and I feel like I owe that to you, is that, you know, what if somebody else in the next street and the next street and the next street start making murals everywhere? So I'm sorry, but I will be voting against it, and I just thought I owed it to you to say why. Thank you.

Any other comments? Member Ben Manu.

Thank you, Madam. Just for some clarity from staff, I'm trying to figure out exactly what our ordinance says about murals. So the staff report did have a citation to 14-5.210, which is an incomplete citation. I think that might be 14-5.2D10. And then I just want to make sure I understand exactly what that subsection says because it's a little different than the version I have in my binder.

Madame Chair and member Viven, that section of the code, which is correct, 14-5.2 subsection D subsection 10, sign applications and required submittals shall be reviewed by the Planning and Land Use Department. Approval or disapproval shall be indicated by the division on the application for the building permit and on each of the required submittals, all of which shall be signed by the division staff assigned to the review. The division shall report approvals and disapprovals to the board at its next regular meeting as an informational item. Murals may be referred to the City Arts Board for an advisory recommendation. Generally, the Historic District Review Board has not been called to review signs, but signs, there's a whole listing of qualities that creates a, that defines a sign. Like, for example, if a sign is mounted to the wall or mounted to the roof or lighted or hanging in the window and that sort of thing, a mural doesn't seem to meet the definition of signs. Generally, murals are referred to the City Arts Board advisory recommendation.

So, just for clarity, the staff report has different language when it, when it cites to that subsection. And I don't know why that is their last sentence. And this is on page nine of the staff report, is if a proposed mural does not meet the criteria in the historic ordinance, an exception is required. Whereas my version and your version that you just read does not include that sentence and instead it includes the sentence, murals may be referred to the City Arts Board for an advisory recommendation.

That may be the staff's interpretation. I, you know, I don't, I don't have that memo in front of me. I'm sorry.

Okay. Well, I just want to make sure that I know what the current law is, is all I'm really trying to get at.

So, you feel comfortable that the current ordinance reads the way you read it, that basically the only reference to murals in the ordinance that applies here specifically to murals, now I'm not talking about colors, is that murals may be referred to the City Arts Board for an advisory recommendation.

That is correct. In the Downtown and East Side Historic District, though, that's not the only reference to murals because there is the requirement that the walls all be one color.

And I'm looking at subsection E1A of the Historic Districts Code 14-5.2. That facades are flat, varied by inset portales, exterior portales, etc. I'm leaving out some language. Are frequently corn lintels, architraves, and cornices, as well as doors, are frequently carved, and the carving may be picked out with bright colors. All exterior walls of a building are painted alike. That's subsection B. Colors range from a light earth color to a dark earth color. The exception to this rule was in the protected space under portales or in church-derived designs, inset panels in a wall under the roof, in which case the roof overhangs the panel. These spaces may be painted white or a contrasting color or have mural decorations. That's subsection 14-5.2 E1B. And those are the specific design criteria for the Downtown and East Side Historic District.

Sorry about that. What was the reference to mural in that you just read? Where was that found again? Before the exception of the rule about exterior walls of a building being painted alike is the protected space under portal or in church-derived designs, inset panels in a wall under the roof, in which case the roof overhangs the panel. These spaces may be painted white or a contrasting color or have mural decorations.

Okay, good. And I know that Westside Guadalupe also specifically provides, unlike every other district, that murals may be permitted under certain circumstances. And again, referred to the City Arts Board for a recommendation. Odd that it's only in that district that that's called out. I mean, it makes sense, I guess, in a way. I'm just trying to really get a sense as to what our role is in all of this. First of all, I don't even know if this is a mural at this stage. I would question whether painting an virtually entire structure really still constitutes a mural. That's typically understood to be a more limited area, but I really don't know. So that would be a threshold question to determine whether this is a mural or this is just painting on the side of a building.

Well, I would have to acknowledge there's really not much guidance with respect to murals in the code. If I could look up, I could have just a moment. The task for phase two definition is related. It states a painting or other work of art executed directly on a wall. That's not in our code, but that's what we use. Okay.

So, but that's pretty generic and is very generic.

Yeah, because at some point that just overtakes the concept of what color a wall is. You could apply that to almost to get around the requirements of a wall color. Anyway, I think these are all super important questions from a philosophical level and for phase two because we really need to, the city really needs to have some really clear understanding of what murals we want to encourage and where there's clearly important history related to murals in the city of Santa Fe, including in some of our historic districts. So we really need to have a good understanding of when they're permitted and when they're not and how we go about approving them. And to me, probably the most important issue of approving a mural would be exactly what the mural is being approved. That's why you would want to have advanced notice, of course, because just deciding in the abstract that a mural is or isn't allowed just begs the, it doesn't answer any of the issues that we would obviously have, which is how is it going to affect the streetscape, what the colors are going to be, what it's depicting, how large is it, how much of the square footage of the facades is taking up. All those would be absolutely critical. And I think there's good reason why there's a suggestion that if the board is even going to consider any of those things, it probably might want to get the Arts Commission involved in that discussion as well. So the unfortunate thing here is this is coming to us after the fact. I appreciate everything you've had to say. I think you did a really nice job of explaining what your thinking was. I think there's some very nice aspects to this mural, but I do have to say I think that if this had come before us for pre-approval, I can't imagine any circumstance where this would have been approved by this board because it is such a very, very dramatic alteration of the building. It's so contrary to our specific standards in the district that would have to be overcome with a very high showing of artistic merit and some kind of proportionality to the amount of mural compared to the amount of building. And really, this would, I think we would have all agreed that this would really open up. It would be very hard to tell anybody in the district that they couldn't cover their buildings with similar very bright colored murals if this were to be permitted. I don't know how that wouldn't set a precedent for that. And that's, it's not that shy of setting precedents, it's just that that would seem to undercut the intention of the ordinance. So that's, it's unfortunate it's coming now after you've already spent the time and energy and money to have it done. But I do think that from my perspective, that can't overcome the fact that it's contrary to our ordinance.

So yes, thank you, Manager. I have one quick question of Mr. Rubileid Frank. The language indicates signs, colon, murals. I mean, the category, could this be construed as a sign because the Fox business is listed on a list nearby of who's in that development and this applicant's name is Fox. So could that be an ad, a sign for a business?

Madam Chair and Member Dnan, the signs code is quite long and signs are broken up according to...

Let me see here.

I don't wish to derail any...

What the staff has done. I was just asking that if you thought maybe that could qualify, but of course you're going to...

Well, short answer is no. Because...

Okay.

There are a whole listing of criteria what constitutes a sign. Is the sign raised off the wall? Is the sign hanging from a mount that is mounted to the wall? Is the sign hanging in the window? Is the sign mounted to the roof? The sidewalk is, you know, it's...

And this just does not fall into any of those criteria. But if I could look for one thing, there are prohibited signs and it's been a while since I've looked at this code because it just doesn't come before the...

Well, I don't mean to, again, I don't mean to derail. I mean, I think we should stay on our path. I was just asking that for information. Please do not dwell. I mean, that's okay. Sorry I asked.

Okay. But I think there is something that indicates that a sign cannot be, it's not a sign for it to be painted on the wall. Okay.

Oh, okay.

But it's been so long since I've looked at that. Okay. Wall signs.

Yeah.

Shall in no case exceed 20% of the area of the wall in which they're displayed or 80 square feet in sign area, whichever is less, even if the district permits a larger total sign area. There are just a lot of restrictions on wall signs. And...

Signs typically have lettering.

Usually. Thank you. Thank you.

Can I jump in for just a sec? There is a definition of signs in our ordinance and it is any blah, blah, blah, lots of things, but a demonstration or display used to advertise or promote the interests of any person when it is placed out of doors and in view of the general public.

Okay. There could clearly be a sign under that, but I don't know that that really...

Didn't my, there's another important couple of sentences here in the signs code. Madam Chair and Member Digman, they shall not project more than one foot from the wall which they are displayed. Wall signs shall not project over public property except where the building wall is less than one foot from the property line. And in case the sign may project up to one foot from the building wall, provided that does not impede or endanger pedestrian or vehicular traffic. It seems to indicate that a sign is something that projects from the wall.

No.

So, and this, this does not project from the wall.

This is on the wall. Clearly, if you wrote your name of your business on the wall, that's a sign. Under...

I don't even, I don't even know if that would meet the definition of signs.

Member Amano.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I didn't take this as a sign at all. I took it as, like you said, your family have been here for three generations and your last name is Fox and it's kind of like adding your stamp to, and meaning that in a positive way. I'm honestly very torn on this, partly because I don't know that we're the one that should be making the decision on this. I'm sure you've heard that I've never come across a mural while on this board. And I don't know that I feel prepared to evaluate a mural and determine if it's appropriate, you know, at a certain location. From the standpoint of the board, you know, we're confined by the standards in the code that, you know, we uphold, which makes me feel like our hands are tied in this situation. But again, I'm, I'm torn. I would, the only reason I'd even consider it is because it's on Paseo de Peralta. It's such a big street, not a very attractive street. I've always thought there have been a couple structures along this building that even I was surprised. I was like, "Oh, that's in the historic district," because it is kind of funny, like on the, on the cusp in a, in a few spots for me. So I don't know, like it, it feels like a lot to me right now, but I'm not used to looking at it. Like I could also see in, you know, years coming that it becomes the building that kids drive by and they're like, "There's the fox." And it really becomes part of the community and we are a community of artists. And I don't know if we're missing an opportunity to celebrate that here. And I love that, you know, you commissioned a local artist and gave us some of the history. So I'm just torn on this one. Like it, it feels uncomfortable to me, but I'm trying, like should we push past that and kind of embrace more placemaking where, you know, so many of the things around town, it's like we call things the White House, you know, well, white houses wouldn't be permitted now, but there are places around town that you get to know because they're anomalies. And I don't know, maybe this would be that in years to come. So I'm torn. I'm continuing to listen to the conversation, but just trying to be open-minded. So possibly the decision of this board this evening would be to refer this or get another opinion from the Arts Commission. I'm guessing that would be a possibility.

Yes, Chair, that is a possibility. And if I just may respond a moment. So in the Downtown East Side Historic District standards, typically murals are underneath portals. So that's, that's that criterion. And then the Arts Commission piece is if the H Board wants to get counsel from the commission and that's within the authority of the board. A sign, for instance, something that's painted on a wall. Historically, this happened where the business was advertised and it was painted on a wall. That was, that is considered a sign for the purposes of zoning, which is a separate, you know, vision from, from the Historic Preservation Division, but that would be interpreted as a sign for our purposes. So, but in this case, there's no lettering or anything. Also, just I might add that there might be an opportunity for a middle ground.

I don't know if the board feels like it's too much, but a portion thereof may not be. That is also an option that's available to the board.

Member: Thank you. I guess I would just say that I think any mural will be a departure from the typical streetscape. I think that's kind of the point, and we wouldn't, I don't think we would approve a whole, well, maybe we would, a whole street full of murals. But I mean, one here and there is kind of special, and I don't think there's anything offensive or any sort of statement being made, any sort of obvious meaning that would offend anyone or cause certain groups any concern. It's simply like a decoration. It's art. And I think we kind of have to decide if we're supportive of that kind of expression in the historic districts or not. I'm definitely in favor of it, and I think that the community has said in the past that they value these kind of things that we've lost, and I don't know how we get them back unless we allow them to appear in appropriate places in our town. Thank you.

Anybody else? Jerry Rios, can you make a comment?

I did do some research with the Arts Department in the past when it first came out, and I have talked to them, and they did say that something like this on a private property, they do not look into it unless you, the board, would like to get more information on it. They will look into it. But private properties, murals, they don't look into it.

The Arts Commission does not look at something?

Correct. On private properties, that's what I was told. So,

Well, that doesn't help us.

The Arts, I mean, it is certainly up to Cherios, the board, if there's a referral for technical advice or general advice from the Arts Commission. That's certainly permitted by code, but typically the Arts Commission's purview is public art. So, for instance, the Zozobra statue came to this board for review and was, you know, a presentation was made on it, but that is public art, not private art. And so, but they can be involved if it is the desire of the board.

And I'm sorry, Madam Chair, and, uh,

Yes.

Uh, there is one other thing I think I should, that we don't look at very often, but I think it has a bearing on the decision you need to make, and it is the section of the code that defines what the Historic District Review Board does. And it reads, this is 14-2.6 subsection C subsection 1, "HDRB, which will meet at least once a month unless there are no agenda items, etcetera, etcetera. The HDRB shall review and approve or deny all applications for new construction, exterior alteration, and demolition of structures, except signs in the historic districts, in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in other cross-references to other sections." So, it has been, as long as I've been the advisor to the Historic Preservation staff, it's always been assumed that signs are not something that HDRB has any jurisdiction over, right? So, if you decide it's a sign, I question whether or not this HD, you know, the board has,

Okay, this is not, okay, I'm going to open it up for public comment unless Member Dixon, did you have some?

Thank you. I'll try to be brief. Two things. We have to remember what our responsibility and our purview is. There's a reason the staff brought this to us this evening on a historic building in one of the significant historic districts of downtown. So, I just wanted to say that. And the other is pertinent to what you just read, Frank. I think we said we didn't think that this was a sign because there's no lettering in it. So, the sign part that you just wrote or read would not apply. Correct.

If you decide it's not a sign, then you could make a decision. If you decide it is a sign, then you wouldn't. Thank you, sir. Okay. Yes, the applicant wants to say something.

Just wanted to, I think where my confusion came in, because I did, I did research this before I commissioned the art piece. It was that the building that is, the mural is painted on, is non-contributing. And for some reason in my brain, I thought, okay, well, since this is an older or a newer part of the building, it was built in the, I don't know, eighties, that that's why it would be okay. And again, I do apologize. I never meant to step on anyone's toes or to go above anyone's heads. Thank you.

I am going to open it up for public comment. Ether, you need to get sworn.

Hi. Please state your name and address for the record.

PO Box 363, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Do you solemnly declare and affirm the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalty of perjury?

I do.

Thank you. She's been sworn. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Historic Board. I wanted to add some additional confusion language that I looked up today. And keep in mind, I do not do this as often as you all do. And when I went onto our code and I did some searching, the word "mural," of course, I was relegated to using the new code. Okay. And I just want to read out some comments here, and I know you will be interested in the context, but if you would just give me some grace here, and I hope I don't go over my time. On page 304 of the 14-4 code under A, it talks about the exterior materials. And in discussing the exterior materials, it talks about aluminum siding, metal panels, and it quotes, "Unstuccoed concrete shall not be used as an exterior wall material." It goes on to say, "The painting of buildings with a color that causes arresting or spectacular effects or with bold repetitive patterns or using buildings as signs is prohibited. Murals, however, are permitted and may be referred to the City Arts Board for an advisory recommendation." Doesn't say must, but it says may. Then I go on to another page, 306, and under that particular area, which I think we've discussed, the East Side, B, the exception to the rule where all buildings should be painted alike is under portals, which we've discussed. "These spaces may be painted white or a contrasting color or have mural decorations." So, we've heard that. And then on page 314, under another B, "The color of stuccoed buildings shall predominantly be brown, tan, local earth tones, and soft pastels. Surfaces of stone or brick shall be natural color. Entryways and portals or porches may be emphasized by the use of white or other colors. Paintings of buildings with the color that causes arresting or spectacular effects with bold repetitive patterns." Again, it says, "Murals, however, are permitted, and they may be referred to the City Arts Board for advisory recommendations." So, I know that doesn't help, but you get the tone from this code, or at least the language written here, that murals are permitted. It doesn't say which ones. It doesn't say what kind. And it doesn't give a process for any approvals. So, I do empathize with the applicant here tonight because we are in a chicken-egg situation, and unfortunately, it doesn't feel or hear or sound like we have a formalized policy. Of course, I'm going to recommend for future, the code, for chapter for phase two, we look at formalizing that policy, and we look at formalizing the policy not just for historic, for historic facades, but also the Arts Commission. When do they approve something? When do they not? And I agree, we, Santa Fe is Santa Fe and is typically supportive of artistic designs. Just for reference, I drive by that street every day, multiple times during the day. And I too was surprised one day when the mural appeared. It's a nice mural. It doesn't affect me negatively. I do agree that opening up would set a precedent that maybe others would follow suit. But on the other side of the coin, in Westside Guadalupe, we have murals that have been vandalized, and we cannot get commitment from the city to change them because the city says we want the mural that way. So, there is a lot of confusion about murals. I don't believe it's yours to solve. I might recommend allowing a grandfather for this mural until we do have an official policy in place that one can actually make an approval of. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in this audience wishing to comment?

No one.

Madam Chair, and Ms. Rivera, thank you for your comments, but I do think that Ms. Rivera may have been reading from the section of the code that applies to the Westside Guadalupe Historic District, because under the new code, which is, and there are a lot of subsections under subsections in the new code, but under subsection five capital I A and B that parallels the language that Ms. Rivera just read, as well as in the existing code 14-5.2 subsection I one B, I think that's where that language is found.

I thought that what she read and what you read earlier were the same thing.

That's what I, I read from the Downtown and East Side Historic District standards.

In reference to what could be painted under portales.

Yes.

And, and it said murals are accepted.

And thank you for sharing that. I guess my message is what I did not read is that it is, approval is required by the Historic Board or approval is required by the Arts Commission. The words are "may" and "shall be asked for a recommendation." So, I just go with that, that I did not read anything about an approval process, and that's why I'm making that appeal today.

Thank you.

Harriet,

Yes.

We do have one person online that would like to speak, previously sworn, Stephanie Benato. Mute.

Yeah. Can you hear me? Because I could hardly hear you.

Yes.

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay. And I hope I have a little grace period as well. But I want to remind you that the mural at the, what is now the Vladam, was done by a very well-known Chicano artist. It was earth, it was groundbreaking, and it was about Chicano history. And you actually did approve a mural on Pojoaque de Peralta, same size street as the one that you're looking at now. It's on the north side of Pojoaque in the 1400 block. It was a gallery. They never actually painted that mural because I think they decided that the liability was great, that if somebody stopped on the blind curve and somebody ran into them because they were trying to take a photo, that perhaps their liability would be great. And I think this too is on a curve and could cause the same kind of problem. I think what you really need to look at, and I agree with Ms. Dagum and with Mr. Benue's comments, is that really this is not under a portal. It is almost the entire surface of the building. It is not in harmony with the streetscape, and the applicant has actually indicated that she would be willing to do something about that mural if you decide that it is inappropriate. And again, having lived, you know, having owned the property for three generations, having lived here all her life, again, contributing, non-contributing, it would have been smart to have called up the Historic Preservation Division and asked some questions before this very, very large, arresting mural was put in. And to me, it's just a way of helping people find Airbnbs. And I think it's a very bad precedent because even though you say, "Oh, but it's the only one, and isn't it, you know, charming, whatever." Then why does that one get to happen and no others on that street? And I just think it would really lead to a lot of problems. So, I'm asking that you have the applicant remove the mural. Maybe keep like the feathers or something like that, but everything else go away and let it be brown like it's supposed to be or some other earth color. Or she could build the portal, and some of it could be some mural parts could be under the mural, but not the whole thing.

Again, I just find it to be too startling, too incongruous for that neighborhood. And whether it's a wide street, not a wide street, again, people are going to start stopping to take photos and it's going to be a problem. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else?

No, Chair. Okay, board members, we will entertain a motion. Member B.

I'll attempt a motion. In case number 202511418 HDRB at 320 Paya de Peralta, I move to approve the application, noting that the exception criteria have been met as follows. With respect to criteria number one, "do not damage the character of the district," I find that the presence of a mural actually adds character to Paya de Peralta, a street that is largely without character in this section of the streetscape currently. With respect to criteria number two, "prevent a hardship to the applicant or an injury to the public welfare," I would assert that this actually prevents the hardship associated with the unattractive exposed utility lines that are on the building. Otherwise, this provides a remedy for that. And with respect to criteria number three, "strengthen the unique heterogeneous character of the city by providing a full range of design options," I would assert that it expands the diversity on a non-contributing building and with this sort of nominal impact on the street as a whole, a single mural actually adds some interest.

We'll do here a second. Madron will second.

Roll call vote.

Member Benu.

No.

Member Beachside.

Yes.

Member Cherry Saint.

I recused myself.

Okay. Member Ekler Madrono.

Yes.

Member DNET.

No.

We have a tie, Chair.

I like direction from the Arts Commission and the it dies, the motion dies. Well, so she can vote in the case of a tie. And so at this point, if there's no vote, but you want something different, then the motion dies for a lack of positive vote, I believe.

That is correct.

We don't have a majority.

See how it's going to change.

So, can we refer to the Arts Commission? Does that have to be in a formal motion? That would have to be in the form of the bush.

Madam Chair, may I ask our attorney what happened there? I mean, I know what happened. Can you explain so I can hear it? What does this mean?

Well, it means it fails for lack of majority.

Then next, what happens? Nothing.

Well, then somebody else can make another motion.

Sure, but that one is done. Okay.

That's right. Yes.

Sorry.

Thank you, Chair. Sorry to interrupt, but did we just, I think we just heard from staff that the Arts Commission does not hear residential projects. Is that right?

But no, but I also heard that you could get some kind of advice.

Correct.

Yes, that is correct. I don't know. I'm just really sorry that you didn't come forward prior. I think you're sorry and I'm really sorry that you didn't come forward. I just say, and Madam Chair, I'm reading the section that applies to the Arts Commission now to see if there's any guidance. The purpose of the subsection is to promote, encourage private and public programs to further the development and public awareness of. Right. Yeah. My understanding is it's purely advisory.

It's back at my shoulders.

There are funds from the Art and Public Places fund, which doesn't apply here. That's a difficult one for me because when I think of murals, especially in this town, I always think of something that would be connected culturally to, even though you indicated that it was the artist who connected this culturally to themselves. Usually the murals in this town are usually depicted of, oh, maybe for instance, some kind of home life or people that are within the community, persons. And I don't know, when I see this, I think that the artist is a wonderful artist. I think that he's a good artist, but I don't know. I just, I have to vote, I'd have to vote in the negative on this.

Is that a vote?

Is that a, I just think they want a clear record. Yes, it is.

I'll make a motion. Is 2025011418 HDRB 320 pass. I move to adopt staff's recommended findings as to the exception criteria not having been met and deny the application as recommended by staff and for the reasons discussed tonight. Second call.

Member Benu.

Yes.

Member Beach.

No.

Member Agular Madron.

No.

Member Dagnet.

Yes.

We have a tie.

Yes. You do have the option to appeal to the City Council or is the other option just to stuck over it? Okay, understood. Thank you.

Thank you. Sorry. Next case is located at 424 San Antonio Street. Okay, sorry about that. Okay, so this is case 2026 011824 HDRB for 424 San Antonio Street for a remodel. Please note that this case was submitted at such time as to be under the purview of the 2026 Historic Districts Code from Section 14-4.6. San Antonio Street is a rural feeling dead-end lane. It was developed in the 1920s over former farmland. The street remains unpaved and without sidewalks. The first several hundred feet of the west side contains a sequence of territorial and Pueblo Revival houses set back from the road and visually unified by a nearly continuous line of yard walls and fencing. The houses tend to be light to medium brown stucco with wider turquoise trim color. The yard walls all have landscaping including trees that shade the area. Typical driveway access is to the side of the residence with a garage set back behind the residence. Sitting near the center of the lot, the small Pueblo Revival style residence is one of four houses constructed by the Denius Hutton family along San Antonio Street. It was constructed around 1931 primarily of Adobe and features an inset portal centered on the front east-facing facade. A frame addition was constructed in 1995 on the southwest corner. The single-story residence has a flat roof, parapets, and is stuccoed in cementitious buckskin. The windows are older wood casement windows that are inset by about 14 inches with top-mounted projecting steel hinges with large exposed wood window hinges. In front of each window is a wood frame that once held screens and now holds metal storm units. The doors are wood with lights above panels. All windows and doors have divided lights. The front porch tall has an exposed Vega ceiling and is ornamented with corbels. The west end of the north elevation holds a single VGA projection. The west elevation holds the 1995 edition which stands out from the rest of the house due to a window inset of only 4 inches, a smoother wall plane, and more modern doors and windows. A 362 square foot single vehicle garage was constructed to the northwest corner of the lawn around the same time as the residence. The garage is constructed of Adobe and finished in stucco that matches the residence. The garage door is a white carriage style door. The south elevation houses a single window and a post-1978 edition of a utility room. There are no other fenestrations. A low 21-inch high Adobe wall topped with a white picket fence with four-sided conical tops that raise the height by another 21 inches sits on the east property line. The picket fence turns to run along the driveway. The property status was reviewed on January 13, 2026 under case 25-011703 HDRB. The residence was designated as contributing and the southeast and north elevations as primary. The garage was designated as contributing with the east elevation as primary and the yard wall excluding the picket fence was designated as contributing. The applicant proposes the following exterior alterations. On the main residence, they'd like to replace all aluminum storm windows on the exterior of each window with wood storm windows. That's a total of 14 windows. And repair the windows themselves that are inside of those storm windows. They would like to replace windows I, J, and K on the 1995 edition with wood-clad windows with aluminum interior in white. They'd like to install a double door labeled as item H on the north elevation of the 1995 edition. The door will be true divided light in white. Redesign the landing and staircase at the north entry door and redesign the landing and stairs at the north entry door on the 1995 edition. Install two ground-mounted HVAC compressors on the west of the building and stucco in cementitious stucco with color to match the existing. So these are some of the elevations here. This is the north existing and proposed, the east existing and proposed, west existing and proposed, and then the south on the garage. They would like to construct a 50 square foot addition on the south elevation. The addition is greater than 10 feet back from the primary east facade and will be an extension of the existing shed addition. They would like to replace the interior door located behind the existing vehicle door with a double door. Rehabilitate the existing vehicle doors on the east elevation, which is the primary facade, and stucco and cementitious stucco again to match the existing. On the property, they would like to construct a freestanding 121 foot wood pergola to a height of 10 feet to the west of the residence. And it will be stained in brown. Construct a 6-foot high coyote fencing on the south between the property line and the 1995 edition and on the north between the garage and residence at the driveway. The north fence will hold a matching coyote pedestrian gate. Construct two 6-foot high coyote fences to screen the HVAC units, repair the existing picket fence and yard wall on the east side of the property, and repair the existing coyote fences on the west and north property lines. Staff recommends approval of the proposed project and finds that the application complies with Section 14-4.6, 6 general design standards for all historic districts and 14-4.6G2 for downtown and east side design standards. Thank you, Lanny. Any questions for Lanny? Not at this time, Chris. Madam Chair, any questions for Chris?

Yes. There's a modern window on the north, I think it's the north facade next to the door that you're not replacing that window or are you guys leaving it or right? Okay. I mean, it just struck me because it's a modern window and it doesn't have divided light or the whole house has a divided light. So, it would make the building more in keeping with the historic nature of the building if it read as either if it was a replicated window of the regular or of the other windows that are in the building or.

Well, that was going to be my next question was, do you have any like historical reference or are there any old photographs of that facade that show something else there? Okay. Okay. So, can I ask a couple of questions about that? Would you be willing to make, to make a window that was the construction type of the existing windows that are in there? Yeah. Yeah. And then would you, would you want to also add a window where the panel is now or? Gotcha. Okay. I mean, I think it's a good idea to replicate a window in keeping with the style and dimensions of the windows that are in there. Meaning, I know it's not the same dimension, but the, you know, the more or less light dimensions of it and the type of construction. I would, I would be in favor of adding a window that or replacing that window with a window that that match the construction of the other windows.

Okay, thanks. Member Benu.

Madam Chair, I totally agree on the window. It's a good point and thank you for being open to that. I just wanted to also say thank you for maintaining the garage doors and that is really a significant, you know, process to go through here and significant choice to make and I know you, I'm sure you may have had to even talk a client into it.

I don't know the background, but that's what we love to see. I think it's just fantastic that you're maintaining the readability of that as a garage. So, I appreciate that.

Anything else?

And Chris, none of the fancy is going to come way forward in this project, correct? And anyone in this audience wishing to comment? Nobody. Anybody online? My apologies. Stephanie Benato. Previously sworn, you may.

Well, it's really hard to hear some of you. I could hardly hear you, and I can hardly hear Ms. Lamboy too. I just want to say that I believe that this has been done. The design is very well done, and I too appreciate that the garage doors are still reading as garage doors, and that I hope they're not like the ones on a Sec Madre where they rolled back and pretty much disappeared because there was a glass behind them, but that they are actually being maintained and a wall is being built behind them. Thank you.

Thank you. No one else.

Yeah, Chair. Motion please, Member Chair.

In case 2026-01184 HTRB at 424 San Antonio Street, I would move to approve the application as submitted with the addition to allow the replacement of the non-historic window on the north facade with a window with similar construction of the windows and divided light of the windows in the rest of the historic part of the structure.

Second.

Roll call vote. Member Bianu.

Yes.

Member Beachide.

Yes.

Member Cherry.

Yes.

Member Aguiler Madrono.

Yes.

Member Dagnet.

Yes.

The motion has passed. Chair.

Thank you. Thank you, Chris. And the last case is 302 Camino Cerito. But is the applicant here or applicants online? There's only somebody who's Robin 505. Is that the applicant to Cometo? If so, raise your hand.

No hand is...

Okay. The applicant is not here. Is there a motion to postpone this case to a future date?

Motion to postpone. Second.

Roll call vote please.

Member Bianu.

Yes.

Member Beach.

Yes.

Member Cherry.

Yes.

Member Aguular Madrono.

Member DNET.

Yes.

The motion has passed. Chair.

Thank you. Discussion items. Heather was made after the last hearing, in which I could not attend because I was attending a conflicting meeting. And it was regarding 924 Pacio Peralta. And at that meeting, I reviewed the recording. There was a determination that the original historic main residence, which is a two-story portion of the building right now, that is known as the Nambay building, but would become a different name. I can't remember it, but that portion would be significant, and the other portion would be contributing. And for the purposes of historic preservation and the enforcement of the ordinance, it's very difficult to have two designations on one building. That's why we have the contributing with primary facades. That's why we have notations of things like we exclude non-historic windows, but we can also include certain factors relative to its significance and everything like that. So, the applicant did not feel like they had enough certainty in the path forward and came to me. It is certainly up to the board, and especially those who made the motion and seconded it, to consider whether a reconsideration of that vote is something that you want to do. If there is a reconsideration, because this is the immediate board meeting after, then it would have to go for another hearing. So another hearing would be scheduled if the choice was to reconsider it. But certainly that is up to you all. I don't know if as part of a discussion whether you want to talk about that or put that in the code update or what, but that's I just wanted to offer that.

May I ask a question? What are... Can you outline briefly the difficulties with having that designation, the way the motion was made? I believe I made the motion.

Chair, Member Cherry. So, if it were two different buildings, that's pretty straightforward, but it is one building which evolved over time, and I think we've acknowledged its evolution. But I understand the reasons why. I actually agree that that portion of the building is something that's to be treasured and preserved. And so, but it's just a matter of the mechanics of administering the historic districts ordinance.

So it's an administrative difficulty to have it statused that way.

Yes. And the framework and the code is such that there's designations of significant or contributing or non-contributing.

Right. Because we...

And so that's my concern.

Okay. I understand. Any other comments? Remember that you do that.

I can be done. Yeah.

Okay. Yeah. So, it sounded... I guess I would want to know whether we needed to reconsider or not. We... I need a little more information about what the difficulties are. And it sounds like from your preamble that it was the applicant that felt came to you because they thought this designation made it impossible for them or difficult for them to know how to proceed. But it's not clear to me why that would be, because literally every facade now has a designation.

But what kind of... So the issue is, is it significant or is it contributing? Is the question.

But how would I... I'm trying to imagine what... how that question, the answer to that question, would impact anything the applicant would want to do. That's what I don't get. No, the context of the conversation was not what they wanted to do, but they wanted to plan, figure out what to do. So, and I think clearly there was direction in there. I think there was clear direction in there that that was appropriate. It's just the mechanics of...

Well, that's... that's why I'm just trying to focus on the mechanics just to understand if it makes a difference to anybody, because otherwise, I mean, the alternative would have been to designate the whole building as contributing and designate all the facades of the wrap building is the word you were looking for, and the facades of what we called contributing first time and designated as primary, primary. And then you'd end up, to me, you end up in the exact same place. Or there's another alternative, which would be to designate the entire structure as significant, but that would be even more, you know, extreme than what we already did.

But, but what I was going to say is then, then with non-historic, you know, additions or facades, which has been done in the past too. So,

Because I'm just bringing this up, not... I'm not debating it so much as I just want to know how mechanically, you know, the way we did it could impact how staff would review a future application or how the applicant understands what they can and can't do. And it just doesn't seem to me it really does, because these primary facades are the same as they would be otherwise. And that's what determines what they can and can't do. Well, exactly that. So, primary facades, there's four of them on a significant building or all of them.

All of them. Right.

Right. And in the contributing building, it acknowledges that there have been changes over time, and but those primary facades are treated the same way in a contributing building as they are in a significant building in terms of our review. So, but to call one building both significant and contributing is problematic because the code says it's either significant or contributing or non-contributing. It's... so it... the building is one thing. It's not multiple.

So, is there a time...

Just to finish my thought, I mean, this is useful, but the guidance we got at the meeting was very different. It was that, no, you're completely entitled to designate one building, parts of it as significant and other parts as contributing. So, we relied on that, and it was said also that it's been done in the past. So, is there a timeline on this in sort of finding a fact conclusions of law if we were to go back and say, want to change that decision?

There would be another hearing. So the motion would be reconsidered, and then we would schedule another hearing to discuss it again. It would be denovo.

Madam Chair, up in this. Okay.

May I have a... to reconsider? Who is it? Heather, is it to reconsider? Wait. Let me see. Yeah. One question while they're talking. Is there a time limit on reconsideration? Does it have to be done tonight? It has to be done at this meeting.

Oh, so we...

Consider the next meeting after. Okay.

That's what I needed to know.

And can I ask one more question? Do I still have the floor? Do you... are you as the land use director recommending that we reconsider?

I... I mean, I think the answer is... I think the answer is yes, from what you've said, even if you're not making a formal recommendation, because you're saying that the way the board handled it, you don't think is consistent with what the ordinance...

The ordinance reads, and I'm looking at this particular case, there was a portion that was built at the front. So you're talking about 725 Penny Road. So the example that was used... I'll move to reconsider. Is there a second?

A second.

Roll call vote. Did we... I'm sorry, but my advice is we can't proceed just yet.

Cannot. Okay.

All right. Can you... All right.

Sure.

You're going to tell us.

Well, because I believe that it may be... it may be in disregard for the Open Meetings Act.

Right. It needs to be on the agenda. All right. Okay. So if could we pause for just...

Absolutely. Absolutely. Go ahead.

You want to resend your motion?

Well, just leave it sitting there, but it will be withdrawn. Believe me, if you... if you determine that we should not be doing this,

I... I believe you can vote to place it on the agenda, and then it is posted to the agenda. I mean,

Well, but Frank, are you saying it would get posted to... What would the motion look like?

Motion to place it on the agenda for reconsideration.

I move to place it on the agenda for reconsideration.

And were you on the prevailing vote? It has to be made by somebody who prevailed in the last.

Okay. Still.

Oh, I... Yeah, I would... I would still second that. But I do have a... I do have a question. So, is it being placed for reconsideration, or at the next meeting, are we going to discuss reconsideration?

It's to place it on the agenda. Yes. To discuss reconsideration at the next meeting.

Right. So, the applicant would be here, and it would be... it would be actually reconsidered. Not we're not just discussing whether or not we're going to reconsider it.

Got it.

Yeah. Okay.

Considered.

Oh, I don't think so. Is that right? I don't think so. I think that we actually reconsidering it at the same time, or we're just moving as to whether or not it will be reconsidered. We did this once before. I thought it was a two-step process. Another meeting...

At the same meeting.

A whole another meeting. So the applicant wouldn't be at the meeting to reconsider. That would just be an agenda item where we're discussing reconsideration.

I think we've moved to reconsider in one meeting, and then we had it reconsidered at subsequent.

That's how I interpreted your motion and how I interpreted what I heard. But now I've heard...

But you know what? Whatever you decide is fine with us.

Really?

Will you tell us what to do so we can go home?

Okay. Whatever you decide is...

Madam Chair, Member BMV, Member DNA, I think that you can vote to place it on the agenda for reconsideration. So moved.

Okay. And then...

Second.

He's already seconded it.

Yeah.

Clarification. So replacing it on the agenda for reconsideration.

So next time we vote on the reconsideration, whether to reconsider, right? Yeah, you vote whether to reconsider the previous address that we discussed.

Okay.

Was 710 Canyon Road.

Okay. Restate the motion.

Sorry.

I'd move that this matter be placed on the agenda for the next meeting for reconsideration.

Second.

I would indicate the address at least.

What's the address?

No, it's 929 P. Is that right?

924 Po de Pra.

To be clear, that motion means that we'll be making a decision at the next meeting regarding that.

No, we'll just be reconsidering it.

Why wait? Why can't we do it?

Okay.

Okay.

Well, it's under Robert's Rules of Order and the Open Meetings Act.

Oh, well, you know, it was on the agenda for determination of the building's historic status. You made that decision, and now the public is entitled to notice that essentially you may abandon that decision. That makes perfect sense. Yeah. Yeah.

Thank you.

Member Benu.

Yes.

Member Beach. Member Cherry.

Yes.

Member Aguilar Madron.

Yes.

Member DNET.

Yes.

The motion has passed. Chairs from the board.

Sorry. Yes.

Three seconds.

It's a question. Are the applicants for additions required to have a PZR prior to bringing the case here? And is that to, should we expect to see that in the packet?

Yes, it should go in the packet.

I don't think I saw one for the Cuervo. Is it Cuervo tonight? I didn't see a PZR in there. I did for other.

There was one. I can look in our files. I just wanted to know really what the expectation is. Got several folders here. So I'm just.

KZR was obtained. It just wasn't, didn't make it to the packet.

Okay. But we should, we should be expecting to see one in the packet for everything or just new construction?

Or everything that involves an expansion of the footprint or any zoning criteria that would be impacted. So for instance, if a new canal was put on a facade, that would not require because that doesn't increase the footprint or anything like that. But for other projects, then, you know, like a resco doesn't require PZR.

Or windows, but for additions, fences, walls.

Correct.

Well, anything, anything that requires zoning review?

Yes.

Okay. Thanks.

Anything else?

All right. Just one quick question. First off, is there any progress being made on the mayor's appointment of an architect to the board?

Good question. So, I did forward along Joe Simmons's name to Mayor Garcia. So, and he said he's doing a whole analysis of all the vacant positions and all the boards and commissions in the city. I don't know if he was planning on doing this. I haven't heard from him, but he does have the recommendation for Mr. Simmons. For purposely we're not doing it, Jennifer, so you could, Jennifer, we purposely were not doing it so you could continue on the board.

So you won't leave us. It's been raised several times by members of the community and I know it's not in our control, but yeah, just I know people are curious.

Recommendation to Mayor Weber was made back in July. I know it's been, we've been through two mayors now. Yeah.

It's been going on and on and on. It's going to happen. Okay, our next meeting is February 24th. And do I hear a motion to adjourn?

Move to second.

All those in favor say woohoo. Woohoo. Woohoo.