Historic Districts Review Board Meeting Tue, Apr 14, 2026 · Historic Districts Review Board https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/1162 == Executive Summary == The Historic Districts Review Board (HDRB) welcomed a new member, Joe Simmons, and addressed several key items. A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to a proposed large addition to a historic house at 515 Paseo de Peralta, which ultimately failed to gain approval due to concerns about its scale overwhelming the original structure. The board also postponed a residential development application to allow for subcommittee review and approved the historic status and primary facade designations for several commercial and residential properties. Another major discussion point involved a new residential building at 425 Camino Don Miguel, which was approved with conditions related to window and door placement on publicly visible facades. Throughout the meeting, there was an ongoing dialogue about interpreting design standards, particularly regarding the definition of 'publicly visible' and the 'three-foot rule' for openings near corners. Concerns from the public and board members highlighted the balance between new development, historic preservation, and neighborhood impact. == Key Decisions == - Amended agenda approved unanimously. - Motion to approve the application for 515 Paseo de Peralta as submitted failed (2 Yes, 4 No). - Motion to deny the application for 515 Paseo de Peralta passed, requesting a redesign. - Residential development application (unnamed address) postponed to a date certain (5 Yes, 1 No). - 1121 Paseo de Peralta maintained contributing status with north and west facades designated primary (unanimous). - 1123 Paseo de Peralta maintained contributing status with north and east facades designated primary; shed and rear yard walls designated non-contributing (unanimous). - 216 Maynard A & B designated as contributing buildings. Unit A primary facades: East #1, South #2, #3, #4, #5, North #11. Unit B primary facade: East #1 (excluding non-historic material). - 640 Camino de Lalo's status upgraded to 'contributing.' Facades one, five, eight, and nine designated as primary, excluding facades ten and eleven, with an amendment to exclude non-historic materials on all designated primary facades. - 728 Agua Fria Street, Unit F, maintained 'non-contributing' status. - Application for 425 Camino Don Miguel approved with conditions (unanimous). == Motions & Votes == - Amended agenda — Passed (unanimous 'Aye'). - Motion to approve 515 Paseo de Peralta as submitted — Failed (2 Yes, 4 No). - Motion to deny 515 Paseo de Peralta, requesting redesign — Passed. - Motion to postpone residential development application (unnamed address) to a date certain — Passed (5 Yes, 1 No). - Motion to maintain contributing status for 1121 Paseo de Peralta with specific primary facades — Passed (unanimous 6 Yes). - Motion to maintain contributing status for 1123 Paseo de Peralta with specific primary facades and designate non-contributing elements — Passed (unanimous 6 Yes). - Motion to designate 216 Maynard A & B as contributing buildings with specific primary facades — Passed. - Motion to upgrade 640 Camino de Lalo to 'contributing' status and designate specific primary facades (excluding non-historic materials) — Passed. - Motion to maintain 728 Agua Fria Street, Unit F, as 'non-contributing' — Passed. - Motion to approve 425 Camino Don Miguel with conditions — Passed (unanimous). == Public Comment == Public comments included appreciation for the board's work and the new member. Concerns were raised about vague remarks at a City Council meeting regarding a potential 'revamping' or 'reorganization' of the HDRB, urging investigation. For specific projects, neighbors expressed concerns about building height, potential water runoff, and the scale of proposed additions impacting the character of historic properties and neighborhood enjoyment. There was also support for projects seen as sensitive infill development. == Topics == - Carport Construction 927 Canyon Road - Public Visibility Interpretation - New Board Member Welcome - Agenda Changes and Approval - Window Dimension Flexibility - City Council Reorganization Concerns - Awards and Field Trips - Public Comment Procedures - Meeting Adjournment - Subcommittee Tasks - Roll Call and Quorum - Appeal Process == Full Transcript == "Please let us know when we are live." "We are live." "Good evening, everyone, and welcome to this meeting of the Historic Districts Review Board. Today is April 14th, 2026, and this meeting is now called to order. May we have a roll call, please?" "Madam Chair Rios." "Here." "Vice Chair Benu." "Here." "Member Beach." "Here." "Member Cherry." "Here." "Member Simmons." "Here." "Member Dagnen." "Here." "Member Aguilera Madano." "Here." "You have a quorum, Chair." "Thank you very much. I would like to welcome our new board member, who is an architect, Joe Simmons. Joe, welcome to the board. Could you tell us a little bit about yourself and why you're interested in being on the board, in a nutshell, because we have a lot of cases tonight?" "There we go. Am I on there? Yeah. Okay. I'm an architect. I went to UNM, got my architecture degree. I moved to Denver when I was 26 and started a practice in 1984, which I still have. I've done quite a number of historic type projects, from real technical rehabilitations to additions to new buildings in historic districts. I moved back to Santa Fe five years ago. I built my own house in the Guadalupe neighborhood. I'm an active member with the AIA, and when this position came up and didn't seem to be filled, I thought, 'Well, I know how to do this,' so I'm throwing my hat in the ring." "Joe, again, welcome. I'm sure you'll be a contributing member to this board." "Thank you." "We're glad you're here. Any changes to the agenda from staff?" "Yes, Chair Rios. So we have under new business, item F, 2026-012127 HCRB 1379 SGO Road will be postponed until the next hearing, April 28th." "So that's postponed?" "Correct." "And also, any other changes?" "No, Chair Rios." "I'd like to make a change. I'm going to suggest that case I, which is located at 515 Peralta, be moved to the top of new business, if that is okay with everyone. That is a significant house, and I thought that we should, in every case, give it all our attention, but because it's significant, I thought we should move it up to the top of the agenda. If there are no other changes, is there a motion to approve the agenda as just amended?" "So moved." "Second." "And all those in favor say 'Aye'." "Aye." "Say 'No'." "We do not have any minutes this time around, nor do we have any findings and conclusions. Matters from the public. If there is anyone in this room that wishes to come forward to the podium and express anything having to do with the H board matters, you may come forward at this point. Yay. No one here. Oh no, Elizabeth, sit down. Just kidding. Oh yes, please speak into that mic. And everyone in this room, when you come to the podium, just speak right into the mic so we can all hear you." "And it's a very pale green until it's really green. We want it to be really green. Anyway, I just took pity on you all of you because I knew you wanted me to say something, and I would like to say that I really appreciate the hard work you do. It's just incredible, and welcome to the new person. It'll be fun to see how you deal with preservation. Lucky for all of us. Okay, thank you." "And thank you, Elizabeth, for being involved. Anyone on Zoom?" "Yes, Chair Rios. Stephanie Benonato. Stephanie, you should be able to unmute." "Okay. Can you hear me?" "Yes." "Okay, great. I am a little concerned about what I heard at City Council the other night. I don't remember if it was Amanda Chavez or Par Faulkner, maybe it was even somebody else, but they were talking in terms of the larger reorganization of the city. They were actually talking about reorganizing or revamping the H board, and they were not specific about that. But it seemed to me that that was a very specific board that they wanted to target, whereas the other actual reorganization was just moving departments around and renaming them and putting them in a different order. This was seemingly a much more substantive proposal that was vague and non-specific, but I would hope that the board would check into that and see what was really meant by that remark, those remarks, because I think it was really disturbing that in this reorganization, suddenly they would target just this board, and they weren't waiting for the second phase to change the law, the way you make decisions, but seemingly to revamp the board in totality. So, I just wanted to alert you to that. Thank you." "Thank you, Stephanie. Anyone else online?" "No, Chair Rios." "Thank you. Staff communications, do we have anything?" "Rios, yes. Sorry, somebody just raised their hand. Chris Corbett, if you could please speak. Okay, you're unmuted. Thank you." "Yeah, I'm just wanted to let you know I'm here. I wasn't sure if I was signed in or not." "Oh, my apologies. Are you here for a case?" "Yeah, for the 728 Agua Fria." "Oh, okay. Yes, raise your hand when that case is being heard. And I'll watch for it, too." "Thank you." "Thank you." "Staff communications." "No, Chair Rios. Staff promised to send the board a list of projects that have been completed for possible nominations for awards, and we have not received that. We kindly request that. And in the past, what we have done is actually go on a field trip for those once they're nominated, if there's more than one nomination. But anyway, if you could send those, and if people will fill out those forms and give us the dates again." "Give us the dates." "Thank you, Chair Rios. That is, I believe, May 21st for the awards, and on the 28th, you will field trip for the properties that are going to be up for nomination." "And Amanda, I think you were the one that indicated that you would send us that list." "Yes, Madam Chair. Okay, it is coming. Thank you. Thank you very much. We'll move on to old business. We have one case under old business. I do want to tell this audience that if you are a person that is not related to the case, but you are from public comment, you will be, I will limit you to two minutes to speak. And also, if you disagree with the decision that the board renders this evening, you do have the option to appeal. It would be appealing to the City Council, and I would suggest that you get together with staff because there are time constraints, and you want to make sure that you follow that, otherwise your case will not be heard. Also, could somebody please move this board so that we can see it? Thank you, ladies. And I hope that it is going to show the two-minute limit as they have before. If not, Mariah, I'm going to ask you to help. If they do not, please." "So under old business, we have case 2025-011228, located at 927 Canyon Road. And is that applicant here?" "Yes, he is." "Here. And that is your case, Lenny. Can we show the presentation, please? While we're waiting, I also want to say that this is the last board meeting, correct, that this young lady to my left is going to be attending. And I want to thank her very much for serving on this board. She has been an outstanding member. Again, we'll find out in about two seconds here. There we go. Okay. Sorry about that. So, this is case 2025-011228 HDRB for 927 Canyon Road for the construction of a carport on a non-contributing property in the Downtown and East Side Historic District. Show my home. Okay, Mr. IT guy, sir, can you make sure that the two minutes are showing on the screen? Thank you. Yes. Thank you." "Okay, he's going to make it full screen, but I'm going to go ahead and continue, if that's okay. So, the applicant is proposing to construct a 576 square foot carport addition to a height of 10 feet, where the maximum allowable is 18 feet. The carport will be located on the existing concrete parking pad, but is no longer attached to the existing Northport tall roof in the southeast corner. This design change is not mentioned in the staff report, so I apologize, but the carport will be open on all four sides. The framing will be painted light brown, and the roof will be TPO in tan. And just as a reminder, the applicant did come before the board on October 28th, and the decision of the board was to postpone his case for a redesign to take into consideration the character of the streetscape and the prominent placement of the publicly visible structure. The board also recommended that the applicant meet with the building division to make sure that the design will meet the engineering requirements and meet with the terrain management team to ensure that the slope of the roof meets the drainage requirements and to see if any ponding is required for the additional roof coverage. The applicant is currently discussing that design with both the terrain management team and the building division, and the applicant has submitted new design recommended by the board. The applicant has complied with the board's request and redesigned the carport to match several that have been approved by the board in the district. And so this is his design here. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed project and finds the application complies with section 14-5.2D general design standards and 14-5.2E Downtown and East Side design standards. I just note that that's the old code since his application's been in process. Somebody on the board asked at the where this particular image came from. I wasn't able to confirm, but he states that it was, there's several of these throughout the district. And this one he said Camino or something like that, principle or something like that, when he comes forward. So if you can confirm with that, I stand for questions at this point. It appears not. Applicant, will you please come forward and get sworn in?" "Hello. Will you please?" "Hello. Good evening. My name is Joseph Gonzalez." "Joseph. Hi. Right here." "Right over here. Hi. Will you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record." "Gonzalez, 927 Canyon Road. 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." "Good evening, Mr. Gonzalez. Do you have anything further to add to what staff just told us? Do you have anything more to add to what staff just told us? Agree with what they?" "This is going to have corbels and it's basically just four posts and a roof, but we did change the first design. It was basically the same thing other than it was just flat. It's still going to be a flat roof, but I guess the board thought it was too simple and they wanted more character to it. So, yes, we're adding, we added the corbels and then in this photo, it has the carved, I don't know what you call them, posts." "Is that what you're suggesting for yours as well?" "That's what we propose. Yes." "Board members, do you have any questions? It appears that they do not have any questions. Any? Oh. Member Benu." "Thank you, Madam Chair. I wasn't at the last board meeting, and it's always tricky when I know that some of the members of the board give some advice on what they would like to see. I don't recall seeing the original proposal, but if it's the case that the proposal that you're making now is your attempt to make the structure more interesting, which it sounds like you felt was your takeaway." "Yes." "From the last meeting. It, as I say, it's always, it's a little problematic when that happens because of course you're kind of shooting in the dark to figure out what the board is looking for." Exactly. And I hate to say, but in my view, maybe you overshot the mark slightly, because I think it's pretty heavily carved, the post that you're proposing, which is extremely common in Taos, for example. It's a lot less common in Santa Fe and almost not seen at all in older houses in Santa Fe. So, given that you were probably doing that because you thought that was what the board wanted to see, would you be willing to pull that back a little bit? Well, my original was with the 8-inch post, just square. So, the builder that builds these storage, I mean, like these carports, he has a variety of stuff. So, I mean, I just like the carved posts. I think they're pretty nice. But I mean, I'm not married to it. I mean, you know, I'm if you just want square posts or round. All the posts are 8x8. So, they're either 8-inch square, 8-inch round vegas, or different styles of posts that are carved. So, it doesn't matter to me. I just want cover for my vehicles. That's, I'm sure, I understand completely. Well, my personal view is that something simpler would actually be better. I think corbels are fine to give it some character, but either square or round posts would make more sense to me than the carving, especially since you don't see that kind of carving right on your particular streetscape. And also, your house is very simple itself. It's a, you know, I think this might look a little incongruous right in front of the house. That would be my problem with changing it to either square posts or I think I'd rather have the round vega type. I think that might look square, but either one, it doesn't matter to me. Got it. Like I say, I just want to cover my vehicles. Take a beating. Appreciate that. Thank you. You're welcome. Any other comments? No other comments? Anyone in this audience wishing to comment? No one in this audience. Anyone online for two minutes? Yes, Chair Rios. Stephanie Beninato. Miss Beninato, please state your name and address for the record and be prepared to be sworn. Okay. Stephanie Beninato, PO Box 1601, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 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. So my question is, if this is in front of the house, is it visible from the street? Because if it does, it seems to take away from the historic character of the house. Second question is, what is the color? It seems like there's some stucco up there, but it looks gray. Wondering what color it's actually going to be. And in terms of the posts, I think rounded posts probably will look better. Did you hear me? Because I got muted somehow and I wasn't quite done. Did you hear my last comment about the round post? Yes, we did. Okay. Thank you. And thank you, Stephanie. Anyone else online? Chair, Mr. Gonzalez, I want to thank you for your cooperation and let's see what this board renders this evening. Okay. I will entertain a motion at this point. Thank you, Madam Chair. Case 2025011228 HDRB at 927 Canyon Road. I move to approve the project as submitted with the condition that the posts be changed consistent with what the applicant indicated would be the applicant's preference to non-carved posts. I would propose that they be round vegas, but I would also allow staff discretion to approve square posts if staff finds that's harmonious with the streetscape. Do I hear a second? Second. May we have a roll call vote, please? Member Benu. Yes. Member Beach. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Simmons. Yes. Member Dman. Yes. Member Aguilera Majano. Yes. The motion has passed. Chair, thank you, Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you all. Thank you. Good evening. We're going to move on to new business. And as indicated, we're going to hear the case at 515 Peralta first. And America is your. Thank you, Madam Chair. I could just have one moment to pull up the case. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. As we all have been to this property several times, but we do have a new member on the board. I'm just going to go over a little property background and history. Is it possible to put up the, there we go. Maybe let's having technical difficulties here. Hold on one second. Thank you. This property is located at 515 Pelo Peralta and it is in the downtown and east side historic district. The property has been designated by the historic board as significant. The applicant is proposing to construct a 3,470 square foot addition to the height of 24 feet. The new area of the addition will include a second floor. Existing entry stairs on the south facade are proposed to be removed and additionally and rebuilt in kind. Additionally, the existing entry stairs on the west end of the south facade are also proposed to be removed and replaced in kind as well. So, if I can pull your attention to the red portions, I don't know if you could see the color well, but there are red portions in the back. Those are the portions that the historic board has called for demolition as well as the non-historic, non-contributing walls. So these two structures in the back and these two structures that are attached. And here is a render or here is a drawing of the proposed site plan. And here again in the rear is the addition. See this a little. This is the proposed north elevation where you could see on the north elevation the footprint of where the two structures that are going to be demolished were considered not a part of the significant facade and the proposal for the new attachment to that area. This is the east facade, south facade. I apologize. Really smaller on this screen. Okay. And then we have the proposed fence that is going to go along the south facade and the east facade. And both these photos show here from 1915 where the fence goes around the entire property. In the black and white photo, the fence seems maybe a little brown or gray. And then we have this other photo that a top of the significant wall here shows it as a white fence with a more of a picket sharpened picket on top. The applicant is proposing a picket with no sphere on top and also a 4-foot yard wall. I want to show on the new addition. The applicant is proposing a new smoother texture stucco finish and approved HDRB colors for the painting of the windows. And in regards to the windows, we have a window assessment that has been placed in your packets and staff is supports the window assessment. So finishing staff finds the criteria has been met and recommends approval for 14-6E42 for removal of historic materials and 14-E.6E2A for construction and addition on primary facade and 14-4.6E2C for an addition exceeding 50% of the historic footprint. Staff also recommends the approval of the other elements of the application as they comply with 14-5.2D general design standards for all historic districts and 14-4 6G2 downtown and east side historic design standards. I stand for questions. Thank you, Amanda. The new proposal, 3,400 plus square feet, will be a two-story building. Yes, ma'am. Is any portion of that, in your opinion, overpowering the significant house as you stand on the south side of the street? If you're standing on the south side of the street, Madam Chair, there is an area on the left-hand side, on the south side, it'd be the west side. Their story poles show it higher, but there are a lot of buildings that are high because it's on a slope. So, I don't think that it would overpower on that side. And the other visible area is on the east side standing from the south. And I believe that that portion is lower to more of a one-story. So it is your opinion that with this proposal, that the building will still remain significant? I do believe so, Chair. And also, in terms of the fence that is being proposed, what is the height of that fence? Let me make one moment. I believe the height is not going to go higher than the 4-foot significant wall, but I will leave that for the applicant to answer. But it is my understanding that it is not higher than the existing significant wall and it'll be about a foot back from the wall. And for the proposal, will they be disturbing the grade in the back there? Will they be digging there? Yes, Madam Chair, because they are going to go into the earth and they would have to view the archaeological review board for that as well. Are there any other questions at this point? Member Beachade. Thank you, Madam Chair. Amanda, can you talk to us about the stucco? I believe the textured stucco has been there for quite a while, and I think I heard you say that a smoother stucco finish is proposed. Does that in any way compromise a characteristic that we found to be significant? Thank you, Member Bish and members of the board. I do not believe it'll compromise. So I believe that the existing stucco that is there, as you said, it's very significant and the texture and the type. So the stucco on the new building will offset it. So you can tell that it is a separate building and not, you know, it's not the same, but it will be the same color. Thank you for clarifying that. That makes a lot of sense. And then my other question was with respect to the fence. I noticed in the applicant's application that they referenced the coyote fence with a wooden gate that's on Peralta, but I believe it was built without H-board approval. So, I just want to make sure that we're not using that in this as a justification for something that would not be otherwise permitted on this streetscape. The fence that staff is referring to is, as you can see, this picture, this here is from 1915 and it does go all the way around the property and that's how staff feels that it, you know, it has the historic integrity to be put back in. And Miss Lamboy. Thank you, Chair Rios, Member Beachside. The coyote fence, if you're pointing out something that was recently the subject of an appeal as a reference point, is not a good reference point because it was built without a permit and H-board approval. So, but I think that is not the intent of the applicant here. I think the intent is to possibly revert to something that was present historically, but the applicant can correct. Okay. No, I agree with the picket fence. Is there a new pedestrian gate? Is there a new pedestrian gate? I thought I saw like a solid wood gate. So the gate is the picket for around. There is a pedestrian gate here. Let me see if I can make this a little larger for you. Pull it up a little bit more. And that that is set back. Okay. It's not, it's not part of the picket, right? It'll go, yes, it is part of the picket, but it is set back. It's over above this where the stairs are located. So, here is the fence opening here. And then you also have an opening here on the east side of the picket. Okay. Yeah. Thank you for that. Thank you, Member Bish. Any other questions at this point? Board members. Thank you, Madam Chair. What is the, one of the exceptions that's being requested is for exceeding 50% of the footprint. So, by how much does it exceed 50%? And maybe you could tell me in answering that what the square, what the footprint is of the proposed structure and what would the footprint would be as permitted without an exception. Sorry about that. Member Benavidez, the proposed structure, as stated before, was, I believe, 3,470. Right, 3,470, and that is for the footprint. Two-story, right, so the footprint will be smaller. I may have to have the applicant answer that question for you. Do you know what the calculation is of what would be permitted under the 50% rule? At this time, Chair Benavidez, I do not. Do we know what the footprint is of the existing significant structure after the demolition? After the demolition, I do not, but the applicant may have that information. Okay. And if, yeah, I think we would need that. So if the applicant doesn't have it, we might need to do some quick calculations. Yes, member. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? No other questions at this point. So I will ask the applicant or applicants to come forward and get sworn in. Hello, will you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record. Rebecca Wood, 909 Rio Vista, Santa Fe. 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? Yes. Thank you. We're pulling up her presentation. Madam Chair, members of the board, if you can give us one moment. Chair Rios, members of the board, thank you for your time tonight. I just have a few additional diagrams and things to augment the great presentation from Amanda. As she mentioned, we've been before you with this case a few times already, most recently in October for demolition review. I'll flip through some of these pretty quickly. The property is on a steeply sloped site on Paseo de Peralta, which rises 27 feet in grade from the street to the north property line. The primary structure on site is this significant house that we already saw, built in 1889, along with a significant stone wall along the street. Various additions and outbuildings, marked in orange on this slide, have been added over the years. In October, they were found to be non-contributing and granted demolition approval. Today, we're going to be looking at the proposal in the place of those demolished buildings. We're proposing the addition, and we'll show more information about that. We're proposing demolishing and rebuilding in kind the existing stairs on the south, augmented with a connected landing that would provide accessibility to the front of the house, and then also adding the wood picket fence marked in red, which is a little hard to see, but that would run along the south property line and also enclose a front yard. We're fortunate with this site to have found several good historical photos, helping us track the evolution of the property. This is a view. We think the 1915 photo is taken from the newly completed Scottish Rite, and you can see that the massing is substantially the same. In both photos, the house is distinct from the other buildings for its crisp, stepped massing and the brick datum of its parapet. Here's a view from the street showing those same characteristics, and you can also on the left see the original symmetrical stairs. The west stair was demolished at some point, but we're proposing to restore that symmetrical, two-sided access to the front porch. Here's a view of the proposed from a similar perspective. You can see the wood picket fence along the front, and due to the grade of the site, it doesn't substantially block the historic house. To the left, if you can see my mouse, the addition is visible. You can see there's a stepped massing with the portion that extends beyond the historic house being one story and the two-story portion stepped back to be concealed as much as possible. In a straight-on view, you can barely see the addition at all. There's a little portion over here and a little one over here. This shows the proposed symmetrical stair, and you can also see that the historic stone foundation will still be visible on the front porch. Looking at the southeast corner of the house, here's the proposal again. The addition is slightly more visible from this side, but stepped back and echoing the massing shape of the original house. Finally, from the east, this is the perspective from which the addition is most visible. You can also see the 12-foot lower, sort of, bridge between the historic and the addition. This is much lower, at least four feet lower than the historic parapet, and set back almost eight feet, so that from the street, it's basically invisible. And the purpose here is to create a courtyard, beyond which you'll be able to see in plan, but also to create a distinction between the old and the new. We can return to this if there are any questions, but the materials of the historic house are not proposed to be changed. We want to repair them in kind, and we want the addition to be a child of the historic house, but not copying it exactly. So, a similar color of stucco but a smooth texture, parapet caps of a similar material but slightly different detailing, windows in a similar proportion to those of the historic house. Looking at the streetscape, I think this was maybe the fence that we're not referring to, but the point of this study is just to show the variety and the consistent use of a fence along the street as a way to delineate the private property from the busy street. To return to the question about the gates along the street, the gate will be the same openness as the fence itself, so it will blend in, and it's roughly a three-to-one close to open, so we get some amount of fenestration. The more solid fences occur farther back from the street as a part of the more private stucco walls. Just to speak more specifically to the slope of the site and the way that the massing will be concealed in the grade, as I mentioned, there's a 27-foot grade change from the street down here with Paseo on the right toward the north up here. And so we're using that to basically bury the addition so that the first story will be completely underground, and on the north, the second story will exit at grade. And this slope also means that from the viewpoint of somebody on the street, the addition is as concealed as possible behind the historic house. I can flip through these pretty quickly. These were in your packet. One of the exceptions concerns the addition to the primary facade. Since it's a significant house, every facade is primary. This red zone right here is the only portion of the addition that touches a part of the building that is not currently inside an addition to be demolished. So we're requesting the exception just for that little area. And this shows how from the north side, the addition is essentially back to a one-story structure. I have some plans and some existing photos if we want to refer to them, but I will leave it there and open myself for questions. Thank you. One of the questions that was asked was regarding the square footage of the existing house and the square footage of the proposal. Yes. So the existing historic house after the demolition of the outbuildings is about... Member Chair Rios, members of the board, so the existing before the demolition is 2,886. The historic that will remain is 1,560, and to completely be removed is 1,326. And the footprint for the new addition would be 1,734 footprint. So 50% of the historic house would be about 800 square feet. Will all the windows on the proposed house be complementary to the new house, or could you describe those? I'm just, I just want to make sure that the windows, the fenestration on the windows is not huge, not giving the house a modernistic look. So the most distinctive windows on the existing house are probably these ones with two-over-two sash windows. They're mostly the same around the building. So we have a couple on the south facade and some on the east as well. And so here's an image of the proposed. These are actually doors, but the proposed glazing on the addition, this is the south elevation of the addition. And so like the historic house, these are consistent proportion all the way around the building. The only other kind of window is a small punch that is referencing another kind of window found on the existing house. Does that answer the question? Nothing that will be large portions of fenestration, correct? The only, the only zone that is large portions of fenestration is not visible from anywhere but a private courtyard. So it faces west. I can show that in an elevation shortly. Are you proposing any rooftop equipment that would be visible? Nothing that would be visible. We're proposing PV panels on the existing house, but due to the height of the parapet, which is up to six feet above the roof surface, they will not be visible from the street. They will not be taller than the parapet. Any other questions, board members, or comments? New member Simmons. Would you please describe what you intend to do, to do any rehabilitation to the existing brick coping? If you can speak right into that mic. And then would you also talk about your proposal for the coping for the addition and how that's going to relate to one another? So, as you may have noticed today, the original brick coping was covered in stucco at some point and painted brick colored. And so we have to determine the repairability of that. We would like, we would love to have it go back to being brick, but if it's healthy as it is, then we don't propose changing it because that's what's there. Essentially, it will look the same as it does now, either in natural brick or in brick-colored stucco like you see it there. And the proposed will be that same proportion of, I think it's about 18 inches or 16 inches of brick-colored datum, but instead of brick, we're proposing a pre-cast or masonry module that would read the same way from a distance but have a distinct, you know, a distinct detailing and presence. So it's not trying to be exactly the same. So for clarification purposes on the proposal, you are using brick coping or you're not using brick coping? The addition is not proposed to use brick coping. It will be, we're thinking a pre-cast masonry cap. So it would be a module of about two feet that would basically read as the same height as the brick coping on the original house, but it would not be individual, you know, typical bricks. It would be a larger piece. So you can see in these views, it reads as a similar band but in a slightly different material. Simmons, did you have a second question? Yes, Madam Chair. Could you please explain any relief in that coping that you plan to add? In other words, the existing masonry coping has very deep reveals and shadowing, and I just wanted to find out what the intention is for the new coping would relate. I think we're interested in having some relief. We don't have a detailed drawing of it today, but yeah, it doesn't want to, it wants to kind of strike the balance between being similar but not exactly the same, right? So we hope to, you know, work with fabricators to determine what can be done to add some shadow lines there. Was that, did you have another question? Okay. Any other questions? Member Pman. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, there's a lot to like about what you've done. I think you've been, you know, you've, you've really worked hard, in my opinion, to really try to differentiate this structure, this new structure, from the existing significant building. And by differentiate, I don't mean so much aesthetically as structurally, so that, you know, that it, it doesn't look like just something that just doubled the size of an existing building. I like all the efforts you've made to shadow and imitate a lot of the larger aesthetic principles of the existing building without trying to duplicate them exactly so that we have some differentiation. My biggest concern really relates to the question that I asked, and that is this is a very, very large addition when you think about it to this significant building, which is actually quite modest in size. You're taking a building that's 1,500 square feet and basically tripling it, I think, as far as square footage goes. That footprint, I guess the height is allowable under our code, although I think it looms a little bit over the existing building. But you've done a nice job handling that, I think. But I am concerned about the footprint. In the renderings, it's clear to me that it starts to make the existing building feel quite minuscule, and it sort of lost all of its significant presence that it has by suddenly miniaturizing it in a way. Our 50% rule is interesting because that's not even just significant buildings that that applies to; that's even contributing buildings. We don't want to see additions larger than 50% of a footprint. And this significant building, I am afraid, is starting to feel overwhelmed by this structure directly behind it, especially since you've done what I think we would ask you to do and what the code wants you to do, which is stay within all of our design guidelines, which means you're ending up with something that's quite similar at a casual glance. And so, I'm afraid it might start to feel like one very, very large building with an older front attached to it. So I'm struggling with that a little bit. One way I think we would need to see some more differentiation in the back building is probably by color. I think that your mindset is great, trying to not do something too dramatically different, but I think that the color being so similar might actually leave an impression that this is an extension of the front building where a more strikingly different color might differentiate them more. But even with that, I am still concerned about the magnitude of the new building. Is there any, I mean, is this, do you need all this square footage really? I mean, you're ending up with a house that's pretty, you know, living space that's pretty, pretty large, and you're starting from a very modestly sized significant building. Is there room for compromise there? **Speaker:** I think that's a fair question. It might be worth noting that the square footage includes a garage and a guest suite. So the portion of the house being extended is and two art studios. So basically, the upstairs and a third of the downstairs are not merely house space, but the design reflects the layout that we determined with the client, and we can certainly have further conversations about that. **Speaker:** Okay. I mean, you're basically just trying to accommodate all of the desires of the homeowner, which makes perfect sense. They want art studios, they want a place for their car, they want guest rooms, et cetera, et cetera. I completely understand that that's what you're working with. And I am afraid, though, that maybe wanting all of that might just not be compatible with this particular significant building. That's all I have for now. Thanks. Any comments? Member Bmanu. Any other comments or questions? **Speaker:** Thank you, Chair Rios. One of the things I would like to do is that the applicant has economized in a way instead of having a detached accessory, what we call accessory dwelling unit. It is incorporated. So that would mean there was less area on the site for another detached building, which would be permitted by right. So you're indicated that what the applicant has done is obviously permittable and allowable. Is that a word? Even though the square footage exceeds, as Member Benu pointed out, three times the size of the existing significant house. Yes, Chair Rios, I just wanted to point out that for an accessory dwelling unit, which can go up to 1,500 square feet in size, it can be either incorporated into the footprint or it can be detached. And so I think that's what is planned here for within the footprint. So instead of having another building, they have incorporated it together. I just wanted to make, I think Member Benu's point is that visually it, in his viewpoint, in his view, that this, that the proposal overpowers the significant house. **Speaker:** Yes, that's correct. I just wanted to point out that an alternative, given their program of work, would be another detached. **Speaker:** Okay. Any, yes, Member Simmons. A question just along the same thought here. If the calculations of the footprint and the gross floor area of the addition could be revised to account for the accessory dwelling unit and the garage, that's going to help bring that percentage down. I think that actually if you did the calculation just on gross footprint area, we're going to find that the proposed footprint is several hundred square feet larger than the existing building. But I'm interested in the thinking here of kind of parsing this a little further to try to ratchet down the actual square footage of the house. I mean, I think it's a cogent argument that a detached accessory dwelling unit is allowed by the zoning code, and that the applicant chose to incorporate that. I think that's, there's good reasons to do that to consolidate that and to make it less of an acropolis up on that hill. So I'm just, would like to suggest for staff to kind of further review that overage area. And then my real question is, and this is really for the city attorney, is when we have a condition, and I'm just speaking as a new member of the board here, when we have a condition where an applicant is asking for an exception greater than what is allowed by the code, is there a requirement that the applicant demonstrate a hardship or an overarching reason why that would be needed? Does the code allow for that? **Speaker:** Chair Rios and Member Simmons, yes, there are three criteria to grant an exception, and the Greek, there are criteria to grant an exception or design standard and criteria to grant an exception for height standard, and this is a design standard. The exceptions are the applicant for such exceptions shall conclusively demonstrate, and the board shall make a positive binding of fact that such exceptions comply with all criteria listed as follows: One, do not damage the character of the district. Two, are required to prevent a hardship to the applicant or an injury to the public welfare. And three, strengthen the unique heterogeneous character of the city by providing a full range of design options to ensure that residents can continue to reside within the historic districts. You have to find all three of them. **Speaker:** Thank you. **Speaker:** Any other questions? Member Cherry. **Speaker:** I have a question about the windows. So I see that on the historic part of the house, you're proposing to use the Colby traditional divided light windows. Can you just tell me, there's three bar sizes for the muntin bars. Do you know which muntin bar size you're proposing? And what the other dimensions of the rails and styles of the sashes are compared to the rails and styles of the sashes on the historic windows? **Speaker:** I don't know offhand. It's my understanding that we have some flexibility to match the existing as closely as possible. So I believe the existing muntins are about an inch, and so we would do something similar to that. **Speaker:** Thanks. **Speaker:** Other questions for comments? Member Bish. **Speaker:** Thank you, Madam Chair. I wonder if we could talk about the east-facing facade, which you mentioned is the one that's most changed by the addition. And I'm looking at the drawing, which shows the garage, the new garage is the same height as the existing house, which is sort of deceptive because it looks a lot bigger to me because I think it's because the door itself to the garage is, you know, less than 10 feet. It's, and it's adjacent to the connection, which is significantly maybe six feet shorter than the existing house, which is a really nice touch. Then the garage has what I believe is sort of a roof deck on top, which makes the parapet above the garage seem quite large. I think I, my eyes expects to see sort of a smaller garage there, and I don't know that it would look correct to have maybe just a small, a shorter garage and no roof deck and then the very tall second story. I don't know if you could just talk to us about like, is there an option there to minimize the impact of a garage that looks pretty tall and out of scale to the existing house? **Speaker:** I mean, as you mentioned, the height of the garage portion is matching the existing house, and I think in the view, because it is closer to the camera, it reads as larger. And again, that's a specific view from, you know, from the property itself, not from the public way. The decision to align with the existing parapet was, you know, one of trying to be respectful to what was there. That's a convenient spot for a roof deck. I mean, we could, we could certainly consider the massing there. I wonder if I heard you mention the scale of the garage door. I wonder if that's part of what's throwing you off just because it's such a big, you know, object. **Speaker:** So is the, is the railing around the proposed roof deck, is that all stucco or is there a portion that's administrated at the top? **Speaker:** That would all be stucco. **Speaker:** And then it has the, the coping equivalent at the top, right? **Speaker:** Yeah. I'm not, I'm not sure. Just something about it looks like just so much larger than the, the existing house that it caught my attention. And is that sort of a utility door to the right, just sort of blends in with the stucco? **Speaker:** Yes, that would be a private door to the guest suite upstairs. **Speaker:** And is the view from this, is the view from Otto? Is that right? **Speaker:** Yes. **Speaker:** No, sorry, from LMA, which is the name of the driveway. **Speaker:** Oh, okay. Got it. And so the view from the, the public way there is what is it? Is there a fence in front of the garage or? **Speaker:** No, there's no right there. There will be a new site wall, four foot right here at the back of the new house. So, from the street, this mass will be partly covered by this patio and the site wall that I just mentioned. But we're not proposing a fence in front of the garage. So, the view from the public way is really this one and then the angles of, of the south facade. **Speaker:** Okay. Thank you. **Speaker:** Any other questions or comments? **Speaker:** Yes. Yes, Chair, just as a follow-up to Member Simmons' question. It's a rough estimate, but the area occupied by the garage as well as the guest suite is approximately 1,000 square feet in terms of the footprint. And also, Member Bishides and members of the board, you can see, when we saw the story poles today, you can see this area from PO. So you can see that when you look up, you can see the story pole of the garage and, and all of that. So it is publicly visible. **Speaker:** Thank you, Amanda. Anyone in this audience wishing to comment on this project, please come forward. Will you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record. **Speaker:** Yes. My name is Elizabeth West, and I live in the South Capital of 18 Senate Street. 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. This is kind of one of my favorite little spots when I drive around town. I have a lot of them, and they're kind of eccentric. If I put them all together in a book, people would say, "What kind of place do you live in?" It is kind of marvelous, though. And this house has an amazing quality because of its situation and the rather, in my opinion, too large, too massive, sort of hulk behind it. Not always readily available to see, I agree. But it's there as you drive by, and you do see it. You're aware of it. I would think what's so special about this amazing situation high up, almost a sweet echo of the Scottish Rite Center, for example. So, it's a building that is sitting there in a very charming, almost timid way, a very delicate way, actually, a very charming way in an important place. There are very few places in the public realm that have this effect: the combination of being cozy and rather amazing in a sweet way. And I really am sad to lose that effect. I really am. I think it is too big. And some of the propositions that a couple of you all have mentioned seem like good concepts. I think the garage door is way too big, and I don't like the idea of covering up the coping. Appreciate your comments. Oh, sorry. Yeah, thank you. Anyone else in this room? Hello. Will you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record. Contractor, 924 Shoefly Street. 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? Under the penalties of perjury, that works. Thank you. When we work together, Rebecca and I, and I just want to say, when we got this commission, we looked at this house. This is a building we respect. We respect Elizabeth's comments. This is an important, significant building. Our design, if you look at an aerial photograph of that area, there is space on that lot, and we could, by zoning, almost do a separate house there. What we've done is we've pulled the addition away from the old historic house, connected it very gently with courtyards. If you look at an aerial photograph, you'll see other houses packed in there. The topography and the adjacent properties by nature, if one can use the word "looming," certainly the other houses loom over that old, delicate house that I think we all love and revere. And I want to add that as a comment to some of the discussions that we've been having this evening. Mr. Contractor, are you part of the architectural team? I'm, yeah, this is our team right here, DNCA. Thank you. Anyone else in this room wishing to comment? No one else. Anyone online? Yes, Cherio. Stephanie Benonato, previously sworn. Thank you. Stephanie Benonato, could you keep the view up so that I can look at it? The one that you just had up, please. First of all, I want to say that I do think there's been no discussion of hardship here at all. I don't understand how there could be hardship that you actually need a guest unit there or that you need 1,400 square feet of studio space. The 1,400 square feet of studio space is as large, I believe, as the house itself now that the other buildings are gone. So, even that would need an exception. The connection is not 10 feet back from a primary facade, but only 8 feet. And I know that guest units do have square footage maximums. And if you took that away, you would still have 2,000 square feet of garage and guest unit, which I believe would be too big for the house. I believe you can get up to, I don't know if it's 1,500 square feet or 50%. So again, both the studios and the guest units, whether together or separately, are too big. And again, no discussion of hardship. And I think that's really important because just what you want doesn't make it a hardship. You bought the property knowing what it was there, knowing that it was probably going to be significant, if not already. And then, the garage too, I think, is overwhelming, inappropriately designed. Excuse me, I'm not trying to be too critical, but it's just a big, massive door that has no relief to it and is totally visible and kind of inappropriate for being attached to a historic building. Also, the picket fence having square tops doesn't really strike me as picket. It seems that there should be a pointed top on the picket fencing. And maybe that's a small detail, but I think it is an important detail that should be regarded. So I do agree with the board members who think that it's too big and overwhelming. I think that there needs to be a redesign. Thank you. Thank you, Stephanie. Anyone else online? No, Chair. Board members, if you have no further questions or comments, I will... Yes, Heather. I didn't realize it. Anthony Guida. Mr. Guida, please state your name and address for the record and be prepared to be sworn. Anthony Guida, 1711 Second Street. 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? I do. Thank you. Good evening, board. I wanted to weigh in and commend the applicants for a lovely design and a really skillful presentation. I think this is good preservation design practice. I think the design, no matter what the square footage is, distinguishes itself from the significant house and allows that house to retain its identity. It's very careful to be behind the house, buried in the hill, 8 to 10 feet away. It would be the same as if the lot was subdivided and a new building was erected next door. I think it's a smart design. And I believe too that, you know, we have a process for exceptions with the H board. We know that some of our criteria are a little odd and hard to prove, whether that's hardship. But I think this doesn't damage the character of the district for the reasons already mentioned. It does contribute to the heterogeneous nature of the district, which is a requirement and not always one that's fulfilled by most projects that come before this board. Exceptions are normal for project circumstances. This is not divorce in the Catholic Church. So overall, I think it's a great design, and I really encourage the board to approve it. The most important slide for me, besides the renderings, was the first slide that's up that showed that the applicants have been at this for 11 months. That seems like a lot of time. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Guida. Anyone else? Yeah. Cherio, ask board members to discuss this case, and now it is time to make a motion. Your thinking. Thank you, Madam Chair. In case number 202612126 HDRP at 515 P de Peralta, I just like to preface my motion by saying I do recognize the skill with which the design was created. The separation between the new and the old is deliberate and sensitive. I think, although it's large, it doesn't compromise the existing house. In fact, you've taken a lot of care to restore what was there to begin with. I think it'll be a really beautiful presence on the street. I mean, it already is, but it will be enhanced by the changes you're making to the roof-facing side. I appreciate the effort you're going to to bury the first story largely so that it's not overwhelming with respect to what the public sees. I move to approve the application as submitted, noting that the exception criteria have been met as noted by staff for all exceptions. Is there a second to this motion? May we have a roll call vote, please? Member Benu. No. Member Beach. Yes. Member Cherry. No. Member Simmons. Yes. Member Denon. No. Member Agular Madrono. No. The motion dies. Chair, I will entertain another motion. I'll make the... Sorry, let me ask a question first of staff. When you indicated that it was an exception for height was not necessary because of the two feet, is that a reference to the code provision that allows that under certain circumstances depending on the slope? But doesn't that require, isn't that in the discretion of the board? That's correct. Refers to a criterion regarding the amount of slope across the face of the house allowing that. So the board, in order to approve this height, the board would in fact have to make a finding that that two feet is allowed due to the circumstances. That's not a staff determination. In other words, as I understand the code. Correct. Rio says it's noting, but it is not an exception. As long as the board so finds. Yeah, I understand. That's what I thought. Thanks. Okay. Case 2026 012126 HDRB at 515 Pasalta. I move to deny the application and request that the applicant return with a redesign, but that's in the applicant's discretion, of course, on the basis that, let's see, the exception criteria for the removal of the historic materials, first exception criteria, first exception request, have been, I would find that they have been met. I would find that the exception criteria for an exception for construction of an addition to the rear north facade have not been met in this particular instance, but would find that they could be met with a redesign. And I would find that the exception criteria for an addition exceeding 50% of the existing footprint and dimension of the existing building have not been met. Specifically, I would find that the rate magnitude of the addition would damage the character of the district by overwhelming the significant building to which it's being attached, that that amount of square footage is not required, or the applicant has not demonstrated that that amount of square footage is required to prevent a hardship to the applicant or an injury to the public welfare. And that the applicant has not demonstrated that that amount of square footage is necessary to strengthen the unique heterogeneous character of the city by providing a full range of design options because this, it would be possible to have an addition of a lesser size that would still allow someone to live in this residence. So for those reasons, based on those findings, I would move that the application be denied as submitted. Is there a second to this motion? Second. Yes. Curios, in the past, the Historic Districts Review Board has had subcommittees and has postponed this case or a case, and just wanted to ask, or since we made the motion, whether that would be an option before... To work with the applicant as a subcommittee. I'd be more than happy to if the applicant wants to work on a redesign. Again, I consider that completely in the applicant's discretion, but I do believe, and I think I said it already, I do believe something can be worked out here that would be acceptable. And I agree with Heather. I think that this board, we're here to work with the applicant. I believe, and instead of a denial, I would suggest that we do a postponement and perhaps, as Heather indicated, subcommittee, or if you feel that you can just come back on your own without a subcommittee. I would agree to that provided that the applicant accepts that because they don't have to accept a postponement. Well, but the board is the one that makes the decision, right? But I think the applicant's entitled to have a decision so that they can proceed if they want to proceed. And that's my view. I understand maybe that's not required, but I think that's the most fair outcome for the applicant. The maker of the motion is indicating perhaps a postponement as opposed to a denial. The homeowner would like to speak. You would be sworn, sir. Hi, sir. Will you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record. 310. 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. Thank you, board members. I appreciate all your concerns. This house means a lot to us. We live right next to it, and we've been eyeing this house for years. I never thought it would come on the market until the lady that owned it came to us and said, "Would you be interested? I cannot maintain it." So, what we are looking for is a house where we can live and where we're comfortable in it. The reason for the guesthouse is eventually we will need caregivers, and that's the reason for it. We tried to make all the new addition and old house accessible handicap. I just had my knee replacement last week, so I'm barely walking there. We're willing to work with anyone. We're willing to work with everyone. We've worked with the staff. They've been absolutely amazing, and we've made a lot of adjustments. We're willing to look at what would be comfortable. As far as the color of the back house, we even considered building a separate house and leaving the front alone, and to the visibility from the street, it would make zero difference if we do that or not. We tried to connect them just because it'll be easier for us to access it and have a place where we can entertain people and a living space, which is the new space that's there. So, if you have concerns about the height, we're willing to talk about it. We're willing to see what would fit, but we've tried to meet all the criteria of construction. And I mean, we know we have the right to build that house without connecting it, and it would make no sense to anyone. The current house is falling apart literally, and that's the reason that they sold it to us because the owner, who has had it since her grandparents and she's in her 80s, said, "I really can't maintain it anymore." So this is our plea: to come to a solution where we can live in a house where we're comfortable and meet all the criteria that we need. Thank you. So thank you, sir. Don't leave the podium. So by your comments, am I correct in indicating that you're willing to work with the board? Absolutely. Make, so you would go for a postponement. Thank you. Yes. Thank you, sir. I'll modify the motion. Please move to postpone to a date certain and to have further discussions between the applicant and a subcommittee to be appointed by the chair of the board in the interim. May we have a roll call vote, please? Point of discussion. I just wanted to mention one thing and maybe clarify it with staff. I noticed in the responses from the applicant that this is zoned R21, and I think that means multi-family residences are allowed. Is that correct? Chair Bishite, that is correct. Up to 21 dwelling units per acre. Right. So, and I remember, I think the lot, the vacant lot that's next door, it's been a while, so this application may no longer be approved, but there was at least four sort of condos with a driveway approved right next door to this house. So, I think by comparison, this design is a lot more appealing and respectful of the historic district compared to what's allowed and has been approved by this board and other spaces, like literally next door. They're just, just a point for consideration going forward. Thank you for your comments from each side, and continue with a roll call. Member Benu. Yes. Member Beachade. No. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Simmons. Yes. Member Dagnen. Yes. Member Aguilera Madrono. Yes. The motion has passed. Chair. Thank you very much. And I will appoint a subcommittee. Yes. Amanda, Go ahead, Madam Chair. I will appoint a subcommittee. Do we have any volunteers? Member Simmons and, okay. Yeah, Member Dictton and Member Simmons. Thank you. Staff will coordinate the subcommittee. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all. Next case this evening is located on P de Peralta 1121 and 1123. Is that applicant present? The applicant is online. Yes. Thanks. May we hear? We'll hear you, Lanny. Okay. This is case 2026 012103 HDRB for 12 1121 and 1123 PO de Peralta. The applicant is requesting a status review with primary facade designation, if applicable, for two commercial structures, status review with primary designation, if applicable, for the accessory structure in the rear, and the status review for the yard walls. So 1121 and 1123 PO de Peralta are located on the south side of the street between Old Santa Fe Trail and Hona Street. The rear parking area is accessible from Winry Way. This section of PO de Peralta is located in the Downtown and East Side Historic District. The subject property sits across PO de Peralta from the New Mexico State Building Complex and is adjacent to other non-residential uses. While the streetscape is now non-residential, the area was once residential with agricultural properties. As the area developed into the non-residential area that it is currently, the agricultural lands became parking areas. The streetscape today consists of office suites, government facilities, and other businesses along the paved street with sidewalks on either side, an eclectic mix of architectural styles, parking areas, and parcels with vegetation. The Allered Cisneros's property located at 1121 and 1123 PO de Peralta was formerly a residential compound. It has been converted into an office complex. While there are two separate addresses, the property is a single lot. Both structures are currently listed as contributing to the Downtown and East Side Historic District, though neither structure has primary facade designations. Yard walls and shed on the property are not statused. 1121 PO de Peralta was constructed and expanded from 1912 through 1958. The entire structure is historic and is currently listed as contributing. Staff finds that the historic integrity of the structure is retained, and the structure should remain a contributing structure. Staff further finds that the north elevation and the west elevation, including the portal, clearly convey the character of the structure. The recommended primary facade should exclude any non-historic doors or windows and other materials or designed elements that detract from the historic character. The low walls at the property show that the building was once a residence and helped to define its character and charm. Therefore, staff would recommend that they be statused as contributing. 1123 PO de Peralta was also constructed over time with the original construction in 1931 and appears to have either incorporated or replaced an older adobe building. The building is currently listed as contributing. The building should be retained as contributing with the north, including the portal, as primary and a portion of the east elevation reflecting the 1931 construction phase, excluding the non-historic doors and windows along with other material designs that detract from the historic character of these elevations. The shed located at the rear of the lot appears in a 1978 aerial but is not in the 1958. The small shed is constructed of wood with a corrugated metal roof and a single door on the east elevation. Due to its age, it does need to be reviewed for status. Staff finds the shed to be non-contributing due to its lack of character and location in the parking area. The shed does not have historic character or integrity, and staff finds that it should be non-contributing. The yard walls connected to the southeast corner of the structure at 1123 PO de Peralta are present in the 1958 aerial, making them historic. The yard walls are constructed of concrete masonry units with stucco with steps between heights, height changes. The yard walls are not visible from the street but are publicly visible from the parking area. They appear to be a separation of the property line between the subject property and the western neighbor's parking lots. The walls previously continued beyond the shed and wrapped around the rear of the lot. That section of the wall has been removed. These walls do not match the historic character of the small compound. Therefore, the staff recommends that they be designated as non-contributing. So staff recommends the historic status of the 1121 PO de Peralta structure be maintained as contributing with the north and west facades, including the portal pony walls and excluding any non-historic windows and doors as the primary facade, in the facade diagram that's R1, R2, R3, and R8, and the yard walls along the street be designated as contributing. Staff recommends the historic staff status of the 1123 PO de Peralta structure be maintained as contributing with the north facade, including the portal and the east of the 1931 addition up to the chimney feature, and excluding any non-historic windows and doors as the primary facade, that's C1 and C2, and the shed and yard walls at the rear of the property be designated as non-contributing per designation 14-4.6 6 C designation of significant contributing or non-contributing status within the historic districts. Thank you. Lanny, on both of these applications, who is determining that the windows and doors are non-historic? The HCPI mentions a couple of them. What? Say that again. The HCPI. Okay. And so, So that would be John Murphy's assessment. So but we haven't determined specifically which ones. Correct. Correct. I, the staff looking at the building, like at 11:23, believes that all of the doors have been replaced at some point, and there are some window changes because there's an accumulation of both wood and metal windows. A window and door assessment has not been made for either one of these buildings. Correct. Not at this time. Any other questions? Other questions? Will the applicant come forward? She's on. Yes. Can you hear me? Yes. Hi. Can you please state your name and address for the record? Yes. Hunter Redmond, 612 Old 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? Yes. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Good evening, Chair Rios, board members. Hunter Redmond from Architectural Alliance. Thank you to Lanny and the staff for your report. And thank you also to John Murphy for his Hickby report, which I hope everybody takes a little time to read because we always learn something wonderful about the history of our town when he does a new Hickby report. I also want to mention that we do now have a window and door assessment that has not been submitted yet, but we will come back to get windows and doors either replaced or repaired depending on the actual condition of the windows and doors in the future. So that's in the future. So as of today, we are just requesting to have the status review and to have the primary elevation set for this project. After reviewing the staff recommendation and working with John Murphy on the project, I agree with the recommendations that both of these buildings will remain contributing. I also agree with staff recommendation on their page nine for the primary facades as indicated at 1121 as R1, R2, R3, and the low wall, and then at 1123 as the front portal, which is C1, and the front entry to the building, as well as a portion of the east side of the facade. So with that, I stand for any questions. Thank you very much. Any questions for the applicant? No one raised his or her hand, so we have no questions for you at this point. Anyone in this audience wishes to speak in reference to this project? No one. Anyone online? No hands. I will entertain a motion, please, board members. I'll make a motion. And I suggest that we make two separate. Okay, number two. So I would say in case 2026-012103 HDRB regarding 1121 Paseo de Peralta, I would move to maintain the structure as contributing with the northwest facades, including portal and pony walls, excluding the non-historic windows and doors, as the primary facades. Noting that facades in facade diagram, figure 8 of this proposal, R1, R2, R3, and R8, are designated as primary facades. In other words, you're agreeing with staff. Correct. Thank you. Is there a second? Thank you. There's a second. Roll call vote, please. Member Benu. Yes. Member Beach. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Simmons. Yes. Member Denon. Yes. Member Aguilar Madana. Yes. The motion has passed. Chair. Thank you. In case 2026-012103 HDRB regarding 1123 Paseo de Peralta, I would move to accept staff's recommendation that the status be maintained as contributing with the north facades, including a pal and the east facade of in the 1931 edition up to the chimney feature, and excluding the non-historic windows and doors as the primary facade C1 and C2. And that the shed and yard walls in the rear be designated as non-contributing. Is there a second? Second. Roll vote, please. Member Benu. Member Beach. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Simmons. Member Denon. Yes. Member Aguilar Madana. Yes. The motion passes. Chair. A and B. Is that applicant here? Yes, Madam Chair. Okay, Sam. Thank you. I'll go ahead and start while our PowerPoint is coming up. This property is located at 216 Maynard. There are two structures that we are bringing before status today, and it is on the West Side and Guadalupe Historic District. On your screen, you will see an overhead map. The larger building is 216A, and the smaller building in the back is 216B. Here is a front view from the east side of building A. And I will just give you a little background and summary on this residence A. Well, first, I want to start off with the streetscape for West Side Guadalupe. Historically, our with these chain link fences. And resident A was built in 1933 through 1939 by the V Hill family, who also built the back house, which is unit B, prior to 1944. Both structures are built in Spanish Pueblo Revival style. These structures were given non-contributing status in 1985 as part of a status survey done for all historic districts. The front residence, unit A, is approximately 1,957 square feet, and it includes the 1930s core with the rear extension added in the 1950s. And this separate dwelling B was constructed in the 1940s. These residents are characteristics of the owner-built housing, which included individualized workmanship, including the workmanship that is the corner casement window in the unit A structure. You've got the window on both sides there. And court photos courtesy of John Murphy. So this structure that you are seeing on your screen now is 216 Maynard, unit B. And the facade did not change much on that other than the door and the garage replacement was done with a red tag. So this construction was taking place when our inspector stopped work for the garage. So the garage and the front door are considered as non-historic. The footprint is the same, but the material is not. I am going to move forward here, and the facade diagrams on building A. I'm requesting the east, the south, 2, 3, 4, and 5 as primary, and the north and on the garage the east of 1. I stand for any questions, members. Any questions at this point? Member Benu. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just more of a comment. The way I understand the code, chain link fences are not allowed in this district on street frontage. Yes. I am not asking that that be designated. I had just pointed out that the West Side Guadalupe historically did have chain link fences. Okay. Yes. It's just that that is potentially misleading because that makes it sound as if that's part of the streetscape that we're trying to protect. But the chain link fences are specifically prohibited under our code. Yes. And they may be prohibited under the code, but I'm just historically pointing out the fact West Side of Guadalupe did have historic fences. Okay. Thank you for pointing that out. And that is very true. Even on this east side, ladies and gentlemen, they had chain link fences historic site. Right. Right. Anyway, any other questions? Okay. I guess that's worth a little bit more discussion. So what does that mean? I mean, we're saying that yes, they have existed there historically, but our code says you can't have them. So what's staff's view then about how we handle chain link fences in the in this district? Does the code say that for the west side? It does. Yes. On street frontage. And Member Benu, that chain link fences are prohibited as long as they're publicly visible in the city. Right. Even if they're historic. Correct. Yes, sir. Member Benu, and Sherry, if there is something that's proven to be historic, the board may consider keeping that characteristic, although I'm not sure that this chain link fence was necessarily historic. And when chain link fences, so that often times we'll find wire fences, you know, with the sort of U shape at the top. Those are historic, but we do not have knowledge of that being historic. Right. Yeah. And I'm not even bringing this up because of this particular property. I just think that it is a potentially confusing thing to say that this is common in the district, which would imply to members of the public that live in this district that that's perfectly acceptable when the code says no, they're not allowed. And so I just want, I just think we need to be clear about what is and isn't permitted. And that doesn't mean that someone has to necessarily tear it down. It would mean that if they asked permission to erect it, it would be denied unless they had an exception. Right. Yes. And it could mean that if, you know, our code basically, it would be considered a non-conforming fence. And so typically the way we, you know, if it was already there, and typically the way we handle non-conforming matters is that it's only when someone wants to modify it that it comes to the board's attention, and then typically, and then the code has a provision for that says you can't modify it except to bring it into conformance. So just a little detour on what our code does and doesn't say about chain link fences. With you. Who else? Is the applicant here? Please come forward. Hello. Will you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record. Serge Nunes, 216 Maynard, Mexico. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth? And do this under the penalties of perjury. Thank you. Good evening. And do you agree with staff's recommendations? Yes. Both of these buildings, ma'am. And also, I just want to bring it to your attention that chain link, we would like to change it to a pony wall much existing. Oh, okay. But that's not part of this application tonight. I think it is. Oh, yeah. The status. Okay. Because tonight we're just addressing the status. Okay. Any questions for the applicant? No questions for the applicant. Anyone in this room wanting to comment on this particular project? No one. Anyone online? Yes, Chair. Stephanie Benach, who has previously been sworn, you may unmute. Thank you, Stephanie Benanato. I'm not contesting the status or what facades are being recommended as primary. But I am actually agreeing with Member Benu about non-conforming fences and what that means. So if it stays in place, then no problem. It gets to stay there forever. But once it has to be repaired or replaced, then it cannot be replaced in kind. It has to be replaced with material that is allowed under the historic code. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone online? Anyone else? No. Chair. Okay. I will entertain a motion, please. And I know there's two cases, two homes, same case. This time, I will entertain one motion just to move along. Check. Thank you. In case number 2026-012125 HDRB at 216 Maynard, units A and B, I move to accept staff's recommendation to designate both buildings as contributing with unit A, east facade number one, south facades number two, three, four, five, and north facade number 11 designated as primary. And on unit B, the primary facade should be designated as the east facade number one, excluding non-historic material. And do I hear a second? Eggman second. Roll vote, please. Member Benu. Yes. Member Bshide. Yes. Member Cherry. Member Simmons. Member Dagnen. Yes. Member Aguilar Madrona. Yes. The motion has passed. Chair. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next case is located at 640 Camino de Lalo. Is that applicant here? The applicant is here. And Landa, may we hear the case? Yes, Madam Chair. This case is 202612128 HDRB. This is 640 Camino de Lalo in the Downtown and East Side Historic District. The background of this property is the residential structure footprint has been shown established by the 1960. The buildings in the neighborhood are set back from the street, and the characteristics of the facades are as follows. So the, here noted as number one, has three large masses. The building has three large masses, illustrating growth and evolution over time. The status of the building is currently non-contributing, and I would like to give a summarized facade information to you. So we have, here we have a facade diagram. So we'll start over here on the north side. And it has an inset header over divided light window in a large massing. Then we go over to number two, which is the apartment with the balcony at top. And show you, is this balcony over top here. So we have, we're calling this two facades. The lower facade, bottom floor, has the inset header and the cement, I'm sorry, casement windows, which are two and one over three side lights. And the upper floor has the undulated parapet, a single French door picture window, and two over two divided light facing the balcony with an iron railing. And we have facade number three, which is here. It's just tucked in in this little spot here. There's really nothing on there. It's a large massing with no fenestration. And four as well has the massing. And if you noticed in the building today, it has a stone coping all along pretty much the whole building. And number five, it has an inset header, single windows, stone coping, and a round turret in appearance, which was really nice. And we are considering that as primary. And six, I know there's a lot of facades here, but it's really a grand building, so I want to go over all of them. So six has an inset header, new slider windows, smaller than previous window openings, casement, 6 over 4 with two over four side lights. The header was moved. It has an undulated parapet. A stone chimney has been redesigned and stuccoed over, it seems. Number seven, facade seven, doesn't show any substantial features. Number eight is a stone buttress and door surround with the double wooden door. And that was kind of by where that front door was. Nice little note that we had. Number nine was a stone base, one inset window header, two over three, two over three true divided light windows. And the ten here is outdoor living area covered with a portico, a mixture of square and round columns and round vias and a chimney pony stone wall. And eleven, there was no header. One four over two divided light window with the chimney. Twelve, the three window flat parapet stucco chimney. I'm sorry, that was number twelve, and thirteen was the latia. It was a freestanding portico with stone coping and a small two over two window entry or with header five over three casement window with two over three sidelights. It has VGA bumps that have been stuccoed over and one small window in large massie and fourteen stone rounded bullnose. Staff is recommending the status of the structure be updated to contributing with facades number one, number five, including, excluding historic window number eight, number nine, and number ten, and number eleven, excluding non-historic material as primary per 14-4.06 C designation of significant contributing or non-contributing status with historic districts. I stand for questions. Questions for Amanda? No questions for you right now, Amanda and Jeff. Hello. Will you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record. Jeff Sears, Lorenzo Road. 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. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of the board. I'd like to start with the HICPI that historian John Murphy prepared for us. And of course, by 1960, established that the footprint of the house was there. Going up through time, by early 1990s or 1994, there were renovations that replaced most of the windows and doors from historian Murphy's report. And then in 2006, there was administrative approval granted to restock the entire house, which was completed at that time. And I'd just like to state, in regards to historian Murphy's recommendation and evaluation of the status, that while the overall footprint of the building can be established, the lack of documentation, including earlier historical surveys, building records, and clear aerial evidence, makes it difficult to determine the building's original appearance and fenestration. For this reason, and because of the uncertainty surrounding its historic design and the extent of later alterations, the recommendation is to maintain its non-contributing status. So with that, moving right along, the staff's recommendation for contributing, the only thing that I would question is the inclusion of facades ten and eleven, which I think as you saw today, are accessible only through going through the doorway into the house, which is the front door that goes into the portico number ten. And those facades are certainly not publicly visible and cannot ever be, I don't think they would ever become publicly visible. So I'd like you to consider those two and leaving those off of primary facades if that's where this motion will go. Thank you. So you're kind of agreeing with Amanda, but you're not totally agreeing. Is that correct? Regarding the status, or are you going with John Murphy non-contributing or on the fence? There was no mention of historian Murphy's recommendation, so I wanted to include that. I'm here tonight to hear what you have to say about that status, as well as then what would be designated as primary facades. Thank you, Jeff. Any questions for the applicant? No questions for you right now, Jeff. Anyone in this room wanting to comment on this particular project? No one. Anyone online? Yes, Chair Rios. Stephanie Benonato, who's previously been sworn. Stephanie Benonato. It was really difficult to follow this because all we saw was a pencil diagram. We did not see the actual visuals of these facades that were recommended as primary. However, I think that if the footprint is original, it's more than fifty years old. The openings have not been contested as being changed. They just have said that I think the windows and doors have been replaced. Therefore, I think that it does qualify as a contributing building. And again, unfortunately, I could not see those facades, but I'm not sure that you have to have a facade that's street-facing in order to be primary. So I would go with staff's recommendation. Thank you. Anyone else online? No, Chair. Yes. Board members, if you don't have comments or questions, I will entertain a motion, please. Member Menu. Thank you, Madam. So, for staff. So, back me up for what your recommendations are, if you don't mind going over those. I think I see it in your staff report, but I just want to make sure I understand. The facade number one, facade number five. Okay. Facade number eight, nine, ten, and eleven. Okay. And ten and eleven are the two interior facades, right? Yes. And it's not pulling up my, if you can have it show my current screen. Okay. Okay. I think I understand. I'll make a motion. Case number 2026-012128 HDRB, 640 Camino de Laoo. I would move that the staff's findings be adopted, that this building should be upgraded, the structure should be upgraded to contributing due to its footprint being intact since 1960 at least. And that I would move that facades one, five, eight, and nine, as recommended by staff, be designated as primary, but not ten and eleven, the interior facades. Is there a second to this motion? Please. Member VMU. Yes. Member Beach. No. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Simmons. Member DGEN. Yes. Member Aguilar Madrono. Yes. The motion has passed, Chair. Thank you. Oh, I need to add to the motion, excluding non-historic materials on all those primary facades. Sorry about that. Thank you. Does that need to be revoked? Do we need to vote again? I'm happy to just restate the motion. Heather, we don't need to restate, or Attorney Dubelly. Does anybody in the board have an objection to that amendment to the emotion? No. No. Nobody. Okay. All right. Hearing no objection, it'll be all right. Next is located at 728 Awa Fria. You're welcome. Is that applicant here? 728 Awa Fria, or are they online? I'm here. Can you hear me? Yes, sir. We will call on you in just a moment. All right. Sorry, I wasn't on. Do you want me to start over? You guys start over. Okay. So, this is case 2026-012104 HDRB for 728 Aquafria Street, Unit F. The applicant is requesting status review with primary facade designation, if applicable, for a residential structure. 728 AUA Fria Street, Unit F, sits in the middle turn of a long private road, which is the main access for 724 through 730 AURIA. There's a series of properties addressed to 728 AURIA, which includes units A through H. The private drive is packed dirt and is located between Dunlap and Irvine. The houses are vernacular style, and the yards are lined with yard walls or coyote fences. The neighborhood was built during the 1930s and 1940s. The 1600 square foot residential structure originated as a modest adobe structure from the late 1930s or early 1940s and has expanded over time with the last alteration in 1985. This structure was constructed as part of a compound and was subordinate to the primary residence facing Aquafria Street. The building does not retain sufficient integrity of design, materials, or feeling to contribute to the historic district. Going to show you the building. Sorry. Staff is recommending the historic status of the structure be retained as non-contributing due to the lack of historic integrity of design and materials per section 14-4.6 C designation of significant contributing and non-contributing status within historic districts. Any questions for Lenn? No questions for you right now. And let's hear from the applicant. Do you need to get for an answer? Hi Chris, can you please state your name and address for the record? Let's see there. Mr. Corbett, can you please unmute? Is that good? There you are. Thank you. There we are. Okay. Yeah. Can you do video? Well, you need to get sworn in. Can you please state your name and address for the record, please? Yeah, it's Chris Corbett, and the address is 2947 Northwest 66th Street, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73116. 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? Yes. Thank you. So, do you agree with staff's recommendation and do you have anything further to add? I agree. And the only question I have is, since I'm new to this process, what is the next step in terms of getting permitting to do the work that needs to be done, the roof? I'm going to stop you right there. This evening we are simply addressing the status. That is all that we are addressing. For the next step, if you want to do any work on this, you go back to staff and they will work with you on exactly what you have to do. You can contact staff and they will guide you through the process. Okay. This evening we're simply addressing the status. Okay. Yeah. I agree. It's non-contributing. Okay. So, board members, do you have any questions for the, a motion, please? Oh, did I ask for public comment? Anyone in this audience wishing to speak on this case? Nobody. Anyone online? No, Chair. Yes. So, I will entertain a motion. All right. Case number 2026-012104-HDRB at 728 Agua Fria Street, Unit 7. I move to adopt staff's recommendation and maintain the building as non-contributing. Second vote. Sorry. I think. Unit F. Unit F. I think that it's Unit F, not Unit 7. Is that? Oh, I said F. Maybe it sounded like seven. Sorry. Just to clarify, Unit F. Maybe we have woke up. Member BMU. Yes. Member Beach. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Simmons. Yes. Member Dagnen. Yes. Member Agular Madrono. Yes. The motion has passed, Chair. Thank you, and thank you, sir. Next case is located at 1103 Canyon Road. Is that applicant here? The applicant is here. Hear that? The computer's a little slow. Okay. This is case 2026-012105 HDRB for 1103 Canyon Road. The applicant is requesting a status review with primary facade designation, if applicable, for residential structure and status review for yard walls. The property sits between Canyon Road and Patrick Smith Park, a recreational open space for the public. The back of the properties along this portion of Canyon Road run along Seikia Madre, which was constructed over 400 years ago. The buildings in this section of Canyon Road are built close to the road with yard walls around those that have any yard space between the road and the building. There's a combination of single and two-story structures. Most of the buildings are Spanish revival style, and the others are all in vernacular style. The 1930s adobe two-story residence is listed as contributing to the downtown and east side historic districts. According to the city's GIS map, no primary facades have been designated. The building is obscured behind the tall yard wall on a South Street-facing property line that holds a vehicle garage and two pedestrian gates. There are high The driveway entrance holds a metal gate and coyote fence. There will be no change to them. The lot is surrounded by fencing and yard walls. The applicant proposes to construct a 2,479 square foot residence to the maximum allowable height of 14 feet in a Spanish Pueblo Revival style. The residence will have a 289 square foot portal and a 296 square foot garage. The windows will be aluminum clad windows, wood windows, simulated divided light windows in an aqua mist. The portal door will be simulated divided light in aqua mist, and the garage door will have a wood eyebrow overhang and will have wood with lights. There will be a connected 316 square foot ramada with an exterior fireplace. The pergola will have a wood header, vigas, columns, and corbels stained in provincial. There will be three interior fireplaces. Stucco will be cementitious smooth with colonial white under the portal and pergola. The property lies within the Historic Downtown Archaeological Review District. Due to the amount of ground-disturbing activity on the property to construct the residence, archaeological clearance will be required. Staff would like to point out that there were a couple of letters from neighbors in the packet. The neighbors' properties do sit below the grade of this site. Unfortunately, those neighbors are not capable of being here tonight. Okay, well, one of them made it. The neighbors are concerned that the 14-foot height may be too high and that the number of canales on the home will affect the water flow on their lower properties. Their properties do sit approximately four to five feet below this one. Staff took photos of the story poles on the property to give a better idea about the height and location of the structure. Thank you all for posing for me. To help the neighbors understand the layout of the property, the applicant provided staff with this map, which has the floor plan laid over it to show the spacing between the properties. And then the applicant also provided this diagram of the angle of the sun at the winter solstice at noon to give a perspective of how the sun will still reach the gardens of the neighboring lots. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed project with the condition that they obtain their archaeological clearance before submitting for their construction permit and finds that the application complies with Section 14-4.6E General Design Standards and 14-4.6G2 for the Downtown and East Side Design Standards. As a note, Chair Rios asked for an image of the rounded corners of the building next door as an example of what is desired on this new building. Staff confirmed with the applicant that this is the intent, to have those rounded corners and to match other details like these, like the corners, the stucco, wood window colors, and the wood stain will all match this older building. Thank you, Lanny. Lanny, this home, how far is it from the north property line? Applicant: Which building? The new building, the proposal. I know. Let's see. North. It's about 10. But the neighbors are... I had to, I have to orient north, southeast, west. Sorry. So, I think we determined it was going to be 10 to 15 feet, but I don't know the exact measurement. Well, perhaps the applicant will know that. Any other questions? Member Cherry. It's on the site plan. It shows 9 feet 8 inches on the northwest corner from the north property line. So, it tapers back further away. So, 9 feet 8 inches. Okay. Do you agree with that? Yes. Any other questions? Member B. Thank you, Madam Chair. Lanny, is there an estimate of the lot coverage for the proposed building? I don't, I don't have that off the top of my head, but it is, it is mentioned in the PZR that was signed by the current planning team. Try to find that. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you, Madam Chair. Can you speak to the public visibility of the facades, in particular the west and the north? The west will be publicly visible. It is facing the street, so anybody coming from that direction can see it. The north, of course, will be visible by its neighbors, but I don't think it's publicly visible. Okay. I only ask at the very northwest corner. It looks like some of the windows may be closer than 3 feet from the corner. So maybe the applicant can address that. And then the only, the only other question I had that you kind of spoke to was the radius. Were you able to put a number to that? I know you have the photo up. No, I don't have an actual number on it. We'll have to ask the applicant. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Other questions? Applicant or applicants, please get sorted. Hello. Will you please raise your right hand, 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. Will somebody kindly put the application on the screen? I'm sorry, Chair Rios. Which, which image did you want? It doesn't matter, but as we ask questions, you can switch. Oh, okay. I understand now. Thank you. Thank you, board. A point of clarification: this new structure, in essence, the new home, is intended as the owners of 423 Camino Don Miguel. They came before you last January, I believe. They own this adjacent lot and to build this home as their main home, and the 423 will essentially cede. So they're interested in having essentially a compound, which is historically traditional in the area. And so the character, despite the nature of the elevations that we propose, the character of this house will match precisely that of 423, which you may have seen or noted when you were there today. So, the rounded corners, matching the same cladding of the windows, introducing the off-white color underneath the portal, just as is the case with the casita, same staining, same exact stucco color. So the intent is to respect the Spanish Pueblo style that is befitting for the area. So it was the intent to be very intentionally in compliance with the nature of historic building designs in the core historic district. It's a very fairly modest-sized lot. It's a modest-sized house. And we are taking the living room up to the allowable maximum height of 14 feet. You should note that that portion of the home, the living room, is just 18% of the overall square footage of the house. And so the rest of the house, as you can see from the elevations, steps down from that northwest corner. And in fact, it's that corner at the west end that is 9 feet 8 inches from the north property line. Then it gradually steps back as you go from west to east to the point of being 25 feet back from the north property line. I was aware of the comments of the neighbors, and so I took a serious look at their concerns. And Lanny indicated, showed the elevations of that, which I wonder if we could bring that up, Lanny. The key, the key point that I wanted to share with you, the next one, is that it may be difficult to see in yellow, but that's the, that yellow line demonstrates the shortest day of the year, the lowest height of the sun on the winter solstice, and the existing coyote fences that are on our neighbors' property already are at a height to where the height of our proposed structure will not impact what is already shade and shadow created by the coyote fences. So, we're not going to be adding any additional shade or obstructing natural light. And there was concern about the nature of the drop-off of the topography on the north side of the property line. Those, the slope of the natural grade occurs outside of our property line. And so we obviously can't impact neighbors' property. But in essence, as the topographic survey shows, the project, the land slopes from east to west down from the far east end down to the street, and we're not going to be increasing the historical sheet flow of rain across the property. In fact, we are significantly lessening the amount of water making its way off of the site. Some of the neighbors' comments were concerned about the canales and how much water would be coming off of them. It's my client's intent to capture that roof runoff and add two 2,500-gallon cisterns that are to be buried on the site to be reused for irrigation for landscaping. And so we're capturing virtually all of the roof runoff on the new building. And so, I would think that would address our neighbors' concerns and that the amount of sheet flow flowing off of the property is going to be dramatically reduced. And so, it's the intent really of what you saw here in the drawings to be just a good neighbor, to adhere to all of the historic review guidelines. We're not asking for a variance or anything like that. The intent was to place the house closer to the south property line in that the views to the north are more pleasing to the client, and so they wanted the outdoor space to be oriented on the north side. And given that we're always concerned about natural light, and so in lieu of a portion of the outdoor space being covered as a portal, we're proposing a ramada simply to add some natural light into the defined outdoor space on the north side of the house. With that, I'm open for questions. Very much any presentation. Board members, do you have questions for the applicant? No questions for you right now. Anyone in this audience wishing to comment on this project, please come forward. Can you please raise your right hand and get sworn in? State your name and address for the record. Larue, 409 Camino Don Miguel. 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. So, I think you, right into that mic. I think you mentioned it, but I didn't hear what you said as far as the footage from the back fence, my back fence, to your proposed building. The footage. I think that was 9 feet 8 inches. As noted on the site plan, it's 9 feet 8 inches. The setback on the side, of course, is a minimum of 5 feet. And I would indicate, ma'am, that you are speaking, you need to direct your questions to the board. I'm sorry. Mhm. So that was 9 feet 8 inches. Okay. 9 feet 8 inches. I'm, well, Pamela Kelly is the neighbor to the west of me, and so I'm reading for both of us because she's out of the country right now. She, she brought up the point that we've, well, not 50, I've been there for 48 years, and then other neighbors have come after that, but we've lived there, remodeled, gardened in our respective lots. And that our level is 5 to 4 feet lower than the level of the house that is being built above us, which makes 14 feet seem really high. And I appreciated that their water was going to be collected because we didn't know how that was going to work. And Pamela brought up the request that the height for our neighborhood be kept down to 13 feet instead of 14. I don't, I don't know how much difference that would make. And I also don't understand how the 14 feet could not cut down on our sunlight. I mean, I didn't see a yellow line. Heather, correctly if I'm incorrect, Heather or Attorney Rubalik, I don't think that we have purview over sunlight. How do you, curious. Like what do you call it, a window of sunlight or can't think. Yes, that is a part of something called viewscape, and just generally what you find is so long as a building meets the required setback and zoning and the required height restriction, the fact that it interrupts sunlight or viewscape is not an enforceable property interest to put a stop to somebody else's property. Or to somebody else's construction. Okay. Yeah. And we have that with a number of projects, like things like cell towers. I guess that's what I was trying to think of. But this, if this meets the height restriction, the fact that it interferes with light or viewscape is not a protected property interest. Well, it's a, I understand that, but it makes a difference to our aesthetic that we're four and five feet lower than the house starts, the level of our property. So that's, that's what I'm saying. It makes a difference. But that's all. Any other questions for me? Does anybody have questions for the neighbor? Pardon me. It appears no questions or comments at this point. Something else may arise, but at this point, no. Thank you. Thank you. Rios, if I may, I neglected to answer some questions that were raised earlier. The lot coverage is 34%. The allowable is 40%. And as Lanny pointed out, we do need an archaeological survey that is in process as we speak. They've already done the site work, and we hope to go to the Architectural Review Committee meeting on May 28th. So obviously, we'll need that approval before, and yours, before being able to apply for a permit. The one thing that I want, if I may, just point out, as you may have noticed when you were on site today, that Ms. Laurel's property, between her property and this property, there is a coyote fence that is between six and seven feet high, with addition of vines that reach up to like eight and a half feet high. So, their view from their home is entirely obstructed to the new structure. So I don't see how that would, I don't think that they will experience any negative impact by the introduction of the house. Thank you for your comments. Anyone else in this room wishing to comment? Elizabeth, you've been sworn. Good evening. This actually looks like a fairly good example of what I would call infill, which I'm interested in, and I like what I see. I haven't been to the property itself. I'm kind of curious about the corners, the edges, or whatever you call that. How round are they going to be? That's going to be addressed in the motion. Okay. That, but I, but it looks like a fairly decent addition to the neighborhood, I think. Thank you. Anyone else in this room wishing to comment? Anyone online? Yes, Chair Rio. Stephanie Benato, previously sworn. Stephanie. Stephanie Benonato. I also think that it's a sensitive, carefully thought-out addition that takes into account the allowed height. Although I'm assuming the chimneys are higher because of fire code. I think that they've already agreed that there's going to be rounded corners. I wonder about the setback of the windows, whether there's going to be some recess on those windows. Their height of their property is what it is. It's the neighbor's property that's lower. If they're holding water on their property, they have met the land use requirements. And as far as I can tell from that yellow line, it's not on the summer solstice. And this is how you measure solar easements, which is what the neighbor could have obtained at some point. But the solar easement is measured on the shortest day of the year at noon. And it's whether it obscures a certain amount of light on your, on your, on your structure if you have the solar easement. In this case, it's not even seemingly obstructing light into their gardens on the winter when not much is growing anyway. So, and I guess if there is a problem with drainage, the neighbor could construct a wall, a retaining wall that might alleviate any problems that occur. So, I think that the owner and the architect have addressed the issues in a way that is sensitive to the neighbor's concerns, while allowing themselves the allowed, you know, height and setbacks, and the setback is much more than needed. So, again, I feel like they've done everything they can to be a good neighbor. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else on the chair? Yes, we have two. Yes, I'll make a motion. Thank you, Madam Chair. Can I ask a question of staff, please? One more gentleman who wanted to speak from the... Oh, there's a, come forward, sir. Hello. Please raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record. Ron Simmons. Address 133 Via Allegri Street, Santa Fe 7501. 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. Okay. I'm a contractor for many years in the county, in the city. I remodeled Ms. Laru's house and added an addition in 1998. So I was asked by the neighborhood there to help them understand the process. I want to point out that the elevation shown right here, the lower elevation, is inaccurate. It's inaccurate. What? In terms of the distance from that. Okay. In terms of the distance from the existing building shown to the north and the house, this scales if the distance from the house to the coyote fence or property line is nine feet, eight, called, then the distance from the coyote fence to the building as shown there is probably 25 feet. It's, it's, to my measurements on site when I built, recollection is it's probably 15 feet through the property line after the addition 1998. So this may be using an old footprint of where the building was. So that puts the building space much closer to the 14-foot height. The outdoor space in the Ramada is facing north, and it, it, it overwhelms this smaller neighborhood. That's a subjective comment. The rest of it is not, does impact the neighborhood in view of their property use and property enjoyment, given the work that these neighbors have put into their yards and houses and remodels. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else? No one else in this room and no one else online. Yeah. Let's see if they have any, if, yes. Ready to make a motion. Ready to make a motion? Yes. And I do have a question for staff and maybe for the applicant. Was there a question raised earlier about whether the three-foot rule was being followed on the publicly facing facade? I, I think that might be referring to the garage door. It's hard for me to tell what the dimensions are. I just want to make sure that that's, there's three feet to the corner. Yes, the, on the west side, the garage door is closer to the corner than three feet. So that would be, you would need an exception. I was unaware that you had to have three feet. I thought it was to a window. Yeah. I'm a little confused. Could somebody help me, Heather? Does that apply to a garage as well? I thought it was just to windows. Chair, I believe it's any opening, but let me check the code to be sure. Okay. It says, "No door or window in a publicly visible facade will be located nearer than three feet." So door includes garage, correct? That's what has been traditionally interpreted. Thank you. Well, I mean, yeah, I mean, just logically, it, it makes sense because the purpose of that rule is to make it appear to be made out of adobe. So it doesn't really matter whether it's what the door is for. It's when you have an opening that's too close to the, to the edge. It clearly is not made out of adobe. And now that it's pointed out, that's, I, I think it's, I will just say it's a very attractive design. I think you've done a great job. But that, that does appear to be a flaw. Is there, can that be addressed? We have extreme, we are really tight, I'm sure, on the space. So, um... What is the measurement right now in the corner? And in the meantime, Miss Aaron has a, has a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. There were a couple instances I was referring to, in this case, like in the, on the northwest corner, which is the living room that might be less than three feet, looks pretty close. And then there's also the door at the entry on that west facade. That looks to be even less. From, from our interpretation, given the angle of the house as it relates to the street, we don't see the north facade as being publicly visible. And so hence, we knew that we had a constrained space. They wanted some windows. Again, we're facing north, so we wanted to have as generous amount of windows as possible on the north side of the living room. So, from the corner to the fireplace, as shown there on the right side, yes, we're less than three feet there, but we're not, that those windows are not publicly visible. And the dimension from the corner, southwest corner of the house to the garage is 18 inches. We already have an extremely small garage, one-car garage. So, I don't have an immediate solution other than carving into the defined condition space in order to shift the car, or the garage, rather, further to the north and, and gain that and achieve that three-foot dimension. So, Which does the three-foot rule apply whether it's publicly visible or it is not publicly visible? Well, that, that garage is publicly visible. So, oh, Yeah. I'm, we're talking about what Membrano just pointed at, Rios. The three-foot rule does, can be interpreted as not being required on non-publicly facades, just like divided lights aren't required under portals. That's another allowance relative to openings of four to, yeah, I, I think that it's, the specific language in the code is whether it's publicly visible or not. And that doesn't necessarily mean the facade directly facing the street, of course. It means anything you can see from the public right-of-way. I, I agree. I think there was just confusion because staff had said that that north corner was publicly visible. I wasn't on the site visit, so I wasn't able to say, but that was the only reason I was questioning that corner. If applicant is sure it's not, then I don't think that would apply. But doesn't, it seems to me that at least the garage would require an exception, and possibly some of the windows would require an exception. So, doesn't that mean that, since that was not noticed for exception requests, that can't be determined tonight? Yes. Member BM. Do you agree that it does appear that it would need an exception to be approved? Cherios, Memer. Yes, with the garage, or I'd have to investigate further the other one. Yeah, I meant just the garage door, because obviously the other one's a little more fact intensive. It would require site visit, of course. Attorney, did you have something to say? Well, and this issue has come up several times before, and it's interesting to note that in the Downtown and East Side Historic District Design Standards of Section E of 18-5.2, I'm sorry, 14-5.2, the limitation about windows or doors on publicly visible facades prohibiting them from being located nearer than three feet from the corner of the facade applies to recent Santa Fe style buildings, not to old Santa Fe style buildings. What constitutes recent Santa Fe style and old Santa Fe style is the subject of a lot of debate. But it, it doesn't necessarily apply to all buildings. So, and, and liquid visible is defined. We'll get that definition real quick here. I know it's pretty broad. It's been a while since I've looked at it, but the portion of a structure visible from a public street, way, or other area to which the public has legal access, and provided that to be publicly visible, a structure need not be adjacent to a public street or way or area to which the public has legal access. It's all I can tell you about that. So we move forward with portions of this building. Maker of a, of a motion. I don't think there's a motion yet. No. Oh, I'm just saying the maker of the motion. Can we move forward with all of this? Yes. Members, I have a question about what the City Attorney said about old Santa Fe style versus recent Santa Fe style. I know we can all understand that recent Santa Fe style was, I think, part of the 1957 ordinance. But the design intent, as has been described here, is that they want to emulate the structure that they share the driveway with. I don't think anybody would argue that that is anything but that traditional old Santa Fe style. So if we can find our way through that, kind of pick our way through the code, I think that if we can say that that's old Santa Fe style, then the three-foot rule perhaps would not apply in this case. Any other comments in reference to this? Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I mean, I'm always looking for solutions, and I think that being is logical to a certain extent. But I think that you always, even though that specific requirement is set forth under recent Santa Fe style, old Santa Fe style is always considered more restrictive than recent. For example, this requirement for recent Santa Fe style of the 30-inch rule is specifically limited to publicly visible facades, which to me is saying that's where it's going to apply for recent, but you can do what you want elsewhere. Whereas I think that that would apply in all of the facades for old Santa Fe style again, because it's intended to look like an adobe building. Yes, Heather. Yes, Chair Rios, member Venu. Mr. Rash, the previous manager, interpreted the old Santa Fe style and the recent Santa Fe style to be more materials-based. Recent Santa Fe style, sort of acknowledging that it's not made of true adobe construction, but it emulates, just like you said. And that's the intent of the recent Santa Fe style versus old Santa Fe style, which I sort of agree with. Yeah. No, I think that's true. Although I just add that even recent Santa Fe style is supposed to emulate adobe architecture, but it can do it in non-publicly visible facades with a little bit more latitude, right? So I think that staff, I mean, normally we rely on staff to determine what exceptions are necessary, right? I think the code even indicates that staff is to make that determination. So I think that we need staff's analysis of what is permitted under this plan and what would need an exception before we proceed. Well, I'm not putting you on the spot right now. I think that maybe that's why it has to be postponed for that analysis, because, for example, I think you might need to do a site visit to see which facades are publicly visible. Chair Rios, when I was out at the site today, I sort of did make an assessment of that. I think a lot of us did. So there's no doubt that the garage elevation, west elevation, is publicly visible. So that's one thing. Based, I hesitate to interpret the code differently with different cases. So consistently, the H-word is interpreted, you know, openings not being closer than three feet from the corner and publicly visible facades. So, and in my humble opinion, it would require an exception in this case. Myself, talk about that. Yeah, I agree. So what would be the best approach then, as far as a motion goes, would be to postpone this case to a date certain for staff to do a new analysis and make a new recommendation. Can I make a comment? Go forward. I asked if I could make a comment. Yeah. So, I mean, to me, it seems like that's a possibility, but there may be another possibility that I think we should ask the applicant if they want the opportunity to, you know, if they would be flexible to explore a design that expanded that corner, which would ameliorate that situation. Because I know that the applicant stated that one option would be to make the garage smaller, which I understand is not desirable. But there may be other design options, such as pushing the, you know, you've got this eight-foot, nine-inch space on the north side of the building, and you've got a five-foot setback. So all I'm saying is not in any way trying to encroach on or advise on design, but just saying maybe there are other options, and a motion could be made that postponed it, allowing them to come back with a solution, which would just sort of solve the problem without having to figure out. Sure. And no, I was, I mean, as a both and. I agree, and I would have made it that way because I would prefer to see it come back without an exception request, but just with meeting the three-foot rule, especially since it's so publicly visible. It just leaves the applicant with more options. Right. I guess I'd even ask, say, the other way we could avoid that whole scenario is if it could be approved with the condition that no opening be within three feet, and then it would be up to you to redesign it according to that condition if you think that's possible. And then at least you'd have an answer tonight without having to come back. That's the option that I. Okay. That's the option. Yes. I mean. Let's hear from the applicant. To be clear, we're happy to try and solve it from a design standpoint. Okay. Or you're not having to come back. Right. But I just thought maybe it was an impossibility, but if it's not, my personal view is, and I'll make the motion to this effect, that I think it's a very nice design. I would approve it as submitted on condition that the plans be adjusted so that no opening is within three feet of a corner on any publicly visible facility. Yes. I mean, member Cherry's idea is pretty straightforward and obvious. We're adding some square footage, but we could simply shift the garage and the related entry and living room and carve into that nine-foot, eight-inch dimension by 16 inches. Okay. Or 18 inches, and we would have the three feet. Excellent. So, you know, off the top of my head, that is a pretty good, fairly straightforward solution to the problem. I'll make the motion then. So, maker of the motion. I'll address all the issues. I will address all the issues. Yes. 2026-0, 2026-12107HDRB at 425 Camino Don Miguel. I move to approve the application with the conditions that archaeological clearance be received prior to receiving a building permit. That the applicant's representations be incorporated into the approval. That the radius of all corners will be similar to the other existing building adjacent to this new structure, within, say, 20% radius of that. That the windows be, have deep reveals from the exteriors in the same manner as the adjacent existing building. And that the door, the garage door, and all door and window openings on publicly visible facades be adjusted so that they are no closer than three feet to a corner. Second. Member Venu. Yes. Member Bichek. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Simmons. Member Dman. Yes. Member Agular Madrona. Yes. The motion has passed. Chair. And thank you, sir. Discussion items. Yes, member Chair. So I just wanted, a couple things came up that I want to get some clarification with from staff on. In the 515 PO case, I didn't want to ask the applicant because I didn't want to hold the case up and be longer than it needed to be. But with regard to window dimensions, I had asked a question about the mutton bar and the component dimensions, and she had stated that she has an understanding that there was some flexibility with window dimensions. And I just wanted to see if that, I mean, and that may be her understanding from a non-related interaction with staff, but I wanted to see if staff, what their opinion on that was with flexibility with dimensions, because in the code it says that the word that's used is duplicated. It doesn't say duplicated exactly, and it doesn't say duplicated with diminutive flexibility. It just says duplicated. So I just wanted to know how staff interpreted that. Silver Cherry, the flexibility provision does relate to like non-historic additions to historic, you know, buildings. So there, there can be, there has to be a relationship in that, you know, it must sort of work with the overall design vocabulary, but I do believe there's opportunity for flexibility. And in that particular case. As far as the dimensionality of the replacement windows versus the original windows. Uh, well, not on historic buildings, no, there's no flexibility. But I thought you were talking about like the additions. No, I was asking, I was asking in regard to the windows that they were going to replace on the significant structure, that the dimensions of the window components, meaning the muttons, the styles, the rails of the sashes, the frame pieces, be duplicated. That's how it's always been, um, yeah, that's how it's always been enforced, I would say, on me for, for, for 20 plus years. So, so since there's often confusion around windows, I wanted to take the opportunity to see what the clarity was there, because her, her impression, from my, that, that I, I got the impression I got from her impression was that there was just some flexibility in the windows that could be replacing those historic windows on a significant structure. So I just, that's what I was asking. Chair Rios, member Cherry, the only flexibility generally has been relative to the availability of the window type. So, for instance, with steel casement windows, those muttons aren't as thin as they were previously, right? So we've had conversations regarding that. If there's going to be a replacement window that technology-wise, availability, all those things, that there's not an opportunity to duplicate exactly, then there's that diminutive flexibility. Okay, that makes. Yeah, it does. I mean, it's a longer conversation because I think a lot of those things can be replicated or duplicated, I would say. But. That was one of the to-do list items for the postponed workshop, which we're going to have. So I do have, I do have another question regarding public visibility, and because it did come up at the site visit today in regard to the Canyon Road property, and I just wanted staff's opinion. And it's interesting that you bring up Mr. Rash, because I worked a lot with him and talked a lot about public visibility with him, and the way it had always been enforced or interpreted under his tenure. I know that's not what's going on now, but it's just what had been happening, and it's good to understand what's, how it's interpreted now. But is that public visibility was only determined from the street facade that the building is dressed on? And the example that was given to me by him that made a lot of sense was, you know, rooftop impertinences, condensers, cannot be publicly visible. And so if you go up to the Cross of the Martyrs, you're going to see a lot of rooftop condensers that are publicly visible. So that if they enforced it from any visibility area, it would make, potentially it just causes a lot of potential problems, I guess I would say. So, just wanted some clarification on staff's interpretation of publicly visible, if that's case-by-case scenario, or if you guys have an actual official interpretation now. Rios, member Cherry, I would have to double check what the memo from Sally Pas stated. What I discovered when Frank was reading the code is that in the newly adopted code, publicly visible is not defined. So, and you're correct, for instance, you know, solar collectors being visible from something up on the hill. It is from a public street or a public way. So in the case of 515 Peralta, that LMA is actually a public way. It's a dedicated street. So it's owned in part by the city of Santa Fe. So those corner lots are challenging. Yeah. But, you know, topography can also be considered. Yeah. On projects that I have experience with, that's been designated from that addressed street facade, and then other facades or above, say from other streets up higher, it's been not enforced, you know, because you could see a lot of skylights, say if you're up on, on, uh, right. A variety of streets in Santa Fe on other, on other buildings. Publicly visible is from an addressed street as well as the corner lot where there's a street that it might be on a corner. Technically, that's what 550 sale is. And then publicly visible also from a park, for instance, Patrick Smith Park looking towards the Canyon Road project. That would be considered publicly. Yeah. Just a clarification on the last motion. I think it was understood, but I did, I need to make it clear that the applicant needs to bring back revised plans to staff for approval, or is that always understood in a case like that? Because I did not specify that. It should be stated, but I think it was understood. So it'll be included in the, in the final written decision, right? Okay. Okay. You do a little asterisk, right? And also on 515, was that a date certain? I think we missed that. Sorry. I think so too. Since the date certain wasn't defined, it'll just stay on the agenda until which time it's, Okay. Yeah. If I may, that, hold on a minute. So, matters from the board. I want to tell the two people that are assigned to the subcommittee, Joe and Mary Allen, would you guys listen to the minutes of this evening's meeting, take notes on what was indicated that needed attention, and so that when you go to that meeting, you're helping some revisions, that those things are addressed and anything else? Do I hear a motion to adjourn? Motion to move to adjourn. What are you saying, Amanda? I was just going to let the subcommittee know that I will, I will email you to find a best time, and it is not date certain. Once we have a new application, we'll put it on a new agenda with a new caption because maybe they won't need the exception. Okay. Yeah. I thought the motion was for them to not have to do a new case, but that we were postponing for redesign. It is a postponement of redesign, but it is going to have a redesign. So it will be re- Yeah. Because we wanted to not, you know, completely bring their project to a halt, but keep it moving as quickly as possible. Right. Sure. Okay. And staff, you will also contact the subcommittee. I will. Okay. Okay. So, to motion to adjourn. Move to adjourn. Second. Second. All in favor say aye. Aye.