Historic Districts Review Board Meeting Tue, May 12, 2026 · Historic Districts Review Board https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/1163 == Executive Summary == The Historic Districts Review Board held a meeting where they approved agenda changes, past meeting minutes, and findings of fact. Key discussions included the historic status and primary facade designation for 1295 Sarra Gordo, where public testimony led to both upper and lower retaining walls being designated as contributing. The Board also addressed the status of 510 Jose Street, ultimately retaining its non-contributing status despite public concerns about commercial zoning. Further discussions involved proposed additions and alterations at 519 East Palace Avenue and 539 Garcia Street, with a focus on maintaining historic character while accommodating modern needs. A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to 532 Kayo Corvo, where the conversion of a garage to a studio and the design of a replacement garage door were debated, with the Board emphasizing the need for the exterior to retain a traditional garage appearance. The Board approved the application for 532 Kayo Corvo with the condition that a proposed chimney be relocated to meet setback requirements. == Key Decisions == - Approved the agenda as amended. - Approved minutes from March 10, 2026. - Approved four findings of fact and conclusions of law from July 8, 2025. - Designated the residential structure at 1295 Sarra Gordo as contributing, with south and east elevations as primary facades, and both the upper and lower retaining walls as contributing. - Retained the non-contributing status for 510 Jose Street. - Approved the project at 519 East Palace Avenue as submitted, with a request for further investigation into a non-conforming gate. - Approved the application for 532 Kayo Corvo (2026-0122-86 HDRB) with the condition that the chimney be moved to the west to satisfy the 10-foot rule of separation from the primary facade. == Motions & Votes == - Motion to approve the agenda as amended — Passed (Aye vote) - Motion to approve minutes of March 10, 2026 — Passed (Aye vote) - Motion to approve four findings of fact and conclusions of law from July 8, 2025 — Passed (Aye vote) - Motion to adopt staff's recommendation for the historic status of the structure at 1295 Sarra Gordo as contributing, with the south and east elevations (facades one, two, three, and four) designated as primary, and to designate both the upper and lower retaining walls as contributing — Passed unanimously (3-0) - Motion to adopt staff's recommendation to retain the status of 510 Jose Street as non-contributing — Passed (3 Yes, 1 No) - Motion to adopt staff's recommendations and approve the project at 519 East Palace Avenue as submitted, with a request for further investigation into the gate — Passed (4 Yes) - Motion to approve the project at 539 Garcia Street as submitted, with the condition that the garage door replacement feature (whether glazing or doors with glazing) come back as a redesign for further review — Seconded (outcome not specified in excerpt) - Motion regarding a previous item (not detailed) — Passed (Member Cherry: Yes, Member Benu: Yes, Member DNE: Yes, Member Bishide: Yes) - Motion to approve Application 2026-0122-86 HDRB for 532 Kayo Corvo with the condition that the chimney be moved to the west, sufficient to satisfy the 10-foot rule of separation from the primary facade — Passed unanimously (Member Bisharat: Yes, Member Degen: Yes, Member Cherry: Yes, Member Benavidez: Yes) == Public Comment == Stephanie Benonato inquired about the appointment of a board historian and raised concerns about six-foot wrought iron fencing at Surret and Sun, suggesting it looked like a "junkyard." She also commented on the retaining wall at 1295 Sarra Gordo, arguing for its contributing status, and later questioned the hardship for a portal within 10 feet of the primary facade at 539 Garcia Street, advocating for garage doors that read as actual garage doors. David Salazar and Teresa M. provided sworn testimony regarding the historical significance and age of the retaining walls at 1295 Sarra Gordo. A neighbor provided historical context about a former wall at 510 Jose Street, and another public commenter expressed concern that the property's commercial zoning might lead to a loss of historical character. Stephanie Beninato also emphasized that the garage at 532 Kayo Corvo, regardless of its designation as an accessory unit, must conform to historic styles and read as a garage, specifically objecting to an all-glass wall behind the garage doors. == Topics == - Historic Preservation Awards - Garage Renovation & Chimney - Historic Status Review - Fencing and Gates - Retaining Walls - Future Meeting Location - Historic Preservation Plan - Board Member Appointments - Appeals Process == Full Transcript == Hey, Michael. We're ready to go live. We are live. Well, good evening, everyone, and welcome to this meeting. We are the Historic Districts Review Board, and today is Tuesday, May the 12th, 2026. And this meeting is now called to order. May we have a roll call, Amanda? Chair Rios. Here. Vice Chair Benvvenu. Here. Member Cherry. Here. Member Bishide. Here. Member Simmons. Excused. Member DGEN. Present. Madame Chair, you have a quorum. Are there any changes to this evening's agenda? Yes, thank you, Chair Rios. We do have one change that I wanted to highlight on item B under new business. So, it's 9B. The property on this agenda was listed as contributing. It is a non-contributing structure, and so I just wanted to clarify that for the record. And then just highlight that item 9D is postponed to the next hearing. Item 9E is also being postponed. And then also to highlight that our next meeting location is going to be at the main library at 145 Washington Avenue, just across the street. We were unable to secure this location for our standard meeting. There's a conflict, so we've relocated it. And that meeting starts at 5:00 instead of 5:30. Correct. Thank you, Chair. Yes. So, are there any other changes to tonight's agenda? If not, is there a motion to approve the agenda as just amended? Seconds. And all those in favor say, "Aye." Aye. I say no. Thank you. We have minutes of March the 10th, 2026. Changes to any of this set of minutes? Board members or staff? It appears not. Do I hear a motion to approve? Motion to approve minutes. Date again. Hear a second. Is this the March 10th? I want to make sure I'm approving which one I'm... Yeah, March 10th. Okay. Is there a second? Each side. All those in favor say, "Aye." Aye. I'll say no. We have four findings of fact and conclusions of law. They're all from July the 8th, 2025. Changes to any of the... anyone? There are no changes. Is there a motion to approve these? Moved. Is there a second? Second. All those in favor say, "Aye." Aye. Oppose say no. Matters from the public. Is there anyone in this room that wishes to come forward to the podium and speak on something not related to a case this evening, but something related to HBO? I see people going like this. Anyone online? Yes, Chair. I see one hand raised. Miss Stephanie Benonato, let me allow you to talk, Miss Benonato. Can you hear me now? We can. Yeah, please proceed. Okay, great. So, one is, I wonder when the historian for the board will be appointed. I hope it doesn't take as long as it did to get an architect appointed. And then the other thing I wanted to bring to your attention is the fencing and gates at Surret and Sun on West Alameda and Sandoval, I believe it is. And they, I think they've put in more gates or gates that weren't there before. And I do wonder how it is that they get six-foot high fencing that's wrought iron in the downtown. And it looks like a junkyard. Excuse me. Well, that it's a storage yard. Excuse me. I guess it looks like a storage yard, but I'm wondering why it is that they were not required to put in IO fencing or a wall that would hide some of the architectural details, the many, many architectural details that they have stored there. I was wondering maybe if you could follow up with your staff. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else online? Chair Rios, I don't see any other hands raised. Okay, we'll move on to staff communications. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. I wanted to update you on our 2026 Santa Fe Heritage Preservation Awards. For architectural preservation, 423 Camino Don Miguel has been selected as our winner, and you also have a list in front of you to show you the tallies of how that meetup came about. Compatible remodel came to 125 Duran Street, and they're in the west side in Guadalupe district. Compatible new construction is 416 East Madre, and our cultural preservation award is going to go to the Pueblo of Tesuque. And our mayor award is going to be presented to Carmela Padilla, and our archeological award will be granted to Steven Post. So, I've already contacted most, if not all of you, to see if you would be interested in doing presenting. So, thank you for working with me. And you should be receiving within the next day the information about each property. So, you can come up with your two-minute introduction. And we are having a little change this year. We are not having the acceptees give speeches as we have done in the past. So, we will still take pictures and shake hands, but there won't be any speeches given by the recipients. Would you remind the public and everyone here of the date of the awards ceremony? Yes, Madam Chair. That is May 21st at 5:30 p.m. at San Miguel Chapel. And that is 401 Old Santa Fe Trail, I believe. And also then the reception will start at 7:00 p.m. And that's at El Guan. And it's open to the public. So, you all are invited. Absolutely. Also, will you be acknowledging member, retired member Maline Aguilar Madrano? Yes, we will be giving service and honored awards to member Agla Madano, member Matherther, and from our archeological review committee, Courtney Wands, and as well as Derek Pierce. Thank you so much. Thank you. Anything else? No, Madam Chair. We have nothing under old business, but we will move to new business. We have five cases. And I do need to tell you that if you disagree with the decision this board makes this evening, you do have the option to appeal. You would be appealing to the City Council. And do get together with city staff because they can guide you through the process. There is a time constraint on that, so you want to make sure you're within that window. Also, this evening when you're speaking, not if you're involved in a case, but if you're a member of the public and you're going to speak, you will be limited to two minutes. And if you can please put that two minutes on the board, we'd appreciate it. So, the first case this evening is located at 1295 Cordoba. Is that applicant here? The applicants are here. Madam Chair, if I may, I'm going to recuse myself from this case for a potential conflict of interest. Let the record show that member Scott Cherry is recusing himself from this case. And Amanda, not Amanda, Lanny, it is your case. May we hear from you? Okay. So, this is case 202612282 HDRB for 1295 Sarra Gordo. For a status review, the property is located on the north side of Sarra Gordo, just to the east of our Miho Lane. The Adobe, 1930s, and forgive me if I mispronounce, but it's Labrad and Placida Ortiz House is listed as contributing to the downtown and east side historic district. No primary facades have been designated for the property. The residence expresses a vernacular Pueblo Revival style with exposed vigas at the facade and rounded parapets. The residence started, sorry, very sensitive today. The residence started as two connected rooms, but is now 1,030 square feet, excluding the two portals. The south facade features an arch porch entry and wood casement windows and appears to retain its original configuration. There was an addition of two rooms in the 1930s, which created a bump out at the northeast corner. The garage and attached shed were demolished in 1995. In 1996, the structure was 927 square feet when a room addition was placed on the north elevation. Alteration of the east elevation portal and other changes were also made at this time. The origin of the stone retaining elements in front of the house is unclear. The low planters immediately in front of the house appear in earlier aerial photographs and lend period character to the property, helping to establish its historic setting. The lower rock work is first clearly visible in 1978 aerial imagery. The applicant is requesting the status review with primary facade designation, if applicable, for the residential structure, the planter deck stone walls directly in front of the residence, and for the lower retaining walls at the entrance from Sarra Gordo. The planter deck stone walls directly in front of the residence are not a type of structure that has been designated in the past. These are not yard walls, but a planter. The staff does not feel that it is appropriate to designate planters, even though it does meet the code definition of structure. Therefore, if a status is assigned to the planter, the staff would recommend a non-contributing status. Staff finds that the planter deck stone walls directly in front of the residents are not a type of structure that should be assigned a historic status due to age. It is a defining feature of the resident's relationship with Sarra Gordo Road. The applicant may consider retaining the walls as part of any future renovation. The staff recommends that the historic status of the residential structure be maintained as contributing with the south and east elevations designated as the primary facades on this map. That would include facades one, two, and three, including the portal and facade four. Retaining walls be designated as non-contributing or 14-4.6c designation of significant contributing or non-contributing status within historic districts. Stand for questions or members. Any questions for Lanny? No questions for you at this time, Lanny. May we have the applicant come forward? Whoever will be speaking, do you need to get sworn in? It's Harvey Monroe. I'm the architect. Are you going to be speaking as well? Yes. Please state your name and address for the record, and I'll swear you in all at the same time in the... in the microphone, please. My name is Anne Fout. I live at 107 Hime Menz in Santa Fe. Did you hear that? Yes. My name is Anne Felout. I live at 107 Jimenez Street, Santa Fe. I am one of the owners. And my name is Eric Sykes, and I live with my wife, Anne, at 107 Jimenez Street, Santa Fe. Will you all raise your right hand? Thank you. Do you solemnly swear and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes. Thank you. So, who will speak first? I didn't introduce myself as the architect. And... And do you agree with staff's recommendations? I agree with the staff's assessment and feel that the facades that have been identified make the most sense as being significant. Also, the walls below the retaining wall as well as the planter wall are somewhat disrepair and far beyond easily. So, the Anne and Eric probably have more insight as to what they would like to see happen in those areas. Tonight, we are only addressing the status of the building, not anything that you might be wanting to do in the future. We are not contesting the status. I... and the sides that are... Yes, we agree with the facades that have been designated. Thank you very much. Board members, do you have any questions for the applicants or the architect? We do not have questions for you. Is there anyone online? Chair Rios, pardon me. I see one hand raised. Miss Stephanie Benonato for public comment. Miss Benonato, will you state your name and address and be sworn in? Yeah. Stephanie Benonato, PO Box 1601, Santa Fe 87504. Stephanie, do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth, nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes. Thank you, ma'am. So, I am happy that the owners are in agreement with the staff recommendation. I think that that's the facades that are being chosen as primary or appropriate. I'm wondering about the retaining wall though at the street. It is really characteristic of that building. I actually looked at that building when it was for sale, and I know that they said it wasn't visible until 1978, but we're halfway through 2026. So that's almost 50 years old. And I'm wondering when the aerial view prior to that was. Was it like 1963? So that there's like a 15-year span where you don't actually know, is it 50 years old or not? And I wonder if the staff or the architect could address that. Thank you, because I do think it should be contributing. Thank you. Lanny, I believe that you did address that or you mentioned, would you like to speak further on that? According to the HCPI, it was up as 1978, but the previous year is not defined in the HCPI. And you feel that that rock wall does not contribute to the historicity of this house? No, I was in agreement with John Murphy, who wrote the HCPI, that it should be a non-contributing structure. Thank you. I forgot to ask if anyone in this audience wanted to comment in reference to this particular project, please come forward and get sworn in. Hi. Please state your name and address for the record. Yes, my name is David Salazar. Please speak into the microphone so everyone can hear you. Thank you. My name is David Salazar, and I live at 13 Saragosa, adjacent on the east side to this property. Okay. Thank you. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you. So, I guess the question, part of the reason I'm here is I heard rumors of possibly developing a driveway through there. And so, I think it's important to approach that subject of the wall. I've lived at 1301 since 1993. That wall has always been a part of that neighborhood, a part of that structure, and I think it's part of the historical fabric of that community. Now, unfortunately, some of it, I think the east half, which I think they spoke of, has deteriorated over years. And I think that former occupants had tried to repair it. I don't know if they went with a permit or without a permit or with historical design review, but I know that at least half of that wall is part of that historic fiber of the community. That's about all I have to say on that at this time. The other thing that I would like to point out on the structure is that the east wall of that building, and then obviously the house was built before any setback requirements, but it's at least one or two feet from the boundary line on the property. So, one of the things that I noted on the structure piece is that they didn't actually show the entire plat and the adjoining properties. And so, I don't know if that's part of this review, but I think it's important to note. I'm sure that the applicants will come forward in the future in reference to changes that they want to make to this building. Thank you. That would be the appropriate time. Thank you. That was my concern, is that if this is just a review of the building, I would agree with what they mentioned with the exception of the wall. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else in this audience wishing to comment on this particular case? Board members, oh, come forward. If you want to speak, you've got to come forward. And I'm going to mention to everyone, move that mic right to your mouth because the recorder needs to hear everything. My name is Teresa M. Excuse me, I have a hoarse voice, but I want to basically... Teresa, will you please state your address for the record as well? I'm sorry. Your address? Oh, 1299 Saragosa Road. It's the house of J. Thank you. Will you raise your right hand and get sworn in? Thank you. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Thank you, ma'am. As I was saying, I owned the house next to, adjacent to the property we're talking about right now. It was my grandfather's house, and that house was part of all the property around Sordo. It was the Nariho property. My aunt owned the house prior to the owner that sold it to you all. And that house has been there since probably the late 1900s, early 1900s. My aunt owned the property. My grandfather gave it to her, and he gave property to each of his family members. So that property has been there. So I know that house is at least over 100 years old. Okay. So, I just want to make that known. As far as the structure of the house, I don't see any problems with what they're proposing. I think it could use some lift, you know. But the wall itself in front, that wall has been there ever since the house was there. It is more than 50 years old. It's actually, I think the house is probably like 1920-ish, 30-ish. That's since when the wall was there. My uncle built it. Roberta, who is my cousin who owned the house before this, she actually did some repairs to the wall. It was falling down. But pretty well, the structure of the wall has been holding up. But basically, I think that wall is a historical part of the house, and so it's a house of the state. It's been family property forever, and I'd like to not see it change too much, but that's their option because it is their property now. So whatever is legal is fine with me. But I just wanted to say that that wall has been there for quite a while, and it is part of the historical structure, and the house has been part of the historical structure. Thank you, Miss Arho. Anyone else in this audience wishing to speak, please come forward. No one else. I do want to say I always think it's very important for family members who really know the history of a house to come forward. For instance, these people are saying that that wall has been there for over 50 years. So it's something for the board to consider. And if there's nothing further in reference to this case, I will entertain a motion by the board. Okay. Yes, I think I'm ready to make a motion. I move that we approve the request for the status at 2026-12282-HDRB at 1295 Saragosa Road, per staff request or recommendation. Is there a second to this motion? Right. No, no, no, no. Just a status. Right. You are... Well then, I think perhaps you want to make the motion, my fellow member. Sorry about that. Well, people can make an amendment. I understood you to say you were adopting staff's recommendation. Yes. But... No, but... To the extent we need to make iterations about it for the record, and I was asking for a second. She said... I thought you just clarified that that wasn't your motion to adopt all of staff's recommendations. No. It is or isn't? So... Member Dickton, what portion are you not adopting in reference to staff's recommendations? All I'm suggesting is that I would agree that we should agree on the designation. Now, if it needs detailed description, obviously I'm not prepared at the moment to say what that is. So perhaps a more clear, a clearer motion should be made to understand what we're trying to do here. I thought we were just approving the status. Well, the status is contributing. Tonight we are designating primary facades. All right. And the primary facades as staff has recommended are the south and the east, which include one, two, three, and four. Well said. I'll make that my motion. And staff indicated that there was a planter wall closer to the house. She indicated that was not part of what she was designating in this particular case. And also the retaining wall at the bottom of the property, she is not addressing that as primary. Okay. So we have... Member Dman, I'm going to give you another opportunity. You want... I'm ready for it. Thank you. Give me another option. What is it that we need to do right now to move forward because this is obviously taking too long? Just state it. Yes, Heather. I can make a motion. Thank you, Chair Rios. I don't know if officially that member DGN needs to withdraw her motion, but the two things that need to be addressed, really three things that need to be addressed here tonight, is the status and primary facades designation for the residents. And then there are two retaining walls on site that are discussed in the staff report and the status of those two. Yep. So, Member Dick, you're going to have to withdraw your motion, and if you wish, you can restate it or you can have somebody else restate the motion. I will withdraw my motion and defer to someone with a little bit more ability to make the proper motion. Thank you. Member Benu. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I'll give it a try. In case 2026 or 12282 HDRB 1295 Saragosa Road, I would move to adopt in part staff's recommendations, specifically that the historic structure, historic status of the structure, be maintained as contributing with the south and east elevations designated primary, being facades one, two, and three, including the portico and facade four on the status report map. I would also move that both retaining walls be designated as contributing. The upper wall as recommended in the HCPI as being as historic and contributing to the character of the district, and the lower wall as being at least approximately 50 years old as required for contributing status due to its appearance in the 1978 aerial. And probably significantly older than that, based on sworn testimony that was provided by the neighbor, and also contributing to the character of the district. Each have a second. Roll call vote, please. Member DGEN. Yes. Member Bishide. Yes. Member Benu. Yes. Madam Chair, the motion has passed. Thank you all very much. Next case this evening is located at 510 Jose Street. It appears that the applicants are here. And Lanny, that is also your case. May we hear from you? Okay, this is case 202612012287 HDRB for 510 Jose Street for a status review. The property is located on the corner of Jose and Daniel Streets. The 1,140 square foot residence is listed as non-contributing to the Westside and Guadalupe Historic District. The Adobe home was constructed as a 900 square foot duplex in the late 1930s. The projection on the south was originally constructed as a garage before 1951 with a technique that differs from the original residence. The garage was converted into a heated space along with the replacement of the windows sometime in the early 1980s. A trash enclosure was constructed on the east elevation in 1985, and the building was being utilized as a commercial space. According to the 2026 HCPI by John Murphy, the overall footprint of the building has remained largely unchanged since the 1950s. However, significant alterations, including the infill of the former garage door with new fenestration, replacement of doors and windows, and apparent modification of two primary entries, have compromised the integrity. As a result, the building no longer conveys its original, its historic function as a residential duplex. For this reason, the staff agrees with Mr. Murphy's assessment that the property should remain a non-contributing property because while over 50 years in age, the structure does not contribute to the character of the district. The applicant is requesting status review with primary facade designation, if applicable, for the structure. Staff recommends the historic status of the structure be maintained as non-contributing for Section 14-4.6c, designation of significant contributing or non-contributing status within historic districts. Thank you, Lanny. Lanny, you indicated that the footprint has not changed. Have the window openings changed? There's a change from a door to what used to be an HVAC system, which is now just a hole in the wall with board in it on the north elevation. But the other openings are all the same. Yeah. 900 square feet of this building is almost 100 years old. Yes. Any other questions or comments, board members, at this time? Applicant, would you come forward, please? Hi. If you also, Courtney, thank you. Please state your name and address for the record, right into the microphone there. My name is Juan Ne Ortiz. My address is 111 Gento, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505. I'm speaking on behalf of my father, Michael Ortiz. My name is Anne Hanukkah, and I live at 111 Ka Piniono, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87505, and I am his mother and the co-applicant's wife. Pardon me, good evening. Courtney Mate, architect for the project here. My address is 574 West San Francisco Street. Thank you. Do you all solemnly declare and affirm the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalty of perjury? Yes. Thank you. Whoever wants to speak, take the mic. Sure. I believe that we agree with the board. That's all I really have to say. Madam Chair, members, I agree with the staff assessment and thank them for their time getting us through this process up to this time period. I'll go along with them. I have nothing to add to it. We feel like the study was done thoroughly and agree with the recommendations. Okay. Do you have questions or comments? No questions or comments. Anyone in this audience wishing to speak, please come forward. Katherine Rivera, PO Box 363 in Santa Fe 87504. Katherine, do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes, I do. Thank you. Members of the board, and the applicants, I wanted to share that I am a neighbor to this property, actually four doors down. So, I do have some history with the property. I'm familiar with it. I agree with the staff's recommendations. And just for the record, I wanted to advise everyone that there used to be, once upon a time, a wall, a wall that went along Jose Street and also on Daniel Street up until the driveway. That wall has long been gone. I'm going to say since the 1960s or 70s, but if you are on the property and look at it, you can see the outline of the bricks that are still embedded there into that line. I don't think it pertains to what we're doing here, but since you asked for history, I thought I would give you that history. Thank you. Anyone else in this audience wishing to speak? No one. Anyone online? Oh, excuse me. Applicant. Yes. I'd just like to speak on behalf of the wall. The foundation for that wall is still in the ground, and I guess you don't want anymore. Anyone online? Yes, Chair Rios, I have Miss Stephanie Benonato. You have been sworn, so please provide your testimony here. Thank you. Stephanie Benonato, I just think it's unfortunate because it seems that since it became a commercial building, that somehow now it's no longer regarded as contributing to the streetscape, that because it's, I mean, the report said because it's no longer a residential duplex, that somehow it is no longer contributing. And I think that's a very short-sighted way of looking at this building. The original footprint is there. It's clearly an old building. There are at least a couple of facades that I would say could be primary. There was one where there were two rather long windows. That would be one I would think could be a primary facade. And I just think it's unfortunate that we will lose the history of this building because no doubt it will get added on to and changed dramatically once this, you know, once the owners start working on it, given that it is a commercially zoned building. Thank you. Anyone else online? Chair Rios, no other hands are raised. Motion is in order at this point. Thank you, Madam Chair. In case number 202612287 HDRB at 510 Jose Street, I move to adopt staff's recommendation to retain the, or to designate the, sorry, retain the status as non-contributing. Is there a second? Second. Roll call, Member Cherry. No. Member Benu. Yes. Member Bishide. Yes. Member DGEN. Yes. Madam Chair, the motion has passed. Thank you all. Appreciate it. Next case is located at 519 East Palace Avenue. And the applicant is coming forward. And Lanny, can we hear from you? Okay. This is case 202612283 HDRB for 519 East Palace Avenue for an addition. The property is located on the north of the avenue, just east of Armijo Street. 519 East Palace Avenue is a single-family residence that was constructed before 1928 in a vernacular style. During the Second World War, the property was converted to a naval recruiting station. Remodeling is presumed to have happened as a result. Character-defining elements include the front porch with low arches and the shed roof massing on the east side. The property is listed as contributing to the Downtown and East Side Historic District with the south street-facing elevation as the primary. The applicant proposes to demolish the steel frame carport on the northwest corner of the lot, relocate the shed from the northwest corner of the lot to the northeast corner, construct a 440-square-foot addition on the northwest corner of the residence in the location of the current carport that's being taken down, and construct a 6-foot-high yard wall with pedestrian gates on the west side of the residence. So this is the existing and proposed east elevation, and then this is the north elevations, and the existing and proposed west elevation. Staff recommends approval of the proposed project and finds that the application complies with Sections 14-4.6E, general design standards, and 14-4.6G2, 6G2 for the Downtown and East Side design standards. There was a question about the metal gate out in front. The gate itself was approved in 2003 for a wood gate. However, it does show as a metal gate in the 2009 case. So I'm not sure what happened there. Lanny, this project is proposed for the rear of the property. Correct? Yes. And is any of it publicly visible, Lanny? No. Any other questions for Lanny? Other questions? Mr. N, come forward. Hi, Mark. Please raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record. Street. Okay. Again. Would you repeat that, please? Actton 1523 Tal Street. Thank you. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Thank you. It's just a very simple addition. The existing house didn't have much in the way of a master closet or master bathroom. So, we did it very simply, right off the existing bathroom in the back of the house. So, it's really invisible back there and not much else to say. Any questions for the applicant, board members? We have no questions. Anyone in this audience wishing to comment on this particular point? No one. Anyone online? Yes, Chair Rios, we have Miss Benonato. You should be allowed to unmute yourself. Yeah. Stephanie Benonato, I don't have any objections to the addition they're proposing, but I do wonder about the height of the wall and what is the average or approved height in that area? Because it is a six-foot wall. So, that's my only question. Thank you. Sorry. So that the six-foot fence, yard wall, and gate are actually interior to the property. So they're about halfway back inside the property. That's also not visible. Correct. Correct. Board members, you didn't have questions or comments. I do know. I do. Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have a question. So, I know the metal gate's not before us today. But we had a very similar situation come before us in an application not very long ago on Canyon Road where there had been approval for a wooden gate, and the prior owner went ahead and constructed a steel gate. And when it was brought to the attention of the applicant, they agreed to modify the steel gate to add some wood elements and some fenestration. Is that something you'd be willing to do in this case? Well, my clients had just purchased this house. They just closed on it maybe two months ago. So, they were unaware of that, and I'm not sure I can speak for them. Nobody gave them any heads up that that was in violation. I completely understand. That's why I said it was the exact same situation before. They had no knowledge either because they purchased it from someone who had gone ahead and done the unauthorized work, or at least a prior owner had. Certainly a fairly attractive gate anyway. Rusted over pretty nicely. So it's not as blatantly face as it could be. Right. We do consider steel gates to be non-conforming in the area, and we only allow them if there's an exception granted, which I don't know has ever happened before. So, okay, it sounds like we'll deal with that on another occasion. Thanks. So, I will entertain a motion at this point. I'll make it, Benu. Thank you, Madam Chair. 2026 or 12283 HDRB 519 East Palace Avenue. I move to adopt staff's recommendations and approve the project as submitted and request further investigation into the gate. Is there a second? Second, DGEN. Roll vote, please. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Bish. Yes. Member Dagnan. Yes. Member Ben Vanu. Yes. Madam Chair, the motion has passed. Next case is located at 539 Garcia. I'm going to assume that these people are the Garcia planning. Okay. So, this is case 2025011550 HDRB for 539 Garcia Street. This is a case that's left over from 2025 and is to be reviewed under the 2025 code requirements. The property at 539 Garcia Street sits about 115 feet to the east of Garcia Street behind another residence on a narrow dirt private drive. The private driveway is considered the streetscape for the property since the property does not have street frontage. The single-family residence is listed as contributing with the south elevation including the portal as the primary facade to the Downtown and East Side Historic District. The accessory structure is designated as contributing with the south elevation as the primary facade, excluding the non-historic materials and the garage door material. The Spanish Pueblo Revival style home was constructed in the 1940s using adobe as part of the Garcia family compound. A rear addition was constructed sometime between 1958 and 1966 in a ranch style at a lower height than the original structure. After 1978, a bay window addition was constructed on the west elevation along with two window opening changes. In the northwest corner of the lot sits an Adobe one-car garage in Pueblo Revival style, consistent with the house style, also dating to the 1940s. Under case 20251489 HDRB on June 24th of 2025, the board retained the main residence as contributing and designated the south facade as primary, and designated the garage as contributing with the south facade as primary, excluding the non-historic materials and the garage door material. The applicant is requesting, on the main residence, to remove the 1980s addition of the bay window on the west elevation and construct a 33-foot addition to a height of 10 feet 6 inches, where the maximum allowable is 10 feet 10 inches. An exception is requested to section 14-5.2 D2D for constructing an addition within 10 feet of the primary facade. They would also like to construct a 309-foot portal to a height of 10 feet 3 inches. The portal will be within 10 feet of the primary facade as well, and therefore the exception is also pertaining to the portal. We would like to replace windows and doors on the non-primary facades of the residence. The windows on the north and east elevations will match the existing 3 over 1 window pattern, except for the smaller windows, which will match the existing smaller windows in a 2 over 1 pattern. The new window on the south wall of the proposed addition will be a 2 over 1 pattern, similar to the existing 3 over 1 primary facade window. Primary facade windows are not being replaced; they are being repaired only. Under the request of the west elevation portal is a larger 8-foot 11-inch wide by 6-foot 6-inch high window, which is requested as a 7 over 3 pattern. This pattern matches the requested window for the garage conversion, which we will discuss in a minute. The smaller windows under the Westport Hall are 2 over 1. They would also like to repair the window on the primary facade of the residence, refinish and repair the door on the primary facade, and repair posts and corbels of the south portal, which is part of the primary. The posts and corbels will remain in the same style as exists currently. No replacement is requested at this time. They would also like to re-roof, stucco, paint, and stain the wood elements on the residence. And then I included some elevations for you. So this is the north elevation. And then they would also like to convert the garage to an ADU by altering the garage door to a window. The window will be the larger window with a 7 over 3 pattern to match the window under the Westport Hall of the residence. The garage door is on the primary facade. However, it is excluded from the primary. And then they would like to replace the two existing windows and install a new window on the non-primary facades. They will re-roof, stucco, paint, and paint the garage. On the property, they want to do some hardscaping by installing a gravel driveway, concrete landings, and steps as necessary. So staff finds that the exception criteria have been met and recommends approval of the exception to section 14-5.2D2D for constructing an addition within 10 feet of the primary facade. Staff also recommends approval of the other elements of the application as they comply with 14-5.2D2D general design standards and 14-5.2E for the Downtown and East Side Historic Districts standards. So when we were in the field today, I was under the impression that garage doors had been approved in the past as a window this way. Upon further research, we did not find any that. The ones that we were thinking of had all been denied and were asked to be redesigned. So I was incorrect in that conversation. Sorry, John. And then they also all had exceptions to section 14-5.2D2D 5A1, which states that historic windows and doors need to be duplicated in size, style, and material. So, and I did not ask for that exception in this case. I stand for any other questions. Lenny, in reference to this elevation, I believe that would be the west elevation where the portal is. Yes, that's the west. Is that portal going to go all the way? That's where the bay window is going to be removed, and they're going to put in a new, they're proposing to put in a new portal, and that's going to go all the way from one end to the other. Correct. The west facade actually steps back at the end of the portal. So it's going to be on the front portion of the west facade. And also, are they in compliance with the glazing under the portal with this window that has a lot of glazing right here? Are you in reference to the section that discusses the 40% glazing? Yes. So they're on a private road, and that portion of the code is for publicly visible. So they do not count as being publicly visible. Any other questions or comments at this point? No. Member Benu: Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Lanny, very much. And there's never a need to apologize. You've got a lot on your plate and a lot of moving parts. So don't ever worry about that. But does that mean then, having established that the board has always historically denied enclosing garages, garage doors on primary facades so as to make them no longer appear to be door openings, does that change your recommendation? Yes, it would. So how would you suggest we handle that then? With a postponement for redesign on just the garage doors, or I would hate to just deny it outright based on a new recommendation from staff that the applicant is just now hearing. Yes. I actually had the opportunity to speak with them. They are actually willing to put glass behind carriage doors, similar to our earlier discussion on another project. So I would say we could either make the motion so that it conditions to do that, or go ahead and postpone it for a redesign, whichever works better for the board. Great. I agree with those. Thanks for taking a denial is not necessary in this case. No, thank you for bringing that up. Any other questions for comments? Applicant, will you please step to the podium? Hi, please raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record. Yvonne Gistler, 804 Camino Akima 8750. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board, thanks for hearing our case tonight. It's been a minute with us. We're really happy. I'm here on behalf of my client, Penny Remy, who's in the audience. She won't get up and say anything, but she trusts that we are in a position where the house feels good. It seems to contribute to the neighborhood. We've corrected some things we feel with this design, and we appreciate your comments. And again, as Lanny mentioned, she's been very helpful, and we're willing to work out an appropriate solution for the garage door. So right now, in reference to the garage door, you don't have anything specific in mind? We would like to propose a series of doors. I don't have it here tonight. I have a sketch. Can I present the sketch? I mean, we would like to, to your point, we would like to be able to move forward with this, and if we can come back at another hearing just on the matter of the garage door, that would be our preference. Any questions or comments? Member thought? Yeah, I do. Good evening. See you. Good to see you. I guess just a couple of comments first. I think the design on the house is really nice in regard to, I just wanted to point out that the portal on the west side doesn't mimic the portal on the front. I think that's important to separate as the new work from the old, and it's that it's not mimicking. So I just wanted to comment on that. The other comment I wanted to make was about the garage and that opening. So just to point out that, because we did have a discussion about it on site today regarding the specificity of the opening is protected, but the actual door itself isn't. So I would interpret that as that the, and I like your idea about putting doors in front of a window. And that would sort of ameliorate the problem that came up, which is this, even if it were to mimic this design, even if it were to mimic a garage door, would encroach on the opening as well as, so the window doesn't necessarily violate that criteria of the status being that the door isn't protected, but adding material like underneath the window would encroach on the opening. So my question to you would be, would those doors come all the way down to that bottom of the opening so it read as a real garage door? Yeah, that would be the intent. Okay. So it reads as a series of doors and not shutters or, you know, other, you know, non-door objects. The intent is light and, you know, in the space and respecting the size of the opening, maintaining the lintel above it, you know, so we were really trying to keep in the fashion of the building, you know, by maintaining that opening, but yes. Because I think that's the intent of what honors that status is that they, you know, they read as a garage door. There's sort of two different components, and that the opening is retained, which would mean that the door would come all the way down to the slab in essence. And then so I guess my other comment would be, or first I guess question would be, do you, would you intend to have glass in those doors as well? I think so. Yeah, that would be the idea. Okay. Yeah. I mean that again, to keep, you know, even if they're in a closed position, you know, we have a dual glazed situation. We're still getting light into the building. I think it would look nice on the facade also when they're in the closed position. Yeah. And I guess my next sort of comment hybrid question for the rest of the board or staff would be, is this door something that could potentially be administratively approvable in a motion? As far as if the, the, the, then there's no sort of need for re-hearing this if we can narrow down the criteria of that door. This in the board evaluating the situation. Yes, staff can administratively approve this with the discussion that's taken place this evening, but sometimes in my view, it's important for it to come before the board. That's what I think. Okay. So what I'm, your decision, I don't. Yeah. I guess what I'm understanding and what I'm proposing is if we were to establish enough of a criteria that we felt comfortable that staff could prove it administratively, that could potentially be the motion. Okay. Thank you. All you want. Well, I'll just, I'll just chime in. Thank you, Madam Chair. That just my personal view would be, I would prefer a motion that does have a comeback for final approval, but with a discussion about what some of those expected elements would be. I don't think that would cause any delay in the moving forward on the project. So it wouldn't be a new case or? No, okay. It would be the same. Postponement of just that one item. Okay, understood. Yeah, that's just my view. Just, just a heads up for every. To agree with Member Benu as more conservative, but any other questions or comments? No motion is in order. No. And we have public comment. Public comment. Take it nobody in this room is going to comment. But you may come forward if you want to come and somebody online. Yes, Chair Rios, we have Miss Benonato. Go. Miss Benato, you should be able to unmute yourself and provide testimony. Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate that the owners want to get rid of the bay window. I think that's totally appropriate, but I wonder what the hardship is for putting on a portal that's within 10 feet of a primary facade. I don't really understand how they meet that criterion. The other thing that would be a concern for me is that I would much prefer that there be doors with windows in it on the garage that would read like garage doors, rather than having a full wall of glazing with doors, with even if they had windows, because if they're. pulled back, then it doesn't read like a garage at all. And never, I mean, they could keep those open all the time and it would never read like a garage, whereas they'd have to get adequate light in there with windows in what appears to be a garage door. Thank you. And I would ask that the board have that come back to them for the redesign. Yes, sir. Can I add something? I tend to agree with Ms. Benonato. I think our design may be a series of doors without the full glazed panel behind it. I wouldn't mind coming back with that as our proposal. Now we will do a motion. Yeah, Madam Chair, in case number 20250011550 HDRB at 539 Garcia Street. I do like where this project is going. I think it's a really nice upgrade for a building that had some non-conforming issues, and you're honoring the garage and working through that is very much appreciated. I think it's going to be beautiful when it's done. So, I'll move to adopt staff's recommendation to approve the project as submitted with the condition that the garage door replacement feature, whether it be glazing or doors with glazing, come back as a redesign. So, excluding that element from this approval and requesting revised drawings for the garage when it comes back. Yeah, noting that all exception criteria have been met as noted by staff in the staff report. Is there a second to this motion? Second. And is there anything further to add, member? Thank you, Madam Chair. Just because it is coming, if this motion passes, it is coming back for a redesign. And there's been some various discussion about the possibilities there. I, speaking for myself, I think it would be important that whatever is the primary exterior appearance not have, it could have some glazing. As we all know, there's some very traditional carriage doors with glazing at the very top of those doors, but the primary material would naturally be wood. So, I just wouldn't want, there's been so much discussion around that, I wouldn't want to leave you with the impression that somehow a lot of glass facing the street would ever be acceptable. But it sounds to me like you're completely in sync with where the board is heading as well. This door should read as a garage door even if it has glazing. Yeah, I think we would, we will propose partial glazing. With wood. Yeah. And these will be wood. We're in the middle of a motion, so I would ask for a roll call vote. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Benu. Yes. Member DNE. Yes. Member Bishide. Yes. The motion has passed. Thank you. We'll see you next time or whatever. Last case is located at 532 Kayo. And I see that Mr. Paththeia is here and Lanny. And we hear from you. Okay. This is case 202612286 HDRB for 532 Kaya Corvo. The property is located on the west side of the street just north of Aikia Madre. Background on this request is that on February 10th of 2026, the applicant requested approval to construct a 624-square-foot addition to the main house and a 442-square-foot addition to the garage. Three exceptions were requested at the time. The board denied a portion of the request with respect to the addition to the garage, finding the exception criteria had not been met. So the single-family residence garage and southern yard wall at 532 Car Corvo are designated as contributing to the downtown and east side historic district with the east facades of each structure designated as the primary. The 1952 Spanish Pueblo Revival style construction comprises 1600 square feet of roofed area with a 368-square-foot detached garage. Since the remodel of the residence has been reviewed, it is not part of this request. The applicant is proposing new construction, including constructing a 391-square-foot casita with the maximum allowable height of 14 feet, and constructing a wood trellis attached to that casita on the north. This, the trellis will not be attached to the south side of the existing garage, and it will be to the height of 14 feet. I did notice in the, I don't know if you guys caught this, but the packet was missing some of the elevations, so I made sure to add them in here for you. So this is the south and east, and then this is the north and west elevations of the new structure. They're going to be converting the garage. The garage, I just want to point out, is going to be a studio, not an accessory dwelling unit. We kind of discussed that on the field trip today. They're going to replace the existing window on the south facade with a pedestrian door and replace the non-historic tilting garage door from the east facade, preserving the existing opening, allowing the opening to read as a historic opening with a wood door while preserving the existing wood header beam. This is the existing and proposed east primary elevation. The carriage doors will be visible from the exterior while the glass doors will be interior so that when the garage door is closed, the building will still read as a garage. The existing and proposed south elevation, and then the existing and proposed north and west elevations. There will be no changes on these. The applicant is also requesting to construct a 6-foot tall yard wall with a gate along the north property line from the main residence to the garage's east facade and install a pedestrian gate in the yard wall on the east side by the main residence. The bottom drawing includes the north elevation wall. This is the east elevation of both accessory units together as they will be visible from the rear of the residence. Staff finds that the exception criteria have been met and recommends approval of the replacement of the garage door. Otherwise, staff recommends approval of the other elements of the application as they comply with 14-4.6E general design standards and 14-4.6G2 downtown and east side historic design standards. Stand for questions. Questions for Lenny. Member Beach. Thank you. Lenny, can you explain where the 6-foot high wall will be, like on, with respect to the street? Would it, is it behind the house or is it across the driveway? So it's actually along the driveway here. This driveway is actually two driveways. Mhm. So it'll be on the property line right in the middle of that driveway. Starting at the street. Starting like at the garage coming forward to, let me show you here. Thank you. Sorry. And was there a height calculation necessary for that portion of the application? No, because it's interior to the property. It's allowed at 6 feet. So, if you, you see here on the right image, I want to make sure you're seeing the same thing I am. The wall is right along that side of the garage there. Oh, I see. So, the driveway becomes much shorter. It'll be more narrow. Yes. Thank you. Any other questions for Lenny? Nope. John, will you get sworn in, please? Hi. State your name and address for the record, please. John Padilla, PO Box 22986, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Do you solemnly declare and affirm the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and did this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you. He has been sworn, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. First of all, I'd like to thank historic staff for being very cooperative and working diligently with us as we move this project forward. We've been before you a couple of times on this project, historic status. We did the main house, the addition, the add at that meeting also. We presented the addition to the house, the addition, the additional bedroom, the living room or the family room, and then the yard wall was presented at that time. Specifically at that last meeting, we were, we were denied the exception for the addition to the garage because of its connection to a primary facade. We had requested some, some possible changes for it, but that required us to come back to you this evening to speak specifically to what we are proposing as accessory structure one, which is new construction, and then the renovation, which is accessory structure two. And that's what we're before you this evening. And one of the issues because of the primary facade of the existing garage, excuse me, east facade of the existing garage being designated as primary, we wanted to make sure that we introduced an element in the design where we are actually installing garage doors, a carriage type doors that'll actually be doors that can be opened. Now, understanding that this is an accessory structure, not an accessory dwelling. So when the, as we, as we gave testimony in our previous case, was this is to accommodate the family when they are there, a large family, they need additional bedrooms, sleeping rooms for their family as their family members as they participate in activities and events here in Santa Fe with them. So it is, when they, when it is occupied, those doors can be opened. They are carriage doors. They will open up, but in a closed position, they are solid within the opening to the floor and the full opening width and height will read as true garage doors. So with that, I know my client was not able to be here with us this evening, but he is avail, they are available and he is available online if, if needed. He is joining the call via telephone as opposed to via cellular versus Zoom. So with that, I, I stand for questions. I believe we've addressed the issues. I know zoning has looked at it. Zoning was very specific in telling us to call this an accessory structure. That's why you see accessory structure one, new construction, and accessory structure two, the renovation work. I stand for questions. Any questions for Mr. Padilla? I know my client is on, on, on online. I didn't know if he wanted to join the presentation. See if it's, what is your client's name? Al Salame. Give us. Thank you. I just see an iPhone, so I'm going to allow that iPhone to talk. Thanks. And if you can just, yeah, state your name and for the record, please. And, Yes, this is Al Salamony. Al, what was your, did you say it was Al Salazar? Salamony. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, sir. Please state your address. 532 Calier Corv, Santa Fe 87501. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. You have the floor. What do you have to tell us? Chairman Rios, we have looked at this project and gone over it multiple times with Mr. Padilla. And at our last hearing in February, we came up with the idea based on comments from the public and based on comments from the board that we could accommodate the door, the garage door issue by putting in the glass windows, but then adding carriage doors to the exterior. And I do remember a, a lady that had made some comments from the public about, well, we don't want to look at glass windows and you're never going to be there and so that's not a good historic look. So, we came up with these louvered doors idea that would take care of some of the concerns of the board and of some of the folks in the public. I do want to say too that the 6-foot wall on the north side of the driveway, certainly that has been incorporated into our neighbors at 528 Calier Corvo's design plan, and I know they're in the process working to secure a building permit at this time, but we have worked with those neighbors and they are all in favor of the 6-foot wall and they have plans to install a gate on their side just as we install the gate on our side of the existing driveway. Okay, thank you, sir. Any questions, board members, for either the applicant or Mr. Padilla? Thank you. In the packet, we have two different elevations showing two different proposed carriage doors. Which one would it be? It would be the door that was on the screen that Lanny just showed. Okay, because the drawing in the application shows a different door. These are full wood doors. Scott, I think what you're looking at is actually there's an elevation that shows the glass and what it'll look like when the doors are open, and then there's one that shows with the carriage doors closed. And that's why there's two elevations for that. No, I'm actually seeing a different rendering of the door closed. Okay. The screen up here on the TV is the correct one. Okay. That was a RenderLab. Yeah. So that's open. It's closed. No, I understand the way that looks. What I'm saying is the documentation that we were presented has two different ones. So I'm just making sure that we know what we're talking about and the record states. Yeah, thank you. Madam Chair, is this the elevation that you're looking at in your packet? No. I don't know what you're looking at. Yeah, I'm sorry. I don't have a way to show you. So the elevations that show up just before the Ray Patterson assessment, the accessory storage, that's the one that they are wanting approval of. Which one are you? What's the other one you're looking at? Trying to find it again. I think we should put that up. You're looking at the screen. You're looking for the A3.4. Correct. Yeah, I got to find it. The one I was looking at was the one I just showed you. As long as we all know which one it is that you're asking for approval for, I think that's the important part. And how do we identify that so it's clear? Oh, I think, Mr. Cherry, if you'll scroll down, there's actually an AI photo of the door that Mr. Padilla was actually proposing. Looking at, correct? Yeah, I'm pretty clear on the one that's being proposed at this point, so I think we're good. I can... It's on page 399 of the whole packet if you wanted to number. Well, then, sorry. I'm pretty sure all of us know what we're talking about, right? Yep. Are there any further questions or comments? Board members? Staff report. Member Cherry's referring to is Figure 4 in the staff report. No, I'm not. I'm referring to this. Okay, Chair, members of the board, we could make the commitment at this time to go with a wood carriage door similar to what is presented. Yes. The staff report this evening or the presentation this evening and also in the renderings provided this evening. Yeah, it's just confusion is that Figure 3 in the staff report shows a different set of doors and says they're as proposed. Any further questions or comments? I just would be interested in hearing the other board members' thoughts about the addition of the chimney on the garage renovation. To me, that seems to change the presentation of that building as a former garage. It looks, especially the rendering looks a bit hotelish, and I don't know, it just strikes me as a change that changes the nature that we're trying to preserve, the characteristic of that as a garage. I would... Well, I would respond to that. I would agree with you. I think if the intent of preserving that garage, which obviously we've taken a lot of energy to do, if that's the intent, then I would agree with you that the chimney affects that, and it's a primary facade. Correct. So this is... Right, the chimney is added to the front, street-facing facade with the garage door, not in the rear. Right, so requiring an exception. Mr. Padilla, we've had plans because there is an existing outlet for a wood stove in the west side of the garage. And we moved this chimney around several times. We could certainly place the chimney or the fireplace at the southwest corner of that facility or that building. So, Madam Chair, Member Bisharat, one of the things that we can do is there are two ways to handle the chimney. The chimney can be offset. As you see, the box actually sits inside the exterior wall. It could, the parapet could step to the chimney and then up, or we just move it to the south elevation and move it back so that it is off of the primary facade as you've indicated. So are you suggesting that the floor plan is revised to move the fireplace to the far corner away from the street? Move it. Member Bisharat, Madam Chair, yes, we could move it so that it meets the 10-foot requirement off the primary facade. Okay, thank you. So that the chimney, whatever the final element is, whether it's just the chimney stack or an actual plaster or stucco chimney stack, is there that it meets the 10-foot setback. Thank you. So it would move to the west. Is that correct? Okay. Any other questions, observations, or comments? I guess my only comment would be, I think that that would have to happen because there's not an exception request for adding it to the primary facade, which it's shown as being added to right now. Okay. Anyone online? Oh, Member B. One more question. The packet indicates that the wall, the six-foot wall, was previously approved. Is that correct? I would have to ask that. Remember, I believe yes, in the previous case. Okay. Anyone online wanting to comment on this part? As Chair Rios, I have Miss Beninato. Stephanie, excuse me, Stephanie Beninato. First, I just want to comment that it doesn't matter whether you call it an accessory unit or accessory dwelling unit. It is going to be used as a bedroom at some point, and it doesn't really matter. It still needs to conform to the historic styles ordinance, and it still needs to read like a garage. And again, we have the same discussion as before in the previous case about having an all-glass wall with doors in front of it. But what happens if you keep the doors open all the time? It will not read like a garage. And as far as the drawing that goes, excuse me, but as you were scrolling through the packet, there were numerous examples of garage doors, wood garage doors with glass in it. But it was impossible to tell which was the one that the applicant actually chose. And the drawing itself looks more like a fence in front of an opening and not really, or gates with wood gates rather than an actual door. And I would urge the board to require that it read like a garage door, that there could be lights in the garage door, but that there not be a glass wall behind it so that when it's open, it will not read like a garage. And I think that's just really important in terms of preserving the character of that building. And I'm assuming too that even though the applicant wants to put a gate across the driveway at some point, that that will not happen unless there is an application for that. Thank you. And oh, let me also say, I appreciate board members catching the chimney and requiring the chimney to be set back. Anyone else on? No. Board members, if you have nothing further to add, the motion is in order at this point. But if no one else wants to, I'll go ahead if no one else is interested. Okay. 2026-0122-86 HDRB 532K Corbo. Move to approve the application as submitted, on the condition that the chimney be moved to the west, sufficient to satisfy the 10-foot rule of separation from the primary facade. Is there a second to this motion? Second. Anything further to add? Roll call vote. Member Bisharat? Yes. Member Degen? Yes. Member Cherry? Yes. Member Benavidez? Yes. The motion has passed. Madam Chair, members of the board, thank you. And that was the last case this evening. Anything under discussion items? Cherry, we also just like to remind the board once again that we are going to be having the workshop on September 20, March 22nd. May. How about May? It's going by too quickly. Well, anyway. So, and it'll be at 1:00 p.m. And have we established the place? Ed Chambers. Chambers. This is a workshop only. So we will not be taking public testimony, though it will be publicly noticed because the entire board will be participating, and we are outlining an agenda for our consultant. The consultant will be leading the discussion, and it will really sort of be launching into what are the changes that we're interested in doing as part of Phase 2, at some larger issues like consideration of the development as part of the implementation of the general plan of historic preservation. Historic preservation plan has never been adopted by the City of Santa Fe, and that could help clearly identify work plans, priorities, and policy related to the historic district. So, not something that would happen quickly, but it is something that would be aspirational. But I look forward to some robust dialogue, and we'll be trying to get some information to you in advance of the agenda, as well as any reference materials that you may need to review prior to the action on the... Thank you. Question. Yes. If we were to submit notes or comments or things, when would you like those to be delivered to you so you have enough time to get them organized for that? So I would like to share with our team, but also with the consultant, your observation notes, maybe topics that you want us to cover. So it would be helpful to get that by the end of the week so we can share that with Mr. Global and finalize the agenda, making sure that it's accounted for on the agenda. Thanks. It's good to have a deadline. Anything else? So, we all know about the next meeting, that it's going to be at the library, and it's going to start at 5:00. Oh, anything from the board? Nothing from the board. Look at the time. Can I, could I just request that maybe you guys will already do this, but that we just put a sign on the door here? The meeting's going to be over there. That will take place. Good idea. Yeah, Matt will do that or somebody there will do that, right? And is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. And is there a second? I had a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Say aye. All righty. See you next time and see you at the awards banquet. Oh.