Historic Districts Review Board Meeting Tue, Mar 24, 2026 · Historic Districts Review Board https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/1173 == Executive Summary == The Historic Design Review Board held a meeting where they approved several applications and discussed ongoing historic preservation efforts. Key decisions included the approval of minutes from previous meetings, the designation of a property at 924 Paseo de Peralta as 'contributing' with specific primary facades, and the approval of a gate redesign at 1489 Upper Canyon Road. The board also approved a significant remodel of a historic structure at 619 West Alameda Street and a renovation with additions at 528 and 530 Kaya Corvo, with specific conditions regarding materials and design elements. Much of the discussion centered on balancing historic preservation with modern needs, particularly concerning window replacements and structural integrity. Public commenters emphasized the importance of filling vacant board positions to ensure full expertise and advocated for flexible designations that allow property owners to maintain and adapt their historic homes. The board also reviewed the historic status of properties on Coronado Road, upgrading one to 'contributing' status. == Key Decisions == - Approved agenda changes to move item D to item A under new business. - Approved four sets of minutes from December 2025 and January/February 2026. - Designated 924 Paseo de Peralta as 'contributing' with specific primary facades (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 18), excluding non-historic alterations on the garage infill (facades 16 and 18). - Approved the application for 1489 Upper Canyon Road for a gate redesign, with conditions for fenestration in the wooden slats to be approved by staff. - Approved the application for 521 Corvo for a remodel, with conditions to retain the current terracotta portal and the picture window under it, and to retain the current white trim. Complete window replacement was approved based on poor condition and non-true divided light status, and an exception for narrowing a window opening was approved. - Approved the application for 619 West Alameda Street for a remodel, including bond beaming and window preservation, finding that exception criteria for height increase were met. - Upgraded the main building at 507 Coronado Road to 'contributing' status with specific primary facade elements, and designated the casita, yard wall, and pergola as non-contributing. - Approved the application for 528 and 530 Kaya Corvo for additions and renovations, with conditions including the withdrawal of the wrought iron replacement request (repair instead), staff approval of fenestration on the vehicular gate, use of cementitious stucco, and staff approval of the specific blue paint color number. == Motions & Votes == - Motion to approve agenda changes (moving item D to item A under new business) — Approved. - Motion to approve all four sets of minutes from December 2025 and January/February 2026 — Approved as presented. - Motion to designate 924 Paseo de Peralta as contributing, with facades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 18 as primary, excluding non-historic alterations on the infill of the garage and garage space (specifically facades 16 and 18, referring to 1980s alterations and infills) — Passed 4-1. - Motion to approve the application for 1489 Upper Canyon Road (gate redesign) — Passed 5-0. - Motion to approve the application for 521 Corvo (remodel) with conditions (retaining terracotta portal, picture window, and white trim; approving complete window replacement and exception for narrowing opening) — Passed. - Motion to approve the full window replacement for 521 Corvo with a large picture window design for the window under the portal, retaining its dimensions without volumes in the center, and using cementitious stucco of the current color — Failed 2-3. - Motion to allow window replacement on the southern facade of 521 Corvo, provided light patterns are maintained, and specifically for three windows to maintain their light pattern — Failed 2-3. - Motion to repeat the previous motion for 521 Corvo (window replacement on southern facade with maintained light patterns for three windows) with the additional condition that the sill height remain the same on the existing picture window — Passed 4-1. - Motion to upgrade the main building at 507 Coronado Road to contributing status (with specific primary facade elements) and designate the casita, yard wall, and pergola as non-contributing, consistent with staff recommendations — Passed unanimously 5-0. - Motion to approve 619 West Alameda Street as submitted, with findings that exception criteria for raising the height of the contributing structure were met and the project conforms with the code — Approved. - Motion to approve application 202611997 HDRB 528 and 530 Kai Corvo with conditions (withdrawal of wrought iron replacement request, staff approval of fenestration on vehicular gate, cementitious stucco, and staff approval of specific blue paint color number) — Passed unanimously. == Public Comment == Elizabeth West and Stephanie Beninato both expressed anticipation for the board's future direction and urged the prompt filling of the historian and architect positions on the board to ensure complete expertise as outlined in the ordinance. Mr. Padilla, representing El Castillo, advocated for a 'contributing' designation for 924 Paseo de Peralta to allow flexibility for future repurposing. Other public commenters, including Elizabeth West, Stephanie Benavidez, and Jordan Young, also weighed in on the 924 Paseo de Peralta case, generally supporting a 'contributing' designation and emphasizing the need for designations that allow for administrative approval of necessary changes. For 521 Corvo, Susan Lamden, a neighbor, invited the new owners to a Christmas Eve open house, and Ruth Williamson, the owner, expressed support for the preservation process and outlined plans for community interaction. Stephanie Benonato provided detailed comments on several cases, seeking clarification on window repairs, commending sensitive remodels, and advocating for the preservation of character-defining elements like metal lattice work. == Topics == - 924 Po Peralta Reconsideration - Board Member Appointments - Land Development Code Update - Meeting Minutes Approval - Public Comment Procedures - Awards Banquet - 528 and 530 Kai Corvo Application - Stucco Material and Color - Steps Removal and Relocation - Structural Concerns (Kai Corvo) - Agenda Changes - Meeting Adjournment - Roll Call and Quorum == Full Transcript == Let us know when we can go live. We are live. Good evening all. This meeting is going to start even though it's about 15 minutes late. Roll call please, Mariah. **Madame Chair Rios:** Here. **Vice Chair Benvanu:** Here. **Member Beach:** Here. **Member Cherry:** Here. **Member Agular Madrono:** Here. **Member Dagnet:** Present. **Madame Chair:** You have a quorum. **Madame Chair Rios:** Very much. Are there any changes to this evening's agenda? **Mr. Cherios:** We are requesting under new business if we could move item D to item A, maybe first under new business. **Madame Chair Rios:** Item B to new business first. **Mr. Cherios:** Item D as in David. **Madame Chair Rios:** Any other changes? **Mr. Cherios:** No, Cherry. **Madame Chair Rios:** Is there a motion to approve? Just a minute. So moves. **Member:** Second. **Madame Chair Rios:** Those in favor say aye. **Members:** Aye. **Madame Chair Rios:** Say no. Thank you. Okay, we have four sets of minutes. They are... Oh, and before we go forward, were these in the packet and if people had a chance to read them? **Members:** Yes. **Madame Chair Rios:** December the 9th, 2025, January 13, 2026, January 27th, 2026, February 10th, 2026. If you have changes, indicate the date and then we'll approve it all as a whole. **Member:** I move to approve all of the all four sets of minutes as presented. **Member Agular Madrono:** Seconds. **Madame Chair Rios:** All those in favor say aye. **Members:** Aye. **Madame Rios:** Say no. **Member:** Can I make just one comment on that? I just wanted to say I don't know who's doing the minutes now, but I thought the minutes were excellent. They're succinct, but they're accurate and succinct. So, it's really... I just thought they read extremely well and they captured some pretty complicated discussions. **Madame Chair Rios:** We were trying to get the best possible product. Thank you. Great. We have no findings and conclusions this time. Matters from the public. Anyone here wishing to come to the podium and say something that is on your mind? If so, come forward please. That mic is not on. Now it's even brighter green. **Elizabeth West:** Hi, my name is Elizabeth West. And I wasn't exactly sure what I was going to say, but I thought I would compose myself while I waited through everything. And so, how tricky. I'm looking forward to how your board is going to be moving forward with the potential of new people coming in. And I hope everybody who is enjoying working on your board gets to stay some way or another. I could fill you in more details of what I'm saying, but I think I'll just leave it at that. And yeah, I guess I'll talk next time. Okay. Thank you. **Madame Chair Rios:** Okay. Thank you, Elizabeth. Anybody else in this? Nobody else. Anyone online? **Mr. Cherios:** Yes. Cherios, Stephanie Beninato. **Stephanie Beninato:** Hello. Can you hear me? **Madame Chair Rios:** Yes, we can. **Stephanie Beninato:** Okay, great. I just... I'm sort of echoing what Elizabeth West said. I'm hoping that the historian position on the board will not take as long to fill as the architect's position has. And I do hope that both of those positions will be filled sooner rather than later so that there can be a complete board with the kinds of expertise that the ordinance states. Thank you. **Madame Chair Rios:** Thank you. Anyone else online? **Mr. Cherios:** No. Cherios, staff communications. What do we have? **Staff:** Members of the board. Just want to announce to you that we... I spoke to the mayor last week about the architect position and we do have one individual, the name of Joe Simmons, who is an architect. So, he will be on the agenda for tomorrow evening's agenda for approval. **Madame Chair Rios:** So, tomorrow evening at the council meeting? **Staff:** Correct. Governor B meeting. Yes. **Madame Chair Rios:** Thank you for that. And anything else? **Staff:** No. Cherios. **Madame Chair Rios:** Can you kindly give us the dates of the awards banquet awards? **Staff:** The awards will be held, I want to say May 9th, I think is when it's going to be. **Madame Chair Rios:** May 9th. Okay. Correct. **Staff:** And I think Amanda was going to send us a list of possible... **Madame Chair Rios:** Correct, and she was going to send it out but she's out on leave today. She's not feeling well. So, we'll get you that. **Staff:** Reminder, which I did by email. I'll remind her. **Madame Chair Rios:** Yeah, and I'll remind her as well. Heather, did you have something? **Heather:** Yes. Thank you, Chair Rios. I'd just like to announce that phase two of the land development code update is getting started effective mid-April. And so, we will be talking about the historic districts ordinance specifically early on in that process. There are going to be technical committees, one historic and the other one is a technical overall working group regarding changes to the ordinance. So, there'll be more details coming on the on composition of the historic committee, but we would like to at least board members to participate in that process. Thank you. **Madame Chair Rios:** You might want to think about that coming in the near future. Okay. Is that it? **Heather:** Yes. Thank you. **Madame Chair Rios:** We have two cases under old business and we'll move to those. And I do need to tell you a couple of things that I tell you every time and it has to do... The first one has to do with appeals. If you do not care for the decision that we render this evening, you do have the option to appeal to the city council. I would suggest that you get together with staff so they can guide you through the process. Also, if you're a person from the public who is speaking this evening, you'll have two minutes to speak. Okay? And I will tell you when those two minutes are up. So, thank you. We'll move on to the first case this evening which is located at 924 Po deanta there. Thank you very much. I am going to make a very short presentation just as a reminder or refresher for the board regarding this. This is a reconsideration of a status that was granted on this property that included both significant and contributing designations. The ordinance states that a property can be contributing, significant, or non-contributing. So there's an "or" word there and it's very difficult also for staff to be able to administer the ordinance and have two different statuses that are assigned. So let me just start the presentation. It will be just very brief, but the structure is located at 924 Po Peralta and it has been built over several time periods. So, originally in 1936, the house was built, I believe by Isaac Rap. This wasn't my case originally, but I'm remembering in my head. And then John Gome did additions as well. And you can see in the orange, there was a service wing that was also part of the 1936 house. And then blue is the 1940s workshop area. All of these things were altered into apartments eventually. And then there were, there was a garage that was infilled in the red boxes. You can see where that garage was previously generally. And there were other alterations made to that facade. At the meeting, the staff at that time recommended that the designation be contributing with the facades outlined in red here, which is the original house that was on the property prior to the additions, both historic and non-historic. All of those facades be designated as primary. You may recall that primary facades are treated in the same way when they're all primary on a significant building and then primary on a contributing building in terms of our approach, the exceptions that may be necessary and, you know, the expectations as to preservation generally. So staff is recommending that this property be designated as contributing with those primary facades. And just as a refresher, this I will show you some photographs of the site so that you can see it. The two-story portion is the original house. This is the facade that you can see as you're traveling along Pere Peralta. And that front area was also part of the 1936 workshop area in addition to that two-story massing there at the with the house beyond. Another view of that sort of front area. This is the garage that was infilled after at a later date from its original construction in 1936. Modifications have been made here that's further down the facade towards the south. And then you can see the series of what was once apartments and now are, you know, different spaces that are being utilized for different workshop uses and the like. So, and then just the west elevation facing El Castillo is more utilitarian in nature, but the two-story massing, you can see there's a lot of articulation on that facade on the west elevation. And so that is the reason for staff's recommendation of those facades, those other facades, non-street-facing facades being considered as primary. And then this is a portion of the structure that is the 1936 addition attached to the original house. A view and oblique view of the one-story mass structure of the west elevation. Sort of hard to get back there to get a perfect picture. That concludes the staff presentation. There is also a letter that was added to the packet online as well as on your desk that added some supplemental information from Mr. Padf, the agent for the project. **Madame Chair Rios:** Thank you very much, Heather. Heather, would you do me a favor and just repeat the primary facades that you were recommending? **Heather:** Certainly. Just one moment. Let me go ahead and I'm a visual person, so it really is helpful to look at share and I can keep the graphic up if you if you wish as we proceed through our discussion. That would also be helpful. Whoops. I want to try to blow this up a little bit for you better on the screen. So, besides... I have a toolbar that's in the way. Okay. Besides one, two, three, four, five, seven, six, and eight are all that 1936 structure and those are all recommended as primary. The other facades that are highlighted in yellow, 9 through 18, are being recommended as non-primary. **Madame Chair Rios:** Thank you. Board members, do any of you have any questions? Member Cherry. **Member Cherry:** Yeah, I have I have two questions. One is, can you remind us what the board decision was preceding this decision? **Heather:** Chair Rios, Member Cherry, the board's decision at that time was to designate the structure highlighted in red as significant and then the rest of the structure as contributing. Now I don't believe there were any primary facades designated for that contributing portion of the structure. **Member Cherry:** I think there were. **Heather:** Or, okay, I will have to look back at the record. **Member Cherry:** I think my recollection was that the it was given dual designation. The area in red was significant, area in yellow was contributing, and 13, 14, 15, 16, and 18 were considered primary on that decision. **Heather:** Okay. Chair, Member Cherry, then the additions that were done in the 1980s, were those excluded as part of the primary facade designation for that contributing portion because those were non-historic? **Member Cherry:** The the non-historic additions were, but the massing of the historic... **Heather:** Yeah, shell of the structure was considered. You're referring to 18, I believe, right? **Member Cherry:** Correct. Yes, 18, I believe. **Heather:** Yeah, that's how that's my recollection of the motion. Okay. Thank you for correcting the record. And also, it's certainly up to the board to determine whether the primary facades just remain as staff recommends them or whether there are other primary facades being added to it. **Member Cherry:** Okay. So that that leads to my second question which was, can you explain why you're recommending... I could understand maybe 13, but 14, 15, 16, and I could understand 18 not being recommended, but could you explain why 14, 15, and 16 are not in staff's recommendation? Because sort of per how we generally assign primary facades on contributing buildings is street visibility has a lot to do with it. Even though it's not part of the 1930s structure, it's certainly historic. And if it were consistent with how we've looked at assigning primary facades in the past, I would have expected staff to recommend 14, 15, and 16 as well. Chair, Member Cherry, the street-facing facade oftentimes is the most articulated facade on structures that we look at generally in our roles as staff in the Historic Districts Review Board. However, oftentimes street-facing facades are modified over time. And so staff, in its recommendation, we felt that due to the modifications, that that entire stretch there would not qualify for a primary facade. I'm hearing you saying possibly it's relative to the massing, and certainly there are historic preservation standards that call for only on contributing buildings the retention of historic windows. That's something that still would apply here whether it's primary or not, but an exception is required for primary. And then there's also standards for historic preservation where additions cannot overtake the massing of the existing building. And just from a zoning perspective, you may have concern because the area that could happen, where an addition could happen, would be that front area that would be facing Peralta. So I understand your concern from a setback standpoint. That's what I'm speaking of. But on the other hand, there's going to have to be some sort of parking for the structure, whatever its use might be. So that could be a limiting circumstance and also access drive. So the parking lot that is located to the north of the subject site is on adjacent property. It's not on the property on which this building is cited. And so there are zoning regulations that will also regulate the structure's use and potential changes if that's what you're thinking about. That wasn't necessarily the basis of the question. I just wanted to clarify something. 18 was the only facade that there was really any discussion around protecting based on the massing. And so I think that that motion stated that the non-historic additions within that facade were not considered primary. But just to me, 14, 15, and 16 look relatively unaltered from how they were when they were built. Of course, they were an addition to the wrap house, but that was just to clarify that. Thanks. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Member Benavidez. Thank you, Madam Chair. Following up on that discussion, is one of either the maker of the motion or the seconder of the motion to reconsider, and also I think the seconder of the motion for the original designations. My view on reconsideration was really relative to Director Lamboy's recommendation to us that really the code didn't provide for this split between to have one structure designated as contributing on one part of it and significant on the other. And that makes perfect sense to me, and I know that we did discuss that at the meeting when we originally did that designation, and there was some information given that that had been done in the past, which led to that outcome. But I think it makes perfect sense that that's really not the best way to do it, maybe not even an appropriate way, a legal way to do it. So that was my thinking, was to get this back to either an all-significant building or an all-contributing building. But I didn't see any reason to really reconsider what the board had determined after a very lengthy discussion as to which the primary facades were. So the significant structure, obviously all the facades of that were being designated primary by implication. And then we had a fairly robust discussion about which facades on the rest of the building to designate, and I really don't think that there have been any changed circumstances that would cause me for certain, and I don't know what would cause the rest of the board to reconsider that determination. So my view is that essentially what's before the board would be to change the designation of the significant part to non-contributing, to designate the facades, and leave the rest as it originally was determined. Benavidez, any other comments or questions? If there's not at this point, Mr. Padilla, would you come forward, please? 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 very much. I'll begin with thanking staff, especially Director Lamboy, for taking the time to reconsider our request for reconsideration, and then the board for making the motion to reconsider it this evening. And I believe in the minutes that you approved this evening, this case was on there, is in that packet from the 27th. So I know there were questions about the motion, what was designated, etc. That is in that meeting, in those meeting minutes that you just approved. I really would like for you to consider the original motion that was presented by Mr. Duran as part of his staff report. I think it was very well thought out. It was sensitive to the status of the building, the age of the building, and the idea of how do we preserve a contributing building or a building that is significant in how it's presented to the streetscape. However, what makes it all not significant is the fact that there were alterations. And in John Murphy's report, he details how the changes were made throughout the years, how it, you know, where the infill was, where the change from service areas to apartments, etc. So, I would really ask that the board consider, as Board Member Benavidez had just mentioned, the original motion that was for the building to be considered contributing with the original primary facades designated as it was in the report and is before you this evening. It makes it easier for my client, El Castillo, to move forward with their ideas, their thoughts, their designs on how they can repurpose the areas that are not part of the primary facades and can be used to enhance their services to the residents of El Castillo. So I would really ask that you consider the motion before you to be contributing and primary facades as designated in the staff report originally and as presented to you again this evening. Thank you. Mr. Padilla, any questions for Mr. Padilla, board members? They seem to not have any questions at this point. I will ask anyone in this room wishing to comment on this particular project, come forward, and you will have a two-minute limit. Will you please state your name and address for the record? Yes. Elizabeth West, 318 Senate Street, the South Capital. 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. Thank you. I'm really thrilled this is coming back for, well, the obvious reason that a couple of you and Member Benavidez stated, and that is that in the code it says it's either or, and we're living in a time of compromise and adjustment, and I think it should go like this, but you think it should go like that, and it's probably always been like that, but especially now. And I think this kind of thing has happened before. I don't remember exactly when. However, I do in this case agree with staff because it is not a good, in my way of thinking, it's not a good path to go down to chop up a building. And so if I were able to wave a magic wand, I would probably say this should be contributing, and then take a close look at what should be primary because that's a way of preserving things, and we know that the windows will be protected anyway with a contributing designation. But I think that would be appropriate. It's a compromise, but I think it's an appropriate compromise, and it's having the primary or non-primary designation is a sort of a footnote in what you all do on occasion. It can help protect areas that might not be considered significant, but which kind of are significant. So that's my thought. Thank you. Thank you, Elizabeth. Anyone else in this room wishing to comment? It appears not. Anyone online? Yes, Chair. That person needs to get sworn in. Stephanie Benavidez, please state your name and address for the record and be prepared to be sworn. Stephanie Benavidez, PO Box 1601, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Can you hear me? Okay. Yes. Yes. Great. 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 penalties of perjury? Yes. Thank you. Okay. So, I lost 15 seconds by doing the swearing in. But I understand that the law says it has to be either or, but I do believe that you've had other projects where you've given two different statuses to a building. And the way you had done it, I thought made perfect sense. However, I think that you cannot really call this whole building significant because there has been some changes to at least part of the facade on the later part of the building. However, I would be in support of maybe changing it to contributing, but keeping the primary facades as you designated them in the first discussion. As pointed out, there was a very vigorous discussion about what was primary, what wasn't, and even though a contributing building has certain protections, I think that primary facade designation gives it more protection. And I'm not sure that if it's not a primary facade designation that you would require that historic windows be repaired rather than replaced. I think that you might say, well, it's not a primary facade. It's okay. Or that would be the argument. And I do believe that the interior of the building can be changed to do whatever El Castillo needs to serve its population. I think you have bent over backwards many times for El Castillo, both in this location and north of the post office. And I think that it's really important to preserve this building as much as possible. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else online? Yes, Chair. Jordan Young. Miss Young, please state your name and address for the record and be sworn. Jordan Young, I live at 652 Galisteo Street, and I know that I am under oath. Thank you, Jordan. Do you solemnly, I'm just going to go through this one more time. Okay. 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. I just want to state that these burdensome processes are really difficult. El Castillo serves our community by providing housing and assisted living services to people who need it and pay for it. I'd like to see an H4 that considers the uses and the people that a building supports and its future. Whatever designation is given should allow El Castillo to continue to conduct its business with administrative approval and to do whatever changes they desire swiftly. What if there were some sort of disaster and the need to repair or do maintenance was urgent? Would they still have to go through this long process of review and re-review? I really just want to urge the H board to take into consideration the people and the uses of a space in addition to the aesthetics. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else online? Thank you. Board members, if you have nothing further, I will entertain a motion at this point. Yeah, I can do it. Okay, Member Cherry. Sure. In case 2026-011792 at 924 Paseo de Peralta. I would move to designate the building as contributing with facades 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 18 as primary. One, did you have—I think she had—I'm just looking at the prior motion that I think the intent was to redesignate the same portions of the building as primary. And in the prior motion on the east facade, there was an exclusion of non-historic alterations. Yeah, a friendly amendment to add that. Thank you. I would accept that friendly amendment that the non-historic material be—the non-historic alterations be excluded. Thank you for that. Second. Except discussion. When you say non-historic alterations, sometimes it's best to be more specific in reference to that because in the future when the applicant comes forward to make changes, they need to know, and so does the board need to be aware of what those non-historic changes are. So if those can be specifically stated, it would be more appropriate. Bear with me, I'm scrolling. If anyone can help. Member Beach. Sorry, I don't think this will be helpful, but this is—I'm just reiterating my previous comment on the case when we first heard it, that the entire east facade has alterations and infill that obscure the original facade from the street view. Consistent with staff's current recommendation, I still would support the designation of facades 1 through 8 as primary and the rest of the building as non-contributing due to those alterations. I think our discussion last time was about, with Member Cherry arguing that the mass was historic, and I don't completely understand that argument. I think he's referring to the parapets above. Anyway, that's my same comment as last time. Just want to go on the record. Thanks. So I can be more specific about the non-historic alterations on the infill of the garage and the garage space, which I believe is facade 18. And yeah, and 16 that are—and I'm sorry, I'm looking at 16, which—which, sorry, these aren't labeled to match these. Which facade is photo 14, which has this porch? I think that's 18. Yeah. So, I would say that there's an infilled portal on facade 18. Would you go to the photo? I can identify it for you. Yeah, I am at the photo, but I can't change what's on the monitor. Page 135 in the packet is all I could reference. See it on the screen. Madam Chair, Member Cherry, once that packet is up, I can walk you through the photos report. Yes, that photo there is what's labeled as 18. Member Cherry, that's been— Yeah, that's what I was—that's what I— Yeah. So I can make this more concise. You want to look at the next picture, next photo that is 16. Those are in—that is a partial of 14. That's your 13. So going along the facade from the southern point to the northern point. This is photo 18 at the southern end. Photo 17 sort of in the middle. So— That's—but that's 17, right? Not this is 16 here. Yeah. That's 16 in the primary facade designation, right, Cherry? That is 16. And non-historic alterations that were referred to in the past motion was laid at the ele—the— I think to make it concise and congruent with what's been stated in the packet is that we would exclude the 1980s alteration and infills on those two facades. Okay. So, we have a motion and we have a second on the floor. Anything further to add? Nothing further to add. May we have a roll call vote, please? Member Bianu? Yes. Member B? No. Member Cherry? Yes. Member Agular Madrono? Yes. Member Dagnet? Yes. The motion has passed. Chair, thank you, John. Thank you so much. Next case is located at 1489 Upper Canyon Road. And I see that Mr. Pervis is here and Lanny, which will give us that. Okay. This is case 2026-011831 HDRB for 1489 Canyon Road, returning for review of the yard wall and gate along the street. At the Historic District's Review Board hearing on March 10th, the board considered the case and approved the applicant's request to construct the new residential structure directly west of the main residence, but they postponed their decision on the applicant's request to approve a metal gate with exception and a yard wall. The board requested a redesign of the gate and additional information from staff regarding the record of previous approvals at the property. The board requested that the yard wall not be attached to the garage unless the applicant came forward with a revised HCPI and a request for a status review with applicable primary facade designations. The board requested that the metal gate be redesigned and suggested that the metal gate as constructed would not fit the streetscape of Upper Canyon Road. The applicant is now returning to the board for a hearing with alternative designs for the gate and is proposing a pedestrian gate constructed of coyote fencing adjacent to the garage. Okay. So the actual family residence that is there is designated as contributing. But the garage is not status. It was built pre-1944. The property was approved for coyote fence, latia gate, and yard wall under case 2021-00003510 admin. It was originally approved with the coyote fence and a coyote fence gate. They came back for the fence permit—I'm sorry, they came back with a redesign, which was approved and permitted in 2022. The new drawings show it as a stucco wall instead of a latia fence in front of the garage. And it does show that it was approved attached to the garage. The gate was to remain latia and—see, sorry—the approval did limit the height of the yard wall to 4 feet. The height limit for the administrative approval is 4 feet, and we believe that's why it was limited to the 4-foot height, even though the maximum allowable height is 4 feet 7, 4.8—sorry, 5 feet 7. The yard wall is constructed currently starting at 4 feet 7 and then steps up to 5 feet 6, and the metal gate is currently at 4 feet 7. There are only a couple of vehicle gates in the streetscape, one of which is a latia gate directly across from this subject property and a board gate at the edge of the streetscape. The most probable reason for the approval of the latia gate is that it matched the neighboring lot. So the applicant is currently proposing the installation of a 4-foot 7-tall by 20-foot long metal vehicle gate where the maximum allowable is 5 feet 7. And they are requesting an exception to the design standards for the material. And then they want to raise the height of the previously approved yard wall from 4-foot height to the as-built 5 feet 6, where the height maximum height is 5 feet 7, and install a pedestrian gate of latas in the yard wall nearest to the garage. So, the applicant has given us optional designs, three different designs, and would like the board to approve what they feel best fits the streetscape. Option one is to keep the rusted steel frame and remove every other steel panel and install wooden balusters in those spaces. Option two is to keep the rusted steel gate frame and install wooden inserts, the bottom, which is the bottom option. Option three is to keep the rusted steel frame and insert steel mesh panels where the panels are currently solid. In addition to the existing vehicular gate design, the applicant has proposed—I think I just repeated myself, I apologize. So staff is recommending denial of the metal gate as it is existing currently, and recommending approval of option two, which is the metal frame with the wood inserts, and approval of the height change to the yard wall and approval of the pedestrian gate. Thank you, Lanny. Questions for Lanny? Board members, no questions for you, Lanny. And so, Chris, will you come forward? Hello. Will you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record. It's Chris Pervis, 518 Old Santa Fe. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Yes, Chris. The only correction I'd make to what Lanny said is that it's true the wall goes to 5 feet 6 on the inside, but ground rises on the outside. So, it actually is the same height all the way along at 4 feet 7 inches. And then I'm interested in what the board thought of options for the gate. Any questions for the applicant? I think there. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, once again, thank you for working with the board on this. I know that this was—your client was not the one that did this unauthorized work, but it's really helpful that you and the client are so willing to try to make this right. So, thank you for that. Option two, I think, looks pretty good. Options one and three, I don't think quite work, and I'm referring to the gates. The only thing I would ask is, would you agree to provide some fenestration in the wood slats that is specifically set forth in our fencing and gate guidelines since 1999, that gates are encouraged to be fenestrated? We had a very similar situation not very far from this property on Alamita, I believe it was, where they also had a metal gate. We asked them to fenestrate the wood paneling when it was inserted. And by fenestration, at that time, and I would say at this time as well, it doesn't need to be anything dramatic. It could be just some cutout diamonds between the slats, or you know, you could use your imagination. There's so many styles to choose from in Northern New Mexico for doing that. But I think if there was just something to relieve that solidity, since this is such a massive gate, it's huge, and it really stands out on the road as being unlike anything else. And the other thing I would add is that we had another similar situation a little bit further to the west on Upper Canyon Road where we denied an all-metal gate. It was appealed. We discussed this last time. The governing body agreed with the board that it was out of place and not harmonious. They did do wood slats very similar to what you are showing here, but because it wasn't fenestrated and it was stained so dark, it almost looks like you're back to a solid metal gate. So, anything that would prevent that, because that's really—it's not just that it's metal, it's also the heaviness of this huge amount of steel that gives it the out-of-place character. I think the board is in agreement on that. And even though it would now be largely wood, it might still give that impression if we didn't do something to make it clear that those are actually wood slats. So with all that, is that something you would agree to? Yes. Okay, great. So, and that's something I think we could easily let staff approve the final design of. So with that, and then as far as the wall, that seems perfectly appropriate to me, even though it was originally approved to be a coyote fence. I think if you had—if that application had come before us with this wall, it would have been approved and meets the code. And I'm very happy with the way you handled the separation with the garage. Thank you. Thank you, Member Mood. Anybody else for comments or questions? Nobody else. Anyone in this audience wanting to comment on this project? Come forward quickly. It's fun coming after a tall person. I get to lower it. This is a vast improvement, and I actually, from the photograph—I haven't seen it in real life, of course, yet, or maybe yet. There is enough variety there that it's headed in the right direction. I would agree with Member Bianu. I like the idea of some irregularity. I'm not sure about the diamond shape, but I think if it were roughed up a little tiny bit more, there'd be a lighter feel to it. But basically, it's going in the right direction. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone online? And by the way, I don't see the two minutes up on the screen. Chair Rio, Stephanie Benonato. Stephanie Benonato. I agree with Member Benu's comments. I think that it's a vast improvement over what was first proposed. I think the wood slats are what is needed, and I do agree that there needs to be some fenestration, even if it's just a sort of detail such as a four-directional sign, or the diamond as was suggested, but something that breaks those panels up a little bit. And I also do appreciate that they did not attach the gate or the wall to the garage so that we don't have to get into a discussion right now about whether that garage is contributing and whether it's okay to attach it to the garage. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? There are no other hands raised here. So board members, I will entertain a motion. Thank you, Madam Chair. Case number 2026 or 11831 HDRB at 1489 Upper Canyon Road. Move to approve the application as submitted with the additional condition as agreed to by the applicant that the wooden portions of the gate will be redesigned so that there is some fenestration and clarity that these are in fact wooden slats. So those are two issues. One is fenestration, and also clarity either through the separation of the slats or the staining of them to make clear that they're not part of the metal gate. All of which is to be submitted to staff for approval, and otherwise all other aspects of the application to be approved. Madrona will second with a friendly amendment, just to clarify that you're basing those conditions on option two. Option two. Yes. Thank you. Roll call vote, please. Member Benu. Oh, you know, actually, Member Beach just whispered in my ear something important. I forgot that this is still coming before us for a request for exceptions. So I would also add that the exception criteria for option two have been met with that additional condition. Somebody doesn't get it, somebody else will. So, thanks. Okay. So, will you do a roll call vote, please? Okay. Member Benu. Yes. Member Beach. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Agular Majono. Yes. Member Den. Yes. The motion has passed, Chair. Thank you. And thank you, Chris. Next case, we move on to new business. Next case is located at 521 Corvo. I will be presenting this case. The subject property is located on Corvo, which is an infill development that happened subsequent to many of the structures that are located around it, like B of Valentine and many of the other areas along Garcia Street. It is somewhat contemporary in development. Corvo is to San Antonio Street as well as Sessiah Lane, and then much of the Don Gaspar Historic District. Those buildings were of the same era, and so it is a unique character along that streetscape for that reason. The subject property was designated as contributing by this board, and the API is coming back to have a remodel being considered for the project. The facades that were designated as primary are here in this graphic, which is one through four, and that is primarily what faces the street. Also, the garage is part of that sort of primary facade character that the Historic Districts Review Board really wanted to capture. And included in that as well is the portal with the unique Spanish clay tile feature. And excluded is a large plate glass window that was replaced subsequent to the original construction of the house on that elevation, that south elevation. This is the existing site plan. The applicant on the proposed site plan is illustrating a 348-foot addition on the north elevation that is away from the street facing, or it's on the rear of the property. Wholesale window replacement, narrow the window on the primary facade, and replacing the terracotta roof on the south elevation with a standing seam roof. This is an illustration of the existing and the proposed floor plans, and staff has put together sort of additional information to express why there is a concern with the replacement of the terracotta roof. So the Historic Districts Ordinance states that if you are going to introduce a new element on a historic structure, there needs to be proof that either that element existed historically, or it needs to match what's there. So staff did some research. In the picture on the lower right, that is the structure in 1984. In the picture on the upper right is 1978. It appears from the aerial, although it's not very easy to see, that there is a modeling that would be consistent with a Spanish clay tile roof. There is no evidence that has been presented by the applicant to date of the fact that there was a standing seam roof at this location. I did a survey of the neighborhood along Corvo. There is a Spanish clay tile roof down the street on San Antonio Street. So this type of treatment during the 30s and the 40s was something that was somewhat common as new materials were being introduced into Santa Fe by the railroad. These materials were being used as accents, and you can find it on Hton Street, the Don Gaspar Historic District, and many other areas of houses that were built with that vintage, also on the west side. So it was an attempt to try to see if that indeed was potentially not a historic treatment, but I'm finding on historic houses that the Spanish clay tile was used often. This is an illustration of the elevation on the east, I'm sorry, west elevation windows being replaced, and the sizes being changed, but that is not a primary facade. This is the north elevation, the rear where the addition will take place and portal will be added, and so there'll be, although there's large plate glass windows, that is underneath the portal. And on the east elevation, there are changes as well, including the addition of a doorway. And the applicant is proposing to restock the, so that the letter itself states that it is a cementitious stucco, but the sample swayed by Stow, I don't know if the applicant's just referring to the color, or if the staff's recommendation would be that it's cementitious because it is a contributing structure. And then the colors are dark walnut and dark bronze as accents for the replacement windows. I did have the opportunity to quickly chat with the applicant right before the meeting, and there seemed to be a lot of questions at the site visit today. I heard from the team that was there regarding a window assessment, and one of the thoughts is that maybe the rest of the project can be approved with the exception of the windows, and then the applicant can bring back a window assessment that wasn't included. But the applicant did indicate to me as a presentation regarding that. That concludes the staff presentation. Thank you, Heather. Any questions for Heather? Board members. Yeah, I have a question. Member Cherry. You indicated that there was, when you were speaking about the, I'm not sure exactly which facade it is, but there's two picture windows. One's under the portal and one's to the east of it on that south facade, that one of them had been replaced. Do you know which one you're referring to in that, and what evidence you had that there was not a picture window on that facade prior, because there are a lot of houses on that streetscape that do have picture windows. Chair, Member Cherry, it's due to the material. Actually, this was excluded by the Historic Districts Review Board as part of the designation of the structure as contributing. And so we don't have much information about when it was replaced, but it is not original to the house. Which one? The one that is on the south elevation. You can see here, and I've got the illustration up, so that the picture when. The one under the portal, or the one, there's two picture windows there. Correct. And so the picture window that was excluded, and I will, I didn't originally present this case, so I would have to double check the minutes, but I believe it was the one that's closest to the garage that was excluded. Okay. And the other window was not excluded. Okay. Thanks. Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. So, yeah, I just to dwell on that for a minute, because I just happened to see the minutes from that meeting. I don't know, the findings of fact haven't been entered yet on that, have they? I don't think. Okay. So all we have are the minutes, but I think what it says, if I'm reading it correctly, that the applicant requested that the board exclude the window from the primary, and the openings be excluded, but the board was of the opinion that non-historic material would need to be investigated later. There wasn't sufficient information. And so the motion was to designate those facades as primary, excluding the doors and windows that are demonstrated as non-historic to the satisfaction of the board. So I think it was really left for more information to come to the board. So it's conditional on, I agree with that, I guess, was the bottom line. That's my recollection. And really, there are houses in this area that we all know have picture windows. That is something that is very prominent in this area. And just as a bug that I'm putting in your ears. Any other questions or comments at this moment? Yeah, I just have one more comment regarding that, Chair. Just observing that I know to me those windows, those two picture windows, the ones I'm, we're talking about, one of them is, has a double pane piece of glass, and one doesn't. I believe the one under the portal doesn't. But there's no indication, especially because we don't have an assessment, though, that they, they could have been replaced yet, been replaced as originally being a picture window. So I don't think that that, I didn't see evidence of that in the Hickby anyway, of, of, you know. So, so I just wanted to be clear that that we're not misleading ourselves or each other that there's, that there's any evidence of replacement of a non-picture window with a picture window, that could be picture windows that were just, the glass could have broken and been replaced with replacement glass. Thank you for that point. Anybody else? Just for the applicant, you please raise your right hand, state your name and address for the record. Raja Bose, 212 Lorenzo Lane. 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, I do. Thank you. Is this in a good position? Close. Can I request to have my screen shown? Okay. First of all, thank you very much for your time this evening. I'm really excited to present this case. Actually, we have a really thorough presentation for you. On that note, I just want to make a couple matters of housekeeping before we get into the nitty-gritty of this case. One issue is that our paperwork changed hands a number of times. As Director Lamboy pointed out, she actually inherited it. Paul Duran was our original case planner. And so that's, it's neither here nor there, but it's just if things seem incomplete or a little frustrating for whatever reason, please bear with us with that context. Secondly, we did not seek a window assessment. I already had it as my second bullet, only because we felt between John Murphy, our historian, and myself, the licensed architect on the team, the conditions were pretty clear. We know the exact story of it, and I want to present it to you in the way that the team has come to understand it through all of our own research. Again, I know that that's not all necessarily represented in the original packet, for which I apologize. Then lastly, I just want to set the tone with you all that the client and myself are absolutely looking for approvals tonight, with conditions, with whatever we come to an agreement on. Our hope, not because we don't love the process, but our hope is that you could give us criteria that we could easily follow and staff could approve thereafter, which I know is standard. So nothing about this presentation is solid, or everything is malleable. We want to make our case. Now, with that said, I am, as the designer of this project, going for approved as submitted, because I do believe that we're proposing a very appropriate, durable, and respectful design. The last point I need to make on here is that it's my birthday today, so how mean you can be to me has got to be pretty limited. That's why we scheduled. Just a, yeah. And thank you to the staff. People involved in having me present early. I really appreciate that. Just a quick word on the owners. This is meant to be their full-time home. It's to provide the shelter of the retirement period of their lives that they've saved their money for. Their children do live in the area. Actually, I recently was before you for their home that we're building, the one on Abeyta Street, so you have factual evidence that you know where their kids will live. And then the other thing is that they're looking to invest in this neighborhood, and I just want to leave you with that notion. The last bit of housekeeping I want to do with you all is that I just want to address the three specific exceptions that are actually in our staff memo, and then I just want to seek clarity, partially because one of them we're not completely clear on. I think the historic window shall be repaired or restored is pretty clear. Architectural finishes, features, blah, blah, blah, is pretty clear. This middle one, though, the 144 point, blah, blah, blah, no new opening shall be made where one presently does not exist. We were a little confused as to why that was applied to us, only in that we are not proposing any new openings where openings do not exist, just to be clear. But I want to give my presentation in the right order and all that, but that would be one clarification that you can ponder on your end, please. Okay. So, outside of all the legalese that we're dealing with, the kind of fundamental points we're debating up here are whether or not we can do the standing seam roof in lieu of the terracotta, and then the window discussion, which is tripartite. It's the actual muntin layout, the actual design of the windows, regardless of who makes them. There's the repair versus replace kind of philosophy, and then there's our kind of one, what's become a contentious thing that we really were hoping was almost a minor detail, which is the kitchen window sill height being adjusted by a few inches. So, I'm going to go through these points. I think the terracotta roof replacement, that doesn't seem like a huge deal to anyone. The client is very open to not mounting a huge response to that, and I actually really appreciate Heather's kind of evidence-based, detailed argument that I fully respect. So, and I have full authority given to me from the client tonight to make decisions like that and negotiate with you. So, I would like to do, I would like to cut that proposal from our application, however it may be recorded. So, we're not seeking that design decision, and thereby the exception that applies to it, which I believe is, that was the only thing in that particular exception, but anyway, that's for you to decide. Okay. So, let's get into the windows here, just to remind you all. So, here's our set of primary facades. One, just to address Member Cherry's comment right off the bat. Okay. So, from a facade layout perspective, we definitely believe that the openings are original, and that's what the HIC says, and that's what you all agree on. That's for sure. As far as the muntin layouts, Member Cherry is correct to say that we don't have any evidence that they didn't just replace an existing picture window with a new one. I would also say, though, that we don't have any evidence of the contrary, and the HIC, unfortunately, those images go back to, I think, '84 is the earliest one. And I actually was emailing with John Murphy earlier, which I'm happy to provide this actual documentation to staff or whatever in another point, but he actually thought that most likely that it was kind of a symmetric facade design with the kind of double, double hung, a pair of double hungs, like you see on that left side, most likely was mirrored on the right. And then the middle panel was the two divided lights with the picture that we do think that picture was original, by the way, the living room centerpiece. So, you know, that's kind of neither here nor there. We are pursuing an approval. If the condition is that you absolutely don't want us to put muntins in it, because neither of us have evidence, okay, I mean, it doesn't feel like the best argument. In a matter of design, I would defer to the architect or person holding architect seat to kind of chime in on facade design as it might have played out. Now, that being said, there are other picture windows elsewhere. As we know, saying there's something elsewhere isn't really evidence one way or another. However, I know you appreciate a deep dive in that. So, I did go ahead and do a very deep study of Caya Corvo itself. We're kind of asking the question, what's the character of the streetscape, and then what's the character of the district, right? Which I think are the questions that you're asking as well. We actually went ahead and took a picture of every single of the 19 houses on the street. And I realize these are very small, and that's not meant to evade you. I'm happy to again issue this documentation after this presentation. But if you'll trust me, this is how many have picture windows, and this is how many have divided light windows. So, you can make whatever argument one way or another, but as far as the evidence goes, and as far as the existing character of the streetscape, which I believe is of primary importance to the board, even beyond the district itself, which I actually think is, it's misleading just because streets can be one-offs in one way or the other, but the district is the kind of unifying force. But nonetheless, I think that point is made. And, you know, I'm, I just want to put this out there into the philosophy that Santa Fe is a living, growing organism. We have a deep respect for our history, and we love our aesthetic. We believe in it, as do I. But, you know, if you look around the district, you also have, excuse me, tons of beautiful examples where new window systems were allowed to be installed, honoring the original muntin patterns, the original openings, the original proportions, and you see a degree of kind of durability and success, I would say, architecturally. So, just to make that point as well, in honor of the full home window replacement that we are pursuing. Okay. So, let's get into the nitty-gritty about the window, this kitchen window sill. So, the first question I want to ask is, does this have anything to do with that exception? Because we're not proposing a new opening where there was none. We're merely shifting, sorry, I'm going to leave presentation mode. I have my cursor. We're merely shifting the sill of this window up by literally not even a foot, like eight inches or so, basically to accommodate what we believe to be a great improvement to the design of the house. And that is that the kitchen, you know, it's very customary, actually, especially in this period, which is surprising that it didn't have it already, to have a sink by the window. And I know that the H board is not technically concerned with matters of the interior of the house. Nonetheless, as the architect, I feel compelled to let you know that the only reason that we're pursuing this is just to give the opportunity for the best kitchen layout that we think we can possibly give. And also because the client would like to see out of the window and watch their grandkids in the yard, or see who's coming, or, you know, pretty typical American home design feature. And also, okay, so now we're getting back to the conditional thing about the primary facades, unless it can be demonstrated otherwise. Look, I'm not trying to deceive anyone. Like I said, neither of us can prove whether there was a picture window or not. However, what is there now is a vinyl window. It is double glazed. It has modern sealants and install methods. It has plastic screw hole caps. So, I'm not going to sit here and try to tell you I know whether it was a plate, like a, the design of the original muntins. I'm just telling you that it's definitely not the original window, and I do think it's the original opening, and we are asking to change the original opening a little bit. So, that's where the exception comes in. But I'm hoping that I can make a reasonable argument to you that that's a reasonable, or sorry, how many times can I say reasonable in a row? What I'm asking you to do is to consider the thoughtful design and the needs of kind of the future users of this house, who are going to pay, you know, half of their retirement fund to bring this house into the next century. You know, so I'm just pulling you back to this elevation again to remind everybody where we're at with the design. So, on that note, we're also here to talk about the design of the muntin layout that would be acceptable to you, the board. And, you know, yes, we went back in with the gridded muntins on the central window of the living room under the portal, only because, honestly, we thought that would be what you'd want to see. The client and myself are definitely open to returning that back to a so-called picture window flanked by two divided lights. We actually lowered the kind of density of the muntins, again, to seek a certain proportion around the house. Again, if the board should be inclined to approve with some specific design note, then, you know, so be it. One point I'd like to make that I know has resonated with this board in previous cases, and I think is a really legitimate thing, is that we're, the staff is already recommending approval for the rest of the house. We fully intend, at least for the new walls, to put new windows in, of course. So, basically, you've already approved effectively some of these new windows. And what I'm kind of continuing the argument is, well, for the actual integrity of the overall remodel of this home, allowing a full window package feels appropriate. Just a few other points to make about the repair versus replace comment. Again, fully open to design possibilities or ideas from the board, but it just has to be said that the energy concern we have is real. These windows are installed with butt hinges. They have no weather stripping, even back then. So, these are obviously the original windows, probably built on site quickly or nearby by the builder, with no great attention to detail. By the way, to the left, you can see where the fake muntin snapped off, and we're left looking at the backside. So, we're already dealing with a level of kind of fakery and production value type thinking here. Even with the originals, we know for a fact that we have a home builder operating in Cay Corvo. So, it's likely that they were being reasonable, cutting costs. So, one note to make is even if we do repair these windows, effectively we'll hire a really good window guy to make new wood windows that are way better than these and then tell you they're the originals, which kind of then feels like you're making us just do wood for the sake of wood, even though there's a better alternative for effectively the same price in the year 2026, which we currently reside in. So, that's kind of just in support of that argument that we'd really like to see. We'd really like to be given that ability. And we are coming to you genuinely in the sense that we're not trying to use the rules or trickery. It's more just an honest appeal at the highest level of all of the factors. The design integrity point I touched on durability. These are all southern-facing windows. Yes, there is a small portal over some of them, but the other issue with wood windows and the reason that we don't build new wood windows anymore is that our climate is extremely challenging. We have really hot, really cold, really dry, really wet, and we have those things happening in rapid succession from one another. And so the truth of the matter is that metal-clad windows are the more responsible thing. If it were your home and you're the one paying for an $80,000 window package, that's the responsible product. And then lastly, the longevity of the district itself, that actually it's also allowing the homes of the district to be brought into the future. I don't make this anecdote in jest at all that our clients, my clients, were the only people who had farolitos out this last Christmas Eve on Kayak Corvo. That's how hollowed out that area has become. And I know that you all know that the historic districts actually are suffering a hollowing in general. The only other farolitos on the street were an Airbnb owner who did it for their guests. So when I say longevity of the district, I also hope that you would allow my client to invest in the house in a way that will indeed increase the longevity of the district. Here's a modern window detail in case someone wanted to question me about the technology of windows today, but I'm hoping that this cool drawing is enough. And then this window is not even on the facade we're talking about, but I just want to show, and I know you can take care and you can maintain and you can spend money. I know that, but I'm just saying the fate of wooden windows in this climate is as shown. So here we are back at the end and the beginning. So please let us know how we can work with you to get the most approved possible. Thank you very much. Board members, do you have questions for the applicant at this time? Questions or comments? Member BJI. Yeah, I just noticed in the HICPI when you were talking about the picture window to the north, the northmost one near the garage, there's figure five seems to show what appears to be either a shadow or a divided... Yeah, like a remnant of a dividing structure. Did you all talk about that or understand what that? I, well, like I said, literally from an email this morning with John Murphy, he even thinks it was probably a pair of units similar to the opposite side. Does look like that. Pretty dumb. I'm not going to split hairs on a photo from the 80s. Yeah. Out of respect for you, honestly. But I'm making my claims from the architectural basis. Yeah. I appreciate your support in this matter. Yeah, sure. Yeah, I mean, I think it makes sense. This, the argument about symmetry does make sense. And I kind of like how that there's an extra window on the one side under the portal. That makes it a little bit different. But not... Which is, by the way, not a picture window and a double hung. Yeah. So, one could consider that pattern being logical to continue across. And I guess I wonder, I would like to hear your views, your opinion about the consistency of the sill height on all of those windows on this facade, like from an architectural design perspective. And also if you would comment on that and also the color, the current color, which I would guess is more... Original than the proposed dark, darker bronze. Oh yeah. Okay. So in the order they came. So I fully understand one who would question the sill height misalignments as it were. I think this is a challenge that all architects have, which is designing from the outside in and designing from the inside out and getting those to couple together in a meaningful way. I think in this case, the kitchen and the actual interior experience, which is for my user rather than just for people in the peanut gallery, is my priority of decision-making. So, but I definitely understand and struggle with myself that some of the misalignments. I do think that there's an aspect of dynamic kind of viewership, let's call it. There's a huge, like 200-year catalpa that's just out of the frame that causes you to walk around and see the house in a different angle. Also, I imagine landscape, well, I know the client wishes to go in with nice landscaping that would kind of obscure where the building hits the ground and effectively give a dynamic kind of sill movement. Anyway, I'm not going to sit here and tell you it doesn't bother me a little bit, but it bothers me not to have to cut off like five feet of the usable kitchen counter or go in with some nonsense detail where we do what you ask, but then we still put the sink anywhere and like do some uncomfortable detail that then you can see from the outside, which would be technically allowed. So, it feels like the architecturally correct thing to do. The last thing I will say is whereas there's four cells of the divisions on the counterparts, we knocked it down to three cells. So the concept of the change in cell height does eliminate a logical one cell row from the Excel spreadsheet, so to speak. Like in other words, this is supposed to align with the muntin, you know, we're respecting a grid as it were. And then the color. To be fully honest, I have not actually discussed that exact issue with the client. However, I would be very inclined to think that, and they've given me the authority to agree to something like that, were it to be a condition that you require. Member Benu. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, thank you for spending your birthday with us. We really appreciate that. Thank you for coming to my birth. Presents. Party. Working on it. Let's party. Let's see. You're about to let me know. Yeah. Okay. So, yes, I think that the color is an important point because that just, I don't think the color scheme of the trim of the windows fits into that neighborhood unless you show us some examples, and it has a very contemporary flavor, that dark bronze and that very dark color. So, that, that I do think needs to be rethought. What about that? You make a lot of excellent points that I think we've all thought about in looking at this property. That picture window is a bit odd, the one nearest the garage. It's certainly not old. It may have been one before, but we don't know. There is, you know, it's a, it does seem to make a certain amount of sense that it would look, that if someone was designing this house, they wouldn't have a picture window there. They'd have something matching the windows on the other wing. So I can see, even though I think picture windows are very characteristic in this area, that one, I'm not sure it always was one. And it doesn't necessarily stand out. But what about the one under the portal? Yeah. That, that does look extremely characteristic to me. Yeah. And I, I actually agree at this point. I've been sitting looking at this building for so long. I agree. I mean, it could easily be a picture window. I don't think it would damage the character of the design at all or the integrity rather. Right. I think that's true, too. And then, you know, we are extremely protective of windows on primary facades, as you know, for, and I think for very, very good reason. It's a constant struggle to balance people's needs for modernization and protecting the integrity of these historic windows. These windows are a little questionable though. They're not great. Yeah, they don't, they, they're not great windows to begin with and they're, they're not in good condition. So, I'm not sure that going to a huge amount of trouble to try to protect these particular windows with fake muntins is really doing a big service for anyone. So, I'm inclined to think that in, in your particular case, there's room for modification for a little different approach than that we would not want to set a precedent if we ended up that way for other windows because, you know, you, you naturally make the point, well, it's important to have nice new windows that are more energy efficient. That's, that's honestly never the winning argument for us because if we accepted that as the winning argument, then we'd never be able to protect a window. That might factor in in certain cases and it does, but that in and of itself can never be the determining factor. So just... Just be aware of that. Not for, I'm not saying that for, for your benefit so much as just why it would not be, we always want to be careful not setting a precedent where someone would say, well, look, you, you gave them to this other house that... And I fully respect that and honestly that's kind of why I try to lean into the actual architectural opinion about why we want it and not just lean on secondary... Smart. Yeah. Globally true stuff. Yeah, I think your approach is, is well taken. So, um, so yeah. Oh, and as far as the alteration of the window opening, I mean, it, it does alter, first of all, it does alter an opening in a primary facade, and that is, I think the citation in the staff packet is off, but it is correct that the ordinance says no opening shall be altered on... Yeah, it's just the wrong exception copied. Maybe. I think it's citing to the wrong section. Yeah, but I hear you. That is, that is what... So we still need that exception. I think so. I mean, I know. So, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. In this particular case, I think that there's, I, it doesn't bother me personally, but almost maybe look almost too symmetrical in some ways if they, if they match up too closely. And to me... Right, because they have different functions. To me, it reads as windows in a kitchen now, which are very traditional in this neighborhood that people have windows looking out from their sink onto the street. And that's to me what that would look like, which, so I'm comfortable with that. And I'm really glad that you, you and your client decided not to persist on the, on the roof over the portal. Not even one bit. Yeah, that, that is extremely character-defining on this particular house. And you know, I'm sure your clients want to protect the character of this house just as much as we do. They do. They do. Yeah. In this case, they really do. Yeah. Not always, but this case they do. I'm sure that was part of the reason they were attracted to the property. So, those are my thoughts right now. Thanks. Any other thoughts from other board members? I'll go. I'm going to speak for the windows. I think I'll speak a little bit about the windows and about some of it architecturally pertaining to how I think the code's relevant. I guess I would fundamentally really just sort of disagree with most of what you said about the windows. I think that they're a testament to durability. Windows that were built in this era actually tend to outlast modern windows in my experience. The photo that you've conveniently brought up is a testament to lack of maintenance. The one that is really interesting to me is the one on the right side of the picture window that's being portrayed as fake muntins. These windows have true divided light. Since we've made some suppositions about the authenticity of— You're calling this true divided light. No, I'm not. I'm getting there. Okay. I let you speak. Give me a moment. Sorry. Sorry. So the windows on the house are true divided light. That one's not. So the supposition I would make here is that the lower four panes of that broke. Like maybe a basketball went through there, and one pane was replaced, and then a grid was applied on the inside of that window. That's what it looked like when I was there, because I know that the divided light above that are true divided lights, and the divided lights on the window to the right, adjacent to that, are true divided lights. You can see the light, respectfully, Member Scott here. You can see the light coming between the two muntin pieces right here. You can literally see it coming through. Yeah. Well, I disagree that any part of the house is true divided light. I don't think that's true. It's one window package. Well, we disagree there. So, and the two divisions on the cam latch photo to the right, that's a true divided light window. When I was there, that's what it appeared to be to me. So, from my observation with the site visits we took, I agree with you that there are fake muntins on that window, but I don't think that's true for the majority of the windows. That's my opinion. And yeah, I think that I tend to replace more non-historic windows than historic windows, because the divided light windows that are in this building and the casements tend to be from an era where they were made to be taken apart, rebuilt, repaired. And what tends to kill these windows more than anything else is the use of latex paint over them, because it holds the moisture in against the water. And so I think that, yeah, there's just some differences that I have with some of the presentation and the way you've presented the durability of these types of windows. I don't really think it's necessarily always a "modern is better." I think the degradation of historic windows is often a function of people's impatience to using things like linseed oil paints that take a long time to dry that actually help preserve windows and have helped preserve windows for a very long period of time. There's also lots of modernization options for historic windows that can make them functionally control air better, which is where you're getting more of your energy loss than through the actual panes of glass. So, anyway, that's just my part on the windows. The only other thing that I would bring up is I feel like, from an architectural standpoint, I feel like the window—I think you've got it labeled the window to the right is that B. Yeah. I think it's really charming how it's the same size as the other window. So that's—I know that I've had projects—I know that this board often times has not allowed the raising for the argument that you're making for the kitchen availability. I know that it's certainly nicer if you have the countertop going under the window, but there are a lot of options to have a detail there where you can leave the window that same size and still have a really functional and beautiful kitchen from the inside. So, those are my comments really on that, just on the windows and that one particular detail. Thank you, Member Cherry. Other members of the board wishing to comment at this point? I will ask for anyone in this audience wishing to comment, come forward. Yeah, you need to come forward and you need to get sworn in, and I will give you a two-minute limit. My name is Susan Lamden. I live at 615 Prio, but I am the owner. Can you—I'm right here. Oh, right here. 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. I am the owner of 528 and 530, the duplex that's also going to be presented tonight. And I don't have any objections to changes in the windows or anything else, but I do want to set the record straight that there were other homes on Cayo who had farolitos on Christmas Eve. We have—my partner, my life partner David Kazlowski, has lived at 528 Cayo for 35 years, and for most of those years we've had an open house, and we make hundreds of tamales. And so we want to invite the new neighbors when both construction projects are done the next time we have a Christmas Eve. And please note that David not only set up the farolitos for our property, but also for the next-door neighbors who were not local residents. So I just wanted— Thank you very much. Anybody else? Elizabeth, you've already been sworn in. Hello, Elizabeth West again. I heard something kind of interesting while you were speaking, Mr. Bose, right? When you said "districts," I was thinking about the difference between districts and streetscapes, and you said the streetscapes aren't that important in relation to the district. I can't remember your exact words, but I got to thinking, actually, it is important to know that there is a difference. I think of a streetscape as being important because it's like a little neighborhood, and districts have a lot of variety, but often a streetscape can determine what should be built along that street. I like that you said, "Please let us know how we can work together." That's really great. And I'm assuming when you said you were going to be honest in your appeal, but new windows would then be said to be repaired, I suppose that was a joke, but I don't recommend having jokes like that. I think this is an adorable house, and I haven't been over to see it in person, but I think your presentation is really good and interesting, and I kind of like the symmetry of what is supposedly the—is going to be, I guess, the kitchen area, the window and the one on the left. But I am glad that the H board is going to make that decision. Thank you. Thank you, Elizabeth. Anyone else in this room wishing to comment, come quickly? Nope. Anyone online? Yes, Chair Rios. Jordan Young, I believe you have previously been sworn, so please state your name and address and provide comment. Jordan Young, I live at 652 Galasto Street. I want to congratulate Raja on a wonderful presentation, and I hope that you will grant him his birthday wish. I also hope that it will be easier in the future to replace windows, especially if they aren't functional and weren't installed properly. There needs to be more sanity in how we make these decisions. Style matters, but also how people live and how they're able to afford to go through these processes and execute your recommendations is also important. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Yes, Chair Rios. Stephanie Benonato has her hand raised as well, previously sworn. Stephanie, you may speak. Thank you, Stephanie Benonato. I would look at the actual requirements for changing the window size, and that would include considering other design options, which I heard Member Cherry said there were other design options, and whether it's a hardship. And I understand that they want the window height to be at the counter height, but there are other ways of doing that and still getting the counter height that would work. And there is a symmetry to the windows at that height, and the symmetry seemed important for some things, but now it's not important for the sill height for the architect. And then, in terms of whether it's a picture window or not a picture window, I do remind you that the applicant is the one who has to prove overwhelmingly what was there or not there, and they can't prove that there was something else there. So, we have to assume that a picture window was there. And I know that I owned a house from the 1890s, and it had picture windows in it in places that you wouldn't necessarily think there would be. And they were there probably from the 1950s or '60s. So, they could be historic. I mean, I understand this one's been replaced. I'm happy that the terracotta porch is not—the overhang is not going to be changed. And I do urge the board to keep the white or lighter detailing on the windows, and not the heavy bronze look that the applicant initially wanted. And I'm also surprised if there's going to be a lot of changes here, and the idea is that they are not repairable, that there isn't a window assessment. And I know that it can cost some money, but you know, this was something that you bought into and knew what you were getting into again. And I think it's important that you maintain policy consistently. Thank you, Stephanie, for your comments. And I'm going to guess there's no one else online. No, Chair Rios, there's Ruth is what's listed. Ruth, if you can please state your name and address for the record and be smart and unmute if you have not already. Great. Thank you. Yes, my name is Ruth Williamson. And what other information did you need? Will you please state your address for the record? I am an owner of 521 Kelly Corvo. 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. Yes. I will be brief. Thank you very much for this opportunity to present our plans for the remodel of 521 Kelly Corvo. My husband, Lup Pepper, and I fully support this process with its intention to protect the integrity and historic legacy of these Santa Fe neighborhoods. We also respect the time and dedication of this volunteer board. Thank you for your service. It is not always an easy seat to occupy. For context, as to the why of this remodel, I'd like to offer a few brief comments. My husband and I enthusiastically purchased this house over a year ago because of its proximity to our daughter and our future son-in-law. Their house, remarkably, is a five-minute walk. Someday we hope to be able to support their family, meeting our grandchildren after school or going to performances at Aakia Madre Elementary. It is our intention to fully comply with the codes for our historically contributing neighborhood and with our remodel, bring this small home forward with design integrity and historic precedence. We also want to take advantage of its location at the bend of Cay Corvo. Inside, we are orienting the kitchen to face outward to the street so that we might interact with our neighbors walking past. We plan to put a small garden out front again to connect the home with our community of neighbors. And as we did this past holiday season, but clearly not the only ones, we will line our home with farolitos and open our doors to celebrate the season. We did this last year. It was really easy because we had no furniture in the house. In these ways, we hope to enliven a neighborhood where, oh, shoot, I'll leave it at that. Thank you for your consideration. Well, thank you very much for your comments. And I was going to let you go on since you're one of the owners, but you stopped. So, I appreciate that as well. Okay. Anyone else? Chair, board members, do you have anything further to add? If not, I will entertain a motion. Someone, anyone? Thank you, Madam Chair. In case number 2026-011886 HDRB at 521 Cay Corvo, I move to approve the application, noting that the exception criteria for the terracotta portal has been removed with the applicant's agreement to restore that in kind, or replace that in kind, or leave it. Okay, thank you for the clarification. So that is one condition of the motion that the current terracotta portal be retained. And noting that the exception criteria for the other two exceptions have been met as follows: The complete window replacement is approved based on additional testimony given tonight about the poor condition of the windows and the fact that they are not true divided light windows. Also, the fact that the HICP refers to the northernmost picture window as modern. And the other exception criteria for narrowing or reducing the opening for the picture window still is based on the testimony that described the practical use of the indoor space in relation to balancing the architectural symmetry on the outside, and also by the fact that the symmetry that is proposed maintains the grid on both sides of the portal in a way that I think is less impactful if those were all in one plane. So, the second condition of the motion is that the picture window that's currently under the portal be retained, and that the trim, the current white trim, also be retained. Clarification that it is the design intent is retained, but it is part of a new window unit. A new window. Yes, the full render replacement is approved, but the window under the portal shall have the large picture window design, the dimensions, without any volumes in that center portion. Thank you. Everyone has anything else to add? Yes, member. I would like to second with a friendly amendment per staff's recommendation that it be a cementitious stucco. Thank you for that. I agree it's friendly. I really think that you need to indicate the color of the stucco and the color of the trim on the windows. I think they should remain as is. White for the trim of the windows. Yes, the cementitious stucco. The current color would be preferable. Just one other correction to your calling it the northernmost picture window. That's actually the easternmost on the south facade. Thank you. Closest to the garage is the one I was talking to. Yeah, thanks for that clarification. Anything further to add, board members? Remember, ask the applicant, are you, is it acceptable to you to retain the same color stucco that's cementitious? Yeah, yeah, yes, absolutely. Applicant agrees with that color choice then. I think that's, and the methodology of determining that is up to us or, well, presumably it's probably not even made anymore, et cetera, et cetera. Yes, I mean, it's always understood that it's near to that color you could get. And if there's a question about that, that's up to staff to approve the color choice. Yeah. Anything else? We'll call vote, please. Member Benu? Yes. Member Beachide? Yes. Member Cherry? No. Member Agular Madano? No. Member Dagnen? No. The motion dies. Motion just failed. I will entertain a new motion. One of the three, please go for a new motion. I just saved time. So somebody, member Cherry, member Dagnen, one of you, please. Can I get a point of clarification from staff? Absolutely. So, in the recommendations, it's, it's just, it's, maybe I'm just missing it, but it's staff finds that the exception criteria for historic window shall be repaired or restored whenever possible. It doesn't say have been met or not. Is there, it reads very awkwardly to me and I'm unclear what staff's recommendation is. Chair, member Cherry, we left that determination up to the board in terms of what can be repaired or restored. And the presentation that Mr. made this evening, that additional information is certainly the jurisdiction of the board. Okay, because it sounds like you're, you're approving. It says otherwise staff recommends approval, but you're not, you're not, you're not making a recommendation for repair, restoration of the windows one way or another, or whether there should or whether there would be a new opening allowed. There's no recommendation being made on that. Chair, member Cherry, the recommendation was to not change the size of the picture window. But certainly it's up to the board to, based on the evidence presented tonight, to judge that as well as the primary facades on contributing buildings. Non-primary facades are of less concern. So, primary facades relative to window preservation with the exception of the non-historic material in that one window closest to the garage. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I guess just point of quick discussion for me. I wasn't at the site visit. So, I don't have the firsthand knowledge on this case that I wish I did. But looking at the primary elevation on the very left-hand side, I mean, from the photo, that's all I have. Those look like true divided lights to me. So, I don't personally have any issue with replacing the windows, but I'm just wondering, we usually have more conversation about replacing in kind. And even if we replace the window fully, which I'm supportive of, it seems like we should try to mimic the light pattern more closely, specifically on this window, which does appear to be true divided light. But I know there's also disagreement about whether those are, if anyone else. So that's where I'm stuck on. I'm fine replacing it, but I would like to see the pattern matched more closely to what is there. Are those true divided light on the window? Am I allowed to speak still? Okay. So, with absolutely all the respect due in the world, according to the HICP, or our reading of it, which is that basically we have the original window package in the house except for that one southeast one. And based on the evidence we've seen so far of periodically broken muttons and that revealing a truth about the detail, despite the specific case that member Cherry outlined, it's still of the overwhelming professional opinion on this team that the windows are not true divided light. So, I would like to say that. Then as far as responding to the mutton pattern, I fully understand that request. The only, and I'm willing to go there if that's where you want to take it. The only appeal that I would make to you is that we do feel that we've done our best to reintroduce a meaningful divided light pattern that scribes across the whole facade much in the way that the original one did, albeit not in its exact portion. Would you consider supporting the earlier motion with this information? My hesitation there is, you know, the different, the different light pattern leans more contemporary than the square pattern that exists today. I do appreciate that the proposed mutton pattern, like I see what you did there with lining up, you know, the bookended windows. And I appreciate where you're coming from. You have responsibility to the client in terms of the counter. And if I were in your shoes, I would have done the same thing with changing that window height. But our responsibility, you know, as the board, we're only looking on the outside in. We really don't consider what's inside. So that not being aligned irks me from a design perspective. So, I still feel the same way personally about the light pattern. I think it should, we should maintain the square. I do appreciate that you're willing to do the white because I think the dark bronze charcoal black paired with the more horizontal pattern that really lends these to a more contemporary aesthetic. And just given the location and its proximity to a Madre, I think it's important that this remain more true to historic light patterns. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just for a point of discussion, I wanted to point out that there's three different light patterns on the front of the house right now on the primary facade. And I believe around the, we go around the house, there's yet others. So, I think, and the applicant made this point, that some harmony with respect to the building itself is of value. And we have followed that in other cases where there's been disparate window designs on the same building. Unifying those under a new common language is an opportunity when you're placing all of them makes a lot of sense. Requiring them to maintain one style on the front when it doesn't match any other style seems inconsistent with what we've done in the past to me. Well, I was, I'm trying to figure out if there's a way to break this impasse. And I was just going to ask whether member Agular Madrono would support the motion with the friendly amendment to have the light pattern changed to be the same as what's existing on the current primary. So, I would, I mean, yeah, I just think that matches the consistency. Like we, I feel like we're already giving a lot with this. Like this is why we need a window assessment because I know I'm not a window expert. I wasn't there in sight to say what true divided, what's, you know, historic versus not. So, I feel like we're already giving there. So, given the fact that it's a primary facade, we should be trying to replace, I think, in kind as most as possible. So, yes. It's a good point. I mean, I think it's a very good point actually because that's what again what the code requires. When we do decide that we're, it can't be repaired and needs to be replaced, we ask it to be replaced in kind. Yeah. That's our norm. And now that you've really pointed it out, I do think that the design as presented is a little off from the character of the house. So, and I was under the impression, maybe wrongly so, that because there was not a window assessment, that we were not going to address the windows this evening. I thought we were going to address everything else, but not the windows. We spent a lot of time focusing on the windows. But anyway, yes, member D. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just like to add that since I voted accordingly, that I am comfortable with the comments that have been made and perhaps we could restructure the motion to incorporate them. Yes. Member, member Cherry. Well, I, I would just, I, I guess I would advocate for consistency where we, we, we put a lot of energy into like providing evidence that windows through an assessment are, you know, a specific type and construction and style. And, and I just think we're, we're doing something totally different than we've done in the past. And it's reading to me as real inconsistent. So, like to advocate for consistency in the process and, sorry, go ahead. Yes, Heather. Thank you, Chair Rios. The window assessment is not something that is required by code. It is something that is requested. And so, as a matter of procedure, the window assessment is intended to provide additional information. The applicant has provided additional information tonight, maybe not in the form of a printed window assessment. And then the windows that we're really discussing are those on the primary facade. Other windows on the rest of the building are either not historic or a similar character to the ones that sort of have the problems with the muntins not being genuine, or I don't know if that's the right term, but anyway. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I understand that, and I guess I'm just, I was there and I've seen a lot of windows. So I'm just hearing things stated in a way as factual when I'm not seeing the factual evidence personally. So that's part of that consistency. And I can understand if, and I do understand that it's not required, but that it can be helpful to have something more consistent than the one example that was presented by the client or the applicant, excuse me. So I think it's important from my viewpoint, what Member Madrano was indicating, that this is a primary facade. So I feel that the primary facade should try to remain as close as possible to what it has always been. Elizabeth said something that stuck in my head. She said, "This is important. This neighborhood is important. It's like this little, not a compound, a little neighborhood." I attended a school. My friends, some of my friends lived here on Corvo, and I remember some of these homes. Picture windows were very, perhaps not every home on that block, in that area, had picture windows, but that is something that when I look at the existing house and I compare it to what you are trying to do to this, it just changes the character of it. I think that if you have the opportunity for the rest of the house to change windows that are energy efficient and aren't changing the openings, I think for me that's appropriate. But the front of the house, that's what's facing the street, that's what I would not want to change. And I do appreciate that. I'm hearing from you a cooperative spirit, and I do appreciate the fact that you and the client didn't want to change the tile, the terracotta tile. Absolutely. And I would just like to state clearly that we are open to basically in kind, in kind of the design of the muntin layout, as proposed. And I believe implicitly in what you said, Member Madrano, is also to keep the sill. Well, you frame it how you want in your motion, but we're amenable to such changes, and especially if it means we can get the new window package. And that's our position. That's appreciative. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, if it's acceptable to everyone, I'll just amend the previous motion, if everyone remembers what that is, so we don't have to restate it. So, consistent with my previous motion, with the following change, that the window on the... Southeast. Southeast. The kitchen. No, no, no. The one, the north, south, northwest, north. The curve is, the Corvo is throwing me, so I don't... Are you referring to the vinyl kitchen window next to the garage? No, the one that's the other one that's not next to the garage. Oh, excuse me. Yeah, the picture unit that is sandwiched, flanked by... No, the other one. The... Okay, southwest. Southwest. Okay, sorry. That's totally confusing or attempted at clarifying the motion. You could also specify all the southern windows in the primary facades, because that is the qualification. Without a... Okay. So, you can start your motion. Yes. With respect to all the windows on the southern facade, primary facade window replacement is allowed, provided that the division and size is, sorry... Light patterns are maintained. Yeah, I actually don't intend to change the application's request for the window sill in the kitchen. I think that that is, it's fine. But the other two, three, three windows need to maintain the light pattern. So that's a condition added to this motion. Is that clear? Sorry, I can try. You can try again. No, I think it's... Okay. I think it's clear. Get that. It's the same motion, but to duplicate the divided light path on the primary. Presumably find some version of them that works on the raised sill, which wasn't explicitly addressed, because obviously we wouldn't use the proposed pattern. If the other ones change, we would change it also. The new, the new window that's now going to be divided light will have the same divided light pattern as... As opposed to what we have, yeah. Well, now it's a picture window, right? As opposed, as opposed to what you were designing. That's right. Yes. Clarification: the picture window on the far right, closest to the garage, that's going to have a light pattern that is going to simulate the light pattern on the window to the far left of the front. Same pattern across the facade. That's what your motion is. It won't fully match, I don't believe, because your motion doesn't allow them to be different, to be different sill heights. Yes. We're talking about the proportions of the divided lights. Yeah. Which we can maintain despite the sill, the sill jumping up one sill. Right. Like the Excel spreadsheet, we can maintain the grid across the front. Absolutely. Just shortening that window. I second that. I'm clear on the motion. I think I still don't, we're raising the window, but I'm clear on the motion, but I have a feeling we might be stuck. Okay, there was a motion and there was a second to the motion. Correct. Okay. Roll call vote, please. Okay. Member Banu. Yes. Member Beachside. Yes. Member Cherry. No. Member Aguilar Madrano. No. Member Dagman. No. The motion dies. One of you other people, I would suggest that you make the motion. Can I make a try? Because I think I know what would lower the kitchen. We're just narrow. This is like a negotiation through motions. Basically, I will move that in the same case, the same motion be repeated with the action, with another addition, that the sill height remain the same on the existing picture window. Member Madrano, a second. Roll call vote, please. Member Banu. Yes. Member Beach. Yes. Member Cherry. No. Member Aguilar Madrano. Yes. Member Dagnet. Yes. The motion has passed. Chair. Thank you. Happy birthday. Okay. And okay. Now, is it actually your birthday now? Okay. We're going to move on to the next case. And I thought everything was going to go quickly this evening. 507 and 509 Coronado Road. This is for a status review. Case number 2026-012025 HDRB 507 and 509 Coronado Road. The only request, status review and primary designation applicable. Ted and Josephine Lopez property at 507, 509 East Cornell Street consists of two separate addresses, parcels, with the main residence at 507 and the casita at 509. Both residences are currently listed on the GIS map as non-contributing to the downtown and east side historic district. Structures in the property include a privacy wall and pergola. The main residence was constructed in the late 1950s and is in the Spanish Pueblo Revival style. The core main residence is constructed above Adobe, is 2,214 square feet on top of a basement. I'll just share from... Hello. Oh, this is... Yeah, this is... There it is. Okay. Okay. It was added to the east elevation in the 1970s and later was later modified. The carport addition was added in the 1980s and extends the street-facing facade of the residence. South is the front of the residence and contains a portal, a projecting mass. The carport and a long shallow portal from the 1970s dominate the east elevation. North elevation has a small bump-out addition for a basement access and a chimney introduced after 1978. The west elevation is the least altered. The windows throughout the residence are combinations of metal and vinyl windows. The 750 square foot casita was built post-1978 in characteristics of a passive solar design from the late 1980s or early 1990s. Staff recommends that the historic status of the structure be upgraded to contributing with the south elevation R1, R2, R3. We can change it to the facade diagram. Recommends that historic status of the structure be upgraded to contributing with the south elevation R1, R2, R3, including the portal with a pony wall and excluding the non-historic windows, those doors, and the carport as the primary facade. Casita, yard wall, and pergola as non-contributing per 14-04.06c, designation of significant contributing and non-contributing status within the historic district. Stand for question. Thank you, Gary. Any questions for Gary? The question is for you at this point. Applicant, will you come forward? Hello. Will you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record. Steve McCormack, 318 West Gomez, 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? Do you? Thank you. Good evening. And Mr. McCormack, do you agree with staff's recommendation? We do. And do you have anything more to add? Just that the carport was not, you know, is not historic, and so that's why we feel like it should not be a primary facade. Okay. Any questions for the... I just have a curious question. That's a huge lot. Yeah, there's actually two lots. Did you see that? Yeah. I don't know if a picture... The actual house and then the quote casita that doesn't look like such a casita. It looks like a pretty good size. I was surprised to hear it's only 750. Yeah, it's not so big. But they are, that's why it's 507 and 509. They're actually two. Oh, yeah. This is the city's website. You can see the beige line cutting through the middle of the, of what looks like one lot. Yeah. So, there's actually two lots. It's kind of, it's kind of funny. Right. Well, you don't have questions for the applicant. Anyone in this room wishing to comment on this project? No one. Anyone online? Chair, may I ask, no hands are raised. Board members, I will entertain a motion. Somebody, did one of you raise your hand? Let's see. Okay. In case number 2026-012025-HDRB at 507 and 509 Coronado Road, I move to upgrade the status of the main building to contributing with the south elevations, including the portal and the pony walls, excluding the non-historic windows, doors, and carport as the primary facade. And give the status of the casita, the yard wall, and the pergola as non-contributing, consistent with staff's recommendations. Second. Anything further to that? Nothing further. Roll call vote, please. Member Benil. Yes. Member Beach. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Aguilera Madrano. Yes. Member Den. Yes. The motion has passed. Chair. And the last case this evening is on Corvo, 528 and 530. Lanny, may we hear from you? You missed 619 West Alameda. Can you see if my applicant is online, Heather? Oh, I don't know why I checked it off. Yes. Is there someone here for 619 Westa? Yes. Okay. Sorry. Yes, we are here. Okay. Actually, I had checked you off and we haven't heard your case. I guess I'm in a hurry. It's actually, we have to hear 619 West Alameda. Thank you. Okay. So, I don't think the presentation's going to work again, Heather. I'll run it here. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. So, this is case 2026-011825 HDRB for 619 West Alameda Street for a remodel. The property at 619 West Alameda is located across from the Santa Fe River Park. The houses in the area range in style, with the most prominent styles being Spanish Pueblo Revival and Vernacular. Most of the residences are lower, single-story buildings with an average height of 12 feet, 8 inches. The 702 square foot single-family residence at 619 West Alamo is listed as contributing to the Westside Guadalupe Historic District. The Spanish Pueblo Revival structure is constructed of adobe and pantile. The adobe portion of the residence was constructed approximately 1943, with the pantile addition about 1951. There was a wood-framed addition in the rear which has been removed. All except one window are wood double-hung, single-glazed, one-over-one windows. Property status was reviewed on July 8th of 2025 under case 2025-0664 HDRB. The residence was designated as contributing, with the south and west elevations as primary. The pantile-lined well was also designated as contributing. Next slide. Sorry, I keep forgetting to tell you to change. The applicant proposes the following exterior alterations: to remove the existing windows with frames and restore the windows and frames. The concrete window sills shall be retained, and existing windows are double-hung wood with single-light panes. To remove the south doors and frames, to reconstruct the frames and repair the doors. Next slide. Install a concrete bond beam on top of the adobe and pantile walls. The bond beam will raise the height of the structure from 9 feet 4 inches to 10 feet 6 and a half inches. The maximum allowable height is 14 feet 5 inches. They have requested an exception to section 14.4 14-4.6 E24B to raise the height of a contributing structure. Then they want to reconstruct the roof and install new canals in the existing canal space on the northwest corner of the building. Next slide. Install two skylights. They will be low profile and shall not be publicly visible. Brace the southwest building corner to prevent the wall from continuing to move westward and construct a 132 square foot, 9 foot 6 inch high portal on the north elevation. The portal will be supported by wood columns and half-wood headers, corbels, and a metal roof. Next slide. Replace both the north pedestrian doors with half-light wood doors with panels and install a ground-mounted HVAC condenser on the southwest corner of the building. They will install a 40-inch high coyote fence to screen that HVAC condenser, otherwise it would be publicly visible. Install a 40-inch high masonry yard wall courtyard on the southeast corner of the building and install a 40-inch high stucco-finished masonry yard wall along the east property line north of the residence. There is an exception to section 14-4.6E24B to increase the height of the contributing structure because there is a need to install a bond beam on the building. Bond beaming is required by building code and will increase the height of the structure by 10 and a half inches. Chair Rios asked that I put the photo of the windows to share with the board the condition of the windows that will be repaired. So, these are those windows that they're, this is a sample of the windows that are in the building that will be repaired. Staff recommends approval of the exception to section 14-4.6E24B to raise the height of a contributing structure and recommends approval of the items that do not require an exception and finds that the application complies with 14-4.6E general design standards for all historic districts and 14-4.6G5 for the Westside Guadalupe Historic Design Standards. Chair: Thank you, Lenny. Any questions for Lenny? I just wanted to comment in reference when we saw the condition that these windows are in and that the applicant is proposing to repair the windows. I was astonished, actually, and I have to commend the applicant. He's going to try to repair these windows. I think most owners would not go that route. If we have no questions for Lenny, I will ask the applicant to speak to get sworn in. Applicant: Hi, my name is Maxfield Scott, and I'm the owner of 619 West Alamo. Chair: Thank you. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? Applicant: I do. Yes. Chair: Thank you very much. Applicant: Good afternoon. Chair: And what do you have to add? Applicant: Just, we were excited to remodel this gem that is on one of the main thoroughfares into downtown. And again, like you said, Miss Rios, I've worked with the board on other historic properties. And I think it is important to put in the effort to preserve and restore the period-specific items that are relevant to the home. So that's why we went the route to hire the historian to do the assessment of the windows, and we are going to put in the additional cost to preserve the windows. And primarily our goal with this project is to just bring health and safety items up to code. And then again, preserve the Santa Fe style for our wonderful city. Chair: Thank you. Board members, do you have questions for the applicant? Member Benu. Member Benu: Thank you, Madam Chair. No questions, but I just want to echo Chair Riosa's comments about the windows, but I think just generally the entire project just shows such respect for what a lot of people, we've seen many of them, think of as just a useless little building that needs to be either taken down or wrapped in a new building to maximize the lot. And I just think this is a very, very sensitive remodel, and I really appreciate what you're doing. Applicant: Thank you. Chair: Any other questions or comments? And anyone from the public wanting to speak? No one in this room. Anyone online? Staff: Yes, Chair. Stephanie Benonato. Stephanie Benonato: Good evening, Stephanie Benonato. I guess my only question is I wasn't quite clear about the windows. I hear repair, but then I heard that they were going to be double pane, and so it doesn't sound like they're being repaired and replaced, or that the same window is going to be there. It's going to be a more energy-efficient window. So, I wonder if there could be some clarification as to whether they're going to be single-pane windows or double-pane windows, and that it's the frame and the design of the window that's being repaired, but the windows, the glass itself, the glazing is going to be modernized. Thank you. And otherwise, let me just say, I think it's wonderful what they're doing. I think the bond beam is necessary, and I love that they're going to screen the HVAC system. Thank you. Chair: Thank you. Anyone else? Staff: No, Chair. Chair: Motion, please. Member: Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Case 2026 011825 HDRB at 619 West Alamo Street. I move that findings be entered that the exception criteria have been met for the reasons set forth in the staff report, and in all other respects this project conforms with the code, and move that it be approved as submitted. Chair: Member Pianu. Member Pianu: Yes. Chair: Member Beach. Member Beach: Yes. Chair: Member Cherry. Member Cherry: Yes. Chair: Member Agular Madrona. Member Agular Madrona: Yes. Chair: Member Dagnet. Member Dagnet: Yes. Chair: The motion has passed. Thank you, applicant. And we'll go to the last case this evening, which is the Kayakora case. Case number 2026-011997-HDRB, 528 and 530 Kaya Corvo, Downtown and East Side Historic District. Contributing structure. The main residence was constructed of concrete masonry units in the 1950s. The building retains steel combination windows and an east facade portal with ornamental iron details. There is a greenhouse-style window on the south elevation of the casita portion of the building. The portal roof is clay tile which contrasts with the Territorial Revival style brick coping on the residence's parapet tops. Workshop and storage structures. In the rear of the property is a former garage with an attached workshop, was constructed in 1951 of concrete masonry units. South of the structure is at a zero lot line and is connected to a garage at 532 Kyle Corbal. The Historic District Group Board designated the main residence as contributing with the east and southeastern facades, including the portal and excluding the non-historic doors and windows, as the primary facades as indicated as number one and two on the facade drawings. Designated the workshop and garage as non-contributing. The applicant requests on the main residence construct a 150-foot addition on the west elevation. The elevation will be to a height of 15 feet, with a maximum allowable height of 14 feet. The addition will match the existing height of the rear of the structure, which is at a lower slope than the east elevation, which will remain at the height of 14 feet 1 inch. The addition will have a brick coping and the parapet to match the original structure. Construct a 200-foot portal addition on the west elevation. The portal will be constructed at a height of 13 feet 8 inches. The portal will be hipped clay tile roof to match the existing east portal tile roof, wood post, and wrought iron. Replace all exterior doors and windows with wood-clad doors and windows as recommended. As recommended, remove the wrought iron posts. Replace them with wood posts painted to match the windows. An exception to the 14-5.2D1A 2D1A requested for the removal of historic materials. Replace wrought iron railings to replicate those existing on the east patio. Install exterior insulation on the entirety of the existing uninsulated main house except for the primary facade on the studio. Construct a 32 square foot entry portal on the east elevation of the studio. The portal will have wood columns and a parapet roof and replace the windows and doors. Staff finds that the exception criteria have not been met and recommends denial of the exception to section 14-5.2D1A 2D1A for the replacement of the wrought iron columns with wood columns. Otherwise, staff recommends approval of the other elements of the applications which do not require an exception as they comply with 14-5.2D general design standards of all historic districts and 14-5.2E downtown and east side historic design standards. It's time for questions. Gary, is this application also asking for a gate? Staff: Yes. So, I saw something. This was not my case. It was Amanda. So, I'm just replacing her. And Chair: Can you tell us how far back is that gate going to be? Staff: See, let me. Chair: What material is it made of? And what's the height? Staff: Looks like the gate is far back to the end of the western red bits. Let's get it right. It is about four car lengths back. It is located immediately adjacent to the rear of the house. Not right on the street, far back. Chair: Yes, four car lengths of space back. Chair: And what are the materials? I guess I can ask the Gary. I can ask the applicant question. Does anyone else have questions at this point? No one. I'll ask the applicants to come forward. Get sworn in. Applicant: Hello. Chair: Will you please raise your right hand? State your name and address for the record. Applicant: 1219 Zodto Road. Chair: Thank you. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? Applicant: Thank you. Applicant: Yeah. The gate is where Gary circled where it is. It's four car lengths back. And the material is going to be, it's basically a wood. It's a steel frame, wood-clad gate that is, I believe, 4 and a half feet wide, 4 and a half feet tall. I don't know whether we can zoom. I okay, you can see, yeah, on the rendering, on the illustration on the left side. So that's the inspiration over there. Yeah, 54, yeah, 54 inches. So that's 4'6" tall. Yeah, it's 4'6" tall. And at this point, the assumption is that the wall that is seen on the south side of this gate, it's a future wall that the neighbor 532 might be building as part of their proposal, which is, I believe, still in flux. So that wall may or may not be there right now. But the assumption, based on their design review, their hearing, that part of their proposal was approved. So we are assuming that that wall will be there in the future. And in reference to the steel that is in the front, you are proposing to replace some of that with, are you replacing that with beams or with wood posts? Wood posts, basically 6x6 wood posts. We are proposing to replace the rot iron poles, those slender posts, with 6x6 wood posts. One of the primary reasons is the current structural condition of that portal right now. A few of those posts are kind of shaky. One is almost falling off and basically not connected to the building at all. Secondly, the beams actually may need to be replaced because on the, if you're looking at the south elevation of the portal, on the west side of that south elevation of that portal, that beam stops short of the building actually and can actually fall. And that steel post, or those steel, I would call it a lattice actually, not a post. The lattice is actually disengaged from its surroundings. It can be moved, you know. So a lot of work has to be done and then there's some rot. So the portal structure has to be kind of really refurbished, maybe some elements, some of the members replaced in kind. So the only things that we want to replace are the rot iron lattice posts. How many poles would there be? The same number as currently. I mean, there's one, two, three, four on that, on the south side. There are currently one, two, three, four. And then on the east side, oh yeah, side is that top left. I think there are another four. There are another four. So, and on the corner, I think it's an L. There are two. Like, I think there are eight. And I think we're proposing, I believe we're proposing eight. Staff is not agreeing to this. Can we look at the South L elevation? One, two, four. So there will be five posts altogether. There will be five posts altogether and there are currently eight of those lattice posts. But the general bay division remains the same, right? Three on the east side, three bays on the south side. Similarly, there'll be three bays on the east side and three bays on the south side. Any other questions or comments? Board members. Member Bet. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just on that topic, is it possible to retain or replace the metal, the rot iron lattices? I suppose anything is possible. We're a little bit afraid of damaging them when we do remove them because they will have to be removed. And then properly secured to the top and the bottom. Right now, they're also asymmetrically installed to the outside of the beam that it's supposedly carrying as opposed to the middle. So one of the results is that that beam over time has rotated a little bit. So we also want to replace them. We would like to replace them with wood poles to be more consistent with the immediate neighbors to the north and to the south. Those houses have wood posts instead of. Are they structural and or are they just decorative? Well, they're barely structural right now. So, originally, I think if they were built that way, I mean, it kind of looks like a Victorian or Yeah. Something you would see in New Orleans, right? Are they intended to be a structural element? It's meant to be structural, but then I think if it was more authentic and, you know, there would be more steel elements, you know, I think there would be maybe a steel beam. So that's kind of a general feeling. Thank you. Yeah. So we kind of just want to make, and in the back, we're introducing a new portal on the west side. And being a new portal, we are proposing wood posts. So we're trying to make the whole thing more consistent. This metal, is it original to the house? I believe so. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions? Member Anthony. Thank you, Madam Chair. I, the headwind, I think that you've got on that is that it was just a few months ago that the board designated, specifically designated the metal portal as being part of the primary facade. So clearly wanted to protect that. And that means that even if there were structural problems that couldn't be repaired, it would need to be replaced in kind unless you beat a very, the very high threshold of getting an exception for that. So, I do, I do think that it, you know, it's, it's interesting because clearly that's not Santa Fe style. And so, there would naturally be other houses nearby that have a completely different look. But, but there are quite a few houses in our historic districts that have that aesthetic element in them from that era. And I do think that, I mean, I, I certainly would want to protect that in this house than I think the board traditionally has in the past. The gate, for consistency sake, if you were here earlier, you heard us talk about the fact that we tend to like that for 25, more than 25 years, the goal has been to have fenestration on gates. So is that something that, that you would accept with this wooden gate? And again, by fenestration, we're not talking about large window openings. We're just talking about something to break up the wood to let some light through. Basically introduce like a little motif. A motif in between the planks. Create some detail on the gate. Yeah, that's acceptable. That's acceptable. I mean, it's set pretty far back, but I think that would prevent it from looking too imposing. And also, you mentioned that you were picking up a design from someplace else. Was it from the neighborhood or you, I thought you said that you had The, you know, David Koslowski, who's the longtime resident at on in 530, is a carpenter. He's an artisan. And so that gate is a gate that he built and he would, he wanted to replicate. Okay. Yeah. I mean, there's nothing wrong with the gate, but I do think We can, yeah, we can modify the fenestration just to help some get through and make it look a little bit less like walking off the property would be perfectly acceptable. That's all I have. Thanks. Any other questions? Thank you, Madam Chair. Is the existing stucco, is that cementitious? Is it synthetic? Sorry that The existing stucco, can you just tell us a bit more about that? Is it cementitious? Is it synthetic? It is cementitious. Is that, and we are proposing cementitious stucco around the entire house. Okay, thank you. Yeah. And the color, the color is four four, I believe, which is on the approved list. And then under the portal is crema green, which is also on the approved list. Perfect. Yeah, I saw the colors. I don't know that cementitious was called out. So, hopefully we can include that in a motion. Agreeable that, okay, any other questions or comments? Anyone in this audience wishing to comment? There was another exception with regards to moving the steps that is part of the application. Currently there are two sets of concrete steps. One, one for each address. There's one on the south side of the portal and then one on the east side of the portal. And we wanted to consolidate them to a single step on the southeast corner of the So, you're going to close one of them off? Yeah, we're going to close like this one. You can see on the, on this is the south elevation. Yeah, there is that step over there. One main reason is that that stair protrudes into the driveway and also protrudes into the concrete, the concrete portal slab. And it's quite a hazard for people walking within the portal. Secondly, especially with an imminent kind of introduction of a wall between 530 and 532, our driveway becomes like nine feet or nine feet four. And protrusion would reduce that further by another 18 inches. So, we wanted to keep that driveway really clear back, safety reasons also. We felt that, you know, those concrete steps are in pretty bad condition and that kind of just wholesale proposing a single run going in on the southeast corner of that portal. You will Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Just for clarification, maybe we need staff to weigh in. I don't think there's nothing about that in the staff report. I have a feeling that they did not consider an exception to be necessary for the steps. It's part of your application that I don't think that they considered to need an exception. Am I wrong about that? Doesn't need an exception. Correct. Chair member Bianu, that's correct. Okay. Just to, just to clarify. It's part of your, it is part of your application that you're asking for that. You just don't need to meet the high standard. Because the portal is part of the primary facade about removing historic material from the primary facade, but the steps were not designated as primary. Elizabeth, were you going to comment? Yes. I, it's kind of weird little supports for the porch area and I would be sympathetic with them wanting to change it. But it's kind of fun. It's sort of eccentric and that's partly what we're about here too. I, I hope they can use them again and fix that up. I'm interested in the color. I, I don't know if it's just the what we've been seeing in the photograph or the color of the, what do you call that coping along the, the brick at the top of the main building and then the terracotta over the, they just sort of are strange color, but that's part of the fun of this maybe is, is that what it really looks like when you were out there looking at it? Do you know what I mean? The what is curvy stuff that goes over the porch area as terracotta tile and then the coping. Is that what it's called? Along the, yeah, I mean, it's definitely we got a little California. We have a little bit of New Orleans with the posts and we have a little bit of, you know, New Mexico in the main building. And, you know, after a while, you kind of love the place. So, I'm glad that you're going to say it's okay to fix those dreadful steps. Thank you. Are you introducing blue to this house? The color blue? Yeah. Then all the new doors and windows will be blue and the, we would like to paint the hotel with wood elements brown. They are currently that reddish brown. This is not accurate at all. This blue is not accurate at all. You know, it's, it's, yeah, it's a, it's a lot. It is not accurate because Yeah, it's more like a teal. It's much more Santa Fe. It's not like a Oh, that's the incorrect color of blue. Yeah, it's much more like a Santa Fe blue. I mean, we actually, no, no, that's, you know, and we also have a, we also have a specific RGB specification for that blue. It's going to be a custom blue. So, I don't know if I don't have a color print with me. We were in the middle of public comment. Is there anyone in the online? Yeah, but also that's not, that's, yeah, but the RGB specific about the posts. One thing that you, you didn't mention is that part of the terracotta roof on the is falling structurally. It's falling away from the wall exterior wall of the south side, particularly, particularly above the doorway of the 530, which is the southern. And so that structural part of quest for replacing those metal lattice, if we host, if we're going to go to the trouble to reconstruct that portal to make sure that it's sufficiently supported. We don't want to make sure that we are able to repair that challenge. In the historical report, it's noted that that lattice was commonly used. It was a hardware store. It was something you could get at the True Value, and I have seen it elsewhere in town and on the east side. Our concern is the structural concern more than the design because if you absolutely said that we could structurally prove it using wood instead of those posts because they would be a different height. Right now, they're higher than because it's on the outside, it's supporting that. So that structural concern is a major concern for the owner, but I wanted to make sure. I don't know how anything can be done. Yeah. But so that I just wanted to add that point, which was one of our arguments in it. And then I also wanted to ask a question, which is that we did, thinking that we needed the exception to move the cement stairs. We paid for that, paid $200, the additional two, the removal of historic material and the replacement of historic non-historic material. I didn't know how that worked. So if you go through. I would be open to retaining the, because I think I can come up with solutions, structural solutions to hold up the pot and retain those as more maybe more decorative elements as opposed to the wood posts. I think we would have the wood post in the bank, and I think that could be quite nice. In consultation with Paul Duran, a few months ago, he mentioned that, hey, maybe it's actually quite interesting that there is a difference. There's a historic portion and then there's a new portion. So, I think I can work with it. Good. We were in the middle of public comment, and is there anyone online? Yes. Sorry. Stephanie Benonato, can you hear me? Yes. Okay. So, I love this house. It's beautiful. I love the cactus, actually. They're amazing. But I'm really happy that you are kind of going towards leaning to the preservation of these lattice, this iron lattice work. I think it makes the house unique, and I think it's really character defining, and certainly metal can be reinforced and made to be more structurally sound. Obviously, it held up this porch for quite some time and can continue to do so. I can see why the steps were perhaps considered historic material, but I don't see any problem with taking them away to make the driveway, make it more, make it safer there. I'm wondering on the back portal, I understand they want to do wood, but are the railings, are they going to be metal or are they wood? And again, it's since you can't see it, it's to me it's not of a great concern. But I think that, and I do think it distinguishes something new from the historic. And I do like the colors that they're choosing, particularly for the stucco, instead of having really dark colors on the fence. There's one drawing to the right called, it says inspiration next to it. It's slightly lighter looking than the fence with the man standing next to it. And I hope that they will choose the lighter coloration of that. I just think it's less, I don't know, less, it draws your eye less. It seems to go better. And yes, the idea of a little fenestration there, maybe some iron work opening with some iron work, which would play into the front porch hall. So, thank you very much, and I appreciate that they're taking care of the house, and again, I love this house and I love the cactus. Anyone else? Members of the board, if you have nothing further to say, I will entertain a motion, please. A courageous person. You are the courageous. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. 202611997 HDRB 528 and 530 Kai Corvo. One of my favorite streets. I move that the exception request for the removal of historic materials. I'm almost going to ask, actually, before I make the motion, has that been withdrawn in favor of just agreement to go ahead and repair the wrought iron? That'll make the whole process a little. Great. So, thank you for that. And this motion approved the motion, approved the application as submitted, noting that the applicant has agreed to withdraw the request to replace the wrought iron posts and instead will retain the wrought iron posts and the front portal, and with the additional condition that there be some fenestration on the wooden vehicular gate to be submitted to and approved by staff. And in all other respects, the application is approved. Madrono will second with a friendly amendment. Just to state that the stucco will be cementitious to match the existing stated. Accepted. And also, I think that the color blue that you are representing this evening wasn't the true color blue. I would suggest that staff take a look at that and approve that one. Is that okay with you? I think so. We don't, do we normally get into that level of detail? I guess that's fine. Yeah, we do. On the, so you, so staff, what exactly do we want staff to do? Just agree that the color that they're proposing is acceptable. The applicant indicated that the color that was presented is not the actual. Yeah, I understood the applicant to be saying that the color that was presented on the screen is not a true reflection of the actual color, but that they have provided the actual color number in their application that they're suggesting. So maybe staff just approves that exact color. It's also, it's in our packet and appears much more muted than what the screen was showing. Yeah. And it has the formula there as well. Okay. Anything else? Nothing else. Roll call vote, please. Oh, yeah. There. Yes. Member Benu. Yes. Member Beach. Yes. Member Cherry. Member Agar Madrono. Member Dagnet. Yes. The motion has passed. Chair. Thank you very much. Thank you. That was the last case this evening. Anything under discussion? Chair. Any matters from the board? Oh, Gary, did you have the? Yes, I did, Madam Chair. I'm just wondering if everybody's going to make it to the informational meeting on April 7th in person. If not, please let me know so we can do the link to the video session. So, a minute, correct. Yes. Thank you. Any matters from the board? No matter from the board, and our next meeting is April the 14th, and I will entertain a motion to adjourn. Eggman moves adjournment. Arana, a second. Those in favor say aye. Aye. Okay. Good night, everybody. Look, we were 15 minutes.