Historic Districts Review Board Meeting Tue, Jun 23, 2026 · Historic Districts Review Board https://santafeminutes.space/meeting/1176 == Executive Summary == The Historic Districts Review Board Field Trip covered a range of proposed projects, with significant discussion around new construction and additions within historic districts. Key approvals included a 400 sq ft portal and other modifications at 1226 Cerro Gordo, a 169 sq ft addition and a new 745 sq ft guest house at 619 West Alameda Street, and a 426 sq ft carport at 998 Asistencia Madre. The board emphasized design elements like rounded corners and deep window reveals to maintain historic character. A major point of contention was the proposed multi-family residential development at 507 and 511 Paseo de Peralta, and a project at 310 Magdalena Road. For both, the board and public raised concerns about compatibility with the neighborhood, height, massing, architectural style, and setbacks. The Paseo de Peralta project was postponed unanimously for redesign, with the architect acknowledging the need for significant changes. Similarly, the Magdalena Road project faced strong opposition, leading to a suggestion for a subcommittee to assist with redesign. A proposal at 1295 Sierra Gordo to remove a portion of a contributing retaining wall and a large addition was denied, with the board finding that the exception criteria for both were not met, citing lack of hardship and potential damage to the district's character. The board approved other aspects of the Sierra Gordo application, such as window replacement. The meeting also included staff updates on code enforcement, a farewell to a retiring board member, and a procedural discussion about the implications of postponing applications versus outright denial. == Key Decisions == - Approved the application for 1226 Cerro Gordo, Unit A, for a 400 sq ft portal, carport enclosure, window changes, stucco, and a rooftop deck, finding it met all criteria. - Approved the application for 619 West Alameda Street for a 169 sq ft addition and a new 745 sq ft residential structure, with the condition that new structures have rounded corners (minimum 2.5-inch radius) and deep window reveals (minimum 2 inches deep). - Approved the application for 998 Asistencia Madre for a 426 sq ft freestanding carport. - Postponed the applications for 507 and 511 Paseo de Peralta unanimously, until the applicant is ready to present a redesign that addresses board and public comments. - Approved the application for 539 Garcia Street as presented, noting it meets prior hearing requirements. - Approved the application for 301 Camino Militar for a new 754 sq ft detached garage as submitted and recommended by staff. - Approved the application for 426 Delgado Lane as submitted, with the condition that the new vehicle gate be fenestrated to match the existing pedestrian gate. - Denied exceptions for the addition and the removal of a portion of the retaining wall at 1295 Sierra Gordo, finding that the exception criteria were not met. - Approved all other aspects of the application for 1295 Sierra Gordo (e.g., window replacement). == Motions & Votes == - Motion to approve the agenda as amended — Passed. - Motion to approve Case 2026-012513-HDRB at 1226 Cerro Gordo, Unit A, as submitted — Passed unanimously (Vice Chair Benvenut, Member Bisharat, Member Degnan, Member Cherry all voted yes). - Motion to approve 619 West Alameda Street with the condition that the new structures will have rounded corners (minimum 2.5-inch radius) and deep window reveals (minimum 2 inches deep) — Passed unanimously (5-0). - Motion to approve 998 Asistencia Madre as submitted — Passed unanimously (4-0). - Motion to postpone 509 Paseo de Peralta (Case 2026-012489 HDRB) until the applicant is ready to present a redesign — Passed unanimously (4-0). - Motion to postpone 507 Paseo de Peralta (Case 2026-012490 HDRB) until the applicant is ready to present a redesign — Passed unanimously (4-0). - Motion to approve 539 Garcia Street as presented — Passed unanimously. - Motion to approve 301 Camino Militar as submitted and recommended by staff — Passed unanimously. - Motion to approve 426 Delgado Lane as submitted, with the condition that the new vehicle gate be fenestrated to match the existing pedestrian gate — Passed unanimously (4-0). - Motion to deny exceptions for the addition and wall removal at 1295 Sierra Gordo — Passed. - Motion to approve all other aspects of the application (e.g., window replacement) for 1295 Sierra Gordo — Passed. == Public Comment == Public comments were made on several cases. For 1226 Cerro Gordo, Ann Marie Huddleston inquired about the historical accuracy of bay windows, which the applicant clarified were existing hexagonal forms. For 619 West Alameda Street, public comments were overwhelmingly positive, praising the project's sensitive approach, though Stephanie Benenato raised a concern about the guest house size. For 310 Magdalena Road, numerous residents, including Shahan Pearl, Quincy Sweeney, Rebecca Mudge, Elizabeth West, Carl Horn, Tom Jones, and Stephanie Benenato, voiced strong opposition regarding the project's design, massing, height, zero setback, impact on privacy, drainage, and compatibility with the historic neighborhood. For 426 Delgado Lane, Elizabeth West commended the collaborative process, while Stephanie Benenato raised concerns about the garage's size and impact. For 1295 Sierra Gordo, Harvey Monroe (applicant) emphasized the necessity of a new front driveway for access and safety, while Teresa Armijo (neighbor) provided historical context and questioned the necessity of removing the retaining wall. Elizabeth West noted the 'haphazard' nature of driveways in the area. Eric Sykes and Stephanie Benenato commented on the common driveway, questioned the necessity of the wall removal and large addition, and suggested alternative access solutions for 1295 Sierra Gordo. == Topics == - Postponement vs. Denial - Staff Retirement - Historic District Maintenance - Window Specifications - Architectural Design Standards - Board Discretion & Guidance - Agenda Amendments - Public Comment Procedures - Appeals Process - Project Delays == Full Transcript == When you are ready. We are live. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. You are at a meeting of the Historic District Review Board. Today is June 23rd, 2026, and this meeting is now called to order. May we have a roll call, please? Member Cherry? Here. Member Benvenut? Here. Chairwoman Rios? Member Simmons? Excused. Member Bisharat? Here. Member Degnan? Here. Madam Chair, you have a quorum. Thank you very much. Are there any changes to this evening's agenda? Yes, Chairwoman Rios. Under new business, item D, 2026-012488 HDRB 925 Canon Road, has been postponed. Item I, 2026-012570 HDRB 828 Paseo de Peralta, has been withdrawn. And item J, 2026-012572 HDRB 1563 De Lores Estates, has been postponed. Is that it? That's it. Thank you very much. Is there a motion to approve the agenda as just amended? Move to approve as amended. I can go ahead and second. Bisharat second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed? Okay. We do not have minutes on this evening's agenda, nor do we have findings of fact and conclusions of law. Is there anyone in this room that wishes to come forward and talk about matters that are of concern to you regarding H board districts? You may come forward at this point, not regarding your case, but regarding something that might be of your concern. Yes, no? Nobody looks like it. If it doesn't have anything to do with one of the cases this evening, if it doesn't have anything to do with any of the cases this evening, if it has something to do with a case this evening, I will allow you to speak later on. Is there anyone online that wishes to speak? Chairwoman, I do not see any hands raised for matters from the public. Anything under staff communications? Madam Chair, I am pleased to report that in a case that was pending in municipal court, there was a gentleman who lived at 639 Old Santa Fe Trail. His name is Michael Ortega. He's not the owner of the property, but he has occupied the property for several years. He had been cited for a violation of minimum maintenance standards. You've probably seen that property. The stucco is peeling away from the adobe, and the adobe is kind of running off, slipping off and forming a pile there on the sidewalk. In a hearing in municipal court this morning, thanks to the diligence of our historic preservation code officer Anthony Mestes, he was found guilty, and he has been set for a sentencing hearing on June 6th. My experience with the municipal judge is that he's likely to get a probationary sentence with a condition that he bring his home into minimum maintenance standards compliance as a condition of his probation. Right. Is there anything else under staff communications, Gary? Yes, Chair Rios. The information for 334 Garcia on the stucco issue. Heather Lamboy, the managing director, has reached out to him, but no answer. The phone call, I did the same. I reached out to him. That was in May, and there was no answer. And I do believe Inspector Anthony Mayes has done the same thing. No answer. At this time, Anthony Mayes will go ahead and issue a citation into municipal court. Anything else? Yes, Chair Rios. I have some information that it's bittersweet that I will be retiring from the City of Santa Fe. So, this week is my last week. They requested two weeks' information, so I notified them last week, and this Friday will be my last. So, I will be retiring from the City of Santa Fe. Gary, it has been our pleasure working with you, and I want to thank you for your service and your work for the city. Thank you very much. Thank you. Congratulations. How many years did you work for the city? A total of 21 years and 9 months, so that's... So, you're ready to call it quits. Ready to call it. Days and hours, please. Thank you, Gary. Anything else? Any other surprises? No, not at this time, Chair Rios. So, we do not have anything under old business, but we have a number of cases under new business. And we'll go to the first item. Did you say item A was postponed? 1226? No? Okay. We'll go to the first case, which is located at 1226 Cerro Gordo. Is that applicant here? Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you. So, Amanda, may we hear, please? Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. Our mics have a little kickback this evening, so if it gets a bit much, let us know. So, this is for our case number 2026-012513-HDRB at 1226 Cerro Gordo, unit A, which is in the Downtown and Eastside Historic District. This property was constructed in 2004 in a Spanish Pueblo Revival style. The single-family residence is 1,480 square feet. And the house has divided light windows, deep inset canales, and portales with corbels and vigas. So, here you will see the site plan on the left is the existing, and the site plan on the right is the proposed. The applicant is proposing to build a 400 square foot portal, enclose the carport, change out the windows, stucco, and a condenser in the background mounted. And then as well as doing a rooftop deck with stairs portal on the back here. So, I'll just go through the elevations for you quickly. This is the north elevation, which is the rear of the building. And this is where the stairs will be located. They are raising the parapet up a bit, but it still stands within the height. They are enclosing the portal, excuse me, the existing carport portal, and bringing out that existing door to the surface. On the, this is the east elevation, and here we have the west elevation. They are changing out windows. They were previously divided light. This is not necessarily a publicly visible, the publicly visible side. And again, this is a non-contributing building. And they are changing out the windows in the front. There is going to be a large picture window, but it's going to be under the new portal. So, and then also they are enclosing the existing carport. And these are going to be true divided light windows that will be changed out. And staff recommends approval of the proposed project and finds the application complies with section 14-4.6 general design standards for all historic districts and 14-4.6G2 downtown and east side standards. I stand for questions. Thank you, Amanda. Any questions at this time for Amanda, board members? Thank you. Oh, yes, member Bisharat. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a question for Amanda about the three-foot rule from the corner on the west and east elevations. It looks like maybe the existing condition violates that as well. Is that right, or am I looking at the drawings? The west and the east? Yes. So, I do believe that they met the three-foot rule. I don't have dimensions on this particular window. I can say for the west for sure, it really does seem that it's three feet, but I could not speak to the east. But I can allow the applicant to answer to that, but I do know that I don't believe any of the window dimensions are really going to change. I do believe it's just the window type. Yeah, okay. It appears that it's really close to the corner, but maybe I'm just seeing that in a different way. Thank you. And that may be existing on the new one. Any other questions? Other questions at this time. Chris, want to come forward and get sworn in? Rose, raise your right hands and then make a name and address on the record. Christopher Purvis, 518 Old Santa Fe Trail. Jeremy Ian Martin, 12260 Go to Unit 8. 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 so under penalties of perjury? Yes. Please proceed. Adam Taylor. First, I'm going to miss Gary. Sorry. I was caught off guard. In reference to your question about how close we are to the... Okay, you switched me to the side. Yeah. Sorry. In your pocket. I think the floor panel will ask some of these questions, but the rear elevation of this building has sort of bay windows. And so that's what's creating that in line that looks like they're violating the rule, but they're set up. I stand for other questions. Chris, did you have anything further to tell us? I don't. The owner doesn't have other questions? Yes. I'm a cherry. Yeah, what are the windows going to be? They're wood clad aluminum. What? Clad wood. Wood window. Okay, because in the presentation, Mano was saying true divided lights. Are they true divided light or simulated divided light? Well, the ones that are on the street-facing elevation are what we call them true divided lights, but it's on the outside, the inside with the spacer bar. Okay. It's one piece of glass. Yeah, got you. Okay, so... Not what's there now, which is in between the glass. Right, or on the inside, or yeah. Okay, so it's a simulated divided light, but it's the type that we typically approve. So, yes. That's correct. Got you. Okay. And do you have a brand selected of that yet, or just to get an idea? Yeah, we're looking at Pella. Okay. All right, thanks. Any other questions, board members? Anyone in this room wanted to comment in reference to this particular project? No? And anyone online? Yes, Cherios. I see Ann Marie Huddleston. Miss Huddleston, if you would like to state your name and address for the record, be sworn in before you provide your comment on this case. You can begin. Where's Miss Huddleston? We, oh, there we go. Can we... You have bay windows. I'm sorry, can you state your name and address and be sworn in before you give your testimony, please? Ann Marie Huddleston, 164 East Haughton Street. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth, and do so under penalties of perjury? Yes. Please proceed. So, you've got some bay windows on this house, is that correct? Yes, that is on the north elevation. And those are historically accurate to this type of look? Are they? Maybe the best answer to that question is this, we are not changing the floor plan. They're not actually completely bay windows. They're three windows put together on a hexagonal form that was part of the original building. We're just changing the glass in those windows. Thank you. That's all. And did you have any further comments or questions? Not for me. And do we have anyone else? No, Chair. Yes, I don't see any other hands raised. There are no further questions or comments from the board. I will entertain a motion at this point. Yes, Chair. Mr. Chair. So, in case 2026-012513 HRP at 1226 Cerro Gordo, unit A, Downtown Eastside Historic District, I would move to approve the application as submitted, and I note that the applicant has met all of the criteria for approval. Is there a second? Eastside seconds. Thank you. Nothing further. Roll call vote, please. Vice Chair Benvenut. Yes. Member Bisharat. Yes. Member Degnan. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Madam Chair, motion is passed. Thank you. Thank you both very much. Good luck on your project. Next case is located at 619 West Alameda. Is that applicant here? Lenny, is the applicant here? We're checking online. Oh, I should tell you that if you disagree with the decision this board renders this evening, you do have the option to appeal to the City Council. And you do need to get together with staff so that they can guide you through the process. It looks like he's online. Lenny, you have the floor. Kristi, this is case 2026-0122-85-HDRB. Lenny, you have to start. I'm listening to you. Put your video on. Okay, for 619 West Alameda Street for a remodel and new construction. 619 West Alameda is on the north side of Alameda. It's across from the Santa Fe River Park. The 702 square foot single family residence is listed as contributing to the Westside Guadalupe Historic District. The Spanish Pueblo Revival structure is constructed of adobe and pentile. The adobe portion of the residence was constructed about 1943 with the pentile addition being... Let me just work two slides on each one. No, I'm trying to go down. Sorry, I'm having technical difficulties. Where's balance? Lost my mouse, so I do apologize. Okay, so the property came before the Historic Districts Review Board back in March of 2026 with a proposal to install the bond beam, repair some historic windows, re-roof the residence, and to construct some yard walls. I'm just going to... I got this. The applicant is currently proposing to construct a 169 square foot addition to the height of 11 feet 6 inches to replace the demolished 1975 addition on the north elevation residence. And then there's no additional changes to the primary south facade. So, they're still going to do the work that was already approved, but they would like that addition in addition. That made sense. Okay, the addition is located where the 1975 addition was. It's visible on your east, west, and north elevations. The view of the structure would be very similar to the structure before the 2023 collapse of the rear addition and is a minimum of 10 feet from our primary facade. Let's see. So, there's no other changes on that building, but they are also proposing a new structure. The new structure is going to be a 745 square foot residential structure. It'll be to a height of 10 feet 6 and a half inches where the maximum is 14 feet 10. The style will be a recent Santa Fe style. So, it's similar in design to the historic building so that it blends with the property, but it does not mimic it. This way the two structures can be distinguished and each is a physical record of its time and place. On the property the applicant is also planning to construct a 60-inch high interior coyote between the structures and some housekeeping. Staff is recommending approval of the project and finds that the application complies with 14-4.6E for general design standards for all historic districts and 14-4.6G5 for the Westside Guadalupe Historic District. Thank you, Lenny. Lenny, is the applicant wanting to get the same colors? I can ask the applicant. Yeah, I think we're going to need to ask them what the actual color was. Board members, any questions at this point for Lenny? Nope, but the applicant should be online. We will get him sworn in and ask him any questions that we might have. Hello. Are they asking you to speak? Hi Max, are you there? I am. Yeah, can you hear me? Yes, I can hear you. Do you solemnly please state your name and address for the record? Sure. Maxfield Scott. My address is 22 Avenida del Monte Alto. Thank you. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth and nothing but the truth and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you, Madam Chair. He has been sworn. Mr. Scott, you have the floor. Tell us what you would like to tell us that staff may not have told us. Or anything you want to add. Yeah, so to answer your question, we are going to match the stucco to the front and as well as the staining and all of that will be matched and so there's a continuity between the two structures. And really just trying to improve the main structure that's here and also improve the usage of the lot and things like that. As well as trying to conform with traditional Pueblo style and Santa Fe style. Thank you. I don't have a question, but I do have a comment. This particular house is a very simple house. And it does need some TLC and I think you are providing that in the correct manner, actually. You're not trying to make something that it shouldn't be. You're going about it in my estimation, you're going about it in the right manner. And I think the end product will be good. Thank you. Thank you. Let me see if other board members have comments or questions. Anybody? Member Fernandez. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, yeah, I'd echo Chair Rios's comments. Really, really happy with the project and the way you're preserving this extremely simple humble building is to be commended. And not overwhelming it with additions. So, thank you for that. My only question is I know you, I think somewhere in the packet you indicate an intent to differentiate to some extent the addition compared to the original, which is fine, but I'm assuming since you're saying it's going to be in a traditional style that it will have rounded corners and deep reveals and the other indicia of traditional style that appear to be built out of adobe. Is that correct? That is correct. Yes, sir. Okay. You know, we're not going to try and do a contemporary Pueblo style. We're going to keep it traditional as to what would be traditional in the neighborhood and what it would speak true to this house. Right. Excellent. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Member Cherry. Yeah, I would reiterate what Chair Rios and Member Fernandez said. I think it's a good design and use of this lot and very appropriate design for the historic district. So, thank you. Thank you. I will ask for public comment. Anyone in this room wishing to comment on this particular project? Looks like Elizabeth West is coming forward. Elizabeth, if you'll state your name and address and get sworn in. Please state your name and address for the record. Elizabeth West, 318 Sena Street, Santa Fe, South Capital. Elizabeth, do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes, I do. Thank you very much. Maybe I'll just put my hand up like this or something. I don't know. Interesting. Stand back. It's fun to echo. Obviously, tonight is a good time for me to echo. I would like to echo what Chair Rios has said. Bienvenue, Cherry, and no doubt what the others are thinking. So, I think it's very exciting. I hope we can give this place an award when it's all successfully done. Goodbye. I mean, thank you. [laughter] Thank you. There is no one else in this room? Is there anyone online? Yes, Chair Rios, we have Miss Benenato. Okay. Miss Benenato, please state your name and address for the record. Be sworn. Stephanie Benenato, P.O. Box 1601, Santa Fe, New Mexico. I too am happy... Stephanie, do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item shall be the truth, nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes. I too appreciate that the house, the historic house is not being made too big or has any more additions than what was really there in 1975. I'm wondering one thing is the sills are kind of distinct. I wonder if those sills are going to be replicated in the new house. And then my question is maybe more of a zoning question. But if the back house is an ADU, I thought there was a size limitation that it couldn't be more than 50% of the main house. And maybe the city has loosened those ordinances or limitations. But that would be a concern for me. Or is the lot going to be split at some point and they'll become two separate residences? So, that's just my question. Thank you. Thank you, Stephanie. Anyone else online? No one else. Can I just clarify? Yes, Lani. So, guest houses are limited to 14 or 1,500 square feet in the city or equal to the size of the main house. So, they can be the same size as the main house. And this one is what in square footage? The guest house is 763 square feet, which is comparable to the existing house. Thank you. Board members, a motion is in order right now. May I hear that, please? Member Bem Venut. Thank you, Madam Chair. Can I ask Mr. Mocchino if he has an opinion as to what the average radius would be in this streetscape? Chair Rios, Member Bem Venut, in this area would be like about 2 and a half radius corners. Okay, thank you. What about the depth of the window reveals? So, it'll be about approximately 2 inches deep. Okay. So, in case 2026-01-2285, HDRB 619 West Alameda Street, moved that the application be approved as submitted with the condition as agreed upon, whereas proposed actually by the applicant that the corners will be rounded and the reveals will be deep enough to suggest the mass of the structure, which would be a minimum of a 2 and a half inch radius and a minimum of a 2 inch deep reveal. Second. Member Cherry? Yes. Member Benveniste? Yes. Member Degnan? Yes. Member Bishop? Yes. The motion has passed. Thank you. Good luck on your project. Next case is located at 998 Asistencia Madre. Is the applicant here? Yep. And may we hear from you, planning? So, this is case 2026-01-2487 HDRB for 998 Asistencia Madre for a free-standing carport. The property at 998 Asistencia Madre is located on the south side of the road at the Canyon Road Asistencia Madre Y intersection. The Spanish Pueblo Revival style residence and guest house were constructed before 1940 and are listed as non-contributing to the Downtown and Eastside Historic District due to the number of alterations on the property. The applicant is proposing to construct a 426 square foot freestanding carport to a height of 9 feet 6 inches. 9 feet 7 inches, sorry. The carport will be constructed of stuccoed masonry columns, exposed wood beams and corbels, and a stuccoed parapet. The roof will be sloped with TPO in a tan color. The parking surface will be brick on sand, and the stucco will be cementitious bond to match the residence. The carport is open on all sides and will be entered from the west. And then staff recommends approval of the proposed project and finds that the application complies with section 14-4.6e for general design standards and 14-4.6g2 for the downtown and Eastside design standards. Thank you, Lanie. Any questions for Lanie? No questions. Applicant, if you'll come forward, please. Hi, please raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record. Mark Brown, 998 Seco Madre. Mark, do you solemnly declare and affirm the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you. Ms. Bentworth. Do you have any questions for... Mr. Brown, did you have anything further to add? No. And board members, do you have any questions for Mr. Brown? They don't. And does anyone in this room want to speak about this project? Nobody. And is there anyone online? Thank you, Chairius. I do not see any hands raised for this public comment. Okay. Thank you. Board members, I will entertain a motion. Member Bernini. I move to approve the application as submitted for case 2026012487 HDRB at 998 Paseo de Peralta. I second. Roll call vote, please. Member Degnen. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Bishay. Yes. Member Benavidez. Yes. Madam Chair, the motion has passed. Thank you. Well, that was painless. The next case is located at 925 Canyon Road. Is the applicant here? 925 Canyon has been postponed. Oh, this one is postponed. Right. So, our next case is actually the 507, 511 Paseo. Okay. 507 Paseo de Peralta. Is the applicant here? Yes, she is. I am going to present the next two cases, for 507 and 511 Paseo de Peralta together, since they are planned as a single project. These are cases 2026012490 HDR for the 507 Paseo de Peralta and case 2026012491 for 511 Paseo de Peralta. This is all new construction on a vacant lot. I'll put these up. Let's try that. Can we put the PowerPoint up, please? Thank you. Okay. So, the property at 507 Paseo de Peralta is located at the northeast corner of Paseo de Peralta and Magdalena Road. The subject project property is vacant with an asphalt parking lot. There are existing retaining walls along the north and east property lines and short retaining walls on the southwest of the property. The property at 511 Paseo de Peralta is located to the east of the corner of Paseo de Peralta and Magdalena on the north side of the road. The subject property is a 0.37 acre vacant lot with some vegetation and the remains of a previous structure that was not completed. There are existing retaining walls along the north and east property lines and a short rock retaining wall along Paseo de Peralta. 511 Paseo de Peralta was previously attached to 515 Paseo de Peralta, which is referenced in the 2004 case. The property originally came forward in 2004 for development under case H041114. The removal of the south property line was denied, so the project did not proceed. The property then returned for a new design in 2009 under case H09032. This project was approved but was not able to proceed due to issues with the development plan expiration. The project came forward again in 2014 under case H14034. This time the project also included the development of the lot at 507 Paseo de Peralta. The development plan was delayed, so the applicant received three one-year extensions to maintain the historic approval until the development plan was approved. Unfortunately, the development plan was then approved in 2023. However, the applicant no longer had financial guarantee for the project, so the project was delayed further. The development plan has been extended and is now on file. The applicant is asking the project with a few minor changes be approved so that the project can proceed with the new financial guarantees. So, on the 507 Paseo de Peralta site, the applicant is proposing to construct a 4,235 square foot multi-family residence to a height of 24 feet where the maximum allowable height is 25 feet on the vacant lot. All buildings are of Pueblo Revival design with earth-toned stucco finishes designed with flat roofs and parapets. Each building uses a variety of setbacks and offsets to break up the massing. The proposed project includes four condominiums in a two-story building. The tract is zoned BCD Marci, which allows for greater lot coverage than residentially zoned lots. The tract has an approved 2003 development plan with the city which matches this request. Detail finishes include stone caps on chimneys, metal fascia columns, roofing, and railing. Windows are wood clad. Yard walls are to a height of 4 feet, which is the maximum in this BCD district. They will define the perimeter of the tract. The existing historic stone wall will remain with no modifications. At the property at 511 Paseo de Peralta, the applicant is proposing to construct a 6,212 square foot multi-family residence to a height of 27 feet 6 inches where the maximum allowable height is 23 feet. It is on a sloping lot, which is why they're asking for the extra height. All buildings are of Pueblo Revival design with earth tone stucco finishes designed with flat roofs and parapets. Each building uses a variety of setbacks and offsets to break up the massing. The proposed project includes five condominiums in a two-story building. The tract is zoned R-21, which allows for multiple units on the lot. The tract has an approved 2020 development plan with the city which matches this request. Detail finishes include stone caps on the chimneys and metal fascia. Columns, roofing, and railing. Windows are wood clad. Yard walls to a height of 6 ft. will define the private open spaces behind the existing historic stone wall. The existing historic stone wall will remain with no modification. These projects work in unison. The overall project with both addresses roofed area will be at 12,693 sq ft. with a gross floor area of 13,790 sq ft. The full project will have a single driveway entrance to the shared parking lot. The changes between the previously approved design and existing design are some window and door changes. These are views of the two properties together in order to get a better perspective of the overall project. It's a little small. These are the south elevations together. And these are the elevations that are facing the project parking area. And then this is the elevation along Magdalena. This is the elevation facing the neighbors at the 515 Paseo de Peralta. I do want to just point out that at our site visit today, they did have up their story poles, but the story poles were tied to the fences, so they did not actually indicate actual setbacks for the property. There is a 5-ft setback on the side that separates 511 Paseo de Peralta from 515 Paseo de Peralta. That was a concern of one of our neighbors. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed projects for both cases, 2026-012490 for the 507 Paseo de Peralta and 2026-012491 511 Paseo de Peralta and finds that the applications comply with section 14-4.6 general design standards for all historic districts and 14-4.6 G2 for the downtown and eastside design standards. I stand for questions. Thank you, Lonnie. Lonnie, would you reiterate the number of buildings for each project? Correct. So, the 507 Paseo de Peralta will have four townhomes. And it's in the equivalent of two buildings. And then the one on the 511 is five. I'm sorry, I have that backwards. The 507 is four townhomes in a single building and the 511 is two buildings with a total of five townhomes. Two buildings. Five. So, the full project is three buildings with nine townhomes. Also, reiterate the heights of the project. Okay. So, the 507 is going to be 24 feet max. The 511 building is going to be taller at 27 feet 6 inches. And how close are these projects to Paseo de Peralta, to the front of the property, away from? So, the 507 does not require a setback. So, it is basically to the property line. There is currently that yard wall out in front. So, it's going to be up to that yard wall. The setback for 511, because it's residential, they have to have at least 7 ft. And is that 7-ft met? That 7-ft is met, yes. Okay, and would you tell us again why 507 does not need a setback? It's because it's a BCD district. Mhm. Rather than a residential district. So, 507 is a BCD district and the other, and 511 is residential. So, they fall under different city rules, correct? Correct. And is any part of this project one story? Yes, there are sections of the buildings that are only one story. But, the majority of it is two story overall. And when you say yes, they are one story, are you talking about porches or what are you talking about actual portions of the building? So, there are actual sections of living space that are one story. The garages are one story and then there's on top of the one stories, there's usually a balcony or such. And can you talk to us about open space? Do these properties have the required open space? They do. They meet the development plan requirements for open space. That open space is actually between the buildings. So, it's like where the swimming pool's going to be located, that kind of thing. There are some private smaller yards that will be fenced as well. And are these buildings in the recent Santa Fe style, is that correct? Yes, that is correct. Will they have rounded corners? Will they have inset windows? I'm going to let the applicant answer that question. Let me see if other board members have questions. [clears throat] Member Bendinyu. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Lonnie. The potentially confusing aspect of this application is the packet and to some extent the presentation by staff. I think is proceeding on kind of a tacit assumption that this is more or less just a re-approval request for what was already approved in 2014. And so the focus is on a couple of several modifications to that. Whereas I think in reality this is really a brand new application coming before us because that 2014 approval, obviously 12 years ago is a long time. Lots has changed since then, but more importantly that application, I mean that approval has expired, has it not? For several years now. Yes. And so once that expires, anyone that wants to start up the project again really is coming before the board de novo and asking for a complete review of the project, right? Correct. Okay. And it seems to me then that the packet feels thin to me for such a major project in such an extremely prominent location. Normally when we have buildings of this magnitude, we spend quite a bit of time on them. Typically multiple meetings, sometimes committees are formed. We see scale models sometimes. I know that's not required under the code, but it's often provided by applicants. We see 3D modeling. There's typically some back and forth between the applicant and the board before we are usually able to reach a final decision as to whether the original plans or plans as revised through consultation with the board are to be approved or not. So, I find it just a little bit difficult to do that now because although I respect the fact that it was approved in 2014, I don't think we're bound by it and I think that even the decision-makers at that time would say they wouldn't expect anyone to be bound by it 12 years later if that project never occurred. Just because circumstances change. And I think this might even be a completely new owner. I mean, the name is at least different. I don't know if that's what that indicates, but again, it just seems like a completely new proposal to me. So that's one thing. I guess that we've had some comments from neighbors which is always appreciated. I just want to get some clarification as to what is and isn't within our jurisdiction to make decisions regarding. So, one of the concerns of course is the fact that there's very limited setbacks. In fact, I think almost no setback on one of these properties on the north side. Is that something that the board has any say over? That's underlying zoning code. So, it's not really the purview of the H board. Okay. So, there's no provision in the code, the historic overlay district aspect, a part of the code that would allow the board to impose any conditions on the applicant with respect to required setbacks, is that fair to say? No, I think in the sense that the H board has jurisdiction over the streetscape, the final, you know, does it fit in the streetscape? That portion of the code would still apply for you. Okay. Still say, you know, it doesn't fit into our streetscape, so we'd rather it be redesigned. But as far as the setback requirements, those are those are— So, you're saying that the board could impose a greater setback than the underlying zoning requires. Maybe that should be directed to the city. I think I'm going to ask Maggie that one, yeah. Or to— So, I don't— Director Moore. Hang on. I just want to know what we are and are not considering tonight. And I will just say that I understand completely that the board has jurisdiction over matters of massing and height pertaining to the streetscape, but I'm just really specifying the issue of setbacks right now. Sir, you— Maggie or Attorney Rubalete, can you answer that? The answer might be different depending on whether we're talking about the streetscape or the north side of the property. I don't know. The answer is the board could impose more stringent requirements than the code requires. I don't know how that would be seen on appeal. Yeah, I don't know if or would uphold that. My belief is you would have to have some very specific findings in fact to support that. Okay. I got a point of clarification from you. So, this is what I'm hearing is that to impose a setback in order to meet the criteria of harmonizing with the streetscape. That might be a—I think that there's—I would just say is we unequivocally have the ability to do that, I believe, under our ordinance. I'm just not sure it applies to setbacks as opposed to, as I said, height, massing, and some of the other things that are specifically called out in the ordinance. So, that was my point of clarification specifically was to impose setbacks in order to bring something into making it harmonious with the streetscape. Right. Or, for example, and again, an even more difficult question perhaps is on the north side of the property where it's not even really the streetscape per se, but on an effect on neighboring properties if the board has any authority over that. Zero zero setback that's being proposed. Again, I think you would have to find something that is consistent with a historic code, right? And you would have to make specific findings of fact. Harmony with the surrounding buildings and streetscape is found in the code, and I could cite that section for you if you want a specific citation. Okay. Well, maybe we can get to that then. So, it sounds like it's a bit of an open question depending on how the discussion proceeds. What about another concern that's been raised is the retaining wall? The structural stability, is that something that we should be considering, or is that something the city has under consideration through another department? It's under consideration from the development plan. They are required to secure that retaining wall. It is allowed to remain at the height and the location where it is, but it does have to be stabilized. Okay. So, that's helpful. I do think though that the issues that are unequivocally before us are all of the typical issues that relate to a project in our district, but in greater magnitude obviously because of the size of this building. So, that is—I'm a little unclear as still even after Chair Rios's question as to what style the building is really in. It seemed to me that it evolved or I would say devolved from the 2004 original proposal, which was quite attractive and really I thought would have been a really nice addition and also would have given quite a few units to the 2014 proposal, that was a huge step backwards to where we are today, which I think is actually a slight improvement on 2014 in some ways because we've gotten rid of the really tacky stone veneer work, but we still have some I think serious issues of what style is this. It doesn't really—it doesn't really speak to a strong style. So, when that happens they usually get shoehorned into a recent Santa Fe style catch-all category, but really it's a very sort of un-aesthetic catch-all that just seems to say it's going to be stucco and, you know, have some nods towards Santa Fe style, but really doesn't have any aesthetic coherence. In addition, it seems to me that it has a lot of steel elements, which staff normally says we need an exception for in this district. The prior proposal I believed had both wood and steel. So, that's another change and I think staff would need to address with us whether or not why there's no exception request for those steel elements. And the board, I think, really needs to look very hard at the issue of under height even before we get to whether the additional height is warranted, which is whether even the allowable height is first correctly calculated because being on the streetscape, there are very few tall buildings. And some of them are institutional, which are like the Scottish Rite Temple, which are supposed to be excluded from the calculations. And in addition, even when there is a height calculation, the ordinance instructs the board to take into account whether or not the height and massing is proportional to the structures on the existing streetscape. And I would say pretty clearly that this is out of what we've seen so far is out of proportion, especially the extremely tall frontage on that's fronting almost directly onto the sidewalk on Paseo de Peralta, I think is highly problematic. And also, we're instructed to consider, if not mandate, setbacks in situations where there is a potential proportion problem with the existing streetscape and the requested height. So, I think that at a very bare minimum, this project should probably be stepped back from one story on the streetscape, and possibly two stories on the north side. So, that's just my preliminary thoughts right now, but I'll hopefully some of that will be clarified by the applicant. Okay. The applicant did give us a model and I would like to show that to you. It is a digital model. So, it's not it's not in paper or I'm not that—let me give you her digital. Well, here so you can kind of get an idea. The video kind of moves a little bit fast, so if you need me to pause, just let me know. [music] I don't know if that helped or not, but— Well, thank you for that. I mean, we obviously would need to stop at some of that. It goes by pretty fast, so it's extremely helpful to see it. I think it reinforces what I was saying about the generic nod or a nod to a generic Southwestern style. It's not convincing to me by any stretch of the imagination. And I also think it has another element that is prohibited, which is cantilevers. It looked like all the roofs were cantilevered, which is not acceptable, I don't think, under our code. Cantilevers. Thank you very much for your comments, and I agree with you. These two cases are brand new cases, and that's the way we should evaluate them. And Lonnie, how would you—I have a question for you in terms of height? How would you evaluate the height of these proposed buildings to the existing homes on the north side? Most of the houses to the north are single-story homes. But, you know, it because it's hill— Sit below and those homes sit on a hill, correct? Yes, and they're single family. They're single stories. Right. But are they going to be—because they sit up way high, are they going to be at the same height as this or are the proposed buildings going to be taller than the— I think it depends on which house it is, but for the most part those houses will be looking at the roof of this building. Sorry. So, for the most part those houses they'll be looking at the roof of this building. They're just a little bit taller than this building. And other board members, do you have comments? Member Beacham. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple of comments and I appreciate that points because I think in this discussions about 515 Paseo Peralta we focused on the development on that hill that kind of increases with the hill and so I think if we're contemplating a structure that sort of kind of erases that hill by building two stories that are equal to whatever's built above it, that's that's kind of a pretty big difference on the street frontage. The other things I'd like for to be considered are and the parking. I don't—I know we—I know there's some rules about parking that we don't have purview over but there's a lot of parking and I think that that will be quite visible from Paseo. Because the driveway's in between those two structures and then the parking seems to be on either side of the driveway with garages and and parking spaces. And I think in the video it kind of highlighted and I looked at it again at the elevations. There are several windows that are very close to the roofline which seems unusual for designs in this area especially when they're illuminated like in the video, but and then just to, you know, sort of emphasize John's point about the kind of dialogue we've had on similar projects like the list of Las Acequias down the street, we talked about extensively about setbacks and, you know, while what was accomplished was not exactly park-like like what was sold to us, it's certainly set back with some plantings and pedestrian-friendly front hedge which I don't see in this project. So, I do think it could benefit from some more discussion and possibly like an actual physical model that shows us, you know, what the placement on the street and the setbacks and, you know, sort of what we can see from Paseo. Thank you. Do the board members have comments at this point? Mr. Jerry? Yeah, I was going to wait to hear from the applicant and then make comments. Applicant or applicants, would you come forward, please? Hi, can you please raise your right hand, state your name and address for the record? Mary Sol Ortiz. I'm sorry. Mary Sol Ortiz, 6 La Vida Trail, Santa Fe, 87507. I'm sorry, I didn't catch your address. Can you— 6 La Vida Trail. 87507. Thank you. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes. Thank you. Spencer Winger. Good afternoon. I am pleased to present the Peralta project. We are proposing a new development of nine units as you see in the video located in the heart of the downtown Santa Fe. Each townhome has been thoughtfully designed to honor Santa Fe iconic architectural character reflecting the rich culture of this community. The project will add nine luxury units on the city most vibrant significant neighborhoods. Excuse me for interrupting. Can you all hear her? No. That's what I thought. I think we can. We need to get that mic situation corrected. Can you hear me better? Can you hear me better? Yes. Okay. Okay, sorry. Okay. So, the project will add nine luxury residential units to the city most vibrant significant neighborhoods just a from the plaza local business and public transportation. And to give you—sorry. I was thinking that we were going to show the video after but after my I talked to you but the video was already played so we respectfully request the board approval to move forward with the construction. We are committed to work with the City of Santa Fe to ensure this project meets the standards of this community and brings lasting value to the downtown area. So, whatever you'd like us to adjust on the plans, try this. Okay, sorry about that. I don't know what happened to the microphone. So, I'm ready to take questions. As Lenny explained, the project is nine townhomes in 507 and 511 Paseo de Peralta. So, other than recent Santa Fe style, how would you describe the architectural style of this project? Well, I'm sorry. The plans were already done and previously approved. I don't know when or where the last time they were reviewed by the board. My understanding is that they were submitted and reviewed again for the extension, and nothing has changed since the last review. I don't have the time when they were reviewed. How would you describe the architectural style? I would say, well, modern Pueblo, maybe style. But, as a member of the media said, this is obviously a very large project, and it's right near the heart of the Plaza, and it's going to make a big impact. In my view, I believe that at this point, I would like to, depending on how the questioning happens this evening, but I do feel that the project needs more work. And I think that it would be a good idea to have a subcommittee appointed to work with your group. Okay. That is what I am thinking at this point. I want to see what questions this group board has for you at this point. But I do want to appoint a subcommittee to work with you all to iron out some of the concerns that the board has, and that I'm sure the community has, and I will hear from the community and then anybody in this room that has concerns. Board members, do you have questions for the applicant at this time? Any questions for the applicant? People from the public that are in this room, how many of you are here to comment on this particular project? Please come forward and get sworn in. All of you can line up. Yeah. I'm going to go ahead and swear you all in together. So, you'll raise your right hand, and then when you get to the podium, state your name and address for the record before you speak. Do you solemnly declare and affirm the testimony? Raise your right. Oh, you've already been sworn. And do you solemnly declare and affirm the testimony you have with reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Okay, thank you. Please proceed. Microphone's having a little problems, so just kind of, okay. I will ask all people, normally I ask you, I limit the time to two minutes. I will ask you to be as concise as possible and to get to your point. You know, I want to give you your due. Yeah. You're here in front of us. You took the time to come here to speak. So, I do want to hear, we all want to hear from you. Sure, thank you. I think I can be pretty concise. My name is Shahan Pearl, and I reside at 310 Magdalena Road, which is the property directly north or uphill from the proposed building site. I share all of the board's expressed concerns about the overall appearance and character of this project, but I will, for the sake of brevity, concentrate my comments on the north side of the building directly between my property and the proposed building site. Two issues that feel most critical to us are the retaining wall, which was never engineered, and there's no record of its building. It's crumbling on top, and it is visibly leaning over. It seems like a terrible idea to build a multi-million dollar structure directly in its fault, especially with the zero setback, that there is absolutely no room for error, and there is no way to address or remediate any issues that might come up with that retaining wall. It also, as John, creates some really peculiar features such as portals that face directly into concrete buttresses and dead spaces that feel like they will simply accumulate debris and detritus. There's also a fall danger, which does not seem to be remediated or addressed with any fall protection in their elevations. Second is that zero setback that they would like to use, given that the lot is commercial. Whether or not it is legal, given code, for them to do so, we feel that it would greatly compromise our privacy and quality of life. Their second-floor windows would be on eye level with our kitchen windows, and we would get to know those people a little too well. Also, further down the driveway, the narrowness of the driveway would create a real danger of colliding with their wall during wintertime when the driveway might be slippery. It seems so much more sensible to have a fence between our two properties rather than a wall that is directly on our property line along our driveway. And lastly, that also seems to assume that they would be building from our driveway and using our driveway for maintenance access because there's no room for them to plaster or build without standing directly in our driveway to do so. As far as I understand it, we do not have any legal obligation to give them that access. Thank you very much. Hi. My name is Quincy, and I live in the same house as Shahan. Oh, sorry. Quincy Sweeney, 310 Magdalena. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak today. And I just wanted to say, you know, we bought this house. We always knew that lot would be developed. We're not against the development of it, and we really think that the right thing there would be phenomenal for the neighborhood. And I think we just really want to emphasize the potential issues with the compatibility of this proposed building to the surroundings. My main concern is the proximity to the residential, like the neat to our property, as well as the public space of the sidewalk. The proposed structure seems very, very close to the property line, and I think because of the height and the massing, it's going to be a very strong visual presence next to us as well as along Paseo. And again, while it may be allowed under zoning, I would ask the board to consider whether additional setbacks, stepbacks, or other design refinements could create a more comfortable transition between the building and nearby residents. I would also ask the board to take a good look at the project's consistency with the historic streetscape. It really feels like it doesn't match the scale, spacing, the open areas that are really a big part of the neighborhood as it still stands currently. Yeah, and I think basically it's out of scale with what's going on around it, and it's going to be a huge impact on us personally and the neighborhood and everyone that drives Paseo every day. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next person, state your name and your address. Rebecca Mudge, I'm at 337 Magdalena. I'm presenting my sister at 335 Magdalena, and I would like to point out that Mike Fisher was our architect and for every property down Magdalena to Paseo other than the Horns, which is of course a very historic property. So that is the style that and that very, very definite Santa Fe style in the neighborhood. And we would definitely like that to be honored and respected. It's why we're there, and I certainly support their position. They have worked so hard on that property, and it's good. They're going to be very impacted by that extra height. That is something that is definitely going to be impactful on them. We also have drainage issues. They've been very impacted by that. I don't know what they're thinking where all that water is going off their roofs, but that is certainly something to consider. Thank you very much. Thank you. Hello, Elizabeth West. South Capital area. I already told you where I live. I think this project is really trying and has a lot to learn so far about the styles, and to call it modern Pueblo is kind of an odd version, but I salute them for trying to learn about it. They have a ways to go. I think this design probably at this point doesn't fit in. The cantilevered stuff, very good point, important. Setbacks seem really tight. They're not even cozy. I think they feel uncomfortable to me. I haven't actually walked around there on the property, but I walk in that area a lot. So I think there's a lot of work that might need to be done. The idea from Chair Rios of having a subcommittee to help them come up with ideas would be helpful. The images that we were presented in the, come on, let's move in, were a little confusing because I'm used to just seeing stuff from the outside. They just didn't know in the presentation, but everything looked very hard-edged, and that may be just the way the design was drawn. I don't know. I think you can probably work with this group of people. It sounds as if they're interested in learning about Santa Fe style and what would fit in in that area. But they have a ways to go in my opinion, and I appreciate the comments made by Miss Beach. Very important comments. So, thank you. My name is Carl Horn. I live at 311 Miss Lodge, which is the Roque Lobato Sylvanus Morley home. I've lived there since 2004, at least owned it since 2004. I just want to remind everyone about the historic nature of this intersection. It's, I mean, it's named after, named Magdalena. That of course was the wife of Roque Lobato. Laguerita was a block away. It's now gone. The Sara Morley house has been completely destroyed, and it would be a shame to see the height, the massing, and the setbacks of this project to go forward. It is not at all in keeping with the remaining structures in the neighborhood. I think La Loma is incredibly important for the historic footprint of this area. This obscures that. A monolith is going up. It's more appropriate for 2001 Space Odyssey than it is for a corner of historic Quarry Santa Fe, New Mexico. I can assure you that Sylvanus Morley would be horrified if he had looked at the renderings that we've seen this evening. So, thank you. Sir. My name is Tom Jones. I live at 322 Magdalena, Magdalena Compound. We're just up the road a little bit, and I'll try to be quick. One thing I see is they asked for a height variance in the upper lot. I don't think variances should be given to developers. They know what the rules are when they buy the lot. They should design within them. And let me, without going into talking about the style, let me just say I agree with all the other speakers. Style just doesn't fit in with our neighborhood at all. Cantilevers, windows, three, three lights stacked as opposed to say two by three, two by eight, something like that. The other thing is, somebody's already said that the people who are adjacent to them on the north side have done a lot of work on their property. They certainly have. The first two speakers here. And they've done a good job. It fit in with the neighborhood well. I don't think it's fair to them to allow a setback right against their property, right against their driveway. One other issue that hasn't been raised that I'll just mention is a safety issue actually. When you live on Magdalena Road, you come out Magdalena and you have to turn left or right on the Paseo. And coming from the east, cars sometimes come down that hill quite fast, so they're trying to make the light at Mr. Church's Lodge. And the visibility is just good enough right now. But if you allow a two-story structure right on that corner, it's going to decrease visibility on that corner, and it's going to make it even more hazardous. So, you have a safety thing to think about here, too. And in fact, the driveway for this place is going to have, with two-story buildings in front, it does have a traffic problem. That's all I want to say. Thanks very much. Thank you very much. Is there anyone online that wishes to speak? Yes, Chair Rios, we have a Ms. Benenato who has been sworn in. Just one second. Okay. Thank you, Stephanie Benenato. I agree with most of the speakers already and with the board's comments. I think that it is totally out of scale. It is certainly not Pueblo style. I don't see really any one-story structures in there and that all the lower parts, I guess, are into the interior and not on the exterior. And I don't know that you need, if you want to have a second-story bedroom, great, but you could set it back and not have a sort of loft-type space there. I think that the driveway garages are, again, very difficult to negotiate. And I think the massing, I don't think there should be an exception for a 27-some-odd foot building. I think 24 is pretty high, especially on a hill. And again, it's too close to the street. It is not in keeping with the streetscape. And even the video, I have to say, was a little deceptive in that it made it look like there were a lot of large buildings behind it when, in fact, what you have are one-story homes that are on hills. So, I would urge the board to require a replan of this. And if some board members want to form a subcommittee and help them out, that's great. But, I just feel like the designer or architect doesn't have a really strong concept even of what Pueblo style means. And that in itself makes it difficult to work with. And as for the retaining wall, I think if it's structurally unsound, it is really a poor idea to build right to it. However, if that retaining wall's been there, then it could be that they do have a right to come onto the other person's property to maintain it, but it would be a limited right. And again, that would be a legal matter that would be established by use. Thank you. Very much. Is there else online? Chair, yes, I see no other hands raised. So, I want to thank everybody that came out here this evening and made their concerns known. There was one person that said we have a ways to go. And I agree with that. That this property has come before this board numerous times. And the property owners have the right to build something there. But, this board is formed to try to get the correct, the proper, the right buildings built there that are compatible, that are in harmony with the neighborhood. And in harmony, many of you brought up many issues that are legitimate. So, I think that we should form a subcommittee because I do think something will take place there, but let's try to work together to get the best project there. And that's what I think that we need to work on. And in order to work on that, I think right now I think that we need to have a subcommittee work with the architect or with the developers of this project. And I think the subcommittee, all of us on this board, heard all the concerns. The height concerns, the traffic concerns, even though we are not part of the traffic, but the city is. And eventually when this property goes for a permit, they have to have the proper parking area. But as far as compatibility to the neighborhood, the harmony with the neighborhood, the height, the proper architectural style, this is a very prominent area. So, we do want the proper lots of buildings that lots of buildings are being proposed for the area. So, you want to make sure that we do get the proper buildings there. And I'm sorry, Chair. I just want to let you guys know the architect has joined the meeting online, and if you guys have any questions for the architect, he is available. And who is the architect? Oh, Braden Furry. So, the architect would like to comment? He's available if you have any questions. Any questions for the owner? Questions for the architect at this point, but I do have some suggestions in reference to a subcommittee. Sorry. I mean I just wonder if this project is even close enough to have a subcommittee be effective at this point. I think usually we're a bit closer to identifying the specific elements that require adjustment. I don't think this is really far from a design that we can, especially as people who aren't architects, comment on. Yeah, I think if I can just comment on it. I think the problem is that the architect and the applicant, I think maybe were, as I said originally, under the impression that the general structure had been more or less approved and they just needed to get re-approval. And I think it's true. I think that this board is expressing the fact that no, as presented, this is not an approvable project. It would need quite significant redesign to be considered for approval. So, it may need another I'm thinking we have two people to kind of help give them some guidance in reference to what they might come forth with later on. Maybe it's a good idea to ask the architect what you think about that. And if he's amenable to that and how he has any ideas of how that process could work with where they are in the design process. Right. Whether he would prefer to meet with the committee before redesigning or just go ahead and redesign based on comments tonight. And then meet with the committee. Architect, did you hear that? I did. I just want to say that I need to swear you in, sir. I apologize. Please state your name and address for the record. Braden Furry, P.O. Box 238, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504. Hi Braden, 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. He has been sworn. I just wanted to state when I came onto this project, it had already had historic approval. It had been taken through the board before me with a different architect. I was hired to just take it forward with that approval to go to permit. So I at the time was only using the design that was already approved. So there was no, I didn't even have the ability to change anything at that point. We made small little modifications that were administratively approved, but nothing major without having to go through the process again. Those approvals had elapsed and we had used up all our extensions. So that's why it's coming back to you now is there's a new owner, new contractor, and so that part of the process is basically starting over. As far as working with a subcommittee, basically this really isn't my design. So I think I would rather look at the comments, listen to the comments that were made, reevaluate the site as a whole, and the neighborhood, and see where the changes would be made to be more in line with the neighborhood. Okay. Okay, that makes sense. That makes sense. So, thank you for that, and we shall see. I'm going to entertain a motion in a little while, but I do appreciate your cooperation, so that you can come before the board. You had all the comments that were indicated this evening, and you can come forward with another, actually with another project, because we really are looking at this as a brand new, two brand new projects. Two brand new cases. So, if you can submit that in the future, and then the board will look at that, and then if the board at that point feels that a subcommittee should be appointed, then we'll go forth in that way. So, Can I make some comments just regarding Pardon? Can I make some comments just regarding, I guess, what I heard at the site visit today, and just what I've also feeling myself, but what came up a lot was the harmony with the streetscape, I think, is one of the main detractors for board members, myself included. Just the, you know, just kind of a massive wall across that street front and in comparison to looking at all the other buildings, which we spent a lot of time walking down the street and looking at all the different buildings that were used to establish the streetscape. It, that's I think where the comments were made on that. Were that it didn't match that streetscape. In reviewing the code and looking at how we're interpreting the code, I think that was the biggest thing, how it harmonizes with that streetscape. And then and then the style of this building as well, I think. You know, modern is a good characterization of it and modern Pueblo I disagree with. I don't think there's much Pueblo in the style of it, but it's, yeah, it's too modern and too unharmonious with the streetscape in general, I think, was the main detraction for myself and other board members. So, that's, those are my comments. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, since the applicant's going to do some redesigning, I would encourage the applicant to go back to the 2004 plans and re-review them because it was also for very similar-sized condo project on both of these two properties, and it was a style that I think would fit in very well with the streetscape. And there was some back and forth between the board and the applicant at that time to refine some of the detailing in terms of the roundedness of the corners and some battering of the walls, stepping back, the window detailing. I'm not saying that should be the plan, but that would I think be something to look at as a model much more so than the 2014 version that you had to pick up from. Any other comments? I'll go ahead and entertain a motion. So, Madam Chair. If I could remind the board and the members that the applicant is entitled to a decision if he demands it. If your decision is to deny the project, then he has the right to appeal. And essentially, if you're postponing for a redesign, you're denying him the right to appeal promptly. I would wonder if the applicant would state on the record if he is amenable to a postponement. Yeah, thank you for that. I meant to say that I meant to ask that. So, the question to the applicant is, you could, you can have a denial if you want to, if you want that, if you prefer that so that you can take it up on appeal to the governing body. So it's your choice whether you prefer a postponement to redesign for a redesign or an outright den- Well, I don't even know, I can't guarantee it's a denial, but it seems to be headed that way. You're entitled to a vote. I couldn't, don't think it's the applicant's, it's the board that makes the decision whether to deny or postpone. And I would suggest that the board move to the postponement. The applicant has indicated he wants to resubmit a new design. Thank you. I think there actually is something in the ordinance that entitles the applicant to a decision. But, I think it's just fairness, fundamental fairness that the Yeah, I think it comes down to rather abstract due process considerations. The board can't just keep actively deny a project by postponing it and postponing it. I've never seen this board specifically do that, but there is a concern that that would be improper. That is. Does the applicant, I mean, maybe it's a non-issue, is the applicant desirous of proceeding with the redesign? Applicant? Applicant, could you hear us? Well, for me, I would, I'm sorry, I forgot. I thought we were talking on Zoom. We are. Yes, we are willing to modify the design in a way that is... Okay, great. We're something... The public too. Thank you. Yes. I'm sorry, I can't understand. Yes, we are willing to re... Okay, thank you. Modify the design. Yes. Okay, great. So, I'll go, I can make the motion if no one else wants to, whatever. So, I'll do the first case, De Peralta, move to for postponement, not to a date certain, but to a time when the applicant is ready to present a redesign as indicated is the applicant's desire. And taking into consideration the comments of the board as well as the comments of the public. I'll make a second. Roll please. Member Eashaid? Yes. Member Cherry? Yes. Member Degnan? Yes. Member Benevidez? Yes. Motion has passed. Okay, so I guess I did them out of, yeah, I did them out of order. But so now I'll do 2026-012490 HDRB at 507 Paseo de Peralta. Move for a postponement to such a time as the applicant is ready to present a redesign having taken into consideration the comments of the board and the public as the applicant has indicated is the applicant's desire. Degnan second. Roll call, please. Member Cherry? Yes. Member Bayside? Yes. Member Degnan? Yes. Member Benevidez? Yes. Motion has passed. You and thank you, applicant. And thank you all that spoke this evening, and we'll see you again. Next case is located at 539 Garcia Street. Okay. So, my applicant is here. This is case 2026-012579 HDRB for 539 Garcia Street. The property sits about 115 feet east of Garcia Street behind another residence on a narrow dirt private road. The Historic Districts Review Board approved the construction of an addition to the height of 10 feet 6 and a 206 square foot or tall and window and door replacement on the main residency and the conversion of the garage to a casita by installing new windows and stuccoing and re-roofing. In a previous case that was in on May 12th. Thank you. They postponed the garage door replacement with a request for a redesign. This request addresses that redesign of the garage opening. The Adobe one car garage is Pueblo Revival style consistent with the house style and dates to 1940s. It is listed as contributing to the Downtown and Eastside Historic District. But the south elevation is the primary facade excluding the non-historic garage door. The applicant requests to install a bifold door system measuring approximately 9 feet 4 by 7 feet high maintaining the original proportions and visual scale of the garage opening. The doors are designed to fold completely open allowing the opening to function as a flexible studio entrance while preserving the original garage opening. The doors will be recessed and stained in a wood finish. The applicant is not altering the dimensions of the garage garage door as requested by the board in their May 12th hearing. Staff also finds that this new design speaks to the garage opening. And this is a sample of the doors that would be located in the garage door opening. Staff recommends approval of the proposed project and finds that the application complies with 14-4.6E general design standards 14-4.6G2 for the Downtown and Eastside design standards. Stand for questions. Any questions for Lenny? No questions. This applicant, would you get ordered me? Raise your right hand, please. Do you solemnly swear and affirm that the testimony you have reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalty of perjury? I do. Should I state my name? Please state your name and address for the record. Yvon Geisler, 804 Camino Akima, 87505. Thank you. Thanks for letting us bring this back. I think my client's happy with where we landed on this. I hope the board is happy. And chair and the board, any comments, questions? I think you did a really good job. I agree. Thanks. Thanks for the work you put into it. And that's great. Anyone in this room wanting to comment on this project? No one? Anyone online? Yes, chair. Yes, we have Ms. Benenato. Hi. Stephanie Benenato. I guess because the drawings haven't been changed, I'm not really quite sure. First of all, there seems to be two different doors being proposed. So, which are going to be the ones that are actually going to be there? And is there glass behind those doors, or are they actual opening doors? Those are my questions. Thank you. But, I do appreciate that they went to the trouble of making them look like garage doors. Those are the doors that are being proposed, anyway. These are the doors that are being proposed. There will be no glass behind them. It's just going to be open. I'm going to guess there's no one else online. No one else online, so a motion is in order. I can make a motion. Please do. In case 2026-012579-HTRB at 539 Garcia Street. I would move to approve the application as presented noting that it meets all the requirements requested in the prior hearing. Begnum, second. Roll call vote, please. Member Abishag? Yes. Member Benvenue? Yes. Member Begnum? Yes. And member Cherry? Yes. The motion has passed. Is the applicant here for 301 Camino Militar? The applicant is present. I'm ready. Okay, this is case 2026-012569 HTRB for 301 Camino Militar for new construction. Camino Militar runs south from Canyon Road just to the west of Aquaduct Hill. The area homes are in Spanish Pueblo Revival and sit back from the road. Most structures are obscured by heavy vegetation. 301 Camino Militar consists of three existing structures on 1.38 acres. According to the county assessor's website, the main there's a main residence that was constructed in 1950, a guest house that was constructed in 1920 and is most likely the original residence on the lot. There's no information regarding the existing shed located on the west of the property. The residence is in Spanish Pueblo Revival style and is two stories on the west side and single story on the east. The shed and guest house are also in Spanish Pueblo Revival style. The main residence is currently listed as non-contributing to the downtown and east side historic district. The shed and the guest house are not statused. There is not a historic cultural properties inventory for the property. While staff generally requests new HCPIs where one does not exist, in order to status the property prior to work on existing buildings, the request is for a new structure, so we did not request a status review for the existing buildings. The applicant is proposing to construct a free-standing 754 square foot garage with a height of 12 feet where the maximum allowable height is 14 feet 6 inches. The garage is designed in a simple Spanish Pueblo design. There will be two 10-foot wide by 9-foot tall automatic doors on the west elevation. Doors are currently planned as metal roll-ups in the style. A solid wood pedestrian door will be on the north elevation. Windows will include three windows on the east and two on the south elevation. All windows are wood clad single light and will not be publicly visible. The garage will be stuccoed in cement stucco in La Luz to match the residence. The roof will be a foam system and a mini split condenser will be located on the east elevation on the ground and will not be publicly visible. Staff recommends approval of the proposed project and finds that the application complies with section 14-4.6E general design standards and 14-4.6G2 for downtown and east side design standards. Staff for questions. This is Boca Raton. Yes. Any other questions? Other questions? Is the applicant here? Hi, please state your name and address for the record. Michael Salambini and 125 Lincoln Avenue Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501. Thank you, Michael. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? Yes. Thank you. He has been sworn to. Do you have anything further to add? Pardon me? Do you have anything further to add to what... Just briefly, I just wanted to say evening chair, Olsen, members of the historic district review board. The proposed project at 301 Camino Militar is a modest 754 square foot detached garage designed to be compatible with the existing Spanish Pueblo Revival architecture, and as Annie mentioned it's found on the both on the property and throughout the entire neighborhood. The garage remains below the allowable height, utilizes traditional Santa Fe materials and finishes, and has been cited and designed to preserve the historic character of the property and the surrounding streetscape. Staff has found the project to be consistent with all the applicable historic district standards, and has recommended approval. And we just want to thank you again for your consideration on this as we respectfully request approval of the application as submitted. And I stand for any questions. Any questions from you? Anyone in this room wishing to comment on this particular part? No. No one online. Yes, Ms. Benenato. Stephanie Benenato. I thought I heard that there were metal doors on the garage, which does not seem in keeping with the historic character of the house, and just wonder about that or if it's going to look like wood, even though they're sort of like ones that go up and into the ceiling of the garage. And I also wonder how close it is, I think it is to the guest house, since the guest house might have been the original structure, and the staff has not required it to be status. If it was considered contributing, then is this going to be within 10 feet of that or not? That's my questions as to whether it would interfere with that if it was given a contributing status. Stephanie, is there anyone else online? Nobody there. No, Chair, no more hands raised. Just to answer Stephanie's question, there is over 10 feet between the two buildings. Thank you. So, the board didn't have any questions, then I will entertain a motion at this point. Thank you, Madam Chair, and case number 2026 12569 HDRB at 301 Camino Militar, I move to approve the application as submitted and recommended by staff. Dignan, second. Member Benvnu? Yes. Member Cherry? Yes. Member Bisharat? Yes. Member Dignan? Yes. The motion has passed. Good luck. Next case is located at 426 Delgado Street. Bonnie. Okay, sorry about that. This is case 2026-012-578-HDRB for 426 Delgado Lane for a remodel. 426 Delgado Lane is located on the west side at the end of the road. The single-family residence is known as the Russell House and was constructed of adobe in late 1928 likely by Rose Parker Curtis. The residence is listed as contributing to the downtown and east side historic district and the east is designated as the primary facade. The guest house is listed as non-contributing due to its age. Bull shed is designated as contributing with east as the primary facade and the east yard wall is designated as contributing. The applicant is proposing the following remodel on the main house. They want to construct a total of 570 square feet of additions on the main residence which includes a 93 square foot addition on the north side to extend the kitchen. That's actually located here in the red, if that helps you. The addition is to the Adobe structure and will be constructed of new 10-inch Adobe walls with 2-inch polystyrene and plaster on both sides of the new wall. This addition will not have undulated parapets to differentiate it from the historic residence. They will also be constructing a 392-square-foot addition on the south side of the residence to create a closet and bathroom. This is the green circle on the drawing. This addition is the framed portion of the residence and will be of frame construction. This addition will not have undulating parapets to differentiate it from the historic residence. The windows will be the same style as the proposed replacement windows for the rest of the residence. They will also be constructing a 12-square-foot addition to the mechanical room on the west elevation, creating a single line at the 1990s addition. This is the small blue circle. And then they want to extend the existing 230-square-foot portal by an additional 85 square feet for a total of 315 square feet on the west elevation, and this is the yellow circle. Give me a second to look at that. And then the applicant is also proposing to raise the roof of the garage enclosure on the northwest corner by about 2 feet and undulate the new parapets to blend it with the main portion of the residence and create a bedroom. They want to replace non-historic windows throughout the residence with aluminum-clad double-hung windows in a Mediterranean color, and repair the historic windows in the residence, which includes windows one on the south of the east entry door and number nine on the northwest, 13 on the north elevation, and 15 on the north of the east entry door. Unfortunately, the drawings in this slide are not actually numbered, but it includes all the windows on the eastern side. And then they want to stucco in cementitious in a buckskin color. And then at the guesthouse, the applicant is proposing to construct an 800-square-foot garage addition on the east elevation. That's a two-car garage. The guesthouse is on the zero lot line. The new garage will be at the zero lot line, and the neighbor has provided an affidavit allowing the lack of setback as required. The garage door will be on the north and will be a wood carriage style. We'll point out that that was listed incorrectly in my staff report. Due to the zero lot line on the east, there are no fenestrations on the east elevation. And due to the proximity of the garage to the neighboring lot on the south, there are no fenestrations on the south elevation. The west elevation will have a pedestrian door and window. And the entire garage will be stuccoed in cementitious buckskin to match the house. On the property, the applicant is also proposing to create an opening in the contributing east yard wall in order to create a driveway access to the new garage structure. An exception is requested to section 14-4.6E42 to remove a section of the contributing wall. They would also like to install a vehicle gate in the new opening of the east yard wall, and the gate would be of metal frame with wood. And install a wall with pedestrian gate at the north end of the residence between the end of the east yard wall and the north yard wall. The pedestrian gate will mimic the existing gates in the east yard. When looking at the existing yard wall, the location of the proposed opening is where the southern non-historic planter currently sits. The more northern and larger of the two planters will be the remaining. Staff finds that the exception criteria have been met and recommends approval of the exception to 14-4.6E42 to remove a section of a contributing yard wall. Otherwise, the staff recommends approval of the other elements of the application as they comply with 14-4.5.2D, general design standards, and 14-4.6G2 for the downtown historic district standards. Thank you, Lenny. How much of the contributing wall will be removed? Many feet? 13 feet. Say that again. 13 feet. That'll be a total of 13 feet in the different location. Just in the one location. There's already a fence gate at this other location. Any other questions at this point? Or comments? I have a detail. Thank you, Madam Chair. Lenny, did you say that the guesthouse garage addition is 800 square feet? Yes. And is the guesthouse itself 744 square feet? Yes. So do we have an issue with the 50%? It's a non-historic building. Oh, sorry. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? No questions. Applicant or applicants, please come forward. Hi, please state your name and address for the record. Gail Bectol, 320 Aztec Street. And will you please raise your right hand? Do you solemnly declare and affirm the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. I don't have any more things to add. I think Lenny did a great job with the staff report and the descriptions. I stand for questions. Board members, do you have questions? Member Jerry. Yeah. Hi, Gail. There's two different garage doors shown. The proposed drawing shows just, you know, long linear panels, and then it looks like there's another drawing in the packet that may have come after that shows like a different style garage door. Can you clarify which door? It's the wood panel swing garage door. The glass above? Yeah. Okay. Yeah, the other one is the standard garage door in my drawing program. Okay. That's not the one. It's the one in the photo that you have on the plan with the photo. Got you. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Gail, the garage is really large. Is that a standard size garage, or does it look bigger because the house is small? It's an odd shape because of the way the property is located in that sort of weird wedge. The 16-foot door is a standard size garage door. And the two cars, and then it's just a matter of getting to some place that makes sense to turn the corner to come back to the guesthouse. It is, I believe that the drawing shows it higher than it is planned to be. It's actually lower than the house, not higher. The one elevation in the renderings, it's correct, but in the elevation, I noticed that it was showing it as higher, but in plan, it is large. Thank you, that's helpful. And then I had another question about a portal where the openings are being arched. Can you tell us about that design decision? That, um, the on the west elevation. Right. That really came from my client wanting archways in some portion of the house, and that seemed to make sense. The back of the house is very, and it seemed an appropriate place to add the arches. But those are not visible from the street. It's the east that face. Right. Yeah, thank you. The question. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sure it's in the packet somewhere, but is there any detail on the gate? The vehicular gate. Vehicular gate that's going to be set in. It'll be similar to the existing, which is a very plain gate. Okay. Very utilitarian in that regard. Normally, we require fenestration under our policy guidelines or adopted some years ago. I personally don't think it would, do you have a plan for fenestration? We would be happy to. I actually don't know that it's required for me necessary in this case because you're replacing a wall. There are. Up to you. The existing pedestrian gate has fenestration. Okay, so if you're matching it, I think that would make sense. We'll certainly do that. Yeah, sure. Thanks. Any other questions? No. Anyone in this audience wishing to comment on this particular project? Elizabeth West again. Here we go again, working together, the H board working with the client. This is getting to be a little repetitious. You guys are working really well. I think this is a very interesting and odd piece of property, and it looks kind of wonderful. So, but I am just basically standing here saying thank you to the architect, to the owners, and to the board. I really think this is the way all of this should work. So, bravo to everybody. Thanks, Elizabeth. Anyone else? Anyone online? Yes, Chair, we have Miss Benenato. Stephanie Benenato. I do think the garage is overwhelming. I understand that the structure is not contributing, but to have a garage that's bigger than the structure, I'm wondering if it could be done with just a one-car garage that could be a lot smaller. And I also wonder if the opening, the gate that's to the, I think it's the south of the wall, if there's a rise in it, are they adding on to that opening when they make the gate, or is that the, is the wall that high already? And then I believe there was a small addition to the kitchen, and I'm wondering if that is interfering with the primary facade or if it's set back 10 feet. Thank you. Just to answer Stephanie's questions, the addition to the kitchen is set back 10 feet, so it will not, it will not be competing with the primary facade. The gate to the south is not being altered at all. I'm sorry, I don't know. Did I miss some other questions? Oh, the wall height is existing on this property. Thank you, Lenny. There are no further questions. A motion is in order. I have one more question. Yes, for. Maybe for Gail. Just noticing the style of the windows on the primary facade being different, the sort of horizontal or and panel windows are being replaced with what looks like six panels, like three double hungs, all, all. Is that correct? The historic windows on the primary facade are not being replaced. Ones that are in the, where that flank the door. Okay, the other ones. The other ones are not historic, and we are changing their form to look better. I can, I've been thinking of a word to make it like have some architectural justification other than it just looks better. Mhm. With the three as opposed to the two. And those are double hung? Yes. Yeah. All right, thanks. If there are no, if there are no further questions, I'll entertain a motion. I'll recognize you, Cherry. Thank you. What do you need? What do you need? What do you need? Oh. In case number 2026 is 012578HDRB at 426 Delgado Lane. I move to approve the application as submitted, noting that the exception criteria have been met for the removal of historic material as documented in the packet, and with the condition that the new vehicle gate be fenestrated in a manner that matches the existing pedestrian gate. Cherry seconds. Member Benvenuti. Yes. Member Cherry. Yes. Member Degnan. Yes. Member Bischeid. Yes. The motion has passed. Thank you. Thank you, Gabor. Last case on the agenda is located at 1235 Cerritos. And is that applicant here? Yes, they are. I'm sorry, is Harvey Monroe online by chance? I don't see a Harvey Monroe online. Jada. Madam Chair, I'm going to recuse myself from this case because I've worked on the project. Let the record show that member Cherry is recusing himself. I'm sorry, Maggie, was Harvey online? Okay, so the applicant is actually Harvey Monroe. The homeowner is here, but she's not comfortable with presenting the case. So, do you want to go ahead and postpone for now? Yeah. We can, we can do that. Can we take a small recess while she tries to reach out to Harvey and see if he's able to get on? Why, since member Viture is also out. Okay, thank you. Mhm. By the way, we have a new planner. Her name is Lauren, and I'm so sorry, Lauren, that I did not introduce you. But in the meantime, can you come to the podium and give us your first and last name, and just tell us a little tiny bit about yourself? Sure. My name is Lauren Botts. I just moved here last week. Oh, sorry. My name is Lauren Botts. I just moved here to Santa Fe last week from New Orleans, Louisiana. I am originally from Lincoln, Nebraska, and my background is in anthropology and art history. I moved to New Orleans for graduate school, went to school for historic preservation at Tulane, and long story short, here I am in Santa Fe. Very excited to be here. Thank you, Lauren, and we'd like to welcome you. I'm sorry that I did not introduce you at the beginning. Welcome, welcome. Thank you. Hey, Lanie, will you proceed? Okay. So, Harvey should be on Zoom now. This is case 2026012571 HRB at 1295 Sierra Gordo for a remodel. A part of this application is for a garage structure. This has been withdrawn by the applicant. They're going to come back with a new design. The property is located on the north side of Sierra Gorda, just to the east of our Mi Hoh Lane. The Adobe 1930s Labrado and Basida Ortiz house is listed as contributing to the Downtown and Eastside Historic District. The board retained the residence as contributing, with the south, including the portal and east facades, as primary, and designated both the retaining wall and the planter walls as contributing on May 12th. The applicant proposes on the main residence to construct 1,390 square feet of additions, with 929 square feet heated space and 461 square feet of walls to a height of 15 feet, where the existing residence is 14. An exception is requested to section 14-4.6E2S E22C to exceed 50% of the historic footprint. The additions are set back from the primary facades by 10 feet and sit on the northwest corner of the structure. The addition can be differentiated from the original structure through its style and height. A chimney will be located in the northwest corner of the northern addition. Windows will be simulated divided light wood clad in blue. Doors are located under portals and will be full single light doors, except for the south elevation door, which will hold the divided lights. They want to replace the windows and doors. The circa 1990 entry door on the south primary facade is recommended for replacement in the window assessment. The door was replaced at some point and is not believed to be the original to the jamb. Recommendation is to replace the door panel and extend the jamb or replace the door and jamb. The size of this door will change as a result of the lowering of the interior grade of the residence by 12 inches. The door size will become a standard door size. The window on the south primary facade is recommended to be replaced on window assessment, including arrangement of three sashes fastened together and fixed. The exterior wood condition is severely degraded. The recommendation is to replace. The window on the east primary facade is recommended for replacement. States that it's a modern window made of finger-jointed wood installed into what is most likely a historic window frame. The mullions are an applied grill. The recommendation is to replace. All non-primary facade windows on the residence will also be replaced. They want to stucco and cementitious La Habra, either in desert rose or coconi, and stain the wood in southwest hawthorn or chestnut color. So these are modifications. Here, let me just go through those for you. Okay. And then the applicant has also proposed a new accessory structure, which is a garage with an office. They have chosen to withdraw the design on this packet and will recently submit a new design for this structure. They chose to do this based off conversations with staff in the staff report. Therefore, the garage will not be reviewed or voted on tonight. On the property, the applicant proposes to remove approximately 12 feet of the existing contributing retaining wall. An exception is requested to section 14-4.6e 4.2 to remove historic material. They want to reconfigure the driveway, extend an existing wall on the east of the lot, and replace the existing slat fence with a coyote fence to a height of 6 feet and align with the front of the residence going to the west. And then construct a retaining wall on the east to support the new driveway configuration. The retaining wall will be constructed of stone to blend with the existing retaining walls. All right, about them. The applicant did provide these renderings. This is the site plan with the changed entry to the property and the addition to the main residence. These renderings are the north and west elevations as proposed. Bear with us one moment, members of the board. All right, I didn't want to cough you out of the room. So, this is the south elevation renderings. The upper image is as it would be seen from the street, and the lower peaks over the fence at the new addition. The exception criteria for section 14-4.6f2 to exceed the maximum allowable height is part of the application for the garage, which has been withdrawn. Staff finds that the exception criteria for section 14-4.6e2 to exceed 50% of the historic footprint has not been met and recommends denial of the addition to the main residence. Staff finds that the exception criteria for section 14-4.6E42 to remove historic material from the front yard wall have been met and recommends approval of the alteration to the contributing retaining wall. Staff recommends approval of the other elements of the application as they comply with 14-4.6 C general design standards for all historic districts and 14-4.6 G2 for the downtown side historic districts. I stand for questions. Any questions for Lanie at this point? So, Lanie, you indicated that all the exception criteria have been met? Not for the addition to the house. That is, we're saying that those have not been met, and we're recommending denial of the additions, basically due to the size of those additions. But the exception to the removal of historic material from the retaining wall, we're saying those were met. Recommending approval. Good. On the east primary facade, is the window opening changing? No, it is not. Other questions? Member Ben Lemy. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I'm not sure why, but I'm confused about exactly what's happening with the retaining walls. I see some 3D renderings. Can you just walk me through that again? The retaining walls, I think we considered, you know, we focused on retaining walls when we're statusing. Correct. As being contributing and an important feature of the streetscape, and it's not 100% clear to me exactly what is being proposed to happen to the retaining walls. Okay. It would be easiest to look at like a photograph of the existing walls and tell me what you're going to do, what they're going to do to them. Do I have the photos? So, this, the top photo here, is the existing retaining wall. So, the stairs and everything to the right is going to be removed in order to create a driveway that goes up directly to this property, rather than going through the neighbor's lot. Okay, so I actually found a photograph. So, on page 1351 of the packet, it's a submission from the applicant. Yeah. I'll go ahead and pull up the packet for you really quickly. And you said it was 13, member Benvenue? Yeah, 1351. Sorry, what was your question? Well, if I could get that picture photo up. I'm trying to understand what's happening with the walls. Are you looking at the applicant's submittal portion? It's page 1351 of the packet. Oh, I don't have the packet. It's the way you guys do. Okay, so it's the second page. It looks like the second page of the application of the letter from the architect. Thank you. Okay, let me go back up. This is, thank you. Okay, so if my packet of the applicant's submittal, that's page four, five. It's not the second page, but it's right after his letter. Right. Okay, so that's page five of my. Okay. Can we share what's on this? Sorry, what's on my screen? It's not a PowerPoint, it's a PDF. I don't know if that makes a difference. Okay. That's what you're looking at? Okay. So, is that telling us what's going? Are these blue lines showing what's going to be removed? Yeah. So, the one to the left of the stairs and then the first one is where the driveway is going to go. The blue square off to the right is where they're building the new yard wall portion. You see? Okay. So, how much? So, they're removing how many feet of wall? It's 12 feet. And how much feet of wall did we designate as contributing? The entire yard wall. How many feet is that? I don't know the full length. Well, how much, what percentage of the contributing wall is being removed, would you say? I just don't know. I can't tell from the picture how much more wall there is. I think we should ask Harvey that question. I'm sorry. Okay. And the reason, I mean, okay. So, basically, is it going to be reconstructed with the rock that's being removed? The rock is going to go to the right for the yard wall there. Uh-huh. The reason for creating this as a driveway entry is right now the driveway entry is actually on another property. So, they're separating their property. This used to all be one property. Mhm. And so, the neighbor to the right, they've split the lot. So, the neighbor to the right, right now, they have to use that neighbor's lot in order to get onto this property from here. So, they're looking at a new driveway in order to access the front of the house. They do have another entrance to the property at the rear of the property, but that has not been resolved yet. But that hasn't been what? We haven't resolved that because they haven't, they've withdrawn the garage portion of the submittal. Yeah, I was wondering why you need a driveway in the front and a driveway in the back. Their hope is to have access and park in the back. I don't, I don't know the reason for that. Obviously, this is important because they're asking for an exception to remove a contributing wall. So, it seems we need to know, we just designated this as contributing, and now they're coming back before us to say, well, we were going to take it down. I mean, it seems to me we have to, you have to have a good justification for that, like a hardship, for example. And maybe if that was your only access, that would qualify, but if they have a, there is a driveway in the back. Right, to this. And where would this driveway go? To the front of the house. If they use the driveway in the back, they actually have to cross the entire property to enter the building. Well, where, so if they're, I don't, there's probably a site plan that shows the driveway, but where, where does the driveway go? The driveway in the back is off of. No, the driveway that we're going to from the, from Sierra Gordo. If that's going to become a driveway. That section is what it, where they want it to go? I know. Where is it going to go? It can't go into the house. So, where is, where is it? So, in the photo where the gentleman is standing. Uh-huh. That's actually the parking space. Yeah. Okay. And, and tell me again, is the rock that's being removed, can it then be used to, to reconstruct a wall on the other side of the driveway? He did not specify that the removed rock will be reused, but that the new wall will be rock. And I can't really tell from this picture, but aren't there two, isn't there a sequence of walls stepping up from the driveway? Right. The ones on the left are not being altered. It's just this one section. Right, even that one, isn't that a wall and then a flat space where the tree is and then another wall and then the? It's a planter portion, yes. Okay. And is that upper rock of the planter, I guess the north side of the planter, is did we designate that as contributing or non-contributing? I presumed that was all part of the retaining wall. And is that also being removed? Yes. Okay. All right. Can we see a photo of the proposed, the elevation of the proposed, the existing and the proposed? Pardon me? So this is the south elevation of the house. It doesn't have the site portion. Well, I was wanting to see the walls. Walls. Okay, that's kind of what I was waiting to hear. Thanks. It just has kind of the rendering that they're doing. It's not an actual drawing. So, Lenny, with this rendering, are they going to be parking their cars right there in the front? Yes. Is that the object? That's the idea, yes. And then the wall to the right, what is the height? It steps down. So it starts at about three feet and then steps down. Questions? Board members? Applicants, please come forward. He's online. Where am I? Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you, Harvey. Okay. Hi, Harvey, please state your name and address for the record. Harvey Monroe, PO Box 1183, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you. Madam Chair, he has been sworn. Okay, Mr. Monroe, you have the floor. Please talk to us about this project. So, the first item I wanted to address is the wall removal. I believe we have a neighbor who would not like traffic going across her property to the front of this residence. And it would be the only access from Sierra Gorda, which is the legal address of this property. So, all deliveries, all people will be coming to the front of the building to access the house. And if they can't get up to the house from the street, then they will drive up the neighbor's driveway, which is not being blocked. So, by denying this, there is no way that people are going to go all the way around unaware of the secondary access to the rear of the lot, which crosses another neighbor's property as well. So, we're talking about general public coming to this house. We're talking about emergency access vehicles coming to this house, delivery vehicles. They're all going to come to the front of the house where the legal address and the mailboxes are. We would remove the portion of the wall, which is 12 feet out of 54 feet. The materials that would be removed would be relocated to the adjoining spot that is the property line between the neighbor and this property. So, by denying this particular request, you are forcing uninvited guests or mail people to go across a neighbor's property. And so that's the main thing. Also, the wall itself is nice. We would reuse the materials and it would be a like constructed wall, which is actually would be longer than what is being removed. The grade above the wall would be lowered so that it's not such a steep drive up. The other thing is that the stairway does not meet the safety codes that are generally used for construction right now. There's risers that are 12 inches, there's risers that are 4 inches, the steps themselves, the treads vary from between 7 to 8 inches to 12 inches. So, it is very hazardous access the way it is constructed. So, we also see that as a safety hazard. So, that's the main reason we would like to remove the wall and relocate it to the east and that gives the neighbor privacy. We did meet with and she would prefer not to have people drive up her driveway. So, we see this as the best solution for providing the neighbor her property rights as well as providing access to the front of the house where the majority of the people will be coming unless they're specifically invited for the rear access. Does that answer the questions concerning the wall? Yes, you've explained it pretty thoroughly. Do you want to address the portion of the back of the addition to the house? Yeah, that was another thing that was in the previous status review at the last meeting that we attended, it wasn't really pointed out, but there was a historic garage structure where we are proposing to put in the kitchen of this new house. So, in reality, historically, there was a larger building at this location. And if you had walked onto the lot, you could have seen a relatively flat area that has kind of a sand colored soil where the garage used to be. That was removed about 30 years ago, but historically, it goes back probably to the '40s or even the '30s. So, in the report that was put together by John Murphy that was documented at that point. And unfortunately, I did not reinsert it. I was told to remove it from the existing site drawings for this presentation. So, I think that is a factor that isn't being considered when you look at the historic footprint of the building. Any questions concerning that? The members have other questions or comments or anything. Remember we checked. Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have a question about the wall. Continuing on that discussion, I'm looking at the site plan, the existing and the proposed, and I see a different shape in the planter to the left of the stairs, the current stairs. Are you planning to alter the contributing planters in the retaining wall? The planter would be modified to allow for the turning radius of a vehicle to get up the hill. Right now, it would impinge on the turning radius of a car or truck going up there. It would be replaced with the same material and then in better shape than it is currently. And can you tell us where's the current parking at this house? Is it not in front of the? This is in front of the house. And could you clarify which road or which access is the neighbors? Is it? It appears that the driveway continues to be in the same place that it is now. Yeah, because that access is the neighbors. Actually, there's multiple neighbors that have access up that driveway. But the immediate neighbor that we have been in contact with is the one in the adjoining house to the right, which it can be seen on the site plan. And is that the same proposed access for the new garage? No, there is another easement to the rear of the adjoining house to the west. It's basically their driveway. There again, not a suitable delivery route for larger vehicles. It's just a driveway width and it's not marked. So, since the address is on Sierra Gorda, that's where people are going to access the property. Okay. I think that Sierra Gorda is kind of a special case. There's not a lot of well-marked driveways. It's kind of the nature of the neighborhood to be a bit haphazard. Can I just point screen for you guys? Thank you. So, right here is the gate. This is the entrance from the south. Way back here at the back of the house. This is the garage that they've withdrawn from the application right now. The property next door. And then this is the driveway that comes up to this drive to this property, this property back here. Does that help? All right. And then so, the proposed access is on Armijo. Well, no. This is the second entrance to the house. The primary on Sierra Gorda is here. And so, this portion, they come up the driveway this way and it leads to the neighbor's house. They actually have to turn into the neighbor's driveway and then turn into their property park currently. So that's what they're trying to remedy is access directly to their property instead of going through the neighbor. And are they still going to have to use a portion of someone's driveway? This portion of the driveway is a private drive for all three lots. I think it's accessible. So it's just the problem right now is that it accesses a very small portion of the neighbor's driveway. Correct. Well, I'm going to guess that this has been brought forward probably because the neighbor to the right is not amenable to having this neighbor get on the property, get on their driveway, correct? That's my understanding, yes. Okay. The problem also is that when people come up this, they're parking in what is still considered part of the driveway. So like the neighbors and stuff, people are parking here and that blocks access to this house back here. We did that today. Other questions or comments in reference to this particular case? We do have some public comments when you're ready. Public comment? You want to come forward? Come forward and get sworn in. Yes, Elizabeth, you can come up. Thank you very much. Elizabeth West again. I was thinking this is Miss Beachside's comment about Cerrado being a little bit different part of the fun of that area. A lot of driveways. That's the first thing you see as you're driving along Cerrado. It feels very rural in many cases. There are some exceptions. So, I was thinking myself, if I were living there, I would probably take advantage of coming in from the back if there were a way of doing that and just saying this is Santa Fe. It's a different way of living than say where I might have grown up. I have no idea what the people or the architect would want to do about that. I found for me it's a little bit confusing. So, and I haven't been on the property itself. It must be frustrating to have to figure out a way to share front entrance way with neighbors who are having trouble with everybody parking. But, I heard somebody say that part of the reason there's a problem is because of there's a need for bigger cars. Of course, I would say, "Well, have a smaller car." But, that's not what we're dealing with here today. We're not here discussing what kind of cars they should have. I'm glad you guys have to figure this out. Hi. Please raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record. Teresa Armijo, 1299 Cerrado Road. I'm the neighbor. Okay, Teresa. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and do this under the penalties of perjury? I do. Thank you, Madam Chair. She has been sworn. Yeah, I might be able to give you a little bit more background since I lived there all my life or most of my life. Before this issue even came up, maybe 20 years when the previous owner took over the property, there was a driveway that came in from Armijo Lane straight into the front of the house through the south or Roberta, that's Roberta Armijo's house. So, it came right straight into the house from the other side, from the left-hand side, from Armijo Lane. When my cousin, who owned the property on one side, decided to buy the property on the other side, he asked Roberta if she was willing to give up her access through the Armijo Lane driveway, through the back where she had more room coming into the back of her yard. And she agreed to do so. That's where all this problem of how do you get to the front versus how do you go through the back? This was never an issue before they took away that access through which she went. When she was going through, we didn't have a problem with that. I don't see a real problem with them having to come in through Armijo Lane again, but instead of coming through the front, they'll have to come through the back. And they could get a road coming up around the front of the house. But they don't want to because they say they would have to cut down trees and plants. Well, I understand that too. But when I saw that proposal, it shocked me because it takes away the whole part of the property that I was growing up in. I mean, they're taking away the retainer that, believe me, was there. I know it's been there at least 70 years because I'm over 70, so I know that that property, that wall, that retaining wall is historical and has been there at least 70 years. And it has never caused a problem before. And why it has to come down, I don't understand. I feel for the people that bought the property because I understand what they want to do. But there's no really big issue when you have so much property in the back that you can come up and come around. And that's my main objective, that I feel that they're making a big thing out of nothing. And that's all I have to say. Any questions? Thank you. Anyone else in this audience wishing to come forward and speak? Thank you. Please raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record. My name is Ann Fought. My address is 107 Jimenez Street. Thank you, Ann. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony you have in reference to this matter is the truth, the whole truth, and under the penalties of perjury? Yes, I do. Thank you, madam. So, I just want to say there's a basic misunderstanding here. We are not proposing this front driveway for our convenience. We will most likely mainly use the back entrance, the back driveway. The front driveway is for delivery vehicles, emergency vehicles, and probably some guests. But let me just explain something. Since we have been owners of the house, we have called several people, contractors, and other people up to the house, mainly contractors, to take a look at things for us. And we give them the address, 1295 Cerro Gordo. And we explain in great detail, you may not enter the front of the property, even though there is a driveway there. We explain that they have to turn left on Armijo Lane and on North Armijo and go up to the first driveway. And there they can take a right, and at the end of that driveway, there is a gate, and we will have that gate open for them. That is the only legal way that they can get into the property. But every single one disregards those instructions and goes right up the driveway, crosses Teresa's property, sometimes parks there, and Teresa has had a history of people damaging her property who have been coming up using the driveway to get to our property. I would like you just to imagine if there was an emergency and an ambulance needed to be called and you give them the address, are you going to be able to explain to them, "This is the address, it's on Cerro Gordo, but be sure that you make a left on North Armijo. Go up to the first driveway and take a right, and at the end of that driveway there's a gate, and someone will go out to open that gate for you, and then you can enter the property." That is not safe. It's not how people would respond. They are going to come right up to the front. They're going to look on their Google Maps, they're going to type in the address, and that's where they're going to go. So we're not asking for this access to the front of the property for our convenience. That's the misunderstanding there. This is for delivery drivers, emergency vehicles, and other guests who might not be as familiar with our property as others. So I hope that clarifies. Thank you for your comments. Do you have any questions for the applicant or the owner? I have a comment. Okay. So thank you for the explanation. That's very helpful. What I take away from that is that you do consider the Armijo Lane access to be primary, and you'll probably be using that. And I guess historically it must have been used because there's no turnaround coming off of Cerro Gordo even today or for your predecessor, right? Yes, our predecessor. There's never been a turnaround there. No, Robin, because Robin was related to Teresa, and an easy understanding between the two neighbors to make that Robin would use that driveway and... Sure, she could, but I'm getting back to the ambulance. Oh, right. And the delivery trucks and the guests, they couldn't use that even up till today, right? Because they'd be blocking off her driveway. That's why they had to be doing something different. I don't know what they were doing. But there is a, I can just tell you because I've done this before, there's a simple solution to your problem, and that is you change the address. It's very simple. You can just change it to a North Armijo Lane address and put this, put the number right there at the gate. It's a matter of right, and it's simply done. Because there are a number of strange properties that have Cerro Gordo addresses that are not at all on Cerro Gordo. So, it's a source of confusion in that entire area that you're in. And so, other people have done exactly that just to make it clear. We actually live on North Armijo. That's where the house is, and that's where the driveway is. It's 600 yards up from Cerro Gordo even though it has a Cerro Gordo address, and so they've changed. And that's the simple solution, I think. Well, I have a question regarding that. Would that change the historical designation of the property? No. So, it's just a thought that that is something that you're probably going to want to do regardless. Because of the issues you just raised, people need to know where to go. The other, I mean, I guess that is a possibility, but the other thing is that the primary facade faces Cerro Gordo. Right, but there's no access. There's no access. Problem, right? Okay. Anyway, okay, so remember board members, we not only have the issue about the wall, but there also is an addition to the home. Okay? So, I think we have one more member of the public for public comment. Hi, please raise your right hand and state your name and address for the record. My name is Eric Sykes, and I live at 107 Jimenez Street, Santa Fe. Thank you, Eric. Do you solemnly declare and affirm that the testimony in reference to this item is the truth, the whole truth, and under the penalty of perjury? I do. Thank you. Thank you. So, when I heard "just change the address," that doesn't fix the stairs that are a hazard for anybody walking up the stairs that are being proposed to be removed for the new driveway. And I feel that the current access in the front through Teresa's, if the address were to be changed, there would need to be a blockade of that entrance and of where the stairs are that are unsafe. We can't have 24-hour, 12-month out of the year control of people coming to this house. And so I just wanted to bring that up that as it stands now, just changing the address, there will still exist unsafe conditions of somebody possibly backing into Teresa's, blocking not only Teresa, her neighbor behind her, or somebody tripping and falling down the front stairs, which you may have seen today at the property. So I just wanted to bring that up. Thank you. Can I ask if anyone else has applied to make comments? Yes, Chair Rios, we do have Ms. Benenato. Thank you. Stephanie Benenato. I actually looked at this property when it was for sale, and I have to remind you all that the driveway that is being questioned is actually a common driveway. It's not just to one house. It is to other houses behind it. When we went there to look at it, we went up that common driveway and made the left in front of the house and parked there. And putting in a 12-foot wide opening is not going to necessarily get an emergency vehicle up in front of your house. And delivery drivers don't park, they don't drive up driveways. They actually park in the street. And I live on a street that's quite, you know, has 12-foot, 10-foot, 18-foot driveways. Delivery drivers never drive up the driveway. They park on the street. I think the best solution is to use the Armijo Lane access. And if you have to drive across the lot, so what? That's what it's there for. And as far as the stairs are concerned, I'm sure the owners can come back in and ask to have the stairs redone so that they are done in a standard way, so they are not unsafe. But to take down a contributing wall that is definitely part of the streetscape, an important part of the streetscape there, I think is not justified by what is being said here since they do have this other access, and it's still a very small parking area. And also in terms of the addition, I think it's a very large addition. I don't think it's justified, and just because there was a structure there 30 years ago, I don't think it's as big as what they're proposing. So I don't think it's justified in any way, shape, or form. So I can't say that it's a hardship. And again, I do emphasize that there's an easement on this common driveway that's been in use for years, and it's not just this one 1295, it's houses behind it. So again, I don't see any justification to take down this historic wall to somehow pretend that an emergency vehicle is going to come up it, or that delivery drivers can't figure out where Armijo Lane is and come around. Thank you. You have further questions or comments to the applicant or to staff. If you have no further questions, then motion is in order. Remember these quickly, quickly. These calls for exceptions, so you have to address the exception. The house behind me talked about when we were here the first time. It's my other cousin's house, and they have their own driveway up through the other side. They have a driveway coming in through the right-hand side, and then I have the driveway on the left-hand side. So, they have, I'm sorry. They have a driveway of their own to go up. As far as an emergency occurs or whatever, I had told Eric that I'm not a hardcore person. If they needed to bring an emergency vehicle up the road, they could. And I wasn't going to give them a hard time or anything about it. Just let me know what you're doing. That's all I ask. And, you know, I'm not saying that there is no reason that they couldn't park there on occasion if they needed it as an emergency. But, the only thing I have or that I feel is they have their own driveway, and they should use it. Everybody else does. Thank you. The motion is in order at this point. Please address the exceptions. The property is number 2026012571 HDRB at 1295 Cerritos Road. With respect to this application, there are three requests for exceptions. So, I'll take them in order. The first exception is for an addition that exceeds 50% of the historic footprint. I would move that the board adopt staff's responses that the applicable exception criteria have not been met and deny the exception request on that basis. With respect to the second exception request to exceed the maximum allowable height on the garage structure, again, I would move that the board adopt staff's findings and responses that the exception criteria, all exception criteria, have not been demonstrated to have been met by the applicant. The height exception is for the garage, which has been withdrawn. Okay. Thank you. And with respect to the removal of a portion of contributing retaining wall, in this case, for the reasons stated tonight, I would move that findings be entered that those exception criteria have not been demonstrated to have been met by the applicant. The first exception criteria being, "Do not damage the character of the district." I would find that the board has found that the wall as it exists today is historic and an important characteristic feature of the applicable streetscape on Cerro Gordo Road that would be damaged by removal of a large portion of that contributing wall. That the exception is not required to prevent a hardship to the applicant, on the basis that this is a pre-existing condition that has not changed since the applicant purchased the property. It's been a condition that's been in effect for many, many years, and the applicant has another alternative. Indeed, the applicant has indicated that alternative would be, is expected to become the primary egress and ingress to this property, namely off of Armijo, North Armijo Lane. And that the third criterion, that it is necessary to strengthen the unique heterogeneous character of the city by providing a full range of design options so that residents can continue to reside within historic districts, is not met because, again, this is a pre-existing condition that has been satisfactory to the previous owner for a number of years, has not caused any problems that are known, and the applicant has another option, which is to access the property from Armijo Lane. Therefore, I would move that that part of the application be denied. Is there a second submission? We table second submission and maybe just note for the record that the material we're discussing removing by exception is fieldstone from the Saratoga area. It's been there for, it seems like, close to a century, and portions of the planters that are part of the property and by the testimony provided by neighbors. Accepted, thank you. Member Wolf. Member Cherry. Recused. Thank you. Member Cherry is recused. Member Benvenu. Yes. Member Bishay. Yes. Member Degnan. Yes. The motion has passed. Thank you. I apologize. I need some clarification. They're also asking to replace windows and things like that, which were not addressed in your motion. You're correct. Thank you for that. I would move to approve the other aspects of the application, all other aspects other than what's been withdrawn for tonight's hearing. Yes. Second. Member Degnan. Yes. Member Bishay. Yes. Member Benvenu. Yes. Motion has passed. Anything else, Lynn? Oh, that was the last case this evening. Staff, do we have any discussion items? Member Cherry else? Member Sherwood Ford. Yes, Member Cherry. Here. I'd just like to say thanks, Gary. It's been a pleasure having you on this setting and also for the past 19 years that I've worked in the historic district as the director and as the inspector. Really a pleasure to work with you. I just like to say, yeah, it's bittersweet, and it's been a long run, and it was my pleasure to work with you as well. It's a decision that was made a long time ago before about. Something that came in last year was a letter that Harold sent to me, and that's when everything started, and whether I wanted to do this or not, but it was a pleasure working with you all, and I will miss all of you. Thank you, Gary. You're welcome. Thank you. So, members of the board, I need a clarification in reference to one of the cases this evening. Well, I felt like you were indicating that we needed to ask for permission of the applicant when they do a motion, whether it was a denial. I was very confused on that. Pardon me, Madam Chair, I cannot hear the conversation. A little closer to the mic. You want me to repeat that? Okay, it's just that I was confused in terms of a case this evening. We were making a motion that the board was asking the applicant for permission to ask, I guess they were giving them an option. Do we deny this case or do we postpone? Madam Chair, City attorney said that this was due to due process. But when we make, when I ask for a motion, we're not asking the applicant, "Is this okay if we make a motion? Are you in agreement with this motion, or denial, postponement?" Madam Chair, yes, I can explain that. The code doesn't read you have to ask the applicant for permission to make a motion to postpone. This, a postponement, is essentially the functional equivalent of a denial. Now, granted, you may take up that application sometime in the future and grant it. But the applicant comes here seeking approval for a construction project, and to postpone is the equivalent of telling him, "Sorry, you can't build that now." So you could make that motion to postpone, and the applicant could feasibly challenge the postponement. By the time the applicant challenges that postponement, you may have taken up the application again and granted it. It's just a formality that I think is consistent with due process to ask the applicant, "Is this all right with you?" You could postpone it over his objection, okay? Or you could deny it, but the fact of the matter is, I think the fact that we have to ask the applicant, that doesn't make sense to me. Okay, Madam Chair, you do not have to ask the applicant. It is my preference that the applicant state on the record that he does not object to the postponement. Okay, right? And the reason is, is because a postponement is the functional equivalent of a denial, and he's entitled to appeal a denial. And there are boards that have effectively denied an application by postponing and postponing and postponing. And honestly, my experience is city, you know, city boards aren't as bad about that as county commissioners are. I see it as a postponement. I don't see it as a denial. I see it as an opportunity to give the applicant, Yeah, I know you don't see it as a denial. before the board with another submittal, and that's usually stated in the motion. Right. I don't think that, It's not the equivalent of a denial. It's that it's not allowing the applicant to move forward with their project, which they have a right to do. And so if that denial were, in other words, the reason we're postponing is because they're looking at a denial. And what we're saying is, "You can have that denial if you want it and go on and appeal, but if you would rather work with us and get an approval, we're going to give you that opportunity." I think that's the thing. It's not that it's a, the postponement's not equivalent to denial. It's the lack of a denial that puts them into a state of limbo where they're stuck and they can't, and they're completely at our mercy at that point because we can delay that as long as we like. Postponement, And it prevents them from appealing because the applicant doesn't have a final, Yeah, and I understand why you feel that way, and that, you know, I think you need to give them an opportunity to come back before the board because we want to work with them. But what if they don't want that option because they're not going to change their project under any circumstances? Then it's not helpful to them to get a denial. They want to immediately go up and appeal it and move on. It's not helpful to, It's not helpful for them to be stuck if they know they're not going to make any changes, which is sometimes the case. We've had applicants who say, "I'm not going to change it." The way I'm looking at it is you're not asking them permission for a postponement. You're just asking them, like they came for an approval or a denial, and you're proposing a third situation, which is like this option to postpone to work with the board, saying, "Would you be amenable to that?" And if they say, "No, I don't want to work with the board," then we can say, "Great, we deny you." Sweet. You are postponed as opposed to the project, but the project was very questionable. And then they're going to go before the, it's something that needs to be, that needs to be resubmitted to the board. But it gives us the opportunity to deny it with lots of reasoning. And like your, your well-explained last motion that you made, you know, with backing it up with, "Here's the reasoning, here's the, we're denying it," which hopefully is creating some defense at the city council. Is that correct? Like if, I don't know how it would play in front of the city council. How it would play in front of a district court is more of my, you know, consideration. I think that the thing about it is that if they get a denial, you know, if they say, "No, I'm not going to change this," they can appeal it to the governing body. But if you postpone it, they, it denies them the opportunity to appeal, which is their right. It does. So, they can't appeal a postponement. Correct. Okay. There's nothing that they have to have a final, It just puts them into purgatory. Correct, which is not what Land Use Board is supposed to do. Yeah. Right. So, on the other hand, if they say, "You're not good." That's fine. I'd rather redesign this, in which case they're, you know, acquiescing to the postponement. It just, we're not denying them anything, you know. The same. Okay, our next meeting is July the 4th. Oh. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. This begs the question, but I'm going to go ahead and wade right in. To what extent are we allowed to advise any applicant on what they should do with their project? That is not what our role is. There's nothing that says, you know, Madam Chair and Member Degnan, there's nothing that says you can't do that. There's nothing that says you can. You have a lot of discretion how to run a meeting. You know, if you, if you ask the applicant, "Are you willing to do this?" And the applicant says, "Sure, I'll look at it." Okay. But the applicant tells you, "No. Uh-huh, I'm not going to do that." Mhm. "Not going to do that." Or, or they could say, or they could say yes, they are going to do it, and it, and it makes the process more efficient, right? Because if, if, if we participate, Or give them the option to form, say, a subcommittee for that particular project, and then we participate and like, "Well, you know, the board's likely to approve this and this and this." It, it allows them to go through a design process and come back, rather than come back again like they're guessing. They're throwing darts, you know, going like, "Maybe they'll like this." And then they come back, "Nope, go try again." Right. As opposed to if they work with us, if we give them the option of that and they accept it, then with a subcommittee potentially, they could just sort of make it easier for them to have a line of communication and that. I appreciate your comments and I very much approve of the whole notion of working with the community. I'm just wondering what we are limited in our capacity and working with an applicant. That's my question. The code doesn't give us any guidance on that. Now, I should tell you there's one anecdote that I wanted to share with you, Madam Chair and Member Dingaan, and that is I can't imagine you would just postpone and postpone and postpone and hope an applicant would just go away. I can't imagine you would do that. But there was one time when there was a postponement. Looking back through the history of the H Board, there was a postponement immediately before COVID, before the COVID shutdown. Mhm. So this applicant got a postponement and then couldn't come back before the board because the board didn't meet again for a couple of months. And then finally, the board said, "Okay, well, we're going to do remote hearings." And it took a while to set that up. Right. And then I don't remember what the outcome was, whether the applicant came forward with a redesign or what happened, but nonetheless, the effect of that one postponement was that he wasn't able to move forward for, I think, three or four months. Mhm. Okay, well, I think you did answer my question. I appreciate that. Although, there is really no clear language in the code saying we can or cannot or what we should or should not say when we're working with applicants. So, Okay. So, humor me for one second, though. I know we're all wanting to leave, but there's this aspect that part of this falls in the private sector, right? Like, to form a subcommittee, that's really nice of us all and stuff, but they should be hiring people that are professionals and have expertise in historic architecture to steward their project as their agent through this process. Does that create any kind of a fair situation that we offer reboard advice through subcommittees to some people but not to others? Well, Madam Chair and Member Cherry, I think it depends on how receptive the applicant is. Remember that in Santa Fe, there are architects that do a lot of work in the historic district, but they have to make a living doing work outside the historic district, too. So sometimes they come before the historic board and they're just maybe not... There are a lot of things that aren't in the code, like the bullnosed corners and whether or not the distance from the corner of a window applies to inside corners or outside corners and that sort of thing. So there's ambiguity in the code that I think the architects that do a lot of work in the historic district know about all those, but the architects that don't, it could be a complete surprise to them. So I don't know if that answers your question. The idea is that It somewhat does. I mean, anything beyond is conversation for the parking lot. Right. But I think you all have a lot of discretion and I haven't seen that you're abusing your discretion in any way. I just think that a postponement is maybe not what an applicant is looking for. These applicants, they have contracts, they're looking at prices, you know, you've seen a lot of projects that you've approved that either never get going or take forever, and I think a lot of it has to do with supply chain and labor and that sort of thing. So, in land use, you want to get going as quickly as you can. And the courts recognize that. I guess, Mr. Attorney, just keep us out of jail. I will definitely do that. Thanks. It's for Gary because he has a good sense of humor, and I thought if it was his last meeting, we could Is there a motion to adjourn? Move. Move to adjourn. Yes.