►
From YouTube: H-Board Meeting 6/28/22
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
C
B
C
D
E
B
B
G
Everyone
and
welcome
to
the
sweetie
from
the
historic
district's
review
board.
May
we
have
a
roll
call?
Please.
F
May
we
have
a
role
called
yes
chair
rios,
yes,
melissa.
G
F
G
F
F
His
number
b
should
I
be
there
here.
Yes,
no,
okay,
member,
remember
bienvenue
here.
G
F
G
H
G
G
G
G
G
C
Ma'am.
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
as
this
is
our
first
hybrid
beating.
Thank
you
all
for
your
patience.
I
think
we
attract.
We
were
working
towards
the
last
hearing,
tab
on
youtube
and
we
weren't
able
to
do
that.
So
as
we
get
the
kinks
worked
out,
your
appreciation
or
your
your
patience
is
appreciated
rather
and
the
other
announcement
is
when
you
come
up
to
the
mic,
please
be
an
inch
away
from
that
microphone.
G
You
carly
we'll
go
on
to
old
business.
We
have
one
case
under
old
business
and
I
should
tell
inform
you
that
if
you
disagree
with
the
decision
that
this
board
makes
this
evening,
you
do
have
the
option
to
appeal.
You
would
be
appealing
to
the
city
council
and
there
are
time
constraints
in
reference
to
your
appeal.
G
I
G
I
I
It's
a
2800
square
feet,
two-story
residence
with
attached
casita
listed
as
contributing
to
the
downtown
and
eastside
historic
district
constructed
in
the
late
1940s.
The
spanish
pueblo
revival
style
u-shaped
structure,
began
as
a
simple
one-story
adobe
rectangle,
with
its
entrance
on
the
south
elevation.
I
I
I
I
B
I
The
applicant
also
included
a
history
of
the
property's
original
developers
and
builders
and
the
construction
and
the
history
of
the
main
building
in
casita.
The
developer
of
the
subdivision,
now
known,
as
was
h.h
dorman,
who
recognized
santa
fe's,
unique
buildings,
an
urban
form
and
was
an
early
advocate
of
historic
preservation
in
santa
fe.
For
the
applicant's
background
research,
many
of
dorman's
proposals
for
preservation
became
part
of
the
1957
city
statute
that
formed
the
basis
of
today's
historic
preservation
code,
notably
the
la
penna
covenants
allowed
for
only
pueblo
pueblo
or
spanish
colonial
style.
I
Its
additions,
including
its
second
story
and
rear
casita,
are
historic,
historical
alterations
that
maintain
its
historic
character
and
material
and
represent
the
accretive
development
pattern
that
characterizes
owner
built
homes
in
the
historic
districts
that
grew
and
changed
to
reflect
residents
needs.
Its
historic
story
includes
its
various
construction
methods
and
materials.
I
That
is
the
east,
the
northeast
corner,
but
that
east
facade
is
the
front
all
in
one
plane.
It
shows
the
historic
alterations
undertaken
over
a
50-year
time
span
and
retains
all
original
historic
steel,
casement
windows
minus
the
french
door.
Up
there,
that's
not
historic.
It's
unusual
shallow
balcony
and
large
zogwan
carved
wooden
door.
I
Staff
also
recommends
the
entire
north
elevation,
which
is
facade
number
two
that
it
be
designated
primary.
This
north
elevation
features
the
unique
and
large
fixed
single
plate,
glass
aluminum
window,
that
is
rare
in
the
downtown
and
eastside
historic
district
side
number.
One
also
contains
stages.
I
I
don't
have
page
two
of
my
staff
report,
but
it's
very
short-
and
I
do
want
to
provide
my
recommendation
based
off
the
facade
diagram.
I
Okay,
so
facade
number
one
also
contains
two
identical
steel.
Casement
windows
with
elongated
exposed
windows
at
the
west
end
of
the
house
with
respect
to
the
casita
staff,
recommends
facade
one
designated
primary
because
they
continue
the
cathedral.
Spanish
pueblo
revival
style
as
a
historic
addition,
and
I
want
to
make
a
correction
for
the
record
that
the
facade
diagram.
I
G
Thank
you,
angela,
a
couple
of
questions.
What
is
the
age
of
the
house.
I
I
I
G
The
portion
of
this
house,
that
is
the
original
house,
did
it,
have
an
entryway
and
does
it
still
have
that
entryway.
I
Yes,
chair:
the
original
entry
was
the
south
end
of
that
rectangle.
So
it's
it's
now
in
the
the
courtyard
and
it's
the
bump
out
of
the
center
of
that
elevation
was
the
entry
and
it
was
it
had
a
portal
and
then
the
portal
was
enclosed
and
then
the
entry
was
once
they
constructed
the
two-story
in
the
front.
That's
the
entry
now
so
they
moved
the
entry
to
the
east
elevation,
which
you
saw
today.
B
I
Oh,
if
I
didn't,
I
do
include
the
north
elevation,
which
is
entirety
as
primary,
including
this.
This
window,
okay,.
D
D
I
I
I
D
I
No,
that
is
the
western
end
of
the
north
elevation,
so.
E
D
D
I
G
D
Last
question
about
the
large
window:
the
hippie
describes
that
as
non-conforming
and
how
are
we
reconciling
that
with
the
recommendation
for
a
primary
facade.
I
Based
on
my
opinion,
in
research,
it's
a
historic
window,
it
was,
it
was
put
there
by
the
50s
and
we
have
steel,
casement
windows
around
the
house
and
since
it's
an
original
casement,
I
it's
worth
preserving.
Just
as
it
is.
B
H
You
angela
for
the
presentation,
so
one
of
the
things
that
came
up
in
the
field
trip
in
looking
at
this
is
noting
the
very
distinctive
character,
as
well
as
of
the
of
the
structure,
as
well
as
its
preservation,
as
well
as
its
how
it
is
situated
in
that
very
distinctive
subdivision
that
was
created
by
dornan,
and
I
just
would
like
to
get
your
opinion
as
to
the
difference
between
contributing
and
significant
status
in
this
case.
H
Just
reading
your
report,
I
just
was
noting
that
just
now,
as
you
were
speaking,
that
you
described
the
original
house
as
being
in
an
uncommon
cul-de-sac,
layout
development
and
built
originally
of
adobe
in
the
spanish
pueblo
style
architecture,
and
then
you
go
on
to
say
its
additions,
including
its
second
story
in
rear.
Casita,
are
historical
alterations
that
maintained
its
historic
character
and
material
and
represent
the
accretive
development
pattern
that
characterizes
owner
built
homes
in
the
historic
districts
that
grew
and
changed
to
reflect.
Residents
needs
its
historic.
H
I
Came
after
that,
it's
the
the
there's
a
balcony
or
a
deck
on
the
south
west
corner
on
the
at
the
top
of
the
took
the
end
of
the
building
over
the
garage
and.
H
And
the
yard
wall,
of
course,
along
the
street
okay.
H
I
Remember,
bienvenido,
yes,
I
do
and
I
believe
it
should
be
considered
a
contributing
structure
versus
a
significant
structure
based
on
the
fact
that
the
two
definitions
for
significant-
I
believe,
the
second
one
being
you
know,
associated
with
somebody
prominent
in
the
community.
I
think
it's
a
tenuous
relationship
to
that
particular
person
while
important.
I
don't
believe
that
it
should
be
designated
significant
and
there
are
some
changes
that
that
mean
that
all
not
all
of
the
elevations
and
facades
remain
unchanged.
K
I
H
H
I
Just
one
thought
on
top
of
that
is
that
I
agree
with
you.
After
all,
I
am
an
urban
planner.
General
plans
are
important.
He
was
one
of
several
of
a
group
that
you
know
worked
on
on
those
ideas
and
perhaps
in
the
future.
We
talked
about
the
artists
that
had
the
colony
here
and
over
time.
Maybe
there'll
be
more
importance
attached
to
those
homes
of
folks
who
help
shape
that
if
those
homes
are
intrinsically
historic
and
contributing
so
forth.
So
I
appreciate
your
comments
yeah.
I.
G
One
more
question
is
this:
on
the
state
register
of
cultural
properties.
I
D
So
I
just
I,
I
just
wonder
if
maybe
staff
could
clarify
how
we're
interpreting
the
definition
or
criteria
for
a
significant
property,
because
I
think
I'm
hearing
something
different
than
I
understood
the
way
I
read
the
code
is
that
a
significant
structure
must
retain
a
high
level
of
historic
integrity
on
top
of
meeting
the
50
years
or
older,
and
then,
additionally,
it
can
be
associated
with
a
person
of
prominence
or
it
may
be
listed
on
the
historic
resident
register
are
those
are
we
are
we
saying
we
have
to
meet
all
of
these
criteria?
D
E
Just
to
add
for
the
record
and
the
in
terms
of
the
national
register
of
angela,
this
is
a
contributing
building
to
national
register
district.
So
I
think
that
would
you
know
indicate
that
it's
on
the
register.
I
Thank
you
glenn.
I
I
believe
that
the
survey
that
was
done
recently
does
not
reflect
that.
I
Yeah,
the
83
and
then
there's
a
91
and
the
most
recent
says
it's
not
it's
not
on
the
his
on
a
historic
register
individually
listed
and
it
says
you
know
what
and
it
says
it's
in
it's
in
our
historic
district
of
course,
and
it's
contributing.
E
So
was
it
removed
from
the
national
register
district
nomination
because,
usually
those
are
those
are
not
modified.
I
Yeah,
that
is
not
my
area
of
expertise
that
is
expected
when
professional
hickpies
are
drafted,
so
you
have
to
just
go
with
what
that
person
I'll
jump
in
here.
C
It's
likely
that
it
was
being
seen
as
if
it's
listed
individually.
That's
why
I
believe
he's
answering
that
question.
E
G
In
our
evaluation,
it
rests
on
the
board
to
decide
whether
this
should
be
contributing
or
significant.
With
that
being
said,
will
the
applicant
or
applicants
please
come
forward
and
get
sworn
in.
J
F
L
J
Thank
you
trevius,
I'm
here
tonight
with
kevin
and
lori
scott,
the
property
owners
who
are
present
tonight
and
peter
wilson
from
wilson
design
and
development
I'll
do
about
a
five
minute
presentation.
Actually,
I
need
to
initially
address
the
discussion
of
a
significant
versus
contributing
issue.
That's
come
up.
J
Mr
murphy's
report
suggests
that
only
the
east
facade
of
the
main
house
be
designated
as
a
primary
facade.
We
agree
with
that
assessment
and
mr
murphy
also
takes
the
position
that
the
contributing
status
that
currently
exists
is
the
appropriate
status
for
the
house.
As
far
as
the
discussion
of
a
significant
status
and
upgrade,
I
think
it's
important
to
point
out
that
the
east,
the
north
facade
of
the
house,
according
to
both
the
hcpi
and
mr
patterson's
report,
is
not
a
historic
facade,
but
rather
a
modern
facade.
J
What
they
did
was
they
bumped
out
the
adobe
in
order
to
accommodate
that
large,
very
heavy,
I
think
it
weighs
about
800
pounds
or
so,
and
mr
patterson
was
very
clear
that
that
aluminum
and
glass
window
was
is
a
modern
window.
So
I
think
that's
important
to
take
into
account
when
looking
at
the
contributing
versus
this
significant
status
of
the
house.
That
whole
second
story
was
added
and
is
a
non-historic
edition.
J
With
respect
to
the
north
facade
of
the
main
house
in
the
east
side
of
the
casita,
we
ask
that
you
not
designate
from
this
primary
because
they
do
not
meet
the
applicable
code
standard
angela
described
in
her
staff
report.
J
Her
criteria
with
respect
to
the
north
facade,
which
I'm
showing
here
the
only
statement
of
relevance
with
respect
to
the
standard,
is
quote
the
large
fixed
single
plate.
Glass
aluminum
window
is
rare
in
the
district.
It's
big
and
it's
rare,
that's
it.
That's
not
enough.
With
respect
to
your
standard,
large
size
and
rarity
of
a
window
are
not
reasons
to
designate
a
primary
facade,
particularly
for
a
window
that
is
non-historic
not
on
a
historic
facade,
is
non-conforming
and
is
not
at
all
characteristic
of
the
spanish
pueblo
revival.
J
J
J
Finally-
and
this
might
be
the
most
important
point,
that
window
is
not
characteristic
of
the
spanish
pueblo
revival
style
of
the
house-
it
is
a
metal
and
glass
storefront
window
that
is
not
harmonious
with
the
historic
style
of
this
contributing
residential
building
to
be
a
primary
facade.
The
north
elevation
and
its
large
window
would
need
to
include
features
that
quote,
define
the
character
of
the
building's
architecture.
J
J
J
As
you
can
see
in
the
field
on
your
field
trip
the
wood
compo,
the
the
beans
and
corbels
are
modern,
kiln,
dried
machine,
surface
timbers,
not
the
historic,
rough-hewn
wood
that
is
typical
in
the
district
and
this
portal
is
not
historic.
J
So
the
portal
in
front
of
the
casita
is
built
from
non-historic
materials
and
the
north
facade
has
a
non-historic
modification
again.
Your
standard
requires
that
to
be
primary,
the
facade
must
be
a
principal
elevation
of
the
building,
with
features
that
define
the
character
of
the
building's
architecture.
J
Under
the
logic
of
the
staff
report,
all
facades
reflecting
a
historic
architectural
style
would
qualify
as
primary
contrary
to
the
plain
meaning
of
the
term
primary
facade.
This
is
not
a
principle
facade
of
the
house:
it's
not
a
separate
structure
and
does
not
have
features
that
define
the
character
of
the
building's
architecture.
G
E
Thank
you
for
your
presentation.
I
I
guess
I'm
a
little
bit
confused
about
the
you
know
the
evidence
behind
the
window
dating,
I
think,
from
the
documentation
that
we
have
from
mr
murphy's
report.
It's
very
clear
to
me,
at
least
in
the
narrative
that
majority
of
these
modifications
were
conducted
in
the
historic
period.
E
Usually
so
I
guess
from
from
all
of
that.
You
know.
I
just
want
to
say
that
I
appreciate
the
the
effort
that
you've
taken
to
consult
with
a
window
specialist,
but
I
find
it
a
little
bit
precarious.
When
you
know
we
sort
of
were
making
judgments
without,
you
know
hard
evidence
on
the
material
itself,
so
in
that
case
you
know,
I
think
it's
appropriate
to
rely
on
the
or
the
extent
of
the
documentation
that
we
already
have,
which
I
will
add
has
been
really
well
researched
and
well
done.
J
J
You
chair
rios
in
responding
to
member
larson's
question.
I
just
want
to
point
out
that
the
scots
went
at
the
suggestion
of
staff
retained
a
window
assessment
specialist
and
retained
mr
murphy
to
carry
out
the
hcpi.
I
know
they
aren't
making
recommendations.
It
was
my
client's
decision
who
to
hire
they
there's
a
list
and
they
go
by
the
list.
But
my
point
is
that
my
clients
went
through
the
expense
of
hiring
the
experts
to
carry
out
this
work.
J
Unfortunately,
with
their,
you
might
have
noticed,
there
are
a
number
of
air
photos
in
the
packet
that
were
part
of
the
hcpi.
Unfortunately,
it's
difficult,
sometimes
to
identify
when
a
second
story
is
added
onto
a
building
through
air
photos,
but
mr
murphy
and
his
report
does
state
the
age
of
the
studio.
Space
is
unknown,
but
seems
modern,
and
mr
patterson
did
state
very
clearly
in
his
report
that
his
conclusion
that
the
large
picture
window
was
a
storefront
window
was
of
1990s,
vintage
and
so
we're.
You
know
doing
the
same
thing.
J
G
Mr
clarence
angela,
what?
What
is
the
evidence
that
you
have
in
reference
to
the
date
of
that
window?.
I
With
respect
to
the
window
assessment
that
was
not
presented
to
me
when
this
case
was
put
together
and
so
that
that's
that
and
that's
why
it's
not
in
your
packet.
But
I
disagree
that,
based
on
john
murphy's
survey
that
the
second
story
is
non-historic,
it's
clearly
historic.
It
was
stated
and
the
aluminum
window
as
well
that
in
question
on
the
north
facade
and
just
to
further
bolster
my
recommendation,
I'm
going
to
go
to
this.
The
first.
B
I
The
north
facade
has
meets
the
definition
of
primary
facade
because
it
retains
all
of
its
historic
materials
and
the
the
character
of
the
wind.
The
lentils
which
are
more
deep,
set
and
extend
over
the
windows.
That's
that's
character.
Defining
and
the
pattern
of
the
steel
windows
match
the
front
of
the
house
in
terms
of
symmetry,
and
I
think
that's
just
what
I
wanted
to
point
out,
but
that
be
very
clear
that
the
the
second.
D
G
Thank
you
angela,
and
I
guess
you
and
mr
korns
are
both
relying
on
john
murphy's
evaluation,
but
it
seems
like
there's
a
different
interpretation
in
reference
to
modern
times
he's
indicating
he
felt
that
was
1990s
and
you're,
indicating
1950s.
I
G
Thank
you
any
other
questions
or
comments
at
this
time.
If
not
I'm
going
to
ask
for
a
public
comment,
anyone
from
the
public
wishing
to
come
and
place
them
forward
and
get
sworn
in.
G
Yes,
sir,
mr
john
eddie,
madam
chair,
would
you
like
me.
G
For
two
minutes:
oh
please,
maybe
yes,
and
maybe
no,
I
don't
know,
I
think
that
this
evening
we
don't
have
a
lot
of
cases
so,
but
you
can
indicate
to
me
when
it's
two
minutes.
F
K
K
Thank
you,
madam
chair
board,
members
obviously
you're
on
to
a
complex
case,
and
I
appreciate
it
when
you
get
onto
a
complex
case,
and
you
take
your
time.
I
very
much
appreciate
it.
First
thing
I
want
to
say
is
that
I
appreciate
board
members
benvenu
identifying
h.h
dorman's
association
with
this
house.
K
K
His
association
with
the
subdivision
is
also
part
of
that
as
well.
I
don't
want
to
take
up
too
much
time
the
idea
of
this
window.
I
have
one
question
that
could
be
explored
further
because
we're
going
back
and
forth
on
this,
the
original
aperture
of
that
window
do
we
know
the
history
of
the
aperture,
the
opening
of
that
window.
K
E
K
G
M
M
My
name
is
gary
kaplan.
My
address
is
109
cayo
de
la
pena,
so
my
residence
is
the
house
immediately
north
of
the
house
that
we're
talking
about
my
sister
and
brother-in-law
occupied
that
house,
starting
in
the
mid-80s
and
I've
probably
spent
more
time
thousands
of
hours
in
that
house,
I'm
sure
sure
than
any
living
person.
At
this
point-
and
I
can
tell
you
at
one
point
I
tried
to
wash,
though
the
aluminum
frame
window
in
question
and
nearly
killed
myself
doing
it.
M
M
It
now
and
if
it
were
replaced,
I
wouldn't
object
the
one
other
thing
you
have
toured
the
house,
so
you
know
that
the
casita
in
back
there
is
they're
two
steps
down.
So
that's
another
indication.
That's
really
not
part
of
the
original
house
and
in
fact
there
is
a
bedroom
that
is
two
steps
up
from
the
casita
and
that
bathroom
that's
two
steps
down
is
designed
to
service
the
that's
really
a
guest
bedroom
and
that
bathroom
was
created.
I
think
around
the
year,
2000,
maybe
a
few
years
before.
M
So,
if
you
have
some
questions
about
rumor
and
gossip
about
the
structure,
I
may
be
able
to
answer
it,
but
that's
all
I
wanted
to
say.
G
Okay,
don't
leave
the
podium.
I
do
have
a
question
for
you.
So
what
is
the
date
for
your
evaluation
of
the
picture?
Lender.
M
Well,
I'm
not
not
an
expert.
My
sister
and
brother-in-law
purchased
the
house
in
1983..
F
K
E
K
The
building
was
built
by
conrad
bell,
as
you
can
see
in
your
hci
packet,
it
was
built
in
the
mcdormand
subdivision,
so
in
a
sense
virtually
every
house
on
that
street
and
every
house
a
number
of
streets.
Since
the
report,
I
guess,
as
I
provided
it
to
angela
and
a
number
of
streets
were
mcdormand
subdivisions,
you'll,
find
mcdonald's
subdivisions
throughout
the
east
side
and,
as
I
as
I
mentioned,
every
lot
in
that
cul-de-sac,
all
of
caillou
pena
is
associated
or
has
in
common.
They
are
part
of
them,
a
dormant
subdivision.
K
G
K
States,
the
aluminum
mill
finish
or
historic.
The
storefront
window
is
a
non-historic
forefront
window,
so
I
don't
think,
there's
any.
I
know
we're
discussing
modern
or
the
meeting
of
modern.
I
would.
I
would
read
to
you
from
just
a
few
things
from.
K
John
murphy's
report,
when
he
talks
about
the
double
the
the
two-story
or
the
double
interior,
a
room
that
has
a
storefront
window,
a
taller,
almost
double
height
volume,
punched
with
a
huge
non-conforming
fixed
window
made
of
extruded
aluminum
by
its
location
and
position,
suggests
it
brought
natural
light
into
an
artist's
studio.
K
K
K
There
seems
to
be
a
little
bit
of
discussion
about
what
mr
murphy
believes
is
modern,
but
I
think
the
point
about
the
artist
studio
is
an
important
one,
because
if
we
look
later
in
his
in
his
report,
when
he
talks
about
the
owners
of
this
building,
he
talks
about
nathalie
pyle,
nathalie
pyle,
who
purchased
the
property
in
1969,
is.
L
K
He
states
I'll
just
just
is
described
in
one
account
as
a
sculptor.
It's
not
hard
to
imagine
with
that
pursuit
and
her
wealth.
She
may
have
had
the
studio
room
with
a
large
facing
north-facing
window
inserted
into
the
building.
K
Earlier
aerials,
which
is
part
of
what
in
talk
discussing
this
with
john,
what
he
based
this
upon
his
belief,
is
that
the
windy,
two-story
or
the
double
double
height
room
edition
was
built
by
nathalie
pyle.
For
some
of
the
same
reasons
that
the
gentleman
before
mentioned,
she
was
a
sculptor.
She
wanted
studio
space,
so
I
think
it's
fair
to
say
there
is
not
complete
agreement
between
mr
patterson
who
states
it's
non-historic
and
mr
murphy,
but
there
is
agreement
when
both
of
them
that
this
is
a
modern,
extruded,
aluminum
storefront
window.
K
K
I
would
suggest
that
if
you
drove
down
cereals
boulevard-
and
you
saw
that
there's
a
jiffy
lube,
there's
probably
a
dozen
different
businesses
that
will
have
this
same
type
of
storefront
window
now.
I
think
that
mr
murphy's
evaluation
of
the
space
and
the
window,
based
on
the
aerials
and
specifically
the
ariel
from
1978
and
the
ownership
of
the
sculptor,
who
had
not
just
the
motivation
but
had
the
resources
to
do
this
kind
of
double
height,
double
adobe
project
in
a
storefront
window,
that
it's
a
substantial
expense
and
technical
challenge
to
install.
K
G
G
F
Madam
chair
stephanie
benanto
is
in
the
zoom
room
as
an
attendee
with
her
hand
up.
G
Okay,
would
you
swear
her
in.
F
A
G
A
G
F
A
Tell
you
that
the
connection
is
so
bad
that
I
we
I
all
I'm
hearing
is
a
lot
of
like
high-pitched
beeping
sounds
and
people's
words
are
like.
I
get
half
the
words
that
are
coming
through
and
really
you
had
a
zoom
link
that
didn't
work
at
all
wrong
password.
A
I
came
back
in
it's
a
different
zoom
leak,
it's
very,
very
poor
and
I
just
want
to
let
you
know
that
because
I
don't
feel
like
I
can
really
participate
in
this
meeting,
because
the
connection
and
your
words,
all
your
words
except
melissa's
melissa's-
is
the
only
voice
that
comes
through
loud
and
clear.
So
I'm
just
letting
you
know
that
that
there's
really
a
lot
of
technical
problems.
Thank.
G
A
Okay,
I
can't
I
can't
even
hear
you,
cecilia,
like
you
break
up
when
you're
talking.
I
I
can't
hear
anything
anybody
has
said
except
melissa,
that's
it
when
I'm
on
the
zoom
call
so
trying
to
participate.
It's
really.
G
Okay,
well,
you
do
need
to
get
someone
and
you
will
be
able
to
hear
melissa
and
we'll
listen
to
your
comments.
Thank
you.
F
Okay,
do
you
swear
under
the
penalty
of
perjury
that
the
testimony
you're
about
to
give
is
the
truth,
the
whole
truth
and
nothing
but
the
truth
as.
A
Not
one
word
was
clear
in
the
presentation,
not
john
eddy's,
not
the
witness
after
him,
not
the
witness
after
him,
although
there
was
a
few
places
where
I
could
hear
the
third
witness
could
not
hear
the
person
who
was
the
agent.
So
again,
I
don't
feel
like
I
can
participate
in
this
meeting
and
I'm
sorry.
I
would
like
to
make
comments,
but
I
I
I
don't
even
know
what
people
said
at
this
point,
so
I
don't
feel
that
I
would
be
informed
in
my
comments.
G
Okay,
thank
you
stephanie,
okay,
so
it
appears
that
she
would
have
been
the
last
person
to
give
her
comments
and
I'm
wondering
if
board
members
have
anything
further
to
say.
E
Oh,
I
should
have
sat
on
the
left,
so
I
again
I'm
really
appreciative
of
all
of
the
research
and
thought
that's
being
put
into
this
case.
I
I
think
it's
you
know
a
really
good
comment
was
made
about.
You
know
the
overall
development
context,
and
I
think
you
know
when
considering
significance.
Yes,
we
can.
E
We
can
designate
something
as
significant
based
on
its
architectural
and
design
merit,
but
I
think
you
know
if
it
becomes
sort
of
a
slippery
slope
in
a
way
when
we
don't
have,
as
you
know,
as
robust
of
a
record
as
I
think
we
we
might
require
in
this
case
where
you
know
there
are
some
very
dominant
elements
that
are
in
question
right
now
and
I
think
the
the
building
conveys
enough
to
be
contributing
and
to
maintain
that
status
within
the
district.
E
But
I
think
you
know
if
we
are
to
consider
this
as
significant
based
on
its
architecture
and
based
on
its
association
with
the
greater
development
group.
You
know
I
would
want
to
see
a
little
bit
more.
You
know
concrete
evidence
based
on
that,
especially
you
know
when,
when
designated
something
as
significant,
I
would
want
to
see
comparison
properties.
You
know
that
are
also
associated
with
this
development.
The
dormant
subdivision,
you
know
and
make
a
determination
based
on
is
this
home,
one
of
the
only
of
that
subdivision
that
retains
integrity.
E
What
is
the
number
of
other
significant
properties
within
that
subdivision?
So,
based
on
that,
I
think
it's
you
know,
I
think
it's
appropriate
to
maintain
the
status
as
contributing.
E
G
H
You,
madam
chair,
I
actually
agree
with
member
larson's
comments
as
well.
I
think
that
the
record
is
just
inadequately
developed
at
this
point
in
time
to
support
the
view
that
I
think
is
set
forth
in
the
staff
report
that
most
of
this,
except
for
some
detailing,
was
in
place
by
the
late
50s.
H
I
think
the
record
is
not
clear
on
this
talk
on
this
actual
point,
but
it
seems
to
me
most
likely
that
the
studio
edition
was
after
1969.
It
just
makes
sense
with
the
history
of
the
property
that
it
was
when
an
artist
moved
into
the
property
that
that
would
have
been
built.
H
It
was
clearly
added
at
some
point
so
that
being
a
very
critical
feature
of
the
the
ensemble
that
this
structure
presents
and
if
that's
non-historic,
which
I
think
is
actually
likely
in
this
case,
or
barely
historic
and
also
quite
a
change
to
what
was
there
before.
H
D
I'll
try
to
make
a
mission
in
case
number.
E
Larson
will
second
with
a
friendly
amendment,
with
the
reasoning
being
our
discussion
with
the
lack
of
evidence
for
the
other
elevations
being
the
reason
for
facade
one.
Thank
you.
I
should
have
clarified.
D
It,
but
that
was
friendly
and
maybe
just
add
that
the
number
of
references
in
the
john
murphy
report,
the
most
recent
one
to
to
sort
of
modern,
non-conforming,
non-historic
or
unknown
dates,
contribute
to.
G
Thank
you,
roll
call
vote.
Please.
H
G
G
G
C
And
this
is
that
area,
the
east
patio-
and
this
is
the
elevation
photos.
Now
this
building
went
extensive,
remodel,
underwriting
extensive
remodel
in
the
19
between
1992
and
97,
so
it's
kind
of
a
a
bit
of
a
mission
style
that
has
had
a
contemporary
look
to
it
now,
so
it
is
a
commercial
use.
This
is
the
patio
and
these
are
where
those
changes
are
proposed
to
take
place.
C
My
cursor
is
where
I
miss
those
details
and
right
over
here,
and
the
crux
of
this
is
really
how
much
how
much
public
visibility
there
is,
and
I
believe,
there's
a
fair
amount
from
the
streetscape.
C
The
other
proposed
elevations
are
for
no
change,
so
they're
not
included
in
this
presentation
here
so,
and
you
can
see
the
this
is
the
multi-fold
doors
transom
windows
there's
a
counter
here
being
proposed
and
and
then
the
change
to
the
garage
doors
here.
C
Some
of
the
finishes
that
are
proposed:
the
dark,
bronze
aluminum
and
here's
the
aluminum
doors
that
are
further
in
towards
the
patio
more
finishes,
the
tile
under
the
window,
integral
color
concrete
counter
and
the
window
color.
This
dark
bronze.
C
C
These
doors
on
the
right
they're,
not
there's,
not
hardly
any
visibility
to
that.
What
you
would
see
is
the
so
you
can
see
the
car
on
the
far
left
there,
and
so,
if
you're
across
the
street,
you
can
definitely
see
a
little
bit
of.
What's
there
even
a
view
from
google
maps,
you
can
see
kind
of
the
umbrellas
that
would
obscure
some
of
the
video.
The
excuse
me
the
those
bi-folding
doors,
so
you
would
see
this
portion
over
at
the
left
of
this
east
elevation.
G
O
B
G
O
It's
going
to
be
we're
presenting
boxcar,
which
is
a
sports
barb.
Moving
into
the
previously
blue
corn
cafe.
O
I
agree
that
the
building
is
not
very
contributing
and
that
our
modifications
are
pretty
minor.
One
issue
that
I
did
see
today
was
the
overhead
garage
doors.
There
is
a
structural
issue
and
our
doors
can
only
be
eight
feet
tall
instead
of
the
height
that
they're
drawn,
I
think
they're
gone
at
nine
feet,
so
that
would
be
helpful
if
we
could
get
that
approved
in
this
meeting,
and
I
think
that's.
H
In
case
2022053,
hdrb,
133,
west
water
street,
I
move
that
the
project
to
be
approved,
as
submitted
with
the
modification
that
the
overhead
garage
doors,
will
be
eight
feet
rather
than
nine
feet.
As
indicated
in
the
plans.
F
G
F
Beachside,
yes,
remember
brian
bienvenu.
H
G
O
G
Next
case
is
located
at
1572
server,
and
that
is
the
angelus
case
and
let
the
record
show
that.
I
House
is
a
3
500
square
foot
and
single
story:
residence
with
a
separate
garage
which
is
listed
as
non-contributing
to
the
downtown
and
the
east
side
historic
district.
The
main
house
was
built
in
2000.
It's
a
proto-modernistic,
passive
solar
structure,
pueblo
revival,
style
features
including
parapips
and
canalis.
The
roofs
are
low-pitched
shed
only
visible
from
the
south.
I
Corrected
by
the
applicant
14
by
32
feet
freestanding
wooden
carport
structure,
so
on.
I
Posts
beams
and
supporting
brackets
18
solar
photovoltaic
panels
will
be
mounted
on
the
roof
facing
the
south.
Carport's
height
ranges
from
9
feet,
2
inches
on
its
south
end
to
12
feet,
11
inches
on
its
north
elevation,
which
is
within
the
maximum
allowable
height
19
feet,
10
inches
for
structures
in
this
streetscape.
I
I
The
stucco
color
of
the
house
and
garage
is
a
mix
of
brown
and
terra
cotta.
The
carport
wood
color
will
be
douglas
fir
with
a
translucent
translucent
natural
finish
that
allows
the
natural,
color
grain
and
character
of
the
wood
to
show
through
to
be
clear.
There's
no
stucco
on
this
carport
structure.
J
I
That's
your
east
elevation.
You
can
see
that
it's
it's
below
the
existing
car
garage,
which
is
in
one
of
the
earlier
photographs.
This
is
the
north
elevation,
showing
the
two
bays.
I
I
I
G
Yeah,
angela,
so
to
reach
this
house,
one
gets
on
cerro
cordo
and
you
have
to
drive
down
a
pretty
fairly
lengthy
driveway
down
to
the
home,
and
then
the
garage
is
here.
The
home
is
here
garage
is
here
and
to
the
left
of
that
will
be
to
the
left
of
the
garage
will
be
the
proposed
carport
correct,
correct,
so
the
public
visibility
of
this
project
would,
you
say,
is
minimal
if.
L
F
E
E
D
I'll
make
a
mission
in
case
number
2022005347.
H
I
Moving
on
to
212
a
gonzalez
road
to
be
clear,
this
house
is
located
off
lorenzo
lane,
which
runs
to
the
east
of
gonzales
road.
I
Back
to
this
one
supporting
beams
or
columns
that
convey
a
a
buttressed
effect
resident
steel
casement
windows
include
a
southwest
corner.
I
I
I
I
As
mentioned,
the
house
is
located
three
quarters
of
a
mile
east
from
gonzales
road
on
lorenzo
lane
in
an
area
where
most
of
the
houses
were
previously
addressed
on
lorenzo
lane.
Most
of
them
were
subdivided
by
the
same
family,
historical
building
and
permit
records
for
this
house
and
others
adjacent
to
it.
I
Are
limited
no
previous
case
files
for
this
address
are
found
in
historic
preservation
files.
The
applicants
have
reflected
requested
a
primary
facade,
designation
as
applicable,
and
have
provided
a
construction
history,
along
with
the
progressive
footprint
of
the
changes
I'm
going
to
go
to
the
facade
diagram.
I
The
the
original
portion
is
is
in
the
center
to
rectangular.
I
C
I
I
I
D
G
I
saw
two
guys
get
up
and
leave
a
minute
ago,
john
eddy's
gonna
go
look
the.
G
To
stare
at
each
other,
nothing,
john,
okay!
Well!
Is
there
a
motion
to
let's,
from
this
case,
to
the
end
of
the
agenda.
D
Beachbody
will
move
to
postpone
case
2022-005348
hdrb
at
212,
a
gonzalez
road
until
after
the
next
case
at
the
end
of
the
agenda
fire.
Some.
E
H
G
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
My
screen
just
went
black,
so
I'll
be
looking
at
the
screens
up
there,
so
we
are
looking
at
532
dongas,
far
avenue
the
dongas
bar
area,
historic
district
you'll
see
it's
prominently
on
the
corner
of
dongas
bar
avenue
and
west
santa
fe
avenue.
C
This
is
a
single
family
cross
craftsman,
bungalow
residence
listed
as
contributing
to
the
downtown
eastside
historic
district.
It
was
built
in
1928
and
as
documented
as
the
tyler
drugstore,
and
that
is
on
one
of
the
sanborn
maps
in
your
packet.
C
So
this
case
came
forward
as
as
a
primary
facade
designation
case
and
then
when,
when
reviewed
along
with
all
the
hcpis
that
exist-
and
it
was
very
clear
that
this
may
need
to
be
looked
at
to
be
significant,
and
so
that
is
what
my
recommendation
is
for.
C
Although
I
have
included
some
primary
facade
recommendations
if
the
board
decides
to
go
with
contributing
now.
This
is
the
case
of
the
twins,
as
I
like
to
call
it,
because
from
the
front,
if
you
can
see
just
this
little
area
right
here
to
the
right,
that
is
its
twin,
that
is
528
bungaspar
avenue,
and
I've
also
included
that
hcpi
in
your
package,
it
was
listed
as
it
is
listed
as
significant.
C
You
can
see
the
back
here
is
likely
a
different
porch
than
it
once
used
to
be
just
simply,
as
the
footprint
has
changed
from
what
the
sanborn
maps
show-
and
this
is
the
1971
update
of
the
1930
stanford
map.
C
C
It
does
have
two
chimneys
on
it
on
the
north
and
the
south
end
and
the
bay
window.
On
that
south
side,
the
the
windows
are
an
arrangement
of
mostly
with
concrete
sills
wood
framed
double
hunk.
There
are
some
fixed
windows:
the
upper
lights
are
surrounded
by
wood,
shingles
and.
C
C
We
clearly
have
three
okay,
so
the
1982
ap
documents,
this
structure
is
contributing
the
1995
hippie
used
it
as
significant.
But
of
course
the
1982
survey
is
what
we
go
with,
because
that
was
right
before
the
national
register
nomination
was
written
for
the
don
gaspar.
C
Historic
district
is
how
it's
listed
there,
and
really
that
historic,
that
national
register
nomination
names
it
as
the
dongas
bar
historic
district,
because
dangasvar
encompasses
the
different
variety
of
very
well
preserved
houses
of
the
different
architectural
types
that
are
within
the
district
being
that
this
is
in
excellent
condition
and
the
complete
twin
of
its
neighbor.
C
C
But
that
said
that
that's
the
reasoning
for
this
this
house
being
made
significant
now
that
is
per.
C
C
It's
hard
to
not
recommend
at
all,
but
the
logic
there
and
that's
why
the
recommendation
is
for
significant,
but
it's
whenever
we're
looking
at
primaries
designating
the
whole
house
often
creates
lots
of
problems
and
that's
the
only
reason
to
not
designate
the
other
layers
as
primaries
and
there's
a
question
about
the
back
porch.
But
that
is
also
a
removable
feature,
and
that
concludes
my
presentation.
G
C
C
There's
really
no
reason
for
its
difference
in
the
national
register.
Nomination
there's
just
a
name
and
as
I
researched
that
name,
there's
very
little
that
I
could
come
up
with.
That
was
that,
at
the
time
it
was
seen
probably
that
this
was
prominent
enough,
but
this
or
that
sorry,
let
me
be
specific,
528
dongas
bar
now.
C
H
The
other
thing
that
I
noted
in
the
pack-
and
maybe
you
addressed
this,
but
I
just
didn't,
hear
it
so
there
is
a
survey
form
dated
2000
and
a
note
from
probably
david
rash.
It
refers
to
the
survey
as
indicating
that
it
is
a
significant
structure
and
then,
but
it
says
that
has
not
been
adopted
by
the
board.
It
should
be
considered
preliminary.
H
C
So,
there's
an
inconsistency
in
our
administrative
record
that
was
the
first
tip-off
now,
if
there's
no,
usually
the
trigger
for
these
to
come
to
us
is
that
someone
in
the
community
really
cares,
but
it's
most
the
time
for
a
renovation
of
some
source
and
that's
what
we're
seeing
today.
There
was
no
no
other
case
files
to
bring
this.
A
C
That
that
is
as
far
as
we
can
tell
there
might
have
their
ramp
might
have
been
put
on,
but
I
we
have
no
record
of
that.
I
mean
our
right
when,
when
our
records
nothing,
our
records
are
much
more
sound
as
we
go
through
time,
so
very,
very
unlikely,
much
more
likely
that
that
ramp
was
put
on
before
we
were
recording
it
sometime
around.
D
Thank
you,
didn't
we
just
have
better
from
1995
that
shows
the
wrap.
D
My
question
is
just
about
the
garage
which
is
designated
currently
as
contributing.
Are
we
designating
a
primary
facade
tonight
for
the
garage.
C
The
board
may
choose
to
do
that.
I
did
not
include
the
a
recommendation
for
the
primary
facade
actually
in
the
packet,
and
I
believe
I
meant
to
that's
yeah.
Do
you.
G
Thank
you,
so
any
other
questions
or
comments
all
right.
So
will
the
applicant
or
applicants
come
forward
and
give
us
your
comments
on
this
94
year
old
house.
F
L
F
L
First,
I
wanted
to
thank
carly
for
helping
us
so
much
because
we
we
started
this
like
three
months
ago
and
then
she
had
a
staff
member
leave
and
we
didn't
know
about
it
for
a
month,
so
she
got
in
and
helped
us.
So
I
really
appreciate
it.
We
really
appreciate
that
very
much
looking
at
the
reports.
L
We
think
that
the
building
is
is
very
attractive
and
we're
not
going
to
change
the
architecture
of
it
at
all.
Most
of
our
remodeling
is
going
to
be
on
the
inside
of
the
building.
L
We
don't
see
where
you
know
the
definition
between
the
significant
and
contributing
we
don't
see
any
association
with
the
event
or
persons
that
the
the
ordinance
makes
note
of
so
it
just
seems
like
these
reports
came
out,
and
you
know:
there's
no
notation
as
to
what
association
with
events
or
persons
were
important
for
that
building
other
than
it
was
a
drug
store,
and
it
was
a
doctor's
office,
but
they
don't
name
the
doctor.
So.
L
We
don't
really
object
to
the
two
facades
because
they
are
the
ones
that
are
facing
the
streets
and
those
are
the
important
ones
that
we
believe
are
important
for
you
to
really
review.
But
I
think
that
when
the
client
bought
this
property,
it
was
shown
on
the
map
as
a
contributor,
not
a
significant
building,
and
we.
B
L
G
Thank
you,
forage
members.
Do
you
have
any
questions
for
the
applicant
right
now.
D
G
Okay,
this
gentleman
is
the
owner.
Did
you
wish
to
make
any
comments.
C
G
Okay,
well,
we
all
know
that
this
is
the
dongas.
Far
historic
district,
unlike
other
districts
in
santa
fe,
has
a
lot
of
pitch
roofed
buildings
such
as
this
craftsman,
bungalow
style,
and
it
appears
that
in
evaluating
this
building,
the
sister
building
looks
exactly
like
it
and
it
has
a
significant
status
to
it,
which
is
very
interesting.
I
think
that
once
the
railroad.
G
Came
through
here,
probably
in
the
1870s
18
or
before
a
little
bit
before
and
they
you
know
you
could
now
buy
brick
milk
lumber
whatever.
Then
those
houses
were
made
and
it's
interesting.
They
were
made
a
lot
in
that
particular
district
and
we
do
have
to
honor
those
homes
and
we
do
have
to
preserve
those
homes,
but
we'll
see
where
this
board
is
going
to
take
us
this
evening.
Okay,
let's
see
if
they
have
any
questions.
H
Thank
you
manager.
I
don't
have
a
question
for
the
applicant,
but
I
do
have
a
question.
First
currently.
H
So
just
to
get
clarification,
because
this
came
up
in
the
in
a
couple
cases
back
on
this
definition
of
significant
structures
of
staff's
interpretation,
that
those
two
subparagraphs
that
are
listed
are
not
requirements
in
and
of
themselves
that
one
or
the
other
need
to
be
met.
But
those
are
additional
reasons
to
designate
as
significant
and
that
there's
and
that
something
could
be
designated
as
significant
if
it
qualifies
under
the
first
paragraph,
even
if
it
doesn't
qualify
under
sub-paragraphs.
H
G
K
If
this
house
did
not
have
a
twin,
which
it
obviously
does,
this
would
be
a
completely
different
case
than
it
is
because
it
does
have
a
twin,
it's
presumed
that
it
was
not
built
by
the
same
property
owner
was
built
by
the
same
builder
in
those
years
who
was
contracting
for
whoever
was
the
property
owner
of
time,
but
it's
presumed,
it
was
the
same
property
owner
on
both
properties.
K
I
think
what's
important
here
is
that
you
cannot,
as
a
board,
do
something
to
the
status
of
a
building
if
it
has
a
negative
influence
on
any
adjacent
buildings
surrounding
it.
So
because
the
adjacent
neighbor
is
status
as
significant.
I
think
that
this
building,
which
matches
it
in
almost
every
way
needs
to
retain
or
be
upgraded
to
significant
status.
Thank
you.
G
G
E
Just
a
couple
of
comments,
I
think
we
may
all
be
on
the
same
page
here,
but
I
think
you
know
it's
really
important
to
acknowledge
you
know.
Sometimes
we
will
make
a
house
significant
based
off
of
its
unique
character,
but
I
think
it's
there's
also
a
case
to
be
made
for
this
sort
of
repetition,
especially
in
don
gaspar,
where
we
see
a
lot
of
these
buildings
that
are
not
in
our
typical
santa
fe
style
that
rather
represent
the
introduction
of
new
materials
through
the
rail
and
the
national
register.
E
Nomination
for
this
district
goes
into
a
lot
of
detail
about
that
aspect
of
don
gaspar
and
carly
brought
up
a
great
point
about
this,
also
being
a
commercial
property,
and
I
think
that
is
evident
also
in
the
the
modifications
that
have
been
made,
and
you
know
to
allow
this
property
to
continue
to
function.
I
think
also
with
the
introduction
of
the
ramp.
E
I
don't
see
that,
as
a
sort
of
you
know
detraction
from
the
integrity,
but
I
think
we
should
also
acknowledge
you
know
1990,
the
american
americans
with
disabilities
act
was
enacted,
and
so
it
could
indicate
you
know
a
change
in
you
know
our
access
of
historic
buildings,
which
is
you
know
interesting
in
itself,
and
you
know
maybe
it's
just
a
little
ramp,
but
it
you
know
there
could
be
more
depth.
D
And
as
a
friendly
amendment,
just
for
completeness
of
the
record,
I
wonder
if
we
might
just
designate
a
primary
facade
in
the
garage
as
the
east
street
facing
facade.
E
Yes,
that
is
accepted
as
friendly,
so
just
to
add
for
the
record,
we're
very
designating
the
east
facade
of
the
garage
as
primary.
G
Thank
you
and
remember,
with
significant
all
all
facade
primary,
so
we
have
a
role
called
local
vote.
H
G
I'm
sorry
melissa.
I
have
to
clarify
that
staff
had
already
given
us
the
report,
her
report,
and
so
I
don't
think,
there's
a
need
to
repeat
that
angela
correct
and
so
if
the
applicant
or
applicants
will
come
forward
and
get
sworn
in.
I
F
N
Rajabos
and
addresses
3480
toto
santos
street
santa
fe,
new
mexico,
87507.
G
Thank
you,
mr
bose.
Well,
you
were
not
here
when
angela
gave
her
report,
but
perhaps
you're
familiar
that
okay,
the
house
is
already
significant.
I
mean
I'm
sorry,
it's
not
significant.
It
is
contributing
and
we
are
there's
a
request
for
primary
society
and
angela
indicated
that
she
is
recommending
the
south
elevation
facade
at
number
one
and
two,
and
then
the
east
elevation
facade
number
three
and
I
do
do
you
agree
or
disagree
with
her
recommendations.
N
N
I
just
want
to
put
that
in
there
as
a
remark
directed
at
the
clear
evolution
of
constant
addition
and
evolution,
this
house
is
undertaken
and
the
amount
of
different
times
it
was
kind
of
unofficially
unarchitecturally
unpermittedly
built
upon,
as
is
evidenced
by
the
use
of
lots
of
different
materials,
and
especially
the
fact
that
you
know
you
can
see,
especially
now
that
we've
exposed
more
of
the
interior
material
that
there's
constant
appearance
of
wire
and
actual
plaster
stucco.
N
N
But
again,
our
overall
feeling
is
that
the
structure
in
its
entirety
is
very
questionably
of
contributing
nature.
I'll
leave
it
at
that
and
apologize
for
our
absence
earlier
and
thank
you
for
giving.
F
G
N
G
Now
that
he's
just
thought,
I
I
I
in
particular
me-
and
I
don't
vote
by
the
way,
but
I
can
make
comments.
This
facade
to
me
has
character,
defining
features
and
it's
very,
very
vernacular
in
nature.
I
B
D
I
D
Yeah
not
just
a
couple
of
comments.
I
I
I
do
agree
with
the
applicant
that
this
the
contributing
status
seems,
you
know,
potentially
an
error
due
to
its
current
presentation
to
the
to
the
street.
I
don't
I
don't
see
what
characteristics
are
contributing
to
other
than
it's
just
vernacular
by
nature.
I
can't
pick
out
any
particular
elements
of
the
house
that
would
define
its
character.
D
I
think
at
this
point
we
have
to
designate
a
primary
facade
because
it's
already
contributing-
and
we
haven't
noticed
a
downgrade,
but
I
would
support
sort
of
a
minimal
facade
designation
in
order
to
move
forward.
G
Any
other
comments,
anyone
from
the
public
wishing
to
comment.
B
H
Or
comment
just
a
question
actually
for
staff
yet
again,
so
how
did
what's
the
story
about
how
a
property
like
this
was
originally
designated?
Because
you
say
you
don't
have
any
files
on
the
property
right,
but
you
have
the
map
that,
but
it
just
shows
it
is
contributing.
But
how
would
that
have
come
about
if
there's
no
documentation.
C
The
surveys
were
done
essentially,
sometimes
the
windshield
survey,
but
maybe
a
couple
photographs
of
the
house,
but
there
was
a
visit
to
the
properties,
so
it
was
seen
and
so
so
at
some
at
that
time.
Someone
did
that
now.
If
the
property
came
into
get
got
a
partial,
restucco
job
that
never
got
finished,
which
our
office
processes,
I
want
to
say,
if
we're
tracking
properly
at
more
than
50
restuccos
a
year.
C
I
So
you
know
so
what
you
you're
seeing
our
records
are
sometimes
very
good
and
they've
been
evolved
and
are
better
all
the
time.
But
when
we
get
a
case
like
this,
that
is
showing
up
on
the
map,
but
it
doesn't
have
any
any
records,
often
because
people
added
on
and
maybe
didn't
have,
you
know
permits
for
it
as
a
as
that
has
taken
place.
I
L
H
E
Well,
I
just
have
one
more
comment
to
add
to
the
discussion:
that's
okay,
so
I
think
you
know
with
cases
like
this,
you
know
that
are
of
the
vernacular
character.
You
know,
I
think
it's
really
important
to
acknowledge.
You
know
that
integrity
can
exist.
You
know
beyond
the
material
aspects
right,
so
you
know
in
this
case
you
know
we're
looking
at
a
building
that
may
retain
other
elements
of
integrity.
E
You
know
the
the
sort
of
feeling
and
association,
for
example,
versus
just
the
materials
which
I
think
you
know
with
the
way
our
ordinance
is
written.
You
know
sometimes
we
can
be
very
focused
on
the
materials,
but
as
charrios
has
you
know,
communicated
over
the
years.
You
know
vernacular
buildings
in
santa
fe
are
more
telling
of
you
know
the
families
that
actually
have
lived
here
and
occupied
these
places
and
it's
more
than
just
the
architecture.
E
So
in
particularly,
you
know,
in
this
period
you
know
with
the
cmu
construction
and
and
all
of
that,
more
inexpensive
building
materials
you
know
are
more
likely
sometimes
to
maybe
not
look
as
pretty
when
they
they
wear
over
time
and,
in
this
case,
we're
missing
a
critical
element
of
the
building.
That's
led
to
further
deterioration,
but
you
know,
I
think
it's
always
important
to
you
know
just
consider
beyond
you
know
the
aesthetics,
especially
in
the
case
of
vernacular
buildings,.
H
Thank
you,
we're
being
philosophical
now
so
I'll
just
add
another
thought
to
it
which-
and
I
completely
agree
with
everything
member
larson
said.
I
think,
though,
when
I
consider
some
of
these
properties,
I
think
of
honoring,
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
honor
the
intentions
of
the
people
that
built
the
vernacular
architecture,
not
them
as
individuals
per
se,
but
the
vernacular
community.
E
B
H
Very
important
to
honor
the
vernacular
architecture
and
the
simplicity
of
hand-built
homes
like
this,
that
change
over
time
and
also
honor
the
fact
that
that
means
they
do
somewhat
continue
to
change
in
the
last
form
that
that
particular
owner
left.
G
N
Thank
you
for
whatever
it's
worth
just
and
two,
some
of
what
all
of
your
points
made,
and
also
again
to
be
philosophical
to
what's
been
done
and
now
who's
here
now
and
what
we're
allowed
to
do
right,
because
that's
actually
the
continuation
of
this
home
and
my
friend
and
I
are
taking
on
this
project.
You
know
we're
both
in
architecture
we're
both
trying
to
do
the
best
job
we
can
also
I'm
from
here.
N
I
grew
up
here,
so
I
appreciate
you
know
the
pueblo
style,
both
in
its
new
modern
form,
as
well
as
what
it's
been
in
the
past.
The
reason
I'm
saying
it
and
framing
it.
N
This
is
not
a
design
review
today,
but
if
you
were
to
see
our
design
proposal,
which
is
done
and
we're
ready
to
submit
so
we're
not
going
to
go,
modify
it
again
and
put
a
big
9x9
picture
window
on
it
or
anything,
but
it
almost
looks
like
the
same
house,
the
reason
being
that
by
the
time
you
incorporate
the
new
design
constraints
of
this
area.
You
basically
arrive
back
at
this
house,
except
with
simulated,
divided
lights,
insulated
windows,
an
insulated
shell.
N
G
Well,
and
today
we
actually
shouldn't
be
discussing
anything
that
you're
planning
on
doing
yeah
because
we're
just
looking
at
primary
facades
review
this
evening.
But
I
do
appreciate
your
comments
and
I'm
glad
that
you're
a
longtime
santa
fan
that
is
actually
still
staying
in
santa
fe
and
wanting
to
do
something
with
a
piece
of
property
that
you
value
so
gracias.
For
that.
Yes,
remember.
Beachside.
D
N
I
think
if
I
were
to
have
to
designate
something
on
this
house,
which
I
think
is
what
you're
really
asking
me,
it
would
probably
be
the
portal
area
because
it's
so
stepped
and
it
has
a
single
canal
and
it's
very
santa
fe
as
it
were.
It
also
has
kind
of
a
I
hate
to
call
it
coffin
shape,
but
an
angular
detail
on
the
columns,
as
you
can
see.
Actually,
in
that
view,.
N
L
G
G
K
Yes,
it's
a
really
interesting
case
and
I
applaud
the
applicants
for
taking
on
this
property.
I.
L
G
D
Retain
the
contributing
status
designating
facades
numbers
two
and
three,
which
encompass
the
portal
on
the
southeast
corner
as
primary
and
further
as
part
of
the
motion
recommend
that
the
the
this
property
be
considered
for
a
future
downgrade
due
to
the
non-conforming
elements
that
are
not
under
that
we're
not
able
to
review
in
the
way
this
case
is
presented
tonight,
but
I
think
we
should
consider
for
future
future
related
cases.
D
H
G
Anything
second
roll
call
vote.
Please.
F
Remember
beachside,
yes,
you
ruined
the
new.
Yes,
remember
larson!
Yes,
the
motion
has
been
approved.
G
G
Okay,
so
yeah.
So
that's
our
next
meeting
to
logic,
12
and
I
will
entertain
a
motion
to
adjourn.