►
From YouTube: H-Board Meeting 11/22/22
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
B
B
C
Thank
you.
There
is
a
quorum
present.
B
A
Thank
you
chair.
We
have
a
postponement
for
item
number
four
under
new
business,
so
they
would
like
to
postpone
to
date
certain
the
13th
of
December.
So
that's
case,
2022.00
6059-hdrb.
B
Thank
you
any
other
changes.
Okay
with
that
I
will
take
a
motion.
C
B
You
next
on
to
minutes
from
November
8th
board
members
any
changes,
10
minutes.
Yes,
member
Aguilar,
Metrano.
E
Yes,
on
page
12
at
the
very
last
paragraph,
if
we
could
strike
the
sentence
after
the
call,
the
comma
and
put
or
if
it
was
the
only
just
or
if
it
was
only
discovered
when
approval
for
the
garage
relocation
was
needed
and
then
the
second
one
is
on
page
29.
E
E
F
B
Any
other
changes
and
with
that
all
entertain
a
motion.
C
B
Thank
you
on
to
approval
of
findings
of
fact
and
conclusions
of
law.
A
question
for
Carly.
We
were
just
discussing
some
board.
Members
were
not
at
all
of
these
hearings.
Is
there
a
a
way
that
we
can
break
these
up
to
make
a
motion.
A
Chair
I
think
that's
definitely
possible,
that's
definitely
doable.
So
that
would
be.
A
Let's
see,
I've
got
10
11
and
14
as
being
an
earlier
date
that
might
not
have
been
sort
of
part
of
other
stuff.
Other
board
members
attendance.
G
I
have
a
listing
of
these
acting
chair
Guida
we
have
hearing
on
July
26th.
We
heard
the
Hometown
Heroes
banners
that
is
case
number
2022-5633.
We.
G
That
would
be
helpful.
Let's
see.
Okay
number
10
is
the
Hometown
Heroes
banners
and
then
and
number
11.
50
Mount
Carmel
Road.
Both
of
those
were
heard
on
July
26,
2022.
H
G
B
F
Yes,
I
would
be
fine
with
moving
to
approve
all
of
them
at
the
same
time.
Okay,
if
that's
emotion,
I.
B
F
I
would
make
that
motion
following
one
proposed
revision,
sure
in
case
number
2022-5634212
Lorenzo
Lane.
F
This
was
a
just
for
background.
This
was
an
approval
of
removal
of
historic
material
on
a
window
on
a
primary
facade
and
the
board
granted
that,
in
that
case,
with
the
very
specific
finding
that
it
was
unique
to
that
particular
structure.
So
I
would
like
to
like
make
sure
that
language
is
inserted.
Paragraph
10,
a
of
the
findings
of
fact.
F
It
says,
pursuant
to
sfcc
section,
14-5.2,
c5b1,
comma,
the
board
fines
Etc,
please
insert
before
the
board
finds
in
the
unique
circumstances
of
this
particular
structure,
comma
and
then
in
paragraph
11,
where
it
states
that
the
corner
window
has
architectural,
architectural
and
historic
interest
at
after
interest.
With
respect
to
this
specific
structure,.
F
I
G
I
G
G
F
B
B
F
I
C
B
You
next
is
Matters
from
the
public,
any
one,
either
in
person
or
online
wishing
to
speak.
J
K
Thank
you,
Stephanie
benonato
PO
Box
on
601
Santa,
Fe,
New,
Mexico
I
would
like
to
bring
up
a
couple
of
things.
First,
I'm
wondering
about
your
procedural
vote
just
now,
because
abstain
is
actually
comes
out.
As
a
no
vote
is
my
understanding,
so
you
have
two
no's
two
yeses
I
think
that
the
chair
should
vote
on
both
of
those
motions
to
break
the
the
tie.
K
Also
signs
at
Old,
Santa,
Fe,
Trail
and
DeVargas
continue
to
grow.
There's
also
a.
I
K
L
K
The
57,
Old,
Santa,
Fe,
Trail
and
I
was
interested
in
the
discussion
about
how
you
can
only
recommend
design
changes
and
the
city
made
it
sound
like
they
just
found
out
about
this
part
of
the
ordinance,
even
though
it's
been
there
for
quite
some
time,
and
not
only
that,
but
I
actually
pointed
this
out
to
the
city
in
an
appeal
at
least
three
years
ago.
K
So
the
city's
been
on
notice
for
that
long,
that,
in
fact,
this
ordinance
required
the
board
to
make
recommendations
to
the
governing
body
and
not
to
make
approvals
and
I,
really
wonder
what
that
might
do
to
all
those
approvals.
Because
again
it's
not
something
you
just
discovered
buried,
Buried
buried
there.
It
was
City
had
notice,
so
I
just
again
have
to
kind
of
wonder
about
that.
Thank
you.
B
A
Thank
you,
chair,
I've,
gotten
a
couple
tonight:
one
is
our
2023
hdrb
hearing
calendar
on
this
in
the
packet,
so
the
second
hearing
is
generally
and
there's
a
couple
asterisks
next
to
it
generally,
it's
either
reserved
for
administrative
matters
or
it's
an
extra
hearing
for
caseload.
A
A
A
Secondly,
this
will
be
my
last
hearing
for
approximately
three
months,
I'll
be
going
on
a
leave
of
absence
for
that
time,
but
you're
in
good
hands.
I'll
have
Heather
and
we've
got
some
great
backup
support
from
our
contractor
and
more
staff
coming
on
board.
We
also
look
to
be
hiring
our
third
senior
planner
pretty
soon,
so
we're
actively
making
steps
towards
that
now
and
that's
all
we
have
for
tonight.
B
B
Just
a
note,
a
couple
notes
before
we
begin
you
know
this
board
has
an
obligation
to
deliver
fair
and
efficient
hearings
for
the
sake
of
applicants,
for
the
sake
of
the
public,
for
our
board
a
volunteer
board
and
for
staff.
Accordingly,
you
know
we
well
because
the
staff
does
such
an
excellent
job
and
the
applicants
do
an
excellent
job
of
providing
drawings
staff,
provide
staff
reports.
This
board
studies,
those
materials-
does
go
on
field
trips.
B
This
is
a
very
well
prepared
group.
Our
goal
here
tonight
is
to
address
major
issues
in
the
cases
to
hear
from
the
public.
Accordingly,
I
will
be
holding
public
comments
to
two
minutes.
As
usual,
staff
presentations
should
be
held
to
three
minutes
and
should
address
the
Salient
issues
that
are
being
reviewed
by
the
board
and
applicant
presentation
should
be
no
more
than
five
minutes.
B
I
also
ask
that
the
City
attorney
refrained
from
rebuttals
and
lengthy
legal
commentary
and
provide
support
as
necessary
for
the
board
to
rule
on
the
cases
at
hand.
Tonight,
if
you
disagree
with
the
board's
rulings,
you
may
appeal
to
the
city
council
within
15
days
of
the
findings
effect
and
conclusions
of
law
being
approved,
with
that
we
will
begin
with
old
business,
500
Montezuma
Avenue
Carly.
This
is
your
case.
A
Okay,
so
let
me
make
sure
we're
streaming
what
we've
got
up
on
the
screen.
I
think
our
it
folks
can
move
that
on
over,
but
we
do
have
that
up
on
the
board.
Thank
you,
chair
members
of
the.
L
A
So
we
return
to
case
2022.005859
hdrb
at
500
Montezuma
Avenue.
So
we
saw
this
at
the
September
27th
hearing
for
initial
comment
by
the
board.
A
So
we
are
under
under
State
funding,
we
are
under
chapter
14-5.2,
M,
and
so
we've
got
just
a
little
procedure
slide
on
here
of
M2
just
walking
us
through
a
little
bit
of
the
timeline.
There
were
initial
meetings
conducted
to
bring
in
the
application
a
couple.
Neighborhood
meetings
were
conducted
by
the
applicant
to
solicit
feedback
on
the
design
and
then
bringing
it
to
the
hearing
on
September
27th
and
that
that
hearing
we
had
public
comment.
A
Hdrb
comments
were
received,
staff
delivered
the
minutes
and
a
summary
of
those
comments
to
the
hcrb
Who
provided
review,
and
then
those
were
given
the
comments.
The
minutes
which
are
included
in
the
packet
were
provided
to
the
applicant.
A
So
since
then
the
applicants
work
to
update
their
designs,
but
here's
remember
the
little
back
story
on
the
history
of
this
case,
so
we're
looking
at
the
some
historic
buildings,
but
they
are
non-contributing
and
specifically
the
italianate
building
has
some
historic
interest
to
it,
but
it
is
non-contributing
as
per
the
appeal
in
2016..
A
There
have
been
a
number
of
changes
to
the
design.
I
will
just
point
out.
There
have
been
some
changes
to
the
footprint
reduction
in
the
material
palette,
an
adjustment
to
the
material
palette,
changes
to
the
massing
parapet,
Heights
specifically
on
the
south
facade
and
a
redesign
of
the
East
facade
by
adding
a
change
of
planes
vertically
aligning
the
windows
and
so
forth.
A
That
said,
I'm
going
to
leave
most
of
the
design
presentation
to
the
applicant,
but
we
do
have
some
sample
recommendations.
They
are
printed.
They
are
also
in
the
slide
package.
So
if
the
board
sees
their
designs
sees
the
comments
as
being
resolved,
there's
our
first
there's
a
recommendation
for
the
sample
recommendation
there.
A
So
if
we
need
to
review
this
now,
if
that
third
recommendation
is
the
path
of
tonight,
we
ask
that
you
nominate
two
Representatives
one
as
a
primary
and
one
is
a
secondary
nominee.
Now,
with
that
said,
I
think
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
turn
it
on
over
to
the
applicant
before
I
answer.
Some.
B
Questions
probably
if
I
may-
and
there
may
be
some
questions
from
board
members.
Just
to
summarize
the
task
at
hand
tonight
is
reviewing
a
revised
design
from
the
applicant
so
per
the
rule
that
this
that
this
particular
case
follows
because
it
is
a
state-funded
school.
B
The
applicant
presented
an
initial
design
to
the
board.
This
board
returned
comments
both
during
the
hearing
and
in
writing
to
the
applicant.
The
applicant
revises
the
design
comes
back
to
the
board
and
our
primary
task
is
to
determine
whether
or
not
those
recommendations
or
changes
have
satisfied.
The
board's
intent
that.
A
Is
a
chair
that
is
correct,
so
so
yes
there's
the
we
are
we
are.
We
are
within
that
60-day
window
where
comments
were
being
given
so
comments,
yes
were
given
at
the
hearing
we
received
the
public
comment,
those
were
summarized
the
board,
reviewed
them
and
those
were
given
to
the
applicant.
The
applicant
also
met
with
Community
groups
to
or
a
community
group
Old
Santa
Fe
Association
to
address
further
concerns,
and
all
since
that
is
the
applicant's
responsibility
to
meet
with
those
groups
I'll.
A
B
Then
you've
outlined
for
us,
you
know
we
can.
We
can
recommend
approval,
we
can
recommend
approval
with
conditions
or
we
can
move
to
this
other
scenario
where
it
doesn't
satisfy
our
what
we
intended
and
then
it
goes
to
a
different,
a
committee
with
a
different
makeup
that.
B
You
board
members
any
questions
for
Carly.
Yes,
member
of
each.
A
Is
that
so
that
is
thank
you,
member
Bishop.
That
is
only
for
recommendation
number
three,
and
that
would
be
a
recommendation
to
the
governing
body,
because
the
interpretation
is
that
the
governing
body
would
then
have
the
authority
to,
on
behalf
of
the
city
put
together,
the
state
vocal
board.
M
A
That
is
as
I
understand.
Thank
you,
member
Berkeley
and
I
think
so
we
have
a
note
on
that
particular
recommendation.
I
would
not
come
back
to
the
board,
but
and
then
we
just
ask
that
you
specifically
describe
the
unresolved
issues,
because
if
those
are
not
well
described,
it's
pretty
well
open
that
and
that
those
changes
could
spread
to
most
of
the
design
so
or
it
could
just
be
very
muddy.
B
E
One
more
question:
Carly:
if,
if
we
make
a
motion
that
has
I
think
number
two
with
specific
conditions,
are
those
then
submitted
to
you
for
final
approval?
Are
they
submitted
to
the
board
via
email,
or
is
it
completely
out
of
the
board
and
the
Department's
hand?
At
that
point,.
A
A
That
is
something
that
would
come
to
staff
for
approval,
but
it
would
need
to
be
very,
very
specific,
like
a
change
to
a
material
to
this
color
of
Stucco,
okay
or
adjust
this
window
to
align
with.
So
does
that,
if
that
makes
it
does
yep.
G
Mr
acting
chair,
yes,
I,
have
to
interject
here,
as
we
had
a
brief
discussion
about
this
on
the
field
trip
today.
The
conditions
that
the
board
would
impose
have
to
be
specifically
agreed
to
by
the
applicant,
because
if
we
tell
the
applicant
approved
with
these
conditions
and
the
applicant
equivocates
or
the
applicant
says,
we
have
to
check
with
our
Architects
or
you
know,
we'll
review
that
and
we'll
get
back
to
you
and
the
60-day
window
lapses,
and
we
haven't
asked
for
the
joint
state
and
local
historic
design
review
board.
G
Option
again,
if
the
applicant
comes
back
and
says
we're
not
able
to
fulfill
these
conditions,
so
we
must,
from
the
applicants,
have
a
specific
and
I'm
hoping
you
know
the
architecture
here
and
The
Architects
can
tell
us.
Yes,
we
can
comply
with
those
conditions
or
if
they
say
we
don't
know.
If
we
can
comply,
we
don't
know
if
we
can
comply
with
those
conditions
or
not,
then
we'll
have
to
recommend
well,
we'll
have
to
I
would
recommend
to
finding
that
the
design
issues
are
not
resolved.
All
right.
B
C
N
Afternoon
or
good
evening,
acting
chair,
Guida
board
members
nice
to
see
you
again
and
thank
you
for
taking
the
time
to
review
the
documents
that
we
submitted.
I'm
going
to
be
try
to
be
as
brief
as
possible
for
your
request
for
five
minutes.
I,
don't
know
if
I
can
guarantee
that
we
have
a
lot
to
just
go
over
because
since
we
are
coming
back
for
your
request
and
the
very
specific
comments
that
we
received
on
September
27th.
N
So
let
me
just
get
started.
So,
of
course,
here
we
have
a
rendering,
which
is
in
your
packet
of
the
revised
design
and
I
just
wanted
to
touch
on
this
Photograph
very
quickly
in
the
upper
left
hand
corner.
That
is
the
ceremonial
kind
of
groundbreaking
that
occurred
in
2019
when
the
legislature
allocated
funds
for
New
Mexico
school
for
the
yards,
a
state
chartered
Public,
High
School.
N
Those
funds
were
to
serve
the
cafeteria,
which
is
already
built
and
operational,
and
also
the
dormitory,
which
got
delayed,
as
we
discussed
last
time,
due
to
funding
constraints
as
a
result
of
covid.
And
then
you
can
see
on
the
upper
right
and
the
lower.
That
is
our
ceremonial
groundbreaking.
We
had
a
few
weeks
ago
with
the
governor
and
speaker
egolf
and
the
dorm
students,
the
staff,
the
the
governing
board,
the
Art
Institute
members,
all
in
celebration
of
this.
N
and
I.
Just
want
to
quickly
go
over
two
two
points
in
section:
14-5.2
m
one
is
that
the
historic
review
board
shall
work
collaboratively
with
the
state,
in
this
case
nmsa
to
arrive
at
compatibility
of
the
project
with
the
design
standards,
considering
reasonable
costs
and
preserving
essential
functionality.
N
N
The
other
point
I
want
to
make
is
that
the
state
shall
also
make
every
reasonable
effort.
Pardon
me
to
obtain
input
from
members
of
identifiable
Community
groups
involved
in
historic
preservation
in
Santa,
Fe
and
I
will
show
you
how
we
have
addressed
that
so
I
wanted
to
go
through
a
very
thorough
timeline
of
what
of
how
we
have
proceeded
through
this
project
from
day
one.
Of
course
we
had
already
gone
through
this
project
with
the
cafeteria.
N
We
understood
the
process
with
capital
outlay
projects
number
one
is
June
30th
we
invited
we
had
our
first,
what
we
called
a
neighborhood
meeting,
inviting
the
historic
Guadalupe
neighborhood
association,
as
well
as
the
old
Santa
Fe
Association.
Those
were
the
two
groups
that
we
invited
during
our
phase
2A
with
the
cafeteria,
and
so
we,
since
we
had
already
gone
through
that
process,
we
invited
the
same
members.
We
checked
in
with
City
staff
to
make
sure
we're
inviting
the
appropriate
parties
we
have.
We
held
a
meeting
on
July
13th.
N
There
were
two
members
from
the
historic
Guadalupe
neighborhood
association.
At
that
meeting.
There
was
one
Independent
party
that
attended
and
there
were
no
osfa
attendees.
We
got
input
and
that
input
was
then
put
reflected
in
some
revisions
that
we
did
to
our
design
in
concert
with
input
that
received
from
the
city
then
again
on
July
27th,
Pardon,
Me,
July
27th.
We
were
notified
by
the
city
that
osva
requested
a
second
meeting.
We
were
happy
to
accommodate.
We
were
still
in
our
design
process
per
the
capital
outlay
process
we
held.
N
We
notified
everybody
on
July
29th.
We
had
that
second
meeting
August
9th
we
had
three
members
from
osva
attend.
We
had
an
independent
party.
I
did
speak
with
the
historic
Guadalupe
neighborhood
association.
They
thanked
us
for
the
invitation,
but
they
said
they
were.
There's
no
need
to
attend
and
again
we
got
feedback
which
is
summarized
on
this
slide.
N
N
N
We
held
that
meeting
a
week
later
on
October
17th
at
my
office
in
person,
and
we
sat
down
with
three
members
of
osva
and
and
our
representative
from
our
architecture
team,
and
we
were
presented
with
some
design
recommendations
from
October
to
November.
We
worked
with
the
city
to
address
the
input
that
we
received
from
that
October
17th
meeting,
as
well
as
the
continual
input
we're
receiving
from
the
city.
In
our
attempt
to
address
the
feedback
we
got
from
you
on
September
27th.
N
We
formally
submitted
our
our
response
to
osfa
on
November
11th.
We
sent
it
to
the
city
and
for
documentation
as
well
as
we
sent
it
to
osva,
and
then
we
submitted
plans
November
7th
with
some
input.
Yet
again
we
revise
those
plans
in
our
final
submittal.
As
you
will
see
it.
This
evening
was
submitted
on
November
16th.
N
I
hope
that
you
see
that
there's
been
a
lot
of
back
and
forth
a
lot
of
collaboration,
a
lot
of
time
and
thought
and
consideration
in
every
step
that
we've
made
since
July
of
this
year
to
now
November
22nd,
we
have
been
working
to
incorporate
the
feedback,
we
get
the
input
we
get
and
we
also
have
to
honor
the
Mandate
that
we
that
NSA
has
to
provide
the
housing
and
the
program
in
a
structure
in
that
location
that
we
have
available
to
us
I'm
going
to
skip
over
that.
Those
are
your
five
board
comments.
N
Can't
read
it
anyway.
So,
first
of
all,
I'm
going
to
summarize
comment
number
one
just
for
time's
sake,
I
think
you
guys
know
them
well,
basically
time
one
was
addressing
the
overall
size
and
massing
of
the
building
and
really
the
focus
that
you
provided
us
is
really
to
look
at.
How
can
we
push
look
at
the
mass
and
the
footprint
and
how
can
we
move
it
back
from
the
East
property
line?
How
can
we
provide
more
relief
along
that
East
Side?
N
We
reduce
we
very
aggressively
to
my
Architects
disdain.
We
were
squeezing
square
footage
out
where
we
could.
We
looked
at
that
northeast
corner
and,
as
you
will
see
in
the
follow-up
graphic,
we
were
able
to
get
six
more
feet
out
of
the
building
six
feet:
nine.
That
seemed
like
a
lot
when
you're
talking
about
a
building
that
has
to
comply
with
occupancy
code,
egress
code
and
fitting
in
the
living
activities
that
are
essential
to
creating
a
home
or
high
school
students.
This
isn't
just
a
hotel.
N
Design
changes
that
would
be
great.
Okay.
Thank
you
all
right.
So
hey
number
one,
here's
a
graphic
showing
the
footprint
of
the
September
27th
and
the
current
plan.
As
you
can
see,
on
the
west
side,
we
have
a
required
10-foot
setback
between
structures.
We
cannot
push
the
building
any
further,
and
so
again,
as
I
mentioned,
we
were
able
to
squeeze
out
six
feet.
N
You
can
see
here
again.
This
is
just
looking
at
the
floor
plan
and
you
can
see
on
that
Southeast
Corner.
We
have
eight
foot
six
set
back
again.
We
have
16
6
on
that
north
east
corner.
N
These
are
the
the
floor
plan
studies
that
we
did
to
address
the
comments.
I
know
we
got
comments
from
Member
Berkeley
about
whether
we
can
take
square
footage
and
move
it
to
kind
of
the
South
West
section
of
our
buildable
area.
Again,
we
cannot
move
into
the
fire
lane
for
various
reasons,
but
number
one
it's
fire
lane.
N
So
we
did
this.
We
did
actually
did
some
studies
and
what
this
represents
is
taking
on
the
East,
the
width
of
a
dormitory
room,
two
of
them
and
moving
it
to
that
Southwest
section
and
arranging
it
so
that
it
still
met
the
requirements
for
access
to
the
main
Corridor
so
that
the
resident
Supervisor
has
access
and
we
can
flank
the
building
with
that
type
of
required
supervision.
But
you
can
see
what
happens.
We
block
the
fire
access
for
emergency
responders
to
come
in.
We
we
impede
on
that
required.
N
10-Foot
setback,
our
egress
route
internally
is
blocked,
and
then
you
can
see
on
the
East
side
this
Arrangement
here.
What
it
does
is
it
results
in
a
non-compliant
more
than
20
foot
long
Corridor,
and
that
is
when
we
maintain
the
rest
room
facilities
that
are
required
for
the
residents
and
then
we
looked
at
it
again
in
order
to
resolve
the
circulation
requirements
in
that
Denon
Corridor.
But
what
that?
What
that
does?
Is
we
end
up
losing
bathing
in
restroom
facilities?
N
We
have
to
have
a
certain
number
to
serve
the
students
and
the
way
in
which
this
has
been
designed
more
as
a
home.
We
don't
have
like
a
giant
bathroom
or
a
bath
house
with
multiple
stalls
we
have.
We
are
providing
privacy
for
bathing,
for
you
know
to
respect
everybody's
privacy,
and
you
can
see
again
that
that
again
does
is
not
compliant
and
then
a
few.
What
we
did
is,
we
literally
just
said
Hey
what,
if
we
just
squish
it,
let's
just
take
our
building
and
come
compress.
N
It
keep
all
the
required
spaces
and
try
to
take
it
up
in
our
common
space,
our
living
room,
our
kind
of
eating
area,
and,
as
you
can
see
here
in
the
gray,
it
compresses
that
to
the
point
where
it's
non-functional
again
we're
trying
to
pursue
preserve
part
of
me
functionality,
and
then
you
can
see
in
the
red
poche.
That's
actually
the
office,
slash
security
check-in
point
which
gets
eliminated
by
squeezing
the
the
building.
In
so
again,
the
functionality
is
affected
very
greatly.
N
Okay
number
two
number
two
addressed.
Basically,
the
multiple
materials
are
in
in
September
27th's
presentation.
We
had
a
number
of
materials.
The
feedback
was
that
it
was
too
much
going
on.
Simplifying
the
masses
allow
the
masses
and
the
heights
dictate
how
materials
are
being
utilized
and
simplify.
N
This
is
a
before
elevation
of
our
20.
Excuse
me:
September
27th,
East
facade
in
conjunction
with
the
existing
main
entry
to
the
East,
and
this
is
the
current
design,
where
we
took
your
input
about
linking
the
building
with
that
same
gray,
sighting.
That
was
part
of
phase
one
and
phase
two,
a
the
cafeteria
and
creating
basically
a
nice
quiet
framework
to
allow
the
gallery
what
we
call
it,
the
Italian
Aid
building
to
really
shine
and
be
the
focal
point.
N
Here's
another
view.
This
is
the
before
you
can
see
the
dark,
stucco
adjacent
to
the
Italian
8
billing,
and
this
is
the
current
design
here
we
have
it
on
flat
elevations,
so
you
can
see
the
relationship.
N
You
can
also
see
here
that
we
brought
the
parapet
Heights
down
closest
to
the
italianate
building,
actually
tying
into
an
existing
to
one
of
the
elevations
of
the
italianate
parapet.
N
Number
three:
here
we
talk
again
about
and
a
lot
of
these
overlap
a
bit
parabit
Heights
amassing.
Your
directive
was
to
differentiator
step
facade
Heights,
particularly
on
the
South
Side
enacting
chair
Guido
I
know
that
that
was
a
point
that
you
got
into
quite
a
bit
at
the
last
meeting
that
that
South
facade
needs
to
be
a
focal
point.
It
needs
to
be
celebrated,
not
kind
of
an
afterthought.
N
So
here
you
can
see
the
the
flat
elevation
on
the
top.
That
was
our
previous
design,
where
we
incorporated
two
different
colors
stuccos
for
input
from
Community
groups,
and
what
we've
done
here
is
we've
simplified
that
elevation
utilizing
the
gray
siding
on
the
on
the
East,
pardon
me
on
the
west
and
then
in
the
center
of
the
building
using
a
umber
metal,
siding
pardon
me
more
in
tune
with
the
rail
yard.
N
You
know,
member
bienvenue
and
his
comments
stated
how
we're
really
part
of
we're
in
a
unique
location,
because
we're
really
we're
part
of
the
rail
yard,
but
we're
not
we're
part
of
the
Guadalupe
historic
district,
but
we're
not
we're
kind
of
at
that.
We're
kind
of
part
of
both,
and
so
it's
creating
that
kind
of
perfect
marriage
between
the
two
and
really
picking
up
on
the
more
industrial
commercial
materials
that
we
see
throughout
the
rail
yard.
N
Okay
and
then
this
is
the
elevation
without
the
yard
walls.
N
And
then,
here
you
can
see,
these
are
just
the
flat
elevations
I
will
flip
through
these,
and
also
just
real
quick
I
just
want
to
make
note
the
parapet
heights
were
adjusted
so
that
we
have
everything
from
a
three
foot
differential
to
18,
inches
again
being
very
pure
in
that
parapet:
height
change,
so
it
it
is
in
concert
with
the
massing
and
the
materials
massing
has
a
material.
The
next
material
in
massing
has
a
different
height
number.
N
N
This
is
our
current
elevation,
with
the
yard
walls
really
trying
to
celebrate
that
South
elevation
and
having
it
really
speak
to
its
surroundings.
N
N
And
then
this
is
the
north
elevation,
which
truly
is
not
publicly
invisible,
except
for
on
the
east
side,
and
you
can
see
here
where
we
took.
We
really
tried
to
simplify
this,
carrying
the
gray,
siding
back
to
the
West
again
to
allow
the
italianate
building
to
be
kind
of
framed
by
that
consistent
finish
and
allow
it
to
shine
and
then
giving
us
another
material
where
the
parapet
changes
and
the
mass
changes
facing
the
courtyard
and
again,
this
is
our
flat
elevation
comment.
N
Number
five
I
had
to
do
more
with
the
East
Elevation
and
window
and
opening
articulation,
and
here
on
the
flat
elevation
you
can
see
the
before
on
the
top
and
the
after.
There
was
a
specific
comment
about
taking
the
windows
and
really
creating
a
vertical
statement
and
articulation
of
that.
One
curious
thing
about
this
is
we
did
get
some
feedback
from
the
city
and
we
really
carefully
looked
at
it
and
analyzed
it.
N
Maybe
you
know
looking
at:
do
we
mimic
the
sill
height
of
the
italianate
building
adjacent?
Do
we
use
the
same
proportions
as
the
windows
in
the
italianate
building?
As
you
can
see
from
this
diagram?
The
the
structural
floor
of
the
second
floor
is
basically
right
in
the
center
of
the
window,
and
so
we
wanted
to
study
this
and
just
see
what
what
could
we
do
as
you
can
see.
Unfortunately,
that
was
not
a
viable
option.
I
just
want
to
show
you
here.
N
This
was
the
previous
East
Elevation,
seeing
a
bit
of
the
South
here's
our
existing
here's,
the
East
again.
This
is
our
new
and
here
I'm,
just
going
to
flip
through
just
kind
of
a
sequence
if
you're
walking
down
Market
Street
and
how
you
would
see
the
italianate
building,
so
I
just
want
to
say
quickly
since
July,
we
have
willingly
and
in
good
faith
participated
in
this
process.
As
you
can
see
from
our
very
extensive
timeline,
we've
been
very
open
to
input.
N
We
have
responded,
I
want
to
thank
staff
for
being
so,
you
know
willing
and
communicative
in
this
process,
and
this
really
has
been
a
collaboration
from
day
one.
N
O
E
Thank
you,
chair
Guida,
and
welcome
back.
Thank
you.
I
have
some
questions
embedded
just
in
my
general
comments.
First
I
would
like
to
comment
on
what
I
think
the
successful
changes
we
are
looking
at
tonight
are
so
first
I
think
that
changing
the
material
and,
more
importantly,
the
color
on
the
East
facade
helped
distinguish
it
from
the
italianate
building
and,
secondly,
the
articulation
of
the
parapet
Heights
in
particular,
the
reduction
in
the
height
on
the
east
on
the
east
side
helped
distinguish
it
from
the
Italian
building.
I.
E
Think
with
these
in
mind,
I
still
have
some
of
the
same
concerns
that
they
did
in
the
last
hearing
that
the
sighting
of
the
building
detracts
from
what
should
be
the
most
prominent
building
the
italianate
and
that
the
pattern
and
the
proportion
of
the
windows
are
in
harmony
with
the
streetscape
I
do
see
that
you
pushed
the
facade
back
six
feet
but,
as
you
know,
I
thought
a
much
more.
Substantial
setback
was
needed.
E
My
previous
comment
regarding
the
possibility
of
Shifting
some
of
the
programming
to
the
southwest
corner
assumed
that
the
adjacent
parking
spaces
potentially
could
be
reevaluated,
so
the
fire
access
could
be
maintained.
Keeping
them
intact
seems
like
it
might
be,
limiting
some
of
the
possibilities
of
adjusting
the
footprint
so
I'm
wondering.
Is
it
a
requirement
or
a
preference
to
keep
those
parking
spaces
as
they
currently
are?.
N
Member
Aguilar
and
board
members
acting
chair
Guida.
Actually,
thank
you
very
much
for
that
question
and
I
do
have
a
Graphic
to
address
that.
N
N
To
go
before
the
board
of
adjustment
to
get
a
special
use
permit,
because
school
is
a
is
an
allowable
use.
But
if
it's
within
200
feet
from
a
residentially
zoned
area,
you
have
to
come
in
for
a
special
use
permit
as
part
of
that
process.
In
2015
the
architects
who
represented
New
Mexico
for
the
Arts
at
the
time.
Studio
Southwest
prepared
this
site
plan,
and
this
was
part
of
their
application
and,
as
you
can
see,
to
the
South.
N
It
identifies
those
Southern
parking
spaces
that
you
speak
of,
as
well
as
the
fire
Access
Lane
here
that
circles,
the
entire
property
with
a
turnaround
here
and
then
a
restricted,
one-way
access
out,
nmsa
and
The
Architects
at
the
time
worked
with
the
with
City
of
Santa
Fe
Fire
Marshal,
to
get
the
site
plan
to
be
in
compliance
with
multiple
codes,
but
in
particular
fire
code.
N
This
is
the
memo
from
Ray
Gonzalez,
who
was
the
acting
fire
marshal
at
the
time
stating
the
requirements
for
fire
access,
and
so
in
that
discussion
prior
to
the
board
of
adjustment,
hearing
and
approval.
This
was
vetted
very
carefully.
There's
a
requirement
to
be
able
to
get
to
every
building
with.
If
a
vehicle
stops
within
150
feet,
you
can't
go
in
more
than
150
feet
with
an
emergency
vehicle
and
without
some
type
of
a
hammer,
header
turnaround
and,
as
you
can
see
from
the
site
and
as
everybody
knows,
that
sambusco
property-
it's
quite
tight.
N
N
It's
imperative
that
we
provide
safety
to
this
school
campus,
it's
a
school
campus
and
we
looked
at
what
could
we
do
in
order
to
accommodate
more
space
and,
as
you
could
see,
from
those
floor
plan
studies,
we
looked
at
every
which
way
we
could
potentially
move
square
footage
and
spaces.
The
other
thing
is
the
parking
spaces
and
the
parking
count
were
also
part
of
the
board
of
adjustment
approval.
We
had
to
maintain
a
certain
number
of
spaces
based
on
our
use
and
that
application
discussed
the
dormitory
at
that
time.
N
E
Thank
you
for
the
clarification
on
that
regarding
the
second
issue.
I
brought
up
so
adding
the
black
pattern
between
the
windows
to
me
doesn't
give
the
illusion
that
there
are
more
windows.
It
just
appears
to
add
another
material,
which
is
which
is
one
of
the
things
that
we
were
trying
to
move
away
from.
In
the
last
hearing
on
the
south
facade,
it
appears
that
this
treatment
has
actually
caused
some
of
the
previously
proposed
Windows
to
be
removed
there.
E
There
are
opportunities
to
add
more
windows,
in
particular
on
the
East
facade,
even
if
the
programming
were
to
remain
the
same
as
we're
seeing
it
today
as
one
example
the
supervisor's
living
room.
So,
given
that
the
building
was
only
pushed
back
six
feet,
it
seems
like
adding
more
windows
would
have
been
an
easy
place
to
compromise.
So
I'm
wondering
why
you
did
it,
you
decided
not
to
include
more
windows
on
the
East
facade
in
the
design,
we're
seeing
today.
N
Member
Aguilar
board
members,
the
East
facade.
Let
me
go
back
to
the
actually
to
the
floor
plan
because
I
think
it's
the
most
informative
to
this
question
and
it's
a
very
good
question
and
it's
something
that
our
team
has
studied.
So
you
can
see
this
is
our
actually
that's
the
modified
one.
N
We
have
to
have
egress
stairs
at
each
side
right
clear,
exiting
out.
Oh
so
that's
the
staircase
there
are.
We
have
placed
Windows
into
that
staircase,
but
because
of
the
angle
of
a
stair,
when
you
look
at
it
in
section
it's
it's
very
tricky
to
put
Windows
and
stairs
and
I'm
sure
you've
seen
it.
It
can
be
kind
of
I've.
Seen
pardon
me
designs
where
people
put
kind
of
Windows
kind
of
climbing
up
the
stair
and
it
looks
it.
N
It
doesn't
very
look
very
authentic,
in
my
humble
opinion,
and
then,
if
you
look
at
that
Southeast
corner
of
the
East,
that's
actually
a
supervising
resident
apartment.
N
We
took
a
lot
of
square
footage
out
of
that
space
in
order
to
bring
the
masting
back
minimize
that
corner.
But
again
this
is
a
private
individual's
residence
and
they're
facing
out
towards
Market
Street.
Unfortunately,
there
are
issues
with
activity
in
the
rail
yard.
I
see
it
every
day.
I
saw
it
today.
I
saw
it
yesterday
when
I
was
out
at
the
property,
and
so
we
need
to
provide
the
requisite
privacy
for
people
to
live
there.
N
Those
resident
supervisors
that's
their
home,
it's
not
like
that's
their
home
five
days
a
week
and
then
they
go
to
their
own
place,
that's
actually
their
home
home
and
so
finding
these
quality
people
who
are
willing
to
live
with
60
teenagers
is,
you
know,
no,
no
small
chore.
We
have
to
provide
them
with
something
that's
comfortable
and
inviting
and
then
we'll
keep
them
there,
because
it's
about
maintaining
our
sense
of
community
and
safety
for
these
students.
So
we
can
look
at
potentially
adding
some
windows
I.
N
E
Thank
you
for
answering
those
questions.
I
think
that
concludes
the
comments.
I
had
yeah
I
would
I
would
have
definitely
I
was
disappointed
to
not
see
more
windows
on
the
East
facade.
Just
given
that
some
of
the
other
feedback
couldn't
been,
you
know,
couldn't
have
been
fully
met,
I
understand
and
you
know
the
need
for
privacy
and
that
these
face
the
street
from
you
know,
but
all
of
downtown.
E
We
also
have
condos
and
they
all
have
Windows
and
accesses
that
that
face
high
traffic
areas
and
I
think
that's
just
part
of
the
downtown
makeup
and
then
I
think
even
at
the
entrance
there.
That
would
be
another
opportunity
to
add
another
window
where
you
currently
have
one
but
I'm
going
to
hold
off
for
now
and
see
what
other
see?
What
other
board
members
have
to
say.
B
I
I
I'll
just
quickly
weigh
in
you
know,
one
of
the
I'll
say
first
that
I
really
appreciate
the
efforts
of
the
applicant
to
not
only
follow
process
both
in
terms
of
the
comments
of
this
board
working
with
City
staff
and
also
doing
the
engagement
work.
That
is
prescribed
it's
clear
that
from
the
presentation
that
not
only
did
the
applicant
do
their
homework,
but
that
we
also
have
a
much
and
and
quite
dramatically
improved
design
to
look
at
tonight.
B
I'm
satisfied
that
the
majority
of
the
the
board's
recommendations
were
heated
in
the
project
most
most
notably,
you
know
the
elevation
that
we
were
the
The
View
that
we're
looking
at
right
now,
allowing
the
Italian
Aid
building
to
kind
of
stand
on
its
own
to
allow
as
much
as
is
possible.
Building
with
this
footprint
to
be
a
kind
of
background
building
to
the
entry
to
the
Italian
eight
building
there
at
an
MSA
I
think
that's
tremendously
successful.
I
also
think
that
the
the
South
facade
is
dramatically
improved
from
what
we
saw
last
time.
B
L
B
Of
the
vertical
Windows
that
does
look
different
at
different
times
a
day.
You
know
black
glass
can
help
kind
of
unify
those
things
a
little
bit
further
to
remember.
Madonna's,
Point,
but
I
think
that
that
you
know
from
what
we're
looking
at
here,
we
have
much
clearer
expression.
I
agree
with
the
kind
of
alignment
of
massing
material
and
parapet
height,
making
a
better
building
doing
so
in
a
way,
that's
not
contrived
to
kind
of
historic
Western.
B
Storefront
facades
couple
questions
that
I
have
as
far
as
the
the
current
proposal,
the
material,
the
materials
for
the
yard
wallet.
You
know,
I
think
we
saw
last
time
and
I
think
we
see
tonight
that
the
the
perforated
natural
steel
is
being
used
for
the
translucent
portions.
B
What
is
the
proposal
for
the
solid
portion
of
the
yard
wall?
And
can
you
explain
a
little
bit
more
about
the
dark
metal
panels?
Are
they
Cortana
rusted
steel?
Or
are
we
looking
at
a
kind
of
finished
painted
steel
product.
N
Yes,
some
acting
board
Guida
board
members.
Thank
you
for
your
comments,
so
just
to
address
your
questions
in
for
time
reasons
the
the
solid
wall
of
the
Southern
Courtyard
is
now
a
burnished
block
is
what's
being
proposed.
N
Actually
it's
ironic,
because
that
was
our
original
material
for
these
walls
and
then,
of
course,
as
you
saw,
they
changed
and
we're
coming
back
to
that.
We
feel
it
is
appropriate,
especially
in
particular
in
the
rail
yard,
with
more
of
that
industrial,
commercial
context.
B
N
Careful
Lisa's
gonna
show
you,
so
this
is
the
sample
that
our
got
for
discussion.
N
We
are
looking
for
a
product
that
that's
not
quite
what
we're
looking
for,
but
basically
it'd
be
a
non-reflective
umber
panel
kind
of
more
more
in
line
with
the
Violet
Crown,
the
the
panels
you
see
at
the
Violet
Crown
to
do
a
rusted
panel
or
core
10.
It's
beautiful,
but
maintenance,
wise.
It's
a
disaster
as
an
architect
who've
seen
it
I've
seen
it
implemented
for
30
years,
and
it
always
creates
problems.
N
It
will
bleed
and
it
will
revolve
on
your
clothes,
so
yeah
we're
looking
for
actually
a
painted,
finished
material
so
that
it
has
longevity
it
doesn't
fade.
It
doesn't
bleed
but
yeah
to
create
kind
of
give.
That
kind
of
a
more
of
a
a
softer
darker
tone
to
to
break
up
those
massings.
As
you
discussed.
B
M
First
of
all,
I
wanted
to
thank
you
for
the
changes
that
you
made
and
I
wanted
to
comment
on
what
seemed
to
be
a
lot
of
your
argument,
which
I
think
was
not
an
argument
you
need
to
be
making
tonight,
which
is
that
arguing
for
the
students,
because
I
think
that
all
of
us
here
believe
very
strongly
in
this
project.
In
general,
I
mean
we're
talking
about
New
Mexico's
future,
and
these
are
New
Mexico's
future
creatives,
a
place
where
they'll
live.
So
you
don't
I,
didn't
think
you
needed
to.
M
You
know
make
that
case,
because
I
think
we
all
really
believe
strongly
in
that
and
we're
so
glad
for
the
board
and
the
students
and
everyone
who
designed
this
whole
campus
that
that's
really
what
you're
looking
for
is
the
quality
of
their
life
there,
and
so
I
want
to
thank
you
for
that,
but
also
just
say
for
the
record.
You
didn't
really
need
a
case
because
I
think
we're
all
on
board
with
that.
M
I
just
had
some
questions
in
general
about
the
process,
because
I
did
come
very
late
into
the
game
new
to
the
sport,
and
we
talk
about
the
reason
why
you
can't
move
much
of
the
footprint
of
the
building
because
of
the
Art
Institute
land
and
because
of
the
fire
lane
and
I
wondered
if
there
was
any
conversation
in
this
process
about
the
purchase
or
donation
of
those
spots
or
the
moving
of
those
Lanes.
In
order
to
give
yourself
more
space
to
where
you
could
have
done.
A
greater
setback
of
the
building.
N
G
And
Mr
Vice
chair
what
I'm
trying
to
accomplish
here
is
that
the
panel.
P
G
Ms
gavioli
showed
the
board
at
current
the
open
meetings
act.
It.
H
N
Pardon
me
I
went
too
far.
Okay,
this
is
a
great
graphic
and
I
do
have
I
hope,
Paul,
attackett
and
Charlotte
Hetherington
and
Janie
and
Jenny
Hern.
Here
they
all
represent
nmsa
in
the
legal
fashion.
Sit
on
boards
and
have
advised-
and
so
I
will
ask
that
if
any
clarification
is
required,
please
have
them.
I
would
like
to
have
them
sworn
in,
so
they
can
address
this
question,
but
a
Reader's
Digest
version
of
this.
N
You
see
the
graphic
here
and
you
can
see
the
area
in
the
lower
left
hand
corner
that's
poched.
N
N
N
That
graphic
is
showing
you,
the
area
that
was
identified
for
the
dormitory
in
2000
and
don't
want
to
misspeak.
This
was
18
correct.
Thank
you,
Charlotte!
Yes
to
those
this
document,
this
plot
was
created
in
2018.,
so
that
is
the
area
that
New
Mexico
School
for
the
Arts
estate.
A
state
school
that
receives
funding
directly
from
the
state
can
take
that
funding
and
utilize
it
for
the
improvements
that
it
was
identified
for
in
that
state
allocation.
N
N
That
section
extends
down
and
it
ends
on
the
south
right
where
the
fire
lane
is
because
again,
the
architecture,
team
and
planning
team
at
the
time
were
taking
into
account
and
moving
forward
with
this
internal
master
plan
to
accommodate
all
of
the
elements
of
the
campus
and
also
having
consultation
with
the
city
fire
marshal.
So
you
can
see
that
you
can
see
that
drive
lane
here
and
you
can
see
those
Southern
parking
spaces
here.
So
it's
been
asked
by
many
parties.
N
N
They
have
very
clear:
nmsa
has
a
clear
Charter
and
they
work
in
conjunction
to
fulfilling
and
creating
this
educational
opportunity
in
a
very
unique
forum,
but
they
are
not
the
same,
and
state
funds
cannot
be
used
on
Art,
Institute
improvements
or
property
when
we
did
I
just
want
to
clarify
and
I
mentioned
this
September
27th,
when
we
did
the
cafeteria,
we
literally
built
an
independent
structure
from
the
existing
sambusco
building
they're
completely
structurally
separate
just
for
this
reason,
because
we
cannot
use
State
funds
to
improve
a
a
part
of
the
building
that
is
owned
by
the
Art
Institute.
N
So
it's
it's
a
trust
me
I've
been
trying
to
get
my
head
around
this
since
2019,
when
I
started
working
for
nmsa
and-
and
we
again,
we
do
have
our
our
advisors
here
if
we
need
to
go
into
it
further,
but
this
is
the
space
that
the
state,
when
the
state
allocated
These
funds
and
approved
it.
N
This
is
the
location
they
approved
it
for
so
we
can't
just
move
it.
We
can't
just
say:
hey
somebody
give
us
some
money.
It
doesn't
work
like
that.
You
have
to
work
within
the
framework
of
our
funding
and
our
ownership.
I
B
D
B
D
N
So
here
you
can
see
that
that
if
you're
looking
north
Northwest
here
from
the
southeast
corner.
N
And
here's
the
rendering
of
it.
So
what
so?
Your
first
question:
no,
the
the
walls
and
the
fencing
is
still
eight
feet,
which
is
the
allowable
for
a
non-residential
use
and
again
that's
for
security
reasons
to
provide
a
safe.
You
know
outdoor
space
for
the
for
the
student
population
and
then
the
burnish
block.
Basically
it's
it's
a
CMU
block.
That
is
it's
basically
Eric
polished.
Is
that
a
better
way
to
say
it?
Thank.
L
N
Eric
Meese
our
architect
from
smpc,
it's
polished,
so
it's
a
much
more
refined.
Look
for
a
CMU
block.
A
lot
of
times.
We
see
split,
face,
used
a
lot
kind
of
in
a
decorative
way
and
a
break
up
a
very
linear
wall,
but
this
creates
a
more
softer
look,
so
it
kind
of
blends
with
itself,
and
so
it's
a
much
more
refined
appearance.
I
would
say,
in
my
opinion,.
N
We
do
thank
you
for
that
clarification.
There
are
numerous
wall
materials
throughout
this
property.
If
you
were
to
go
around
basically
follow
the
fire
lane.
All
the
way
around.
N
You
will
see
various
materials,
everything
from
pentile
to
just
raw
CMU,
to
Old,
stuccoed
walls,
to
there's
some
old
wood
wall
or
excuse
me
some
wood,
slats,
and
so
our
intent
is
to
in
the
future,
come
in
with
a
more
cohesive
look
for
the
perimeter
in
case,
basically
the
perimeter,
fencing
and
walls,
so
it
kind
of
has
more
of
an
intentional
look.
N
When
phase
one
was
done.
You
know
there
were
improvements
done,
but,
of
course,
like
any
project,
there
were
budgetary
constraints,
so
we're
trying
to
introduce
the
material
that
we
feel
is
in
concert
with
our
location
and
with
our
vernacular.
It's
quiet,
it's
utilitarian
and
it
actually
looks
good.
So
we
we
hope
to
kind
of
help.
Improve
the
other
kind
of
variety
of
of
wall
finishes
that
we
have
throughout.
Thank
you
thank.
B
You
okay!
So
let's
move
to
public
comment,
those
wishing
to
speak
I
I,
invite
you
down
to
the
podium
where
you
will
be
sworn
in.
If
you're
wishing
to
speak
tonight,
please
line
up
behind
the
podium.
Public
comment
is
limited
to
two
minutes.
Carly
assists
me
in
keeping
time.
J
Mr
Guida
I
will
thank
you
and
for
those
folks
that
would
like
to
speak.
We
will
take
the
public
in
person
first
and
then.
Second,
we
will
take
your
comments.
I
see
one
hand
raised,
but
if
there
are
other
folks
who
would
like
to
speak,
please
raise
your
hand
before
the
end
of
the
public
comment
period
in
person.
C
Q
R
R
I
do
not
understand
why
the
city
appears
to
be
letting
this
case
undermine
the
process
that
the
city
has
gained
to
impose
its
dive
design
standards
on
state
county
and
School
District
projects
within
our
districts.
I
believe
you
know
the
history
of
this.
For
many
years.
The
city
didn't
think
it
had
that
Authority.
R
Then
in
2008
the
state
proposed
a
parking
garage
for
the
legislature
west
of
the
Capitol.
The
design
was
generic
ugly
and
non-compliant
with
the
city's
design
standards
for
that
District
as
City
Attorney.
At
that
time,
I
reviewed
the
state
statutes
and
concluded.
The
city
did
have
that
authority
to
apply
its
design
standards,
but
rather
than
being
adversarial
and
resorting
to
litigation.
The
city
and
the
state
agreed
to
negotiate
the
design.
R
It
was
such
a
positive
experience
so
open
and
effective
that
it
became
the
model
for
the
legislature
the
next
year
to
amend
the
historic
districts
act
that
we've
been
operating
since
that
state
law
spells
out
the
following.
The
state
and
its
municipalities
and
counties
shall
commit
to
collaborate
in
good
faith
and
work
jointly
to
preserve
and
protect
the
historic
districts.
That's
why
you
hear
a
lot
of
talk
about
collaboration
and
working
jointly.
R
The
city
code
makes
clear
that
the
role
of
working
jointly
with
the
state
is
delegated
to
the
hdrb,
to
you,
folks,
not
to
staff,
not
to
ask
for,
but
to
you
folks
code
says:
the
state
shall
consult
with
the
historic
District's
review
board.
R
What
collaborate
consult,
work,
jointly
means
I,
think
must
be
interpreted
interpreted
in
light
of
the
process
that
was
used
for
the
legislative
parking
garage.
The
statutes
model
state
law
does
not
anticipate.
Indeed,
it
doesn't
allow
the
board
to
function
in
its
normal,
quasi-judicial
role.
R
If
at
the
end
of
the
60
days,
of
course,
the
consultation
process
doesn't
produce
a
design
that
conforms
to
the
city
design
criteria,
while
still
fulfilling
the
state
programmatic
needs.
State
law
then
gives
a
quite
crazy
judicial
option.
The
city
can
give
notice
requiring
the
point
appointment
of
the
state
local
government
historic
review
board.
That
independent
board
is
the
deciding
entity.
R
The
hdrb
in
the
school
can
adopt
the
design
only
by
collaboration
and
consultation.
If
they
don't
agree,
the
neutral
state
and
local
government
review
board
is
the
decider.
For
whatever
reason
board
members
have
been
denied
your
role
here
of
working
jointly
with
the
school.
There
has
been
no
Consul
consultation,
no
collaboration,
no
working
jointly
by
board
members
in
the
school.
Indeed,
the
school
did
not
even
follow
step.
R
One
of
the
statute,
which
was
to
come
and
talk
to
the
board
before
the
design
phase
and
find
out
what
are
the
rules,
so
we
can
Design
Within
the
rules.
They
simply
presented
the
completed
design
to
the
public
to
the
board.
At
the
public
hearing
on
the
27th
board,
members
listed
their
concerns
that
very
night
thereafter,
not
a
single
discussion
was
held
with
the
board
members
during
the
ensuing
60-day
period
to
work
jointly
to
receive
a
design
that
would
meet
both
state
programmatic
needs
and
City
design
standards.
R
Moreover,
the
school
and
the
city
staff
did
not
make
available
to
you
or
the
public
their
response
to
your
concerns
until
last.
Thursday
one
does
get
a
sense
that
nmsa
and
the
city
staff
is
intentionally
evading
consultation
and
collaboration.
They
brag
a
lot
about
it,
but
were
you
able
to
sit
in
a
room
with
them
and
say
well
what
about
doing
it
this
way
or
why?
Couldn't
you
talk
to
the
Art
Institute
about
perhaps
contributing
some
land
their
students
are
staying
in
the
dorm?
R
Essentially,
you
were
urged
to
take
what
is
in
front
of
you
now,
because
any
delay
for
True
collaboration
could
mean
that
the
students
would
be
sleeping
in
the
cold
next
winter
I
John
Eddie
will
next
describe
what
osva
had
proposed
as
one
possible
design.
Alternative
Adam
Johnston
will
then
outline
two
options
to
allow
for
further
discussion,
while
still
promptly
reaching
a
final
decision
which
a
month
or
so
to
ensure
that
the
students
will
be
cozy
next
winter.
Thank
you.
B
We
are
at
six
minutes
on
that
public
comment.
We
will
hold
public
comments
to
two
minutes.
Each
yes,
Carly.
A
A
G
Mr
acting
chair,
I'm,
sorry
to
interrupt
you,
but
I
think
a
decision
needs
to
be
made.
The
board
can
amend
the
rules
if
it
wishes,
but
Robert's
Rules
of
Order,
which
control
unless
there
is
actually
a
rule
adopted
by
the
governing
body
that
states
otherwise
reads.
It
writes
in
regard
to
debate
or
not
transferable.
Unless
the
organization
has
a
special
rule
on
the
subject,
a
member
cannot
yield
any
unexpected
unexpired
portion
of
his
time
to
another
member
or
Reserve
any
portion
of
his
time
for
a
later
time.
P
T
L
G
B
And
I'm
glad
to
follow
Robert's
rules
on
this.
There
was
only
one
mention
of
seating
time.
Let's,
let's
proceed
with
our
two-minute
rule:
okay,.
B
S
S
The
next
point
that
I
would
like
to
speak
to
is
the
role
of
the
Old
Santa
Fe
Association,
as
we
have
played
it
under
the
express
city
code,
language
as
it
identify
all
identifiable
historic
preservation,
community
group
to
communicate,
recommendations
and
comments
in
writing
to
the
state.
Osva
submitted
a
design
alternative
to
the
school
and
board
on
October
7th
also's
recommendations
for
design
revisions
offered
a
way
to
meet
every
one
of
the
concerns
board.
S
Members
had
expressed
to
resolve
the
board's
most
crucial
concern
that
of
moving
the
Eastern
portion
of
the
dorm
back,
so
that
it
would
be
even
with
and
not
proud
of,
the
East
facade
of
the
school.
The
revision
removed
a
few
rooms
from
the
East
End
of
the
dorm
to
preserve
nmsa's
programmatic
needs.
Those
exact
rooms
were
proposed
on
the
southeast
of
the
structure.
Nmsa
summarily
told
us
that
moving
those
rooms
off
the
current
developable
area,
owned
by
nmsa,
was
not
possible
under
the
anti-donation
Clause.
The
state-funded
door
must
be
all
on
state
land.
S
The
land
to
the
South
is
owned
by
the
Art
Institute
and
the
school's
partner
providing
students
the
Arts
curriculum,
while
the
school
provides.
The
academic
curriculum
also
completely
recognized
the
anti-donation
Clause
limitation
requiring
the
dorm
to
be
on
nmsa
land.
Our
response
is
that
there
appears
to
be
a
straightforward
solution
to
that
requirement.
Since
the
Art
Institute
is
msa's
partner
in
the
school
and
indeed
the
Art
Institute
students
will
be
living
in
those
very
dorm
rooms.
S
Could
transfer
some
500
square
feet
of
its
land
to
nmsa
to
augment
the
footprint
of
the
dorm,
but
neither
nmsa
or
the
Art
Institute
have
ever
responded
to
that
suggestion.
With
an
explanation
of
why
it
is
not
possible,
there
is
still
no
explanation
in
the
materials
presented
in
the
packet.
It's
ready.
We
are
a
Time.
Thank
you.
I
would
like
to
finish.
If
you
would
allow
me,
I
just
have
two
sentences.
Thank
you.
Had
there
been
proper,
proper
collaborative
consultation,
that
issue
could
have
been
explored
and
resolved.
S
U
Adam
Johnson
121
Arroyo
Honda
Trail
87508,
chair
Guida,
members
of
the
hdrb
you've
heard
from
my
colleagues
from
the
Old
Santa
Fe
Association,
regarding
our
issues
with
the
process
and
with
potential
solutions
that
we
provided
the
applicant
in
answer
to
your
redesign
recommendations
under
the
current
structure,
the
only
chance
the
board
gets
to
talk
with
the
school
about
resolution
of
your
concerns
is
tonight
day,
56
of
the
60-day
period
and
only
in
the
stilted
setting
of
a
formal
hearing,
not
during
the
collaborative
consultation.
The
law
provided
for.
U
U
But
if
you
are
ultimately
not
satisfied
with
what
the
applicant
has
presented
tonight,
we
ask
you,
follow
state
and
city
law
and
recommend
the
governing
body
refer
the
case
to
the
state,
local
government,
historic
review
board
to
resolve
the
matter.
And
if
you
do
that,
you
will
need
to
explain
to
the
governing
body
why?
You
believe
it
should
go
to
a
state
and
local
H
board.
First,
what
aspects
of
the
design
do
not
comply
with
City
design
standards
and
why?
U
There
may
yet
be
another
path,
a
third
option.
You
may
be
able
to
seek
from
nmsa
a
tolling
of
the
60-day
period
for
a
few
weeks
to
resolve
the
question
of
the
potential
land
transfer
and
to
compel
collaboration
between
the
applicant
and
Community
stakeholders,
including
the
Old
Santa
Fe,
Association
time
to
understand
the
possibilities
of
land
transfer
and
emergency
vehicle
access
and
collaborative
consultation
could
satisfy
both
City
design
standards
and
the
school's
programmatic
needs.
Thank
you.
V
Evening
Vice,
chair,
Guida
board
members,
so
I'm
here
this
evening
in
a
different
capacity
than
I
am
typically
at
this
Podium
I
am
here
as
a
parent
of
a
very
proud
parent
of
an
nmsa
alum
I.
Why
am
I
getting
emotional,
because
this
is
a
really
big
deal?
I
really
appreciated
member
Berkeley's
comments
about
that.
We
love
this
institution
and
we
love
what
they
do.
V
P
P
B
X
To
read
and
to
the
record
of
a
letter
we
received
from
the
current
nmsa
dorm
students,
they
got
together
and
wrote
a
letter
for
this
evening,
so
to
whom
it
may
concern
living
in
a
dorm
in
high
school
is
something
not
a
lot
of
people
will
experience
and
is
almost
abrupt
to
certain
people.
X
Some
could
say:
you're
leaving
a
home
leaving
home
too
early.
This
is
why
we
believe
the
dorms
we
share
should
be
made
the
most
positive
and
home-like
Place
For
Young
Artists,
one
of
the
biggest
takeaways
is
learning
how
to
live
in
a
shared
space
with
a
variety
of
other
people.
This
current
dorm
holds
30
students
and
our
new
dorm
will
hold
60
students.
X
It
allows
students
who
do
not
have
great
access
to
education
from
around
the
state
to
access.
One
of
the
best
schools
in
New
Mexico
and
pertain
skills
to
find
a
career
in
the
Arts.
This
is
all
available
to
students
from
around
the
state
because
of
the
dorm
program.
The
expansion
of
size
will
allow
more
artists
to
come
to
school
here
and
study
their
passions
commuting
to
Santa.
Fe
is
not
manageable.
Every
day.
By
having
a
dormitory
program,
the
school
creates
an
engine
for
creativity
for
all
new
Mexicans,
far
and
wide
sincerely
the
nmsa
dorm
students.
Y
Have
you
been
sworn
I
have
I
stood
up,
I'm,
katyana,
Lujan,
1430,
calistas,
eight,
seven,
five,
zero,
hello,
I'm,
katyana,
Lujan
and
I'm.
Currently,
a
senior
at
nmsa
I
will
be
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
dorm
students
as
well.
Y
So
the
dorm
students
are
at
a
disadvantage
living
off
campus.
They
miss
after
school
opportunities
like
academic
tutoring.
Special
instructions
in
there
are
social
events
and
simply
being
a
part
of
the
family
at
nmsa.
Y
Another
issue
is
why
providing
dorms
on
campuses.
A
good
idea
is
because
it
it
helps
with
the
transportation
and
it
doesn't
you
don't.
The
dorm
students
wouldn't
have
to
transport
on
the
city
bus
where
they
face
many
encounter
mints
that
are
uncomforting
and,
and
they
happen
pretty
regularly,
and
so
it
would
help
a
lot
with
that
yeah.
That's
all
I
got
this.
Thank.
B
C
Z
Members
of
the
board,
I
want
to
speak
in
favor
of
this
project
for
the
school
I
feel
that,
from
a
design
perspective,
it's
consistent
with
the
neighborhood
having
been
architect
on
several
projects
in
the
immediate
vicinity
of
the
project.
I
think
that
some
of
the
objections
I've
heard
this
evening
that
are.
Z
J
AA
Hi
I'm
Jay
Myers
I
live
at
2125
cottagestan
Road
in
Silver
City
New,
Mexico,
88061
I'm.
A
current
residential
student
excuse.
C
E
C
AA
Thank
you,
I'm.
A
current
residential
student
at
nmsa
I'm,
a
junior
this
year,
I
want
to
impress
upon
the
board
how
important
it
is.
These
dorms
on
campus
I
live
in
Silver
City,
which
is
about
a
five
hour
drive
and
the
dorms
don't
have
currently
a
seven
day.
Access
which
means
I
have
to
either
I
have
to
commute
home
every
weekend
or
stay
at
a
friend's
house.
AA
AA
For
me,
a
lot
of
my
time
is
spent
thinking
about
how
I'm
going
to
get
home
every
weekend,
and
it
affects
my
my
schooling,
my
education
negatively,
so
I
just
want
to
impress
upon
the
board
how
dire
this
need
is
how
important
it
is
for
the
dorm
students
for
people
that
are
living
far
away,
and
thank
you
thank
you
for
your
consideration
and
time.
J
C
K
Stephanie
benonato
PO,
Box,
one601,
Santa,
Fe,
New,
Mexico
I,
think
you
know
that
what
the
Board
needs
to
look
at
is
a
design
and
compatibility,
and
things
like
that
and
process.
Excuse
me
design
and
process
and
I
think
that
the
speakers
from
the
Old
Santa
Fe
Association
brought
up
many
good
points.
I
think
a
tolling
of
the
period,
if
that
would
be
acceptable
for
a
few
weeks
to
see
if
a
land
transfer
is
possible,
is
a
good
idea
because
it
would
set
that
building
back.
K
For
me,
it
still
overwhelms
the
historic
building.
I
don't
find
it
compatible,
especially
from
the
East
side
at
all
and
I
do
feel,
like
the
you
know
that
the
board
is
being
hit
over
the
head
repeatedly
with
the
idea
that
this
is
a
state
school,
a
state.
You
know
State
Property
State,
this
and
I
understand
that
legally
and
all
that
stuff
about
the
anti-donation
Clause.
K
But
there
are
ways
around
it
and
I
point
out
that
a
cafeteria
was
built
and
you
talked
about
how
hard
that
was,
but
that
is
on
as
I
understand
it,
the
non-profit
land.
So
I
don't
understand
why
that
can't
be
worked
out
and
it
can
be
set
back
a
little
bit
more
so
that
again
at
least
that
historic
building
really
is
much
more
prominent
than
it
is
even
with
the
slight
setback
that
they
have
given.
Thank
you
very
much.
J
B
You
okay,
thank
you,
heather.
That
brings
the
discussion
back
to
the
board.
Just
a
few
comments
from
me
before
we
go
to
broader
broad
board
discussion.
B
You
know
with
regard
to
members
of
osva
who
are
here
tonight
and
osfas
participation
in
this
process.
You
know
a
few
notes
of
appreciation.
I
think
I'm,
I'm,
always
happy
that
members
of
the
Old
Santa
Fe
Association,
are
invested
in
our
community
and
are
invested
in
public
process.
Come
to
these
hearings,
deliver
public
comment:
it's
a
model
of
public
participation
and
engagement
that
others,
other
individuals
and
other
participation.
Other
groups
in
this
community
can
learn
from
that
said.
Osfa
is
not
the
only
preservation
group
in
town.
B
They
are
not
the
only
community
group
in
town,
our
historic
preservation
division,
our
historic
ordinance
and
this
historic
District's
review
board
does
not
exist
for
the
audience
of
osfa
and
osfa.
Only
there
were
accusations
of
City
staff,
not
the
and
and
the
applicant
working
and
not
being
transparent.
My
view
on
this
process
is
that
it's
very
well
defined.
B
We
had
a
hearing-
or
we
had
this
case
presented
to
us
before,
and
this
board
deliberated
on
the
design
and
delivered
comments
and
revised
those
comments
per
that
process,
and
we
are
fortunate
to
have
a
very
qualified
City
staff
that
worked
per
the
board's
direction
to
to
to
move
to
to
work
with
the
applicant
to
move
the
design
forward.
This
is
a
volunteer
board.
The
the
public
has
only
a
certain
amount
of
time
to
come
to
these
hearings.
We
have
working
members
of
this
board.
B
This
is
not
a
forever
process
of
workshop
and
Designs.
Some
designs
do
not
require
that
level
of
constant
back
and
forth.
I
do
not
understand
what
the
end
game
is
of
of
derailing
this
project,
complicating
the
process
or
trying
to
usurp
the
authority
of
this
board
at
this
juncture
in
time
delivering
a
decision
on
what's
at
hand.
B
That
said,
we
have
very
qualified
people
on
this
board.
I
am
anxious
to
hear
what
their
impressions
of
the
revised
design
are
and
and
what
motion
they
would
like
to
take
tonight.
F
Remember
new.
Thank
you.
Chair
Guido,
just
make
a
few
observations,
particularly
since
I
wasn't
at
the
last
hearing.
So,
as
has
been
mentioned,
I
think,
what's
important
to
me
in
this
particular
case,
is
that
this
area
at
which
the
school
is
situated
in
my
mind,
is
extremely
compromised
from
an
historical
point
of
view,
I
think
it's
a
very
important
part
of
Santa
Fe.
In
fact,
in
some
ways
it's
becoming
the
most
vibrant
area
of
Santa,
Fe,
I.
F
Think
a
big
reason
for
that
includes
the
fact
that
we
have
a
residential
Art
School,
attracting
students
from
all
over
the
country
or
all
over
the
state
in
that
particular
area
right
on
the
very
edge
of
downtown.
So
that
to
me
is
a
very
important
factor
in
what
we're
considering
is
the
usage
of
this
property,
even
though
it's
in
an
historic
district.
If
we
look
at
the
historic
Maps,
it
is
literally
barely
in
a
very
tiny
corner
of
the
West
Side
Guadalupe
District,
which
is
really
designed
to
protect.
F
What's
on
the
sides
of
this
particular
property,
that
really
isn't
an
issue
with
this
particular
building.
The
sides
of
this,
the
property
that
are
an
issue
here-
are
the
the
East
and
the
South,
and
that
faces
properties
that
are
non-contributing
structures
that
are
non-contributing
and
non
a
non-historic
district.
It's
actually
on
the
very
edge
we
think
of
that.
As
an
historic
district,
because
we
have
several
very
significant
buildings,
we
had
the
Halton,
which
has
been
frankly
destroyed
by
the
state,
but,
more
importantly,
we
have
the
depot
and
we
have
the
gross
Kelly
Warehouse.
F
Those
are
significant
structures,
but
they're,
not
in
a
historic
district
and
really
I.
Think
what's
become
clear
in
that
particular
area.
Is
that
the
School
for
the
Arts
has
become
one
end
of
what
is
really
a
rail
yard,
Arts
District,
which
has
something
of
its
own
architectural
Integrity,
including
a
few
historic
buildings,
but
mainly
non-historic
buildings.
F
So
all
that
said,
I
think
that's
the
context
I
take
have
in
mind
when
I'm
reviewing
this
particular
project
and
the
brick
building
is
a
beautiful
building.
My
office
was
there
for
years,
I'm
very
fond
of
it
I'm
emotionally
attached
to
it,
but
the
governing
body
has
already
said
it's
not
contributed,
so
we're
very
limited
in
how
much
we
can
do
to
protect
that
particular
building
with
respect
to
structures
that
are
being
built
next
to
it.
F
In
my
view,
the
most
important
factor
in
deciding
what
this
building
should
look
like
is:
is
it
in
general
harmony
with
well
I
would
call
The
Rail
Yard,
Arts
District
and
not
necess,
and
not
in
actual
conflict
with
our
historic
ordinance,
and,
secondly,
is
it
in
harmony
with
this
campus
Because.
This
campus
has
already
been
highly
developed.
Sambusco
itself,
no
longer
really
exists
as
an
historic,
a
property
and
I.
F
Think
what's
critical
is
that
we
not
add
accretions
to
this
campus
that
are
inconsistent
with
the
development
that's
already
taken
place
there
and
I
think
that
what's
been
done
in
this
revised
plan
is
very
favorably
disposed
towards
that
end.
F
I
I
think
that
there's
still
in
my
mind,
one
major
concern
and
that's
these
facade,
these
facade,
I,
think
the
treatment
of
the
materials
is
a
vast
Improvement,
but
even
though
I
think
the
window
treatment
is
better
and
the
massing
is
better,
but
it
still
does
give
something
of
an
impression
of
elevator
shafts
of
a
commercial
building.
F
On
that
facade
and
I
understand
that
there
was
some
indication,
perhaps
that
there
would
be
an
openness
to
further
consideration
of
modification
of
that
facade,
elevation,
I'm,
not
sure
where
that
leaves
us
tonight,
because
that's
my
main
concern
I
would
like
to
see
some
resolution
to
that
without
having
to
go
through
the
review
board
process.
But
we
have
very
little
time
remember.
F
I
think
that's
yes,
it
just
I
mean
it's
I,
think
it's
an
improvement
from
what
was
there
previously,
but
that
to
me
is
that
is
the
most
important
part
of
this
property.
F
Obviously,
because
the
real
view
we
have
of
the
school
now
is
from
Montezuma
Street
I
know:
there's
been
some
discussion
of
the
Gateway
from
the
depot,
but
the
fact
is
no
one
would
approach
that
I,
don't
think
from
the
depot,
because
they
would
they
disembark
on
the
other
side
of
the
tracks,
they
would
walk
to
Montezuma
and
then
enter
the
main
entrance
and
I
I
really
don't
have
a
huge
problem
any
longer,
with
the
separate
with
the
depth
of
separation
of
the
East
facade
as
compared
to
the
brick
building
I,
don't
think
that
would
make
it
enormous
difference,
even
if
it
was
flush
with
the
brick
building
or
even
set
back
I.
F
F
I,
don't
think
they're
unattractive
and
I
think
it's
an
improvement
from
what
was
previously
proposed,
but
I
would
have
a
bit
of
concern
about
adding
too
many
more
material
changes
that
are
inconsistent
with
the
rest
of
what's
already
on
the
campus
or
what
is
proposed
for
any
future
additions
to
the
campus.
So
I
don't
know
if
that
material
exists
already
on
the
on
the
property,
but
that
would
be
my
one
concern
about
that
particular
choice.
D
Thank
you,
I
just
quickly
want
to
say
thank
you
so
much
to
everyone
who
spoke
tonight.
The
involvement
from
the
public
is
always
valued
by
this
board.
I
appreciate
osfa's
comments
on
the
process
and
I
particularly
appreciate
the
students
who
spoke
like
being
able
to
advocate
for
yourselves
at
such
a
young
age
is
impressive
and
will
serve
you
well
throughout
your
life.
So
thank
you
very
much.
It's
not
always
easy
to
do
that.
D
I.
Think
in
terms
of
the
functionality
of
the
school
is,
is
something
I've
been
thinking
about
in
terms
of
preservation
and
the
role
that
this
board
plays
in
supporting
State
projects,
as
well
as
balancing
that
with
the
historic
agenda.
I
think
that
the
location
of
this
particular
School
in
downtown
Santa
Fe
is
perfect.
D
You
know
for
an
Arts,
an
arts-focused
school
I.
Imagine
the
concentration
of
gallery
buildings
around
the
school
is
Meaningful
and
supportive
of
the
students
who
attend
the
school,
but
also
their
presence.
Their
creativity
and
enthusiasm
probably
supports
that
Community
as
much
as
any
as
anything
else.
D
D
I
think
the
project
has
done
a
good
job
of
straddling
the
rail
yard
and
the
historic
district
objectives,
as
the
applicant
has
stated
its
place
between
the
two
and
that's
that
the
design
is
now
reflective
of
the
two
I
think
the
more
monotone
color
scheme
allows
for
the
gallery
to
be
highlighted,
which
is
one
of
the
board's
requests.
D
The
material
changes
are
considerate
of
the
surrounding
buildings,
I'm
I'm,
not
so
concerned
with
the
setback.
I
appreciate
the
six
feet
that
was
achieved
in
the
redesign
and
I
feel
like
possibly
Landscaping
will
be
important
to
sort
of
soften
that
edge
and
I.
Imagine
with
with
what's
there
now
that
that
will
also
be
a
focus
of
the
project.
D
I
feel
like
this
school
is
beginning
to
Define.
A
different
use
for
this
portion
of
the
rail
yard,
and
it's
prominence
and
close
being
close
to
the
street
is
okay
with
me.
I
think
that
that
it
needs
to
be
noticed,
it's
it's
there
like
the
signage
right
on
the
front
there
and
I,
don't
see
a
reason
to
you
know,
based
on
design
to
delay
the
project.
F
Yes,
that
reminded
me
of
another
comment
that
I
was
going
to
make
or
a
question
actually
I
I
do
have
some
concerns
about
the
sign.
This
might
seem
very
trivial
after
everything
else
we've
been
discussing,
but
the
the
lettering
really
strikes
me
as
inappropriate
on
that
particular
building
and
I.
Don't
know
if
that
was
a
design
is,
if
that's
an
important
part
of
the
design
or,
if
you're
willing
to
to
adhere
to
our
20-inch
height
rule
for
our
lettering,
especially
since
you
already
have
a
very
prominent
lettering
sign
over
the
main
entrance.
N
As
far
as
the
signage,
that
was
just
a
graphic
representation,
of
course,
you
know
we
would
have
to
come
in
with
our
sign
permit
and
get
it.
You
know
reviewed
and
and
permitted
again.
It
was
just
a
graphic
in
our
kind
of
design
process,
and
so
we
we
were
very
receptive
to
looking
at
that
signage
critically
and
complying.
Thank
you
good.
I
N
M
I
wanted
to
just
add
one
more
comment
which
is
just
about
the
process
in
general
and
I'm
I'm,
just
hoping
again,
I'm
being
new.
This
has
all
been
sort
of
a
mystery
to
me.
I
had
a
huge
learning
curve,
but
hearing
all
the
comments
tonight
positive
and
negative,
it
sounds
like
there
was
a
lot.
M
There
wasn't
a
whole
lot
of
cohesion
and
understanding
of
the
process
and
I'm
hoping
that
this
particular
case
might
serve
as
a
model
for
for
future
cases,
where
there's
more
clarity,
maybe
more
communication,
more
opportunity
for
that
as
referenced
by
Old
Santa,
Fe
Association.
So
I'd
just
like
to
speak
again
to
the
process
and.
A
Charlie
I
just
have
one
alteration
of
on
those
sample:
motions,
there's
or
rather,
recommendations
those
recommendations.
There's
one
two
and
three
there's
just
a
slight
alteration
of
verbiage:
the
in
the
and
the
first
two.
A
F
Thank
you,
madam
chair
I
still
need
a
I
think
clarification
from
the
Carly
and
or
Frank
on
how
we
can
permit
ongoing
design
consultation
with
respect
to
these
facades.
Since
the
applicant
I
believe-
and
you
can
confirm
whether
this
is
true-
has
indicated
that
they're
prepared
to
entertain
additional
design
alternatives
on
the
East
facade.
A
Thank
you,
member
bienvenue,
chair
members
of
the
board.
I
think
it
really
has
to
be
a
specific
due
to
the
timeline.
So
if
there
is
a
there's,
a
couple
routes
so
well
one
main
route.
If
you
have
a
specific
condition
that
needs
to
be
described
so
I
think
that
made
requires
a
little
bit
more
discussion
by
the
board
potentially
and
then,
let's
see
and
then
I
think
I
I
can't
answer
to
the
toggling
of
the
time
period.
But
I'll
pass
that
over
to
legal.
B
G
I
can
add
I
think
the
important
thing
here
is
Mr
acting
chair
is
that
we
cannot
leave
the
meeting
imposing
some
conditions
that
the
applicant
has
not
specifically
said.
Yes,
we
can
and
will
meet
those
conditions,
because,
if
you
impose
conditions-
and
the
applicant
says
well
and
we'll
take
that
into
consideration
to
get
back
to
you
and
the
60-day
window
lapses
for
us
to
invoke
The,
Joint
state
and
local
design
review
board,
we
will
not
get
that
option.
B
N
Thank
you,
member
benvenue
board
members.
So,
in
response
to
the
the
comments
that
were
provided
and
the
desire
to
provide
more
window
on
that
East
Elevation
to
create
more
interest,
we
feel
it's
appropriate
to
add
additional
windows
that
still
preserve
the
Privacy.
That's
required
in
those
residential
units
that
are
on
that
Southeast
Corner
I'd
have
to
go
back
to
the
plan,
but
I
believe
that
that
space
on
the
interior
is
a
living
space
for
the
resident
supervisor,
as
well
as
a
bedroom
on
both
the
first
and
second
floor.
N
So
we
would
be
open
to
adding
some
clear
story:
Windows,
something
that
is
architecturally
appropriate
and
proportionally
appropriate
in
those
two
spaces.
As
far
as
these
stairwells,
we
can
take
a
look
at
the
landing
locations
and
again
adding
a
window
on
that
second
floor
to
again
provide
some
more
fenestration
and
interest.
I.
N
Well,
you
know,
as
and
I
don't
need
to
remind
you
of
this,
but
we
are
dealing
with
minors
living
there
and
making
sure
that
their
home
is
secure
and
private.
B
N
B
Think
the
suggestion
for
additional
Windows,
where
possible
and
and
the
and
perhaps
the
resolution
is
that
the
the
vertically
United
windows
that
are
on
the
East
most
portion
of
the
north
facade
that
face
the
courtyard
that's
in
front
of
the
Italian
Aid
building.
They
do
not
go
to
the
parapet.
They
allow
the
parapet
to
continue
over
the
window.
I
think
that's
a
much
better
solution
to
that
problem
and
one
that
probably
can
and
result
in
a
clear
recommendation
from
this
board.
F
Think
that
their
initial
consultations,
as
mandated
by
the
ordinance
and
the
statute
with
the
applicant,
resulted
in
a
much
better
building,
I'm,
sorry
that
it
doesn't
meet
with
all
of
their
concerns,
which
I
do
understand,
but
I
think
their
involvement
was
extremely
important
and
I
would
also
say
that
I
I
agree
that
that
perhaps
the
consultation
process
might
have
been
followed
a
little
more
deliberately
by
perhaps
in
that,
creating
a
committee
to
consult
directly
with
the
applicant.
F
H
G
E
Real
quick
point
of
discussion:
member
Bienvenu
I'm
wondering
I
hate
to
arbitrarily
name
a
number
of
windows,
but
I'm
just
wondering
if,
for
example,
only
one
small
clear
story
window
were
added
were,
would
we
be
satisfied
with
that
or
do
we
want
to
kind
of
narrow
in
on
what
we're
looking
for
in
terms
of
quantity
or
size
I
wish
we
had
a
study
to
respond
to
again
because
I
don't
want
to
arbitrarily
say
two
windows,
but
I.
Don't
know
that
one
would
be
would
satisfy
what.
F
E
F
N
Yes,
board
members
more
than
one
window
is
acceptable.
Good.
B
Good
to
know
we're
cool,
okay,
roll
call
vote.
B
Thank
you
very
much
we're
moving
on
to
the
next
case:
110
Kaya,
Le
Pena.
This
is
Carly's
case.
B
A
A
Thank
you,
chair,
I
am
all
right.
We
are
looking
at
case
number
2022,
uh-005471.hcrb.
A
This
is
110
Kyle
opinion
coming
back
to
us,
so
I'm,
just
gonna
go
very
very
briefly
through
this,
because
we
saw
this
pretty
recently.
In
this
case,
we're
looking
at
a
contributing
building.
The
primary
facades
facade
are
that
East
Elevation
is
highlighted
there.
A
Here's
some
of
the
old
pictures
that
we
saw
and
a
couple
pictures
from
the
street
elevations
that
are
also
in
your
packet
but
I'm
going
to
get
us
to
some
of
the
changes
that
we're
seeing
so
an
exception
has
now
been
requested
for
the
raising
of
the
parapet
height
by
one
foot,
nine
inches
over
the
garage
per
the
board's
recommendation,
the
other
so
I
pulled
from
the
minutes
at
the
at
the
October
25th
hearing
exactly
what
the
statement
around
other
statements
around
the
concerns
that
the
board
had,
that
is
in
the
staff
report,
okay,
and
so
what
I
I
was
looking
at
specifically
was
have
these?
A
Have
these
concerns
been
have
they
been
resolved
so
because
the
the
primary
issue,
the
last
time
we
saw
this
case-
was
the
style
of
the
doors
being
very
much
so
much
change.
So
much
change
on
the
building
and
so
much
change.
A
Specifically,
with
the
doors
and
windows,
the
doors
being
particularly
out
of
the
style,
so
one
of
the
items
that
the
board
had
conditioned
on
this
or
was
hoping
to
have
come
back
to
them,
was
the
door
replacement,
should
add
a
vertical
division
on
the
light
pattern
for
most
of
the
doors,
with
the
exception,
it
was
currently
proposed
in
the
primary
facade
and
the
large
studio
window
on
the
East
facade,
noting
that
it
had
significant
character,
defining
features
and
should
be
retained
or
replaced
as
if
possible.
A
Sorry,
not
if
possible
or
if
replaced
the
existing
light.
Pattern
should
be
reproduced.
A
Okay,
so
that
said
here
here
are
the
updated
versions,
and-
and
this
is
that
that
large
window
on
all
right,
I
think
I
had
it
on
on
the
East
facade
in
my
staff
report,
and
that
is
incorrect.
A
This
is
on
the
North
facade.
So
that
is
one
clarification
that
I
should
make
now.
The
other
changes
that
were
made
in
the
that
the
board
requested
was
to
retain
the
the
retain
the
doors
as
much
as
possible.
A
So
we've
seen
this
door
on
the
far
right
being
retained,
we're
seeing,
let's
see
I'm
going
the
wrong
way
there
we're
seeing
some
alterations
of
different
Windows
that
were
they
were
the
slight
alteration
in
the
window
pattern
here
and
then
I
think,
let's
see
the
courtyard
doors
were
also
there's
a
door.
There
that's
been
retained.
Now
that
said,
I
do
have
the
architect
and
the
designers
here
that
can
go
over
specifically
why
they
decided
to
go
with
some
suggestions
and
not
others.
A
That
said
Steph
just
fine
staff
still
feels
that
the
exception
criteria
for
E
sorry
14-5.2
e1a,
which
pertains
to
the
doors
still
hasn't,
been
fully
resolved,
but
the
board
may
find
that
they
have
with
further
testimony
that
said,
I
recommend
the
raising
of
the
parapet
height.
Now,
just
as
a
reminder,
the
board
is
making
a
recommendation
to
the
governing
body.
A
For
that
exception,
those
are
both
those
exceptions
so
and
if
I
don't
know,
I
believe
all
of
our
members,
I'm
getting
odd,
looks
so,
as
announced
in
our
last
hearing.
Exceptions
that
do
not
pertain
to
height
and
mass
in
the
code
are
read
very
specifically
as
being
recommendations
to
the
governing
body.
A
A
text
amendment
is
being
requested,
but
while
this,
while
that
is
taking
place,
that
still
has
to
go
to
the
governing
body
and
I
can
referther
questions
to
our
legal
staff
on
that.
If
we
want
to
talk
further
about
that.
A
Thank
you
chair.
It
would
be
on
the
consent.
It
would
be
on
the
honest.
So
unless
it
gets
pulled
from
the
consent
agenda
for
discussion,
it
would
be
noted,
for
approval
is
typically
how
that
would
go.
H
B
D
A
Is
not,
it
is
our
legal
advisement.
D
So
I
mean
I,
don't
want
to
delay
our
agenda
here,
but
I
I
really
do
not
think
that
we
should
change
Midstream
without
a
formal
direction
from
the
governing
body.
On
this
we've
been
operating
under
a
precedent
where
we
approve
exceptions.
The
applicants
are
coming
to
us
with
cases
that
were
filed
under
that
assumption
and
I
I
really
until
somebody
tells
us
you
know
formally
that
that's
a
change
in
our
code
or
a
change
in
our
interpretation.
The
years
of
precedent
just
didn't
seem.
It
doesn't
seem
right
to
me.
A
Thank
you,
member
B,
shite
members
of
the
board
chair.
We
do
have
I'm
just
going
to
direct
us
to
the
assistant
land
use
director,
who
has
her
hand
raised.
Thank.
J
You
Carly
yes
with
reference
to
this
particular
concern.
We
do
understand
that
this
is
a
change,
and
we
understand
also
that
the
the
board
is
the
most
well
suited
to
act.
J
On
these
cases
of
exceptions,
we
will
be
sending
this
legislation
to
the
governing
body
as
soon
as
possible,
referencing
the
practice
and
how
it
should
be
in
code,
so
that
it
is
abundantly
clear
that
the
board
will
continue
in
its
capacity
to
act
on
exceptions,
and
the
only
reason
it
would
go
to
the
governing
body
is
with
with
an
appeal
in
those
particular
cases.
J
So
we
will
be
starting
that
immediately
and
we
understand
the
concern
that
the
board
has
expressed
and
the
governing
body
has
not
made
any
requests
for
this
state.
It
specifically
has
come
from
the
city,
attorney's
office,.
G
And
Mr
acting
chair,
if
I
could
be
heard
on
this
matter
too.
G
I
understand
that
this
is
a
departure
of
the
procedure
that
we
followed
at
least
the
entire
time
I've
been
here
and
I
started
in
September
of
2021.,
so
I've
been
here
a
little
over
a
year,
and
but
this
is
the
matter
that
I'm
his
mccherry,
the
City
attorney
and
I
were
reviewing
the
city
code
with
respect
to
the
proper
procedure
regarding
the
the
sign
at
I
believe
that
addresses
something
like
75
Santa
Old
Santa
Fe
Trail,
the
Lucchesi
Clothier.
G
What
happens
when
does
the
board
have
the
authority
to
review
sign
exceptions
and,
what's
supposed
to
happen
with
respect
to
those
exceptions
as
they
apply
to
science?
Well,
as
we
reviewed
subsection
14-5.2
some
seconds.
B
B
Understand
the
point,
the
points
being
made
by
remember:
Beachside
and
I
agree
with
this
one,
and
it's
the
one
that
I
voiced
last
time
is
that
this
this
issue
is,
is
an
inconvenience
caused
by
the
city
attorney's
office
that
has
inconvenienced
this
board
of
inconvenience.
Applicants
I
think
that's!
That's
the
sentiment,
that's
being
expressed
a
share
that
that
sentiment.
B
I,
don't
want
to
spend
any
more
time
on
this
than
necessary
if
it
is
the
case
that
we
cannot
proceed
under
precedent
as
we
have
been
for
decades,
then
this
issue
I
appreciate
City's
staff's
attempts
to
resolve
this
issue
as
quickly
as
possible.
This
is
not
on
the
agenda
tonight.
I
do
not
want
to
go
into
this
in
depth.
G
Well,
I:
ask
that
you
do
you.
You
do
make
a
decision
with
respect
to
this
exception
and
make
a
recommendation
to
the
governing
body,
but
I
can
assure
you,
the
City
attorney
staff
and
I
recognize
the
subject
matter.
Expertise
of
this
board
and
and
I
can
assure
you
that
the
decision
we've
made
that
the
code
requires
the
exceptions
to
be
recommendations
to
the
governing
body
is
not
in
any
way
an
expression
of
a
lack
of
con
confidence
in
this
board.
G
D
I
just
clarify
what
Heather
said
are
we
are
we
able
to
approve
exceptions
tonight
until
this
is
resolved
with
the
governing
body,
as
we
have
in
the
past.
J
A
commission
I'm
sorry
board
member
which
had
we
will
be
making
a
recommendation
tonight
to
the
governing
body
or
the
board
will
be
if
you
choose
to,
and
then
we
as
staff
will
take
that
to
the
governing
body.
Further
consideration.
We
are
working
on
a
process
so
that
it
is
a
consent,
agenda
item
and
will
not
involve
de
novo
hearing
again
in
front
of
the
governing
body.
I
think
the
governing
body
and
I
can't.
J
D
Yeah
I,
don't
I,
don't
have
any
concern
about
you
know
our
qualifications
or
the
I
don't
perceive
that
this
stuff
is
second
guessing
what
we're
doing
it's
just
that
the
way
we've
been
operating
for
my
the
entire
time
I've
been
on
this
board
is
to
approve
exceptions
and
I,
don't
I
don't
and
the
way
the
the
legal
staff
has
advised
us
is
when
we
have
a
trouble
interpreting
the
code
AS
written.
D
This
has
not
been
an
issue
before
I
I
appreciate
the
new
opinion,
but
I
really
feel
like
it
needs
to
be
formalized
by
the
governing
body.
Before
we
start
changing
the
way
we're
doing
business
I
mean
it's,
it
leaves
the
board
without
a
tether
to
the
code
that
we've
been
implementing
for
in
one
way,
for
a
very
long
time
and
I'd
appreciate
Maybe.
D
F
Well,
I
hear
what
the
city
attorney's
saying
so
I
completely
share
the
frustration,
but
I
think
that
the
City
attorney
and
staff
are
equally
frustrated
with
the
interpretation
that
they've
reached
and
the
way
I
understand.
What's
being
conveyed
and
I
can
see
from
the
code.
The
way
the
code
is
written.
Why
they
ended
up
in
this
place
is
that
new
City
attorney
New
City
attorney
new
assistance.
City
attorneys
have
reviewed
a
specific
provision
of
the
ordinance
and
noted
something
that
I
think
stood
out
to
me
originally,
but
I
thought.
F
Maybe
there
was
a
resolution
overcoming
it
the
way
the
language
reads
it
does
sound
as
if
governing
bought.
The
governing
body
is
the
entity
which
actually
gives
exceptions
and
that
this
body
makes
recommendations.
So
I
think
that
we're
stuck
with
relying
on
and
even
being
required
to
abide
by
the
city,
attorney's
advice
on
that
issue.
It's
the
way
I
see
it.
D
F
I
had
always
assumed
that
the
delegation
had
taken
place
too
and
that's
why
we
proceeded
as
we
did,
but
again,
I
would
defer
to
City
attorney,
who
I
think
were
obligated
to
follow
their
their
point
of
view
unless
instructed
otherwise
by
by
the
government
body.
B
We
so
we
are
going
to
proceed
with
recommendations
tonight
or
the
direction
of
the
land
use
Department
Heather
do
we
have
a
timeline
for
either
the
the
text,
edit
resolution
or
a
working
resolution
from
governing
body
where
we
don't
have
to
do
this
every
two
weeks.
J
So
Carly
and
I
are
working
together
on
what
the
text
should
say
and
then
we
need
to
draft
or
introduce
that
to
the
board,
but
also
first,
we
need
to
get
review
from
the
city
attorney's
office,
an
agreement
that
that's
the
most
appropriate
text
to
give
in
a
legal
framework.
So
you
know
it's
the
hope
that
we
would
introduce
something
to
the
governing
body
by
just
knowing
the
holidays
and
only
one
for
very
little
time
to
get
on
a
governing
body
agenda
given
notice
requirements.
J
It
would
be
at
the
beginning
of
the
year
that
hopefully
we
can
measure
this
through
the
process
and
I
would
estimate
a
three
to
six
month.
Process.
D
For
sure
all
right
this,
this
is
the
last
thing
I'll
say:
does
the
governing
body
understand
that
it's
being
added
to
the
consent
agenda
and
are
they
okay
with
that
process?
This
is
something
they
haven't
been
doing.
D
J
Commissioner,
bishide
will,
with
reference
today,
I'm
not
certain
that
the
governing
body
knows
at
this
point
so
and
we
are
working
with
the
city
attorney's
office
too,
and
governing
and
the
city
clerk's
office
and
appropriate
staff
to
to
try
to
get
it
on
a
consent
agenda
type
of
framework.
But
we
do
not
have
an
answer
for
that.
Yet,
unfortunately,.
A
A
member
B
scheide
members
of
the
board-
it
was
brief,
I
think
it
was
briefly
considered
in
this
process,
but
not
knowing
what
that
Outlook
is
going
to
be
for
the
timeline
holding
up
I
think
the
idea
that
we
would
potentially
hold
up
folks
projects
for
a
substantial
amount
of
months
rather
than
getting
on
a
consent
agenda
was
very
concerning.
D
A
And
I
think
that
was
something
that
was
also
considered
or
spoke
about
with
internally,
but
we
are
all
working
together
on
this
to
try
to
come
out
with
the
best
best
solution
possible
on
it
from
there
I
think
for
tonight.
As
far
as
tonight
is
concerned,
it
still
means
that
we
will
be
recommending
to
the
governing
body
and
I
hate
to
turn
us
away
from
this
conversation
too
quickly,
but
when
the
board
is
ready,
we'll
continue
on
the
case
matter.
B
Remember
Beachside.
Thank
you
for
racing
this
issue
it's
important
and
it
should
be
clear
to
the
City
attorney
that
the
board
does
not
agree
with
this
step
and
that
every
attempt
should
be
made
to
resolve
this
as
quickly
as
possible.
Let's
move
on
to
this
case.
Please
we
have
the
applicant.
D
C
B
Hi
Peter
in
the
interest
of
time,
every
five
minute
presentation.
Please
tell
us
what
has
changed
since
last
time,
how
you
responded
to
our
comments.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
L
AB
The
first
thing
the
board
suggested
raising
this
parapet
where
we
have
an
existing
cable
railing
existing
this
raised.
Raising
this
parapet.
We've
done
that.
Oh,
that
was
a
good
suggestion.
AB
The
board
also
suggested
we
keep
the
carved
as
many
cardboard
doors
as
we
could
or
wanted
to
I
guess:
I'm,
not
sure
there
was
no
real,
clear
guidance
necessarily,
but
they
appreciated
the
car
doors
and
and
we
and
we
identified
some
of
the
most
special
ones
and
this
front
door
we're
keeping
the
this
big
panel
door
on
the
back
here,
we're
keeping
in
the
back
the.
AB
Carved
door
on
the
studio
space,
Also,
two
interior,
Courtyard
Doors
number
said
17
and
18.,
but
the
don't
show
in
these
elevations
and
then
there
was
also
a,
and
there
was
a
lot
of
discussion
about
the
doors
and
there
was
a
discussion
about
the
amount
of
glazing
in
the
doors
because
we
were
showing
full
glazed
doors
and
now
we're
showing
a
solid
panel
at
the
bottom
of
all.
These
publicly
visible
doors,
really
most
of
the
exterior
doors
that
were
proposing
changing,
are
glazed
with
a
solid
bottom
panel.
AB
There
are
only
three
doors
that
don't
that
have
a
full
glazing
and
those
all
face
that
into
inner
Courtyard
building
the
let's
see
we
also
in
this
this
facade
here
at
the
back
of
the
building.
AB
AB
AB
And
the
one
other
change
was,
there
was
a
talk
about
the
amount
of
uniformity
in
the
proposed
portals,
we're
adding
a
couple
of
portals,
and
we
just
made
a
much
simpler.
A
little
more
informal,
Timber
and
latia
put
the
portal
at
the
back
to
kind
of
make
that
create.
AB
AB
H
B
You
Peter
so
if
I
may,
the
I
think
the
direction
of
the
board
was.
There
was
some
concern
about
too
much
uniformity
in
the
in
the
replacement
strategy
for
Windows
and
Doors,
and
the
request
to
where
possible
you
know,
keep
existing
doors
and
also
to
to
kind
of
have
those
doors
have
a
less
contemporary
look.
B
The
comments
were
were
about
the
number
of
divided
lights
or
adding
a
vertical
I,
see
that
there's
an
alternate
solution
proposed
for
the
the
the
predominantly
publicly
visible
ones
where
we
get
a
kind
of
more
traditional.
Look,
this
graphic
with
the
panel
at
the
bottom
and
the
more
traditional
Hardware
is
helpful.
B
If
that's
a
fair
summary
may
I,
just
add
that
the
thing
that
really
wasn't
changed
significantly
was
the
the
proposal
for
the
replacement
of
the
studio
window
that
you
know
the
board's
Direction
was
that
there's
a
lot
of
character,
defining
elements
and
and
good
funkiness
to
this
house
in
some
of
the
historic
details,
one
of
the
things
that
was
recommended
was
was
the
possibility
of
retaining
that
light
pattern
of
that
studio
went
of
the
historic
Studio
window
would
is
it?
AB
AB
AC
That
the
I'm-
sorry
it's
a
Kevin
Scott
in
533,
Agua,
Fria,
Street
I-
think
it's
important.
This
is
a
non-historic
window,
as
indicated
by
by
the
hcpi,
also
by
the
the
window
survey
from
the
window
expert
that
we
hired
it's
a
non-historic,
non-conforming
and,
and
we
believe
very
inappropriate
window.
This
is
a
commercial
storefront
window
with
a
milled
aluminum
finish
it.
This
is.
It
was
of
this
size
and
it
is
a
commercial
window
because
it
is
not
possible
to
obtain
a
residential
window
with
this
expanse
of
undivided
glass.
AC
So
this
was
not
a
decision
that
was
made
for
aesthetic
reasons,
it's
a
necessity
and
that
that's
what
it
was
at
the
time-
and
it
still
would
be
today
it
would
be
a
commercial
store
for
a
window
that
would
have
to
replace
it.
There
is
no
residential
window
company.
That's
going
to
make
a
window
this!
This
large
I.
Don't
think
that
this
is
a
window
that
that,
when
I've
asked
staff
I've
asked,
would
you
allow
this
window
to
be
installed
in
the
district
today?
AC
And
the
answer
to
that
is
absolutely
not
I.
Don't
I
think
it's
worth
seeing
two
things
here.
The
first
is
this:
this
reference
to
an
artist
North
facing
window.
We've
heard
that
several
times
we
feel
strongly
that
that's
an
important
feature
that
that's
certainly
significant,
whether
it
actually
was
or
not,
is
not
important
or
whether
the
opening
is
historic
or
not
is
important.
That's
a
reference.
That's
that's,
I
think
relevant
and
important
to
the
district.
So
that's
an
important
thing.
AC
The
second
thing
is,
though,
and
I
and
I
would
ask
you
to
see
these
as
separate
things.
Is
a
commercial
storefront
window
the
appropriate
window
for
this
opening?
We
we
want
to
keep
this
as
a
an
artist's
North
facing
window.
We've
spent
Peter
and
I
have
spent
many
many
discussions
talking
about
what
is
the
right
window
for
this.
That
helps
reference
this,
as
as
a
North
facing
artist
window
I.
AC
Think
it's
worth
pointing
out
that
this
type
of
large,
undivided
glass
is
a
picture
window
and
if
you're,
if
you're,
building
your
home
on
the
Pacific
coast
and
you're
looking
out
at
Big
Sur,
then
you
want
a
big
window
with
no
divisions
in
it.
A
north-facing
window
is
the
purpose
of
that
is
to
let
light
in
it's
not
for
looking
out
I.
AC
Think
a
relevant
data
point
is
to
look
at
other
North
facing
Windows
to
kind
of
get
a
night
not
to
mimic
them,
but
just
as
a
reference,
because
this
is
an
important
feature
that
we're
referencing
important
to
the
district,
their
divided
light
windows
with
grids.
That's
you
know
if
you
think,
Cinco
pentotes
or
the
you
know,
Pueblo
Revival.
That's
what
you
see
this
is
you
know
it's
it's
not
something
that
references
the
building
in
any
way.
It's
it's
completely
random.
It
doesn't
support
the
mid-century
modern
character
of
the
building.
AC
It
I,
guess,
I
it
and
you
know,
I
know
that
staff
has
talked
about
Old,
Santa,
Fe
style,
I,
can't
think
of
anything,
that's
further
away
from
Old
Santa
Fe
style
than
this.
But,
more
importantly,
I
guess.
My
question
is:
is
this?
Is
this
something
that
you
think
belongs
in
the
district?
Do
you
think
this
contributes
I
mean
the
role
of
a
contributing
building
is
to
help
Define
the
characteristics.
You
know
the
of
the
district.
AC
Does
this
do
that
because
I
don't
know
what
staff
sees
but
I'll
tell
you
what
I
see
when
I
see
that
building
I
see
ego
I,
see
a
window
that
doesn't
reference
the
history
of
the
building,
I
see
a
window
that
doesn't
it
doesn't
affirm
the
mid-century
modern
architecture
of
the
of
the
front
face
of
the
building.
I
see
a
window
that
does
not
enhance
the
building's
sense
of
time
and
place.
I
see
a
window,
that's
not
not
sympathetic
or
not
appropriate.
For
Pueblo
architecture.
I
see
a
window.
AC
That's
not
not
good!
For
the
neighborhood
I
see
a
window
that
that
has
no
regard
for
its
role
in
defining
the
character
of
the
historic
district.
This
is
a
window
that
somebody
somebody
just
wanted
this
and
they
wanted
this,
because
this
is
what
they
wanted.
They
weren't
concerned
about
the
architecture
of
the
building
they
weren't
concerned
about
the
neighborhood
they
weren't
concerned
about
the
historic
district.
AC
B
E
AB
E
From
the
both
from
the
the
application
we
saw
last
time,
oh.
AB
You
know
yes,
they
did
get
slightly
narrower
because,
literally
you
know,
they're
19
windows
on
this
house,
I
think
in
14
or
15
of
them
are
these
steel
casement
windows
with
a
very
consistent
size
and
light
pattern,
and
we
and
I
made
these
windows
narrower
to
match
that
size
and
light
pattern
of
all
the
existing
Windows.
They.
I
AB
E
H
AB
E
I'll
look
I'll,
look
through
another,
while
other
board
members
make
a
comment,
and
just
my
take
on
the
studio
window.
E
I
think
I
agree
that
I
wouldn't
want
to
see
I
wouldn't
want
to
see
that
window
replaced
with
the
same
light
pattern,
because
it's
not
something
that
we
would
approve
today
as
a
new
window.
However,
I
do
still
think
that
it
adds
to
The
Eclectic
quality
of
the
building
and,
since
we're
I
think
essentially
replacing
all
the
other
windows,
with
the
exception
of
the
ones
that
are
in
the
primary
facade.
E
This
is
one
opportunity
to
to
preserve
this
one,
and
so
I
would
still
be
in
favor
of
keeping
it
as
is,
but
not
replacing
it
with
a
new
one.
That
maintains
the
same
light
pattern.
That's
all
alternative.
Thank.
L
Q
I've
been
sworn
in
hi:
this
is
Elizabeth
West
again
and
I
am
new
to
this
particular
bunch
of
drawings.
So
forgive
me
if
I'm
saying
something
inaccurately
here,
but
I
think
your
solution
for
the
big
gigantic
Northern
Light
Window
is
actually
pretty
much
in
keeping
and
I.
Think
you
have
the
freedom
to
do
that.
So
I
just
wanted
to
hop
up
and
tell
you
I
liked
your
solution
with
the
lights
going
around
like
that.
Q
Is
that
am
I
getting
that
correctly,
because
you
spent
such
a
long
time
defending
something
and
I
thought
well,
couldn't
he
just
round
That
Couldn't
he?
Why
wind
that
down
and
get
that
done,
because
I
think
your
solution
was
good
anyway,
that's
all
I
have
to
say
thank
you.
B
Thank
you
very
much
back
to
the
board
for
any
further
discussion
or
emotion.
F
F
Make
an
observation,
and
then
perhaps
emotion,
I
I,
think
your
redesign
really
took
into
account
almost
everything
we
brought
up.
So
you
know
that's
very
much
appreciated
and
it
really
is
a
nice
design.
As
we
said
last
time,
you
know
you
guys
have
done
a
great
job.
We
just
had
concerns
about
the
uniformity
that
was
being
brought
about
in
a
building
that
part
of
its
character
was
its
lack
of
uniformity.
The
only
thing
that
I
think
is
really
left
to
be
an
issue.
F
Is
this:
this
famous
North
facing
window
I'm
I'm
inclined
as
much
as
I
think
it
it
does
add
character
to
the
building
I'm
inclined
to
favor
the
ability
of
the
property
owner
to
modify
it,
given
that
it
is
non-historic,
given
that
it
is
entirely
out
of
keeping
with
the
rest
of
the
building,
even
when
it
was
put
in
and
given
that
it
would
not
be
approved
it
presented
to
us
today.
F
So
it
is
a
tough
call,
because
we
I
think
all
of
us
appreciate
the
small
unusual
and
telling
details
in
our
historic
houses-
and
this
is
one
of
them.
I,
don't
think
it's
quite
historic
enough,
though,
for
me
to
say
that
you
should
not
be
permitted
to
make
that
alteration
in
your
judgment
and
I
think
that
your
proposal
does
meet
the
re.
The
needs
that
we
have
of
at
least
retaining
the
unusual
opening.
That
does
speak
to
the
artistic
history
of
the
house
and
of
the
district.
F
So,
given
that,
with
all
due
respect
to
the
other
opinion
that
you
know,
I'm
very
sympathetic
with
as
well,
I
will
still
say.
I
would
make
a
motion
unless
there's
further
discussion,
that
in
case
2022-005471
hdrb
110,
Kai
La
Pena,
that
the.
A
Thank
you,
member
bienvenue,
chair
and
members
of
the
board.
Yes,
you
you
would.
There
is
the
addition
to
a
primary
facade,
which
is
that
raising.
L
A
Of
the
parapet
height
by
one
foot,
nine,
and
then
it
is
the
doors
that
are
out
of
character
with
Santa
Fe
style.
Now,
if
you
feel
that
that
is
now
not
applicable,
the
staff
does
feel
that
it's
still
the
proportions
and
dimensions
are.
But
if
you
feel
that
that's
not
applicable
is
UB
state
so
that
you
don't
feel
that
there's
no
exception
required.
F
Okay,
well
with
respect
to
parapet,
the
motion
would
include
a
finding
that
the
a
recommendation-
well
perhaps
a
finding
that
the
board
can
reach
that
the
parapet
proposal
does
not
damage
the
care
to
the
district
is
required
to
prevent
a
hardship
or
an
injury
to
the
public
welfare
and
strengthens
the
unique
heterogeneous
character.
The
city
for
the
reasons
set
forth
in
the
application
and
the
staff
report
and
with
respect
to
the
windows
and
doors
I,
would
find
that
exception
is
not
needed
in
this
case.
F
I
I
guess
I
should
be
clear
that
the
motion
that
I'm
making
is
not
that
the
exceptions
have
been
definitively
found
applicable,
but
but
rather
that
we're
making
a
recommendation
to
the
governing
body
that
that's
the
case.
B
B
Thank
you
on
to
new
business
next
case
is
1160
Camino
De
Cruz
Blanca
Heather.
This
is
your
case.
J
All
right,
so
can
you
hear
me
I
just
want
to
make
sure.
J
J
Sharon
Guida
and
members
of
the
board
I
am
here
to
present
the
follow-up
to
the
informational
session
that
we
had
on
September
13
2022
regarding
the
St
John's
College
Peterson
Center,
the
informational
sessions
sought,
advice
and
input
from
the
board
regarding
the
proposed
changes
to
the
Peterson
Center,
which
is
located
1160
Camino,
De,
Cruz
Blanca,
you
can
see
on
the
vicinity
map
the
site
is
approached
by
Community,
can
approach
by
Camino
mods
I
saw
or
Old
Santa
Fe
Trail
of
Camino
Cruz
Blanca
and
is
nestled
up
against
the
the
hillside
off
of
Chris
Blanca.
J
This
is
the
aerial
of
the
the
Peterson
Center
itself.
Please
note
the
the
plaza
that
is
in
front.
The
elevations
that
will
be
most
impacted
by
this
proposed
of
this
proposal
is
the
East
Elevation,
the
South
elevation
and
the
northeast
corner
of
the
building.
Additionally,
there
are
other
improvements
that
are
being
made
on
the
south
and
the
West
elevations
and
the
north
elevations
that
relate
to
HVAC
improvements,
as
well
as
to
Ada
accessibility
staff
has
no
concerns
with
those
proposed
changes.
J
My
focus
this
evening
will
be
really
discussion
of
the
the
additions
to
those
primary
facades.
This
is
a
significant
building
and
therefore
all
facades
are
considered
primary,
so
the
applicant
is
proposing
an
addition
in
what
is
known
as
the
Shep's
Garden
area
on
the
south
elevation.
In
addition
on
the
North
I'm.
Sorry,
the
East
Elevation
to
accommodate
for
an
exterior
access
down
to
the
to
the
the
ground
level,
as
well
as
some
changes
to
the
the
portal
that
was
previously
enclosed
and
the
bookstore
Edition
at
the
northeast
corner.
J
I'll
start
with
the
South
elevation
Edition.
This
is
a
lounge
Edition
for
student
Gathering.
Space
in
photographs
reveal
this
Chef's
Garden
that
you
can
see
the
the
plantings
of
junipers
and
trees
and
that
the
there's
a
seat
wall
as
well.
What
the
applicant
is
proposing
to
do
is
to
tuck
under
that
addition,
and
only
attach
to
that
South
elevation
there
in
that
Courtyard
area.
So
you
can
see
that
the
these
side
elevations
in
that
courtyard,
that
would
be
the
West
and
the
East
elevations-
won't
be
impacted
by
this
Edition.
J
In
fact,
it
would
just
be
that
sort
of
South
elevation
fenestration
here
staff
has
no
objection
to
that
proposed
elevation
with
reference
to
East
Elevation.
There
have
been
changes
over
the
years
to
the
site,
the
context
around
the
Peterson
Center,
so
you
can
see
here
with
a
historic
photograph
illustrating
the
grade
and
then
another
photograph
more
recent
that
illustrates
that
the
Peterson
Center
itself
used
to
be
somewhat
cut
off
from
the
areas
to
the
South.
With
with
these
retaining
walls
in
this
Plaza
area,
and
originally
there
was
access
out
towards
the
South
as
well.
J
This
is
an
illustration
or
the
user
photographs
of
the
building
that
was
added
in
the
the
2013
to
2015
time
frame.
I
believe
the
applicant
can
probably
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
and
the
site
was
regraded
to
allow
for
more
direct
access
to
that
building.
So
you
can
see
that
there's
no
more
retaining
walls
here,
and
this
is
the
area
of
the
portal
that
was
previously
enclosed
and
then
this
area
here
the
the
stair,
was
removed
to
allow
for
this
access
point
to
the
the
Levin
Center
or
11
classroom
building.
J
So
on
the
East
Elevation
you
can
see
on
the
upper
is
the
the
existing
condition,
the
upper
illustration
with
the
portal
area
on
the
top
level,
no
stair
and
the
enclosed
portal
on
the
first
level
and
as
you
can
see
here,
that
stair
is
being
reintroduced
and
the
existing
portal
area
is
going
to
be.
J
There's
going
to
be
an
addition
to
that
to
sort
of
reintroduce
the
portal
element
that
there
was
there
originally,
as
well
as
an
enclosure
of
the
portal
to
the
to
the
Second
Story,
to
allow
for
some
Ada
accessibility
and
circulation
address
those
circulation.
Concerns
staff
has
no
concern
with
this
proposed
Edition
on
the
East
Elevation.
J
Finally,
with
reference
to
the
bookstore
Edition,
currently,
bookstore
is
occupying
a
smaller
space
in
the
building
and
would
like
to
expand.
There
is
a
coffee
shop
and
the
building
the
applicant
is
representing
that
there
are
concerns
with
making
any
changes
which
staff
supports
to
some
of
the
historic
elements
of
the
building,
including
mayorals,
though
the
historic
District's
review
award
does
not
have
jurisdiction
over
interior
Renovations.
Certainly,
we
do
support
the
the
proposed
not
impacting
those
spaces
just
to
provide
an
illustration.
J
The
Peterson
Center
figures
greatly
in
the
you
know,
approach
to
the
campus
as
well,
as
you
know,
as
one
not
only
drives
up
to
the
campus,
but
as
well
as
walking
into
the
campus.
This
is
the
area
of
the
corner
of
the
building
in
which
the
bookstore
Edition
is
proposed,
and
you
can
see
with
this
detail
here.
J
There
is
a
bit
of
a
step
back
into
you
know,
by
a
couple
to
three
feet:
approximately
from
the
the
front
of
the
face
of
the
building
into
the
where
the
access
is
currently
for
the
coffee
shop,
and
this
is
a
view
further
out
and
you
can
see
the
stepping
of
the
building
as
it
works
with
the
terrain.
J
This
is
the
existing
condition
once
again
that
reveal
illustrating
the
you
know
with
the
concrete
sort
of
portal
like
feature
the
proposed
Edition
is
you
know
another
solid
Mass
with
a
sort
of
mimicking
of
those
historic
features,
the
concrete
pilasters
and
such
and
in
the-
and
this
is
the
illustration
on
the
North
elevation,
where
the
stone
wall
has
been
carried
over
and
a
detail
reveals
that
there
would
be
approximately
three
to
four
inch
step
back
from
the
the
outer
plane
of
the
wall.
J
Staff
has
concerned
that
this
this
proposed
Edition
will
not
sufficiently
address
the
concern
with
reference
to
if
something
were
to
be
added
but
removed
in
the
future.
The
that
historic
Integrity
could
be
retained.
J
This
this
Edition
is
not
sensitive
in
in
its
approach
and
staff.
Unlike
the
South
elevation
that
addition
is,
is
more
permanent
in
nature.
J
That's
also
D5,
and
then
c1d
is
an
exception
to
permanent
new
construction
that
would
be
undertaken
in
a
manner
that,
if
removed
the
original
form
and
integrity
of
the
property,
an
environment
would
be
unimpaired.
So
staff
finds
that
the
exception
criteria
have
been
met
and
recommends
approval
for
those
proposed
editions
on
the
south
elevation.
The
Ada
improvements,
as
well
as
the
proposed
Edition
on
the
southern
portion
of
the
East
Elevation
and
then,
but
does
not
recommend
approval
for
the
proposed
bookstore
Edition
as
it
does
not
comply
with
the
aforementioned
Criterion
of
section
5.2
c1d.
B
Heather,
thank
you
very
much
for
the
abundantly
clear
and
concise
presentation
on
this.
It's
very
good
to
see
and
walk
through
the
project.
In
this
way,
just
a
couple
points
of
clarification,
I
take
it
that
staff
does
not
have
when
you
say,
staff
does
not
have
issue
with
this
proposal.
It
means
that
staff
believes
that
the
exception
criteria
have
been
met
in
those
the
in
the
instances
of
those
editions.
Those
two
editions
is
that
correct.
That's.
B
Then,
as
far
as
the
exception
criteria,
go
do
all
four
that
you
cited
apply
to
all
three
of
the
additions
and
it's
the
same
four
exceptions
in
play
for
each
Edition.
J
Waiting
with
reference
to
those
exception
criteria,
this,
let
me
just
go
ahead
and
pull
up
the
screen
again.
I'm
sorry
I
just
want
to
make
sure
it's
understood.
J
So
these
are
the
exception
criteria
with
with
reference
to
all
four.
They
do
apply
for
all
three
facades,
three
editions,
but
in
the
case
of,
for
instance,
the
South
elevation
and
East
elevations,
where
staff
has
no
objection,
it's
staff's
opinion
that
the
new
construction
is
under
taken
in
a
way
that
it
can
be
removed
without
impacting
the
Integrity
of
the
building.
But
the
bookstore
is
is
not
not
the
same.
So
yes,
all
four
criteria
apply,
but
that
one
last
Criterion
is
not
met
in
that
one
particular
case
in.
J
B
Project-
and
we
have
the
applicant
sworn
in-
please.
C
AD
AD
Name
is
Sean
Evans
principle
of
mass
Design
Group,
a
slight
change.
Our
company
has
changed
from
AOS
to
mass
Design
Group,
but
this
will
be
permitted
under
Mass
Design
Group.
My
address
is
1121
North
Luna,
Circle
87501.
B
I
saw
him,
given
that
we've
had
a
very
good
kind
of
walk
through
the
project
and
it
is
8
30.
What
more
do
you
have
to
add
if
any
to
to
Heather's
presentation.
AD
Thank
you
acting
chair,
great
I,
will
try
to
be
brief.
I
wanted
to
I
need
to
share
my
screen.
How
do
I
do
that.
A
If
you
ask
it
to
there,
we
go.
AD
So
this
this
is
a
diagram
that
was
in
our
initial
presentation.
We
did
not
include
it
in
the
in
the
most
recent
packet,
but
I
do
believe
it
is.
It
is
critically
important,
I
think
Heather
did
a
great
job
describing
the
the
changes
that
we've
made.
AD
We've
had
a
great
discussion
with
with
the
group
in
September,
and
we
we
took
your
advice
very
much
to
heart:
we've
really
scaled
back
the
the
the
boldness
of
the
additions,
so
that
they're
much
more
contextual,
we
believe
they're
still
appropriately
differentiated
but
I.
Think
one
of
one
of
the
one
of
the
critical
aspects
of
this
project
is
the
preservation
of
the
highly
significant
Interiors
by
Alexander.
Gerard
I.
AD
Understand
that
that's
not
within
the
purview
of
the
H
board
and
we're
not
asking
for
the
hdrb
approval
of
what
we're
doing
on
the
interior,
but
I
believe
because
it
is
the
it
is
really
the
determining
factor
for
how
we
went
about
this.
This
design
that
does
need
to
be
taken
into
account
again
we're
not
asking
for
approval
of
the
Interior,
but
we
need
you
to
understand
that
this
project
really
revolves
around
the
preservation
of
these
highly
significant
interiors
and
most
on
this
diagram.
AD
There
is
this
pink
wall
that
separates
the
bookstore
in
the
coffee
shop
and
if
we
are
not
able
to
produce
to
build
the
bookstore
Edition,
we
will
most
likely
have
to
demolish
that
highly
significant
Alexander
Gerard
interior
wall,
and
that
is
something
that
I
find
kind
of
crazy
and
outrageous.
But
it
will
be
the
position
that
you'll
box
us
into
real
quick.
AD
In
our
last
presentation,
we
were
also
asked
to
provide
some
in
more
information
on
the
context
of
the
campus
and
why
these
additions
are
necessary
on
the
Peterson
students
that
are
here,
we
see
the
the
Peterson
Student
Center
in
yellow
in
this
diagram
and
there's
a
series
of
parcels
that
make
up
the
campus
one
thing
to
note,
and
you
all
have
been
there
on
your
field
trip.
You
understand
this
is
a
hilly
site.
The
vast
majority
of
the
campus
is
actually
unbuildable.
AD
AD
There
are
two
central
campus
quads
shown
in
green
on
this
diagram
that
are
that
are
adjacent
to
the
student
center,
and
this
is
really
the
heart
of
the
campus
with
respect
to
the
the
lounge
additions,
and
we
greatly
appreciate
the
staff's
recommendation
for
approval
wanted
to
make
sure
that
the
the
committee
understands
the
board
understands
the
the
need
for
these
lounges.
Currently,
it's
hard
to
see
in
this
diagram
that
this
scale,
but
you've
seen
it
in
your
packet,
there's
a
series
of
red
dots
that
we've
placed
throughout
the
campus.
AD
These
are
all
the
existing
lounges
on
campus.
They
are
all
within
dormitories,
with
the
exception
of
one
in
the
new
Levin
Hall,
that
is
in
a
graduate
student
center.
So
there
are
no
shared
Lounge
spaces
within
academic
buildings
or
within
the
students
that
are
crazy.
The
Student
Center
doesn't
have
a
lounge,
but
it
doesn't
and
that's
a
critical
part
of
the
component.
The
other
thing
that
we're
that
is
important
on
this
diagram
is
the
pink
buildings
we're
showing
in
in
in
this.
AD
Let
me
see
if
I
can
there's
one
here,
there's
one
here,
there's
one
here.
These
do
not
exist
but
have
been
approved
on
the
city
on
the
college's
Land
Development
plan
that
was
approved
by
the
city
in
2009.
These
are
these
really
need
to
be
reserved
for
large-scale
academic
buildings,
we're
adding
a
we're,
adding
a
total
of
Less
Than
3
000
square
feet
to
a
forty
five
thousand
square
foot
building.
AD
We
simply
cannot
utilize
these
spaces
and
they're
in
the
wrong
places
for
where
the
the
lounges,
the
bookstore
and
the
coffee
shop
really
need
to
be.
AD
I
want
to
skip
past
and
talk
about
the
the
bookstore
editions.
That
does
seem
to
be
the
the
Crux
of
the
matter
based
on
the
staff
recommendations.
I.
We
simply
don't
understand
why
the
staff
has
determined
that
this
is
not
reversible.
It
is
no
different
than
any
of
the
other
editions.
It
is
structurally
entirely
separate
from
the
rest
of
the
building
and
can
be
easily
taken
down
and
the
original
building
restored.
AD
It
would
require
some
stucco
patching,
of
course,
but
the
stucco
that
is
on
this
building
is
not
historic
as
any
stucco
in
Santa
Fe.
It
has
to
be
periodically
renewed.
So
here
is
the
existing
an
existing
view
through
the
computer
model
and
our
addition
here
again,
it's
is
structurally
separate.
There's
no
reason
it
can
be
removed,
we're
not
removing
any
portion
of
the
building,
with
the
exception
of
the
glazing
in
the
expansion.
If
I
go
back
to
the
plan.
AD
What
we
see
here
this
darker
area
is
the
area
of
heated
enclosed
space
that
allows
us
to
connect
the
coffee
shop
in
the
bookstore,
which
is
really
seen
as
a
mandate,
both
in
terms
of
providing
the
bookstore
with
very
critically
needed
additional
space
for
it
to
be
fiscally
resilient.
The
bookstore
is
not
turning
a
profit
right
now
and
it
is
a
continual
tap
on
the
college's
resources
and
we
need
to
correct
that.
We
have
to
make
this
bookstore
profitable.
It
is
I
think
it's
the
best
bookstore
in
the
city.
AD
It's
an
it's
an
incredible
resource
and
the
college
is
wanting
to
make
sure
that
it
is
available
to
the
citizens
of
Santa
Fe,
as
well
as
the
students.
What
we've
come
up
with
in
terms
of
the
interior
design
and
the
colleges.
What
are
called
our
initial
direction
from
the
college
was
to
merge
the
bookstore
in
the
coffee
shop
to
create
this
academic
culture
of
great
books,
which
is
so
important
to
St
John's
culture.
AD
What
we're
doing
is
creating
a
series
of
pivoting
bookcases
to
here
and
two
here
that
when
the
bookstore
and
coffee
shop
are
having
separate
hours,
those
can
be
closed
and
there
would
be
a
bookcase
facing
the
bookstore
and
a
chalkboard
facing
the
coffee
shop.
Chalkboards
are
important
part
of
the
St
John's
culture
when,
when
this,
when
they're
both
open
those
can
be
pivoted
open
and
allow
these
spaces
to
to
merge
in
interesting
ways.
AD
So,
if
we're,
if
we
as
I,
said
before,
if
we
are
not
able
to
put
on
this,
what
we
believe
is
a
small
and
discrete
addition
onto
the
building.
We
we
may
be
forced
to
demolish
this
wall,
which
is
a
really
wonderful
aspect
of
the
building
design
by
Alexander
Gerard,
it's
Unique,
brick
tile
with
fireplaces
and
chalkboards,
and
a
great
place
for
students
and
tutors,
which
they
call
the
faculty
at
St
John's
to
engage
in
discussions,
and
we
we
really
do
want
to
save
this
important
feature.
We
are
also
this.
AD
This
Edition
is
also
allowing
us
to
provide
an
exterior,
accessible
path
into
the
coffee
shop
which
it
currently
does
not
have.
If
you
see
in
the
renderings
we
have.
Actually,
we
have
two
ramps
that
have
steps
on
them,
which
is
very
curious
and
obviously
not
accessible,
and
the
proposed
plan
allows
us
to
create
an
accessible
path
from
from
the
Placita
or
the
domain
Plaza
around
and
into
the
coffee
shop.
AD
B
F
You
chair
Guida,
thank
you
for
the
presentation.
It
was
very
clear
and
helpful
so,
as
you
note,
I
think
that
we
probably
are
all
in
agreement
that
the
bookstore
Edition
is
what
is
the
Crux
of
the
matter
at
this
point
in
time,
so
you're.
If
I
heard
you
correctly,
you
were
indicating
that
if
you
can't
do
an
addition,
you
will
still
require
this
amount
of
additional
bookstore
space
and
you
will
I,
don't
know
if
you
use
the
word
remove
or
somehow
it
will
impact
the
Gerard
interior.
So
what
exactly
would
be
that
solution?
Well.
AD
That's
a
floor
plan
that
is,
and
I've
got
the
floor
plan
back
up
on
the
monitor,
remember
beyond
the
new,
and
that
would
that
would
involve
us
removing
this
wall
here.
AD
These
the
two
fireplaces
and
this
well
I
keep
calling
it
the
wiggly
wall
in
our
meetings.
It's
this
wonderfully
delightful
brick
wall
with
bonkos
and
tables,
and
that
will
allow
the
bookstore
to
expand
into
this
area,
giving
them
the
the
additional
needed
shelving
space
for
the
for
the
books
and
other
merchandise
that
they
sell
and
will
allow
the
college
to
realize
its
goal
of
of
combining
the
the
bookstore
and
the
coffee
shop.
AD
It's
not
a
solution
that
I
want
to
even
put
on
the
table,
but
I
feel
that
I'm
left
with
very
little
choice,
because.
T
AD
Other
I
did
want
to
also
address
the
complexity
of
this
new,
this
reversal
and
procedure,
and
this
is
going
to
have
a
tremendously
negative
impact
on
the
project
one,
because
this
is
not
a
project
I'm
I'm
sensing
we
may
not
have
consent
tonight.
So
what
happens
with
this
project?
How
does
that
go
on
to
a
consent
agenda,
if
you,
if
you,
if
you
staff's
recommendation
and
and
deny
give
us
a
basically
a
partial
approval?
AD
How
is
that?
Is
that
consent?
We
will.
You
know
this
is.
This
is
something
we
definitely
want
to.
We
feel
that
is
the
college
needs
in
the
in
the
interests
of
the
ongoing
operations
of
the
college
and
we're
talking
about,
even
even
if
we
were
to
just
proceed
with.
This
is
probably
a
three-month
delay
in
the
project.
Even
if
we
accept
the
the
findings
of
of
the
of
the
board
tonight,
but
because
I'm
I'm
guessing,
we
may
not
end
up
with
consent.
AD
I,
don't
who
knows
I
mean
how
long
this
is
going
to
drag
out,
and
that
is
an
outrageous
taking
of
due
process.
We
believe
and
I'm
not
a
lawyer
I'm
an
architect,
but
nevertheless
I
think
this
set's
a
really
dangerous
precedent
in
the
in
the
city
of
Santa
Fe,
which
already
has
a
very
negative
reputation
for
Development
and
Construction
I'm.
Sorry
to
interrupt
on
your
request.
I.
F
Certainly
understand
your
concerns
and
we
all
share
them
to
a
large
degree,
as
you
know
so,
but
our
hands
are
tied
so
still
focused
a
little
bit
on
the
alternative
solution
which
I
know
you're
saying
you
wouldn't
want
to
do.
God
forbid,
you
should
even
contemplate
it
in
my
opinion,
but
nonetheless
you're
saying
that's
your
alternative.
AD
Right
so
we
wouldn't
I
forget
we
would
remember
Beyond
video
I,
don't
believe
we'd
be
able
to
achieve
the
same
amount
of
square
footage,
but
I
do
believe
we
could
achieve
the
same
amount
of
linear
footage
of
shelving.
This
is
not
something
that
we've
studied,
because
it
makes
me
sick
to
my
stomach
to
even
think
about
it,
but
that's
the
position
we'll
be
forced
into
taking.
L
D
I
I
just
have
a
few
comments.
Sure,
okay,
first
of
all,
I
want
to
thank
you
for
coming
to
the
hearing
previous
to
this
one
and
and
give
us
an
overview
of
what
was
being
contemplated.
It
was
really
helpful
to
hear
your
design
goals
in
that
meeting
and
also
to
hear
from
The
Architects
that
were
present
at
the
meeting.
I
appreciate
every
time
you
guys
come
and
like
give
us
some
insights
architecturally,
that's
really
helpful.
D
There
were
alumni
that
spoke
at
that
hearing
and
it's
the
the
time
since
that
hearing
has
given
me
a
little
bit
of
time
to
think
about
what
you're
asking
for
and
what
the
functionality
of
the
school
is
and
I've
I've
kind
of
come
to
the
you
know,
I
felt
at
the
previous
hearing.
You
know
the
significant
status
is
really
hamstringing
Us
in
terms
of
how
we
look
at
this
case
and
I
question.
D
Whether
or
not
this
property
or
any
educational
institution
should
be
granted
a
significant
status
because,
by
definition
it
a
school,
a
college
is
evolving
adapting
growing
in
some
way.
Changing
all
the
time.
I
feel
like
the
changes.
You're
proposing
are
very
sensitive
and
considered
and
I
appreciate
you
sharing
your
your
philosophy
behind
the
changes
when
we
visited
on
the
field
trip,
we
did
go
inside
the
building
to
see
the
Gerard,
merrells
and
and
Wiggly
wall
like
that
is.
That
is
important.
D
It's
it's
the
reason
for
the
historic
register
status
that
you
hold
currently
and
while
we
can't
consider
the
interior,
it's
it's
it's
important
for
us
to
know
the
limitations
of
what
you're
dealing
with
I
I
think
that
the
the
original
design,
the
current
design,
has
been
described
as
a
modified
territorial
which,
at
the
time,
was
a
regional
interpretation
of
a
contemporary
forward-looking
design,
which
is
what
the
college
is
Reinventing
now
you're
you're,
looking
at
a
building
with
a
contemporary
view
toward
what
is
needed
for
the
future,
but
still
acknowledging
the
past
with
these
sensitive
additions.
D
I
guess
what
what
I'm
thinking
is.
That
is
that
these
exceptions
are
needed
to
achieve
what
you,
what
you're
after
we
need
to
approve
those
I
think
it
also
affects
the
status
of
the
building
and
I'm
a
little
I'm
as
concerned.
As
you
are
about
this
process
change,
because
I
think
if
we
were
to
Grant
these
exceptions
or
that
we
would
also
be
endorsing
a
reduction
in
the
status
potentially
I,
don't
think
we
have
to
do
that
formally
to
approve
the
exceptions,
but
I
think
that
would
be
the
result.
D
If
the
building
were
statused
again
that
potentially
it
would
lose
its
significant
status
and
I'm
sort
of
okay
with
that
in
this
particular
case,
because
the
changes
are
so
sensitive
and
so
functionally
needed
for
the
purpose
of
this
building.
I
think
I
wish
member
Larson
was
here
tonight
because
she
has
been.
Why
interesting
things
to
say
about
the
goal
of
preservation
in
terms
of
preserving
the
functionality
of
a
of
a
space
and
not
just
the
physical
expression,.
D
D
If
we
agree
in
the
behave
and
and
deferring
that
to
you
know
those
future
decisions
to
the
city
council's
Direction,
but
I
can
just
something
to
think
about
like
can
we
can
we
just
proceed
like
we've
been
doing
and
Grant
approvals,
because
I
think
it
puts
the
city
council
to
really
difficult
position
where
they're
they're
granting
something
that
they're
not
I
mean
they're
not
as
familiar
with
that
as
the
code
with
the
well.
D
Some
of
them
probably
are,
but
you
know
the
impact
of
this
of
our
recommendation
may
be
far
further
reaching
than
they
understand
right.
If
we,
if
we're
sort
of
contemplating
downgrading
a
building
with
our
approvals.
AD
I'm,
a
member
budget
I,
don't
there's
not
a
building
in
this
town
that
hasn't
been
modified
and
the
idea
that
an
addition
or
A
Change
Would
result
in
a
reduction
of
status.
AD
I
find
frightening
and
I'm,
not
an
expert
in
in
the
ordinance
or
the
language
of
of
the
code.
If
there's
respect
but
I
think
that
is
a.
That
is
something
that
that
this
board
should
caution
against
and
and
I
would
advise
you
not
to
even
raise
that
spectrum,
because
buildings
have
to
change,
and
this
this
city
has
changed
for
over
a
thousand
years
and
and
significant
buildings
do
change,
and
it
doesn't
mean
that
they're
not
significant
just
means
that
they're
a
little
bit
different.
D
B
Member
of
each
other,
I
I
agree
with
your
sentiment
that
the
of
the
need
for
where
buildings
to
adapt
over
time,
particularly
on
on
on
college
campuses,
but
I,
would
extend
that
too
to
really
a
lot
of
places
in
this
town.
B
I
think
you
know
with
regard
to
this
discussion
of
status
and
of
the
exceptions
that
the
staff
has
has
kind
of
clearly
outlined
for
us,
I
I
think
the
the
real
question
is,
you
know
squaring
what
is
the
pro
this
project,
which
would,
in
any
other
preservation
context,
be
an
exemplary
project
of
retaining
the
character
of
historic
building,
preserving
Heritage
and
allowing
it
to
adapt
over
time
in
a
way
that
we
understand
what
has
changed?
B
What
remains
and
there's
enough
of
it
left
that
we
we
really
do
under
and
those
additions
enhance
the
the
existing
historic
structure.
I
think
all
of
those
things
are
done
and
and
conventional
preservation
practice
allows
for
a
lot
more
latitude
and
is
far
less
prescriptive
than
our
code.
Squaring
you
know
we
we
always
do
have
to
come
into
this
legal
space
and
maybe,
after
our
code
rewrite
some
of
that
will
be
more
sensible.
B
But
I
would
agree
with
the
applicant
that
that
you
know
opening
a
can
of
worms
about
the
significant
status
of
this
building
is
problematic,
I
I,
don't
think
any
of
the
three
editions,
in
my
view,
really
do
downgrade
the
status
of
the,
even
even
as
it
is
defined
under
the
Santa,
Fe
ordinance,
I
think
they're
all
done
in
a
way
where
we
kind
of
understand
what's
been
attached.
What's
what
was
there
originally
there's
plenty
of
documentation
for
these
things?
B
You
know
that
squaring
between
good
preservation,
practice
and
Santa
Fe
preservation
practice
that
results
in
don't
make
me
destroy
this.
This
important
part
of
the
Interior
is,
you
know,
should
be
a
red
flag
for
everybody
in
this
room
about
what
our
ordinance
brings
to
the
table.
Our.
G
Acting
chair,
yes,
I
think
it
would
be
helpful
if
I
read
the
definition
of
significance.
B
Frank
can
I
finish
my
comments.
Please.
First,
thank
you
so
in
in
that
regard,
I
think
I
think
you
know
I
think
there's
you've
highlighted
the
kind
of
key
issues
here
in
the
case
and-
and
you
know
my
view-
is
that
you
know
we
can
we
can
Buck
the
the
ruling
of
the
city
attorney's
office.
We
could
call
it
a
recommendation
when
we're
really
approving
it,
but
I
don't
know
that
we
want
to
kind
of
open
that
stuff
and
I
I
agree.
F
Thank
you
Cherokee
and
member
Beachside,
so
I
do
think
this
is
the
Crux
of
the
entire
issue
here,
and
you
probably
know
that
from
our
last
meeting,
yeah
I
think
our
interpretation
might
be
slightly
different
than
yours,
because
we
are
so
focused
on
the
language
of
the
code
and
the
code
very
specifically
defines
what
is
significant
and
contributing,
as
well
as
various
relevant
here
very
specifically,
directing
that
the
this
board
may
not
approve
an
application
if
it
will
result
in
a
downgrade
so
that
it
really
I
think
is
what
all
of
us
have
been
concerned
about
in
this
project,
because
I,
don't
think
anyone
thinks
it's.
F
It's
not
still.
A
beautiful
building
that
you're
proposing
the
question
in
the
mind
of
the
board
and
for
me
from
the
very
beginning
is:
are
these
changes
significant
enough
to
affect
the
historic
Integrity
of
the
building
such
that
it
would
no
longer
be
significant
and
that's
where
we've
been
I,
think
sort
of
unfairly
hamstrung
by
a
prior
prior
decision,
because
I'm
not
sure
this
ever
should
have
been
designated
as
a
significant
building
in
the
first
instance,
even
though
it's
a
very
important
building.
F
Just
for
purposes
of
our
understanding
of
what
the
code
means
by
significant
I'm,
not
sure
that
that
was
the
appropriate
designation,
because
it
is
so
restrictive
what
can
be
done
after
that
designation
is
given.
As
you
know,
that
means
that
every
facade
is
considered
primary.
That
gives
you
very
little
leeway
as
an
applicant
to
be
able
to
make
future
changes,
so
that
was
a
very
perhaps
unfortunate
decision
and
I
believe
the
board
acted
against
the
recommendation
of
Staff
when
that
was
first
down.
F
So,
at
any
rate,
that's
really
what
we're
struggling
with
here
I
think
it
does
jeopardize
the
significant
status
the
amount
of
changes
that
are
being
made.
On
the
other
hand,
I
completely
agree.
We
don't
need
to
make
that
determination
here
tonight.
I,
don't
think
it
would
be
appropriate
to
make
that
determination.
I,
don't
think
we
need
to
make
any
recommendation
as
to
whether
that's
the
case,
if
we
so
decide
that
we,
we
believe
that
these
exceptions
should
be
granted
in
this
instance.
So
that's
that's.
The
lay
of
the
land
that
I
see
before
us
thank.
AD
You,
member
anyway
I
agree
with
almost
everything
you
said
and
I
think
you
know
we're
we're
not
here
asking
for
you
to
just
say
this
meets
the
ordinance,
we're
asking
for
the
exceptions,
as
the
ordinance
permits
us
to
ask
for
and
permits
you
to
give
and
the,
and
we
have
made
a
clear
Pace
in
writing.
I
may
not
have
gone
through
every
bit
of
it
today
about
how
these
editions
follow
the
exception
criteria.
They
are
all
reversible
and
I.
Believe
that
you
know
I
would
assume
you
have.
AD
You
have
the
authority
to
say
we
understand
that
the
significant
that
the
interior
of
this
building
is
what
is
most
significant.
That
is
what
that
is
what
the
National
Park
Service
and
the
state
historic
preservation
office
decided
that
that's
why
this
building
was
put
on
the
national
register,
and
that
is
why
there
was
a
status
re-hearing
of
it
for
in
front
of
this
board
several
years
ago.
So
why
you
couldn't
take
that
into
account
and
say
that
is
a
reason
for
granting
these
exceptions
is
beyond
me.
G
Mr
acting
chair
I
think
it
would
expedite
this
discussion
for
the
board
to
consider
the
the
definition
of
significant
structure
in
the
code.
It
reads
that
it
is
a
structure
located
in
a
historic
district,
approximately
50
years
or
older
and
embodies
distinctive
characteristics
of
a
type
Creator
method
of
construction
or
a
structure
will
be
designated
as
significant.
It
must
retain
a
high
level
of
historic
Integrity
structure.
G
G
Of
historic,
Oasis
I
conferred
briefly
with
Carly
historic
preservation
director
and
she
indicated
to
me
to
retain
a
high
level
of
historic
integrity.
G
Retaining
the
historic
Integrity
of
the
interior
of
a
building
is
just
as
much
a
factor
in
declaring
a
structure
to
be
significant
as
retaining
the
exterior
There's,
no
distinction
so
I
think
it's
a
legitimate
thing
to
consider
is
to
whether
or
not
the
high
level
of
historic
Integrity
is
retained
in
the
interior
of
this
building.
As
any
other
element.
A
A
I
think
one
thing
that
staff
has
had
had
major
concerns
about
is
this
proof
of
you
know
tearing
at
like
the
threatening
and
into
a
significant
anterior
portion
for
the
need
for
the
expert,
and
we
have
a
pretty
high
degree
of
we
require.
You
know
what
else.
A
What
other
options
are
there
I
think
Heather
can
speak
to
this,
pretty
clearly
that
if,
if
those
haven't
been
really
teased
out-
and
we
don't
see
those-
we
don't
recommend
or
those
exceptions
to
be
the
exception
criteria
to
be
met
rather
so
I
just
want
to
just
make
that
very
clear.
There
are
many
other
historic
college
campuses.
A
So
that's
just
something
also
to
consider
that
and
on
another
note,
I
just
will
just
going
to
point
out
that
this
is
the
second
time
from
this
particular
applicant.
That
I
have
heard
the
word
taking
in
the
in
a
hearing.
A
I
want
to
be
very
careful
that
we
work
together
well
as
applicants
staff
and
the
board
threatening
other
historic
resources,
without
maybe
enough
proof
to
say
that
this
is
this
is
our
only
way
around
this,
and
then
you
know
using
language
like
that
to
force
through
their
project
is
not
recommended
and
is
not
the
way
we
work
together
well
to
find
and
resolve
these
issues
around
these
buildings.
It's
we
take
a
lot
of
care
and
a
lot
of
time
doing
this
job,
and
so
I
just
want
to
make
that
very
clear.
Z
I
want
to
I
want
to
support
this
project,
both
as
alumni
class
of
79
and
architect
in.
Z
Z
This
is
an
important
College.
This
is
an
incredible
institution
to
be
part
of
our
community.
The
education
it
provides
is
significant.
I
think
the
word
preservation
needs
to
be
looked
at
from
the
perspective
of
the
incredible
job.
President
Roosevelt
has
done
to
make
sure
that
this
institution
is
viable.
This
is
a
critical
Keystone.
I,
don't
know
this,
but
that's
I'm
reading
it
as
an
architect.
Looking
at
this
design,
this
particular
Edition
is
important
to
the
preservation,
the
sustaining
the
longevity
of
the
institution.
It
needs
to
be
looked
at
it
from
that
perspective.
Z
From
the
perspective
of
of
an
architect.
Well
done,
this
fits
in
it.
It
fits
in
well
with
the
fabric
of
the
community
of
the
design
of
the
entire
campus.
The
important
thing
I
mean
the
campus
is
significant
in
my
mind,
the
way
in
which
it
was
planned.
The
way
it
was
laid
out,
all
parts
are
the
most
important.
Z
Significant
thing
is
the
preservation
of
the
of
the
college,
the
great
books,
the
bookstore
is
the
great
best
bookstore
in
the
region
has
no
doubt
about
it,
and
you
know:
I
I
really
would
make
a
strong
case
to
approve
this
design
and
the
proposed
changes.
Q
West
and
I'm
318,
Center,
Street
and
I
am
not
an
architect,
but
I
am
a
retired
librarian
and
so
I
want
to
be
careful.
St
John's
bookstore
is
not
the
only
place
to
find
the
books,
but
I
happen
to
generally
agree.
Q
I,
the
public
library
and
I
hope
you
all
have
library
cards,
I,
think
all
the
exceptions
have
been
met
and
I
think
it
is
tricky.
I'm
really
glad
you
brought
up
this
business
of
the
hierarchy
of
how
we
look
at
chapter,
14.
Q
and
I
know:
there's
going
to
be
work
done
on
it,
and
this
is
an
example
here
that
we're
hearing
about
what's
challenging
but
I
can
tell
mass,
is
wonderful
but
you're
new
you'll
get
the
hang
of
it.
Don't
worry,
you're,
smart,
you're,
wonderful,
I,
think
your
your
ideas
here
are
great
and
I
want
to
say
a
cautionary
thing
for
all
of
us.
Each
of
us
here,
no
matter
where
we
find
ourselves
in
relation
to
a
yes
or
a
no
or
whatever,
and
this
is
for
staff
too.
You
guys
work
so
hard.
Q
It's
incredible.
I
only
have
an
idea
of
what
you
do
and
but
don't
be
offended.
When
people
talk
to
you
the
way
they
do
sometimes
we'll
get
the
hang
of
how
we
speak
to
each
other
and
so
I'm
in
favor
of
this
I
think
it's
very
exciting
and
I
happen
to
be
here
tonight
for
something
else
as
I
was
when
this
was
last
brought
up.
I
was
here
for
something
else,
and
so
it
is
with
pleasure
that
I
say
I
support
what
they're
doing
here.
Thank.
J
Yes,
chair
Guida,
first
of
all,
Kristen
fox
or
yes,
Kristen,
Fox
I
am
permitting
you
to
speak
and
please
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record.
C
AE
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
for
allowing
me
to
speak.
I
I
just
wanted
to
take
the
time
to
commend
the
architect
and
this
incredibly
sensitive
design.
AE
I,
don't
believe
that
this
design
diminishes
the
historic
Integrity
of
the
building
at
all.
I.
Don't
think
that
that's
even
on
the
table,
a
building
exists
to
serve
its
Community,
it
needs
to
fit,
it
needs
to
fit,
and
it
needs
to
be
a
reflection
of
the
culture
and
the
necessities
of
the
community
that
it
serves.
AE
Preservation
does
not
mean
freezing
a
building
in
time
and
I.
I
know
these
cases
are
not
black
and
white.
That's
why
there
is
a
board
full
of
experts
to
make
these
comments
and
suggestions
and
ultimately
determine
what's
going
to
happen
with
this
building.
I
just
want
to
support
and
encourage
that
the
board
grants,
whatever
exceptions,
are
necessary
to
ensure
that
the
design
as
proposed
and
shown
tonight
is
able
to
be
carried
out
and
constructed.
I
I
think
it's
a
fantastic
addition.
AE
It
serves
the
community
that
the
building
is
built
for
and
I'd
like
to
see
it
constructed.
Thank
you.
J
Thank
you,
Miss
Fox,
the
next
to
speak,
is
Stephanie
bananato
and
allowing
her
to
speak.
Stephanie
May,
a
mute.
K
Thank
you,
I
have
a
lot
of
concerns
about
the
status
of
the
building
and
I.
Do
think
you
really
need
to
address
that
head-on.
I,
don't
think
it's
a
hard
thing.
I
think
what
you
need
to
do
is
take
it
back
and
have
it
a
public
notice
for
re-staticing
restatise
it
as
a
contributing
building
and
then
look
at
the
exceptions,
because
there.
K
L
K
Outrageous
somebody
might
find
those
definitions.
Those
are
the
definitions
that
you're
supposed
to
be
working
with
and
you're
supposed
to
be
working
with
the
exterior,
not
really
the
interior,
and
if
we
are
working,
you
are
working
with
the
interior,
then
where's
the
state,
historic
preservation,
division
sway
in
on
this
and
I
agree
with
Miss
picarella
that
we.
K
Heard
anything
about
other
ways
of
preserving
the
interior,
significant
wall,
which
I
think
is
an
important
part
and
should
be
an
important
part
of
of
what's
being
considered
tonight,
because
it's
hanging
over
you
like
a
threat
that
you
know
this
wall
will
be
damaged,
you'll
be
responsible
because
you
won't.
Let
us
add.
H
K
L
K
K
K
L
B
B
You
back
to
the
board
or
emotion.
D
I'll
I'll
try
a
mission
in
this
case,
but
first
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
I
and
thank
you
Frank
for
reading
the
definition
of
the
significant
structure.
I
I
think
I've
revised
my
opinion
about
what
happens
with
the
status
based
on
that
definition.
It
has
both
an
association
with
people
that
are
important
on
the
local,
Regional,
National
or
Global
level.
It
is
also
already
on
the
national
register
of
historic
places
and
I
think
that
neither
of
those
things
will
change
with
the
proposed
with
the
proposal.
D
2022-0060-Hdrb
at
1160,
Community
de
Cruz
Blanca
I,
moved
to
approve
the
project,
noting
that
the
exception
criteria
have
been
met
and
adding
that
the
hardship
criteria
has
been
addressed
with
additional
testimony
that
the
inability
to
facilitate
a
connection
with
the
community
is
a
hardship
that
can
be
done
through
the
expansion
of
the
bookstore
community
resource
and
I.
Think
design
options,
including
locating
this
as
a
separate
building,
have
been
explored
in
both
our
previous
hearing
and
this
one
that
that
that
does
not
support
the
objective
of
the
bookstore.
D
D
So
I
moved
to
approve
noting
the
exception.
Criteria
have
been
met.
C
B
Thank
you.
Good
luck
with
your
project.
AD
And
if
I
may
I
wanted
to
address
Ms
peparello
in
your
comments,
I
apologize,
if,
if
you
took
offense
I,
did
not
mean
to
offend
the
staff
and
really
commenting
on
what
I
see
as
a
process
that
is
somewhat
broken.
I
think
that
the
staff
has
done
a
really
remarkable
job
of
working
with
us
over
the
last
few
months
and
I.
Thank
you
for
that.
A
B
Thank
you.
Okay
next
case
is
Angela's
855
Camino
regite.
W
H
H
AF
Am
thank
you
Lord
members
of
the
board.
This
case
is
before
you
tonight.
You
have
seen
it
exactly
a
year
ago
it
was
it's
a
remodel
of
a
non-contributing,
approximately
3
500
square
foot
house.
It
has
been
under
construction.
AF
It
was
that
was
approved
in
that
case,
and
the
applicant
has
come
back
to
the
board
to
request
approval
for
the
garage
which
was
constructed
over
the
the
approved
height
and
specifically
The
Proposal
called
for
for
the
700
square.
Foot
two-car
garage
to
be
am
I,
echoing
is
this.
Okay.
AF
Okay,
okay,
has
gotten
a
lot
of
use
tonight.
This
garage
proposed
to
a
height
of
11
feet.
Zero
inches
was
to
align
or
match
the
existing
height
of
the
adjacent.
The
adjacent
pear.
AF
You
see
in
this
picture,
this
is
the
suppose.
The
existing
and
proposed
site
plan,
the
garage
do
not
change
locations
and
it's
got
a
red
square
around
where
the
garage
is
now
the
parapet
has
built.
The
new
garage
has
a
parapet,
that's
a
foot
10
inches
higher
than
the
previously
approved
height
and
as
built
it
isn't
it's
higher
than
that
adjacent
parapet,
as
was
set
out
in
the
first
proposal.
AF
The
the
addition
Additionally
the
applicant
is
requesting
some
revisions
to
the
previously
opposed
proposed
approval
for
windows
and
doors.
These
are
the
elevations
of
of
what
is
what
was
previously
approved.
On
top
that's
the
East.
Excuse
me
the
South
front
of
the
house,
and
then
the
Garage
is
the
as
the
tan
Mass
to
the
left,
showing
that
height
difference
and
actually
that
one
is
right.
There.
AF
These
are
some
of
the
photographs
of
the
of
the
site.
The
proposed
Windows
and
doors
staff
recommends
approval.
This
is
a
non-contributing
house
and
the
windows
and
doors
that
they're
proposing
do
not
have
divided
lights,
but
they
are
not
publicly
visible,
and
the
existing
windows
in
the
house
are
mostly
mostly
undivided.
AF
So
in
these
photos
it
looks
small
here,
but
you
can
see
the
garage
has
built
at
the
property
line,
and
this
is
the
existing
condition
before
the
garage
was
built
onto
the
Northwest
of
that
existing
garage.
The
other
part
of
this
proposal
is
to
convert
the
that
existing
garage
door
to
a
set
of
I
think
triple
glass
doors,
with
no
divisions
and
again
it
the
window
to
the
right
shows
they're
undivided
under
that
same
portal,
so
it
would
be
harmonious
to
not
be
divided
light.
AF
I
think
that's!
Those
are
the
back
areas
of
the
house
where
there's
proposed
these
proposed
changes
for
Windows
without
divided
lights
and
the
same
openings
and.
H
AF
The
rear
of
the
house
below
and
has
a
second
sub
level
there
so
with
that.
B
Angela
two
just
two
questions:
one:
the
garages,
the
garage
was
already
the
new
garage
has
already
been
approved.
We
it's
it's
just
that
it
was
built
with
a
higher
parapet
height.
Is
that
correct,
that's
correct
and,
and
does
that
exceed
the
allowable
height
for
the
district.
AF
AF
Excuse
me
almost
overwhelms
the
house,
but
this
was
approved
and
the
applicant
did
not
stop
construction
to
seek
an
amendment
or
a
revision
to
build
that
garage
higher,
and
so
with
that.
B
AF
AF
So,
just
to
convert
just
to
State
for
the
record
that
that
staff
does
recommend
approval
of
the
changes,
but
does
not
recommend
approval
of
the
garage.
As
built.
AF
F
Just
a
quick
question
before
we
go
to
the
applicant:
was
there
any
discussion
about
the
height
of
the
garage
in
the
last
application,
or
was
other
than
that
it
was
under
what
was
required
or
permitted.
Therefore,.
AF
A
I'm,
sorry,
member
being
the
new
but
I
was
but
the
garage
was
equal
height
to
the
existing
garage.
Correct.
H
AF
F
AF
I
think
the
first
thing
is
that
we
would
be
able
to
discuss
it
that
the
applicant
would
would
raise
that
issue
before
they
constructed
the
building
and
then
look
for
ways
to
mitigate
that,
or
you
know,
get
at
get
more
information
about
why
they
had
to
do
it
and
work
with
them.
On
that.
F
All
right,
so
you
would
have,
you
would
have
been
had
a
discussion
with
the
applicant
about
the
fact
that
it
was
within
what
was
permitted.
That
there
was
a
would
be
potentially
a
concern
on
your
part
and
thus
potentially
a
concern
on
the
board's
part
about
approving
it,
because
it
didn't
match
the
height
of
the
main
house.
It.
AF
A
Sure,
generally,
this
so
I'll
just
take
it
really
flat.
Procedurally,
so
if
Angela
you
receive
changes
or
a
request
for
administrative
approval
for
changes
if
they
are
within
four
inches,
that's
considered
de
minimis
and
if
they
are
not
that's
something
that
we
likely
need
to
go
back
to
the
board,
especially
in
this
District.
It's
in
the
review
review.
District,
probably
now
that
said,
seeing
that
it's
dwarfing
like
dwarfing
the
structure.
Next
to
it,
that's
something
that
we
would
automatically
say
this
needs
to
go
back
to
the
board.
F
F
A
Member
bienvenue:
that's
what,
within
that
de
minimis
height,
we
would
encourage
that
and
then
say
before
we
would
offer
going
back
to
the
board,
which
normally
is
enough
incentive
for
applicants
to
be
like
yeah
I.
Don't
really
want
to
do
that
and
we
would
also
give
them
the
this
is
not
you
know.
This
is
not
ideal
for
these
reasons
and
here's
why?
But
all.
AF
F
No
I
totally
understand
what
happened.
I
guess
I'm
still
just
wondering
about
imagining
putting
ourselves
back
before
this
ever
came
before
the
board
in
the
first
instance.
If
this
would
have.
If
the
issue
before
us
today
would
have
been
a
consideration
in
your
mind,
or
do
you
just
say?
Oh,
it
meets
the
height
standard.
Therefore
we
recommend
approval.
AF
AF
F
B
Thanks
can
we
have
the
applicant
sworn
in
please.
C
T
T
Well,
sometimes,
I
understand
the
procedures
here.
Usually
this
is
something
that
normally,
as
an
architect,
I'd
come
to
to
staff
and
ask
for
you
know:
can
we
you
know
we're
within
our
limits?
Can
we
build
this
garage
a
little
higher?
Sometimes
clients
and
contractors
make
decisions
without
consulting
architect
or
historic.
So
that's
why
I'm
here
understood.
B
Mark
I
think
I
may
have
answered
my
own
earlier
question.
If,
if
we
can
go
and
if
I'm
not
interrupting,
can
we
go
to
the
South
facade.
B
B
B
There
you
go
okay,
okay,
so
you
know
what
we
see
is
a
is
the
the
angled
edition
of
a
of
a
two-car
garage
with
a
double
with
door,
but
just
above
that,
where
it's
clouded
and
we
have
a
pair
of
doors
there,
that's
an
old
garage
door
that
is
being
proposed
to
be
infilled
with
new,
with
new
people
doors.
And
then,
if
we
go
to
the
elevation
in
the
South
elevation.
B
What
we're
seeing
on
the
left
is
that
new
garage
door,
but
that's
a
double
door.
It's
just
seen
obliquely
in
the
drawing.
That's
why
it
looks
like
a
single
wide
door,
and
then
our
packet
doesn't
show
up,
but
this
drawing
shows
it
next
to
it,
we're
in
filling
that
old
garage
door.
Opening
that's
under
the
portal
with
new
doors.
Is
that
correct,
correct.
B
Thank
you.
Is
there
anything
else,
you'd
like
to
to
add
to
Angela's
comments.
T
T
We
don't
have
any
additional
parapet
that
we
can
cut
or
anything,
and
it's
already
been
lab
and
ready
for
stucco,
and
so
this
process
has
a
it
was
last
already
last
summer,
so
we've
been
sitting
on
this
for
quite
a
while
waiting
to
stucco
it.
Okay
thank.
B
T
It
would
be
if
it
was
before
it
was
built.
They
would
literally
have
to
tear
off
the
entire
roof
structure
and
then
that's
an
eight
foot
tall
garage
door,
so
we
wouldn't
actually
have
the
clearance
for
the
garage
door
at
that
point.
Okay,
thank.
E
F
F
It
does
dominate
the
road,
the
streetscape
and
somewhat
dwarfs
the
building
behind
it.
On
the
other
hand,
I'm
just
not
convinced
that
we,
if
this
proposal
would
come
before
us
originally
with
these
exact
same
elevations,
that
we
wouldn't
have
approved
it
as
soon
as
we
were
told
it
was
well
within
the
height
requirements,
sure
all.
T
Right
one
thing:
that's
kind
of
Bleak
about
it
right
now
is
there's
no
landscaping
and
they
haven't
backfilled.
Yet
so
what
you're
seeing
is
a
little
bit
more
sheer
height
just
because
the
the
footings
are
exposed
right
now,
also
they
plan
to
put
some
peignons
and
trees
in
front
of
the
garage.
So
it's
not
going
to
have
that
same
like
blatant
effect
when
you're
driving
by
it's.
F
Sure
and
that's
helpful,
but
I
still
just
kind
of
look
at
it
and
think
yeah
I
mean
we
prove
things
to
look
a
lot
like
that.
F
We
were
mainly
concerned
with
whether
or
not
they
they
meet
the
height
requirements
so
because
I'm,
just
not
convinced
we
wouldn't
have
approved
it,
as
is
especially
if
we
were
told
that
there
were
sight
reasons
why
it
had
to
be
this
height
with
again
with
respect
to
staff's
recommendation,
which
I
appreciate
in
this
case,
because
I
think,
even
though
it's
only
one
foot
ten
inches,
those
kind
of
details
are
very
important
and
so
I'm
very
appreciative
of
steps
concern.
B
Oh
I'm,
very
sorry
and
in
that
motion
let's
hear
from
the
Public
Public
comment:
please.
Q
This
is
Elizabeth
West
again
and
I'm
really
sympathetic
with
what
you
might
be
going
through.
However,
I
agree
with
what
staff
probably
would
have
said
a
long
time
ago
and
what
they
seem
to
have
said
in
this
case
that
I
think
that
garage
building
is
you
say
it's
12
inches
or
is
it
12
plus
10
inches
taller?
In
any
case,
it's
taller
and
it's
it's
way
too
tall
and
I'll.
Tell
you
a
story
about
somebody
very
briefly:
who's,
not
here
and
I'm,
not
going
to
mention
the
name
anyway.
Q
But
my
father
got
permission
to
make
a
garage
behind
my
house
in
the
South
Capitol
into
a
guest
house,
and
he
came
out
from
Cambridge
and
checked
on
it
and
it
was
fun
we
went
out
for
dinner
and
that
was
fun.
The
next
time
he
came
out
to
check.
He
said
wait
a
minute.
This
ceiling
is
six
inches
lower
than
what
we
I
have
in
my
drawings
and
I
said:
Oh
Daddy.
Q
Q
Now
it
wasn't
as
gigantic
as
your
garage,
but
I
was
really
sympathetic,
but
in
the
end,
the
architect
who
happened
to
be
my
father,
was
right
and
plus
it's
not
a
good
idea
to
build
something
and
then
say:
oops
I
really
should
have
talked
about
it.
I,
don't
believe
you
should
deny
this
because
to
be
punishing.
Q
J
Yesterday
we
do
Stephanie,
bananato
I
am
allowing
to
you
to
speak.
You
can
unmute.
K
Thank
you,
Stephanie
benanato,
PO,
Box,
1601,
Santa,
Fe,
New,
Mexico
I,
understand
that
this
is
under
the
height.
But
again
it
is
something
that
should
have
been
required.
K
Even
the
contractor
to
come
back
in
and
I
think
contractors
are
supposed
to
know
about
the
historic
ordinance
as
well
as
Architects.
So
I,
don't
really
have
a
lot
of
sympathy.
For
you
know,
I
mean
I
I
appreciate
the
architect
is
taking
the
rap
here
or
standing
up
for
all
the
problems,
but
I
still
think
we
need
to
look
at
whether
it's
harmonious
and
I'm
a
little
disturbed
by
the
board
tonight,
because
suddenly.
K
Would
look
at
is,
would
we
have
approved
it
if
it
came
in
and
was
higher
than
the
existing
building?
Well,
given
what
I've
seen
of
the
board
I
would
say,
probably
it
would
not
have
approved
it,
especially
if
it.
H
K
Does
and
so
I
know
it's
the
foot,
foot
and
a
half
whatever
it
is,
but
I
I
don't
see
any
reason
why
it
actually
can't
be
lowered
down
to
the
height
that
was
granted,
because
that
does.
L
B
J
AG
I'm,
yes,
I'm
Kathleen,
Rockhill
I
live
on
in
the
neighborhood
at
601,
Aveda
Street.
This
is
a
very
unusual.
C
AG
C
AG
F
Thank
you
to
just
I'll
go
back
to
my
motion,
but
clarification
so
that
the
garage
as
billed
is
12
feet.
10
inches
high,
if
I
understand
correctly,
what's
allowed
in
the
streetscape.
I
F
Thank
you
again
in
case
2020
2005995
hdrb,
855,
Camino,
ranchitos
I,
move
that
the
application
be
approved
for
the
reasons
not
that
it's
already
been
built,
but
that
this
proposal
would
have
been
approved
if
it
had
been
submitted.
In
the
first
instance.
A
Thank
you,
chair
members
of
the
board.
We
are
looking
at
case
2020-0060,
64.
hdrb,
and
this
is
located
at
2.
Two
two
four
Montoya
Circle
is
non-contributing
and
we
are
looking
at
a
remodel
of
I.
A
Don't
I
didn't
call
it
a
recent
historic,
a
recent
Santa
Fe
style,
because
it's
more
of
a
series
of
stucco
massings
that
was
built
in
the
90s
with
the
bay
window
on
it,
and
so
the
effort
here
by
the
owners
is
to
really
work
within
the
streetscape
or
find
some
similarities
within
the
streetscape
and
change
out
several
elements
on
the
building.
So
what
we
are
seeing
is
this
parapet
on
the
top
left
being
raised
and
made
consistent
throughout.
You
can
see
it's
in
this
picture
on
the
bottom
right.
A
It's
got
these
strange,
batwing,
bat
ears,
sticking
up
on
it
that
sit
on
top
of
a
flat
roof
and
we're
looking
at
some
proposed
and
existing
elevations
here.
So
this
is
just
to
give
you
a
context.
This
is
also
in
the
downtown
east
side.
It's
just
off
of
Gonzalez
and
montoya's
circle
kind
of
circles.
This
building
on
two
different
sides,
they're
doing
a
total
window,
replacement
a
a
portal
on
that
Second
Story
with
railing
steel
railing
with
pilaster
stucco
pilasters
and
a
garage
Edition
that
you
see
on
the
far
right
side.
A
You
can
see
parapets
being
made
consistent
throughout
on
that
right
elevation
and
some
more
window
changes
there.
A
And
so
this
is
the
the
existing
North
elevation.
So
you
may
notice
in
the
scope
letter
that
there
was
a
request
for
Desert
Rose,
just
in
conversations
with
the
applicant
and
what
really
doesn't
Rose
looks
like
they
decided
to
go
ahead
and
change
to
Buckskin,
which
is
listed
in
the
staff
report.
I
A
That
we
are
we're
primarily
looking
at
issues
here,
of
kind
of
visibility
is
pretty
visible
and
then
no
real
changes
to
height,
because
they're
just
making
consistent
the
height
throughout
this
building.
A
With
that
pear
pit,
there
is
one
other
item,
they're
changing,
and
it's
that
gate
that
you
see
a
vehicular
gate
on
that
right
side
there
that
steel,
all
steel
elements
are
made
to
appear
as
iron,
so
just
painted
treatment
with
iron
and
then
that
bottom
portion
there
is
wood
that
said,
I
can
turn
it
answer,
questions
or
turn
it
over
to
the
applicant.
Whatever
you
choose
board.
A
And
sorry
apologies
board.
The
staff
recommendation
is
for
approval
that
it
meets
all
the
general
standards
for
the
all
historic
districts
in
the
downtown
east
side.
A
Foreign
Heather
do
we
have
do.
We
have
Stephanie
online.
B
Okay
would
staff
mind
trying
to
get
in
touch
with
the
applicant.
We
will
move
this
case
later
in
the
agenda.
Just
by
one.
Do
we
need
a
motion
to
move
this
case
later
in
the
agenda,
or
can
we
just
move
on
to
the
next
case?
I'm.
A
Leaving
I
thank
you,
chair
I,
believe
we
need
to
postpone
it
to
the
end
of
the
hearing.
Okay,.
B
C
B
Thank
you.
Forgive
me
for
not
asking
if
the
applicant
was
present.
Let's
move
on
to
the
last
or
what.
B
To
last
case
on
the
list:
638
Gomez,
Road
and
donkas
bar
historic
district-
this
is
Carly's
case.
A
Okay,
we
are
looking
at
case
number
202200,
six,
zero,
six
one
hdrb.
This
is
located
at
638,
Gomez
Road,
it's
a
contributing
property
in
the
downtown
or
sorry
The,
donga,
Spar
area,
historic
district.
A
There
is
a
slight
change
on
this
particular
case
in
the
case
caption,
particularly,
there
is
no
exception.
A
A
A
And
so
in
the
in
a
previous
case,
the
other
windows
were
requested
for
window
replacement.
A
window
assessment
was
was
provided
in
that
previous
case,
but
it
was
done
by
the
architect
and
then
later
so
and
then
the
window
replacement
for
the
primary
facades
was
it
can
it
was.
There
was
a
partial
approval
by
the
board.
They
were
not
allowed
for
that
window,
replacement
on
the
primary
facades.
A
Now,
once
a
window
assessment
from
Ray
Patterson
was
provided,
and
then
there
was
a
I
I
discussed
this,
particularly
with
Ray
Patterson.
On
this
on
these
window
replacements,
the
it
was,
it
was
found
that
the
mountains
are
from
they're
larger
from
the
particular
time
period.
A
There
are
barn,
sash
Replacements.
Each
piece
is
almost
each
piece
of
the
windows
has
been
replaced
over
time,
so
they're
no
longer
there's
not
eight
percent
of
the
actual
window.
That
is
left
that's
historic,
so
bit
by
bit,
each
each
piece
was
replaced,
so
the
applicants
coming
back
to
re-request
the
window
replacement
with
this
information
at
hand.
A
They
would
also
like
to
patch
and
re-stucco
around
the
windows
as
needed,
and
let
me
and
then
we
I
included
the
window
spec
with
the
window
information
in
the
application.
So
the
way
the
staff
report
is
broken
down,
you're,
seeing
what
you
approved
in
one
of
the
previous
cases
and
then
what
we
they
did
not
approve
that
they're
now
coming
back
with
the
proper
proof.
For
that
said,
staff
does
not
feel
that
there
is
an
exception
required
based
on
the
fact
that
there
is
not
historic
material.
B
Thank
you
Carly
any
questions
from
the
board.
Can
we
have
the
applicant
sworn
in
please.
C
AH
Address
for
the
record
Eric
Enfield,
612,
Old,
Santa,
Fe
Trail.
Thank.
H
AB
AH
Up
with
us
that
was
so
much
fun
waiting
for
you
guys
actually
I
wanted
to
see.
St
John's
I
thought
they
actually
did
a
pretty
good
job.
I
didn't
get
that
job
anyway,
I'm
here
about
these
windows
again.
What
we
had
done
was
I
had
presented
a
report
that
had
stated
that
we
wanted
to
replace
all
the
windows
originally
I
think
we
applied
in
November
of
21.
AH
and
I'm,
not
sure
why
we're
listed
as
new
business,
because
we're
old
business
and
we
have
an
old
business
number
and
that
was
put
on
our
letter
and
I-
tried
to
get
a
hold
of
Carly
and
Heather
and
get
us
a
little
further
up
in
the
agenda.
But
for
some
reason
we
were
do
I
look
new!
No,
it's
old
business!
We've
got
five
Windows
on
this
existing
structure.
After
I
presented
to
the
board,
you
gave
us
approval
to
do
the
additions
on
the
rear
and
re-stucco
and
replace
all
the
windows
on
the
rear.
AH
But
you
didn't
give
us
permission
to
replace
these
windows,
because
you
wanted
more
succinct
details
of
why
these
weren't
original
windows
and
I
think
it's.
When
you
look
at
at
his
report,
he
talks
about
how,
in
all
five
of
these
locations
there
were
jam,
extensions
put
in
when
new
windows
were
put
in
and
the
old
ones
were
pulled
out
and
that's
shown
in
the
photographs.
B
AH
AH
B
AH
We
think
they
were
probably
six
over
sixes
and
they're
been
replaced
with
eights
over
Eights
in
some
cases
and
there's
one
that's
eight
over
twelve,
which
I
find
pretty
interesting,
but
we
show
that
one
is
being
replaced.
Also
to
look
like
it
looks
right
now,
even
though
we've
we've
found
that
that's
those
aren't
historic.
Windows
got.
E
A
quick
question,
the
wood
portion
that
runs
along
the
top
of
the
windows.
Is
that
also
getting
replaced,
or
is
that
not.
AH
The
headers
the
headers
will
remain.
The
original
headers
were,
will
be
removing
non-historic
material
with
the
frame
they
added
pieces
of
wood
inside
to
put
in
standard
sized
windows
in
the
historic
openings
and
we're
going
to
get
those
back
to
where
they
should
be,
which
is
the
width
of
the
openings.
E
And
thank
you
for
that
clarification,
and
you
just
mentioned
that
with
a
light
pattern
that
you're
replacing
with
what's
currently
there,
even
though
you
don't
believe
it's
what
was
historically
there,
would
your
preference
be
to
match
what
you
believe
was
historically
there.
AH
We
we
actually
think
the
window
pattern
is
good
on
these
windows
as
it
is,
and
and
they'll
all
now
be
the
same
window.
So
I
think
we're
going
to
find
that
it'll
keep
some
of
that
quirky
character
that
they
did
when
they
replaced
those
windows
in
the
70s
and
80s
and
I
think
they
were
trying
to
replace
them
to
look
like
the
original
windows.
B
Thank
you
Eric
board
members.
If
there
are
no
other
questions,
I'll
take
it
to
public
comment.
Members
of
the
public
online
or
in
person
see
we
have
a
raised
hand
online.
J
Sure
I
have
the
applicant
on
the
phone
and
so
I
don't
know
if
you
would
like
me
to
maybe
just
we're
trying
to
figure
out
the
zoom
stuff
right
now.
But
if
I
I
can
also
put
her
on
speaker-
and
you
can
speak
that
way,
if
you
prefer.
B
K
More
assessment
of
the
windows
so
that
they
can
take
them
out
and
replace
them
and
and
feel
good
about,
what's
being
what's
there
and
what
they're
going
to
do
and
I
appreciate
that
they're
taking
it
back
to
the
original
with
I,
think
it's
okay
to
leave
them
at
the
whatever
they
are
eight
over
eight
rather
than
six
over
six,
because
even
if
they
were
there
from
the
70s,
if
it
was
early
enough,
it
is
50
years
and
I
do
agree
that
they
help
create
the
quirky
character
of
that
house.
Thank
you.
B
C
B
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Eric
good
luck
on
to
our
last
case,
224,
Montoya,
Circle
and
Heather.
Do
we
have
the
applicant?
Are
they
able
to
oh
you're,
muted.
A
Okay,
so
again
we
are
looking
at
2022
Dash,
zero,
zero,
six,
zero,
six,
four
hdrb:
this
is
the
this.
Is
it
224,
Montoya
Circle.
A
No
chair,
there
is
not
I'm,
sorry
that
the
applicant
probably
missed
that
little
presentation
just
for
their
benefit,
real
quick.
We
covered
that
there's
window
replacements
in
the
different,
the
garage
Edition
and
the
different
modifications
to
the
house,
including
the
gate
with
that
I
think
we
can
just
turn
it
over
and.
J
O
O
O
B
Thank
you,
applicants
do
you
have
anything
to
add
to
staff's
presentation
when
we
had
a
thorough
review
of
the
drawings
and
and
and
the
work
that's
being
proposed.
Do
you
have
any
additional
comments.
O
You
know,
if
anything
was
that
I've
been
emailing
Carly
and
she
said
that
she
thought
the
color
was
not
quite
right,
that
we
chose
that
she
thought
that
we
would
be
better
off
with
another
historic
accepted
color,
which
was
black
skin
rather
than
the
desert
rose.
She
thought
the
desert
rose
was
too
harsh.
O
B
Good,
my
impression
of
the
project
is
that
these
are
overwhelmingly
positive
improvements
to
a
house
that
needed
some
help
and
so
I'm
happy
to
see
a
well-represented
design
and
and
the
design
decisions
on
the
whole
that
that
you
have
made
and
are
presenting
in
the
case
today,
I
think
my
only
question
and
staff
may
I'm
sorry
I'm
bored.
The
board
may
have
other
questions.
My
only
question
was:
was
there
any
reconsideration
of
of
the
bay
window
on
the
primary
facade
and
I
shouldn't,
say
primary
the
main
facade
of
the
house?
B
It
seems
a
little
crowded
in
that
space.
It
seems
to
intersect
with
the
new
newly
proposed
portal
over
the
entry
door.
Was
there
any
consideration
of
eliminating
that
that
bay
window
in
favor
of
something
that
would
be
more
in
keeping
with
the
district
styles.
O
You
know
we
we
would
definitely
be
open
to
that.
I
mean
the
bay
window
is,
is
still
already
it's
it's
the
existing
window,
so
obviously
we
would
have
to
take
down
the
the
walls
surrounding
the
bay
window
in
order
to
change
it
so
that
we
were
trying
to
simplify
it
by
by
making
the
window
design
uniform
throughout
the
house
without
actually
changing
the
structure
of
the
house,
but
we
would
definitely
be
open
to
that.
Wouldn't
we
yeah
yeah.
B
B
D
I
actually
do
have
one
question
for
the
applicant
I'm,
looking
at
the
gate,
design
the
gate
elevation
in
our
pocket,
which
appears
to
be
a
a
double
vehicular
gate,
with
a
pedestrian
gate.
Next
to
it,
and
that's
going
in
front
of
what
I
think
is
a
one-car
garage
is
that
is
that
correctly
represented?
O
O
Turning
point
for
people
and
also
a
a
parking
area,
so
we
were
wanting
to
put
a
gate
that
went
across
to
to
give
us
a
security
and
privacy
and
to
to
finish
the
the
the
house
and
make
it
you
know
more.
O
You
know
I
actually
look
like
it
was
all
passed
onto
the
house
rather
than
just
out
of
the
road.
B
F
In
case
2020,
200-6064
hdrb,
224,
monitorious,
Circle
I,
move
that
the
board
except
staff's
recommendations
and
approve
the
project,
as
proposed
with
the
additional
condition
that
the
stucco
bee
buck
skin,
as
agreed
to
by
the
applicant.
B
C
B
Thank
you,
applicant
good
luck
with
your
project.
O
B
Good,
thank
you.
Next
is
discussion
items
staff
or
do
we
have
any
discussion
items
tonight.
F
You
chair,
guid
I
hate
to
bring
anything
up
at
this
late
hour,
but
the
discussion
about
the
500
Montezuma
and
the
Halpin
building
did
make
me
aware
that
I
think
I
would
like
to
ask
at
some
point
that
the
board
have
a
status
review
of
the
Hoffman
building
and
a
potential
downgrade
from
its
status
due
to
the
massive
alterations
that
have
taken
place
there.
A
A
chair,
a
member
bienvenue
I,
will
look
at
the
code
because
we
don't
often
do
this.
The
downgrades
but
I
believe
that
the
status
review
can
be
asked
for
by
staff
neighbors
board
members.
Anyone
really
I
think
that's
the
way
that
code
reads
and
we'll
just
have
to
do
the
noticing
and
move
that
forward.
W
F
B
E
A
I'm
sure
the
assistant
land
use
director
would
not
like
to
be
the
main
focus
we.
H
B
Thank
you,
okay.
Our
first
of
all,
I
want
to
thank
the
board
and
staff
and
the
public
for
their
stamina
tonight
for
being
engaged
in
the
discussion
for
having
a
very
thorough
review
of
these
cases,
for
the
broad-mindedness
of
this
board
and
and
for
for
everybody
weighing
in
on
on
issues
that
affect
process
issues
that
affect
important
buildings
in
our
community
and
so
I
am
very
grateful.