New Mexico Sun

City of Santa Fe Historic Districts Review Board met May 4.

Here are the minutes provided by the board:

CALL TO ORDER

A regular meeting of the City of Santa Fe Historic Districts Review Board was called to order by Cecilia Rios, Chair, on the above date at approximately 5:37 p.m. at a virtual meeting held at https://www.youtube.com/user/cityofsantafe.

A. ROLL CALL

Roll Call indicated the presence of a quorum as follows:

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Ms. Cecilia Rios, Chairwoman

Ms. Jennifer Biedscheid

Mr. John Bienvenu

Mr. Buddy Roybal

MEMBERS ABSENT:

Mr. Frank Katz, Vice Chair (excused)

Mr. Anthony Guida

Ms. Flynn G. Larson (excused)

OTHERS PRESENT:

Ms. Nicole Ramirez Thomas

Mr. Daniel Schwab, Senior Planner

Ms. Angela Bordegaray, Senior Planner

Ms. Sally Paez, Assistant City Attorney

Ms. Melissa Byers, Stenographer

NOTE: All items in the Committee packet for all agenda items are incorporated herewith by reference. The original Committee packet is on file in the Historic Preservation Office and available on the City of Santa Fe Website.

B. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Ms. Ramirez Thomas indicated under D, approval of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, two 300 Garcia Streets are listed. Also, under Staff Communications the Ethics training was moved to May 25th, and under New Business she requests Case #4 on Calle La Pena be heard as case #3.

Two postponements were also noted on Camino Manzano and Waldo Street.

MOTION: Member Roybal moved, seconded by Member Biedscheid to approve the agenda, as amended.

VOTE: The motion passed by unanimous (3-0) roll call vote with Members Biedscheid, Bienvenu, and Roybal voting in favor and none voting against.

C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

1. April 13, 2021

MOTION: Member Bienvenu moved, seconded by Member Roybal to approve the HDRB Hearing Minutes of April 13, 2021 as presented.

VOTE: The motion passed by unanimous (3-0) roll call vote with Members Biedscheid, Bienvenu, and Roybal voting in favor and none voting against.

D. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. 2021-3200-HDRB. 300 Garcia Street.

2. 2021-3369-HDRB. 1290 Lejano Lane.

3. 2021-3370-HDRB. 302 Sena Street.

4. 2021-3372-HDRB. 844 Don Cubero Avenue.

5. 2021-3373-HDRB. 213 Barela Lane.

6. 2021-3374-HDRB. 911 Camino Santander.

7. 2021-3375-HDRB. 623 W. San Francisco Street.

8. 2021-3376-HDRB. 234 ½ Irvine Street.

9. 2021-3378-HDRB. 855 El Caminito.

10. 2021-3382-HDRB. 618 Garcia Street.

11. 2021-3387-HDRB. 220 Otero Street.

MOTION: Member Bienvenu moved, seconded by Member Roybal to adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as presented.

VOTE: The motion passed by unanimous (3-0) roll call vote with Members Biedscheid, Bienvenu, and Roybal voting in favor and none voting against.

E. MATTERS FROM THE PUBLIC

Stefanie Beninato brought the fence at West Burger Street to the Board’s attention. The picket fence was removed, and a utility fence put up, but it was red tagged. Then a 6 foot fence was put which was also removed. Now there is a picket fence that is nonconforming. She noted Member Bienvenu mentioned that a nonconforming structure that is not a building cannot be put back once removed. She asked for an explanation since this had not come to the Board. Also, she said she appreciated Ms. Ramirez Thomas’s presence at 532 Camino del Monte Sol. She was professional in presenting the issues and seemed to help resolve them.

F. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS

1. Ethics and Open Government Training

Postponed to May 25, 2021.

2. 2021 Santa Fe Heritage Preservation Awards

Ms. Ramirez Thomas said she would provide the Board with a ballot and the nominations this week for each of the award categories.

G. OLD BUSINESS

Chair Rios reminded applicants that if they disagree with the Board’s decisions, they have 15 days from the approval of Findings of Fact to appeal.

1. Case 2021-003284-HDRB. 121 Aviation Drive. MOLZENCORBIN, agents for the City of Santa Fe Regional Airport, propose an 8,000 sq. ft. addition on a landmark structure. An exception is requested to have less than 80% of a publicly visible facade finished with materials not permitted per Part 2.A of Resolution No. 2015-101 and an exception is requested to provisions for

landmark structures per 14-5.2(D)(2) Additions. (Nicole A. Ramirez Thomas/ Daniel Schwab)

STAFF REPORT

The Santa Fe Airport Terminal Building, located at 121 Aviation Drive, is a landmark structure. The building was designated as a landmark structure via Resolution No. 2015- 101 by the Governing Body in 2015. The adoption of the resolution by the Governing Body was made on the recommendation of the Historic Districts Review Board (HDRB) which was made on September 22, 2015 (Case # H-15-089).

Included in this packet for HDRB review and information, in addition to the application materials, are the Airport Master Plan; the HDRB Staff Memo Sept. 22, 2015; the NM HPD Staff Letter July 22, 2015; the HDBR FOF & COL Sept. 22, 2015; the HDRB Minutes Sept. 22, 2015; the Bill No. 2015-45; Resolution No. 2015-101.

The only real change to the staff report is that the applicant worked in good faith with what was told to him by David Rasch. The objective was to work towards harmonizing to the building.

At the HDRB Hearing on March 23, 2021, the Board postponed decision on the proposed addition and remodel to the airport terminal. The applicant was asked to provide some design elements that highlighted the differentiation of the original airport terminal building and the proposed addition.

Since 2015, Santa Fe Regional Airport staff and architects with Molzen Corbin worked closely with former City of Santa Fe Historic Preservation Staff to design an addition that was harmonious to the existing building while differentiating the addition by its overall massing and use of simplified design details. The design works within the existing requirements of the resolution that was passed by the Governing Body in 2015 and the existing conditions of the airport property which limit design opportunities. The existing conditions of the location of the terminal, lessees on the airport property, and the location of the runway were also considerations in the design of the addition.

For the current review, the applicant has responded to the comments made by the Board at their hearing on March 23rd. They have also added some design elements to the terminal addition that work to differentiate the original building from the proposed addition.

The applicant requests two exceptions. On exception is to the Part 2.A of Resolution No. 2015-101 which requires less than 80% glass on publicly visible facades. The second exception request is for an exception to 14-(D)(2) regarding additions to primaries. The code provisions and responses are provided in this memo. See below.

Provided with the staff report are the applicants responses to HDRB comments from the March hearing as well as a revised PowerPoint presentation with revised drawings. The materials from the March hearing are also provided for the Boards review.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends approval of the proposed project and finds that the exceptions to Resolution No. 2015-101 and 14-5.2(D)(2) General Design Standards for all H Districts, Additions.

APPLICANT’S PRESENTATION

John Mae with MolzenCorbin and Jeremy Alford were sworn in.

Chair Rios thanked the applicants for addressing the Board’s comments and breaking them down so thoroughly. She asked them to address what changes have taken place and what would not be changed with regard to the Board’s comments.

John Mae, MolzenCorbin, said he and Jeremy Alford are the architects for the project. They have had years of study on the airport and find the airport is critically undersized. They are not allowed to design a new terminal, so they have to expand the building. The footprint is very small with a number of constraints. Part of that is the leases to the north and south. Currently the renovation is doing a lot of add-ons and to renovate the site and parking.

They agree with bringing distinction to the old building from the addition. They think the modification will bring a fresher look and prevent confusion with the existing building.

Mr. Mae presented a PowerPoint presentation of renderings of the buildings, noting the new addition. He noted the current drive into the airport from Airport Road was reconfigured to connect to an access drive and a divided road. Eventually it will become Veterans Parkway. The short and long-term parking is all new. The analysis suggested a 33,000 square-foot terminal. The existing terminal is 11,000 square feet and they will add 8,000 square feet. The new addition will eventually be baggage claim but for now will be used for additional gates. The north side of the building will not be publicly visible. Where the old building meets the new building will be stone veneer and the wall will be raised slightly, but otherwise there is no change. The addition to the left has a large expanse of glass with a great view of the runway and the glass patio outside of the gate will have a canopy cover. The stone used to tie the two buildings together will be a wood and stone combination. They are recommending local travertine.

Mr. Mae asked if there were any comments on distinction of the old and the new.

Chair Rios said when she hears “veneer” she thinks of fake rock, but this rock doesn’t look fake.

Mr. Mae said architects use stone veneer as cladding on the outside of the building. This is a real stone quarried south of Albuquerque. The stone was used extensively at the Pit and has a bit of a red matrix that appears like rubies within the stone.

Chair Rios asked the biggest distinction in color between the two travertine stones.

Mr. Mae explained one is paler in color, which he prefers. That was used in the Albuquerque Museum.

Chair Rios asked where the stone will be placed.

Mr. Mae pointed out the areas.

Member Roybal said he normally liked stone, but was concerned. The airport is Pueblo style, and the examples of the Albuquerque Museum and The Pit, are more modern. He thought with the stone veneer the wall would stand out even more, even if it is subtle.

Member Bienvenu agreed. He asked if possible to see a side-by-side of the east elevation previously proposed and the modified one.

Mr. Mae offered to display that. He noted his reluctance to bring a new vocabulary to the building. He felt the original proposal was very clean and appeared as a modern addition to the Pueblo building. He noted that people coming to the airport would not notice this part of the building and hoped the animation will make that clearer.

He said they are not married to this stone but wanted to be sure if another material was added it was in context with the building. He thought this is and distinguishes the old building from the new, but after the Board’s comments, he thought they didn’t go far enough. He said everything considered would have taken it out of context. The modern nature is based on the cleanliness of the design. He added that if they remove the stone they will also need to redesign the benches.

Chair Rios asked if the new part of the building would have crisper edges. Mr. Mae said crisper is a good word, but they had battered them.

Ms. Ramirez Thomas displayed a side by side of the original proposal and the revised design.

Member Bienvenu asked if the new wall of stone had originally been a wall. Mr. Mae replied it was a wall.

Member Bienvenu confirmed they basically changed a stucco wall to a stone wall.

Ms. Ramirez Thomas said the original design was to reflect the existing airport design.

Member Bienvenu said seeing the two designs side-by-side it was clear the original design was superior to the new design.

Chair Rios said she received an email from Vice Chair Katz and he is also opposed to the travertine wall.

Member Roybal said he liked the old design better and didn’t have any major objections to the original design. He didn’t like the stone with the Pueblo style.

Chair Rios said what she indicated as a crisper style was said by the architect to be more in keeping with the architecture of the Georgia O’Keefe Museum. She thought it was more in keeping with the Pueblo Revival style that exists. She thought some of the previous objections were about the north building being too high, but she is hearing it is about the limited space. She asked to confirm this would be used as offices.

Mr. Mae said a portion will be used for administrative offices until the next phase. It then becomes ground transportation, rental cars and baggage claim.

Mr. Mae asked if the direction from the Board was to go back to the original design and not use stone.

Member Biedscheid said she agreed with Mr. Mae that the combination of height and undivided windows was a good addition as is. She preferred the original proposal to the new material and thought it detracts.

Chair Rios asked if the indentions would look like they should have been windows.

Mr. Mae explained they provide some texture and rhythm on the large wall. He pointed out the three windows (the restrooms) of the old building. The architect had recessed above the windows and they mimicked that. It wasn’t a big difference to him if they remain or not.

Chair Rios said the Board’s direction is that no one is in favor of the stone.

Mr. Mae continued that the other remark they wanted to address was the screening of the mechanical equipment on the roof. They want to maintain the images on the top of the building and there were not a lot of options. He displayed the elevations and a metal screen with graphics, noting when close to the building you hardly notice it.

Chair Rios asked the height and how far back it was from the parapet.

Mr. Mae said when standing on the corner it is closer to the parapet. The height is like a guardrail at and about three and half feet high. The new code requires a barrier between mechanical equipment on the roof if within 12 feet of the roof’s edge.

Member Roybal said he liked the screening and found the artwork attractive with the Zia and how it is broken up. He asked if the design could be even more open and still do what is needed.

Mr. Mae said yes, and it will probably be more open than currently shown once the detail is finished.

Member Roybal said it didn’t look bad now and it will look great opening it up.

Member Bienvenu said he questioned the design element when he originally saw it until it was explained that is the original design from the original railing. He thought it a very elegant solution to the problem. He asked if the detail would be repeated exactly in negative spaces.

Mr. Mae said yes, and a framework of painted steel will hold the railings together.

Member Bienvenu asked the color noting the importance of matching what is already there. He was told the current trim is dark brown.

Chair Rios asked if there was a rendering showing the detail more clearly. Ms. Ramirez Thomas magnified the details.

Mr. Mae showed a view of the north side with the hangar and adobe building and the approach to the building showing rooftop screening. He presented slides of the gates and glass patio, the window into the new area and renderings walking through the building.

Mr. Mae explained the project deadline is in May when it will be turned over to the City for procurement. Bidding is in June/July and the target to start construction is August.

PUBLIC HEARING

Stefani Beninato, PO Box 1601, Santa Fe was sworn. She thought the stone wall wasn’t in keeping. She liked the indentation in the first drawing and thought it unfortunate some of the existing building could not be set back a few feet. She thought the offices, even if cramped, didn’t need that much space. She thought it would be helpful if the stucco color were different and the bike racks closer to the building, perhaps near a bench. It would be good to mimic the original wrought iron design that hides the mechanical equipment on the west side.

Troy Padilla, 3210 A, Ojo Sanjo, owns Jets under Santa Fe next to the terminal. He has been employed at the airport 30 years and has seen numerous and varied transitions of the terminal. He wanted to ask first, why the City was doing this. In 2003 the City renovated the interior and did some terminal design. He didn’t understand how this is historic and why they are here. Since they are here, he preferred the first design. The second design is more Arizona style and doesn’t fit Santa Fe or the terminal. Also, he didn’t understand why this has to be different because a continuous flow works better. He said the terminal is going to grow in Phase 2 and we will go through the same scenario. There will be two different buildings surrounding the original building. He wasn’t sure that is the intent. He asked if they really want the middle of the building to stand out like a sore thumb. He agreed with Buddy Roybal they have the perfect scenario in the first drawing, so why look at something different. He indicated he has the gray buildings next door. He is designing a new terminal and construction starts June 4 and will be more modern. He hoped the Board would reconsider Phase one.

Chair Rios asked Ms. Ramirez Thomas to address Mr. Padilla’s question on the historic.

Ms. Ramirez Thomas explained a resolution passed in 2015 made the Airport terminal a landmark structure. As such it is equivalent to a Significant structure and all of the architectural elements and sides of the building have some preservation. Landmarks are designated when the building is outside of the historic district.

Chair Rios asked Ms. Ramirez Thomas to indicate why the distinction of old and new.

Ms. Ramirez Thomas explained each addition or added element should read as part of its own time. They always want to distinguish the old from the new. In this case, harmony and massing among other elements, are the old.

Chair Rios said they still want the new building to be harmonious with the old building but also be distinct in its feature. It should be apparent it was built at a different time than the existing building that was built in 1957.

BOARD DISCUSSION

Member Bienvenu said the difficulty is that this has come to us as a landmark structure. The Board issues to applying the ordinance definitions to primary façades and setbacks and the requirements within the historic district. Member Bienvenu said this is unusual because there is also the resolution which he thought supersedes the provisions of the ordinance. The City Council basically set forth a list of its own set of separate standards to be applied to the expansion of the airport.

Member Bienvenu said he struggled with if this had just come to the Board as a landmark structure or significant structure within the historic district, it would be easy to say this could not be permitted. Secondly, if it were permitted, it would have to be downgraded. It clearly will not have a high level of historic integrity for the additions. However, he thought this is what the Governing Body anticipated when passing the resolution and designated the airport a landmark.

Member Bienvenu thought the Board’s opinion should not be based on how they would normally approach a significant/landmark building under the ordinance. This should be interpreted with what the City Council had in mind when creating the ordinance standards. He felt doing that, this would meet those standards and he was confident if this went directly to the Governing Body they would approve the project.

Member Biedscheid agreed. The applicants did a thorough job of documenting compliance with the resolution and spent a lot of time interfacing with City staff. And the design is well thought out and responsive to the Board’s requests. She liked the new metal screening and thought the Arts Commission could possibly use that to inspire the recessed areas of the building on the blank wall of the addition.

Member Roybal said he agreed with the other Board members. The architects did a good job interpreting the old and new and what City Council wanted. He applauded them for their hard work.

Chair Rios asked if the type of lighting had been decided.

Mr. Mae replied they have. It will be relatively modern and simple and brown in color. The parking lot has taller poles but the drop off area lighting will be scaled down and pedestrian-sized.

MOTION: In Case 2021-003284-HDRB, 121 Aviation Drive, Member Biedscheid moved to approve the application with a condition the second proposal for a veneer stone wall is not done, and they do the original proposal with the stucco wall and recessed window openings instead; and the proposed benches be redesigned without stone veneer; and the revised proposal be submitted to staff for approval; and finds that the exceptions to Resolution #2015-101 and section 14-5.2(D)2 have been met. Member Roybal seconded the motion.

Member Roybal suggested the screen design be more open, less solid and go to staff for approval.

Member Bienvenu asked a friendly amendment for the screen design motif remain the same and no other motifs be proposed.

Member Biedscheid accepted Member Bienvenu’s friendly amendment. She indicated Member Roybal’s suggestion should remain a suggestion to avoid the possibility of not meeting the criteria of the resolution to adequately screen the rooftop equipment.

VOTE: The motion passed by unanimous (3-0) roll call vote with Members Biedscheid, Bienvenu and Roybal voting in favor and none voting against.

2. Case 2021-003185-HDRB. 1299 Canyon Road. Downtown and Eastside Historic District. Sandra Donner, agent for Julia and Randall Burt, proposes to construct garage to a height of 13 ft at a non-contributing property. (Daniel Schwab)

STAFF REPORT

1299 Canyon Road is a single-family residential structure with non-contributing historic status to the Downtown and Eastside Historic District. The property currently has a coyote fence directly along the street.

On March 9th, 2021, the applicant brought this case to the HDRB proposing to construct a garage and a wall in place of the coyote fence, to install a new vehicular gate along eastern shared driveway, of oxidized steel and other smaller items. The garage was approved with the condition that the height of the garage be lowered by 2 feet.

The applicant now returns to the Board with a proposal to lower the garage by one foot, rather than 2 feet to a height of 13 feet. The maximum allowable height is 16 feet 8 inches. It would be thus 8 feet high along Canyon Road and 18 inches higher than the proposed yard wall. The applicant argues that a 2 ½ foot height difference between yard wall and garage is aesthetically preferable and that similar constellations are visible on Canyon Road. In all other respects, the design for the garage will remain unchanged. It will be finished in El Rey “Twig”-colored stucco.

The other items from the March 9th hearing are not being addressed in this application.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends approval of the proposed project and finds that the application complies with Section 14-5.2(D) General Design Standards for all Historic Districts, and 14-5.2(E) Downtown and Eastside Design Standards.

APPLICANT’S PRESENTATION

Sandra Donner, 1611 Paseo de Peralta, was sworn in. She noted it may not have been clear to the Board they plan to move the wall 7 feet off of the property line. The existing coyote fence is 8 to 9 feet tall and there is a monstrous silver lace vine along the property. The streetscape has multiple properties within 600 feet in both directions in much the same condition. Also, they feel it is more aesthetically appropriate to have a slightly larger step up at that point, to contribute to the dispersion along the wall that was requested for a change in plane.

She said we are using appropriate materials, which are within all zoning rights and are completely appropriate to the streetscape of the historic district.

PUBLIC HEARING

Stefani Beninato, previously sworn, said she appreciated the explanation and that the setback, and the vegetation helps break it up. If the vegetation weren’t there it would look like a massive wall.

BOARD DISCUSSION

Member Bienvenu confirmed there were no exceptions requested.

MOTION: In Case 2021-003185-HDRB, 1299 Canyon Road, Member Bienvenu moved to approve the application as submitted. Member Roybal seconded the motion.

VOTE: The motion passed by unanimous (3-0) roll call vote with Members Biedscheid, Bienvenu and Roybal voting in favor and none voting against.

3. Case 2021-003370-HDRB. 310 Magdalena. Downtown and Eastside Historic District. Luca Mario-Baker, agent for Quincy Sweeny, proposes to alter a contributing yard wall and replace and restore windows and doors.

The applicant requests an exception to 14-5.2(D)(1)(a) for removal and alteration of historic material. (Angela Schackel Bordegaray)

STAFF REPORT

310 Magdalena is a 1,445 sf vernacular style single-family residence with a historic status of contributing to the Downtown and Eastside Historic District. It is partially built into the hillside and sits prominently on a hill above the intersection of Magdalena and Paseo de Peralta. It is publicly visible from the west and south elevations. Its core likely predates statehood. It has undergone several expansions over its lifetime. The south elevation was added onto sometime before 1970 with aluminum sliding windows. It has few of its original windows. Windows on the south addition are metal sliding; its overhang is modern has a metal fascia. The building’s front entry has a landing that appears to have been altered. The driveway has a low stonewall that starts from the bottom of the driveway at the street and continues east toward the main house. Based on several alterations over the years, the low stone wall lost a section at the east end and deteriorated at its east termination. In a previous case, the HDRB confirmed its historic status as contributing and designated it west façade as primary. The board designated an eastern portion of the driveway stone yard wall contributing.

The applicant proposes the following alterations and treatments:

HOUSE

1. Add a portal extending the length of the west primary façade. The 224 sf portal is Spanish Pueblo style with a standing seam or corrugated pitched roof. The portal has wooden horizontal beam over four posts. The vigas are located between the roof decking and the horizontal beam. The portal extends to the west edge of the landing.

2. Bring into compliance the west elevation entry landing. The existing landing is uneven concrete, drops approximately 10 feet to the ground without any guardrail. Its two sets of steps on the north and south ends must be rebuilt to meet code. To bring the landing into compliance, the applicant proposes to add a 3’ - 5” fence spanning the length of the landing on the west elevation that lines up with the portal’s western edge. The fence is wood railing spanning 19’ flanked by two stuccoed pilaster masses at each end flush with the railing. The applicant proposes to add a stone planter to the existing front porch wall. Its intent is to break up the massing of the wall and will allow for water retention. The new planters will match existing stone on the landing wall.

3. The applicant proposes to replace all windows except the west elevation windows. New windows will match the historic windows on the primary façade. Replacement windows will be wood casements with true divided lites. Existing windows and front door on primary façade will remain and be repaired as needed. Single-pane original windows on the south and north façade adjacent the primary façade will be repaired as needed. Remaining non-historic windows and doors will be replaced. The window trim will be painted Sierra Pacific teal. The applicant proposes to place a craftsman style sconce north of the front door in a bronze or dark finish.

DRIVEWAY AND FRONT YARD

1. Remove and re-route a portion of contributing site wall along driveway. The applicant proposes to remove the easternmost 16’ of the site wall to allow for parking spaces to the west of the primary façade. The current configuration of the driveway and parking area requires backing out of the steep and narrow driveway onto the street. Parking is available only at the top, eastern, end of the driveway. The applicant proposes to re-route the 16’ portion of the yard wall to allow for two parking spaces on the west front yard. The portion of the yard wall to be removed and relocated tapers down to 18” and is in need of repair with collapsed portions of the yard wall on site. The relocated yard wall portion will curve north and return east connecting with rebuilt stairs on the north side of the landing. The applicant will remove the existing two parking spaces and gravel at the top of the lot on the east end and develop a landscaped buffer along the house’s southern façade.

The applicant has provided responses to the Exception criteria for adding onto a primary façade and altering a portion of the driveway wall considered contributing.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends the proposal as it meets the design standards of the Downtown and Eastside Historic District per Section 14-5.2(D) General Design Standards for all Historic Districts and 14-5.2(E) Downtown and Eastside Design Standards. Staff finds that the applicant has met the criteria for exceptions to 14-5.2(D)(1)(a) General Design Standards for all Historic Districts which addresses historic status in relation to removal of historic material.

QUESTIONS FOR STAFF

Chair Rios asked if staff agreed with all of the responses to the exceptions. Ms. Bordegaray replied yes, they responded to the criteria.

APPLICANT’S PRESENTATION

Luca Marino-Baker, High Desert Creative, 38A County Road 84, New Mexico was sworn in.

Chair Rios asked why the applicant wanted to remove some of the wall and rebuild it.

Mr. Marino-Baker explained all work done historically has been necessary. The driveway currently is very narrow and deep. The lot currently is configured so you can pull in, but you have to back out the full length of the driveway. The driveway narrows heading down to the street because of the wall on the north side, and a chain link fence on the south side.

He noted the current parking on the site plan. He said the safest way to park is to carve out space to the west of the primary façade as shown by the revised site plan. That would allow them to pull in and back into a space and pull out going forward to go down the driveway. There are existing neighboring walls at Magdalena when backing out that

requires you to be very careful of oncoming traffic and pedestrians.

Mr. Marino-Baker said essentially, they want to alter the current course of the wall to facilitate safe parking on-site because of the danger. He noted that when looking at a satellite image the former owners appear to have damaged the wall when backing out, and/or drove over the wall to park where proposing parking. The wall at one point probably extended closer to the house, but that portion of the wall has either been removed or so damaged that only the base remained.

Mr. Marino-Baker said he is proposing to remove the easternmost 15 feet of what is a 46 foot long yard wall (about 1/3). They want to remove a portion and reroute with a 5 foot radius circle to the north to another new side wall. That allows them a formal parking space and helps retain the soil behind it and drops the spaces a little lower. The cars will not be visible from the residence because to the right where the primary façade is, there is an existing 6 foot high stone embedded wall. This will deal with the existing contributing wall, create safe parking on-site, and re-routing a portion of the wall will let them connect at least 15 feet to the north. That will be in keeping with the construction and style of the existing wall.

Finally, if it were not for the contributing nature of the wall, an option would be to completely remove it and push it deeper into the hillside to have more than a 10 ft driveway. Out of respect for the neighborhood and in keeping with the historic nature they want to have the new wall appear as much like the existing walls as possible. Instead of a wall that is just deteriorating it will function as part of the site design and interconnect with other stone embedded type walls on the property.

QUESTIONS FOR APPLICANT

Member Biedscheid asked to see the portion of the wall that would be removed. She asked if the Sierra Pacific teal color was an attempt to match the existing color.

Mr. Marino-Baker said currently the windows have a vibrant blue trim and have been repainted many times. Teal is the closest color to what they believe is the original paint at the bottom of the layers.

Member Biedscheid asked if there was a sample of the paint in the packet, and if the stucco color would change.

Mr. Marino-Baker said he has the physical sample of the color and offered to show it on screen. He noted the stucco color will not change. He displayed the deteriorated existing wall. He indicated the 15 feet section of the wall that would be removed and what would be kept.

Member Bienvenu asked if the chain link fence is on this or the adjacent property and if there is a plan for the fence.

Mr. Marino-Baker explained the fence is on the property line and prevents someone from careening off the side. It has been hit several times and he understood it was put up by the neighbors. They have no plan for the fence.

Quincy Sweeney, 22 Piatt Road, the owner, was sworn. He wanted to comment that the chain link fence is not on their property and there is nothing they could do with that.

Member Bienvenu thought that chain-link fences were not allowed in the historic district.

Ms. Ramirez Thomas said that is accurate, but believed the fence was put up as construction became imminent when the lot came to the Board for a design. But nothing came of the construction.

Member Bienvenu said the property would look much better without the chain-link fence. Possibly they could take action to get something different. He added the property under its current configuration looks unusable. Their solution is well thought out and appropriate and will make the property usable and keep the public’s interest and the view and will vastly improve the property.

Chair Rios agreed and added it is also a safety issue.

Mr. Marino-Baker showed a color sample of the blue for the windows and offered to provide a color sample.

PUBLIC HEARING

Stefani Beninato, previously sworn, said the proposed change really needs to happen and the tie-in to the stairs and continuation is a good design. She liked that the wall closest to the house would not be impacted and parking will be lower. She asked about the changes to the windows not on the primary façade; what they look like now and what is proposed.

Chair Rios asked if the openings of the replacement windows will change.

Mr. Marino-Baker said they will not but the one in the bedroom is currently a door that will be turned into a window. He displayed the side-by-side of the two elevations and explained what is proposed.

BOARD DISCUSSION

MOTION: In Case 2021-003370-HDRB, 310 Magdalena, Member Roybal moved to approve as presented per staff recommendations and found that the exceptions have been met. Member Bienvenu seconded the motion.

VOTE: The motion passed by unanimous (3-0) roll call vote with Members Biedscheid, Bienvenu and Roybal voting in favor and none voting against.

4. Case 2021-003380-HDRB. 806 Don Gaspar Avenue. Don Gaspar Area Historic District. Daniel Strongwater, owner and agent, proposes to reroof a contributing structure. An exception to Section 14-5.2(D)(6) is requested to change the existing roof material. (Daniel Schwab)

STAFF REPORT

806 Don Gaspar is a single-family residential structure designated Contributing to the Don Gaspar Area Historic District. The house was built in 1911 in a “cottage” style. It has shallow gables in the front, wood shingles and a diamond-shaped fixed pane window at the gable end. In case H-17-057A, heard by the Board on July 11, 2017, primary façades were designated to the contributing structures. Character defining features identified were the painted wood shingles and gabled roof, as well as its location set back from the street. It has a tar shingle roof which is presumed not to be original, and also not historic. In 2000, it had “dark” tar shingles and white trim and an unknown roof material. The historic roof material is unknown.

On October 10, 2017, in case H-17-057B, the Board approved construction of an addition of 550 square feet to the house of 1212 square feet. The exterior finishes included vertical wood siding and a galvanized standing seam metal roof.

The applicant appeared before the Historic Districts Review Board on August 11th, 2020 with a proposal to replace the tar-shingle roof with a metal Victorian Tile roof colored a matte “Shasta White.” An exception to Section 14-5.2(D)(6) was requested not to maintain the existing roof styles and materials.

The HDRB postponed the application, with the concern that the exception criteria, especially number 2 (damage to the public welfare and the applicant), were not met, and requested an updated proposal. The applicant was requested in the Board’s motion to specifically consider the following options for roofing material:

1. Wood, in the original style,

2. Asphalt that compliments the original color,

3. Standing seam which would coordinate with the back of the house, but more matte in appearance.

The applicant returned to the Board on September 8, 2020 with the proposal to implement option number 3, a standing seam roof. This was denied by the Board.

The applicant now returns to the Board, proposing to re-roof with standing seam material of a different color and texture that he believes are more in keeping with the historic qualities of the house. This material is painted to have a more matte look, like a historic, or aged metal roof. The applicant maintains that there is no evidence that the original roof was wood shingle.

In preparation for this renewed application, and at the request of staff, the applicant examined a number of alternative materials, including wood shake, composite, plastic and rubber shingles that give the appearance of wood. His responses are given in a separate in this packet.

The applicant maintains his choice for a standing seam roof for the following reasons:

1. It will weather well and will be compatible with the district and historically respectful of the building;

2. It will differentiate the historic structure from the addition;

3. It has an acceptable environmental footprint (one wood shingle is grown in New Zealand, processed in the Netherlands, and shipped to New York before coming to Santa Fe)

4. It will last in the Santa Fe climate (he points to a recently shingled roof on Paseo de Peralta that is showing signs of degradation after only 3 years);

5. It is affordable, while the wood shake he has found costs over $40,000, where the standing seam option costs $14,200. This is a difference of $25,800 or 285%.

In the opinion of Staff, this choice amply differentiates the original structure from the modern addition but does not create a false sense of history by installing wood shake where there is no direct evidence of their prior existence on this structure. It is preferable to choose a modern material that makes clear that it is modern and demonstrates that historic details are lost and cannot be re-constructed based on the evidence.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends that all the exception criteria have been met. Staff recommends approval of the application as it complies with 14-5.2(D) General Design Standards for all H Districts, and 14-5.2(I) Westside-Guadalupe Historic District.

QUESTIONS FOR STAFF

Chair Rios asked if staff agreed with the responses for the exception. Mr. Schwab said he did agree.

APPLICANT’S PRESENTATION

Daniel Strongwater, 806 Don Gaspar, was sworn in. He said they have done a tremendous amount of research. They continue to believe the standing seam makes sense for many reasons. Previously they proposed an ash gray standing seam which did not appease the Board. The Board asked that he explore wood shingles, and there is no evidence there was ever wood shingles on the roof. They looked further at what is available and found a pre-weathered gavalume, which appears like an aged, galvanized roof. He thought the new addition at Paseo de Peralta has a roof in that material.

He pointed out a view of his house as seen from Berger Street. It highlights how incongruous the asphalt roof is with the rest of the building and other approved features.

Mr. Strongwater said he would again request what seemed to him a logical choice for his roof for this neighborhood. He hoped the Board would approve, and if not, he would like to discuss alternative metal solutions that might work. They have talked with their neighbors and the packet includes a letter from them in support of his proposal. He also learned about a treatment to take off some of the sheen on galvanized metal and thought it would tone down reflections even more for his neighbors.

QUESTIONS FOR APPLICANT

Chair Rios asked if he would replicate the pattern of the standing seam shown in the photograph.

Mr. Strongwater replied it would be the same pattern and dimension unless the Board suggested an alternative. The color differentiation should be sufficient.

Chair Rios asked how far up the seam stands.

Mr. Strongwater said about ¾ of an inch.

Member Roybal asked how quickly the galvanized metal ages.

Mr. Strongwater said he couldn’t speak to the gavalume because it has not aged since installed in 2018. The new pre-weathered gavalume will age even slower. The concept is that it maintains the same color and once it ages, be a color somewhat similar. He explained it is an epoxy coating that any standing seam roof would have.

Member Roybal asked if the color of the aluminum was already toned down.

Mr. Strongwater said no, it is very bright in the photograph. What they are saying is they will put a chemical treatment on the existing galvanized to give it a whitish matte finish. When the roof was approved in 2017 he wasn’t aware it was contentious. It didn’t receive a lot of discussion at that H-Board hearing.

Chair Rios said she found it interesting they couldn’t find out if the roof had been wood or tar shingles. She said the neighborhood has had tar and wood shingles for ages. She lived in a house with tar shingles and there wasn’t a problem with the roof for 20 years.

Mr. Strongwater explained the desire to get away from tar/asphalt shingles has less to do with longevity and more to do with their environmental footprint and contamination for gardening. A large reason they want to redo the roof is to add four-inch gutters. They hope to use the rainwater responsibly, and they cannot do that now because of the contamination. He offered to share evidence of the damage of tar/asphalt shingles.

Chair Rios asked if the chemicals that will be used on the roof would not affect the garden.

Mr. Strongwater explained it is a one-time treatment in the plan to catch the chemicals in buckets. It will not go through the gutters.

PUBLIC HEARING

Stefani Beninato, previously sworn, said everyone has the same considerations and that doesn’t satisfy a hardship. This neighborhood does have shingled roofs. If the Board approved this she would think the skylights should become roof level. She thought the water could be captured for nonedible plants and having a vegetable garden should not be the primary criteria for allowing this type of roof. She noted the example used of the house on Don Gaspar is slightly different than this house.

BOARD DISCUSSION

Member Bienvenu asked for the Code provision that addressed this issue. The exception is requested because it changes the existing roof material. He wanted to understand if the Code refers to the existing, even if it is not historic.

Mr. Schwab noted (D)6 uses “existing” and states, “The existing roof styles, the materials shall be maintained or replaced in kind, if necessary.” It doesn’t say historic or original. There is a debate around that.

Ms. Paez indicated this only applies to contributing or significant structures for designated homes. She thought this could be read that the intent is to preserve the original roof style.

Member Bienvenu thought that would be the obvious intent. It would be strange if a roof put in five years ago had to be maintained forever. He said he appreciated Chair Rios’ comments about the district. He said, as he mentioned previously, it would be helpful if there was an historic survey of the history of roof materials in the neighborhoods. He thought this material is common but would question whether that is because the Board has been approving them recently, or there have always been a percentage of that style of roof. There is so little information on what the original roof was.

MOTION: In Case 2021-003380-HDRB, 806 Don Gaspar Avenue, Member Bienvenu moved that the application be approved as submitted and found that the exceptions have been met. Member Roybal seconded the motion.

VOTE: The motion passed by unanimous (3-0) roll call vote with Members Biedscheid, Bienvenu, and Roybal voting in favor and none voting against.

H. NEW BUSINESS

1. Case 2021-003458-HDRB. 109 East Palace Avenue. Downtown and Eastside Historic District. Carlos Kinsey, agent for Martha Field Family, LLC, owner, requests a status review and primary facade designation for a residential structure. (Daniel Schwab)

STAFF REPORT

The structure in question at 109 East Palace has contributing status to the Downtown and Eastside Historic District. Despite this location, it has not much historical connection with the well-known buildings lining East Palace, directly in front of it. It is located north of Palace street, facing south onto a parking lot. Originally constructed for stables and storage probably before 1880, it evolved over many decades, mostly of brick, in a long rectangular single-story form oriented east to west of approximately 2000 square feet. It sits around 18 inches below grade, and at some points the window sashes are below grade. It is structured as a series of apartments but is used for storage at present.

The structure faces south. The south façade is visible from the street, and communicates the organic character of the building with four sections of slightly varied height and depth. The windows are mostly wood sash windows, probably dating from the 1930s. The east façade is very short and has a portal that appears to be a later addition. The north elevation, on a narrow alley, is clearly the rear of the building. Like the south façade, it has a series of historic wood sash windows as well as wood casements located at the bathrooms.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends designating only the south façade as primary.

QUESTIONS FOR STAFF

Chair Rios clarified that the south façade is the front façade.

Mr. Schwab said that was correct.

APPLICANT’S PRESENTATION

Carlos Kinsey, 3600 Cerrillos Road, Unit 205, was sworn in. He agreed with Mr. Schwab’s recommendation and had nothing to add. He said the HCPI is extremely thorough and has a similar recommendation to maintain the contributing status. He agrees with that.

Chair Rios said she enjoyed reading the history of the building.

PUBLIC HEARING

Stefani Beninato, previously sworn, said she was confused by the address of the building. She understood that address is a commercial retail space and to the westside is a courtyard and a store. She agrees with the designation.

Chair Rios asked what address other than Palace Avenue the building could have. Mr. Schwab didn’t know. He said this was the address in question.

Kathy Rivera, PO Box 363, Santa Fe was sworn. She said she was also confused why these two properties would have the same address. She thought it could be one of the historic buildings with an historic marker as one of the initial entry points for workers who came to Santa Fe to work on the Manhattan Project. There is a lot of historic documentation for 109 E. Palace Ave. relating to the Manhattan Project. She just wanted to point that out to the Board.

Ms. Ramirez Thomas explained that is the correct address.

Chair Rios asked if the buildings in front also have the same address. Ms. Ramirez Thomas replied it appears that is the case.

Chair Rios said that this was related to the Manhattan project was very interesting.

Member Biedscheid asked Mr. Schwab his thoughts on the east façade. It was mentioned in the HCPI as characterized by a portal that was probably an addition. There was no date given. She thought corner portals a distinctive feature of a certain period of architecture.

Mr. Schwab said he followed the lead of the HCPI. There was a lot of history, but his sense was it was a recent portal.

Ms. Ramirez Thomas shared aerial photos indicating the portal was there in 1973 but not present in the photograph from 1930 or 1948.

BOARD DISCUSSION

MOTION: In Case 2021-003458-HDRB, 109 East Palace Avenue, Member Bienvenu moved to maintain contributing status and designate the south façade as primary. Member Biedscheid seconded the motion.

VOTE: The motion passed by unanimous (3-0) roll call vote with Members Biedscheid, Bienvenu and Roybal voting in favor and none voting against.

2. Case 2021-003460. 819 Camino Atalaya. Downtown and Eastside Historic District. Colleen Gavin, agent for Jill and Ray Weeks, proposes renovations, remodel, door and window replacement, and reconfiguration of yard walls to a 5,736 sf non-contributing residential structure. (Angela Bordegaray)

STAFF REPORT

819 Camino Atalaya is a non-contributing 5,736 sf building constructed in the 1980s in the Spanish-Pueblo Revival style. The property is located at the southern end of Camino Atalaya, adjacent to the northern boundary of the School for Advanced Research (SAR) campus. A stucco yardwall and wooden gate enclose the front courtyard. A rock planting island faces the street at the southwestern property boundary. The existing building’s maximum height is 17’-4” at the midpoint of the street-facing façade. No increases in the maximum building height are proposed. For easier orientation, the applicant used ‘plan north’ to simplify the references to the plan and elevations since the residence is oriented about 45° off of north. The building’s maximum height is 17’- 4” and due to its north slope its overall height is 19’-7 ½”. The maximum allowable height for buildings in this streetscape, 18’-1”.

The applicant proposes the following items:

1. Reconfigure front portal and add onto entry foyer. The applicants propose to shorten and deepen the entry foyer to enlarge the portal by 236 sf. 2. Remove existing wine room on west side elevation and add a 161 sf laundry room and mudroom. The applicant proposes to add divided lite windows on its west wall.

3. Replace existing garage doors with medium brown stained wood garage doors. The opening dimensions of the garage doors will not change, except for the raising the header height on the north garage door to accommodate taller vehicles and storage. Garage door details are provided in the plans.

4. Add a 573 sf dining portal 14’ in height at the west end of the north elevation. It will be finished in stucco and stone veneer. The proposed portal will be supported by medium brown stained wooden posts. It will feature an outdoor fireplace on the west end, flanked on the south by an opening, fitted with simple, natural finish, wrought iron grille.

5. Add 162 sf addition on the north elevation. Three divided-lite, medium brown stained wood windows are proposed on the addition’s north façade.

6. Remodel rear portal on northeast elevation, raising its roof to 14’-7” and adding 57 sf of roofed area. New windows and doors will be steel casements. The existing north portal is made up of dark stained vigas and wood decking with a stuccoed parapet roof that extends out approximately 7’ from the north elevation. The proposed new portal removes the parapet and heavy beams and replaces it with a wood beam and decking portal stained in a medium brown, with a wood fascia trimmed roof to minimize the profile of the roof and ‘lighten’ the structure.

7. Remove roof deck and exterior spiral staircase.

8. Increase parapet height from 10’- 2” to 13’- 6” on the east elevation. Proposed height is below the home’s maximum height of 17’-5”.

9. Replace all windows and doors. Existing windows are 1980s aluminum clad without divided lites. The applicant proposes to install a combination of wood and steel windows throughout the building. All replacement windows will be divided lite wood windows. All windows and door glazing complies with the 40% maximum requirement where there is not a portal. The areas where the window/door unit exceeds the 40% is under portals. This occurs at the north portal and Mud Room portal only on the east elevation. The south and west elevation windows are the only publicly visible windows. New wood windows will be stained in a medium brown hue, and steel windows and doors will be finished in an oil-rubbed bronze matte paint finish.

10. Restucco entire building with El Rey’s “Adobe” cementitious stucco.

11. Add four fireplaces at southeast and northeast corners and to the north elevation and the west side of proposed dining portal.

12. All existing skylights will be removed and relocated. Six new skylights are proposed. All proposed skylights will be screened by parapets. 13. Redesign courtyard walls, patios, and parking areas.

14. Expand the front courtyard, moving the south courtyard to the southern property boundary. The proposal eliminates the existing drive/parking aisle between the existing courtyard wall and the planter at the southern property boundary. New courtyard walls will border the existing planter and existing trees. The proposed southern courtyard wall will not exceed the maximum allowable height of 53” and will feature stepped massing and buttressed pilasters to modulate the wall in compliance the wall and fence guidelines. The 10’ section of wall is only over the entry gate as a zaguan feature to replace the existing gate/zaguan feature which is at 9’- 3”, for a minor increase in height of 9”. A new parking area will be created at the southeastern corner of the property, and the western courtyard wall and pedestrian entry will be altered to accommodate the expanded courtyard configuration. Additional guest parking will be added to the southwest corner of the courtyard. Interior planters, pathways, and steps are proposed that will not be publicly visible. The height of the northern courtyard wall will be lowered from the existing 64” high wall not to exceed 43”.

15. Remove and replace existing agricultural wire fencing along the eastern property boundary. The applicants are working with SAR to replace this fencing in-kind to height not to exceed 6’.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends approval of the proposed project and finds that the application complies with Section 14-5.2(D) General Design Standards for all Historic Districts and 14-5.2(E) Downtown and Eastside Design Standards.

QUESTIONS FOR STAFF

Chair Rios asked to confirm that the wall would go from 3’ 7” to 4 feet 5 inches.

Ms. Bordegaray said yes. She displayed the entry for the gate and the lower walls, proposed to be lower than the existing walls. She explained the courtyard wall will be extended from the street facing wall to the northside.

APPLICANT’S PRESENTATION

Colleen Gavin, 130 Grant Avenue was sworn in. She shared her screen and explained she was representing the owners. There is 5700 sq ft of existing and a total of 1001 ft. will be added. An aerial view of the property and the surrounding area was displayed. The property is tucked down 4-5 feet from the finished elevation of Atalaya and is not very visible from the street. She reviewed the existing floorplan and the changes proposed for the building and property.

QUESTIONS FOR APPLICANT

Chair Rios asked on the east elevation for more information about the window area beyond the portal.

Ms. Gavin explained the windows are proposed as steel casement windows and there is an operable door.

Member Roybal said this was an amazing presentation. He thanked her for being so thorough. He liked what has been done and thought it will be a beautiful home and tremendously enhanced.

Ms. Gavin said the team has been working on the plans since the Fall of 2020. The owners are dedicated to make sure the home is restored to what it could have been. The walls are actually made of steel with frame. She noted it was an interesting discovery process finding what works and what doesn’t. The modifications are fairly minor, and they try to look at the exterior as a whole.

Member Bienvenu echoed Member Roybal’s comments. He thought this a testament to the owners’ vision and the architect. They took an undistinguished 90s style house and without a huge amount of modification, turned it into something beautiful. This proves you can work in the traditional language and still have something suitable for today.

Chair Rios said she agreed with the Board members. The house is large and to make all of the changes, little things like changing the windows to divided light and the step downs, had to be a huge challenge.

Ms. Gavin said the architects worked diligently together to add small touches without overdoing them. And everyone worked together to make sure the results were authentic. She agreed with Member Roybal, this is a testament when you take your time and are respectful of the architecture.

PUBLIC HEARING

Stefani Beninato, previously sworn, said she appreciated the work that went into this and that the walls will be lower. She asked if the yard wall would be moved. She liked that they put in a mud room, and the extended back portal will make it more usable and environmentally sound. She asked why they would put a clerestory window, looks busy and they could conserve energy by not having them. She wondered also why the garage doors are uneven in terms of height and materials. And she didn’t understand the agricultural fencing.

Ms. Gavin responded that the agricultural fencing exists currently and is about 3 1/2 feet tall. It has not been attended to for many years. The proposal is to put in new agricultural fencing and raise it to 6 feet where possible.

BOARD DISCUSSION

MOTION: In Case 2021-003460, 819 Camino Atalaya, Member Roybal moved to approve as per staff recommendation. Member Bienvenu seconded the motion.

VOTE: The motion passed by unanimous (3-0) roll call vote with Members Biedscheid, Bienvenu and Roybal voting in favor and none voting against.

3. Case 2021-003459-HDRB. 104 Calle La Pena. Downtown and Eastside Historic District. Jenkins Gavin, Inc. agent for Darcy and Kay Henderson, owners, proposes to enlarge a portal, construct a 710 square foot addition, replace gates and make other minor changes to a non-contributing residential structure. (Daniel Schwab)

STAFF REPORT

104 Calle la Pena is a single-family residential structure with non-contributing status to the Downtown and Eastside Historic District. It is 1540 square feet in size and is constructed in a Spanish Pueblo Revival Style. It was constructed originally as 2 small structures, one prior to 1958, the other after 1966. These were joined into one with substantial additions after 1973.

It also has adobe yard walls, constructed prior to 1966, with their height being raised from 6 feet 6 inches to 7 feet 2 inches in 1971-2. The yard wall gate opening along Calle la Pena was widened in 2012.

The applicant proposes the following:

1. Replace and enlarge the south portal to 100 square feet. It will have wooden structural elements stained a medium brown.

2. Remove the two entries on the south and east elevations, including the portal on the south elevation. The stucco of the infilled wall will be El Rey “Desert Rose”. 3. Construct a 710 square foot addition on the east elevation to a height of 12 feet, the same height as the existing structure. Windows will match the existing teal, and will be of aluminum clad with divided lights.

4. Add egress doors on the north façade;

5. Replace vehicular and pedestrian gates on the south yard wall along the streetscape. This will include widening the non-historic opening in the wall from 10 to16 feet. The wrought iron pedestrian gate will be raised from about 3 feet to about 6 feet;

6. Create a new opening and install a gate of stained wood in the north yard wall. 7. Reconfigure yard walls and construct a low wood picket fence and pedestrian gate to the guest house.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends approval of the proposed project and finds that the application complies with Section 14-5.2(D) General Design Standards for all Historic Districts, and 14-5.2(E) Downtown and Eastside Design Standards.

QUESTIONS FOR STAFF

Chair Rios asked to see the elevation drawings and what would be publicly visible.

Mr. Schwab said depending on how far back you stand, mostly you see the wall. The gate is 10 feet high and will be widened to 16 feet to accommodate two cars.

APPLICANT’S PRESENTATION

Richard Martinez, 1524 Paseo de Peralta was sworn. He indicated Ms. Gavin planned a presentation and he was available for questions.

Ms. Gavin, previously sworn, presented slides of the property and the proposed project. She noted that the casita is not part of the application. There was an historical assessment done, although it was not a HCPI. Parking will be provided for two vehicles and an additional bedroom/bathroom space.

QUESTIONS FOR APPLICANT

Chair Rios said she wondered why the gate has to be increased. She asked if two cars would be going in at the same time.

Ms. Gavin displayed the site plan and explained currently there is a 10 foot gate and large tree. That makes it difficult to maneuver two cars. In order to turn and get in and out you need 90° and as is, it is incredibly tight. There is mature vegetation that they did not want to destroy to accommodate the cars and the proposed plan allows two cars

to park next to each other. The plan is the most efficient and conservative way to accommodate two cars without taking up a lot more room.

PUBLIC HEARING

Stefani Beninato, previously sworn, said she liked that this house is not square to the property. She too was wondering about the need for a 16 foot gate. She was surprised three-car spaces weren’t needed since there is a guest house. She thought the double sized pedestrian gate overwhelming, but appreciated the open design.

BOARD DISCUSSION

Member Bienvenu commented that a trade-off on the gate is they are getting rid of the height of the beam and it will now have more visibility, and the gate is more transparent than a wall. He wasn’t bothered by the size of the gate.

MOTION: In Case 2021-003459-HDRB, 104 Calle La Pena, Member Bienvenu moved to approve as submitted. Member Roybal seconded the motion.

VOTE: The motion passed by unanimous (3-0) roll call vote with Members Biedscheid, Bienvenu and Roybal voting in favor and none voting against.

4. Case 2020-002791-HDRB. 530 Garcia Street. Downtown and Eastside Historic District. Christopher Purvis, agent for Casa Barbara Condominiums, requests a status review and primary elevation designation for a non-contributing property. (Angela Bordegaray)

STAFF REPORT

530 Garcia is a 12,045 sf seven-building cluster of apartments and structures built in 1951 in the Downtown and Eastside Historic District. It was built primarily in a simple Territorial Revival Style of poured concrete and stucco. Windows are steel casements in various combinations. The 12 apartments range from 537 to 806 sf. A paved driveway along the south boundary leads to the rear of the property where there is a long carport, laundry, storage facility and a separate garage.

Casa Barbara consists of 12 apartments, now privately owned condominiums, arranged in five blocks. The complex sits on the west side of Garcia Street not far from its intersection with Acequia Madre and Delgado. The building blocks are arranged as a U, framing a courtyard, on a roughly one-acre rectangular lot. The Historic Preservation Division’s historical inventory form dates to 1984. At that time, it was less than 50 years old, and no status was noted. It is now 70 years old, has remained almost entirely intact, with minor changes to its courtyard. The applicant has provided a new historical survey and requests a historic status determination and primary façade(s) designation as applicable.

The original apartments are arranged in a U-shape form, surrounding an 8,100 sf central courtyard. They include four one-story units (Blocks A-D) and one two-story walk-up (Block E), forming the base of the U at the west end. The buildings are connected by breezeways. Windows are steel casements of varying patterns and sizes. Each block shows slight variations. All buildings are connected by small roofs, some serving as breezeways. Each block has a flat roof with a medium overhang capped with metal fascia. All buildings have textured buckskin stucco. The windows are stock steel casement units, ranging from single sash to large combination windows with a mix of fixed and operable sash. Windows facing the courtyard are trimmed with a pedimented head. Sills are composed of slanted bricks in a rowlock pattern. Primary entry doors are solid wood units with a variety of panel designs.

The blocks’ orientation reflects the Federal Housing Authority’s garden apartment design setting units at right angles to the street, creating a garden courtyard at the center for all tenants. Each unit faces the courtyard and is visible through large living room windows.

Spanning the property’s west elevation is a 2,400-sf steel carport. Adjacent to the carport’s north end is a laundry room, storage area and a one-bay doorless garage structure.

The north property line is a 5’ high plastered and stucco yard wall. At the complex’ front facing Garcia Street is a short, 3’, white wood picket fence.

The complex, as a whole, is important for illustrating planning and design trends of the postwar period. It is equally significant as one of the few veteran’s housing complexes erected in Santa Fe, specifically tied to the veterans’ rental housing program. It also is important as one of the first apartment complexes built in Santa Fe. The apartment complex’ styling and configuration is unique to the Garcia Street streetscape.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Per Section 14-5.2(C)(2)(a), Regulation of Significant and Contributing Structures in the Historic Districts, staff recommends that Buildings A – E, the carport, laundry, storage, garage, connecting breezeways and white picket fence at the east and south elevations Significant.

Staff finds the Casa Barbara complex, as the group of buildings and structures, is Significant to the Downtown and Eastside Historic District because it retains a high level of historic integrity: it is over 50 years old and embodies distinctive characteristics of apartment complexes of this type, mid-century period, and construction methods. The apartment complex features simple-style mirrored symmetry in its facades with some variation in steel casement window sizes and patterns. Its windows have territorial style concrete pediment surrounds and brick sills painted white. It has been maintained and repaired in its original state and has undergone no alterations in its 70-year-old lifespan. It is built of poured concrete and stucco and has flat roofs with medium overhangs capped with metal fascia. If the structures are designated Significant, the Board does not need to designate primary facades because the code protects all facades of a significant structure in the manner that it protects the primary facades of a contributing structure.

QUESTIONS FOR STAFF

Chair Rios said she agrees the status should be significant. She noted this is from the postwar era. When she drives by there she is happy this has not changed.

Member Roybal voiced concern that the apartment complex had not had any changes in over 70 years, especially the exterior and stucco. He asked that staff to explain the difference between contributing and significant.

Ms. Bordegaray read the definition of a Significant structure, “A structure located in the historic district that is approximately 50 years old or older and that imbibes the characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction.” A Contributing structure is, “located in the historic district that is approximately 50 years old or older, that helps to establish and maintain the character of that historic district. Although a contributing structure is not unique in itself, it adds to the historic associations of historic architectural design qualities that are significant for a district. A contributing structure may have had minor alterations, but its integrity remains.”

Ms. Bordegaray added that the only changes were the replacement of glass in two panes of a casement. Other than maintenance, there have been no changes to any of the façades or buildings.

Member Roybal said he just wanted to be sure this is designated correctly. If designated as significant the owner will have a difficult time making any changes even to update. He was concerned with that many apartments that the owner may not be able to make necessary changes.

APPLICANT’S PRESENTATION

Christopher Purvis, 518 Old Santa Fe Trail, was sworn in. He said he mostly agreed with staff’s recommendation. He knows the manner in which the building has been maintained. The owner intends to continue to maintain it and he understands if made significant. If it is just the building, it is unique and it is not a normal Santa Fe style. He noted there have been some changes. He knows the person who replaced the fence 30 years ago and he is aware of a minor change on the laundry room for health and safety. The owners intend to keep the structure as is.

Mr. Purvis said he agreed with the structure being significant, but it will be more onerous for the owner.

PUBLIC HEARING

Paul Wilcox, 530 Garcia Street , Apartment 9, was sworn. He explained he is the president of the condominium association. He wanted to mention there was a picket fence at the front of the property and it was replaced about 30 years ago. He understands the desire to make the building significant, but as owners it would be challenging to make changes. He wanted to be sure the fence was excluded if the property is made significant.

Stefanie Beninato, previously sworn, said this was the first place she lived when she moved to Santa Fe and would be happy if significant. It hasn’t changed over time. She remembered there was a white picket fence in 1975, but things deteriorate and have to be replaced. She found the story about the association of veterans interesting.

BOARD DISCUSSION

Member Bienvenu asked staff what they knew about the age of the picket fence.

Ms. Bordegaray replied the picket fence is referenced in the historical survey as part of the original property. She thought the picket fence was a significantly contributing element to the compound streetscape.

Ms. Ramirez Thomas added it is possible a picket fence in similar style was original to the property, but the current fence is not the original material. She suggested the Board discuss whether the style of fence is appropriate for a significant property. The owner could then replace it.

Member Biedscheid said she agreed the Board should consider a picket fence could be suitable for the property. She noted that the Board has a difficult time preserving compounds under significant designation. She believed this was the next evolution of the compound and worth preserving as contributing as a whole, rather than in pieces.

Mr. Purvis said Mitchell Smith, a carpenter, replaced the fence, which he understood was wooden. Looking at the age of the fence you can see it is failing. He agreed with keeping the picket fence, but the issue is to be allowed to maintain the buildings. Things will need to be done; painting, replacing the wood fence, re-roofing and ongoing upkeep. They are not proposing not now, but the fence was replaced about 30 years ago, and will need to be replaced at some point. Although he didn’t think the owners plan to do that immediately.

Ms. Ramirez Thomas said she and Ms. Bordegaray visited the property and discussed specific things that make this significant and the need of repairing those in the future. The roof style is maintenance and repair, fence replacement if in kind, could be repair, otherwise is administrative. The windows are steel casement, but in great condition. She thought it would help staff assist the applicants when time to repair to know things like preserving the windows character, the divided lights, the concrete pediments for the surrounding and the brick. For instance, the replacement of the window would require an exception because of the removal of historic material, etc.

Member Bienvenu said rather than specifying features that should be preserved, it would be simpler to designate this landmark and let the Code apply. It would either be maintained according to Code or the applicant would come back for an exception and be addressed by the Board.

Chair Rios agreed. She said they should not be discussing anything specific.

Member Bienvenu agreed. He said the picket fence still concerned him. If the Board specifically designates the fence as a landmark it is its own structure, which requires the fence be 50 years or older.

Ms. Paez clarified the discussion should be about significant, not landmark. Chair Rios explained they are the same thing, but landmark is out of the district. Member Bienvenu continued it appeared the fence is not 50 years old.

Mr. Purvis said everyone is aware that a fence is not going to make it after 70 years without some replacement. He noted that pieces have been changed but he did not know when.

Member Bienvenu asked if Mr. Purvis had any indication that the design of the fence is 50 years old.

Mr. Purvis couldn’t say. He pointed out that the picket spacing to the right compared to the left was different. He said he wanted to call attention now to the fence and that the fence material is not 50 years old.

Member Bienvenu said he was still focused on whether to designate the style of the picket fence as significant. They don’t know if there was a picket fence 50 years ago.

Chair Rios thought the style should be mentioned. She thought a picket fence goes with the house.

Member Bienvenu confirmed that the applicant had no objection to a picket fence style being designated as significant.

MOTION: In Case 2020-002791-HDRB, 530 Garcia Street, Member Bienvenu moved to approve per staff’s recommendations and based on the record, to designate the property as significant, specifically including buildings A-E, the carport, laundry, storage, garage, connecting breezeways and the white picket fence at the east and south elevations, with the understanding that

the picket fence materials will need to be and may be, replaced with similar materials in a similar style. Member Biedscheid seconded the motion.

VOTE: The motion passed by unanimous (3-0) roll call vote with Members Biedscheid, Bienvenu, and Roybal voting in favor and none voting against.

5. Case 2021-003461-HDRB. 459 Camino Manzano. Downtown and Eastside Historic District. Martinez Architectural Studio, agent for Carolyn Kenny and Craig Smith, owners, proposes to construct a 565 square foot garage to a height of 13 feet on a non-contributing property. (Daniel Schwab)

(Postponed to May 11, 2021)

6. Case 2021-003462-HDRB. 810 Waldo Street. Don Gaspar Area Historic District. Steve Rivera, agent for Dan Jackson, owner, proposes to replace windows on a contributing residential structure. An exception is requested to Section 14-5.2(D)(5)(a)(i) to replace historic windows on a primary facade. (Daniel Schwab)

(Postponed to May 11, 2021)

I. DISCUSSION ITEMS

Member Bienvenu said there have been several appeals before the Governing Body the Board should be aware of that. There has been research, particularly the legal decisions made in the past, that may have impact on past decisions as well as in the future relating to public visibility and what is called “view corridors”. He has mentioned to Ms. Paez he thought it would be useful if she reported to the Board on the legal decisions, as well as how the appeals were determined.

He noted there was an appeal in particular at 542 Camino Del Monte Sol two weeks ago, that related to the view corridor of the fireplace. The district court refused to find that the ordinance protects view corridors. In that case, the City Council had upheld the court’s decision, based on different reasoning, and found that the Board could not protect the view corridor. But that doesn’t mean we cannot have other reasons for reaching the same result.

Member Bienvenu said another case at 314 Guadalupe coming up denied by the Board, is the bungalow that would have been blocked from view. The appeal is on the 12th of May and the applicant is arguing that the Board was unlawfully protecting a view corridor. Member Bienvenu thought that isn’t correct because approval of the application would have caused the existing contributing structure to lose its status, because it would be completely blocked from view.

He wanted to bring this to the Board’s attention because they should know how the decisions potentially impact the Board. He also thought it useful to receive reports on how City Council decides the cases and take those decisions into account. City Council is interpreting its own ordinance and the Board should bear that in mind. As well as when City Council upholds their rulings.

Chair Rios thanked member Bienvenu for bringing the matter up. She planned to ask Ms. Paez about the appeals before the Council.

Ms. Paez said regarding 542 Camino del Monte Sol, the Board appeared to have three reasons for denying the project. First, it would alter the architectural features that embody the status of the contributing yard wall structure, the arched stucco feature of the gate. Second, it would be incompatible with the other low walls on the streetscape. And third it blocked the view of the chimney and contributing structure behind.

The Governing Body didn’t make any findings on the third reason and relied on the first two. And the winning motion relied on the first two reasons for denying the gate. Now the case is in the appeal period.

The second case at 314 N. Guadalupe is similar. She thought in that, the Board should apply things within the scope of the court case and Governing Body’s decision. But they don’t know how narrow or broad they should apply that. Both of those cases had situations where the ultimate decision found the significant structure would not lose its status. One was Loretto Chapel in which the District Court said there is no evidence the significant status would be lost or altered by the adjacent construction. So, there was no loss of status. In the case at 535 E. Alameda, the Governing Body ultimately found that the contributing structure would not be lost and by granting the application that would not change.

Ms. Paez said she explained to the Governing Body, at a minimum, if the goal is to keep a view when nothing being done will change the status of the historic structure, that is outside the authority of the ordinance. The court seemed to acknowledge that the City could change its ordinance to protect views more. But they haven’t done that for 21 years.

Ms. Paez said they know they cannot protect a view corridor only to protect the view. But, where the contributing/significant status would be lost due to an adjacent structure, the Board is relying on the Code provision. It says they may deny an application if the structure will lose its historic status. She said that basis for code has reasoning with facts that back it up. She believed that decision could be upheld.

Ms. Paez indicated she had asked the Governing Body if they agree on 314 Guadalupe being heard on May 12th, that the bungalow will lose its status. If they do, they may deny the application. She noted the decision could go either way, it is written in discretionary language, but ultimately the Board’s decision could be reversed.

She said the Board should consider that a reason just to protect the view, seemed to be off the table, unless the ordinance is amended.

J. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD

None.

K. NEXT MEETING: May 11, 2021

L. ADJOURNMENT

Chair Rios adjourned the meeting at approximately 10:03 pm.

file:///C:/Users/Socimo%20Abella/Downloads/Minutes_20210617200309738.pdf