City of Santa Fe Historic Districts Review Board met March 26

City of Santa Fe Historic Districts Review Board met March 26.

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 5:36 p.m. at a meeting held in the City Council Chambers at the Santa Fe Municipal Building, 200 Lincoln Avenue, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

1. ROLL CALL

Roll Call indicated the presence of a quorum as follows:

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Ms. Cecilia Rios, Chair

Mr. Anthony Guida, Vice Chair

Ms. Madeleine Aguilar Medrano

Ms. Jennifer Biedscheid

Mr. John Bienvenu

Ms. Amanda Mather (arrived via Zoom at 7:11 pm)

MEMBERS ABSENT (EXCUSED)

Mr. David Valdo

STAFF PRESENT:

Ms. Heather Lamboy, Assistant Land Use Director

Mr. Frank Ruybalid, Assistant City Attorney

Paul Duran, Senior Planner

Lani McCulley, Senior Planner

Amanda Romero, Historic Planner

OTHERS PRESENT

Melissa Byers, Stenographer

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

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Ms. Lamboy noted the following:

• Under Old Business, Items 7(a) and 7(b), new information was added to the packet regarding the yard wall.

• Under New Business, Item 8(a) is postponed because an appeal of the Board of Adjustment decision has been filed.

• Under New Business, Items 8(c) and 8(d), an updated building official’s report was added to the packet.

MOTION: Member Guida moved, seconded by Member Aguilar Medrano, to approve the agenda, as amended.

VOTE: The motion passed by (4-0) roll call vote with Members Aguilar Medrano, Biedscheid, Bienvenu and Guida voting in favor and none voting against.

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

1. March 12, 2024

MOTION: Member Aguilar Medrano moved, seconded by Member Biedscheid, to approve the minutes of March 12, 2024.

VOTE: The motion passed by (3-0-1) roll call vote with Members Biedscheid, Bienvenu and Aguilar Medrano voting in favor, none voting against and Member Guida abstaining.

4. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

a. 2023-007222-HDRB. 123 and 135 Grant Ave (1/9/24)

b. 2024-007730-HDRB. 1204 Canyon Rd. (2/13/24)

Member Bienvenu proposed revisions to Case 2023-007222.

MOTION: Member Bienvenu moved, seconded by Member Guida to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Items (a) and (b), with amendments to Case 2023-007222.

VOTE: The motion passed by (3-0-1) roll call vote with Members Bienvenu, Guida, and Biedscheid voting in favor, none voting against and Member Aguilar Medrano abstaining.

5. MATTERS FROM THE PUBLIC

Richard Martinez said that someone put a camera on the bandstand. No one knows who put the camera up there. He doesn’t know why the public wasn’t involved in the decision making to put that camera. He asked why there was no discussion with the Board on this. He said there is no transparency in this administration about what’s going on in the Plaza.

Raymond Herrera, 279 Hillside, said some of his constituents have contacted him on the guest house on Plaza Chamisal facing Acequia Madre. It’s a slap to have a frame structure constructed, that is in bad taste. Also, on the corner of Coronado and Galisteo, the big house that was recently built, he asked how that got approved. It’s on the corner and has a pitched roof and stands out like sore thumb.

Chair Rios said about the Plaza Chamisal guest house, she clarified that adobe is not required and regarding the house on Galisteo, that is not in a historic district.

Stefanie Beninato agreed that there is a lack of transparency. The camera on the Plaza is disturbing. She also said there’s a construction permit for a fence at Don Gaspar and Burger; it’s a low fence and does not have historic wiring. She talked about the floors at La Posada; a lot of the flooring is coming out and they are not trying to preserve those tiles which are 140 years old.

6. STAFF COMMUNICATIONS

Ms. Lamboy said as part of the Land Use Code Update it was decided by staff and the consultant that special attention will be given to the Historic District Review Ordinance. Chair Rios and Member Aguilar Medrano will be part of the discussion group. The tentative first meeting date will be April 17th at 5:30 pm.

7. OLD BUSINESS

Chair Rios explained the appeal process. She also stated that public comments would be limited to two minutes.

a. 2023-007678-HDRB. 126 Camino Santiago. Downtown & Eastside Historic District. Contributing. John Padilla, agent for Josh Gonzales, owner, propose to construct 2,301 sq. ft. of additions with a roof deck to a height of 13’-0” where the maximum allowable is 13’-3” and yard walls to the maximum allowable height of 6’-0”. Exceptions are requested to 14-5.2 (D)(5)(a) for removal of historic doors and windows and 14-5.2(D)(2) (d) to exceed 50% of the historic footprint. (Lani McCulley)

BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY

Compound History:

Plaza del Monte, formerly the Plaza del Monte Retirement Center, is an approximately six-acre subdivision that is “L” shape and is bounded by Bishops Lodge Road on the east and Old Taos Highway on the west. The development has two roads, Camino Santiago and Camino Matias.

While several structures predate the center, the communal living center was originally developed for retired members of the Presbyterian Church starting in the late 1950s until 1977. The earliest plans by Clark and Register are for the buildings on the eastern portion of the development and were Spanish-Pueblo Revival in style. However, when Philippe Register took over the project in the 1960s, his designs evolved into a contemporary flat roof structure with the use of canales, viga roof portales, and carport elements. In the mid-1960s Camino Santiago was extended and development of the western end of the development began. This is when Register chose to eliminate several freestanding houses on the plans and replace them with quad apartments. Once fully developed the compound consisted of 25 single family residences and 3 quad apartment structures. The apartments include the structures at 105, 125, and 126 Camino Santiago.

The Plaza del Monte landscape includes retaining walls, constructed of formed concrete or concrete and stone. The walls were built over several phases and the dates of construction are between 1950 and 1973. The walls were constructed to retain earth or to separate building pads.

Few of them rise above grade but some of the lots do have above-ground property line walls which are constructed of stucco-clad concrete masonry units. The retaining and property line walls appear to post-date the construction of their associated units. The retaining walls vary in height from 8” up to 38” though most are 20” in height. No property has front yard fencing. All fencing is a minimum of 10’ from the front property line. Those properties who have rear yard fencing the height is generally 5’-0”. Fences built on top of retaining walls or perimeter fences tend to be at 6’-0”. There are two sections of retaining wall with fencing that reaches 8’-0” between the compound and neighboring lots.

All structures in Plaza del Monte were assigned statuses under cases H-17-098A and H 19-019 in 2018 and 2019. In 2018, under case H-17-098B the residence and garage structures were requested to be demolished. Due to the contributing status of the residence and a lack of exception criteria, the residence demolition was denied. The garages were approved for demolition, but the owner at the time did not proceed with the demolition. Prior to this there are no known cases for the property.

Property Summary:

The residence at 126 Camino Santiago was constructed as part of the Plaza del Monte compound in 1966 and is listed as contributing to the Downtown and Eastside Historic District with the north elevation listed as the primary façade. Previously, the property was a 4,673 sq. ft. four-plex-family residence with a laundry room. It has now been divided into two individual residential structures as part of a subdivision that was created in 2022. The residence is now addressed as 126 Camino Santiago consists of the structures’ 2,085 sq. ft. western end.

The quad apartment block at 126 Camino Santiago was designed with room block massing at the center of to act as a hood over the laundry and raised triangular party walls divide the sections and bookend the building and a viga portal was tacked on to the front façade. The layout is unique to the Plaza del Monte development because the other apartment structures have room block massing at the ends of the structure.

In February 2023, under case 2024-007794-HDRB the applicant was approved to demolish the garage and carport structure.

Now, the applicant proposes the following exterior alterations:

South Elevation:

1. A 1,237 sq. ft. garage/carport/bunkhouse structure to replace the previously demolished structure on the south of the property. This structure will house a roof deck on the top and exterior stairs with railing on the western end of the north façade.

2. A 211 sq. ft. addition to the rear of the residence that will connect the residence to the garage structure. An exception to Section 14-5.2(D)(2)(d) for constructing greater than 50% of the original footprint.

3. Demolition of the yard walls to the south of the existing residence.

4. Construct a 3’-0” high pedestrian gate on the eastern side of the garage to access the rear courtyard of the residence and create a separation between lots.

5. Construct a 6’-0” yard wall with pilasters along the southern property line.

West Elevation:

6. Install a door where one does not currently exist to access the courtyard on the western side of the structure.

7. Construct a 6’-0” high yard wall and vehicle gate on the south of the garages, running from the garage unit south to the lot line.

North Elevation:

8. Replace corner windows and entrance door in-kind within the existing openings. An exception to Section 14-5.2(D)(5)(b) to remove historic materials is requested.

9. Infill windows and apartment and mechanical access doors, an exception to Section 14-5.2(D)(5)(a) to alter openings on a primary façade of a contributing building is requested.

10. Construct a yard wall varying in height from 4’-0” to 5’-0” with 6’-0” high round conical pilasters on either side of the 5’-0” pedestrian gate and windows.

11. This yard wall continues along the north and west of the property and consists of an interior yard wall with pedestrian gate on the west of the property that divides the yard into two courtyards.

East Elevation:

12. Construct a 487 sq. ft. portal in the interior courtyard.

The applicant presented the initial design of this application on February 13, 2024. The HDRB requested a redesign of the additions and yard walls noting that the yard walls should be lower or have fenestration so that the primary façade would not be blocked, should not connect to the primary façade, and be less foreboding, that there should be a visual separation between the house and the garage, and that the overall south elevation of the garage be more sympathetic to the contributing structure.

The applicant has made design changes to follow the directions from the previous hearing. These changes include:

South Elevation:

Designed garages with varying heights for each section to break up the parapet line.

Designed the garage with party walls to break up the singular parapet and mimic the party walls of the residence.

Set the garage doors further back in the door opening to create a shadowing effect.

West Elevation:

Designed the addition connecting the residence to the garage unit to step in to the east to break up the singular mass of the building and make a clear distinction between the main residence and the garage unit.

Yardwalls:

Lowered the yard walls from 6’-0” to varying heights from 4’-0” to 5’-0”. Removed the square pilasters to soften the flow of the wall.

Designed the pilasters at the gate to be rounded conical at 6’-0”.

The yard wall has window openings with wood slates.

Summary of square footage:

Existing roofed area including portals: 2,085 sq. ft.

Proposed additions: 467 sq. ft.

Proposed attached garages: 745 sq. ft.

Proposed attached Guesthouse: 1,037 sq. ft.

Proposed portal:150 sq. ft.

Total additions: 2,399 sq. ft. or 115 % of the original footprint

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Staff finds that all exception criteria have been met and recommends approval of the application as it complies with 14-5.2(D) General Design Standards for all H Districts, and 14-5.2(E) Downtown and Eastside Design Standards.

Member Guida requested that the following case be presented at this time.

b. 2023-007680-HDRB. 128 Camino Santiago. Downtown & Eastside Historic District. Contributing. John Padilla, agent for Onesimo Vigil, owner, proposes to construct 2,142 sq. ft. of additions to a height of 13’-0” where the maximum allowable is 13’-3” and yard walls to the maximum allowable height of 6’0”. Exceptions are requested to 14-5.2 (D)(5)(a) for removal of historic doors and windows and 14-5.2(D)(2)(d) to exceed 50% of the historic footprint. (Lani McCulley)

BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY

Compound History:

While several structures predate the center, the communal living center was originally developed for retired members of the Presbyterian Church starting in the late 1950s until 1977. The earliest plans by Clark and Register are for the buildings on the eastern portion of the development and were Spanish-Pueblo Revival in style. However, when Philippe Register took over the project in the 1960s, his designs evolved into a contemporary flat roof structure with the use of canales, vigaroof portales, and carport elements. In the mid 1960s Camino Santiago was extended and development of the western end of the development began. This is when Register chose to eliminate several freestanding houses on the plans and replace them with quad apartments. Once fully developed the compound consisted of 25 single family residences and 3 quad apartment structures. The apartments include the structures at 105, 125, and 126 Camino Santiago.

Property Summary:

The residence at 128 Camino Santiago was constructed as part of the Plaza del Monte compound in 1966 and is listed as contributing to the Downtown and Eastside Historic District with the north elevation listed as the primary façade. Previously, the property was a 4,673 sq. ft. fourplex-family residence with a laundry room. It has now been divided into two individual residential structures as part of a subdivision that was created in 2022. The residence now addressed as 128 Camino Santiago is the eastern side of the previous four-plex and is 2,588 sq. ft. The property also has low yard wall constructed of rock that is listed as contributing.

The quad apartment block at 128 Camino Santiago was designed with room block massing at the center of to act as a hood over the laundry and raised triangular party walls divide the sections and bookend the building and a viga portal was tacked on to the front façade. The layout is unique to the Plaza del Monte development because the other apartment structures have room block massing at the ends of the structure.

The rock wall at 128 Camino Santiago is erected next to a concrete walkway and is approximately 32" measured from the sidewalk to the top of wall. It is constructed of non-reinforced concrete, mixed with heavy stones most likely taken from the adjacent arroyo. The short wall is capped with puddled concrete. The wall runs along the east of the structure to the north and turns to the west along the north of the residence.

In February 2023, under case 2024-007794-HDRB the applicant was approved to demolish the garage and carport structure to the south of the residence. Now, the applicant proposes the following exterior alterations:

South Elevation:

1. A 1,391 sq. ft. garage/storage structure to replace the previously demolished structure on the south of the property.

2. A 949 sq. ft. addition to the rear of the residence that will connect the residence to the garage structure. An exception to Section 14-5.2(D)(2)(d) for the 50% footprint rule for the total of 2,340 sq. ft. of additions is requested.

3. Construct a 200 sq. ft. freestanding carport to the east and south of the garage structure.

4. Demolish the yard walls to the south of the existing residence.

5. Install a 5’-0” high yard wall to the east to connect the garage structure to the residence and create a courtyard.

6. Construct a 5’-0” yard wall along the eastern side of the garage to connect to the western corner of the carport.

7. Construct a 6’-0” yard wall at the southern property line.

East Elevation:

8. Install a window where one does not currently exist in the eastern elevation of the structure.

9. Construct a 427 sq. ft. portal in the courtyard.

North Elevation:

10. Replace corner windows and entrance door in-kind within the existing openings. An exception to Section 14-5.2(D)(5)(b) to remove historic materials is requested. 11. Infill windows and apartment and mechanical access doors, an exception to Section 14-5.2(D)(5)(a) to alter openings on a primary façade of a contributing building is requested.

12. Construct a yard wall varying in height from 4’-0” to 5’-0” with 6’-0” high round conical pilasters on either side of the 5’-0” pedestrian gate and windows.

The applicant has made design changes to follow the directions from the previous hearing. These changes include:

South Elevation:

Designed garages with varying heights for each section to break up the parapet line. Designed the garage with party walls to break up the singular parapet and mimic the party walls of the residence.

Set the garage doors further back in the door opening to create a shadowing effect.

Yardwalls:

Lowered the yard walls from 6’-0” to varying heights from 4’-0” to 5’-0”. Removed the square pilasters to soften the flow of the wall.

Designed the pilasters at the gate to be rounded conical at 6’-0”.

The yard wall has window openings with wood slates.

Summary of square footage:

Existing roofed area including portals: 2588 sq. ft.

Proposed additions: 785 sq. ft.

Proposed attached garage: 1391 sq. ft.

Proposed portal: 427 sq. ft.

Total additions: 2,603 sq. ft. or 100.5% of the existing historic footprint for this address

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Chair Rios asked Ms. McCulley why the applicant wants to infill. There appears to be a lot of doors and perhaps they were using this as something different.

Ms. McCulley said this is going from multifamily to single family. Right now, there are two entrances and they only want one.

APPLICANT PRESENATION

John Padilla, PO Box 22986, Santa Fe, was sworn. He said he was back with modifications to the plan consistent with considerations from the Board that were discussed at the last meeting. He displayed renderings of what is being proposed which are attached as Exhibit “1”.

Member Guida said he appreciates the degree to which the applicant took to incorporate the recommendations of the Board. He asked about the height of the roof deck and the doors and if those could be brought down.

Mr. Padilla said that is possible and could be a condition of approval. PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Stefanie Beninato, PO Box 1601, Santa Fe, was sworn. She asked about hardship and how it is defined. She said the wall in front looks shorter than four feet.

John Eddy, 14 Avenida Campo Verde, Santa Fe, was sworn. He still shares the concern about height. He also thinks the walls are too high.

Chair Rios asked the height of the walls.

Mr. Padilla said a good portion of walls are four feet high. The applicant is willing to drop to four feet as much as possible to make it more appealing.

BOARD DISCUSSION/ACTION

Member Guida asked for clarification on the windows and doors.

Mr. Padilla said the windows are being replaced in kind so they look exactly as they were before. The window that appears in the rendering is a double casement.

Member Guida asked if windows are beyond repair.

Mr. Padilla said they could be serviced. The project has been abandoned for going on five years which could cause the operation of those windows to be compromised. If a condition of approval is to repair, they would be happy to do that.

Member Biedscheid asked how tall the yard wall is at the back.

Mr. Padilla said the proposed courtyard wall is 6 feet. A wall of five feet would be acceptable.

Member Biedscheid said the addition of the walls makes the façade seem different. She suggested bringing them down at least to five. She said the primary façade is the north, it really doesn’t fit the street scape because the walls are out of character.

Mr. Padilla said a five-foot wall would be acceptable. There is a possibility of introducing pilasters, four or five foot, so it’s not one continuous wall

MOTION: In Case 2023-007678-HDRB, 126 Camino Santiago, Member Guida moved to approve the project as submitted, finding that the exception criteria have been met and adding the following conditions of approval: on the north primary façade, the existing steel casement windows be retained and repaired as part of the project; the entry door be a reuse of the existing wood door, that it be repaired; require that the applicant submit to staff the selection of new windows to be used throughout the project that are compatible with the appearance and light division of the existing historic windows with thin muntins and thin frames; that the height of the bunk house and garage be lowered by at least one foot preferably a foot and a half to two feet; and the walls and gate around the vehicular court be reduced from six feet to five feet and that the applicant also incorporate pilasters similar to those being used on the front yard walls.

Member Biedscheid seconded the motion and asked that there be discussion on the front yard walls. She would want them to be as low as possible so the front façade can be seen. She preferred no wall, but if there is a wall that it be four feet or some other design that allows more of what makes this building special to be seen.

Member Guida suggested and accepted as friendly that the applicant reduce the front yard walls a little further in height, retaining the multiple height aspect, to 3 ½ to 4 ½ feet.

Mr. Padilla said there’s a point of diminishing returns when trying to lower the wall. The idea of the wall is for security and maintaining a front yard. He didn’t feel comfortable agreeing to a 3 ½ foot wall. He’s happy with incorporating a four-foot wall. He’s happy to agree to five feet in the back motor court wall. There’s nothing that states they can’t do yard walls and to limit the applicant to a 3 ½ foot yard wall would be the wrong precedence to set.

Member Guida reiterated that the friendly amendment was to request that the applicant reduce the height of the wall to a range of 3½ to 4½ feet.

Member Biedscheid said that was reasonable. She said Monte del Sol is a gated community, so the security risk is minimized in that respect. It's also not a well-traveled street and her main concern is that if the Board allows five- or six-foot walls on this property, there's many more to come. It changes the whole nature of this streetscape, the way it relates to each other now it was designed for those buildings to interact with one another and the spaces around them. That is beginning to be lost with this project.

Member Bienvenu asked for a friendly amendment on the back wall which would be that in addition to the pilasters that there also be a modulation of the wall height and that there also be setbacks every 50 feet minimum, with a minimum of one foot every 50 feet of linear length both of which are consistent with the fence guidelines.

Member Guida accepted the amendment as friendly.

Member Guida asked that the applicant update the drawings and submit to staff for final approval,

VOTE: The motion passed by (4-0) roll call vote with Members Guida, Aguilar Medrano, Biedscheid and Bienvenu, voting in favor and none voting against.

MOTION: In Case 2023-007680-HDRB, 128 Camino Santiago, Member Guida moved to approve the application as submitted noting that the exception criteria have been met, and added the following conditions of approval: that the existing windows that are to remain on the primary facade and doors be retained as the original and repaired and not replaced; that the new windows that are part of the proposal elsewhere, other than the primary façade, be sympathetic in style and appearance to the historic windows with thin muntins and thin frames; that the height of the garage addition to the south be reduced in height at least one foot and preferably 1½ to two feet in overall height; that the vehicular courtyard wall that's associated with 128 be reduced in height from six feet to five feet; that pilasters be incorporated and that the offsets and modulation of the wall be as recommended by Member Bienvenu also be incorporated into the design; that the front yard wall, that the overall design of stepping heights and rounded pilasters be retained, but that the overall height be reduced from four and five feet to 3½ to 4½ feet; and that the applicant submit to staff updated drawings and window selection for final approval. Member Biedscheid seconded the motion.

VOTE: The motion passed by (4-0) roll call vote with Members Aguilar Medrano, Biedscheid and Bienvenu, Guida, voting in favor and none voting against.

To view the entire recording of this hearing, see the YouTube video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fF7ZEywAor0 (21:45 - 1:15:13)

8. NEW BUSINESS

a. 2024-007940-HDRB. 1030 ½ Houghton St. Don Gaspar Area Historic District. Non-contributing. Jeffery Seres, agent for Francesca Banci, owner, requests status review and primary facades. (Ramon Sarason)

This item was postponed.

b. 2024-007941-HDRB. 1239 Cerro Gordo Rd. Downtown and Eastside Historic District. Non-contributing. Käthe Steck, owner, requests a status review with primary façade(s) designation. (Paul Duran)

BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY

1239 Cerro Gordo Road is a single-family residence listed as non-contributing to the Downtown and Eastside Historic District. The structure was constructed in the mid to late 1970s on a 0.18-acre lot and is 1,649-square feet. The house is built in the Pueblo Revival style and constructed from wood frame and with a flat square roof. The exterior of the building has rounded fenestrations throughout the building’s facades. The structure has divided lite windows with the divides in “white” and “adobe brown” cementitious stucco. Given that the structure underwent extensive renovations in the early 2000s, the historic footprint of the home is no longer legible.

Staff recommends the historic status of the structure remain non-contributing.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends the historic status of the structure be maintained as non-contributing, per 14-5.2(C) Designation of Significant and Contributing Structures.

APPLICANT PRESENATION

Käthe Steck and Brian Taylor, 1239 Cerro Gordo, Santa Fe, were sworn in. They agreed with staff’s recommendation and did not have anything further to add.

PUBLIC HEARING

No public comment.

BOARD DISCUSSION/ACTION

MOTION: In Case 2024-007941-HDRB,1239 Cerro Gordo Rd., Member Bienvenu moved, consistent with staff’s recommendation and the record, that the structure be maintained as non-contributing. The motion was seconded by Member Aguilar Medrano.

VOTE: The motion passed by (4-0) roll call vote with Members Biedscheid and Bienvenu, Guida, Aguilar Medrano, voting in favor and none voting against.

To view the entire recording of this hearing, see the YouTube video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fF7ZEywAor0 (1:15:13 – 1:23:13)

c. 2023-007592-HDRB. 128 S. Capitol St. – Motor Pool and Garage Buildings. Downtown and Eastside Historic District. Non-Contributing. Jennifer Jenkins, JenkinsGavin, Inc., agents for the State of New Mexico General Services Division, request demolition of the motor pool and garage

buildings. (Heather Lamboy)

BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY

The current request for the demolition review of 128 S. Capitol Street is part of a larger project with forthcoming requests that are subject to 14-5.2(M), State Capital Outlay Projects, which states its purpose as follows: Recognizing the fragility of the City’s historic heritage, the purpose of Subsection 14-5.2(M) is to activate the procedure established in Section 3-22-6 NMSA 1978 under which the City and the State will collaborate in good faith and work jointly to preserve and protect the historic districts in Santa Fe as well as contributing, significant, and landmark structures.

The HDRB has the authority to review and determine the historic status of structures within the historic districts per 14-5.2(C), Regulation of Significant and Contributing Structures in the Historic Districts. Please note that there is a section in the Code as it specifically relates to State Capital Outlay projects. Relative to demolition, Section 14-

5.2(M)(4) states the following:

(4) Demolition of Historic and Landmark Structures; Minimum Maintenance Requirements

(a) A request for demolition of an historic or landmark structure shall include the report required in Section 14-3.14(C) and follow the standards set forth in Section 14-3.14(G). If there is a disagreement as to demolition, the procedures set forth in Section 3-22-6(G) NMSA 1978 shall be followed.

(b) The minimum maintenance requirements for historic or landmark structures set forth in Subsection 14-5.2(B) shall be met.

The fleet building is of a clear Territorial-Revival style, and the garage is a modernist utilitarian structure. At the May 9, 2023 HDRB, the Board designated these buildings as non-contributing.

Furthermore, the buildings do not contribute to a unique street section along Galisteo Street.

The buildings associated with the fleet functions of the campus do not add to historic associations or historic design qualities that are significant for the Downtown & Eastside Historic District.

At the May 9, 2023 hearing, the Historic Districts Review Board designated these buildings as contributing, with the north elevation and the west courtyard elevations being primary. The HDRB found the north elevation conveys shifted massing and fenestration, the west courtyard elevation due to its design features and relationship to the courtyard. The courtyard wall was also designated as contributing.

On January 18, 2024 the applicant held a community meeting to discuss the proposed demolition of the subject building as well as all other building demolition requests in the subject block requested in order to accommodate the new construction of a State Executive Office Building. Many of those who commented expressed concern for the loss of the historic buildings in the streetscape, including the four bungalows located to the east of the subject site. It should be noted that the building focused on the demolition requests and very little was discussed as to how the streetscape would be established with the proposed new construction.

It was made clear that the current applicant is not associated with the new building’s design.

It has been determined that, even though the issue of how the streetscape would be reestablished with new construction has not been addressed, the demolition requests would be heard first to determine what the potential streetscape may be given approvals or denials of this and the related requests.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends approval of the proposed demolition of the fleet and garage buildings at 128 S. Capitol and finds that they do not contribute to a unique street section or streetscape and because they are listed as non-contributing to the Downtown and Eastside Historic District.

d. 2023-007593-HDRB. 130 S. Capitol St. Downtown and Eastside Historic District. Contributing. Jennifer Jenkins, JenkinsGavin, Inc., agents for the State of New Mexico General Services Division, request demolition of the Concha Ortiz y Pino building. Exceptions requested to Section 14-5.2(D) (1)(a), Loss of Historic Status, Sections 14-5.2(M)(3)(b) and 14-5.2(M)(4) Status and Demolition of Historic Structures with State Capitol Outlay Projects. (Heather Lamboy)

BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY

The current request for the demolition review of 130 S Capitol Street is part of a larger project with forthcoming requests that are subject to 14-5.2(M), State Capital Outlay Projects, which states its purpose as follows:

Recognizing the fragility of the City’s historic heritage, the purpose of Subsection 14- 5.2(M) is to activate the procedure established in Section 3-22-6 NMSA 1978 under which the City and the State will collaborate in good faith and work jointly to preserve and protect the historic districts in Santa Fe as well as contributing, significant, and landmark structures.

The HDRB has the authority to review and determine the historic status of structures within the historic districts per 14-5.2(C), Regulation of Significant and Contributing Structures in the Historic Districts and this building was determined to be contributing to the Downtown and Eastside Historic District in May of 2023. Please note that 14-5.2(M) in the Code specifically relates to State Capital Outlay projects. Relative to demolition, Section 14-5.2(M)(4) states the following:

(4) Demolition of Historic and Landmark Structures; Minimum Maintenance Requirements

(b) The minimum maintenance requirements for historic or landmark structures set forth in Subsection 14-5.2(B) shall be met.

The building at 130 S. Capitol Street represents the evolution of the state government campus.

Between 1895 and 1900, the original Capitol building, now the Bataan Memorial Building, was designed E.S. Jennison and was remodeled in 1903 by Isaac Rapp I of Rapp and Rapp in the neoclassical style that is extant in parts of the building today. The Concha Ortiz y Pino Building represents the next phase of the Capitol campus evolution, where architect Willard C. Kruger filtered traditional New Mexico architecture through a modernist lens. In 1957 the City of Santa Fe adopted a “Historic Styles” ordinance, which called for buildings to be built in the Old or Recent Santa Fe Style. Because the building was associated with the State of New Mexico government campus, it was determined that the buildings would be exempt from the ordinance.

The Concha Ortiz y Pino building, which was built in 1968, blends modernism with traditional Territorial-Revival architectural style. While there is a Territorial-Revival brick coping, the larger building blocks and long lines convey a more modernist style. An ashlar stone base at the portal and decorative concrete cutouts strengthens the modernist approach.

The original footprint of the building remains.

The Concha Ortiz y Pino building replaced approximately a block of traditional bungalows which are characteristic of the Don Gaspar Historic District. While this project is situated in the Downtown & Eastside Historic District, the historic development pattern for this portion of town better aligns with the Don Gaspar Historic District, whose northernmost boundary is across Paseo de Peralta to the south.

At the May 9, 2023, hearing of the Historic Districts Review Board (HDRB) designated this building as contributing to the Downtown and Eastside Historic District, with the north elevation and the west courtyard elevations being primary. The HDRB designated these elevations as primary because the north elevation conveys shifted massing and

fenestration, and the west courtyard elevation due to its design features and relationship to the courtyard. The courtyard wall was also designated as contributing.

On January 18, 2024, the applicant held a community meeting to discuss the proposed demolition of the Concha Ortiz y Pino Building, as well as all other building demolition requests in the S. Capitol Street, Don Gaspar Avenue, and Galisteo Street, to accommodate the new construction of a State Executive Office Building. Many of those who commented expressed concern for the loss of the historic buildings in the streetscapes, including the four bungalows located to the east of the subject site. It should be noted that the community meeting focused on the demolition requests and very little was discussed as to how the streetscape would be established with the proposed new construction. It was made clear that the current applicant is not associated with the new building design.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Staff does not recommend approval for the proposed demolition of the Concha Ortiz y Pino Building due to its contributing status and finds the criteria in Section 14-5.2(M)(4) which addresses approval for demolition of historic and landmark structures have not been met.

e. 2023-007595-HDRB. 402 Don Gaspar Ave. Downtown and Eastside Historic District. Contributing (office and garage buildings). Jennifer Jenkins, JenkinsGavin, Inc., agents for the State of New Mexico General Services Division, request demolition of the office building (previously a duplex) and garage. Exceptions requested to Section 14-5.2(D)(1)(a), Loss of Historic Status, Sections 14-5.2(M)(3)(b) and 14-5.2(M)(4) Status and Demolition of Historic Structures with State Capitol Outlay Projects. (Heather Lamboy)

BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY

The current request proposed demolition of 402 Don Gaspar Ave is part of a larger project associated with the construction of a new State Executive Office Building, which will be part of forthcoming requests that are subject to 14-5.2(M), State Capital Outlay Projects, which states its purpose as follows:

The applicant previously stated as part of the historic status hearing held on May 9, 2023 that the four casitas located on Don Gaspar, of which 402 Don Gaspar is one, are out of context within that portion of the Don Gaspar streetscape. Staff has stated to the applicant that the casitas represent a remnant streetscape and is a pertinent reminder of the history of the area and the changes associated with the growth of the State Capitol campus.

Section 14-5.2(M)(3)(b) states, “State capital outlay projects that involve contributing, significant or landmark structures shall be undertaken in such a manner as to preserve the status of the structure and in accordance with the standards for alterations or additions to contributing, significant or landmark buildings as set forth in Section 14-5.2.” The proposed demolition will cause this structure to lose the historically contributing status that was designated at the May 9, 2023, HDRB meeting.

The office building, formerly a residential duplex, at 402 Don Gaspar Ave was built prior to 1948and is constructed of pentile and has a stucco finish. The building has been poorly maintained since the designation of the structure when it was designated a historic status of significant by the HDRB in June 2012 and is in fair condition. The building was downgraded to contributing to the Downtown and Eastside Historic District in May of 2023. The code-required minimum maintenance standards have not been met (Section 14-5.2(B) SFCC 1987), which is also referenced in the demolition criteria in Section 14-5.2(M)(4)(b).

The definition of a contributing structure is as follows:

A structure, located in a historic district, approximately fifty 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 or historic architectural design qualities that are significant for a district. The contributing structure may have had minor alterations, but its integrity remains.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Staff does not recommend approval for the proposed demolition of the historically contributing building. Staff finds that the demolition approval criteria have not been met as set forth in Section 14-5.2(M) (which references the criteria stated in Section 3.14(G)), demolition of historic and landmark structures).

f. 2023-007596-HDRB. 406 Don Gaspar Ave. Downtown and Eastside Historic District. Contributing (office and garage buildings). Jennifer Jenkins, JenkinsGavin, Inc., agents for the State of New Mexico General Services Division, request demolition of the office building (previously a residence) and garage. Exceptions requested to Section 14-5.2(D)(1)(a), Loss of Historic Status, Sections 14-5.2(M)(3)(b) and 14-5.2(M)(4) Status and Demolition of Historic Structures with State Capitol Outlay Projects. (Heather Lamboy)

BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY

The current request for demolition of 406 Don Gaspar Ave is part of a larger project with forthcoming requests that are subject to 14-5.2(M), State Capital Outlay Projects, which states its purpose as follows:

The applicant has stated as part of the historic status hearing held on May 9, 2023 that the casitas located on Don Gaspar are out of place in that portion of the Don Gaspar streetscape.

Staff has stated to the applicant that the casitas represent a remnant streetscape and is a pertinent reminder of the history of the area and the changes associated with the growth of the State Capitol campus.

The definition of a contributing structure is as follows:

The original footprint of the building remains. As illustrated by the building’s existence on the 1930 Sanborn Map and not on the 1921 Sanborn Map, the building was constructed between 1921 and 1930. The single-family residential structure and associated garage at 406 Don Gaspar Ave is constructed of pentile with a stucco finish in the Spanish Revival style with a floorplan typical of the bungalows at the time. It is characterized by divided

lite windows; two smaller windows flank the fireplace on the south elevation. Additionally, as is typical of many bungalows, the building has a basement. The building has been poorly maintained since the designation of the structure as significant in June 2012 and is in fair condition. The code required minimum maintenance standards have not been met (Section 14-5.2(B) SFCC 1987).

The office building represents a remnant of the Anglo-American development pattern that has since been altered by the state capitol campus. This remnant helps to tell the story of how the state buildings transformed the urban pattern both on the border of the Don Gaspar and South Capitol area.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

g. 2023-007597-HDRB. 410 Don Gaspar Ave. Downtown and Eastside Historic District. Contributing (office and garage buildings). Jennifer Jenkins, JenkinsGavin, Inc., agents for the State of New Mexico General Services Division, request demolition of the of the office building (previously a residence) and garage.Exceptions requested to Section 14-5.2(D)(1)(a), Loss of Historic Status, Sections 14-5.2(M)(3)(b) and 14-5.2(M)(4) Status and Demolition of Historic Structures with State Capitol Outlay Projects. (Heather Lamboy)

BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY

The current request for the demolition of 410 Don Gaspar Ave is part of a larger project with forthcoming requests that are subject to 14-5.2(M), State Capital Outlay Projects, which states its purpose as follows:

The applicant has stated as part of the historic status hearing held on May 9, 2023 that the casitas located on Don Gaspar are out of place in that portion of the Don Gaspar streetscape.

The definition of a contributing structure is as follows:

The single-family residential structure and associated garage at 410 Don Gaspar Ave is constructed of pentile with a stucco finish in the Territorial Revival style with a floorplan typical of the bungalows at the time. It is characterized by divided-lite windows; and two smaller windows flank the fireplace on the south elevation. Additionally, as is typical of the bungalows of the time, the building has a basement. The building has a smaller Territorial-Revival Style porch, which is smaller than the adjacent building to the north at 406 Don Gaspar Ave and the structure has an additional stepback on the north elevation. Furthermore, there is no porch on the south elevation in contrast to 406 Don Gaspar. There was a concerted effort to differentiate the homes on the block to provide better urban character. The building has been poorly maintained since the designation of the structure as significant in June 2012 and is in fair condition. The code-required minimum maintenance standards have not been met (Section 14-5.2(B) SFCC 1987).

The office building, which is formally a residence, represents a remnant of the Anglo American development pattern that has since been altered by the state capitol campus. This remnant helps to tell the story of how the state buildings transformed the urban pattern on the border of the Don Gaspar and South Capitol areas.

The aerial from 1957 illustrates how the State Capitol complex disrupted the neighborhood patterns of the Don Gaspar neighborhood, which started to develop to the north of the current Paseo de Peralta. One can see the development of a grid block pattern and detached single-family houses both within the block under consideration as well as across Don Gaspar at the site of the current Capitol building. The construction of the Paseo de Peralta divided this and adjacent bungalows from the Don Gaspar neighborhood.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

h. 2023-007598-HDRB. 414 Don Gaspar Ave. Downtown and Eastside Historic District. Contributing. Jennifer Jenkins, JenkinsGavin, Inc., agents for the State of New Mexico General Services Division, request demolition of the office building (previously a residence). Exceptions requested to Section 14-5.2(D)(1)(a), Loss of Historic Status, Sections 14-5.2(M)(3)(b) and 14-5.2(M)(4) Status and Demolition of Historic Structures with State Capitol Outlay Projects. (Heather Lamboy)

BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY

The current request for the demolition of 414 Don Gaspar Ave is part of a larger project with forthcoming requests that are subject to 14-5.2(M), State Capital Outlay Projects, which states its purpose as follows:

The applicant, in their application, has pointed to the casitas located on Don Gaspar as out of place with the streetscape. Staff has stated to the applicant that the casitas represent a remnant streetscape and is a pertinent reminder of the history of the area and the past streetscape. Further, the applicant is in essence requesting that a historic status downgrade be granted. However, this request works contrary to the collaborative, good faith and joint work to protect the historic districts as is stated as the intent of (M) in that the project is already intending for contributing and significant structures to lose their status.

The definition of a contributing structure is as follows:

This structure represents the southernmost building of three bungalows with identical floorplans that were constructed prior to 1930. The original footprint of the building remains.

As illustrated by the building’s existence on the 1930 Sanborn Map and not on the 1921 Sanborn Map, the building was constructed between 1921 and 1930.

The single-family structure and associated garage at 414 Don Gaspar Ave was constructed of pentile with a stucco finish in the Territorial Revival style with a floorplan typical of the bungalows at the time. The building and the fireplace has brick coping. It is characterized by divided-lite windows; and as typical of bungalows of the time, two smaller windows flank the fireplace on the south elevation. Additionally, the building has a basement. The building has a porch with a small sitting area on the south elevation. There was a concerted effort to differentiate the homes on the block to provide better urban character. There is a decorative brick driveway; however, the associated garage has been demolished.

As stated previously, the office building, formerly a residence, represents a remnant of the Anglo-American development pattern that has since been altered by the state capitol campus.

This remnant helps to tell the story of how the state buildings transformed the urban pattern both on the border of the Don Gaspar area.

The development of the State Capitol complex disrupted the neighborhood patterns of the Barrio del Analco and Don Gaspar areas. The construction of the Paseo de Peralta further divided this and adjacent bungalows from the Don Gaspar neighborhood.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Jennifer Jenkins was sworn. She was there on behalf of State of New Mexico General Services Department. She said the formal design has not commenced yet. There was a community meeting that was part of the design process. She shared a presentation entitled State of New Mexico Executive Office Building Project Demolition Request, which included the following:

• Applicable Regulations

• Background

• Map of New Mexico Main Capital Campus

• Vicinity Map & Historic District Boundaries

• Existing Site Conditions

• Concept Site Plan for Proposed Executive Office Building

• Exterior Design Concept – North Façade

• Exterior Design Concept -- North Main Entry

• Exterior Design Concept -- East Façade

• Exterior Design Concept – West Façade

• Exterior Design Concept – North Elevation

• Exterior Design Concept – East Elevation

• Exterior Design Concept – West Elevation

• Historic Status Designations

• City Building Inspection Reports – 11/22/22 which recommended demolition of all six buildings

Ms. Jenkins said in December of 2023 there was another inspection report, but the recommendation of demolition was deleted. She noted that nothing changed with the buildings in the year between the first and second inspection reports.

Ms. Jenkins this is not a typical case, and it is recognized that there is a unique set of rules. She said the State is trying to approach this in the most fiscally responsible way with taxpayer dollars. This is not a residential neighborhood anymore it hasn't been a residential neighborhood for decades. They are respectfully requesting approval to remove the structures and replace them with a thoughtfully designed facility to serve the needs of the State of New Mexico and its constituents.

Chair Rios asked Ms. Jenkins to confirm that the applicant wanted to memorialize the bungalows, however, the conceptual design does not do that.

Ms. Jenkins said one of the initial ideas was to do something with the pavement pattern along Don Gaspar and the footprint of where those buildings were located. That is something they are continuing to explore.

Member Bienvenu commented that this project has evolved. There is a unique set of procedures that must be followed. The State has always taken the position that they are not bound by Historic Ordinance, however, in good faith collaboration with the City, the State has agreed to follow, to some extent, the Historic Ordinance of Santa Fe. This project is presented to the Board as a State government complex.

He said the bungalows do have importance; however, he doesn’t equate historic importance with contributing status. At this time the casitas have been orphaned in this location because they don't seem to have much to do with the State capital complex. The Concha Ortiz y Pino building is a little more difficult. It’s ironic that the Board never would have allowed that building to have been built if it would have had a say. The State did that in the face of the Ordinance which specifically prohibited that design. It would be ironic if now, the Board would prohibit the State from replacing it with a design that conforms to the Ordinance. It would be expensive to renovate the buildings. The conceptual design meets general standards. Generally, something of that monumentality is appropriate. The ideal solution would be a contingent approval of demolition.

Member Guida said there’s been a great deal of back and forth. What’s not unique is when this Board considers a demolition request. He commended the State for presenting preliminary information. He added that this looks better than what’s there. The issue of block front is going to be a key issue.

Member Biedscheid said she can see both sides of this. The former four homes are what’s left of what was, there’s a tendency of wanting to preserve those. What stands out is that these buildings have been poorly maintained.

PUBLIC HEARING

Those public speakers desiring to speak were sworn in.

Frank Katz, 1300 Canyon, previously sworn said the issue is whether the demolitions can be decided before there is a design plan. The whole process that is going on is before the design phase. There needs to be discussion about the design and cooperative process. He suggested that the Board deny the demolitions and work out what should be done. The State should come forward with a final design before the request for demolitions.

Herbert Lotz, 353 East Alameda, previously sworn, said he agreed with Mr. Katz and agrees that the design should be shown before demolition is approved.

Nicoleta Monroe, 701 Dunlap, previously sworn, said the buildings represent a timeline of architecture. The casitas and Concha Ortiz y Pino building represent a point in time. In proposing to demolish them you take away a valuable characteristic. The statement that they need space needs to be written in a report. If the State wants to rebuild, why don’t they rebuild at the College of Santa Fe?

Mark Bertram, 906 Trail Cross Court, previously sworn, said this is egregious. This has been on drawing board for 10 to 12 years. Earlier iterations were a modest 56,000 square feet, now it’s almost four times that. He’s been involved in several projects in front of this Board. The development of those projects would have been much easier, faster and more profitable if the historic regulations had been ignored. The whole purpose of this district is to preserve our historic fabric even though it does create a burden on

developers. In this case, the State is the developer, and the taxpayers are going to pay nearly $1,000 a square foot for this building. He said the size of it is out of scale with the existing streetscape and surrounding neighborhoods. They should be required to follow the same rules as the private sector.

Tom Sprigg, 444 Galisteo, previously sworn, pointed out what happened 12 years ago. He was the president of the Old Santa Fe Association (“OSFA”). In 2012 OSFA said they were not opposed to an executive office building on that site. The State had proposed a 60,000 square foot building. The Board’s part is simple, reiterate that these are historic and move the process forward in a collaborative way.

Adam Johnson, 141 Arroyo Hondo Trail, previously sworn, said he is the Executive Director of OSFA. He’s against, putting cart before the horse. He agrees with staff’s recommendation for denial of demolitions requests.

Randall Bell, 2991 Viaja Pavo Real, previously sworn, said he is the President of OFSA. He said it is important to reiterate that there is a collaborative process. The City and development parties are working together. The collaboration in statute involves other parties. There was an informational hearing in January with many public comments. He asked to see the underlying evidence that they are using to try to justify this. This is premature, there is a process for collaborative meetings on this to try to develop an actual real proposed design. The applicant has failed to follow that procedure, so he asked the Board to please deny the uh application.

Elisa Bertram, 820 Don Cubero, previously sworn, asked the Board to deny these requests. She said this block of Don Cubero is extremely important to the fabric of that neighborhood and not to mention the proposed building is far larger than anything around except for the State capital. This building will drive 700 to 1,000 new people into that neighborhood a day. She didn’t think that they're considering Wood Gormely Elementary School just up the street with young children walking home from school every day. She didn’t think they're considering a lot of these living and breathing neighborhoods that surround it. Unfortunately, people who live in the neighborhoods have kids and jobs and are unable to come to these meetings to speak out in opposition. There are a lot of young people in the neighborhood and they against this proposed project.

Francesca Bonci, 1030 W. Houghton, previously sworn, said she came here from Long Island, New York. When she saw the picture of the building, she thought she was back in Long Island. She asked if the State really needs 56,000 square feet to house government employees. What’s going to happen to those empty buildings that will be vacated. She understands developers ask for the moon, this is the moon.

Raymond Herrera, 379 Hillside, was sworn. In his 79 years of living in Santa Fe he has seen the expansion of the capital from the PERA building to where it is now. A major part of historic part of Santa Fe was lost. It needs to be figured out at some point how not allow the State to do these things. When the PERA building was built his great grandfather’s grave was disturbed. He asked, how many buildings are empty around town and if this building really needed.

John Eddy, previously sworn, said he appreciated everything that’s been said. The elephant in the room is that state has been practicing demolition by neglect. These homes were owned by Santa Fe people. These four buildings are history, they are speaking to the capital. He urged the Board to deny most of the requests. They need to get to the negotiating table so that there can be a creative design that maintains these historic homes because they’re the last part of the fabric of history on that block.

Stefanie Beninato, previously sworn, said she agreed with many of the speakers. There are ways to incorporate those bungalows into the larger complex. She loves the Concha Ortiz y Pino building. Giving the state conditional approval is rewarding them. They should be incorporated into a design.

BOARD DISCUSSION/ACTION

Chair Rios said in reflecting everyone’s feelings, she feels the buildings should not be demolished because all the buildings that are preserved tell a story they are a reflection of time and place. They were there before the capital buildings were there. Those buildings could be incorporated into the capital complex. If the buildings were not preserved, they would not be here. She gave the example of the Cathedral and the Palace of the Governors. These buildings should be honored and stand on their own merits. The buildings are part of Santa Fe’s legacy.

Member Aguilar Medrano thanked all the members of the public for coming out this evening. The feedback is helpful. She wouldn’t feel comfortable approving demolition of the buildings. She said she would assume and hope that the State has gone through an analysis of their office spaces in Santa Fe. Unfortunately, there was none of that in the packet. She wouldn't be comfortable approving the demolition of some of our contributing buildings without seeing some of that analysis done. She also hoped that rather than this thorough study of what the street facades of this building would look like, it would have been more helpful to do a massing study. If the bungalows were approved to be demolished there’s an opportunity missed, the block isn’t responding to this at all.

Member Guida said preservation in Santa Fe is most specifically pointed to the historic districts. All buildings are a recognition of a place in time. There could be an argument that preservation instinct pushes back. Santa Fe is a living city and a growing city. Community functionality must be developed. Any argument for preserving these very marginal examples of historic buildings must be balanced against the functional argument for making them into office space and against the economic development and against the relative important contribution to the downtown and eastside historic district. The second point is about process, he doesn’t feel like the State is circumventing the process. The applicant has shown good faith.

Member Bienvenu appreciated all the comments. The general policy issue is whether the State needs the building. He would assume the State is acting in good faith. The general feeling is not to demolish the buildings, he said he respected that opinion. That’s why he proposed that demolition be considered first. Another general concern is the desire to have a collaborative process. A blanket denial would take the City out of the process.

Member Biedscheid said this state capital outlay project is different from others that the Board has heard in the past because it involves demolition. She agrees with most of the comments about process. However, as an at-large member of the Board her role is to amplify the concerns of the public and the stakeholder groups in the preservation community. She’s heard that if the Board approves the demolition, the general feeling is that the Board would preclude the opportunity to provide input in a collaborative process with input from preservation minded community members. She didn’t want the public to feel like they had missed that opportunity because of the Board’s vote. If the Board denies demolition, that can be appealed and then the Governing Body will be able to approve the demolition.

MOTION: In Case 2023-007592-HDRB, 128 S. Capitol St., Member Aguilar Medrano moved to approve the application as submitted which aligns with staff’s recommendation which approves the demolition of the non-contributing building. The motion was seconded by Member Biedscheid

VOTE: The motion passed by (5-0) roll call vote with Members Bienvenu, Guida, Mather, Aguilar Medrano and Biedscheid voting in favor and none voting against.

MOTION: In Case 2023-007593-HDRB, 130 S. Capitol St., Member Guida moved that the Board approve demolition noting that the exception criteria have been met as follows: that the historic status of the building is not a significant consideration factor in light of what's being proposed; that the historic blockfront is unique, that does not apply; and lastly in consideration of the condition of the building, their suitability for State use on an ongoing basis is an extenuating circumstance. Member Bienvenu seconded the motion with a friendly amendment that approval is contingent upon the City and the State reaching agreement through the collaborative process set forth in 14- 5.2(M) and Section 3-22-6 for design of a replacement building.

Member Guida accepted as friendly.

VOTE: The motion passed by (3-2) roll call vote with Members Guida, Mather, and Bienvenu voting in favor and Members Aguilar Medrano and Biedscheid voting against.

MOTION: In Case 2023-007595-HDRB, 402 Don Gaspar Ave., Member Biedscheid moved to deny the application for demolition, consistent with staff’s recommendation that the approval criteria for demolition have not been met. The motion was seconded by Member Aguilar Medrano

VOTE: The motion passed by (3-2) roll call vote with Members Mather, Aguilar Medrano and Biedscheid voting in favor and Members Bienvenu and Guida voting against.

MOTION: In Case 2023-007596-HDRB, 406 Don Gaspar Ave., Member Guida moved that demolition request be approved, finding that the exception criteria have been met as follows: that the historic status of the building is not a significant consideration factor in light of what's being proposed; that the historic blockfront is unique, that does not apply; and lastly in consideration of the condition of the building, their suitability for State use on an ongoing basis is an extenuating circumstance. He added that the demolition requests be contingent upon an approved design for the replacement building. Member Bienvenu seconded the motion with a friendly amendment that the demolition is contingent upon the State and the City reaching agreement on a final design of a replacement building pursuant to the State statute and the City ordinance.

Member Guida accepted the friendly amendment.

VOTE: The motion failed by (2-3) roll call vote with Members Bienvenu and Guida voting in favor and Members Aguilar Medrano, Biedscheid and Mather voting against.

Chair Rios entertained a new motion.

MOTION: In Case 2023-007596-HDRB, 406 Don Gaspar Ave., Member Biedscheid moved to deny the application for demolition consistent with staff's recommendation and determination that the criteria have not been met for demolition. The motion was seconded by Member Aguilar Medrano.

VOTE: The motion passed by (3-2) roll call vote with Members Mather, Aguilar Medrano and Biedscheid voting in favor and Members Bienvenu and Guida voting against.

MOTION: In Case 2023-007597-HDRB. 410 Don Gaspar Ave., Member Aguilar Medrano moved to deny the application for demolition, consistent with staff’s recommendation finding that the exception criteria have not been met. The motion was seconded by Member Biedscheid.

VOTE: The motion passed by (3-2) roll call vote with Members Mather, Aguilar Medrano and Biedscheid voting in favor and Members Bienvenu and Guida voting against.

MOTION: In Case 2023-007598-HDRB, 414 Don Gaspar Ave., Member Aguilar Medrano moved to deny the application for demolition, consistent with staff’s recommendation finding that the exception criteria have not been met. The motion was seconded by Member Biedscheid.

VOTE: The motion passed by (3-2) roll call vote with Members Mather, Aguilar Medrano and Biedscheid voting in favor and Members Bienvenu and Guida voting against.

To view the entire recording of this hearing, see the YouTube video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fF7ZEywAor0 (1:23:13 – 3:41:37)

9. DISCUSSION ITEMS

None

10. MATTERS FROM THE BOARD

None

11. NEXT MEETING: Tuesday, April 9, 2024

12. ADJOURN

MOTION: Member Guida moved, seconded by Member Biedscheid to adjourn the meeting at 9:18 p.m.

VOTE: The motion passed by (5-0) roll call vote with Members Bienvenu, Guida, Mather, Aguilar Medrano and Biedscheid voting in favor and none voting against.

https://santafe.primegov.com/public/portal

City of Santa Fe Historic Districts Review Board met March 26

Top Stories