[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6338336,"mediaKeyId","2270346-d712fd340e3a6e3fbb55635e72fc41c2","parentId",2270346,"title","Public commenter raises concerns about Saint Catherine’s Indian School property and appeal notice timing","audioSeconds",214,"startMs",396000,"endMs",610000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2270346-d712fd340e3a6e3fbb55635e72fc41c2&start=396&end=610","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2270346-d712fd340e3a6e3fbb55635e72fc41c2/thumbnail_396000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6338336/Santa-Fe/Santa-Fe-County/New-Mexico/Public-commenter-raises-concerns-about-Saint-Catherines-Indian-School-property-and-appeal-notice-timing","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6338336-91a3ed6e7b85970623e61d43e61467a2/orig.mp4?Expires=1775310238&Signature=d6lb4Lyz83LZVvETCWB77NWX1fI952ZwULICULXRKeILXzYg8pNiEeoE85KmARb97NejxZmu-T9D60sj~ljv2P0AxrVmyYyqAnp73Ua2OpBqp2Q~-s885SduuFPovVZTcQm3SHxjOLeUtW-TisrWT-1LVSN7WM1qujuJiG9iK6PjQN4Y88p6EEEKt-rijvt7Mxey2b0jhGRxhe2C-QPqV-1jQlQZDKE9E~yYQnHgLFnhKhOxcxo3U5JzLkRHA7DxjOe8yJMnLixVEoKa3bb-GMAVGpker7oJONGhW88BgDNaxJFejwOl7ZVe7cn1a470i1y4ZfvrvYiKbDH3VOreBg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Santa Fe, NM","date","2025-02-12T00:32:20Z","article","Stephanie Venonato addressed the Historic Districts Review Board during the public‑comment period about two matters: the status of the former Saint Catherine’s Indian School property and the timeliness of findings and conclusions and their effect on appeal rights.

Venonato said she understood the housing authority currently owns the site and asked staff to invite a housing authority representative to update the board on preservation or redevelopment plans. “I think it’s a really important property, and the board should kind of keep track of it because it’s really been years,” she said.

Venonato also read the city’s appeal ordinance into the record and warned that when written findings and conclusions are adopted months after a vote, affected parties can lose their right to appeal. She cited the code language that makes the adoption date of written findings the final action date — unless findings are not issued within 35 days of the vote, in which case the vote date becomes the final action — and said delayed findings have on occasion been issued “like, six months late.” She said the delay can prevent timely appeals and said she would place copies of the ordinance language in the record.

Why it matters: residents and applicants rely on published findings and conclusions to calculate appeal windows for land‑use decisions. Late or incomplete findings can affect legal rights to seek review by the city council or other bodies.

Board response: Chair Tara Rios acknowledged the comment and moved the meeting forward; staff later noted that the board’s decisions and adopted findings are final actions and that the city is not currently in compliance every time with the 35‑day timelines Venonato described. Venonato said she would provide copies of the ordinance text she referenced to the board.

Ending: The board did not take formal action on the Saint Catherine’s matter at this meeting; staff said they would consider the request to invite a housing authority representative to a future meeting and that the board’s adopted findings will determine appeal windows.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Historic Districts Review Board Meeting 2/11/2025","oneSentenceSummary","A member of the public urged the board to track the former Saint Catherine’s Indian School property and warned that late findings of fact and conclusions can bar appeals; she placed the relevant ordinance into the record.","taxTitle","Santa Fe, Santa Fe County, New Mexico","taxId",2727,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6338340,"Historic Districts Review Board: votes and case outcomes — meeting roundup",121,4047000,4168000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2270346-d712fd340e3a6e3fbb55635e72fc41c2&start=4047&end=4168","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2270346-d712fd340e3a6e3fbb55635e72fc41c2/thumbnail_4047000.jpg","/articles/6338340/Santa-Fe/Santa-Fe-County/New-Mexico/Historic-Districts-Review-Board-votes-and-case-outcomes-meeting-roundup","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6338340-9ca00adfa74835940a2db6d972ccd455/orig.mp4?Expires=1775310238&Signature=N431AQf1IS8U1D2X~VTDoNCWIMUt8JZccOuY0-u5stgNPOxkPyLyyAAEO9etMoOaOK12aLW~YkmIirz5BTU6AuNv4LmMAIC6KFKaPuf1rRkf5MIOiZ9weqa4NW1wEPisUu6kKRfOwGRPPZIhdFK~GhbovXNOpgsfOpMAYNDFzHgknZYp6z9vj0iQonSP~V4nsiasfKXZDt4~-QvkbsfYL1QLi9Ianlu~xzdBbYF3nSThgda-~VbMUDFPNRaa30~N9Y1TdMXr5ImGs6byzVPaf8Bg~H55xZk5KuwV4tt3cDU~kmSYN~AjKarYtbLbpDbEX8f4xrEaFW0EUnSjW3hmMQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Historic Districts Review Board approved minutes, findings and multiple case decisions at its meeting, acting on status reviews, design exceptions and site alterations across the downtown, East Side and West Side historic districts.

Key outcomes at a glance:

- 878 East Palace (case 2025009719): Staff recommended retaining the main residence as a contributing structure and designating the east and north facades as primary; the board approved the recommendation. Roll call recorded Member John Mather, Member Benvenu, Member Adela Medrano and Member Degnan voting yes; Member Bishai and Vice Chair Guida voted no. The motion passed.

- 1525 Canyon Road (case 2025009690): The board granted an exception to replace two historic windows on primary facades with in‑kind wood windows and approved replacement of other windows as proposed. The roll call was unanimous in favor.

- 1A Camino Piqueno Unit A (case 20259689): After an initial failed motion, the board approved the applicant’s proposal with conditions. The approval requires the front yard wall along Camino Piqueno to be a coyote fence with a staggered top (horizontal supports on private side) and requires the garage door to be wood rather than metal. The motion passed on roll call.

- 127 Durán Street (case 20259773): The board retained the residential and accessory structures as non‑contributing. The board also voted to designate the visible portion of a historic acequia wall on the property as contributing; that vote was tied and the chair provided the tie‑breaking vote in favor. Members noted debate over the board’s jurisdiction regarding acequias and recommended coordination with acequia authorities for preservation.

- 925 Acequia Madre (case 2024009202): Staff recommended and the board approved maintaining the main residence as contributing with the south facade (excluding non‑historic materials) designated as primary.

- 502 Cerrillos Road (case 2025009748): The board approved an exception to enclose an existing portal on a non‑primary facade, subject to a condition that the final design include two double‑hung windows similar to existing north‑elevation windows (set back appropriately) and that revised jamb details be submitted to staff before permit application. The motion passed; Vice Chair Guida recorded a no vote.

- 1182 Cerro Gordo (case 2024009613): The board approved retroactive review and exceptions for a deck over a contributing shed, replacement of the shed roof not in kind, and associated railings and stairs. Staff findings and the motion to approve were adopted.

- 202 Irvine Street (case 2024009650): The board approved additions and relocation of an accessory shed to meet zoning, and noted that the existing blue shed color may remain at the owner’s request.

- 1184 Cerro Gordo (case 2025009774): The board approved a small addition and new yard walls/fences consistent with the existing recent Santa Fe‑style residence. Roll call passed with one no vote recorded.

Minutes and findings: the board approved December 2024 minutes as amended and adopted findings and conclusions for earlier cases (September and December 2024) where staff had prepared revised documents; a small number of abstentions were recorded on the minutes vote.

Why it matters: the decisions affect status of contributing and non‑contributing designations, allowable alterations in historic districts, and whether demolition or major exterior change will be considered in context of final designs. Several approvals included conditions intended to protect historic fabric and ensure appropriate detailing.

What’s next: applicants should submit final permit applications reflecting board conditions (for example, revised fenestration details or fence materials). The state Executive Office Building team will return with a formal package, including any demolition request, and the board will appoint a subcommittee for design consultation by email.","The board approved minutes, findings, and a slate of status reviews and design exceptions across the downtown, East Side and West Side districts. Several applications were approved with conditions, one applicant withdrew earlier demolition request, and the board deferred appointments to a state subcommittee.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6338345,"State presents Executive Office Building concept to Historic District review board; subcommittee appointment deferred",3002,826000,3828000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2270346-d712fd340e3a6e3fbb55635e72fc41c2&start=826&end=3828","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2270346-d712fd340e3a6e3fbb55635e72fc41c2/thumbnail_826000.jpg","/articles/6338345/Santa-Fe/Santa-Fe-County/New-Mexico/State-presents-Executive-Office-Building-concept-to-Historic-District-review-board-subcommittee-appointment-deferred","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6338345-7818884eba7273a5af5a55b45b678536/orig.mp4?Expires=1775310238&Signature=YiYLCI9RnF0lIIgtnpYVGP4ydHV-ikEJdma1DJg2VNyJkJzJfQfTagUPEZQRs2q3nKU6B6YfDiS9K5G7Djv5Ryp~rKCZz5geoMVR5HekykjTn0Vb9WHrcy~HQMZsl-PXTy7X3lvgnR-IZzuOdSoiGUcu8hhxW2Gc1oTrBIuWxaNZt2Zpa5FnHs9~CLyMG7Yct1MEmkBQn25AmpEn8yxdy1GHSxKKWZRlztyLmO26u~h3xbvIyyzfefKDhFfdUdJmV1PE1bM-Mirmt3xrZn4DXksvrELAB3qb3wYGbckm2n7gHgkWwSfzcLvV-kqpDqYpkafz6YqheZ4wdnpn~ROFhw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Jennifer Jenkins, an attorney with Jenkins Gavin, told the Historic Districts Review Board that the state is restarting the design phase for the proposed Executive Office Building on the state capitol complex and was seeking the board’s consultation and a small subcommittee to review details. The presentation Wednesday included an architecture team from FBT Architects and Anna Silva, cabinet secretary for the New Mexico General Services Department.

The project team described a three‑story, approximately 265,000‑square‑foot office building with an underground parking garage sized for roughly 660 cars and a site slope of about 11 feet between the Capitol and Galisteo Street. Ted Grama of FBT Architects said the design aims to respond to adjacent territorial revival buildings with stepped massing, plazas and rooftop decks; Art Tatum detailed material choices such as stucco, deep‑set windows and brick coping intended to reference territorial revival character.

Why it matters: the property sits adjacent to the state capitol and within the city’s Historic Districts Review boundaries. The state previously sought demolition approvals for several on‑site structures; those demolition requests were withdrawn so the design could be considered in context. The board’s earlier decision to deny demolition of several casitas remains a factor board members said they expect to affect future deliberations.

Board members generally welcomed the urban moves in the proposal but pressed the team on how the design will “honor” the casitas and other designated contributing buildings that the board had previously declined to demolish. Member John Mather said the massing and plaza relationship were promising but urged caution on superficial commemorative gestures: “If we’re remembering the casitas in any way, I question why we’re not also remembering the building,” he said. Member Michael Bermudez pressed the architects on window proportions and glass reflectivity, urging smaller, inset windows with through‑divided lights and limited reflectivity so the project better fit local territorial revival precedents.

On demolition and process: Jenkins and Anna Silva confirmed the state intends to refile a demolition request as part of the final historic review package so demolition would be considered together with the final design. Jenkins summarized the approach as “a do‑over” that would let the board review demolition in the context of a completed design. Several board members questioned whether a design effort is productive while prior board members have expressed a preference against demolition, but the state said it chose this path to produce a fuller record and to try to reach agreement.

Subcommittee and next steps: the state requested a two‑member board subcommittee to meet more frequently with the design team. Board members discussed reappointing the two members who served previously but deferred a formal appointment. Chair Tara Rios said she would coordinate with staff and the board and notify the applicant by email of the two appointed members. Jenkins said the team would return with a formal, complete historic review package, including the demolition request, at a later date.

Quotes attributed in this report come from the meeting transcript: “We are commencing the design phase for the Executive Office Building,” Jenkins said. Anna Silva was introduced in the record as “cabinet secretary for the general services department.”

Ending: The board did not vote on the design at this meeting; it provided initial feedback on massing, windows and streetscape treatment and asked the state to return with a formal package and a clarified demolition request. The board and state staff agreed to select subcommittee members and resume consultation before a formal hearing on demolition or final design.","State representatives and architects presented a three‑story Executive Office Building concept for the state capitol complex, seeking design guidance and a subcommittee to work with state staff; board members raised concerns about demolition, window detailing and how the design would ","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Public commenter raises concerns about Saint Catherine’s Indian School property and appeal notice timing

Historic Districts Review Board: votes and case outcomes — meeting roundup

State presents Executive Office Building concept to Historic District review board; subcommittee appointment deferred