Planning commission tables Midtown master plan amendment after debate over facade rules and permitted uses

The Santa Fe Planning Commission took up a proposed amendment to the Midtown Master Plan for the Midtown site at 1600 Saint Michael's Drive, hearing a detailed presentation from city staff and the Midtown Redevelopment Agency before tabling the item for additional work on a condition addressing facade articulation.

The amendment would change subzone designations, alter facade-zone standards and height guidance, add sign, mural and landscape provisions, and replace the plan’s permitted-use table with a system referencing the C-2 zoning permitted uses while retaining a list of prohibited uses for the site. City and applicant presenters described the changes as intended to provide flexibility for redevelopment that the MRA says will accelerate implementation of the Midtown vision.

Why it matters: Midtown is a multi‑acre redevelopment site with city-led planning documents that guide future housing, commercial and film‑production uses. Commissioners and members of the public said changes to facade step‑back requirements and to permitted uses could materially affect the site’s expected character, neighborhood impacts and the margin for architectural quality.

How the discussion unfolded: City case manager Joel Krusaber and Howell Cruz Haber described technical changes in the amendment — removing some Main Street office facade standards from mixed-use film zones, increasing some allowed facade heights to match existing Midtown height limits (up to five stories in limited facade zones subject to Midtown Link height limits), and referencing C-2 permitted uses while carrying forward site-specific prohibitions. Lisa Gavioli, senior project manager with NV5, and Daniel Hernandez of the Midtown Redevelopment Agency (MRA) emphasized the amendments are intended as “minor tweaks” to reduce implementation barriers, making regulations less prescriptive while preserving the master plan’s intent.

Commissioners pressed MRA staff and the applicant on specifics. Questions focused on whether prohibited uses would effectively become permitted under a C-2 reference, how step‑back removal would affect street‑level design, and whether a five‑story facade would comfortably fit within the code’s height limits (noted as 52 feet for qualifying residential projects, 62 feet for other Midtown projects). MRA representatives said qualifying residential projects can be administratively reviewed, that many design elements remain required by the Midtown design guidelines, and that the MRA intends to negotiate design through exclusive negotiation agreements and disposition and development agreements before projects proceed to construction.

Public comment ranged from supportive statements about enabling redevelopment to concerns about weakened design controls and reduced public notice. A neighborhood resident told commissioners the amendments felt larger than “minor tweaks,” saying step‑back and zoning changes would weaken protections the community expected when the Midtown plan was adopted.

Outcome: Commissioners asked staff and MRA to craft a clear condition that would preserve expectations for pedestrian‑level façade articulation while allowing the flexibility applicants and the MRA requested. The commission voted to table the item so staff and applicant representatives could draft that condition and return later in the meeting; when the item returned the commission recommended the governing body approve the amendment with the added articulation condition drafted by staff.

What comes next: The commission’s recommendation will go to the governing body (City Council) for final action. The MRA and planning staff said they will continue to negotiate specific architectural and development details with prospective developers through ENAs and DDAs and to return development plans to land‑use review as required.

Evidence in the record: The planning staff presentation detailed the proposed changes to subzones, façade zone standards, permitted uses and landscape/sign standards; MRA staff described outreach and policy rationale; public speakers requested broader notification or expressed design and traffic concerns.