2025-11325-HDRB. 119 Camino Santiago

Extracted text

City of Santa Fe
Historic Districts Review Board
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Case # 2025-11325-HDRB
Address – 119 Camino Santiago
Agent’s Name – John A. Padilla, AIA
Owner/Applicant’s Name – Dominic J. Serna
THIS MATTER came before the Historic Districts Review Board (“Board”) for hearing
on December 9, 2025.
BACKGROUND
Plaza del Monte, formerly the Plaza del Monte Retirement Compound, is an
approximately six-acre, “L”-shaped subdivision bounded by Bishops Lodge Road on the east and
Old Taos Highway on the west. The earliest plans by architects Kenneth Clark and Phillippe
Register in the late 1950s are for the buildings on the eastern part of the development, and were
Spanish-Pueblo Revival in style. However, when Register solely took over the project in the
1960s, his designs evolved into contemporary flat-roof structures with the use of canales, viga-
roof portales, and carport elements. In the mid-1960s, Camino Santiago was extended, and
development at the western end of the development began.
The property at 119 Camino Santiago is a 13,549-square-foot lot with a single-family
residence designated as contributing to the Downtown and Eastside Historic District and the east
(façade # 1) and south (façade # 4) designated as primary. The 1,485-square-foot single-family
residence is the only structure on the lot and was constructed in 1966 in a mid-century modern
design by Register. The structure is a good example of Mid-Century Modern Santa Fe Style,
with its low, projecting roofline and south fin wall as character-defining elements. The primary
façades include the south, east and north interior walls of the carport in addition to the east
facade of the residence and the portal that runs the full length of the east elevation. According to
the window assessment, the windows throughout the house are fixed, wood windows and
aluminum-sliding windows from 1964, and the doors were all replaced by 1996.
The Plaza del Monte landscape includes low retaining walls, built in several phases, with
dates of construction between 1950 and 1973. 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.
The Applicant proposes the following exterior alterations:
1. Replace windows and doors, including historic windows on the primary façade. An
exception is requested to SFCC Section 14-5.2(D)(5)(a)(i-iii) for replacing historic
windows and infilling a door opening on primary east and south façades. According to

Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law – Remodel or New Construction
Case # 2025-11325-HDRB
p. 2
the window assessment, windows A, B, C, E, F are historic, however, the tracks and
special locks are no longer manufactured. The units would need to be replaced to
function. The windows will be replaced in-kind with single-lite windows.
a. East Elevation (primary façade)
i. The two kitchen windows (A and B) are horizontal sliders, single lite, both
are historic and will be replaced with thermal-glass, awning windows in a
single lite; the size of the window is not changing.
ii. The front entry door, 15-panel, non-historic, will be replaced with an 8-
raised-panel wood door.
iii. The sliding, glass patio door, non-historic, will be replaced with a 3-panel
sliding door with single lites.
iv. Infill the door (door # 2) under the carport that enters the kitchen.
v. Remove the door, six-panel, non-historic, to the storage area under the
portal as part of the new enclosure. The opening for this door will remain
(but will be interior after an enclosure is added under the carport).
b. North Elevation
i. Remove and infill the historic window (C) in the living room.
ii. Replace the non-historic window (D) at the den, increasing the height but
without changing the width of the window.
c. West Elevation
i. Replace the historic window (E) in the bedroom, increasing the height but
without changing the width of the window.
ii. Remove the historic window (F) in the primary bedroom and replace it
with two tall, narrow windows, which will meet egress requirements.
iii. Install a window in the primary bathroom where there are none currently.
2. Construct a 64-square-foot enclosure under the carport. An exception is requested to
SFCC Section 14-5.2(D)(2)(c-d) for placing an addition on a primary façade. The
enclosure will have two pedestrian doors. This decreases the depth of the carport, but the
carport will remain.
3. Construct a free-standing latilla-post fence with a pedestrian gate under the portal
between the carport and the front of the residence to enclose the courtyard. An exception
is requested to SFCC Section 14-5.2(D)(5)(b) for placing an architectural feature on a
primary façade where no there is no evidence it was there previously.
4. Demolish the existing cantilever overhang on the west façade.
5. Construct a Pueblo Revival Style portal to replace the cantilever on the west façade. The
portal will include vigas, beams and corbels and will be constructed to a height of 9’8”.
6. Demolish the low yard wall to the east of the building to remove the small courtyard area.
The taller section of the wall that connects to the north wall of the residence will be
retained.
7. Replace the existing low yard wall with a 4’6”-high yard wall with pedestrian gate to
close in the front yard. This wall will connect directly to the taller wall that connects to
the north wall of the residence.
8. Construct a rear and side 6-foot-high coyote fence with a pedestrian gate.
9. Roof the residence using TPO in tan.
10. Stucco in cementitious “Buckskin” with “White” under the portal, retaining the historic
texture.

Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law – Remodel or New Construction
Case # 2025-11325-HDRB
p. 3
FINDINGS OF FACT
After conducting a public hearing and having heard from the Applicant and all interested
persons, the Board hereby FINDS, as follows:
1. Land Use Department Staff conducted a preliminary zoning review (“PZR”) and
determined that the application appears to meet the underlying zoning standards set forth
in the Santa Fe City Code (“SFCC”).
2. Historic Preservation Division Staff reviewed the application and related materials and
information submitted by the Applicant for conformity with applicable SFCC
requirements and provided the Board with a written report of its findings (“Staff
Report”), which evaluates the factors relevant to the application.
3. Historic Preservation Division Staff Recommendation: Staff recommended findings that
the exception criteria:
• to SFCC Section 14-5.2(D)(5)(a)(i) for replacing historic windows and infilling a
door on the primary east and south façades have been met, and recommended
approval of this exception;
• to SFCC Section 14-5.2(D)(2)(c-d) for adding a storage enclosure under the carport
on the east, primary façade have been met, and recommended approval of this
exception; and
• to SFCC Section 14-5.2(D)(5)(b) for placing an architectural element on the east,
primary façade where there was no evidence it previously existed have not been met,
and recommended denial of this exception.
Otherwise, staff recommended approval of the other elements of the application that did
not require exceptions, as they comply with SFCC Sections 14-5.2(D), General Design
Standards for all Historic Districts, and 14-5.2(E), Downtown and Eastside Historic
District Design Standards.
4. The project is subject to SFCC Section 14-5.2(C), Regulation of Significant and
Contributing Structures.
5. The project is subject to the requirements and general design standards set forth in SFCC
Section 14-5.2(D), General Design Standards.
6. The property is located in the Downtown and Eastside Historic District and is subject to
the district design standards set forth in SFCC Section 14-5.2(E).
7. Under SFCC Sections 14-2.6(B-C), 14-5.2(A)(1), 14-5.2(C)(2)(a-d & f), 14-5.2(C)(3)(a-
b), 14-5.2(C)(4), and 14-5.2(D), the Board has authority to review, approve, with or
without conditions, or deny, all or some of the Applicant’s proposed design to assure
overall compliance with applicable design standards.
Replacement of Historic Windows and Infill of Door:
8. Under SFCC Section 14-5.2(D)(5)(a), subsection (i) requires historic windows to be
repaired or restored wherever possible, and subsection (iii) prohibits the infill of any
existing opening.
9. The Applicant proposes to replace historic windows (A and B) on the east primary façade
and to infill a door (door # 2) on the south primary façade. Staff determined that an
exception to SFCC Section 14-5.2(D)(5)(a)(i-iii) would be required for approval of the
application, and the Applicant requested an exception.

Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law – Remodel or New Construction
Case # 2025-11325-HDRB
p. 4
10. To obtain an exception, the Applicant was required to conclusively demonstrate that the
three exception criteria set forth in SFCC Section 14-5.2(C)(5)(b) have been met.
11. Based on the information set forth in the Staff Report and exhibits, and the evidence and
testimony presented at the hearing, the Board finds that the Applicant has conclusively
demonstrated that all exception criteria have been met.
a. Pursuant to SFCC Section 14-5.2(C)(5)(b)(i), the Board finds that granting the
exception would not damage the character of the district because the replacement
windows will be in-kind, and the door to be infilled is under the carport and has
minimal public visibility;
b. Pursuant to SFCC Section 14-5.2(C)(5)(b)(ii), the Board finds that the exception
is required to prevent a hardship to the Applicant or an injury to the public
welfare, because the windows no longer work and parts needed to repair them are
no longer made; the door, which opens from the carport into the small, galley
kitchen, encumbers space needed for a more functional kitchen; and
c. Pursuant to SFCC Section 14-5.2(C)(5)(b)(iii), the Board finds that granting the
exception would strengthen the unique heterogeneous character of the City by
providing a full range of design options to ensure that residents can continue to
reside within the Historic Districts because the new windows will function
properly and allow for better ventilation, and removal of the door will allow more
counter space or room for a small table.
12. The Board finds that the Applicant has conclusively demonstrated that all of the
exception criteria have been met for replacement of historic windows A and B and infill
of a door # 2 on the primary façades.
Addition of Enclosed Storage Area on Primary Façade:
13. Under SFCC Section 14-5.2(D)(2)(c-d) additions are not permitted to primary façades,
and additions are not permitted to the side of the existing footprint unless the addition is
set back a minimum of 10 feet from the primary façade.
14. The Applicant proposes to construct enclosed storage space attached to the east, primary
façade, under the carport. Staff determined that an exception to SFCC Section 14-
5.2(D)(2)(c-d) would be required for approval of the application, and the Applicant
requested an exception.
15. To obtain an exception, the Applicant was required to conclusively demonstrate that the
three exception criteria set forth in SFCC Section 14-5.2(C)(5)(b) have been met.
16. Based on the information set forth in the Staff Report and exhibits, and the evidence and
testimony presented at the hearing, the Board finds that the Applicant has conclusively
demonstrated that all exception criteria have been met:
a. Pursuant to SFCC Section 14-5.2(C)(5)(b)(i), the Board finds that granting the
exception would not damage the character of the district because the addition will
be small (64 square feet), it will be set back from the street inside a carport, it will
be minimally visible from the street, and it does not affect the overall appearance
of the residence;
b. Pursuant to SFCC Section 14-5.2(C)(5)(b)(ii), the Board finds that the exception
is required to prevent a hardship to the Applicant or an injury to the public
welfare, because it will allow the property owner to store tools out of sight which
are presently stored under the open carport, are visible to the public and create a

Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law – Remodel or New Construction
Case # 2025-11325-HDRB
p. 5
cluttered appearance; and
c. Pursuant to SFCC Section 14-5.2(C)(5)(b)(iii), the Board finds that granting the
exception would strengthen the unique heterogeneous character of the City by
providing a full range of design options to ensure that residents can continue to
reside within the Historic Districts, because there is little storage space in this
house and this allows the family to secure tools which otherwise are stored
outside, subject to theft, and impair the aesthetics of the primary façade.
17. The Board finds that the Applicant has conclusively demonstrated that all of the
exception criteria have been met with respect to the addition of enclosed storage space on
the east façade under the carport.
Latilla Fence and Gate Under Front Portal:
18. Under SFCC Section 14-5.2(D)(5)(b), no new material or feature for which there is no
evidence of its prior existence may be placed on any façade of a contributing, significant
or landmark structure.
19. The Applicant proposes to construct a latilla fence with pedestrian gate from the carport
to the front entrance under the portal of the primary, east facade. Staff determined that an
exception to SFCC Section 14-5.2(D)(5)(b), would be required for approval of the
application, and the Applicant requested an exception.
20. To obtain an exception, the Applicant was required to conclusively demonstrate that the
three exception criteria set forth in SFCC Section 14-5.2(C)(5)(b) have been met.
21. Based on the information set forth in the Staff Report and exhibits, and the evidence and
testimony presented at the hearing, the Board agrees with Staff’s finding that the
Applicant has conclusively demonstrated that all exception criteria have been met.
a. Pursuant to SFCC Section 14-5.2(C)(5)(b)(i), the Board finds that granting the
exception would not damage the character of the district, because the fence and
gate will be small (42” high x about 4’ wide), it will not attach to the residence
and will be partly concealed behind a structural column of the portal;
b. Pursuant to SFCC Section 14-5.2(C)(5)(b)(ii), the Board finds that the exception
is required to prevent a hardship to the Applicant or an injury to the public
welfare, because it prevents small children and pets from having access to the
street; and
c. Pursuant to SFCC Section 14-5.2(C)(5)(b)(iii), the Board finds that granting the
exception would strengthen the unique heterogeneous character of the City by
providing a full range of design options to ensure residents can continue to reside
in the Historic Districts, because it creates additional safety for children and pets
so that a growing family can better utilize the outdoor space at this residence.
22. The Board finds that the Applicant has conclusively demonstrated that all of the
exception criteria have been met for addition of a latilla fence with pedestrian gate under
the east portal.
23. The information contained in the Staff Report and exhibits, and the testimony and
evidence submitted at the hearing, establishes that all applicable requirements for Board
review as herein described have been met.
24. The information contained in the Staff Report, and the exhibits, testimony and evidence
submitted at the hearing, establishes that all applicable design criteria have been met.

Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law – Remodel or New Construction
Case # 2025-11325-HDRB
p. 6
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Under the circumstances and given the evidence and testimony submitted during the
hearing, the Board acted upon the application as follows:
1. The Board has the authority to review and approve the application.
2. The Board approves Items # 1-10 as set forth in the application, as recommended
by Staff.
3. With respect to Items # 1(a)(i) and (iv), the Board grants the exception to Section
14-5.2(D)(5)(a)(i-iii) requested in the application.
4. With respect to Item # 2, the Board grants the exception to Section 14-5.2(D)(5)
(b) requested in the application.
5. With respect to Item # 3, the Board grants the exception to Section 14-5.2(D)(2)
(c-d) requested in the application.
IT IS SO ORDERED ON THIS 8th DAY of SEPTEMBER, 2026, BY THE
HISTORIC DISTRICTS REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF SANTA FE.
_______________________ _____________
Cecilia Rios, Chair Date
FILED:
______________________ ______________
Geralyn Cardenas Date
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________ ______________
Frank Ruybalid Date
Assistant City Attorney