Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Materiality And Visibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board postpones decision on translucent roofed portal at 925 Acequia Madre
Summary
The Historic Districts Review Board postponed action until April 8 to allow the applicant to submit a construction detail showing the edge/flashings for a translucent polycarbonate portal roof that will connect a contributing residence and a casita; staff flagged visibility and material questions.
The Santa Fe Historic Districts Review Board on March 25 postponed action on a proposed 78-square-foot portal at 925 Acequia Madre so the applicant can provide a construction detail showing how the translucent roofing will be concealed at the edges.
Staff planner Paul Duran described the property as a contributing Santa Fe Pueblo Revival residence with a previously approved detached casita addition. The applicant proposes a freestanding wood portal to span the courtyard between the two structures; the roof specified in the application is a translucent twin-wall polycarbonate intended to bring daylight into the courtyard.
"That polycarbonate clear roof ... is not publicly visible, and so staff did not see an issue with it," Duran said, while also noting the material is uncommon in the district and the board may prefer a more traditional roofing material.
Applicant Gregory Waits told the board the translucent roof was chosen to increase light in the space while keeping cost down. "The translucent was to bring light to that area in that transition... the flashing system would cover all the edge of that, so you wouldn't see anything out of the ordinary," Waits said.
Board members raised concerns about whether the panel edges and flashing would be visible from public vantage points, how the material interacts with parapets and beams, and the long-term character of a contributing property. Member Aguilar Medrano said the board should take a harder look because the parcel contains a contributing structure and a more modern material would "communicate that this is not part of a historic structure."
After debate the board voted to postpone to the next hearing, April 8, and requested a construction detail that demonstrates the roof profile and flashing so the translucent edge will not be visible from any public vantage point. The motion passed on a roll-call vote.
