The Ypsilanti Historic District Commission on Sept. 9 approved a material change to the previously authorized reroof of the detached garage at 410 Maple Street, allowing standing‑seam metal roofing in a Galvalume finish for the garage only and adding a condition that the approval not be read as precedent for the main house.

The applicant, Michael Kozura, told the commission he and a contractor reviewed the garage roof decking and recommended metal to improve the durability and drip edge details. Carrie, a city preservation staff member, presented staff’s review and said the garage had previously been approved administratively for work beyond a steel garage door and that the current request was to change the approved shingles to a stainless‑steel standing‑seam roof in a Galvalume color. Carrie told commissioners she visited other nearby properties the applicant cited and noted differences in visibility, prior approvals and color choices.

Commission discussion centered on three themes: whether standing‑seam metal is historically appropriate for houses in the district, the visual effect of Galvalume’s reflectivity and the question of precedent. Commissioners and staff agreed that standing‑seam metal roofing can be an appropriate material in some historic contexts but that color, reflectivity and siting influence compatibility. Several commissioners said the garage’s setback and the fact that it is an accessory structure reduced visual impact compared with a primary‑roof installation. At least one commissioner expressed concern that approving a bright Galvalume finish could encourage similar applications that change the district’s character if the same finish were later applied to more visible roof planes.

A motion to approve the change (certificate of appropriateness PHDC‑25‑0030) passed after the commission added a clarifying amendment: the approval applies to the garage only and is not intended to establish a precedent for reroofing the house. The commission’s action referenced the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation in finding the work compatible when limited by the added condition.

The commission took the action by voice vote. Alex Pettit, Stefan Sonko, John DeVoltz and a commissioner identified in the record as Chuckleman voted in favor; two commissioners were absent. The commission did not adopt a required paint or finish specification beyond the applicant’s submitted product description, and staff and several commissioners recommended the applicant confirm finish sheen and product warranty details with the manufacturer and the city staff before ordering materials.

The applicant and staff were directed to document the selected product details, including manufacturer cut sheets and warranty language, in the building permit/decision file. The commission’s decision also reiterated that remaining decisions about the main house’s roof material would be considered separately if or when proposals are submitted.

The commission recorded the certificate of appropriateness decision in its files and moved on to the next agenda item.