906 Poland Ave.

District: Bywater -Full Control

Owner: David Gregor

HDLC Staff: Michala Daniels

Rating: Non - contributing

Applicant: Irene Keil

Permit #: 25-23798-HDLC

Description: Request to install galvalume standing seam metal roof at a new construction, two-story, single-family residential building incorporating the Contributing rated front façade.

HDLC Design Guidelines: Section 05, Pages 1 and 4-5 of the Guidelines for Roofing

Staff Recommendations: FEMA survey data indicates the building was constructed between 1920 and 1930 and first appears on the 1937 Sanborn map. The structure retained much of its original type, scale, massing, footprint, and roof form until the previously reviewed renovation and camelback addition. The front façade remains contributing and in good condition. Character-defining features include decorative wood fascia and brackets, a historic multi-light wood gable window, twelve-light wood double hung windows, a Craftsman-style wood entry door, narrow-exposure wood weatherboards, and tapered wood columns on rusticated masonry porch bases. Overall, the historic front façade continues to contribute to the district.

The applicant is proposing to install a Galvalume standing seam metal roof to improve solar reflectivity, reduce heat absorption, and lower cooling related energy costs. While the rear portion of the building is considered new construction, the roof form and massing largely replicate the previous historic structure, and the front façade remains contributing and highly visible.

HDLC guidelines note that metal roofing became more common after the mid-nineteenth century and was historically painted to prevent corrosion, typically in muted or traditional colors. Not all metal roofing types are appropriate for all building styles, and materials should not negatively impact a building’s historic character. The previous historic roof material was slate, and the Guidelines state that slate or asphalt shingles are the most appropriate replacement materials for this building type. Guidance from the National Park Service in Preservation Brief 4: Roofing for Historic Buildings further explains that early metal roofs, including galvanized iron, were almost always painted to prevent corrosion, rather than left unfinished as a final appearance.

The applicant’s justification focuses on improving roof reflectivity to reduce heat gain. Solar Reflectance (SR) measures how much solar radiation is reflected from a surface, while Solar Reflectance Index (SRI) measures a material’s ability to reflect solar heat and release absorbed heat. Manufacturer data indicates that Galvalume Plus has an initial Solar Reflectance (SR) value of 0.67 and an SRI of 65. By comparison, several HDLC staff-approved painted finishes fall within a lower but comparable performance range. Matte Black has an SR of 0.26 and an SRI of 25. Dark Bronze has an SR of 0.27 and an SRI of 25. Charcoal and Ash Gray each have an SR of 0.32 and an SRI of 32. Slate Gray performs notably higher among the painted options, with an SR of 0.43 and an SRI of 47. Dorado Brown, which falls within the medium-to-dark bronze range of finishes, typically performs similarly to Dark Bronze and other mid-range tones, with SR values between approximately 0.27 and 0.30 and SRI values between approximately 25 and 31.

While Galvalume provides higher initial reflectivity, particularly when new, its light metallic appearance and high reflectivity are not consistent with the darker tones traditionally associated with slate roofing or asphalt shingles used to replicate slate. The Guidelines emphasize maintaining the historic appearance of roofing materials, and asphalt shingles intended to replicate slate are typically darker in color. In addition to visual incompatibility, highly reflective metallic finishes can introduce glare concerns that are not characteristic of historic roofing materials.

Several lighter grays painted finishes (especially Slate Gray, Ash Gray, and Charcoal) offer moderate to strong solar performance while maintaining a more subdued appearance consistent with historic district standards. Industry research indicates that reflective metal roofing systems in hot climates can reduce cooling energy use by approximately 7–15 percent compared to less reflective roofing materials, although actual savings vary depending on insulation levels, HVAC efficiency, and overall building performance. It should also be noted that improving attic insulation can provide comparable energy efficiency benefits by reducing heat transfer into the building, often achieving similar performance improvements as increased roof reflectivity.

Significant allowances have already been granted, including approval of the retention demolition of most of the structure, with the associated fine ultimately overturned through applicant's appeal to the City Council, and the classification of much of the building as new construction, which has allowed consideration of a metal roof. At this point, only a limited portion of the original contributing façade remains, and staff’s priority is to ensure that the remaining historic fabric and context is preserved appropriately. Given the extent of prior accommodations and the length of time this project has been ongoing since 2016 for what was fundamentally a camelback addition, staff believes that further exceptions are not justified. It is important that the project now proceed toward resolution and completion.

While the applicant’s goal of achieving improved solar reflectivity is understandable, staff notes that several HDLC-approved painted metal colors provide SR and SRI values relatively close to Galvalume while remaining more compatible with historic district guidelines. Given the contributing status and visibility of the front façade, staff recommends denial of the Galvalume finish. Staff would, however, support approval of a standing seam metal roof in an HDLC-approved color.

Recommendation: Denial of Galvalume but approval of a standing seam metal roof in an HDLC-approved color.

Case History:

02/09/26: HDLC staff issued the Certificate of Appropriateness without approval of the proposed roof.
02/05/26: Staff met with the applicant to discuss metal roof options. The applicant decided to bring the roof request to Commission. Staff again offered options for selecting an HDLC-approved roof color and issuing the permit while allowing the roof to be reviewed by Commission.
01/09/26: After discussion, staff agreed that a metal roof could be considered because the project is now classified as new construction, provided an HDLC-approved color is used. Staff again offered options for roof color, including issuing the permit while allowing the roof to go before Commission.
01/06/26: Staff notified the applicant that the HDLC does not typically approve unfinished metal roofs and offered options, including issuing the permit while allowing the roof finish to be reviewed by Commission.
01/02/26: Applicant notified staff that updated drawings had been uploaded to OneStop.
09/03/25: The application was heard by the Commission and passed on the consent agenda.
08/19/25: The applicant presented the project to the Architectural Review Committee and received conceptual approval.
08/06/25: The applicant applied for a new construction permit.
08/04/25: The applicant applied for a new renovation (structural) permit. The permit was later closed after the project was reclassified as new construction.
05/08/25: City Council overruled the HDLC decision and removed the previously issued fine.
04/09/25: The project went before the Commission for retention. Retention was granted with a fine of $12,000.
03/26/25: Application for retention of demolition submitted.
03/06/25: Owner found guilty at Adjudication hearing and fined.
02/25/25: HDLC cited the property for working without a Certificate of Appropriateness (CofA) due to additional demolition beyond the approved plans.
02/24/25: Adjudication hearing notice posted. During inspection, HDLC staff observed additional exterior wall demolition beyond what had been approved.
09/19/24: Alex Nassar and Dennis Murphy completed a progress site inspection with the owners.
08/22/24: Safety and Permits granted a second permit extension until 02/12/2025.
06/13/24: Property cited for a second Demolition by Neglect violation due to continuation of earlier issues and the rear of the building being left open and exposed to the elements.
03/21/24: HDLC reissued the renovation and camelback addition CofA to allow additional time to complete work.
02/07/24: Safety and Permits granted the first permit extension until 08/12/2024.
02/01/24: Chase Klugh conducted a progress site inspection with the owners.
12/23/23: Application submitted (denied).
12/19/22: Application submitted to address cited Demolition by Neglect items; CofA was not issued because the applicant did not respond to requests for additional information.
11/15/22: HDLC completed a progress site inspection and cited the property for Demolition by Neglect due to deteriorated or missing weatherboards, roof shingles, flashing, gutters/downspouts, masonry/stucco, and compromised structural members.
10/20: New rear camelback addition foundation piers installed.
01/19: Renovation and camelback addition work commenced at the building.
07/25/18: Certificates of Appropriateness reissued for accessory structure demolition and the renovation/camelback addition.
06/19/17: CofA issued for renovation and camelback addition including approximately 56% roof and 59% exterior wall demolition.
04/17: CofA issued for demolition of two rear yard accessory structures on the site.