Historic commission postpones decision on porch restoration and visible second‑story addition at 421 West Washington
May 15, 2026 | Ann Arbor City, Washtenaw County, Michigan
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Ann Arbor Historic District Commission on May 14 postponed consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness for work at 421 West Washington after lengthy discussion about the visibility and massing of a proposed second‑story east addition.
Planning staff reviewer Mariana told commissioners the project would restore a wrap‑around front porch and remove non‑original siding, and that the rear addition ‘‘is sufficiently differentiated from the historic house and would have minimal impact’’ but warned that the east second‑story addition ‘‘will be very visible from the right of way’’ and ‘‘would change the general profile of the house’’ (staff presentation). Architect Brad Moore said the design team could alter the roof form and offered to switch the proposed gable to a hip or a low‑slope shed to make the addition read as clearly new: ‘‘We're willing to do either of those alternate roof forms’’ (applicant).
Commissioners split over whether the east addition would be ‘‘inconspicuous’’ as guidance recommends or whether it would undermine the building’s historic roof form. Several commissioners said the proposed addition was small and inset on one side but nonetheless ‘‘pushing an elbow’’ on the east façade and that they would prefer to see a lower ridge or a different roof pitch. Owner Angela Flood described the house as in poor condition and said the goal is to make it livable and to ‘‘put significant investment…to make that opening of that historic corridor beautiful again.’’
Because the applicants stated the project was ‘‘all or nothing,’’ the commission amended the original motion to include the second‑story east addition and asked the applicants to return with a revised roof form (hip or 3:12 shed were discussed) that would reduce the addition’s prominence. The applicant agreed to submit revised drawings and the commission postponed the hearing until the June 11 meeting.
Next steps: The commission will consider the revised drawings at its June 11 meeting; the motion to postpone carried after a roll call vote.
Planning staff reviewer Mariana told commissioners the project would restore a wrap‑around front porch and remove non‑original siding, and that the rear addition ‘‘is sufficiently differentiated from the historic house and would have minimal impact’’ but warned that the east second‑story addition ‘‘will be very visible from the right of way’’ and ‘‘would change the general profile of the house’’ (staff presentation). Architect Brad Moore said the design team could alter the roof form and offered to switch the proposed gable to a hip or a low‑slope shed to make the addition read as clearly new: ‘‘We're willing to do either of those alternate roof forms’’ (applicant).
Commissioners split over whether the east addition would be ‘‘inconspicuous’’ as guidance recommends or whether it would undermine the building’s historic roof form. Several commissioners said the proposed addition was small and inset on one side but nonetheless ‘‘pushing an elbow’’ on the east façade and that they would prefer to see a lower ridge or a different roof pitch. Owner Angela Flood described the house as in poor condition and said the goal is to make it livable and to ‘‘put significant investment…to make that opening of that historic corridor beautiful again.’’
Because the applicants stated the project was ‘‘all or nothing,’’ the commission amended the original motion to include the second‑story east addition and asked the applicants to return with a revised roof form (hip or 3:12 shed were discussed) that would reduce the addition’s prominence. The applicant agreed to submit revised drawings and the commission postponed the hearing until the June 11 meeting.
Next steps: The commission will consider the revised drawings at its June 11 meeting; the motion to postpone carried after a roll call vote.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
