HomeMy WebLinkAboutHistoric Preservation Commission April 13, 2026 Historic Preservation Commission
MINUTES
April 13, 2026
President Ed Siewert called to order the April 13,2026 Historic Preservation Commission
meeting at 5:30 p.m. in the Building Commission Conference Room at City Hall, 500
Quartermaster Court.
Roll Call
Members present were Jourdan Ford, Lisa Green, Maggie Moore,Jason Schlatter, and Paul Torp.
Member Johnna Anderson was absent. Also present were Historic Preservation staff advisor
Laura Renwick and Administrative Assistant Shane Shaughnessy.
Approval of the Agenda
Lisa Green made a motion to approve the agenda for the April 13,2026 regular meeting with the
removal of Item 4,Election of Officers,which had been mistakenly added to the agenda,
seconded by Jason Schlatter and approved unanimously, 6-0.
Approval of Previous Minutes
Jason Schlatter made a motion to approve the February 10, 2026 minutes, seconded by Maggie
Moore and approved unanimously, 6-0.
Certificates of Appropriateness
1. 309 E.Riverside Drive
Ed introduced the next item on the agenda-a certificate of appropriateness for 309 E. Riverside
Drive and asked the applicant,Kapil flora,to describe the project. Kapil stated he was the property
owner and was with his contractor,Josh Watts,and that they were asking to expand the deck on
top of the roof of the house above what was previously approved by the Board last year. He said
that the previous approved plan was a small area on the back of the roof and that they are
proposing to extend the deck area to both sides of the back of the roof.He said that the handrail
facing Riverside Drive would be 4-6 feet back from the front of the house and made with glass
panels to reduce the visibility. The handrail would be made of similar materials that were already
approved,depending on the building and insurance requirements.
Ed said that he thought the extended area would be visible,particularly compared to what was
previously approved which was hidden by the roofline and chimneys. Paul said that he is a
neighbor to the property and that his concern was that currently it's just a roof,but by making it a
full roof deck, it would alter the roof and that the handrail will be visible.He said he also has some
concerns about the safety of the roof deck which Kapil said that they would make the handrail 36-
48 inches tall to address that.Jason said that he wasn't sure if it would be visible given how the
applicant is pulling it back from the front of the building.
1
Paul said that the guidelines don't allow for alteration to the roofline and that the railing would be
visible due to its proximity to the side of the house. The previously approved railing was hidden by
the chimney. He said that the previous application was approved with a roof deck due to the roof
having to be rebuilt after a fire but that they had denied the top-most portion of the deck due to the
visibility.He said that extending the roof and railing would alter the historic structure of the house.
Jason asked how the deck would be accessed which Kapil said that there is an existing access to
the roof and that additional access points aren't being requested. Paul said that the access would be
onto the previously approved deck but that to expand that deck onto the rest of the roof, a raised
platform would have to built to make it the same elevation which continues to raise the height of
the roof and make it more visible.Josh said that the current rooftop deck is at the level of the
access door but that the back of the roof would have to be elevated or stairs added to get over a
masonry wall.
Ed said that he thinks this conversation was already had when they approved the roof deck the first
time and that if they extend the deck to the edge of the roof and raise portions of the roof, they
wouldn't be following the guidelines and that what has been approved is sufficient. Jason asked if
they put a floating deck that wouldn't alter the roof and that wasn't visible,would that go against
the guidelines which Paul said he thinks it would because it would change the roof line from a
pitched roof to a flat roof and would elevate the roof. Laura asked about the renderings the
applicants submitted and noted that the building is more of a U shape but the rendering are
showing a deck bridging over the gap between the roofs which Josh clarified that it was due to an
error in the renderings and that the shape of the house would not change.
Ed said that they want to work with the applicant, but that the current proposal doesn't seem to
meet the guidelines. Lisa asked if the railing was glass,would that help reduce the visibility,which
Ed said that if they moved back from the edge of the house,that's the thing that would reduce the
visibility. Jason asked if the deck had to be supported by the outer wall of the house which Josh
said it isn't necessary and that they could move it back if needed. Lisa said if they moved the
railing back 6 feet from the front and side of the house it may not be visible. Jason said if they can
get on the roof and show where the railing wouldn't be visible,that would help determine how far
off the edge of the building the railing should sit.
Jourdan asked Laura what the setback should be which Laura said she was concerned about the
overall visibility of the project and the alterations made to the house,moreso than a specific
setback. Ed said that he's concerned about tearing up the roof and parapet in order to maintain the
building's integrity.Ed said if they deny the application,the applicants are welcome to come back
with a plan that better meets the guidelines.
Paul made a motion to deny the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project due to the visibility
of the railing and the alteration to the roofline not meeting the Historic District design guidelines,
seconded by Jourdan. Roll call vote. The motion was approved 5-1,with Jason opposed.
Other Business
Laura said that she met with the Rose Hill Neighborhood Association in March and said that they •
seemed open to being added to the historic district or becoming part of a conversation district.
Paul asked what the boundaries of Rose Hill is which Laura said that they are between Court
Avenue and the River, from the interstate to Spring Street.
2
With no further business, Lisa made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Jason. The meeting was
adjourned at 6:04pm.
Minutes Approved:
Submitted by:
3