The Elkhart City Historic Preservation Commission on a vote approved Certificate of Appropriateness 25 COA 03, allowing homeowners Glenn and Martha Higgins to replace an existing asphalt shingle roof at 215 State Street with a standing-seam metal roof, with final material and color to be approved by staff.

The commission’s staff member, Deb, read the staff report into the record and said the building is a contributing structure in the State and Division local and National Register historic districts and that Sanborn fire insurance maps show the house historically had a shingle roof. Deb recommended that, if metal is approved, it be standing seam (not exposed fastener) and that flat and bay window surfaces be covered with rubber roofing; she also recommended staff sign-off on material samples if they are not submitted before the commission meeting.

Glenn and Martha Higgins told the commission they preferred dark chocolate brown as a primary color, with burnished slate or dark green as alternatives. They said the intent is for durability — metal roofs generally carry longer warranties than asphalt — and noted a future retrofit for solar panels was a consideration in choosing standing seam. The applicants also explained a contractor originally lined up was injured and they are seeking a replacement installer.

Commissioners discussed practical limits for small roof areas, with one member noting that the porch or small bay areas may be more likely to be finished with rubber membrane rather than true standing seam for labor reasons. Deb clarified that rubber membrane is appropriate for flat surfaces such as porch roofs and bay tops.

A commission member moved to approve 25 COA 03 based on staff recommendation, with the condition that the roof be standing seam (not exposed fastener), flat and bay surfaces be rubber roofing, and that final color and material samples be approved by staff before installation. The motion was seconded and approved; the chair called for voices in favor and the item was recorded as approved by the commission.

Discussion versus decision: the commission’s approval is the formal action; additional contractor procurement and exact sample selection remain the applicants’ responsibility and are subject to staff review as conditioned by the commission. Deb instructed the applicants to bring sample materials to the office when they are available for staff approval.

The commission did not set a specific timeline for installation; applicants noted weather and contractor availability as practical constraints. No vote tally by name was recorded in the meeting transcript.