Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic preservation board denies Certificate of Appropriateness for roof replacement at 227 SW Columbia Ave
Summary
The Historic Preservation Agency unanimously disapproved COA 25-02 on Feb. 11 after finding the applicant proposed replacing a historic metal roof with architectural shingles without consulting the governing historic design guidelines or providing an appropriate in‑kind material alternative.
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Historic Preservation Agency of the City of Lake City unanimously voted on Feb. 11 to deny petition COA 25-02, a request to replace an existing metal tile roof at 227 Southwest Columbia Avenue with onyx black architectural asphalt shingles.
City staff and board members said the property lies inside the Lake Isabella National Historic District and that the board should apply the city’s design guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation when reviewing Certificates of Appropriateness. The applicant’s representative described extensive rust and missing metal tiles and said he could not locate an available product that matched the existing rectangular decorative metal tile. He offered Owens Corning Duration architectural shingles as the proposed replacement material and a 10‑year workmanship warranty.
Board members questioned why the applicant proposed asphalt shingles in place of metal. Several members noted that the district’s guidelines favor in‑kind replacement of historic materials and that the record did not show the design guidelines had been consulted before filing the COA. One member said the proposed asphalt shingles would not meet the standard of ‘‘in‑kind’’ treatment for a historic metal roof. The applicant acknowledged there was no on-site sample of the proposed material in the packet, though photos of existing roof damage were in the meeting materials.
Following discussion the board moved to disapprove COA 25-02 on grounds that the proposed material was not historically appropriate and the applicant had not demonstrated consultation of the Secretary of the Interior standards and local design guidelines. The vote to deny was unanimous.

