3-EXHIBIT C - Supplemental Info. Safford House Roof Replacement Stantec Report.pdf

Memo

To: Caroline Lanford, AICP CTP Principal Planner City of Tarpon Springs

From: Emily Rinaldi-Williams Senior Architectural Historian Emily Reed Principal Architectural Historian

Project/File: Safford House–23 Parkin Court, Tarpon Springs

Date: January 30, 2026

Reference: Safford House–Roof Replacement Project

1 Introduction

The Safford House is a ca. 1883 Frame Vernacular residence with a ca. 1887 second-story addition located at 23 Parkin Court in Tarpon Springs. It is owned by the City of Tarpon Springs (City). Anson P. K. and Mary Safford originally constructed the house on a parcel located a block to the south of its current location.

It was relocated to the present property in ca. 1891. The Safford House was individually listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in 1975 under Criteria B and C for its association with Anson P.

K. Safford and as an excellent example of vernacular domestic architecture. It is also a contributor to the Tarpon Springs Historic District, which was listed in the NRHP in 1990. As a contributing resource to the City’s Tarpon Springs Local Historic District, the building is subject to the City’s Heritage Preservation Ordinance.

The City Planning & Zoning Department and Heritage Preservation Board (HPB) are responsible for reviewing alterations to buildings designated as landmarks or within a designated historic district.

Alterations that require a Certificate of Appropriateness (CA) are reviewed by the City for compliance with the Standards of Review listed in the City’s Heritage Preservation Ordinance, which includes compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (Standards for Rehabilitation). The City also uses the City of Tarpon Springs Design Review Guidelines Manual (Design Guidelines Manual) to help guide decisions on CA applications.

The City is proposing to replace the roof of the Safford House and retained Stantec to review the proposed project for compliance with the Heritage Preservation Ordinance. The City is also seeking Stantec’s recommendations for the replacement roof material. Cedar shake shingles or composite shingles are proposed for the primary roof. Cedar shake shingles, composite shingles, or standing metal seam roofing are proposed for the second-story porch roof. The City provided Stantec with the Safford House Florida Master Site File, photographs from the Safford House NRHP nomination, and two estimates from Storm Peak Roofing—one for the replacement of the Safford House roof with Cedar shake singles and the other for the replacement of the roof with Brava Cedar shake composite shingles.

January 30, 2026 Caroline Lanford, AICP CTP

Reference: Safford House–Roof Replacement Project

2 Historic and Existing Roofing Materials

The City previously restored the Safford House to its ca. 1893 appearance using federal and state grant funding. Currently, the primary roof and porch roof are clad with wood shingles. Historic photographs illustrate that the house was historically clad with the following roofing materials:

• A pre-1887 photograph shows the Safford House prior to the construction of the second-story addition. Wood shingles are visible on the primary roof (Figure 1). The material cladding the porch roof is not clearly identifiable. It may have been metal; however, aluminum roofing was not widely used until the early twentieth century and the use of iron or copper for roofing were generally rare outside major metropolitan cities in the United States. The material may also have been wood board or canvas covered wood board.

• An undated photograph taken between 1887 and 1891 (after the second-story addition) shows the primary roof and first-story porch roof clad in wood shingles (Figure 2). The porch pictured in this photograph was replaced sometime after 1891 and is no longer extant.

• An undated photograph taken sometime after 1891 does not clearly show the primary or porch roof materials (Figure 3).

• A 1973 photograph shows the second-story porch roof clad in standing seam metal (Figure 4).

The primary roof material is not visible.

3 Heritage Preservation Ordinance Compliance

The City is proposing to replace the existing wood shingles on the primary roof with either Brava Cedar shake composite shingles or Cedar shake shingles from a yet-unidentified manufacturer. For the porch roof, the City is considering a third roofing—standing seam metal roof cladding. The Cedar shake shingles would match both the existing material used for the Safford House roof cladding and the historic material evident in historic photographs. Standing seam metal roof cladding does not definitively appear on any of the late nineteenth century or early twentieth century historic photographs, although it is visible on a 1973 photograph.

The City’s Standards for Review and Design Guidelines Manual both emphasize that when replacing roofing materials, the replacement material should match the existing or historic roofing material where feasible. The Heritage Preservation Ordinance also states under the definition of repair: “Using the same kind of materials is the preferred option, but substitute materials are acceptable if the form and design, and substitute materials, impart the visual appearance of the remaining parts.” The Standards for Rehabilitation (Standard #6) note that replacement materials should match the existing or historic where possible. The Design Guidelines Manual provides further guidance in Appendix C regarding instances where the use of substitute materials may be appropriate. The National Park Service Preservation Brief 16: The Use of

Reference: Safford House–Roof Replacement Project

Substitute Materials on Historic Building Exteriors also provides further guidance on the use of substitute materials and compliance with the Standards for Rehabilitation.

Based on the materials provided by the City, the use of a substitute material for the Safford House roof may not be appropriate as it does not meet the City’s or National Park Service’s criteria for the appropriate use of substitute materials. Cedar shake shingles are widely available, and the City has already identified a contractor that can install Cedar shake shingles. The use of a substitute roofing material is not required to meet code requirements. Furthermore, composite shingles are typically not a good visual match for Cedar shake shingles; however, it would depend on the specific product used. In general, composite shingles cannot replicate the variations in color and surface texture of the natural material. Because the Safford House is only two stories tall and the roof is highly visible from the public right of way, a substitute material would likely be highly distinguishable as a replacement. Therefore, the use of a substitute material would modify a feature that is important in defining the overall historic character of the building, diminishing the property’s integrity of materials, workmanship, and feeling. While the Safford House would retain other aspects of integrity and likely remain eligible for local and national listing, only the use of Cedar shake shingles would maintain all aspects of the property’s integrity.

Per the Heritage Preservation Ordinance, the City Planning & Zoning Department may approve projects involving the replacement of a roof with the original or existing material. The HPB must approve a roof replacement project involving the use of substitute material. Projects that proceed without City staff or HPB approval are processed in accordance with the requirements established by Chapter 2, Article VIII of the Code of Ordinances. Although Chapter 2, Article VIII does not describe a special process for violations involving City‑owned property, City‑owned properties are subject to the same enforcement requirements as any other property. If the City uses a substitute roofing material that does not comply with the Heritage Preservation Ordinance, it would still be a violation and could create a precedent that future Certificate of Approval applicants or challengers might cite to argue that the City applies its Code of Ordinances inconsistently.

The Heritage Preservation Ordinance specifies that the City and HPB review projects for compliance with the Standards for Rehabilitation. However, given that the City previously restored the Safford House to its

ca. 1893 appearance, it may elect to maintain the property’s appearance from the restoration period by following the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Restoration (Standards for Restoration). The Standards for Restoration specify that replacement materials that match the materials from the restoration period are preferred. As such, replacing the Safford roof with Cedar shake shingles would be the most appropriate treatment for restoration.

4 Stantec Recommendations

Based on the review of the materials provided by the City, more information is necessary in order to determine if the use of a substitute material is appropriate for the Safford House roof replacement project.

Both the Heritage Preservation Ordinance and Design Guidelines Manual note that the substitute material should be a good visual match for the original; however, Stantec was unable to make an assessment of the chosen composite shingle to determine whether it is a good visual match. Furthermore, Preservation Brief

Reference: Safford House–Roof Replacement Project

16 also recommends that the durability, resiliency, and sustainability of the original material should be considered for features with severe weather exposure when using a substitute material. As such, Stantec encourages the consideration of the following recommendations to ensure the Safford House roof replacement project complies with the Heritage Preservation Ordinance and best practices in historic preservation:

• Historic photographs reviewed by Stantec of the Safford House from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries do not appear to show the use of standing seam metal roof cladding on the second-story porch roof. In the absence of definitive evidence that the roofing material existed historically prior to 1973, metal standing seam roofing should not be used as a replacement material for the porch roof.

• City Planning & Zoning Department staff should request additional information regarding the performance of the Brava Cedar shake composite shingles and the Cedar shake shingles. The durability of Cedar shake shingles varies depending on the cut of the wood, with low quality shingles performing more poorly as compared to mid or high-quality Cedar shake shingles.

Generally, mid to high-quality Cedar shake shingles can last 30 to 50 years. Given Florida’s climate, the City should also inquire from the manufacturer an understanding of extreme UV exposures’ impact on the performance of both composite and Cedar shingles. Depending on the products used, composite shingles may perform similarly to Cedar shake shingles overall.

Preventative maintenance is required for both roof types and reactive maintenance may also be similar.

• The City should complete an on‑site mock‑up using the Brava Cedar shake composite shingles to document how the material differs from historic cedar shingles; this step is for evidence‑gathering and does not imply that composite shingles would meet the Heritage Preservation Ordinance or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The use of a substitute material that is not a good visual match does not comply with the Standards for Rehabilitation and is not recommended.

RECOMENDATIONS MATRIX

OPTION

CEDAR SHAKE

(WOOD)

COMPOSITE SHINGLE (BRAVA

OR SIMILAR)

STANDING SEAM

METAL

HISTORIC MATERIAL

MATCH

Matches documented historic roofing for the 1893 restoration period.

Not historic; may diminish property integrity of materials, workmanship, and feeling.

Not historically used during the 1893 restoration period;

appears only in a 1973 photograph.

SECRETARY OF THE

INTERIOR’S

STANDARDS

Meets Rehabilitation and Restoration Standards; in-kind replacement preferred and appropriate.

Substitute materials that closely match the visual and physical properties of historic materials are consistent with the Standards for Rehabilitation.

Does not meet Standards; not appropriate for 1893 restoration period.

INTEGRITY IMPACTS Maintains integrity of materials, Diminishes integrity; composite is fabricated differently and alters

Diminishes integrity; not documented for 1893

Reference: Safford House–Roof Replacement Project

OPTION

CEDAR SHAKE

(WOOD)

COMPOSITE SHINGLE (BRAVA

OR SIMILAR)

STANDING SEAM

METAL

workmanship, and feeling.

material authenticity even if visually close.

restoration-period appearance.

REGULATORY

HURDLES (APPROVAL

PATH)

Eligible for administrative approval as an in-kind replacement.

Requires HPB hearing;

applications proposing the use of a substitute material in place of historic materials are reviewed on a case-by-case basis and may be approved or denied based on each particular situation.

Requires HPB hearing;

unlikely to be approved due to lack of documentation.

FEASIBILITY High availability;

material is available and contractor identified.

High availability; may diminish property integrity of materials, workmanship, and feeling.

High availability; not supported by documentation.

OVERALL

APPROPRIATENESS

Most appropriate;

meets all regulatory and preservation requirements.

May not be appropriate; may not comply with Heritage Preservation Ordinance or Standards for Rehabilitation.

Not appropriate; not supported by documentation.

Regards, Stantec Consulting Services Inc.

Emily Rinaldi-Williams MSHP Senior Architectural Historian Phone: (213) 574-2644 emily.rinaldi-williams@stantec.com stantec.com

Attachment: Historic Photographs https://www.stantec.com/en

Figure 1.Safford House before 1887; note use of wood shingles on the primary roof (Safford House NRHP Nomination 1974).

Figure 2. Safford House between 1887 and 1891 after the construction of the second-story addition (Tarpon Springs Historical Society).

Figure 3. Safford House after 1891; roofing material type not definitively discernable (Safford House NRHP Nomination 1974).

Figure 4. Safford House in 1973; note standing seam metal roofing on second-story porch (Safford House NRHP Nomination 1974).