Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission weighs siding variation, grants informal leniency for historic 'Twilight House' repairs
Summary
Planning staff asked the commission to weigh in after a contractor replaced rear siding on the historic Twilight House at 260 South Second Street that staff said does not match the existing shingle pattern; commissioners signaled informal leniency because sourcing identical historic materials proved difficult.
Planning staff presented a final inspection for a historic resource review at 260 South Second Street (the Twilight House, described as an Italianate cottage) and asked the commission for guidance after a contractor installed siding on the rear elevation that does not match the existing historic shingles.
Staff told commissioners the project had satisfied most conditions of approval — new decking, repaired windows and crown moldings — but the siding installed on the parking-lot side did not match the rest of the house in reveal and shingle pattern. Staff said the contractor submitted a letter asking for forgiveness and explained he had tried to source more visually compatible material but was unable to obtain the historic asbestos-style shingles. The contractor "asked for forgiveness because he tried to source something that more visually resembled the rest of the siding," staff said.
Commission comments and reasoning
Commissioners and staff discussed material sourcing challenges, asbestos-era original siding and the visual differences between the new fiber-cement or hardy plank panels and the older shingle pattern. A contractor or building-experience speaker present said true asbestos shingles are no longer available and that panel products could be cut to mimic the look but require extra labor.
Several commissioners expressed that the repairs substantially improved the structure compared with its prior condition and that sourcing exact historic shingles is difficult. "I'm okay with it just because the sourcing materials is challenging," one commissioner said, and Chair Shoemaker added comments acknowledging the improvement on the front facade while noting the side facing the public parking lot remained a concern.
Outstanding items and direction
Staff noted the property also has an unresolved sewer connection issue; staff described the siding discussion as the last planning item that needed resolution before building-permit closure, but the sewer issue remains and must be resolved. The commission did not take a formal, recorded vote on the siding change; commissioners indicated informal acceptance and directed staff to proceed with permitting steps once outstanding code and utility issues are resolved.
