Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation Siding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Landmark Commission approves 117 wood siding for Winnetka Heights house despite uncovered original shingles
Summary
The Dallas Landmark Commission approved a certificate of appropriateness allowing replacement of asbestos cementitious siding with No. 117 novelty wood siding at 111 N. Windermere Ave., finding the choice appropriate despite evidence of historic cedar shingles beneath the later covering.
The Dallas Landmark Commission on Feb. 3 approved a certificate of appropriateness for 111 North Windermere Avenue in the Winnetka Heights Historic District to replace asbestos cementitious siding with No. 117 novelty wood siding, with a condition that new siding be shaped to match the known original siding uncovered beneath the exterior.
Commission staff presented the case and recommended approval with the condition that the wood siding be shaped to match the original siding uncovered under the non‑historic siding. Marcus Watson, a city preservation planner presenting the staff report, said the proposed work would be consistent with the city code preservation criteria and the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation.
The matter drew public comment from the property owner, architect David Erlicker, who told the commission he had uncovered thin, tapered cedar shingles beneath the later covering and that the main body of the house is sheathed in an 18‑inch cedar shingle. Erlicker said he had consulted with an insurance underwriter who said a switch to wood shingles or shakes would jeopardize his homeowner coverage, and he argued the 117 siding was more durable and readily available than restoring the original shingle material.
Commissioner Anderson urged pursuing repair of the original shingles and painted restoration where feasible; Anderson described the uncovered material as a potentially significant historic discovery. Several commissioners questioned the durability and insurance implications raised by the applicant and noted the local ordinance generally does not allow shingle siding as a primary facade material. Commissioner Sherman moved to approve the applicant's request for No. 117 siding with findings of fact supporting the decision; Commissioner Spellacy seconded.
Commission discussion noted both the value of preserving original material when practical and the practical constraints presented by the applicant's findings and insurance concerns. Commissioner Cummings and others said the encasement likely worsened the condition of the historic wood and that full restoration might not be feasible.
The motion carried; Commissioner Anderson was recorded as opposed. The commission's approval includes the staff condition that the new siding be wood and shaped to match known original siding found under the nonhistoric covering.
The owner was encouraged to work with staff on final details and to document the uncovered historic material before and during work.
Votes at a glance: Motion to approve No. 117 novelty wood siding with condition carried; named opposition: Commissioner Anderson. Exact tallies not specified in the hearing record.
