Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5-3-06MINUTES HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY May 3, 2006 A. and B. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chairman Michael Gehr called the regular monthly meeting of the Historic District Commission to order on Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in Conference Room 1 of the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street. Members present included: Michael Gehr, Jane Hershey, Eleanor Lakin, Sandy lzer, David Wiles and Merry Stinson. Also present were County Commissioner Dori Nipps and Staff members Steve Goodrich and Debra Eckard. C. MINUTES Ms. lzer made a motion to approve the April 5, 2006 minutes as presented. Seconded by Mr. Wiles. Unanimously approved. D. COMMUNICATIONS AND BILLS None E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None F. BUDGET None G. NEW BUSINESS Demolition Permit #2006-03343. 24812 Pen Mar Road Mr. Goodrich presented for review and recommendation Demolition Permit # 2006-03343, 24812 Pen Mar Road. The house is identified in the Washington County Historic Sites Survey for the Pen Mar rural village as # WA -IV -019. The house was heavily damaged by fire on March 31, 2006 and the owner has applied for a permit to demolish the remainder of the house. There was a brief description of the damage by owners Donald and Jo Ellen Crider and a short discussion between Commission members and the Criders Ms. Hershey made a motion that the Commission has no objection to the demolition. Seconded by Ms. Lakin. Unanimously approved. Building Permit #2006-02918 and 2006-02920. 14633 Water Company Road Mr. Goodrich provided printed material regarding design guidelines to assist members in conducting the design review in the agenda and future applications. The Rural Community Survey information for Highfield/Cascade was provided with highlights of the information regarding architectural characteristics in the village that form the basis for determining consistency. Guidelines from the Secretary of the Interior for all four "treatments" were supplied. The text of the Rural Village zoning district was also provided which contained guidelines for features to be considered in the determination of the proposed structure's compatibility with the existing architectural character of the village. Mr. Goodrich also provided written and verbal recommendations about a procedure to follow in reviewing the application (attached). Mr. Goodrich presented for review and approval Building Permits # 2006-02918 and # 2006-02920, 14633 Water Company Road located in the Rural Village of Cascade. The applicant is proposing to construct a shop that would be attached to an existing garage and to construct a carport that would be attached to the existing house. Comments: Mr. Goodrich explained that the Rural Village zoning was designed to protect the character of the existing buildings within the village and to assure new construction maintains the existing character of the village. Within the zoning text, there are general guidelines that should be considered when reviewing the permit application. All new construction within the Rural Village should be consistent based on what exists. Discussion: The owner/applicant, Mr. Buhrman, stated that the exterior of the buildings would be shake or wood shingled and would blend in with the existing structures. The proposed additions would not be visible from the road. The proposed windows would be the six -over -six style similar to the existing windows in the garage. Ms. Stinson expressed her opinion that the six -over -six window style would be compatible with the existing structures. Mr. Buhrman also stated they are proposing a garage door on the side of the shop for moving furniture in and out for their refinishing business. The proposed door would be a carriage style looking door similar to the existing garage doors. Mr. Gehr noted that the addition should not create a false historic appearance. Ms. Lakin believes that consistency of materials is important. Mr. Burhman stated that the pitch on the shop roof would match the existing roof of the garage and the carport match the house. Both would be' covered with asphalt shingles. Ms. Izer made a motion to approve the building permit application because it is compatible with the existing structures within the Rural Village and meets the guidelines as specified in the Zoning Ordinance. The exterior materials shall be as specified during the meeting and in the permit application (i.e. wood shingles, the six -over -six windows, carriage style doors, the same exposure as the existing shingles, and the "man" door similar to existing doors). Seconded by Ms. Stinson. Unanimously approved. Rural Villages Mr. Goodrich presented information regarding Rural Villages to address questions that arose during the previous meeting. He noted that when the Rural Villages were plotted on the zoning maps, only the boundaries of the historic portion were plotted on the map. Therefore, if the property was not in the historic portion of the village, permits were not being reviewed by the Historic District Commission. Evaluation of the adopted text indicates it was the intention that all new construction in the village be reviewed by the HDC, not just on inventoried sites. The rural villages have been redrawn on the maps and all villages that have an historic inventory completed are now shown correctly. The Historic District Commission will review any proposed structure over 100 -square feet that would be constructed within a Rural Village. This rule applies only to new construction within an inventoried Rural Village outside the Urban Growth Area. Demolition permits for structures on inventoried properties can still only be reviewed for recommendations. The HDC could not deny demolitions. During the Planning Commission's April 3, 2006 meeting, a variance request was reviewed and denied for the proposed construction of a new street for a four or five lot subdivision. The property is located in the rural village of Tilghmanton. Mr. Goodrich explained the construction of a road within a Rural Village would not trigger a review by the HDC; however, the HDC's duties as listed in the Historic Preservation zone would warrant the HDC's review. Therefore, the Commission should have been given the opportunity to review the variance request and make their comments. If the developer applies for a demolition permit for historic structures located on the property, the HDC would review the application and could make their recommendations. Any new construction in this development would require the Commission's review and approval and should be based on compatibility and integrity of the character of the existing structures within the Rural Village of Tilghmanton. H. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Gehr recommended that the applicant should provide photo documentation and more detailed drawings and material specifications for building.permit applications. These items should be provided to the Commission prior to the meeting for review. Mr. Goodrich recommended that building permit applications should not be scheduled on the HDC's agenda until appropriate documentation has been received. The Commission concurred with this recommendation. Ms. Nipps recommended that the HDC should request this information from Mr. Buhrman as an official attachment to his application and as part of the record. I. EXECUTIVE SESSION None J. ADJOURNMENT Ms. Hershey made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Seconded by Ms. izer. Unanimously approved. Respectful) submitted, Stephen T. Goodrich Chief Planner STG/dse