Perrysburg historic commission tables application for East Front Street addition

The Historic Labor and Arts Commission on March 10 tabled application 04-25, a proposal to add a rear addition and connector at a house on East Front Street, after an extended review of design, materials and compatibility with the city's historic-district standards.

Commissioners said the addition, as drawn, overwhelmed the original house and failed to meet the commission's guidance on massing and fenestration. Commission members pressed the applicant to increase window size and number, better integrate the connector with the existing roof lines and provide clearer drawings showing how new elements would attach to the historic structure.

Jacob Garlock, the applicant, said he provided renderings, siding samples and a physical siding sample during the meeting and that the team is willing to “absolutely do something” to address window sizing and other concerns. Garlock gave his address on the record as 15272 East State Route 12, Findlay.

Commission members said the commission's concern was not primarily about materials — members described the proposed siding and wood windows as acceptable in concept — but about how the addition would read from the public right of way. One commission member described the addition as visually overtaking the original house and said the design “is completely inappropriate for the historic district.” Another advised the applicant to study nearby examples and recommended adding windows or other elements so the addition reads as subordinate to the original structure.

Reviewers discussed specific design details the applicant had proposed: a connector piece between the existing front house and the new rear mass, a relocated pergola intended to recreate a courtyard feel, and a proposed brush-textured siding to match existing colors. Commissioners asked for clearer documentation of how eaves and roof pitches would relate, whether the connector would be coplanar with existing elements, and how occupants would access the yard given new grade differences. The applicant confirmed there would be no basement under the addition and that the addition would match the existing crawl-space condition.

Several commissioners suggested architectural adjustments — adding or enlarging windows, relocating or redefining the pergola so it did not appear as a floating object in the side yard, and incorporating elements (for example, a small eyebrow or dormer) that would visually tie the addition to the existing house. Commissioners noted budget constraints but said changes the commission recommended were neither unreasonable nor purely cosmetic.

The commission also discussed process questions: commissioners and staff noted zoning limits are dictated by setbacks and height restrictions, while historic-appropriateness is judged against local standards and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. A planning staff member said the zoning code does not itself prohibit a large addition if setbacks and height limits are met, so the commission’s role is to judge appropriateness in the historic context.

After discussion, a motion to table application 04-25 passed; commissioners asked the applicant to return with larger or additional windows, clearer attachments between new and existing elements, and a more articulated courtyard/hardscape plan.

Votes at a glance: the commission approved the Feb. 10, 2025 meeting minutes earlier in the session (roll call recorded as affirmative). Later in the meeting the commission un-tabled application 04-25 to consider it; following the full discussion the commission voted to table application 04-25 for redesign and further documentation.