HomeMy Public PortalAbout2014-06-12 HPC Minutes Village of Plainfield Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission Record of Minutes Date: June 12 , 2014 Location: Village Hall CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL , PLEDGE Chairman Bortel called the meeting to order at 7:0 0 p.m. Roll call was take n; Commissioners Schmidt , Olsen , Derrick , Hendricksen, Hagen , Rapp and Chairman Bortel were present. Commissioners Kachel and Buchannan w ere absent. Al so in attendance: Michael Garrigan, Village Planner and Merrilee Trotz, Recording Secretary . Chairman Bortel led the pledge to the flag. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Derrick made a motion approving the agenda. Commissioner Hendricksen seconded the motion. Voice vote . All in favor. 0 opposed. Motion carried APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Der rick made a moti on to approve the minutes from March 13, 2014 as presented . Commissioner Hagen seconded the motion. Voice vote . All in favor. 0 opposed. Motion carried CHAIR’S COMM ENTS: Chairman Bortel mentioned the dedication of the National Regi ster Sign mounted at the northeast corner of Lockport and DesPlaines Street was attended by several HPC Commissioners, several Village Board Trustees, the Mayor and many third grade students from Central School ; mentioned 78 residents attended the Founders Day Event held at the 1868 Universalist C hurch and was sponsored by the VPA ; Commissioner Derrick presented the awards to Mindy Jackson for the downtown landscaping and to the Olsens for their box factory renovation on Center Street; those who attende d the Founders Day event were able to view the architects plans for the Troll e y Barn prepared by David Schmidt ; mentioned the plans have been sent to IHPA for review to see if this project would met the requirements for contributing building if the renovat ion were completed. COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS: Commissioner Derrick thanked the village for allowing the HPC to use the 1868 Universalist Church for the Founders Day event. PUBLIC COMMENT: (Items not on the Agenda) No one approached the microphone. STAFF REPORT: Mr. Garrigan indicated there are no n ew pre -application meeting for landmarks and no new demolition applications; the preservation watch list remains the same . The Melbourne property on Ottawa Street was demolished .
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 12 , 2 014 Page 2 of 4 Commissioner Olsen asked if 24010 W Commercial could be removed from the watch list as it is being preserved. Mr. Garrigan replied yes. OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS Case No. 1656 -052114.HPC/COA 14915 S Bartlett Ave. Mr. Garrigan stated the applicant is requesting a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a new picket fence at 14915 S. Bartlett Ave which is located in the East Side Historic District at the corner of Bartlett Ave and Amboy Street. The applicant proposed to replace the existing post and rail fence along Amboy with a four foot picket fence which is generally consistent with the COA guidelines. This type of fence would be consistent with a number of other picket fences throughout the neighborhood. The applicant proposed to remove the post and rail fence along t he alley and replace it with a new 6 foot privacy fence that would taper down to approximately 4 foot at the hard corner of the alley and Amboy Street to match the existing 4 foot picket fence. B ased on the Certificate of Appropriateness Guidelines Staff believes that the fence should be constructed out of wood. Staff is suggesting a favorable recommendation to replace the vinyl fence with wood . Chairman Bortel swore in Jami English and Michael Aguilar , 14915 S Bartlett Ave, Plainfield . Mr. Aguilar sta ted the existing white picket fence is vinyl and they wanted to make the new fence match the existing fence. Chairman Bortel stated the vinyl fence was in existence when the Historic District was created. Commissioner Hendricksen stated the preference fo r the fence would be wood; the post and rail fence is rustic and does not belong there at all; felt the vinyl fence would work as there is an existing vinyl picket fence. Commissioner Schmidt felt the vinyl fence was alright because of the existing picke t fence is vinyl and indicated it will hold up longer with less maintenance. Commissioner Derrick asked if the two fences would touch. Commissioner Hendricksen stated the separation between the two fences would be 20 -26 feet . Commissioner Derrick felt t he vinyl fence would be setting a precedent; stated a wood fence would be a better choice. Commissioner Olsen liked the design of the fence; understands the desire for privacy; felt a wood fence would be a better choice. Mr. Aguilar stated he has alre ady replaced one piece of the existing vinyl fence. Commissioner Hendricksen suggested the applicant buy one extra post and a section of fence that could be used for spare parts. Mr. Aguilar indicated he has purchased an extra section for the existing fe nce. Commissioner Schmidt felt this fence would not take away from the rest of the house or the historic district. Several commissioners felt this vinyl fence was setting a precedent. Commissioner Hendricksen felt the design is good and felt that unles s you touched the fence you would not realize it was not a natural material; felt this fence would add value and warmth to the home.
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 12 , 2 014 Page 3 of 4 Commissioner Hagen felt the fence was consistent with the property. Commissioner Rapp felt it was a good fence, if needed it could be built with wood; since there is already vinyl on the property, keep it vinyl. Commissioner Hendricksen made a motion to recommend approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for the replacement of the split rail fence as proposed with viny l picket fence along Amboy and the privacy fence along the alley at 14915 S Bartlett Ave. Commissioner Hagen seconded the motion. Vote by roll call: Rapp, yes; Derrick no; Olsen, no; Schmidt, yes; Hagen, yes; Hendricksen, yes; Bortel, yes. Motion carri ed 5 -2. Chairman Bortel stated a letter of intent would be needed when this proceeds to Village Board. Case No. 1645 -0 214 14.HPC Demolition Draft Text Amendment Mr. Garrigan stated several changes have been made to the Demolition Ordinance over the p ast few years. Recently there was a suggestion to incorporate a limitation as to the length of time a demolition permit was active. There has been direction from Staff that the Ordinance should be streamlined and simplified. Since the ordinance has be en adopted there has never been a completed Community Impact Study. There has been debate by the Village Board about the appropriateness of having a developer pay for a Community Impact Study. The Community Impact study does not stop the demolition, it s imply delays it. In looking at other ordinances in the area, staff streamlined the ordinance; one major change is incorporating a limitation or grace period if a demolition permit is allowed of a one year period to complete the demolition. If the propert y is not demolished within the one year time frame, the applicant would have to submit a new application, pay the filing fees and go before the process and before the Village Board again. Another major change is the removal of the Community Impact Study a nd a requirement of a grace period of three months where the applicant is asked to hold off any demolition for three months to allow staff, HPC and the Village Board to explore any potential type of adaptive reuse or new use for the property. Another majo r change is the addition of the definitions to the ordinance . Now any change of 50% of a façade is considered a demolition. This will broaden the definition that a ny major modification to the exterior could constitute a demolition and therefore the HPC w ould have an opportunity to review a major significant change . There would be a publication requirement, a sign would be posted in front of the property; there would be no notice requirements or certified letters needed; the sign and the publication wou ld serve as the notice. There is no jurisdiction or statute requirement for notice for the state of Illinois. HPC would make their recommendation which would be forwarded to the Village Board; Staff would have an obligation to schedule the hearing before the Board. Discussion was held. Commissioners ’ comments: 1) The definitions are a good idea; suggested the definitions be made a part of the application. 2) The Community Impact Study was used to slow things down and the end result was a saved property . 3) T he Commun ity Impact Study is the equ iva lent of the alternatives analysis u n der section 10 6 ; if a
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes June 12 , 2 014 Page 4 of 4 property is being demolished, it is reasonable to ask for alternatives; no one ever submitted a community impact study so we do not know how expensive it woul d be. 4) Several Commissioners wish to keep the Community Impact Study . It is a tool where they had to meet the criteria; and then what are the alternatives to the demolition of this property. 5) Suggestion to rename the Community Impact Study to Alternatives Analysis and the Commission 6) could help the prop erty owners gather the necessary information. 7) What is the cost of a Community Impact Study? 8) Who prepares the Community Impact Study? 9) Concerned with properties being demolished and no redevelopment. 10) Need to r efine the Community Impact Study . 11) Who determines the 50% change in any structure? Reply was the building permit. Mr. Garrigan indicated some communities have delayed the demolition process from three months up to one year; basically this is a cooling off period. I f a property is not legally identified as a landmark , or a village landmark, or is located within a historic district there is no legal basis to deny a demolition permit ; you can review the application, you can tell the applicant what to put in its place but you cannot deny the permit. Some communities impose a tax if someone wants a demolition permit. Chairman Bortel said the properties in the East Side Historic District and the Downtown Historic District and any houses that have been landmar ked are protected from demolition. COMMITTEE REPORTS : None DISCUSSION: Chairman Bortel described Commissioner Schmidt’s architect rendering of the Trolley Barn; mentioned there is a 20% federal tax credit now that the Trolley Barn in in the Downtown His toric District. Commissioner Derrick thanked Commissioner Schmidt for his efforts. Commissioner Hendricksen expressed concern for a landmarked house on Lockport Street. ADJOURN: Commissioner Derrick made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Olsen seconded the motion. Voice vote. All in favor; 0 opposed. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 p. m. __________________________ Respectfully submitted, Merrilee Trotz - Recording Secretary