HomeMy Public PortalAbout09-13-2018 HPC Agenda PacketHistoric Preservation Commission
Thursday, September 13, 2018
7:00 PM
Village Boardroom
24401 W. Lockport Street
Plainfield, IL 60544
Agenda
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Approval of the Minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission held on August 9,
2018.
2018-08-09 HPC Minutes.pdf
CHAIR'S COMMENTS
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
PUBLIC COMMENTS (5 minutes per topic)
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
CASE No.:1813-080718.DEMO
REQUEST:Demolition (Public Hearing)
LOCATION: 24115 W. Commercial St.
APPLICANTS:Tom Ruane
24115 W. Commercial Street Staff Report and Graphics.pdf
DISCUSSION
1
Historic Preservation Commission Page - 2
REMINDERS -
Next Village Board – September 17, 2018 at 7:00 p.m.
Next Plan Commission – September 18, 2018 at 7:00 p.m.
ADJOURN
2
Agenda Item No:
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda Item Report
Meeting Date: September 13, 2018
Submitted by: Tracey Erickson
Submitting Department: Planning Department
Item Type: Minutes
Agenda Section: APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
Subject:
Approval of the Minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission held on August 9, 2018.
Suggested Action:
Attachments:
2018-08-09 HPC Minutes.pdf
3
Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission
Record of Minutes
Date: August 9, 2018 Location: Village Hall
CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL, PLEDGE
Chairman Bortel called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll call was taken: Commissioners Lucas, Barvian, Schmidt (7:06 p.m.), Derrick, Hendricksen, Hagen, Rapp and Chairman Bortel were present.
Commissioner Olsen was absent. Also in attendance: Jake Melrose, Economic Development Manager;
Kendra Kuehlem, Associate Planner; and Tracey Erickson, Recording Secretary.
Chairman Bortel led the pledge to the flag. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Derrick made a motion to approve the agenda. Seconded by Commissioner Rapp. Voice Vote. All in favor. 0 opposed. Motion carried 7-0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Derrick made a motion to approve the June 14, 2018 minutes as amended. Voice Vote.
All in favor. 0 opposed. Motion carried 7-0.
Chairman Bortel stated Commissioner Schmidt has arrived.
CHAIR’S COMMENTS No Comment.
COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS No Comment.
PUBLIC COMMENT Tom Ruane wanted to invite the HPC to a tour the home at 24115 W. Commercial Street because he has
made application for demolition. Chairman Bortel stated the commission will speak after the meeting to discuss a date that will work for a tour.
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS 1811-072718.COA.FG.SPR 24136 W. Lockport St. Robert Rovito Ms. Kuehlem stated the applicant is seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for exterior building modifications to update their restaurant, currently known as Volar, for a new restaurant, Giambotta. The
case has been considered by the Plan Commission for a site plan review, and will also go before the Village Board for approval of a Façade Reimbursement Grant, and Certificate of Appropriateness. The
applicant is a tenant to the subject site and the property owner has granted approval for the proposed
improvements.
Ms. Kuehlem stated the subject site is approximately 19,821 square feet with an existing two-story
building that was once a house, with an attached porch (701 W. Lockport St.). Currently, it is utilized as a restaurant with outdoor seating out front, and located in the Downtown Historic District. The Plainfield
Historic Urbanized Core Survey from 2005 states that the subject house is a Gabled Ell Greek Revival house, that is one of few remaining in the Village. The survey further states that the building is easily interpreted as being an early Village house. 4
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 9, 2018
Page 2 of 4
Ms. Kuehlem reviewed the Analysis and the U.S. Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation from the staff report dated August 1, 2018. Ms. Kuehlem stated staff is confident that these modifications will
preserve the historic integrity of the building, while modernizing it for a commercial use. Staff would like
to note that the applicant has been very receptive to staff recommendations, and is open to any further suggestions. Staff supports the applicant’s proposed exterior modifications and site plan review.
Chairman Bortel swore in Dario Rovito, applicant; and Allen Olsen, Architect. Mr. Rovito stated the restaurant would become a wood burning oven pizza restaurant and explained what they are trying to
accomplish with the façade renovation.
Commissioner Hendricksen stated he would like the lights on the building to stay true to the era of the
building’s architecture. Commissioner Hendricksen asked the applicant if they will keep the same height
and width of the windows. Mr. Rovito stated yes. Commissioner Hendricksen asked the applicant to retain the original window sashes if the windows were to be removed. Mr. Rovito stated he will do so.
Commissioner Schmidt asked the applicant if the front door would be changing. Mr. Rovito stated the current door is like what is found on a residential home and they would like to replace the door with a
more commercial double door. Commissioner Hagen asked what constitutes residential framing for the front door. Mr. Olsen explained the door will be framed with wood not metal.
Commissioner Rapp asked if the proposed picture window top panes will be clear glass. Mr. Olsen stated yes, the intent was to reduce the scale so it does not look like a commercial window.
Commissioner Derrick asked if there is any evidence that there was a picture window there before. Mr. Rovito stated not to his knowledge. Commissioner Derrick indicated that the survey states that some of
the windows are replacement windows and asked if the existing front windows are replacement windows. Mr. Rovito stated he is not aware if they are replacement windows.
Chairman Bortel asked the applicant if they are removing the windows to the east side of the porch. Mr.
Olsen stated the windows will remain and that there was a mistake in the drawing. Chairman Bortel stated this building is part of the National Register District and explained how the picture window will
affect the house. Chairman Bortel asked what the reason is for the picture window. Mr. Rovito explained how the picture window will allow them to showcase the wood burning oven and will allow for more natural lighting. Chairman Bortel suggested the applicant remove the awnings from the current windows
to allow for more natural light.
Commissioner Derrick explained that the commission is responsible for applying the U.S. Secretary of
Interior Standards for Rehabilitation to properties that contribute to the district. Commissioner Derrick stated the picture window is not true to the style of this building and explained why. Commissioner
Derrick asked if the extra light from the picture window is worth sacrificing character defining features of
the building. Commissioner Derrick stated she has five standards from U.S. Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation that the picture window does not comply with and 2 from the commissions’
general guidelines. Commissioner Derrick explained why she does not take issue with the awning removal, the patio area, fencing, and the arbor. Commissioner Derrick indicated that the door and the picture window are problematic to her and suggested considering different window and door design that
would be more appropriate for the period. Mr. Rovito stated he is open to different options and wants to preserve the historic aspect of the building.
Chairman Bortel asked the applicant if the side door is ADA accessible. Mr. Rovito stated yes. Chairman Bortel stated the front door does not need to be ADA and indicated that the double door takes away 5
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 9, 2018
Page 3 of 4
from the massing of the building and suggested having a larger front door instead. Chairman Bortel stated the 3 windows currently on the front of the house are more appropriate than the picture window,
and suggested removing the awnings to let in more light. Chairman Bortel also suggested a UV film for
the windows. Chairman Bortel explained the Federal Tax credit that could be taken advantage of if they do not put in the picture window.
Commissioner Schmidt asked if the applicant has considered using four windows instead of a single picture window. Commissioner Schmidt also indicated that the proposed double door has a craftsman
feel. Mr. Rovito stated he is here this evening to hear the commission’s suggestions. Mr. Rovito
explained how the picture window would display the wood burning oven and the art of being a pizzaiolo. Chairman Bortel asked where the oven will be located. Mr. Rovito explained the placement of the oven
and how it will be visible from the street. Chairman Bortel asked where the vent for the oven will be.
Mr. Olsen explained the placement of the vent for the oven.
Commissioner Hagen indicated he is conflicted because he understands how the picture window would be inviting.
Commissioner Derrick asked staff if we have evidence that the current windows are replacement windows. Ms. Kuehlem stated she is not aware if they are original or replacement. Chairman Bortel
showed an example of an upright and wing restoration. Commissioner Derrick stated we do not have the
evidence that the current windows are replacement windows. Commissioner Derrick stated the doorway is not original or consistent with the style of the house, so there is more flexibility there. Commissioner
Derrick suggested
Commissioner Hendericksen stated the commission is an advisory board and he feels that the picture
window seems to be the issue tonight and explained that the commission is there to preserve. Commissioner Hendericksen stated the Village Board will have final approval.
Commissioner Derrick asked if the applicant is going to face the foundation with stone. Mr. Olsen
indicated that it is not final and explained why. Chairman Bortel asked what the stone in the basement and exposed foundation is made up of. Mr. Olsen stated it is rubble. Chairman Bortel suggested the
applicant use Joliet limestone to cover the foundation if they choose to do so. Commissioner Derrick explained that any changes should be consistent with the original materials. Mr. Rovito indicated that covering of the foundation is not a priority.
Chairman Bortel asked each commissioner their thoughts. Commissioner Rapp stated the picture window
will take away the historical value of the property. Commissioner Hagen indicated the picture window
will not be compatible but can see how the window will be an attraction. Commissioner Hendricksen suggested an additional light would help and thanked the applicant for their presentation. Commissioner
Lucas thanked the applicant and agreed with what has been said about the picture window.
Commissioner Barvian stated in his building downtown they added an awning because of all the light and suggested the applicant work with the State for tax credit. Commissioner Schmidt indicated the picture
window would damage the historical character and indicated the picture window looks clunky and is not in character with the house.
Chairman Bortel suggested the applicant remove the awning now to see if there would be enough light. Chairman Bortel indicated even though the commission is advisory, he feels the Village Board listens to their suggestions.
Commissioner Derrick made a motion to recommend approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for Giambotta Pizza located at 24136 W. Lockport Street with the following stipulations: 6
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes August 9, 2018
Page 4 of 4
1. Windows- To preserve the original window openings and existing windows. Historic
Preservation Commission approves the removable of the awnings.
2. Front (south) door- The Historic Preservation Commission approves opening the entry to fit a
double leaf door that is consistent with the style.
3. Lighting- The Historic Preservation Commission requests the spec sheets for the lighting to ensure it is consistent with the style.
4. Foundation- Should the applicant decided at a future date to make changes to cover the exposed foundation, the Historic Preservation Commission would like the applicant to consider
Joliet limestone for the facing.
Seconded by Commissioner Hendricksen. Vote by roll call: Lucas, yes; Barvian, yes; Schmidt, no; Hagen, no; Rapp, no; Hendericksen, yes; Derrick, yes; Bortel, yes. Motion carried 5-3.
DISCUSSION
No Discussion.
ADJOURN
Commissioner Hendricksen made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Rapp seconded the motion.
Voice vote. All in favor; 0 opposed. Motion carried 8-0. Meeting adjourned at 8:01 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Tracey Erickson
Recording Secretary
Click on the link to view the video of the August 9, 2018 Historical Preservation Commission Meeting.
http://plainfieldil.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=369.
7
Agenda Item No:
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda Item Report
Meeting Date: September 13, 2018
Submitted by: Tracey Erickson
Submitting Department: Planning Department
Item Type: New Business Item
Agenda Section: NEW BUSINESS
Subject:
CASE No.:1813-080718.DEMO
REQUEST:Demolition (Public Hearing)
LOCATION: 24115 W. Commercial St.
APPLICANTS:Tom Ruane
Suggested Action:
Attachments:
24115 W. Commercial Street Staff Report and Graphics.pdf
8
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Ii I II ITil;/ ... 111 -II 111 UJ .!J_
--.--.-. ■t ···, ll•1i='■1■:::"1•1•11,1 VILLAGE OP PLAINFIELD
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
KENDRA KUEHLEM, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
SEPTEMBER 11, 2018 @
Michael P Collins PRFS!DF.N'I'
Michelle Gibas
Vll.L/\GF. CLERK
TRUSTEES
Margie Bonuchi
Bill Lamb
Cally Larson
Larry D. Newton
Edward O 'Rourke
Brian Wojowski
SUBJECT: REPORT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
24115 W. COMMERCIAL STREET
CASE No. 1813-080718.DEMO
REQUEST:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
CURRENT ZONING:
COMP. PLAN:
DISCUSSION
Demolition (Public Hearing)
24115 W. Commercial Street
Tom Ruane
R-1 Single-Family Residential
Village Residential
The applicant is the owner of the parcel at 24115 W. Commercial Street, which is improved with a small home that dates back to the 1860's. The structure is in need of maintenance and repair. The petitioner is proposing to demolish the existing structure. As a contributing structure, such request is subject to public hearing and recommendation by the Historic Preservation
Commission to determine if a community impact study is recommended.
Existing Conditions/ Site Context The subject property, formerly 604 W. Commercial Street, is a small parcel of approximately
10,600 square feet. The property is currently zoned R-1 single-family residential. The adjacent land uses, zoning and street classifications are as follows:
North: Commercial Street (Local); Single-Family Residences (R-1)
East: Single-Family Residences (R-1) South: Plainfield Central High School (R-1) West: Single-Family Residences (R-1)
ANALYSIS
The subject site is included in the Historic Urbanized Core Survey prepared by ArchiSearch in 2005. The survey form is attached. The building was constructed circa 1860 and while the property is not recommended for local or National Register landmark status, the survey does
24401 W. Lockport Street Plainfield, IL 60544
Phone (815) 436-7093 Fax (815) 436-1950 Webwww.plainfield-il.org
9
REPORT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Page #2 of 2 1813-080718.DEMO 9/11/2018
24115 W. COMMERCIAL ST.
indicate that the house would contribute to a historic district. As a contributing structure, the
demolition permit ordinance calls for the Historic Preservation Commission to hold a public
hearing to determine if an “alternatives analysis” and 90-day delay in action on demolition
permit is warranted.
In order for the Historic Preservation Commission to recommend requiring the “alternatives
analysis”, at least one of the following findings of fact must be demonstrated:
a)The Village’s urban or rural survey shall identify the property as a potential landmark or
contributing structure and there is sufficient architectural significance to warrant a delayin the demolition;
b) The property has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places;
c)The property has been listed on the Illinois Historic Structure Survey or alternatively the
Will County or Kendall County Historic Surveys.
d)The property has been determined to be eligible on the National Register of HistoricPlaces; or
e)The property is listed as a significant historic place or contributing structure based on a
historical survey or historical tract search.
The property is not listed on the National Register nor is it identified by ArchiSearch as being eligible. Staff submits that the two most relevant findings are with respect to a) whether the
architectural significance of the building warrants further study and e) whether there is a basis
for pursuing adaptive reuse based on significant history of the building.
The Historic Urbanized Core Survey highlighted several neighborhoods in the Village that would qualify for a historic district designation. The subject property was identified to contribute
to the Village of Plainfield Historic District, Village Green Historic District, Original Town
Historic District, and Early Settlement Thematic Historic District. Staff finds that the adjacent
properties would still create a logical connection of the possible Original Town Historic District,
if the subject property is demolished. The Original Town Historic District suggested boundaries are attached to show how the subject site does not hinder future designation of adjacent
properties.
Staff believes the issue of the condition of the building and the viability of restoring it to a
modern use is an important consideration. Staff notes that the Historic Preservation Commission did a walk-through of the home on August 16th, 2018. Additionally, the applicant has provided a
quote of the cost estimates associated with rehabilitated the subject property that total $191,632
(attached); and two renderings of possible residential elevations should the demolition of the
subject site proceed (attached).
CONCLUSION
Demolition is always identified as a last resort but in instances where it is not economically
viable to restore a building and in circumstances where the history and/or architectural
significance of the structure are limited, demolition may be the most appropriate action. The
applicant would propose to build a new, residential structure on the site. The Historic Preservation Commission has an opportunity to make a recommendation on the demolition
request. 10
24115 W. COMMERCIAL ST.
11
12
HISTORIC URBANIZED CORE SURVEY Plainfield Historic Preservation Commission
ADDRESS 24115 W. Commercial St.
PIN/Property Index Number
#06-03-16-219-011-0000
Historic Property Name(s)
Common Name(s)
Architectural Style
no style
Vernacular Building Type
Upright and Wing
Construction Date
c. 1860
Architect/Builder
Historic Use(s)
Single Family Residential
Present Use(s)
Single Family Residential
History (associated events, people, dates)
Assessor’s Subdivision plat. Appears on the 1931 (address of 693) Sanborn map, the first to show this block, as two
rectangular sections, with the lower 1 story east section off-set to the south from the taller 1-1/2 story section. The 1944
Sanborn shows a garage has been added in the extant location. Illegible notations are on the building and just beneath
the building. No porch is shown. The foundation is much later than the building, so it was either raised or relocated
around the turn of the century.
Description
Painted rock-faced concrete block is a later addition to the house; light yellow synthetic siding; asphalt shingle front and
side gable roofs. 1-1/2 and 1 stories; L-shape; 5 front bays and 3 east piles. Shed reentrant angle porch east, raised
concrete stoop. Small 1/1 double-hung sash, entrance, and historic 3vertical/2 paired sash. Upright with two 1/1 1st story,
shorter 1/1 upper story. 1/1 face east/side out of front gable, with same pattern of a shorter upper story window; the first
story window is clipped by the porch. Lower 1 story side gable wing with small 1/1 front/left of entrance. 1 story shed to
rear with single 1/1. Interior end chimney on side gable wing. 2 bay west elevation from Upright also with smaller 2nd
story windows.
Integrity/Major Physical changes from original construction
Walls. Replacement windows. Porch enclosed, perhaps historically, but now with modern materials.
Subsidiary Building(s)/Site
Broad side lot east. Gravel drive to garage/shed at rear lot. Short front setback and deep rear lot. High school to
rear/south. Side gable single car shiplap sided garage with eave extension; old garage door faces front/north. Lower gable
shiplap sided wing to east with pedestrian door off center to east and two 4-light sash set high; blind on east elevation.
Registration & Evaluation
National Register of Historic Places: Currently Listed: ___yes X no
If not currently listed, recommend: Individually ___yes X no; historic district X yes ___no
Contributing X X or non-contributing ___
Significance statement: Contributes to several possible historic districts as well as being part of the Early Settlement
thematic designation. Despite materials changes, the building significantly retains its form and historic outbuilding.
VP; VG&Comm; OT; EST.
Village of Plainfield designation: Currently Listed: ___yes X no
If not currently listed, recommend: Historic Landmark ___ yes X no; Historic District X yes ___no
Contributing XX or non-contributing ___
Form prepared by: ArchiSearch Historic Preservation Consultants (Alice Novak) Date of Field Survey: 8.25.05 - 38
604 W. Commercial St.
13
HISTORIC URBANIZED CORE SURVEY Plainfield Historic Preservation Commission
ADDRESS
604 W. Commercial St.
PIN/Property Index Number
#06-03-16-219-011-0000
Camera facing south. Right/west section of garage is that which
appears on the 1944 Sanborn map, with the east section added
later, but historically.
24115 W. Commercial St.
14
15
16
First Floor1' -1 1/2"Second Floor11' -2 5/8"Roof19' -3 3/4"Basement-8' -6"T.O. Footing-8' -10"B.O. Footing-9' -8"Foundation0"16" / 12"16" / 12"16" / 12"16 " / 12"16" / 12"16" / 12"8" / 12"3 1/2" / 12"8" / 12"5" / 12"6" / 12"6" / 12"12" / 12"5" / 12"8" / 12"8' - 1 1/8"10' - 1 1/8"1' - 1 1/2"8' - 10"10"2' - 0"2' - 0"2' - 2"AAAAAAAAAFCCCCCDEE-9E-6E-900E-2E-1E-19E-1E-1E-9E-7E-6E-32E-30E-29First Floor1' -1 1/2"Second Floor11' -2 5/8"Roof19' -3 3/4"Basement-8' -6"T.O. Footing-8' -10"B.O. Footing-9' -8"Foundation0"16" / 12"8" / 12"8" / 12"16" / 12"E-18E-9E-6E-27E-28E-27E-25E-7E-14E-10E-20First Floor1' -1 1/2"Second Floor11' -2 5/8"Roof19' -3 3/4"Foundation0"AAFCC16" / 12"16" / 12"5" / 12"E-9E-6E-27E-19E-26E-18E-6E-9E-27E-15www.archstudioltd.netScaleProject numberDateDrawn byChecked by14421 Oakley AveOrland Park, IL 60462Tel: 708-933-4200Fax: 708-966-0854As indicated8/14/2018 4:33:01 PMA-1.0Elevations2018-077Lot 1 Derby PinesC3 Developers08-10-2018AuthorCheckerNo. Description Date3/16" = 1'-0"1Front Elevation1" = 10'-0"2Left Side Elevation1/8" = 1'-0"3Right Side ElevationKeynote LegendKeyValue Keynote Text00E-1 Hardie Board - Fiber cement verticalboard and batten siding installed permanufacturer's specifications and bestpracticesE-2 Hardie Board 2x6 corner boardsE-6 Prefinished aluminum gutter anddownspoutsE-7 Concealed metal flashingE-9 30 Year composite asphalt shinglesov/ 15# building felt w/ Grace Iceand Water Shield to extend from roofedge to min. 2'-0" within line of thebuilding enevelope, measured fromtheE-10 Exterior grade light fixture LED bulbE-14 Kick-out flashing typ.-see detailE-15 6x6 Cedar wall bracketsE-18 Roof Vent-min. 52 sqin clear net ventE-19 Finish Grade-see Civil EngineerDrawings for further InformationE-20 Valley FlashingE-25 Hardie Board - Fiber cement lapsiding installed per manufacturer'sspecifications and best practicesE-26 Stone sill with pvc sill flashing withdrip edge and wick type weep holes@ 16" o.c.E-27 Typical Brick veneer constructionE-28 Brick solider courseE-29 Stone pierE-30 6" stone cap with 4 way washE-32 Tapered column wrap over 6 x 6treated wood postNote: 2015 International Energy Conservation Code is to be used for purpose of design and code enforcement for this house. 17
18