Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout02-13-2020 HPC Agenda PacketHistoric Preservation Commission Thursday, February 13, 2020 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 January 9, 2020. 01-09-2020 HPC Minutes.pdf CHAIR'S COMMENTS COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS PUBLIC COMMENTS (5 minutes per topic) OLD BUSINESS HISTORIC PRESERVATION LOGO Seeking direction regarding updating the current HPC logo and seeking feedback regarding the draft logos. HPC New Logo Draft.pdf NEW BUSINESS CASE NUMBER: 1872-020920.COA REQUEST: Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) LOCATION: 23821 W. Amboy Street (formerly 208 W. Amboy Street) APPLICANT: Dave Jackson, Owner 1 Historic Preservation Commission Page - 2 23821 W. Amboy St. Memo.pdf CASE NUMBER: 1872-020920.COA REQUEST: Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) LOCATION: 23821 W. Amboy Street (formerly 208 W. Amboy Street) APPLICANT: Dave Jackson, Owner 23817 W. Amboy St. Memo.pdf HISTORIC PRESERVATION TEXT AMENDMENT Staff would like to discuss an administrative review process for in-kind replacement of roofs and other projects deemed as “minor work”, which currently require approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Historic Preservation Commission. Text Amendment Memo.pdf DISCUSSION ADJOURN REMINDERS - February 17th - Village Office Closed March 3rd - Village Board Meeting at 7:00 p.m. March 12th - Next Historic Preservation Commission Meeting at 7:00 p.m. 2 Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission Record of Minutes Date: January 9, 2020 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, Schmidt, Olsen, Derrick, Hendricksen, Hagen, Rapp, and Chairman Bortel were present. Commissioner Barvian was absent. Also, in attendance: Jonathan Proulx, Director of Planning; Jessica Gal, Associate Planner, & Yuchen Ding, Associate Planner. Chairman Bortel led the pledge to the flag. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Derrick made a motion to approve the agenda. Seconded by Commissioner Hendricksen. Voice Vote. All in favor. 0 opposed. Motion carried 8-0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Hendricksen made a motion to approve the Minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission held on November 14, 2019 as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Rapp. Voice Vote. All in favor. 0 opposed. Motion carried 8-0. CHAIR’S COMMENTS Chairman Bortel reminded the commission about the workshop on February 19th and provided them an update on the presenters. Chairman Bortel stated Landmarks Illinois is looking for a sponsor for a Saturday meeting. Chairman Bortel reminded the commission of the evening meeting in Kendall County on February 19th. Chairman Bortel indicated he will be arranging another tour of the Farnsworth House. COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS Commissioner Hendericksen stated he has noticed the owner of 15326 S. Joliet Road did not follow the letter of agreement that was approved for the fence. Mr. Proulx stated staff is aware and there are in communication with the property owner to find a resolution. Commissioner Hendericksen stated the property owner has a responsibility to make it right. Commissioner Olsen asked if the Village inspected and approved the fence. Commissioner Olsen indicated the current fence is a violation of the code. Mr. Proulx explained that the property owner calls for the final inspection for a fence, which has not occurred. Mr. Proulx also stated the height of the fence in the front of the house may be in violation of code. PUBLIC COMMENT Chairman Bortel asked for public comment and there was no response. OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS 1834-040519.HPC 15134 S. Fox River Paul Jackson Commissioner Derrick made a motion to open a public hearing. Second by Commission Lucas. Vote by roll call: Lucas, yes; Schmidt, yes; Olsen, yes; Derrick, yes; Hagen, yes; Hendericksen, yes; Rapp, yes; Bortel, yes. Motion carried 8-0. Ms. Gal stated the applicant is requesting landmark designation for the residence located at 15134 S. Fox River Street, west of Village Green Park in Downtown Plainfield. The applicant purchased the residence 3 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 9, 2020 Page 2 of 8 and property in 2016. The home was originally constructed circa 1840, shortly after the original platting of Plainfield. The Village’s 2006 survey of the urban core recommends the subject structure for local landmark status as well as being a contributing structure to a historic district. The home predates the Civil War, one of 26 homes in the Upright vernacular form. Ms. Gal reviewed the staff report dated January 7, 2020. Ms. Gal concluded the nomination package provides a detailed history of the residents of the Mitchell-Keen-Jackson home as well as a thorough explanation on its architectural elements. Based on the information available prior to the public hearing and discussion by the HPC, staff believes the subject property qualifies for landmark designation. Commissioner Olsen asked if Keen is spelled with an “e” at the end. Chairman Bortel explained his research and the family he spoke with is not sure if the “e” should be there or not. Commissioner Hendricksen stated the house is a treasure and thanked the applicant for bringing the house forward for landmarking. Commissioner Derrick asked if there is any more detail to the integrity of the building and its materials relative to the 1990 tornado. Chairman Bortel stated he reached out to the owners of the house of the time of the tornado and the owners decided to keep the house and fix it. Chairman Bortel explained what damage was done and how it was repaired. Commissioner Derrick asked if the house was not blown down and rebuilt. Chairman Bortel stated no. Commissioner Derrick wanted to clarify the integrity of the building and the massing is the same from before the tornado. Commissioner Derrick stated the upright and wing is the really import part of the nomination and feels Appendix G should reflect that. Commissioner Derrick stated there is some inconsistences in the Overview in how many of these resources are left and suggested cleaning that up. Commissioner Hendericksen made a motion to close the public hearing. Second by Commission Lucas. Vote by roll call: Lucas, yes; Schmidt, yes; Olsen, yes; Derrick, yes; Hagen, yes; Hendericksen, yes; Rapp, yes; Bortel, yes. Motion carried 8-0. Commissioner Lucas made a motion to recommend approval of the landmark designation for the property known as the Mitchell-Keen-Jackson residence, located at 15134 S. Fox River Street, based on the criteria outlined in the staff report and landmark nomination form subject to changes discussed by the commission. Second by Commissioner Derrick. Vote by roll call: Schmidt, yes; Olsen, yes; Hendericksen, yes; Hagen, yes; Rapp, yes; Derrick, yes; Lucas, yes; Bortel, yes. Motion carried 8-0. 1862-112219.DEMO 15024 S. Des Plaines St. Redhead Rentals. LLC Commissioner Lucas made a motion to open a public hearing. Second by Commission Rapp. Vote by roll call: Lucas, yes; Schmidt, yes; Olsen, yes; Derrick, yes; Hagen, yes; Hendericksen, yes; Rapp, yes; Bortel, yes. Motion carried 8-0. Ms. Gal stated the applicants are requesting approval of a demolition permit for the demolition of a residential structure located at 15024 South Des Plaines Street, on the west side of South Des Plaines Street between West Lockport Street and West Oak Street. The purpose of the demolition is in order to construct a commercial building and related parking on the subject property. The playhouse located on the southside of the property is not included as part of this demolition request. The applicants intend to integrate the playhouse, which is of historic value, into their redevelopment plans for the subject property. 4 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 9, 2020 Page 3 of 8 Ms. Gal stated the subject structure is not locally landmarked and is not located within a locally designated historic district. It is included in the Historic Urbanized Core Survey (attached) as a contributing structure to the Arnold’s Addition Historic District. As a contributing structure to a historic district and being a structure that it is 50 years of age or older, 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 the demolition permit is warranted. Ms. Gal reviewed the staff report dated January 7, 2020. Ms. Gal concluded The Historic Preservation Commission shall consider the extent to which the architectural and historical significance of the structure warrants a delay in demolition. Consideration must also be given to the condition of the structure and whether rehabilitation for a commercial use is feasible. The applicants have provided plans for the redevelopment of the subject property that are attached for the Commission’s review. Should the demolition be approved, the applicants’ development will require site plan review and approval by the Village of Plainfield Board of Trustees. If approved, new construction is anticipated to begin in Spring 2020. Chairman Bortel swore in Michelle Smith, applicant. Ms. Smith explained that the house will be demolished but the playhouse will not because they believe it has historic value. Ms. Smith stated that parts of the home will be repurposed and used in the new development. Commissioner Derrick asked what the new use will be. Ms. Smith stated it will be a restaurant and a boutique hotel. Chairman Bortel swore in David & Lisa Schmidt, architects. Mr. Schmidt explained the vision of the applicant which includes a 4,000 square feet footprint for a restaurant and boutique hotel. Mr. Schmidt explained the difficulty of getting the existing footprint, which is 1,400 square feet, to fit with their proposed use. Mr. Schmidt explained what the major obstacles would be to keep the house and repurpose it. Ms. Schmidt explained the restaurant use would be the on the first floor, the second floor would be an eight (8) room boutique style hotel, and the on the third floor there would be a roof top terrace Ms. Schmidt stated the building will be mostly stone and brick masonry. Ms. Schmidt stated the backyard of the building would be event space and the playhouse. Commissioner Derrick asked if the breezeway and the garage are included on the 1,400 square feet footprint. Mr. Schmidt stated no, that it is only the house. Commissioner Derrick stated that the picture on the Urban Survey and present-day photo are very different. Commissioner Derrick asked if all the details in the present photo was under siding that was removed or added. Ms. Smith stated the details were added to the home, along with newer siding. Chairman Bortel asked if the previous owner added all the detail to the home before Ms. Smith purchased the property. Ms. Smith confirmed. Commissioner Derrick asked if anyone in attendance remembers if the previous owner completed the work in the present-day photos. Chairman Bortel swore in Tom Ruane, resident. Mr. Ruane confirmed that the previous owner did add all the detailing on the present house. Chairman Bortel swore in Michael Lambert, resident & President of the Plainfield Historic Society. Mr. Lambert stated the house had the eaves and brackets were cut off in the 1970’s. Mr. Lambert provided the commission with a photo of the original house (attached). Mr. Lambert confirmed that the previous owner tried to restore the character of the home. Mr. Lambert provided a statement on the behalf of the Plainfield Historic Society, which included the history of the owners of the property and the people who have lived in the house. Mr. Lambert also explained the significance of the people who owned the property or lived there. Mr. Lambert stated that 5 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 9, 2020 Page 4 of 8 this home was occupied by a Plainfield pioneer family for over 110 years and is one of four surviving Cubic Italianate or French Empire homes. Mr. Lambert asked the commission and applicant to consider all adaptive reuse of the house, since it is an extremely important house because of the architecture and history. Mr. Lambert stated that because a building does not meet certain codes, is not a reason a building should be demolished. Mr. Lambert mentioned that there was a recent demolition request and the proposed building was of European style and the commission did not feel it fit into the downtown. Mr. Lambert request that the commission focus on how this building could be preserved to respect the deep history of the Village of Plainfield. Commissioner Hendrickson stated the commission has not address the style of the proposed building and agrees there can be modifications to help the building fit in better. Commissioner Hendricksen stated that he is hoping the applicate would be flexible to making some changes to the building’s architectural style. Commissioner Derrick asked if the building will be from lot line to lot line. Mr. Schmidt stated no, it is about 10 feet from the north and the south lot lines. Commissioner Olsen asked how many square feet the lot is. Ms. Gal stated the survey states 14,788 square feet, which includes the parking lot. Commissioner Olsen asked if the applicant saw the photo presented this evening before tonight. Mr. Schmidt stated no. Commissioner Olsen asked if the photo would have influenced their decision. Ms. Smith stated that looking at the photo you can see how much the building has been added onto. Commissioner Derrick clarified that the commission is only interested in the original part of the house, even in its sad condition. Commissioner Derrick indicated that with the photo the house could be restored accurately. Commissioner Derrick indicated she understands the challenges with preserving the home but she would like preservation to be considered because of the lack of these types of homes and it would be such a treasure for the community. Ms. Smith stated that before they purchased the home, they researched the historic value of the home. Ms. Smith questioned why the home in the last thirty (30) years has been deemed to have historical value, since it was not indicated on the survey. Chairman Bortel stated the survey is sixteen (16) years old. Commissioner Derrick stated that there has been some restoration completed after the survey was completed and now it is easier to see what the house was before the architectural detailing was removed from the house. Chairman Bortel explained how the HPC and the Village decided which properties to survey based on their architecture and history. Commissioner Olsen stated that on the survey it states it is a contributing structure. Mr. Lambert stated he was on the commission when the surveys were completed and the survey was completed based on a visual inspection, so that is why the building at the time of the survey did not meet a high significance level and the history was not known to the surveyor. Commissioner Derrick stated the applicant maybe able to get the rehabilitation tax credits. Commissioner Derrick stated she would like the alternative analysis to explored. Commissioner Hendrickson indicated he would be respective to the application, if the applicant will work closely with the HPC architecturally. Ms. Schmidt explained that the applicant did ask them to explore using the current building. Ms. Schmidt explained the components of what the applicant would need to have for the use they are proposing. Ms. Schmidt stated that using the current building would be cost prohibited. Chairman Bortel indicated that applicant should have come to the HCP before purchasing the property to see if there was any historic value, since it is their job as a commission to preserve historic buildings. Ms. Smith stated eight (8) years ago they approached the previous owner to purchase the property and at that time the owner was intent on preserving the property. Ms. Smith stated a year ago the owner approached them because they were ready to sell the property. Ms. Smith stated that the property was in worse shape now than it was eight (8) years ago and she did look into the historic value. Ms. Smith indicated the 6 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 9, 2020 Page 5 of 8 house is in a commercial area in downtown and the house is not feasible for the proposed use. Commissioner Derrick stated the commission is looking for the applicant to keep the important elements, the representation of the home, and add to it. Commissioner Rapp asked if their original intention was to demolish the property. Ms. Smith stated eight (8) years ago their intention was to not demolish the building, instead to use it for a bed and breakfast. Ms. Smith explained that their plan changed because of the changes to the downtown area. Commissioner Rapp asked if they toured the house eight (8) years ago and if the condition has changed drastically in that time. Ms. Smith stated yes but at the that time they had a different plan and did not look at the property the same way. Commissioner Lucas asked the applicant to tell them more about the structural soundness of the home. Ms. Smith indicated that there are 2x4’s for support in the basement. Mr. Schmidt stated the basement beams are cracking, the columns are cobbled together, and the floor joist are not spaced correctly, so the entire home would need to be lifted and/or moved to repair the basement. Mr. Schmidt explained the work that would need to be completed to make the basement structurally sound and fit the needs on the applicant. Commissioner Derrick suggested to use the existing building as part of the restaurant and adding on the hotel. Mr. Schmidt stated the applicant needs to install an elevator, commercial grade kitchen, and sprinklers. Commissioner Derrick stated the building is significant enough to ask for the alternatives analysis and see if the existing building can be used. Commissioner Derrick wants to make sure that the commission exhausts all their options. Commissioner Hendricksen stated it may be beneficial to continue this conversation to another meeting, since there was a lot of information presented this evening. Chairman Bortel asked staff if we could obtain a quote from the Farnsworth Group for a structural evaluation. Commissioner Hendericksen reminded the chairman that the structural evaluation will not take into consideration the proposed use. Mr. Schmidt stated that he is not suggesting the house is unsound. Mr. Schmidt stated the current structure does not meet handicap accessibility, energy codes, fire codes and plumbing codes for the purposed use. Mr. Schmidt stated trying to marry a concrete and steel structure to an existing wood structure will be costly. Mr. Proulx explained what actions the commission can take this evening. Mr. Proulx stated the applicant has been working with staff for roughly a year. Mr. Proulx stated that staff recommends adaptive reuse when possible, and staff uses the urban surveys as a point of reference and this structure was not recommended for local landmark status. Mr. Proulx indicated there was new evidence presented this evening that was not available on the survey that contributions to the significance of this structure. Commissioner Olsen asked what the square footage of the original structure is. Ms. Smith stated roughly 800 square feet. Commissioner Olsen suggested moving the original structure on the property and using it for the lobby of the hotel. Mr. Schmidt reiterated that the structure will require a lot of work to bring the home to code. Ms. Schmidt stated that the house does not fit into their business plan, since the applicant would like a first-floor restaurant with hotel space on the second floor. Commissioner Olsen suggested that this business plan might not fit the property. Commissioner Hagen feels that the commission should not be commenting on the applicant’s business plan. Commissioner Hendericksen made a motion to close the public hearing. Second by Commission Rapp. Vote by roll call: Lucas, yes; Olsen, yes; Derrick, yes; Hendericksen, yes; Hagen, yes; Rapp, yes; Bortel, yes. Motion carried 7-0. Staff and the commission discussed their motion options. 7 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 9, 2020 Page 6 of 8 Commissioner Derrick makes a motion to continue the public hearing for the demolition request to the March 12, 2020 Historical Preservation meeting. Second by Commissioner Hendricksen. Commissioner Hagen asked what does the motion mean. Commissioner Derrick stated she would request to continue and ask the applicant to answer some specific questions before the next meeting. Commissioner Derrick would like to know whether it is possible to save the original cubic form of the building and create a substantial addition. Mr. Proulx stated that the HPC is authorized to make any motions, however, the additional information being requested should be tied back to the criteria in the code. Mr. Proulx referenced the criteria in the staff report. Mr. Proulx cautioned the HPC not to utilize the continuance as an alternative means of pursuing the alternatives analysis, without the request going before the Village Board. The Commissioners discussed the criteria and the limitations of the ArchiSearch survey, especially since the building is different than when surveyed. Commissioner Hendricksen states that he would like the applicant to come back in a month with an alternative consideration of the building. Commissioner Derrick states that the photo provided by the Historical Society is new information and it could be restored to that beautiful building again. Mr. Schmidt asked if they can select their own companies to complete the alternative analysis. Chairman Bortel confirmed. Commissioner Hendricksen indicated he wants the applicant to come back to the commission with reworked plans that combine the old with the new. Ms. Smith stated that they like their plan and it fits with the modern buildings around it, especially Station One. Ms. Smith indicated she is not interested in replicating the look of the house for the building. Ms. Smith stated the house doesn’t fit in that space anymore either. Following discussion of the continuance, Commissioner Derrick withdraws her motion to continue the case to the next meeting. Commissioner Hendricksen withdrew his second. Commissioner Hendricksen made a motion to deny the application for demolition. Second by Commissioner Lucas. Mr. Proulx stated procedural that the commissioner needs to vote on the motion for a continuance. Chairman Bortel requests the Commission to take action on the first motion for the continuance that was already seconded. Vote by roll call: Olsen, no; Lucas, no; Rapp, no; Hagen, no; Derrick, no; Hendericksen, no; Bortel, no. Motion fails 0-7. Mr. Lambert asked why the commission has not discussed if the building could be moved. Ms. Smith stated that she is willing to donate the home to the Historical Society. Commissioner Lucas asked for clarification on how the motions would move forward. Mr. Proulx stated that staff needs to move the case forward and the 90-day alternative analysis report is the closest thing per code to deny the demolition by the commission. Commissioner Hendricksen stated the case will go to Village Board even if the commission denies that demolition applicant. There was discussion on the options outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. Staff clarified that the Zoning Ordinance identifies two options: to approve the demolition permit or to recommend an alternatives analysis. Mr. Proulx indicated that a motion to deny the demolition application would be interpreted by staff as a motion to recommend a 90-day alternatives analysis. Commissioner Hendricksen stated he does not want to change his motion, since he does not feel like the applicant is willing to work 8 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 9, 2020 Page 7 of 8 with them on architectural improvements. Ms. Smith clarified that she is not opposed to making changes to the building but does not want the new building to look like the house. Commissioner Derrick asked if the motion passes that was made by Commissioner Henricksen made the applicant would go the Village Board for action on 90-day alternatives analysis. Mr. Proulx stated yes that is his interpretation. Mr. Proulx explained that the commission does not have the authority per code to deny a demolition permit. Commissioner Lucas asks for confirmation on the options allowed by the zoning ordinance. Mr. Proulx confirms that the two options are to recommend approval of the demolition permit or recommend an alternatives analysis. Mr. Proulx stated a favorable vote to deny the demolition applicant would be interpreted as the commission wants the Village Board to act on the alternative analysis report. Chairman Bortel requests the Commission to act on the second motion for denial of the demolition application that was already seconded. Vote by roll call: Olsen, no; Lucas, no; Rapp, no; Hagen, no; Derrick, no; Hendricksen, no; Bortel, no. Motion fails 1-6. Commissioner Lucas made a motion to require a 90-day delay in issuance of a demolition permit for the residential structure located at 15024 S. Des Plaines Street and require the applicant, the HPC, and staff to consider alternatives to the proposed demolition. Second by Commissioner Derrick. Vote by roll call: Olsen, yes; Hendericksen, abstains; Hagen, no; Rapp, no; Derrick, yes; Lucas, yes; Bortel, yes. Motion carried 4-2. Historic Preservation Logo Chairman Bortel stated the current logo fits on the plaques appropriately and does not see the need to change the logo. Commissioner Hendricksen asked if this would include changing the letterhead. Chairman Bortel confirmed. Commissioner Hendricksen stated he does not feel the logo needs to be changed. Chairman Bortel stated the logo could be changed on the letterhead but does not want to have two different logos on the plaques around town. Commissioner Schmidt stated he would be for a logo change. Commissioner Olsen agreed that she would like the logo changed. Chairman Bortel asked the commission if they would like to do away with the current logo completely or just change the one we used on stationary. Commissioner Schmidt and Olsen agreed to only have one logo and do away with the current logo. Commissioner Rapp stated he does not want the logo to change. Commissioner Hendricksen suggested to continue the logo discussion to another meeting, so they all had more time to think about it. The commission agreed to discuss the logo at their next meeting. DISCUSSION Mr. Proulx stated that the staff is reviewing the sign code and wanted the commission to know that there will be an agenda item for a future meeting to discuss signage with the commission in the central sign district. Chairman Bortel told the commission to let him know if they would like to attend lunch with the presenters for the workshop on February 19th. 9 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes January 9, 2020 Page 8 of 8 ADJOURN Commissioner Derrick made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Olsen seconded the motion. Voice vote. All in favor; 0 opposed. Motion carried 8-0. Meeting adjourned at 9:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Tracey Erickson Recording Secretary Click on the link to view the video of the January 9, 2020 Historical Preservation Commission Meeting. https://plainfieldil.granicus.com/player/clip/631?view_id=2 10 11 12 13 14 HISTORIC URBANIZED CORE SURVEY Plainfield Historic Preservation Commission ADDRESS 23821 W. Amboy St. PIN/Property Index Number #06-03-10-311-020-0000 Historic Property Name(s) Common Name(s) Architectural Style no style Vernacular Building Type L-Plan, altered Construction Date c. 1942 Architect/Builder Historic Use(s) Single Family Residential Present Use(s) Single Family Residential History (associated events, people, dates) H.H. Evan’s Subdivision. The 1931 Sanborn map shows that nothing had been built on this side of the block; the lots had not been subdivided, but rather we part of either Center or Bartlett lots. By the 1944 Sanborn, the lots still had not been indicated as subdivided, but this house appears along with 210 to the west. House shown with front L-Plan and attached single car east side garage, recessed from facade plane. Description Concrete block foundation; synthetically sided walls (wide white); architectural asphalt shingle gable roof. 1 and 2 stories, 6 facade bays. Porch incised within right/east half front gable; wood corner post, raised stoop. Left bay/west. Large modern garage addition to tiny original garage wing; 2 stories with 2 garage bays and 2nd story living space. Former/original garage bay now with 1/1 double-hung sash as a breezeway to addition. Main original house core with 1/1, door in gable front wing within incised porch, and triple window set in front of side gable. Brick chimney front slope at end of front gable. Integrity/Major Physical changes from original construction Major garage & living space addition substantially out of scale for original house. Wall material. Windows replaced. Original garage bay infilled. Shutters applied. Subsidiary Building(s)/Site No side yard. Rear lot not visible from street. Hedge across foundation right/east of door. Asphalt driveway left/east. 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 or non-contributing X Significance statement: A nice WWII era vernacular house, but overwhelmed by addition. VP; EP. 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 or non-contributing X Form prepared by: ArchiSearch Historic Preservation Consultants (Alice Novak) Date of Field Survey: 9.14.05 - 176 208 W. Amboy St. 15 Shown in: Antique Brown UPCYCLES MATERIALS Recycled rubber and plastics are elevated into a higher-quality product, improving shingle strength and longevity. EACH ROOF DIVERTS THE EQUIVALENT OF 5 RUBBER TIRES AND 350 PLASTIC MILK JUGS FROM THE LANDFILL.2 REDUCES AIR POLLUTION 3M™ Smog-Reducing Granules harness sunlight to photocatalytically convert smog (NO, NO2) into water-soluble ions (NO3), actively reducing smog air pollution. EACH ROOF HAS THE SMOG-FIGHTING POTENTIAL OF 2 OR MORE TREES.1 10 YEARLIMITED LIFETIME SHINGLE WARRANTY+ RIGHT START™ PERIOD 10 YEAR ALGAE WARRANTY 110-130 MPH WIND WARRANTIES HIGHLANDER® NEX® AR Malarkey® Shingles WHEN IT MATTERS™ Architectural Shingles NEX® MODIFIED ASPHALT TECHNOLOGY Highlander® NEX® AR (algae-resistant) is an architectural shingle engineered with industry- leading, sustainable NEX® Polymer Modified Asphalt Technology (PMA), which combines high-grade asphalt (weathering) with advanced polymers (strength, flexibility) and upcycled materials (durability, sustainability) to rubberize the shingle for exceptional all-weather performance, superior granule embedment, and longer product life. 16 Matching colors available in high-profile EZ-Ridge™ and EZ-Ridge™ XT as well as standard low-profile RidgeFlex™ hip and ridge shingles. WEATHERED WOODSTORM GREYMIDNIGHT BLACK NATURAL WOOD WARRANTIES+ Limited Lifetime Shingle Warranty Right Start™ Period (10 years) Limited Wind Warranty (110 mph) Enhanced Wind Warranty (130 mph) Algae Resistant Warranty (10 years) MEETS CSA A123.5 STANDARDS 1 Assumes roof of 30 squares. Source: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and 3M. 2 Assumes roof of 30 squares. Test Compliance –ASTM D7158 Class H, ASTM D3462, ASTM D3161 Class F, ASTM D3018 Type I, ASTM E108 Class A Fire Rating, ICC-ES AC438 and CSA A123.5. DISCLAIMER: Photographs of shingles may not accurately represent their true color or the variations of color blends that will appear on the roof. Before installation, five or six shingles should be laid out and reviewed for desired color. Colors and specifications subject to change without notice. Shingle colors not available in all regions. + For complete Limited Lifetime Warranty and ‘Your Choice’ Warranty details, as well as information on our other warranties (such as Wind and Algae) and the Right Start™ 10-year non-prorated period against manufacturing defects, please reference Malarkey’s Shingle and Accessory Warranty available at www.malarkeyroofing.com/warranty-center. This version supersedes all previous versions. Rev. 11/19 P.O. Box 17217 Portland, Oregon 97217 800-545-1191 www.malarkeyroofing.com MADE IN PORTLAND, OR PERFORMANCE ENGINEERED All-Weather Performance – NEX® Technology rubberizes shingles to better respond to varying and extreme weather. Resists Impact – Synthetic rubber (SBS) polymers add pliability and resilience to resist tears and provide a high level of impact protection (hail, debris). Resists Wind & Rain – Synthetic adhesive (SEBS), double rain seals, and The Zone®, our patented wider nailing area, seal down shingles and block out wind- driven rain. Wind warranties from 110-130 mph. Resists Algae – Blend of algae-resistant, copper- containing granules help prevent unsightly black streaks. 10-year algae warranty. Resists Fire – Shingles meet highest fire rating (Class A). ‘Your Choice’ Warranty – Select our transferable Limited Lifetime Shingle Warranty or one from a competitor – your choice. ENVIRONMENTALLY DESIGNED Reduces Smog – 3M™ Smog-Reducing Granules harness sunlight to reduce smog air pollution. Upcycles Materials – Recycled rubber and plastics are repurposed to enhance shingle durability. Lasts Longer – Superior granule adhesion protects shingles from premature aging caused by solar rays. Cleaner Manufacturing – NEX® Technology results in much lower emissions than the highly-pollutive oxidation process used to make traditional shingles. Less Waste – Malarkey has earned GreenCircle Certification for Waste Diversion from Landfill at all its facilities. ANTIQUE BROWN SIENNA BLEND SILVERWOOD 17 18 19 HISTORIC URBANIZED CORE SURVEY Plainfield Historic Preservation Commission ADDRESS 23817 W. Amboy St. PIN/Property Index Number #06-03-10-311-021-0000 Historic Property Name(s) Common Name(s) Architectural Style no style Vernacular Building Type Ranch influence Construction Date c. 1960 Architect/Builder Historic Use(s) Single Family Residential Present Use(s) Single Family Residential History (associated events, people, dates) H.H. Evan’s Subdivision. The 1944 Sanborn map indicates the lot for this property was not yet subdivided, with 736 N. Center and 208 W. Amboy sharing a long lot, part of which would become this property. Description Concrete block foundation; synthetic siding (wide gauge); architectural asphalt shingle hip roof. 1 story, rectangular shape, 4 facade bays, 2 side piles. No porch. Paired 2 horizontal/2 horizontal left/east. Entrance with historic multi-light door with modern storm door. Raised concrete stoop with iron open rail. Coach lights added. 2H/2H flank fixed sash in west bay. 2H/2H on west from main hip, then a secondary hip wing of same height for pedestrian door and single car attached garage. 4-light overhead door could be original. Window to west out of garage. Integrity/Major Physical changes from original construction Wall material. Shutters added. Subsidiary Building(s)/Site Foundation landscaping. Hedges to right/west of door. Single car asphalt drive west to garage. 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 or non-contributing X Significance statement: Non-contributing since less than 50 years old; however, this is a good example of Ranch influence and is reflective of the later development which dominated this section of the Village. VP; EP. 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 or non-contributing X Form prepared by: ArchiSearch Historic Preservation Consultants (Alice Novak) Date of Field Survey: 9.14.05 - 175 204 W. Amboy St. 20 Landmark, shown in Weathered WoodLandmark, shown in Weathered Wood Designer Roofing Shingles LANDMARK ® SERIES 21 Georgetown Gray Atlantic Blue Birchwood Colonial Slate Heather Blend Hunter Green Pewter Burnt Sienna 9 Georgetown Gray 22 23 Urbana Zoning Ordinance - Republished August 2018 Article XII. Historic Preservation OrdinancePage193 a) If a sole owner of record, by such sole owner; b) If the record owners are more than one, by not less than 50% of the title interest in such parcel; or c) If the record owner is a corporation, it must be accompanied by a signed corporate resolution authorizing the protest; if owned by a partnership, the partner signing must submit an affidavit that he/she is authorized to sign on behalf of the partnership. B. Each parcel is considered independently, regardless of single or multiple ownership. C. To be considered as timely filed, a valid protest must be filed with the City Clerk by 5:00PM on the Wednesday preceding the City Council meeting at which the designation will be considered until which time said protest can be withdrawn but after which time said protest shall be final. The City Clerk shall forthwith provide a copy of said protest to the Secretary. Section XII-6. Certificates of Appropriateness & Economic Hardship A.Certificate of Appropriateness Required. No person shall make or cause to make any undertaking without the City having first issued a Certificate of Appropriateness approving such work; however, undertakings designated in Tables XII-1 and XII-2 under “No Review” may be made without an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Furthermore, the Community Development Services Department shall not issue any building or demolition permit allowing work which could not otherwise take place until a Certificate of Appropriateness has been issued. B.Certificate of Appropriateness process. 1.Determining level of review. Applications for Certificates of Appropriateness shall be made by forms supplied by the Community Development Services Department. The application shall be regarded as complete when so marked by the Secretary. Following receipt of a complete application for any work qualifying as an undertaking, the Zoning Administrator and Chair of the Historic Preservation Commission shall determine according to Tables XII-1 and XII-2 whether the application is an exempt undertaking and requires no review, requires administrative review, or requires Historic Preservation Commission review. In cases where applications include multiple activities, those determined to be Minor Work may be reviewed administratively and Major Work activities reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission. 2.No review. When both the Zoning Administrator and Chair determine that the proposed undertaking(s) are exempt from review then the Zoning Administrator shall end the review process and so notify the applicant and Building Safety Manager in writing within 10 working days following receipt of the complete application. 3.Minor and Major Work. Except for applications determined to be exempt undertakings requiring no review, as provided in Section XII-6.B.1, the Zoning Administrator and Chair shall determine whether the proposed undertaking(s) constitutes Minor Work or Major Work as defined under Section XII-2 and Tables XII-1 and XII-2 of this Article. When both the Zoning Administrator and Chair determine that the activity constitutes Minor Work then the project shall be reviewed administratively. 4.Administrative review. When both the Zoning Administrator and Chair determine that the proposed undertaking(s) constitutes Minor Work, then the application shall be reviewed administratively following the criteria specified in Section XII-6.C of this Article. For Minor Work, within ten working days of receipt of a complete application, written notice shall be 24 Urbana Zoning Ordinance - Republished August 2018 Article XII. Historic Preservation OrdinancePage 194 made that said application is either approved, approved with conditions, or denied. Approval or approval with conditions shall require agreement of both the Zoning Administrator and Chair that the application conforms to the specified criteria. In the case of denial by both the Zoning Administrator and Chair, the reasons for denial shall be cited. If one but not both the Zoning Administrator or Chair determines that the application does not conform to the specified criteria, the Secretary shall forward the application to the Historic Preservation Commission for review. 5.Historic Preservation Commission review. a)Public hearing. The Historic Preservation Commission shall hold a public hearing within 50 calendar days of the Secretary having received a complete application. Notice of the public hearing shall conform with the procedures specified in Section XI-10. b)Review criteria. Following input provided at the public hearing, the Historic Preservation Commission shall determine whether the application conforms to the criteria specified in Section XII-6.C of this Article. c)Commission action. Following input, the Commission shall vote on a motion to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application based on the application’s conformance with the review criteria. Any conditions imposed for approval must relate to the specified review criteria. In denying a Certificate of Appropriateness, the Commission shall provide reasons for denial and should recommend ways to bring the application into conformance. The Commission is the final decision-making body for Certificates of Appropriateness, unless the decision is appealed in accordance with Section XII-6.E of this Article. d) Within ten working days of the Commission’s final action on the application, the Secretary shall notify the applicant(s) and Building Safety Manager of the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. C.Review Criteria for Certificates of Appropriateness In making a determination whether to issue or deny a Certificate of Appropriateness, the Preservation Commission shall consider the following criteria: 1. Maintain the significant original qualities and character of the buildings, structures, sites or objects including, if significant, its appurtenances. Removing or altering any historic or distinctive architectural features should be avoided whenever possible. 2. Retain and preserve the historic character of a property. Avoid removing or substituting distinctive materials or altering features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property. 3. Recognize each property as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Do not undertake changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties. 4. Retain and preserve changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right. 5. Preserve distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property. 6.Deteriorated historic features. Repair rather than replace deteriorated historic features. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. 25 Urbana Zoning Ordinance - Republished August 2018 Article XII. Historic Preservation OrdinancePage 195 Replacement of missing features must be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. 7.Treatment methods. Use the gentlest means possible when using chemical or physical treatments. Do not use treatments that cause damage to historic materials. 8.Archaeology. Protect and preserve archeological resources in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures should be undertaken. 9.New construction. With new additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction, do not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. Undertake new additions and adjacent or related new construction in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Differentiate new work from the old. To protect the integrity of the property and its environment, new additions and new construction shall be compatible with the original architecture of the landmark or styles within the historic district and in terms of the following guidelines: a)Height: The height of the proposed building or structure or additions or alterations should be compatible with surrounding buildings or structures. b)Proportions of structure’s front façade: The proportion between the width and height of the proposed building or structure should be compatible with nearby buildings or structures. c)Proportions of openings into the facility: The proportions and relationships between doors and windows should be compatible with existing buildings and structures. d)Relationship of building masses and spaces: The relationship of a building or structure to the open space between it and adjoining buildings or structures should be compatible. e)Roof shapes: The design of the roof should be compatible with that of adjoining buildings and structures. f)Appurtenances: Use of appurtenances should be sensitive to the individual building or structure, its occupants and their needs. g)Scale of building or structure: The scale of the building or structure should be compatible with that of surrounding buildings or structures. h)Directional expression of front elevation: Street façades should blend in with other buildings and structures with regard to directional expression when adjacent buildings or structures have a dominant horizontal or vertical expression. 10.Demolition. In granting a Certificate of Appropriateness to undertake demolition, the Commission shall find that at least one of the following conditions exists: a) The demolition would be limited to a nonsignificant portion of a building or a nonsignificant accessory structure, and provided that the demolition will not adversely affect those parts of a building or buildings which are significant as determined by the Commission; or b) The demolition request is for a noncontributing building and the demolition will not adversely affect the character of the district; or c) The Building Official of the City of Urbana certifies that the demolition is required for public safety because of an unsafe or dangerous situation. 26 Urbana Zoning Ordinance - Republished August 2018 Article XII. Historic Preservation OrdinancePage 196 D.Certificate of Economic Hardship. 1. Notwithstanding any contrary provisions of this Article, following denial of a Certificate of Appropriateness application, the applicant may apply for, and the Commission may issue, a Certificate of Economic Hardship to allow work for which a Certificate of Appropriateness has been denied. Applications for Certificates of Economic Hardship shall be made on forms provided by the City of Urbana. 2.Public hearing. The Historic Preservation Commission shall hold a public hearing within 50 calendar days of the Secretary having received a complete application. Notice of the public hearing shall conform with the procedures specified in Section XI-10. 3. At the public hearing, the Commission shall take statements presented by the owner(s) and any other interested parties concerning the effect of the proposed undertaking on any designated historic landmark or property within a designated historic district based upon the criteria set forth in this Article. The Commission shall conduct such hearings in a manner consistent with adopted rules of procedure, as may be amended from time to time. The hearing may be continued to a date certain. The applicant bears the burden of proof that denial of the proposed work would leave the property without an economically viable use, and that the sale, rental, or rehabilitation of the property is not possible, resulting in the property being incapable of earning any reasonable economic return. The Commission may solicit expert testimony to evaluate information provided either as part of a Certificate of Economic Hardship application or at the public hearing, and may continue the public hearing to provide time to evaluate new evidence. 4.The Factors and Standards for Commission Decision. The factors to be considered by the Commission on the issue of economic hardship shall include, but are not limited to, the following: a) A substantial decrease in the fair market value of the property as a result of the denial of the certificate of appropriateness; b) A substantial decrease in the financial return to owners of record or other investors in the property as a result of the denial of the certificate of appropriateness; c) The cost of the proposed construction, alteration, relocation or demolition, and an estimate of any additional cost that would be incurred to comply with the recommendations of the Commission for changes necessary for the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness; d) The structural soundness of any structures on the property and their suitability for rehabilitation; e) The economic feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of the existing structure, or in the case of proposed demolition, the economic feasibility of improvement on the property. 5.Evidence.The applicant may be required to submit evidence at the hearing to support any of the factors, including those listed above, which the applicant believes to have contributed to the economic hardship alleged to be incurred if the applicant is not granted a Certificate of Appropriateness. Specific information and documentation which may be presented by the applicant as competent evidence at the hearing may include: 27 Urbana Zoning Ordinance - Republished August 2018 Article XII. Historic Preservation OrdinancePage 197 a) The amount paid for the property, the date of purchase and the party from whom purchased (including a description of the relationship, if any, between the owner and the person from whom the property was purchased). b) The assessed value of the land and improvements thereon according to the two most recent assessments. c) Real estate taxes for the previous two years. d) Remaining balance on mortgage, if any, and annual debt service, if any, for the previous two years. e) All appraisals obtained within the previous two years by the owner or applicant in connection with this purchase, financing or ownership of the property. f) Any listing of the property for sale or rent, price asked and offers received, if any. g) Any consideration by the owner as to profitable adaptive uses for the property. h) If the property is income-producing, the annual gross income from the property for the previous two years, itemized operating and maintenance expenses for the previous two years, and annual cash flow before and after debt service, if any during the same period. i) Form of ownership or operation of the property, whether sole proprietorship, for-profit or not-for-profit corporation, limited partnership, joint venture or other. j) Any other information including the income tax bracket of the owner, applicant or principal investors in the property, reasonably necessary for a determination as to whether the property can be reasonably used or yield a reasonable return to present or future owners. 6. Commission findings. Following public input, the Commission shall approve the issuance of the Certificate of Economic Hardship only if it finds that either 1) the subject property cannot be put to any reasonably beneficial use or 2) the owner/applicant will suffer a substantial economic loss if the application is not approved, and in either case, further finds that the hardship was not created with the intent of circumventing this Article. 7. Should the Commission adopt either finding in Subsection 6 above, and lacking a finding that the owner/applicant self-created the hardship with the intent of circumventing this Article, then the Commission shall issue a Certificate of Economic Hardship. 8. Should the Commission fail to adopt either finding in Subsection 6 above, then the application for a Certificate of Economic Hardship is denied. E. Appeals 1. Approval or denial of any Certificate of Appropriateness or Certificate of Economic Hardship may be appealed when the following requirements are met: a) If the appeal pertains to a Landmark, the appeal may be taken only by the applicant or other person who has a financial interest in the property. If the appeal pertains to a property within a historic district, the appeal may be taken by the applicant or an owner of a property within the historic district 28 Urbana Zoning Ordinance - Republished August 2018 Article XII. Historic Preservation OrdinancePage 198 b) The appeal shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the Zoning Administrator. The notice of appeal shall describe the decision being appealed and shall specify the grounds for the appeal. c) The appeal shall be taken within 15 days of mailing the notice of the decision to the applicant. d) When both a Certificate of Appropriateness and Certificate of Economic Hardship have been denied for the same work, one but not both decisions may be appealed. 2. Once an appeal has been filed, work allowed by the approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness or a Certificate of Economic Hardship shall be stayed until the appeal is decided. 3. Section XI-3.D does not apply to appeals of decisions made by the Zoning Administrator under this article. 4.Notice of appeal. The Secretary shall give due notice of the hearing in writing to the appellant, the property owner, and the City Council. At least 15 days, but not more than 30 days, notice of the time and place of the hearing on the appeal shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Urbana. The notice of such hearing shall contain the address and location of the property involved in the appeal, if any, and a brief description of the issue being appealed. 5.Consideration of appeal. The city council shall decide the appeal by passing a resolution, with a majority vote of the alderpersons then holding office, that either upholds the decision of the Preservation Commission or reverses the decision of the Preservation Commission. 6. If the Council decides that a Certificate of Appropriateness or Economic Hardship should be issued, the Secretary shall notify the applicant and the Building Safety Division within seven days of the Council’s decision and the Building Safety Division then shall begin review of the permit within 15 days. 7. If the Council concurs with the Preservation Commission’s decision not to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness or a Certificate of Economic Hardship, the Secretary shall notify the applicant and the Building Safety Division of this decision within seven days. F.Special Emergency and Life Safety Circumstances 1. If emergency circumstances affect a landmark or a building, structure, site or object within a historic district in a way that requires immediate relief, repair or demolition, the Urbana Fire Chief or Building Safety Division Manager shall certify that such conditions exist and nothing in this article shall prevent said conditions being eliminated as quickly as is practicable. Emergencies are defined as life or health-threatening conditions requiring immediate attention. 2. In a non-emergency circumstance, where the Urbana Fire Chief or Building Safety Division Manager shall require exterior alterations in an existing use to conform to life safety or other codes, a Certificate of Appropriateness shall be required. In the event that irreconcilable conflicts arise between such codes and this Article, the Preservation Commission shall grant permission to conform to those codes even if a Certificate of Appropriateness would not otherwise be issued. 29 Urbana Zoning Ordinance - Republished August 2018 Article XII. Historic Preservation OrdinancePage 199 TABLE XII-1: LEVEL OF REVIEW FOR CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES Exempt Undertakings COA Required Minor Works (Administrative Review) Major Works (HPC review) Description of undertaking Building ordinary maintenance made in kind and using like materials: Architectural features, repair of existing X Masonry repointing with compatible mortar X Painting previously painted surfaces, regardless of paint colors X Roof cladding, with like materials X All other exterior building maintenance and repairs X Site ordinary maintenance made in kind and using like materials: Access drives X Outdoor storage, replacement of existing X Steps (not attached to buildings)X Structural landscape features X Walkways X All other repairs of site improvements X Building changes and new construction, including: Access ramps/lifts - erection, alteration, removal X Architectural features and details X Awnings X Building additions X Construction of new buildings (other than accessory)X Decorative glass (colored, leaded, or beveled)X Doors (except storm doors)X Gutters and downspouts (integral and attached)X Mailboxes X Painting of unpainted material, such as masonry, copper, and wood X Porches, decks, and attached steps (including enclosing) X Roofs, including roof lines and materials X Satellite dishes X Shutters X Siding, removal of non-original synthetic siding X Siding (other)X Signs and interpretative displays (permanent)X Storm doors and storm windows X Windows (except storm windows and window screens)X Window screens X All other new construction and changes to buildings X 30 Urbana Zoning Ordinance - Republished August 2018 Article XII. Historic Preservation OrdinancePage 200 Exempt Undertakings COA Required Minor Works (Administrative Review) Major Works (HPC review) Site changes and new construction, including: Accessory buildings (less than 100 sq. ft. in area)X Accessory buildings (greater than 100 sq. ft. in area)X Access drives X Air conditioner condenser units X Fences X Landscape planting beds and gardens X Mechanical and electrical service equipment X Parking lots X Patios X Signs (permanent)X Signs (temporary)X Walkways X Walls and screens (as landscape features)X All other site modifications X Demolition, removal, and relocation of buildings and other structures: Accessory structures (less than 100 sq. ft. in area)X Accessory structures (greater than 100 sq. ft. in area)X Fences (nonhistoric)X Fences (historic)X All other demolition, removal, and relocation X 31 Urbana Zoning Ordinance - Republished August 2018 Article XII. Historic Preservation OrdinancePage 201 TABLE XII-2: LEVEL OF REVIEW FOR NON-CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES Exempt Undertakings COA Required Minor Works (Administrative Review) Major Works (HPC review) Description of undertaking Building ordinary maintenance made in kind and using like materials: Architectural features, repair of existing X Masonry repointing with compatible mortar X Painting previously painted surfaces, regardless of paint colors X Roof cladding, with like materials X All other exterior building maintenance and repairs X Site ordinary maintenance made in kind and using like materials: Access drives X Outdoor storage, replacement of existing X Steps (not attached to buildings)X Structural landscape features X Walkways X All other repairs of site improvements X Building changes and new construction, including: Access ramps and lifts (erection, alteration, removal)X Architectural features and details X Awnings X Building additions X Construction of new buildings (other than accessory)X Decorative glass (buildings less than 50 years old)X Decorative glass (buildings 50+ years old)X Doors (except storm doors)X Gutters and downspouts (integral and attached)X Mailboxes X Painting of unpainted materials, such as masonry (buildings less than 50 years old) X Painting of unpainted materials, such as masonry (buildings 50+ years old) X Porches, decks, and attached steps (including enclosing) X Roofs, including roof lines and materials (buildings less than 50 years old) X Roofs, including roof lines and materials (buildings 50+ years old) X Satellite dishes X Shutters X 32 Urbana Zoning Ordinance - Republished August 2018 Article XII. Historic Preservation OrdinancePage 202 Exempt Undertakings COA Required Minor Works (Administrative Review) Major Works (HPC review) Siding, removal of non-original synthetic siding X Siding (other)X Signs and interpretative displays (permanent)X Storm doors and storm windows X Windows (except storm windows and window screens)X Window screens X All other new construction and changes to buildings X Site changes and new construction, including: Accessory buildings (less than 100 sq. ft. in area)X Accessory buildings (greater than 100 sq. ft. in area)X Access drives X Air conditioner condenser units X Fences X Landscape planting beds and gardens X Mechanical and electrical service equipment X Parking lots X Patios X Signs (permanent)X Signs (temporary)X Walkways X Walls and screens (as landscape features)X All other site modifications X Demolition, removal, and relocation of buildings and other structures: Accessory structures (less than 100 sq. ft. in area)X Accessory structures (more than 100 sq. ft. in area)X Fences X All other demolition, removal, and relocation X 33 Urbana Zoning Ordinance - Republished August 2018 Article XII. Historic Preservation OrdinancePage 203 Section XII-7. Affirmation of Existing Zoning This Article does not modify or negate the existing zoning of any property in the City of Urbana. Furthermore, nothing contained in this Article relieves any person of the duty of complying with all other statutes, laws, ordinances and regulations. Nor is anything in this Article XII intended to amend the powers of any other regulatory body of the City. Section XII-8. Building Permits Previously Issued The provisions of this Article shall not apply to a structure for which a building permit has been applied for, or issued, prior to the date the Secretary of the Commission receives a nomination for a landmark or historic district designation pertaining to said structure. Such exemption shall remain in force until the date that a certificate of occupancy is issued for said building permit. Section XII-9. Penalties A. Any person, firm or corporation who alters, demolishes, repairs or relocates any landmark or any building, structure, site or object within a historic district without complying with the provisions of this Article shall be required to restore the building, structure, site or object to its appearance prior to the violation. Any action to enforce this section shall be brought by the City Attorney, his designee or by designated representatives of the Department of Community Development Services. This civil remedy shall be in addition to and not in lieu of any criminal prosecution and penalty. B. Any person, firm or corporation knowingly violating this article of this ordinance, upon conviction, shall be fined not less than $50 nor more than $500. Each day such violation is committed or permitted to continue shall constitute a separate offense and shall be punishable as such. (Ord. No. 2005-01-010, 01/28/05) Section XII-10. National Register of Historic Places A.Criteria for Evaluation.The Preservation Commission shall use the guidelines of the National Register for Historic Places for evaluating potential sites for National Register nomination. B. The following criteria are designed to guide the states, federal agencies and the Secretary of the Interior in evaluating potential entries (other than areas of the National Park System and national historic landmarks) for the National Register: 1. The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association; and 2. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the board patterns or our history; or 3. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or 4. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction or that represent the work of a master or that possess high artistic values or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or 5. That has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. 34