HomeMy Public PortalAbout06-09-22 HPC Agenda PacketHistoric Preservation Commission
Thursday, June 09, 2022
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 May 12,
2022.
05-12-2022 HPC Minutes.pdf
CHAIR'S COMMENTS
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
PUBLIC COMMENTS (5 minutes per topic)
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
1.15135 S. DES PLAINES ST. (CASE 1966-041122.HPC)
1.a.Seeking a motion to adopt the findings of fact of staff as the findings of fact of the
Historic Preservation Commission and, furthermore, recommend approval of the
landmark designation for the property known as 15135 S. Des Plaines Street, based on
criteria d, f and j of the Historic Preservation Ordinance, with a period of significance of
1885 to 1955*.
15135 Des Plaines St Staff Report Packet.pdf
1
Historic Preservation Commission Page - 2
DISCUSSION
ADJOURN
REMINDERS -
June 20th - Village Board Meeting at 7:00 p.m.
June 21st - Plan Commissioner Meeting at 7:00 p.m.
July 14th - Historic Preservation Commission Meeting at 7:00 p.m.
2
Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission
Record of Minutes
Date: May 12, 2022 Location: Village Hall
CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL, PLEDGE
Chairman Bortel called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
Roll call: Commissioners Barvian, Derrick, Hagen, Olsen, Schmidt, and Chairman Bortel were present.
Commissioner Rapp was absent.
Also, in attendance: Jonathan Proulx, Director of Planning
Chairman Bortel led the pledge to the flag.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Derrick made a motion to approve the agenda. Seconded by Commissioner Olsen. Voice
Vote. All in favor. 0 opposed. Motion carried 6-0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Derrick made a motion to approve the Special Historic Preservation Commission minutes
dated March 24, as amended. Seconded by Commissioner Olsen. Vote by roll call: Barvian, yes; Hagen,
yes; Schmidt, yes; Olsen, yes; Derrick, yes; and Bortel, yes. Motion carried 6-0.
CHAIR’S COMMENTS
Chairman Bortel announced Lisa with Landmark Illinois is leaving after working there for roughly 23
years and he also stated the Alliance of Preservation is looking for a host for their meeting in the fall and
he volunteered Plainfield to host. Chairman Bortel stated he would like to have a CAMP next year.
Chairman Bortel announced there is an ordinance to be approved by the Village Board on Monday that
will reduce the Historic Preservation Commission from nine member to seven members.
Chairman Bortel remined the commission that the HPC presentation to the Village Board will be May
23rd at 7:00 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS
Commissioner Olsen suggested an alliance with the HPC, Park District, Will County, and the Township
for the Springbank/Old Renwick Road bridge to maintain and incorporate it into the bike path. Chairman
Bortel stated landmarking the bridge would need to be done by Will County since it is unincorporated.
Chairman Bortel stated he believes that there was at one time a plaque near the bridge marking Walker’s
Grove. Commissioner Schmidt stated he did some drawing for the bridge at the request of Larry Kachel.
Commissioner Derrick asked who they can contact at the township regarding the bridge. Mr. Proulx
stated the Road Commissioner, and he thinks an alliance is a great approach. Chairman Bortel asked staff
if the village would have interest in incorporating the bridge. Mr. Proulx indicated the village would need
to evaluate it.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No Public Comments.
3
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
May 12, 2022
Page 2 of 4
OLD BUSINESS
No Old Business.
NEW BUSINESS
1966-041122.HPC 15135 S. DES PLAINES ST. NICOLE SOLIS
Commissioner Derrick made a motion to continue the public hearing for landmark designation for the
property located at 15135 S. Des Plaines Street to the June 9, 2022 Historic Preservation Commission
meeting.
Seconded by Commissioner Schmidt. Vote by roll call: Barvian, yes; Derrick, yes; Hagen, yes; Olsen,
yes; Schmidt, yes; and Bortel, yes. Motion carried 6-0.
1971-040122.COA 15126 S FOX RIVER ST. CHRIS & MARGARET
PTACEK
Mr. Proulx stated the applicant is proposing to restore two window openings that had been bricked closed,
as well as complete tuckpointing, for the property at 15126 S. Fox River St. Known as the “Hartong-
Smith House”, the home is the first property in the Village of Plainfield to receive local landmark status.
The applicant is requesting approval of Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) as well as approval of a
historic rehabilitation grant in the amount of $1,550 representing 50 percent of the total project costs of
$3,100.
Mr. Proulx reviewed the staff report dated May 10, 2022. Mr. Proulx concluded in advance of any public
comment or discussion by the Historic Preservation Commission, staff supports the proposed Certificate
of Appropriateness and rehabilitation grant requests.
Chairman Bortel swore in Margaret Ptacek, applicant. Chairman Bortel asked if they discovered it when
they were doing interior work to the home. Ms. Ptacek explained how they discovered the windows. Ms.
Ptacek stated they will be adding limestone sills to match existing windowsills of the house. Ms. Ptacek
explained the interior renovations they have made to the house.
Commissioner Derrick asked if the windows will be replaced or are they just revealing the original
windows. Ms. Ptacek confirmed they are revealing the original windows and added they will be adding
exterior storm windows. Commissioner Derrick asked if the panes in the window are vertical. Ms.
Ptacek confirmed.
Commissioner Derrick asked if the mason provide information about the removable method of the
existing mortar. Ms. Ptacek stated that was not specifically discussed with the mason, but it was
discussed that he will use historically appropriate mortar mix. Commissioner Derrick had a Preservation
Briefs regarding Repointing Mortar Joints in Historic Masonry Buildings, she would like to be attached
the Letter of Agreement (see attached). Commissioner Derrick wants to make sure the following are met
regarding the mortar work being completed:
• The removable technique of the mortar does not damage any of the bricks.
• The mortar formula to match the existing mortar.
• The mortar color needs to match existing mortar.
• The tooling of the new mortar work should match the old in depth and profile.
• The texture of the new mortar needs to match the existing grading of sand in the historic mortar.
• Asked the applicant to provide a picture of a sample or having the HPC Chairman come to the
property to confirm color match.
4
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
May 12, 2022
Page 3 of 4
Commissioner Derrick indicated if the mason has any concerns about meeting the terms of the Letter of
Agreement or questions, please let the HPC know and for them to not move forward. Ms. Ptacek stated
the mason advertised that he worked on historic homes and has a portfolio to support it. Commissioner
Derrick stated the HPC is here to help owners of historic homes.
Commissioner Olsen asked where the applicant found the mason. Ms. Ptacek stated by an internet search.
Commissioner Schmidt stated the quote states they will be replacing the steel lintel but feels if the
window is still there the lintel should be. Ms. Ptacek stated they had a hard time confirming if one of the
lintels was still there and are hoping it was just mortared over. Chairman Bortel asked where the
applicant got the original picture. Ms. Ptacek stated the Historical Society.
Commissioner Schmidt made a motion to recommend approval of the requested Certificate of
Appropriateness for restoration of windows on the south elevation and tuckpointing of the local landmark
at 15126 S. Fox River St., subject to execution of a Letter of Agreement with the HPC, applicant, and
Village staff to accept the following conditions of approval:
1. Existing Windows – to be restored;
2. Limestone Sills – Replacement sills will be the same depth relative to the wall plane as the
existing windows, and the dimensions of the sills will match as best as possible to the other
existing windows;
3. Repointing Work - The removal technique of the mortar must not damage any adjacent masonry
units; the mortar formula type N or softer; mortar color needs to match existing mortar, preferably
through the use of matching aggregate to the historic aggregate versus dyes; tooling of the new
mortar work should match the old in depth and profile; texture of the new mortar needs to match
the existing grading, again preferably through the use of matching the aggregate composition and
grading;
4. Approval of a test sample of the mortar color, texture, and tooling by staff and HPC
representative before the applicant can proceed with the project; and
5. Compliance with the relevant guidance in the attached Preservation Brief regarding Repointing
Mortar Joints in Historic Masonry Buildings dated October 1998 published by the U.S.
Department of the Interior National Park Services Cultural Resources Heritage Preservation
Services is requested.
Seconded by Commissioner Barvian. Vote by roll call: Derrick, yes; Hagen, yes; Olsen, yes; Barvian,
yes; Schmidt, yes; and Bortel, yes. Motion carried 6-0.
Commissioner Derrick motion to recommend approval of the historic rehabilitation grant for restoration
of existing windows on the south elevation and tuckpointing of the local landmark at 15126 S. Fox River
St., subject to the conditions in the staff report.
Seconded by Commissioner Olsen. Vote by roll call: Barvian, yes; Hagen, yes; Schmidt, yes; Olsen, yes;
Derrick, yes; and Bortel, yes. Motion carried 6-0.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION ANNUAL REPORT
Commissioner Derrick made a motion to approve the Historic Preservation Commission 2021-2022
Annual Report.
Seconded by Commissioner Barvian. Vote by roll call: Hagen, yes; Olsen, yes; Schmidt, yes; Barvian,
yes; Derrick, yes; and Bortel, yes. Motion carried 6-0.
5
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
May 12, 2022
Page 4 of 4
DISCUSSION
No Discussion
ADJOURN
Commissioner Derrick made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Olsen seconded the motion.
Motion carried 6-0.
Meeting adjourned at 7:44 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Tracey Erickson
Recording Secretary
6
2 PRESERVATION
BRIEFS
Repointing Mortar Joints
in Historic Masonry Buildings
Robert C. Mack, FAIA
John P. Speweik
u.s. Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Cultural Resources
Heritage Preservation Services
Figure 1. After removing deteriorated mortar, an expe rienced mason repaints
a portion of this ear ly-20th cent ury limeston e building. Photo: Robert C.
Mack,FAIA.
Masonry -brick, stone, terra-cotta, and concrete block -
is found on nearly every historic building. Structures
with all-masonry exteriors come to mind immediately,
but most other buildings at least have masonry
foundations or chimneys. Although generally considered
"permanent," masonry is subject to deterioration,
especially at the mortar joints. Repointing, also known
simply as "pointing"or-somewhat inaccurately-"tuck
pointing"*, is the process of removing deteriorated mortar
from the joints of a masonry wall and replacing it with
new mortar (Fig. 1). Properly done, repointing restores
the visual and physical integrity of the masonry.
Improperly done, repointing not only detracts from the
appearance of the building, but may also cause physical
damage to the masonry units themselves.
The purpose of this Brief is to provide general guidance
on appropriate materials and methods for repointing
historic masonry buildings and it is intended to benefit
building owners, architects, and contractors. The Brief
should serve as a guide to prepare specifications for
repointing historic masonry buildings. It should also
help develop sensitivity to the particular needs of historic
masonry, and to assist historic building owners in
working cooperatively with architects, architectural
conservators and historic preservation consultants, and
contractors. Although specifically intended for historic
buildings, the guidance is appropriate for other masonry
buildings as well. This publication updates Preservation
Briefs 2: Repainting Mortar Joints in Historic Brick Buildings
to include all types of historic unit masonry. The scope of
the earlier Brief has also been expanded to acknowledge
that the many buildings constructed in the first half of the
20th century are now historic and eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places, and that they
may have been originally constructed with portland
cement mortar.
*Tuckpointing technically describes a primarily decorative application
of a raised mortar joint or lime putty joint on top of flush mortar jOints.
1
7
2
Historical Background
Mortar consisting primarily of lime and sand has been
used as an integral part of masonry structures for
thousands of years. Up until about the mid-19th century,
lime or quicklime (sometimes called lump lime) was
delivered to construction sites, where it had to be slaked,
or combined with water. Mixing with water caused it to
boil and resulted in a wet lime putty that was left to
mature in a pit or wooden box for several weeks, up to a
year. Traditional mortar was made from lime putty, or
slaked lime, combined with local sand, generally in a
ratio of 1 part lime putty to 3 parts sand by volume.
Often other ingredients, such as crushed marine shells
(another source of lime), brick dust, clay, natural
cements, pigments, and even animal hair were also
added to mortar, but the basic formulation for lime putty
and sand mortar remained unchanged for centuries until
the advent of portland cement or its forerunner, Roman
cement, a natural, hydraulic cement.
Portland cement was patented in Great Britain in 1824.
It was named after the stone from Portland in Dorset
which it resembled when hard. This is a fast-curing,
hydraulic cement which hardens under water. Portland
cement was first manufactured in the United States in
1872, although it was imported before this date. But it
was not in common use throughout the country until the
early 20th century. Up until the turn of the century
portland cement was considered primarily an additive,
or "minor ingredient" to help accelerate mortar set time.
By the 1930s, however, most masons used a mix of equal
parts portland cement and lime putty. Thus, the mortar
found in masonry structures built between 1873 and 1930
can range from pure lime and sand mixes to a wide
variety of lime, portland cement, and sand combinations.
In the 1930s more new mortar products intended to
hasten and simplify masons' work were introduced in
the U.S. These included masonry cement, a premixed,
bagged mortar which is a combination of portland
cement and ground limestone, and hydrated lime,
machine-slaked lime that eliminated the necessity of
slaking quicklime into putty at the site.
Identifying the Problem Before Repointing
The decision to repoint is most often related to some
obvious sign of deterioration, such as disintegrating
mortar, cracks in mortar joints, loose bricks or stones,
damp walls, or damaged plasterwork. It is, however,
erroneous to assume that repointing alone will solve
deficiencies that result from other problems (Fig. 2). The
root cause of the deterioration-leaking roofs or gutters,
differential settlement of the building, capillary action
causing rising damp, or extreme weather exposure-
should always be dealt with prior to beginning work.
Without appropriate repairs to eliminate the source of
the problem, mortar deterioration will continue and any
repointing will have been a waste of time and money.
Use of Consultants. Because there are so many possible
causes for deterioration in historic buildings, it may be
desirable to retain a consultant, such as a historic
architect or architectural conservator, to analyze the
building. In addition to determining the most
appropriate solutions to the problems, a consultant can
Figure 2. Much of the mortar on this building has been leached away by
water from a leakin g downspout . Th e downspout must be replaced and any
other drainage problems repaired before repainting. Photo: Robert C. Mack ,
FAlA.
prepare specifications which reflect the particular require-
ments of each job and can provide oversight of the work
in progress. Referrals to preservation consultants
frequently can be obtained from State Historic
Preservation Offices, the American Institute for
Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works (AlC), the
Association for Preservation Technology (APT), and local
chapters of the American Institute of Architects (AlA).
Finding an Appropriate Mortar Match
Preliminary research is necessary to ensure that the
proposed repointing work is both physically and visually
appropriate to the building. Analysis of unweathered
portions of the historic mortar to which the new mortar will
be matched can suggest appropriate mixes for the
repointing mortar so that it will not damage the building
because it is excessively strong or vapor impermeable.
Examination and analysis of the masonry units-brick,
stone or terra cotta-and the techniques used in the original
construction will assist in maintaining the building's
historic appearance (Figs. 3-4). A simple, non-technical,
evaluation of the masonry units and mortar can provide
information concerning the relative strength and
permeability of each-critical factors in selecting the
repointing mortar-while a visual analysis of the historic
mortar can provide the information necessary for
developing the new mortar mix and application techniques.
Although not crucial to a successful repointing project, for
projects involving properties of special historic significance,
a mortar analysis by a qualified laboratory can be useful by
providing information on the original ingredients.
However, there are limitations with such an analysis, and
replacement mortar specifications should not be based
solely on laboratory analysis. Analysis requires
interpretation, and there are important factors which affect
the condition and performance of the mortar that cannot be
established through laboratory analysis. These may
include: the original water content, rate of curing, weather
conditions during original construction, the method of
mixing and placing the mortar, and the cleanliness and
condition of the sand. The most useful information that can
come out of laboratory analysis is the identification of sand by
8
Figure 3 . Good-quality repainting closely replicates the original in co mposition, texture, joint type and profi le on this 19th century brick building (left), and on this
lat e-19th century granite on H.H. Richard son's Glessner House in Chicago (right). Photos: Charles E. Fish er: Sharon C. Park , FAIA.
gradation and color. This allows the color and the texture of
the mortar to be matched with some accuracy because
sand is the largest ingredient by volume.
In creating a repointing mortar that is compatible with the
masonry units, the objective is to achieve one that matches
the historic mortar as closely as possible, so that the new
material can coexist with the old in a sympathetic,
supportive and, if necessary, sacrificial capacity. The exact
physical and chemical properties of the historic mortar are
not of major significance as long as the new mortar
conforms to the following criteria:
-The new mortar must match the historic mortar in color,
texture and tooling. (If a laboratory analysis is undertaken,
it may be possible to match the binder components and
their proportions with the historic mortar, if those materials
are available.)
-The sand must match the sand in the historic mortar.
(The color and texture of the new mortar will usually fall
into place if the sand is matched successfully.)
-The new mortar must have greater vapor permeability
and be softer (measured in compressive strength) than the
masonry units.
-The new mortar must be as vapor permeable and as soft
or softer (measured in compressive strength) than the
historic mortar. (Softness or hardness is not necessarily an
indication of permeability; old, hard lime mortars can still
retain high permeability.)
Properties of Mortar
Mortars for repointing should be softer or more
permeable than the masonry units and no harder or
more impermeable than the historic mortar to prevent
damage to the masonry units. It is a common error to
assume that hardness or high strength is a measure of
appropriateness, particularly for lime-based historic
mortars. Stresses within a wall caused by expansion,
contraction, moisture migration, or settlement must be
accommodated in some manner; in a masonry wall these
Figure 4. (left) Th e poor quality of this repainting-it appears to have been " tooled" with the mason's finger-iloes not match the delicacy of the original beaded joint on
this 19th-century brick wall. (right) It is obvious that the repainting on this "test patch" is not an appropriate replacement mortar joint for this early-19th century
stone foundation . Photos: Lee H. Nelson , FAIA.
3
9
4
stresses should be relieved by the mortar rather than by
the masonry units. A mortar that is stronger in
compressive strength than the masonry units, will not
"give," thus causing the stresses to be relieved through
the masonry units-resulting in permanent damage to
the masonry, such as cracking and spalling, that cannot
be repaired easily (Fig. 5). While stresses can also break
the bond between the mortar and the masonry units,
permitting water to penetrate the resulting hairline
cracks, this is easier to correct in the joint through
repointing than if the break occurs in the masonry units.
Permeability, or rate of vapor transmission, is also critical.
High lime mortars are more permeable than denser
cement mortars. Historically, mortar acted as a bedding
material-not unlike an expansion joint-rather than a
"glue" for the masonry units, and moisture was able to
migrate through the mortar joints rather than the
masonry units. When moisture evaporates from the
masonry it deposits any soluble salts either on the surface
as efflorescence or below the surface as subflorescence. While
salts deposited on the surface of masonry units are
usually relatively harmless, salt crystallization within a
masonry unit creates pressure that can cause parts of the
outer surface to spall off or delaminate. If the mortar does
not permit moisture or moisture vapor to migrate out of
the wall and evaporate, the result will be damage to the
masonry units.
Components of Mortar
Sand. Sand is the largest component of mortar and the
material that gives mortar its distinctive color, texture and
cohesiveness. Sand must be free of impurities, such as
salts or clay. The three key characteristics of sand are:
particle shape, gradation and void ratios.
Figure 5 . Th e use of hard , portland-cem ent mortar that is less perm eabl e th an
th e soft bricks ha s res ulted in severe dama ge to thi s brick wall . Mois ture
trapped in the wall wa s unabl e to evaporate throu gh the mort ar which is
intended to be sacrificial , and thu s protec t th e bricks. As a res ult the moist ure
re main ed in th e wall s until wat er press ure eventually popped th e surface off
th e bricks. Phot o: Na ti onal Park Serv ice Files.
When viewed under a magnifying glass or low-power
microscope, particles of sand generally have either
rounded edges, such as found in beach and river
sand, or sharp, angular edges, found in crushed or
manufactured sand. For repointing mortar, rounded or
natural sand is preferred for two reasons. It is usually
similar to the sand in the historic mortar and provides a
better visual match. It also has better working qualities
or plasticity and can thus be forced into the joint more
easily, forming a good contact with the remaining
historic mortar and the surface of the adjacent masonry
units. Although manufactured sand is frequently more
readily available, it is usually possible to locate a supply
of rounded sand.
The gradation of the sand (particle size distribution)
plays a very important role in the durability and
cohesive properties of a mortar. Mortar must have a
certain percentage of large to small particle sizes in order
to deliver the optimum performance . Acceptable
guidelines on particle size distribution may be found in
ASTM C 144 (American Society for Testing and
Materials). However, in actuality, since neither historic
nor modern sands are always in compliance with ASTM
C 144, matching the same particle appearance and
gradation usually requires sieving the sand.
A scoop of sand contains many small voids between the
individual grains. A mortar that performs well fills all
these small voids with binder (cement /lime combination
or mix) in a balanced manner. Well-graded sand
generally has a 30 per cent void ratio by volume. Thus,
30 per cent binder by volume generally should be used,
unless the historic mortar had a different binder:
aggregate ratio. This represents the 1:3 binder to sand
ratios often seen in mortar specifications.
For repointing, sand generally should conform to ASTM
C 144 to assure proper gradation and freedom from
impurities; some variation may be necessary to match
the original size and gradation. Sand color and texture
also should match the original as closely as possible to
provide the proper color match without other additives.
Lime. Mortar formulations prior to the late-19th century
used lime as the primary binding material. Lime is
derived from heating limestone at high temperatures
which burns off the carbon dioxide, and turns the
limestone into quicklime. There are three types of
limestone-calcium, magnesium, and dolomitic-
differentiated by the different levels of magnesium
carbonate they contain which impart specific qualities to
mortar. Historically, calcium lime was used for mortar
rather than the dolomitic lime (calcium magnesium
carbonate) most often used today. But it is also
important to keep in mind the fact that the historic limes,
and other components of mortar, varied a great deal
because they were natural, as opposed to modern lime
which is manufactured and, therefore, standardized.
Because some of the kinds of lime, as well as other
components of mortar, that were used historically are no
longer readily available, even when a conscious effort is
made to replicate a "historic" mix, this may not be
achievable due to the differences between modern and
historic materials.
10
Lime, itself, w h en mixed with water into a paste is very
plastic and creamy. It will remain workable and soft
indefinitely, if stored in a sealed container. Lime
(calcium hyd roxide) hardens by carbonation absorbing
carbon dioxide primarily from the air, converting itself to
calcium ca rbon ate. Once a lime and sand mortar is
mixed and placed in a wall, it begins the process of
carbonation. If lime mort ar is left to dry too rapidly,
carbonation of the mortar will be reduced, resulting in
poor adhesion and poor durability. In addition, lime
mortar is slightly water soluble and thus is able to re-seal
any hairline cracks that may develop during the life of
the mortar. Lime mortar is soft, porous, and changes
little in volume during temperature fluctuations, thus
making it a good choice for historic buildings. Because of
these qualities, high calcium lime mortar may be considered
for many repainting projects, not just those involving
historic buildings.
For repointing, lime should conform to ASTM C 207,
Type S, or Type SA, Hydrated Lime for Masonry
Purposes. Th is machine-slaked lime is designed to
assure high p lasticity and water retention. The use of
quicklime which must be slaked and soaked by hand
may have advantages over hydrated lime in some
restoration projects if time and money allow.
Lime p utty. Lime putty is slaked lime that has a putty or
paste-like consistency. It should conform to ASTM C 5.
Mortar can be mixed using lime putty according to
ASTM C 270 p roperty or proportion specification.
Portland cement. More recent, 20th-century mortar has
used portland cement as a primary binding material. A
straight portland cement and sand mortar is extremely
hard, resists the movement of water, shrinks upon
setting, and undergoes relatively large thermal
movements. When mixed with water, portland cement
forms a harsh, stiff paste that is quite unworkable,
becoming hard very quickly. (Unlike lime, portland
cement will harden regardless of weather conditions and
does not require wetting and drying cycles.) Some
portland cement assists the workability and plasticity of
the mortar with out adversely affecting the finished
project; it also provides early strength to the mortar and
speeds setting. Thus, it may be appropriate to add some
portland cement to an essentially lime-based mortar
even when repointing relatively soft 18th or 19th century
brick under some circumstances when a slightly harder
mortar is required. The more portland cement that is
added to a mortar formulation the harder it becomes-
and the faster the initial set.
For repointing, portland cement should conform to ASTM
C 150. White, non-staining portland cement may provide
a better color match for some historic mortars than the
more commonly available grey portland cement. But, it
should not be assumed, however, that white portland
cement is always appropriate for all historic buildings,
since the original mortar may have been mixed with grey
cement. The cement should not have more than 0.60 per
cent alkali to help avoid efflorescence .
Masonry cement. Masonry cement is a preblended
mortar mix commonly found at hardware and home
repair stores. It is designed to produce mortars with a
compressive strength of 750 psi or higher when mixed
MORTAR ANALYSIS
Methods for analyzing mortars can be divided
into two broad categories: wet chemical and
instrumental. Many laboratories that analyze
historic mortars use a simple wet-chetnical
method called acid digestion, whereby a sample of
the mortar is crushed and then mixed with a dilute
acid. The acid dissolves all the carbonate-
containing minerals not only in the binder, but
also in the aggregate (such as oyster shells, coral
sands, or other carbonate-based materials), as well
as any other acid-soluble materials. The sand and
fine-grained acid-insoluble material is left behind.
There are several variations on the simple acid
digestion test. One involves collecting the carbon
dioxide gas given off as the carbonate is digested
by the acid; based on the gas volume the carbonate
content of the mortar can be accurately
determined (Jedrzejewska, 1960). Simple acid
digestion methods are rapid, inexpensive, and
easy to perform, but the information they provide
about the original composition of a mortar is
limited to the color and texture of the sand. The
gas collection method provides more information
about the binder than a simple acid digestion test.
Instrumental analysis methods that have been
used to evaluate mortars include polarized light or
thin-section microscopy, scanning electron
microscopy, atomic absorption spectroscopy, X-ray
diffraction, and differential thermal analysis. All
instrumental methods require not only expensive,
specialized equipment, but also highly-trained
experienced analysts. However, instrumental
methods can provide much more information
about a mortar. Thin-section microscopy is
probably the most commonly used instrumental
method. Examination of thin slices of a mortar in
transmitted light is often used to supplement acid
digestion methods, particularly to look for
carbonate-based aggregate. For example, the new
ASTM test method, ASTM C 1324-96 "rest Method
for Examination and Analysis of Hardened
Mortars" which was designed specifically for the
analysis of modem lime-cement and masonry
cement mortars, combines a complex series of wet
chemical analyses with thin-section microscopy.
The drawback of most mortar analysis methods is
that mortar samples of known composition have
not been analyzed in order to evaluate the method.
Historic mortars were not prepared to narrowly
defined specifications from materials of uniform
quality; they contain a wide array of locally
derived materials combined at the discretion of the
mason. While a particular method might be able
to accurately determine the original proportions of
a lime-cement-sand mortar prepared from modem
materials, the usefulness of that method for
evaluating historic mortars is questionable unless
it has been tested against mortars prepared from
materials more commonly used in the past.
Lorraine Schnabel.
5
11
6
Figure 6. Tinted mortar. (lefOBlack mortar with a beaded joint was used here on this lat e-19th centun) hard pressed red brick and , (center) a dark brown tintedmortar
with an almost flush joint was used on this early-20th century Roman brick. (right) When constructed at the turn-of-the-century, thIs buz/dlng was pOinted wllh a
dark gray mortar to blend with the color of the stone, but the light-colored mortar used In spot repainting has destroyed thIs harmony and adversely Impacts the
building's historic character. Photos: Anne Grimmer.
with sand and water at the job site. It may contain
hydrated lime, but it always contains a large amount of
portland cement, as well as ground limestone and other
workability agents, including air-entraining agents.
Because masonry cements are not required to contain
hydrated lime, and generally do not contain lime, .the~
produce high strength mortars that can damage histonc
masonry. For this reason, they generally are not recommended
for use on historic masonry buildings.
Lime mortar (pre-blended). Hydrated lime mortars, and
pre-blended lime putty mortars with or without a
matched sand are commercially available. Custom
mortars are also available with color. In most instances,
pre-blended lime mortars conta~g sand ~ay not
provide an exact match; however, if the proJect calls for
total repointing, a pre-blended lime mortar may be worth
considering as long as the mortar is compatible in strength
with the masonry. If the project involves only selected,
"spot" repointing, then it may be better to carry out a
mortar analysis which can provide a custom pre-blended
lime mortar with a matching sand. In either case, if a
preblended lime mortar is to be used, it should contain
Type S or SA hydrated lime conforming to ASTM C 207.
Water. Water should be potable--dean and free from
acids, alkalis, or other dissolved organic materials.
Other Components
Histodc components. In addition to the color of the .
sand the texture of the mortar is of critical importance In
duplicating historic mortar. Most mortars dating from
the mid-19th century on-with some exceptions-have a
fairly homogeneous texture and color. Some earlier .
mortars are not as uniformly textured and may contain
lumps of partially burned lime or "?irty lim~", shell.
(which often provided a source of hme, partIcularly In
coastal areas), natural cements, pieces of clay, lampblack
or other pigments, or even animal hair .. The visual char-
acteristics of these mortars can be duplicated through the
use of similar materials in the repointing mortar.
Replicating such unique or individual mortars will
require writing new specifications f,?r each p~oject. If
possible, suggested sources for speCIal matenals should
be included. For example, crushed oyster shells can be
obtained in a variety of sizes from poultry supply dealers.
Pigments. Some historic mortars, particularly ~ the late
19th century, were tinted to match or contra~t WIt~ the
brick or stone (Fig. 6). Red pigments, sometimes In the
form of brick dust, as well as brown, and black pigments
were commonly used. Modern pigments are available
which can be added to the mortar at the job site, but they
should not exceed 10 per cent by weight of the portland
cement in the mix, and carbon black should be limited to
2 per cent. Only synthetic mineral oxides, which are
alkali-proof and sun-fast, should be used to prevent
bleaching and fading.
Modem components. Admixtures are used to create
specific characteristics in mortar, and ,:,h~t~er they .
should be used will depend upon the indIVIdual proJect.
Air-entraining agents, for example, help the mortar to
resist freeze-thaw damage in northern climates.
Accelerators are used to reduce mortar freezing prior to
setting while retarders help to extend the mortar life in hot
climates. Selection of admixtures should be made by the
architect or architectural conservator as part of the specifi-
cations, not something routinely added by the masons.
Generally, modern chemical additives are .~eces.sary
and may, in fact, have detrimental effects In histonc
masonry projects. The use of antifreeze compounds is
not recommended. They are not very effective with high
lime mortars and may introduce salts, which may cause
efflorescence later. A better practice is to warm the sand
and water, and to protect the completed work from
freezing. No definitive study has determined. whether
air-entraining additives should be used to reSIst frost
action and enhance plasticity, but in areas of extreme
exposure requiring high-strength mortars with lower
permeability, air-entrainme2t of 10-16 percent may b;, .
desirable (see formula for severe weather exposure In
Mortar Type and Mix). Bonding agents are not a
substitute for proper joint preparation, and they should
generally be avoided. If the joint is properly prepared,
there will be a good bond between the new mortar ~nd
the adjacent surfaces. In addition, a bonding agent I~
difficult to remove if smeared on a masonry surface (FIg. 7).
12
Mortar Type and Mix
Mortars for repointing projects, especially those involving
historic buildings, typically are custom mixed in order to
ensure the proper physical and visual qualities. These
materials can be combined in varying proportions to
create a mortar with the desired performance and
durability. The actual specification of a particular mortar
type should take into consideration all of the factors
affecting the life of the building including: current site
co nditions, present condition of the masonry, function
of the new mortar, degree of weather exposure, and skill
of the mason. Thus, no two repointing projects are
exa ctly the same. Modern materials specified for use in
repointing mortar should conform to specifications of
the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
or comparable federal specifications, and the resulting
mortar should conform to ASTM C 270, Mortar for
Unit Masonry.
Specifying the proportions for the repointing mortar for
a specific job is not as difficult as it might seem . Five
mortar types, each with a corresponding recommended
mix, have been established b y ASTM to distinguish hig h
strength mortar from soft flexible mortars. The ASTM
designated them in decreasing order of approximate
general strength as Type M (2 ,500 psi), Typ e S 0,800 psi),
Type N (750 psi), Type 0 (350 p si) and Type K (75 psi).
(T he letters identifying the types are from the words
MA20N WORK using every other letter.) Type K has
the highest lime content of the mixes that contain
portland cement, although it is seldom used today,
exce pt for some historic preservation projects. The
designation "L" in the accompanying chart identifies a
straight lime and sand mix . Specifying the appropriate
ASTM mortar by proportion of ingredients, will ensure
the desired physical properties. Unless specified
otherwise, measurements or proportions for mortar
mixes are always given in the following order: cement-
lime-sa nd. Thus, a Type K mix, for example, would b e
referred to as 1-3-10, or 1 part cement to 3 parts lime to
10 parts sand. Other requirements to create the desired
vis ual qualities should be included in the specifications.
Figure 7. The dark stain on
either side of the ver tical
joint on this sandstone
watertable probab ly resulted
from th e use of a bonding
agent that was not properly
cleaned off the masonry
after repainting. Photo :
Anne Grimmer.
Figure 8. Due to inadequate join t prepara tion , the repainting mortar ha s not
adhered properly and is fa llin g out of the joint. Photo: Robert C. Mack, FAIA.
The strength of a mortar can vary. If mixed with higher
amounts of portland cement, a harder mortar is
obtained. The more lime that is added, the softer and
more plastic the mortar becomes, increasing its
workability. A mortar strong in compressive strength
might be desirable for a hard stone (such as granite) pier
holding up a bridge deck, whereas a softer, more
permeable lime mortar would be preferable for a historic
wall of soft brick. Masonry deterioration caused by salt
deposition results when the mortar is less permeable that
the masonry unit. A strong mortar is still more permeable
than hard dense stone. However, in a wall constructed of
soft bricks where the masonry unit itself has a relatively
high permeability or vapor transmission rate, a soft, high
lime mortar is necessary to retain sufficient permeability.
Budgeting and Scheduling
Repointing is both expensive and time consuming due to
the extent of handwork and special materials required.
It is preferable to repoint only those areas that require
work rather than an entire wall, as is often specified .
But, if 25 to 50 per cent or more of a wall needs to be
repointed, repointing the entire wall may be more cost
effective than spot repointing. Total repointing may also
be more sensible when access is difficult, requiring the
erection of expensive scaffolding (unless the majority of
the mortar is sound and unlikely to require replacement
in the foreseeable future). Each project requires
judgement based on a variety of factors . Recognizing
this at the outset will help to prevent many jobs from
becoming prohibitively expensive.
In scheduling, seasonal aspects need to be considered
first. Generally speaking, wall temperatures between 40
and 95 degrees F (8 and 38 degrees C) will prevent
freezing or excessive evaporation of the water in the
mortar. Ideally, repointing should be done in shade,
away from strong sunlight in order to slow the drying
process, especially during hot weather. If necessary,
shade can be provided for large-scale projects with
appropriate modifications to scaffolding.
The relationship of repointing to other work proposed on
the building must also be recognized . For example, if
paint removal or cleaning is anticipated, and if the
mortar joints are basically sound and need only selective
repointing, it is generally better to postpone repointing
7
13
8
Incorrect
Mortar not cleaned out to a
sufficient unifonn depth
Edges of brick damaged by tool or
grinder. Creates wider joint
Correct
Mortar cleaned out to a
uniform depth-about I" deep.
~~,.,.""".,..,~'" ~ Undamaged edges of brick.
Figure 9. Comparison of incorrect and correct preparation of mortar joints
for repointing. Drawing: Robert C. Mack, FAlA, and David W. Look, AlA.
until after completion of these activities. However, if the
mortar has eroded badly, allowing moisture to penetrate
deeply into the wall, repointing should be accomplished
before cleaning. Related work, such as structural or roof
repairs, should be scheduled so that they do not interfere
with repointing and so that all work can take maximum
advantage of erected scaffolding.
Building managers also must recognize the difficulties
that a repointing project can create. The process is time
consuming, and scaffolding may need to remain in place
for an extended period of time. The joint preparation
process can be quite noisy and can generate large
quantities of dust which must be controlled, especially at
air intakes to protect human health, and also where it
might damage operating machinery. Entrances may be
blocked from time to time making access difficult for
both building tenants and visitors. Clearly, building
managers will need to coordinate the repointing work
with other events at the site.
Contractor Selection
The ideal way to select a contractor is to ask knowledge-
able owners of recently repointed historic buildings for
recommendations. Qualified contractors then can
provide lists of other repointing projects for inspection.
More commonly, however, the contractor for a repointing
project is selected through a competitive bidding process
over which the client or consultant has only limited
control. In this situation it is important to ensure that
the specifications stipulate that masons must have a
minimum of five years' experience with repointing
historic masonry buildings to be eligible to bid on the
project. Contracts are awarded to the lowest responsible
bidder, and bidders who have performed poorly on other
projects usually can be eliminated from consideration on
this basis, even if they have the lowest prices.
The contract documents should call for unit prices as well
as a base bid. Unit pricing forces the contractor to
determine in advance what the cost addition or reduction
will be for work which varies from the scope of the base
bid. If, for example, the contractor has fifty linear feet
less of stone repointing than indicated on the contract
documents but thirty linear feet more of brick repointing,
it will be easy to determine the final price for the work.
Note that each type of work-brick repointing, stone
repointing, or similar items-will have its own unit price.
The unit price also should reflect quantities; one linear
foot of pointing in five different spots will be more
expensive than five contiguous linear feet.
Execution of the Work
Test Panels. These panels are prepared by the contractor
using the same techniques that will be used on the
remainder of the project. Several panel locations-
preferably not on the front or other highly visible location
of the building-may be necessary to include all types of
masonry, joint styles, mortar colors, and other problems
likely to be encountered on the job. If cleaning tests, for
Figure 10. Using a hammer and masonry chisel is the least damaging and,
thus, generally the preferred method of removing old mortar in preparation
for repointing historic masonry. Photo: John P. Speweik.
14
Figure 11. The damage to the edges and corners of these historic bricks was
caused by using a mechanical grinder to rake out the joints. Note the
overcutting of the head joint and the damage to the arises (corners) of th e
bricks. Photo: Lee H. Nelson , FAIA.
example, are also to be undertaken, they should be
carried out in the same location. Usually a 3 foot by 3
foot area is sufficient for brickwork, while a somewhat
larger area may be required for stonework. These panels
establish an acceptable standard of work and serve as a
benchmark for evaluating and accepting subsequent
work on the building.
Joint Preparation. Old mortar should be removed to a
minimum depth of 2 to 2-1/2 times the width of the joint
to ensure an adequate bond and to prevent mortar
"popouts" (Fig. 8). For most brick joints, this will
require removal of the mortar to a depth of approximate-
ly 1/2 to 1 inch; for stone masonry with wide joints,
mortar may need to be removed to a depth of several
inches. Any loose or disintegrated mortar beyond this
minimum depth also should be removed (Fig. 9).
Although some damage may be inevitable, careful joint
preparation can help limit damage to masonry units .
The traditional manner of removing old mortar is
through the use of hand chisels and mash hammers
(Fig. 10). Though labor-intensive, in most instances this
method poses the least threat for damage to historic
masonry units and produces the best final product.
The most common method of removing mortar,
however, is through the use of power saws or grinders.
The use of power tools by unskilled masons can be
disastrous for historic masonry, particularly soft brick.
Using power saws on walls with thin joints, such as
most brick walls, almost always will result in damage to
the masonry units by breaking the edges and by
overcutting on the head, or vertical joints (Fig. 11).
However, small pneumatically-powered chisels
generally can be used safely and effectively to remove
mortar on historic buildings as long as the masons
maintain appropriate control over the equipment.
Figure 12 .. A power grinder, operated correctly by a skilled mason may be
used in preparation for repainting to cut wide, horizontal mortar joints,
typical of many early-20th century brick structures without causing damage
to the brick. Note the use of protective safety equipment . Photo: Robert C.
Mack, FAIA.
Under certain circumstances, thin diamond-bladed
grinders may be used to cut out horizontal joints only on
hard portland cement mortar common to most early-20th
century masonry buildings (Fig. 12). Usually, automatic
tools most successfully remove old mortar without
damaging the masonry units when they are used in
combination with hand tools in preparation for
repainting. Where horizontal joints are uniform and
fairly wide, it may be possible to use a power masonry
saw to assist the removal of mortar, such as by cutting
along the middle of the joint; final mortar removal from
the sides of the joints still should be done with a hand
chisel and hammer. Caulking cutters with diamond
blades can sometimes be used successfully to cut out
joints without damaging the masonry. Caulking cutters
are slow; they do not rotate, but vibrate at very high
speeds, thus minimizing the possibility of damage to
masonry units (Fig. 13). Although mechanical tools may
be used safely in limited circumstances to cut out
horizontal joints in preparation for repointing, they
should never be used on vertical joints because of the
danger of slipping and cutting into the brick above or
below the vertical joint. Using power tools to remove
mortar without damaging the surrounding masonry
units also necessitates highly skilled masons experienced
in working on historic masonry buildings. Contractors
9
15
10
Figure 13. (left) In preparation for repointing , the mortar joints on these
granite steps are first cut out mechanically (note the vacuum attached to th e
cutting tool in foreground to cut down on dust). (right) Final rem ova l of th e
old mortar is done by hand to avoid damage to the edges of the joints.
Mechanical preparation of horizontal joints by an experienced mason may
sometimes be acceptable , especially where the joints are quite wid e and th e
masonry is a very hard stone. Photos: Anne Grimmer.
should demonstrate proficiency with power tools before
their use is approved.
Using any of these power tools may also be more
acceptable on hard stone, such as quartzite or granite,
than on terra cotta with its glass-like glaze, or on soft
brick or stone. The test panel should determine the
acceptability of power tools. If power tools are to be
permitted, the contractor should establish a quality
control program to account for worker fatigue and
similar variables.
Mortar should be removed cleanly from the masonry
units, leaving square corners at the back of the cut.
Before filling, the joints should be rinsed with a jet of
water to remove all loose particles and dust. At the time
of filling, the joints should be damp, but with no
standing water present. For masonry walls-limestone,
sandstone and common brick-that are extremely
absorbent, it is recommended that a continual mist of
water be applied for a few hours before repointing begins.
Mortar Preparation. Mortar components should be
measured and mixed carefully to assure the uniformity
of visual and physical characteristics. Dry ingredients
are measured by volume and thoroughly mixed before
the addition of any water. Sand must be added in a
damp, loose condition to avoid over sanding.
Repointing mortar is typically pre-hydrated by adding
water so it will just hold together, thus allowing it to
stand for a period of time before the final water is
added. Half the water should be added, followed by
mixing for approximately 5 minutes. The remaining
water should then be added in small portions until a
mortar of the desired consistency is reached. The total
volume of water necessary may vary from batch to
batch, depending on weather conditions. It is important
to keep the water to a minimum for two reasons: first, a
drier mortar is cleaner to work with, and it can be
compacted tightly into the joints; second, with no excess
water to evaporate, the mortar cures without shrinkage
cracks. Mortar should be used within approximately 30
minutes of final mixing, and "retempering," or adding
more water, should not be permitted.
Using Lime Putty to Make Mortar. Mortar made with
lime putty and sand, sometimes referred to as roughage
or course stuff, should be measured by volume, and may
require slightly different proportions from those used
with hydrated lime (Fig. 14). No additional water is
usually needed to achieve a workable consistency
because enough water is already contained in the putty.
Sand is proportioned first, followed by the lime putty,
then mixed for five minutes or until all the sand is
thoroughly coated with the lime putty. But mixing, in the
familiar sense of turning over with a hoe, sometimes may
not be sufficient if the best possible performance is to be
obtained from a lime putty mortar. Although the old
practice of chopping, beating and ramming the
mortar has largely been forgotten, recent field work has
confirmed that lime putty and sand rammed and beaten
with a wooden mallet or ax handle, interspersed by
chopping with a hoe, can significantly improve
workability and performance. The intensity of this action
increases the overall lime I sand contact and removes any
surplus water by compacting the other ingredients. It
may also be advantageous for larger projects to use a
mortar pan mill for mixing. Mortar pan mills which have
a long tradition in Europe produce a superior lime putty
mortar not attainable with today's modern paddle and
drum type mixers.
For larger rep ointing projects the lime putty and sand can
be mixed together ahead of time and stored indefinitely,
on or off site, which eliminates the need for piles of sand
on the job site. This mixture, which resembles damp
brown sugar, must be protected from the air in sealed
containers with a wet piece of burlap over the top or
sealed in a large plastic bag to prevent evaporation and
premature carbonation. The lime putty and sand mixture
can be recombined into a workable plastic state months
later with no additional water.
If portland cement is specified in a lime putty and sand
mortar-Type 00:2:9) or Type K 0:3:11)-the portland
cement should first be mixed into a slurry paste before
adding it to the lime putty and sand. Not only will this
ensure that the portland cement is evenly distributed
throughout the mixture, but if dry portland cement is
added to wet ingredients it tends to ''ball up," jeopardiz-
ing dispersion. (Usually water must be added to the lime
putty and sand anyway once the portland cement is
introduced.) Any color pigments should be added at this
stage and mixed for a full five minutes. The mortar
should be used within 30 minutes to 1 Ij2 hours and it
should not be retempered. Once portland cement has
been added the mortar can no longer be stored.
Filling the Joint. Where existing mortar has been
removed to a depth of greater than 1 inch, these deeper
areas should be filled first, compacting the new mortar in
several layers. The back of the entire joint should be
filled successively by applying approximately Ij4 inch of
mortar, packing it well into the back corners. This
16
a b c
d e f
Figure 14. Mixin g morta r usin g lime putty: (a) propor ti onin g sand ; (b) proportioning lime putty; (c) placing lime putty on top of sand; (d) mixing sand over
lim e putty; (e) hand mixi ng morta r; and , (f) sampl e of mortar aft er mixin g. Photo s: John P. Spew eik .
application may extend along the wall for several
feet. As soon as the mortar has reached thumb-print
hardness, another 1/4 inch layer of mortar-approximately
the same thickness-may be applied. Several layers will
be needed to fill the joint flush with the outer surface of
the masonry. It is important to allow each layer time to
harden before the next layer is applied; most of the
mortar shrinkage occurs during the hardening
process and layering thus minimizes overall shrinkage.
When the final layer of mortar is thumb-print hard, the
joint should be tooled to match the historic joint (Fig . 15).
Proper timing of the tooling is important for uniform
color and appearance. If tooled when too soft, the color
will be lighter than expected, and hairline cracks may
occur; if tooled when too hard, there may be dark
streaks called "tool burning," and good closure of the
mortar against the masonry units will not be achieved .
If the old bricks or stones have worn, rounded edges, it
is best to recess the final mortar slightly from the face of
the masonry. This treatment will help avoid a joint
which is visually wider than the actual joint; it also will
avoid creation of a large, thin featheredge which is easily
damaged, thus admitting water (Fig. 16). After tooling,
excess mortar can be removed from the edge of the joint
by brushing with a natural bristle or nylon brush. Metal
bristle brushes should never be used on historic masonry.
Curing Conditions. The preliminary hardening of high-
lime content mortars-those mortars that contain more
lime by volume than portland cement, i.e., Type 00:2:9),
Type K 0:3:11), and straight lime/sand, Type "L"(0:1:3)
-takes place fairly rapidly as water in the mix is lost
to the porous surface of the masonry and through
evaporation. A high lime mortar (especially Type "L")
left to dry out too rapidly can result in chalking, poor
adhesion, and poor durability. Periodic wetting of the
repointed area after the mortar joints are thumb-print
hard and have been finish tooled may significantly
accelerate the carbonation process. When feasible,
misting using a hand sprayer with a fine nozzle can be
simple to do for a day or two after repointing. Local
conditions will dictate the frequency of wetting, but
initially it may be as often as every hour and gradually
reduced to every three or four hours . Walls should be
covered with burlap for the first three days after
repointing. (Plastic may be used, but it should be tented
out and not placed directly against the wall.) This helps
keep the walls damp and protects them from direct
sunlight. Once carbonation of the lime has begun, it will
continue for many years and the lime will gain strength
as it reverts back to calcium carbonate within the wall.
Aging the Mortar. Even with the best efforts at matching
the existing mortar color, texture, and materials, there
will usually be a visible difference between the old and
11
17
12
Figure 15. The profile of the repointed joints on the left replicate the historic
joints around the corner to the right on the front of this stone building in
Leesburg, VA. The contractor's pride in the repointing work is evident by the
signature in the vertical joint. Photo: Anne Grimmer.
new work, partly because the new mortar has been
matched to the unweathered portions of the historic
mortar. Another reason for a slight mismatch may be
that the sand is more exposed in old mortar due to the
slight erosion of the lime or cement. Although spot
repointing is generally preferable and some color
difference should be acceptable, if the difference between
old and new mortar is too extreme, it may be advisable
in some instances to repoint an entire area of a wall, or an
entire feature such as a bay, to minimize the difference
between the old and the new mortar. If the mortars have
been properly matched, usually the best way to deal
with surface color differences is to let the mortars age
naturally. Other treatments to overcome these
differences, including cleaning the non-repointed areas
or staining the new mortar, should be carefully tested
prior to implementation.
Staining the new mortar to achieve a better color match
is generally not recommended, but it may be appropriate
in some instances. Although staining may provide an
initial match, the old and new mortars may weather at
different rates, leading to visual differences after a few
seasons. In addition, the mixtures used to stain the mortar
may be harmful to the masonry; for example, they may
introduce salts into the masonry which can lead to
efflorescence.
Cleaning the Repointed Masonry. If repointing work is
carefully executed, there will be little need for cleaning
other than to remove the small amount of mortar from
the edge of the joint following tooling. This can be done
with a stiff natural bristle or nylon brush after the
mortar has dried, but before it is initially set 0-2 hours).
Mortar that has hardened can usually be removed with a
wooden paddle or, if necessary, a chisel.
Further cleaning is best accomplished with plain water
and natural bristle or nylon brushes. If chemicals must
Joints
filled
too full
Wide
feather edge
susceptible to
spalling
Joints
slightly
recessed
Figure 16. Comparison of visual effect of full mortar joints vs. slightly recessed
joints. Filling joints too full hides the actual joint thickness and changes the
character of the original brickwork. Drawing: Robert C. Mack, FAlA.
be used, they should be selected with extreme caution.
Improper cleaning can lead to deterioration of the
masonry units, deterioration of the mortar, mortar smear,
and efflorescence. New mortar joints are especially
susceptible to damage because they do not become fully
cured for several months. Chemical cleaners, particularly
acids, should never be used on dry masonry. The masonry
should always be completely soaked once with water
before chemicals are applied. After cleaning, the walls
should be flushed again with plain water to remove all
traces of the chemicals.
Several precautions should be taken if a freshly repointed
masonry wall is to be cleaned. First, the mortar should
be fully hardened before cleaning. Thirty days is usually
sufficient, depending on weather and exposure; as
mentioned previously, the mortar will continue to cure
even after it has hardened. Test panels should be
prepared to evaluate the effects of different cleaning
Figure 17. This photograph shows the significant visual change to the
character of this historic brick building that has resulted from improper
repointing procedures and a noticeably increased thickness of the mortar
joints. Photo: Lee H. Nelson, FAlA. 18
Mortar Types
(Measured by volume)
Designation Cement Hydrated Lime Sand
or Lime Putty
M 1 '/4 3 - 3 3/4
S 1 '/2 4 - 4 'Iz
N 1 1 5-6
0 1 2 8-9
K 1 3 10 -12
'1..." 0 1 2'/4 - 3
methods. Generally, on newly repointed masonry walls,
only very low pressure (100 psi) water washing supple-
mented by stiff natural bristle or nylon brushes should be
used, except on glazed or polished surfaces, where only
soft cloths should be used.**
New construction ''bloom'' or efflorescence occasionally
appears within the first few months of repointing and
usually disappears through the normal process of
weathering. If the efflorescence is not removed by
natural processes, the safest way to remove it is by dry
brushing with stiff natural or nylon bristle brushes
followed by wet brushing. Hydrochloric (muriatic) acid,
is generally ineffective, and it should not be used to
remove efflorescence. It may liberate additional salts,
which, in turn, can lead to more efflorescence.
Surface Grouting is sometimes suggested as an
alternative to repointing brick buildings, in particular.
This process involves the application of a thin coat of
cement-based grout to the mortar joints and the
mortar Ibrick interface. To be effective the grout must
extend slightly onto the face of the masonry units, thus
widening the joint visually. The change in the joint
appearance can alter the historic character of the
structure to an unacceptable degree. In addition,
although masking of the bricks is intended to keep the
grout off the remainder of the face of the bricks, some
level of residue, called "veiling," will inevitably remain.
Surface grouting cannot substitute for the more
extensive work of repointing, and it is not a
recommended treatment for historic masonry.
** Additional infonnation on masonry cleaning is presented in
Preseroation Briefs 1: The Cleaning and Waterproof Coating of Masonry
Buildings, Robert C Mack, AlA, Washington, D.C: Technical
Preservation Services, National Park Service, U.s. Department of the
Interior, 1975; and Keeping it Clean: Removing Exterior Dirt , Paint , Stains &
Graffiti from Historic Masonry Buildings , Anne E. Grimmer, Washington,
D.C: Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service, U.s.
Department of the Interior, 1988.
Suggested Mortar Types for Different Exposures
Exposure
Masonry Material Sheltered Moderate Severe
Very Durable:
granite, hard-cored
brick, etc. 0 N S
Moderately Durable:
limestone, durable stone,
molded brick K 0 N
Minimally Durable:
soft hand-made brick "L" K 0
Summary
For the Owner/Administrator. The owner or adminis-
trator of a historic building should remember that
repointing is likely to be a lengthy and expensive
process. First, there must be adequate time for
evaluation of the building and investigation into the
cause of problems. Then, there will be time needed for
preparation of the contract documents. The work itself
is precise, time-consuming and noisy, and scaffolding
may cover the face of the building for some time.
Therefore, the owner must carefully plan the work
to avoid problems. Schedules for both repointing and
other activities will thus require careful coordination to
avoid unanticipated conflicts. The owner must avoid
the tendency to rush the work or cut corners if the
historic building is to retain its visual integrity and the
job is to be durable.
For the Architect/Consultant. Because the primary role
of the consultant is to ensure the life of the building, a
knowledge of historic construction techniques and the
special problems found in older buildings is essential.
The consultant must assist the owner in planning for
logistical problems relating to research and construction.
It is the consultant's responsibility to determine the cause
of the mortar deterioration and ensure that it is corrected
before the masonry is repointed. The consultant must also
be prepared to spend more time in project inspections
than is customary in modem construction.
For the Masons. Successful repointing depends on the
masons themselves. Experienced masons understand
the special requirements for work on historic buildings
and the added time and expense they require. The
entire masonry crew must be willing and able to perform
the work in conformance with the specifications, even when
the specifications may not be in conformance with standard
practice. At the same time, the masons should not hesitate
to question the specifications if it appears that the work
specified would damage the building.
19
14
Visually Examining the Mortar and
the Masonry Units
A simple in-situ comparison will help determine the
hardness and condition of the mortar and the masonry
units. Begin by scraping the mortar with a screwdriver,
and gradually tapping harder with a cold chisel and
mason's hammer. Masonry units can be tested in the
same way beginning, even more gently, by scraping with
a fingernail. This relative analysis which is derived from
the lO-point hardness scale used to describe minerals,
provides a good starting point for selection of an
appropriate mortar. It is described more fully in "The
Russack System for Brick & Mortar Description"
referenced in Selected Reading at the end of this Brief.
Mortar samples should be chosen carefully, and picked
from a variety of locations on the building to find
unweathered mortar, if possible. Portions of the building
may have been repointed in the past while other areas
may be subject to conditions causing unusual deteriora-
tion. There may be several colors of mortar dating from
different construction periods or sand used from different
sources during the initial construction. Any of these
situations can give false readings to the visual or physical
characteristics required for the new mortar. Variations
should be noted which may require developing more
than one mix.
1) Remove with a chisel and hammer three or four
unweathered samples of the mortar to be matched
from several locations on the building. (Set the
largest sample aside-this will be used later for
comparison with the repointing mortar). Removing
a full representation of samples will allow selection of
a "mean" or average mortar sample.
2) Mash the remaining samples with a wooden mallet,
or hammer if necessary, until they are separated into
their constituent parts. There should be a good
handful of the material.
3) Examine the powdered portion-the lime and/ or
cement matrix of the mortar. Most particularly, note
the color. There is a tendency to think of historic
mortars as having white binders, but grey portland
cement was available by the last quarter of the 19th
century, and traditional limes were also sometimes
grey. Thus, in some instances, the natural color of the
historic binder may be grey, rather than white. The
mortar may also have been tinted to create a colored
mortar, and this color should be identified at this point.
4) Carefully blow away the powdery material (the lime
and/ or cement matrix which bound the mortar together).
5) With a low power (10 power) magnifying glass,
examine the remaining sand and other materials such
as lumps of lime or shell.
6) Note and record the wide range of color as well
as the varying sizes of the individual grains of
sand, impurities, or other materials.
Other Factors to Consider
Color. Regardless of the color of the binder or colored
additives, the sand is the primary material that gives mortar
Figure 19. Mortar joints of 18th century brick buildings were often as much
as 1/2 inch wide, cut flush and struck with a grapevine joint, but for window
and door surrounds where a finer quality rubbed brick was used, mortar
joints were very thin . Photo: National Park Service Files.
its color. A surprising variety of colors of sand may be
found in a single sample of historic mortar, and the
different sizes of the grains of sand or other materials,
such as incompletely ground lime or cement, play an
important role in the texture of the repointing mortar.
Therefore, when specifying sand for repointing mortar, it
may be necessary to obtain sand from several sources and
to combine or screen them in order to approximate the range
of sand colors and grain sizes in the historic mortar sample.
Pointing Style. Close examination of the historic
masonry wall and the techniques used in the original
construction will assist in maintaining the visual
qualities of the building (Fig. 18). Pointing styles and
the methods of producing them should be examined. It
is important to look at both the horizontal and the
vertical joints to determine the order in which they were
tooled and whether they were the same style. Some
late-19th and early-20th century buildings, for example,
have horizontal joints that were raked back while the
vertical joints were finished flush and stained to match
the bricks, thus creating the illusion of horizontal bands.
Pointing styles may also differ from one facade to
another; front walls often received greater attention to
mortar detailing than side and rear walls (Fig. 19).
Tuckpointing is not true repointing but the
Figure 20. This stone garden wall was tuckpointed to match the tuckpointing
on the c. 19205 house on the property. Photo: Anne Grimmer.
20
• •
I..
b
a
e
application of a raised joint or lime putty joint on top
of flush mortar joints (Fig. 20). Penciling is a purely
decorative, painted surface treatment over a mortar
joint, often in a contrasting color.
Masonry Units. The masonry units should also be
examined so that any replacement units will match the
historic masonry. Within a wall there may be a wide
range of colors, textures, and sizes, particula~ly with
hand-made brick or rough-cut, locally-quarned stone.
Replacement units should blend in with the full range
of masonry units rather than a single brick or stone.
Matching Color and Texture of the Repointing Mortar
New mortar should match the unweathered interior
portions of the historic mortar. The simplest way to
check the match is to make a small sample of the
proposed mix and allow it to cure at a temperatu~e of
approximately 70 degrees F for about a ,:"eek, ~r It can
be baked in an oven to speed up the cunng; thIS
sample is then broken open and the surface is compared
Figure 18 . A cross-section of mortar joint Iypes. (a).
Grapevin e joints on a mid-18th century brzck bUlldzng;
(b) flush joints on a mid-to-late 19th century brzck .
building; (c) beaded joints on a late-19th century brzck
building; (d) early-20th century beaded Joznts on rou~h
cut limeston e where the vertical joints were struck przor
to th e horizontal joints ; (e) raked joints on 1920s wire
brick; (f) horizontal joints on a 1934 building designed
by Frank Lloyd Wright were raked back from the face of
th e bricks, and th e vertical joints were filled wIth a red-
tinted mortar to emphasize the horizontalily of th e
narrow bricks , and struck flush with the face of the
bricks; (g) th e joints on this 20th century glazed terra-
cotta til e building are raked slightly, emphasizing the
glazed block face. Photos: National Park Serv ice Fil es
(a,b,e); Robert C. Mack , FAlA (c,d,f,g).
g
with the surface of the largest "saved" sample of
historic mortar.
If a proper color match cannot be achieved through the
use of natural sand or colored aggregates like crushed
marble or brick dust, it may be necessary to use a
modern mortar pigment.
During the early stages of the project, it should be
determined how closely the new mortar should match
the historic mortar. Will "quite close" be sufficient, or is
"exactly" expected? The specifications should state this
clearly so that the contractor has a reasonable idea how
much time and expense will be required to develop an
acceptable match.
!
j
The same judgment will be necessary in matching
replacement terra cotta, stone or brick. If there is a
known source for replacements, this should be included
in the specifications. If a source cannot be determined
prior to the bidding process, the specifications sho.uld
include an estimated price for the replacement matenals
with the final price based on the actual cost to the contractor.
15
21
16
Conclusion
A good repointing job is meant to last, at least 30 years,
and preferably 50-100 years. Shortcuts and poor
craftsmanship result not only in diminishing the historic
character of a building, but also in a job that looks bad,
and will require future repointing sooner than if the
work had been done correctly (Fig. 17). The mortar
joint in a historic masonry building has often been
called a wall's "first line of defense." Good rep ointing
practices guarantee the long life of the mortar joint, the
wall, and the historic structure. Although careful
maintenance will help preserve the freshly repainted
mortar joints, it is important to remember that mortar joints
are intended to be sacrificial and will probably require
repointing some time in the future. Nevertheless, if the
historic mortar joints proved durable for many years, then
careful repointing should have an equally long life, ultimately
contributing to the preservation of the entire building.
Selected Reading
Ashurst, John & Nicola. Practical Building Conservation. Vol. 3:
Mortars, Plasters and Renders. New York: Halsted Press, a
Division of John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1988.
Cliver, E. Blaine. "Tests for the Analysis of Mortar Samples."
Bulletin of the Association for Preservation Technology. Vol. 6,
No.1 (1974), pp. 68-73.
Coney, William B., AlA. Masonry Repainting of Twentieth-
Century Buildings. Illinois Preservation Series. Number 10 .
Springfield, IL: Division of Preservation Services, Illinois
Historic Preservation Agency, 1989 .
Davidson, J.I. "Masonry Mortar." Canadian Building Digest.
CBD 163. Ottawa, ONT: Division of Building Research,
National Research Council of Canada, 1974.
Ferro, Maximillian 1., AlA, RIBA. "The Russack System for
Brick and Mortar Description: A Field Method for
Assessing Masonry Hardness." Technology and Conservation.
Vol. 5, No.2 (Summer 1980), pp. 32-35.
Hooker, Kenneth A. "Field Notes on Repointing." Aberdeen's
Magazine of Masonry Construction. Vol. 4, No.8 (August
1991), pp. 326-328.
Jedrzejewska, H. "Old Mortars in Poland: A New Method of
Investigation." Studies in Conservation. Vol. 5, No.4 (1960),
pp. 132-138.
"Lime's Role in Mortar." Aberdeen's Magazine of Masonry
Construction. Vol. 9, No.8 (August 1996), pp. 364-368.
Phillips, Morgan W. "Brief Notes on the Subjects of Analyzing
Paints and Mortars and the Recording of Moulding Profiles:
The Trouble with Paint and Mortar Analysis." Bulletin of the
Association for Preservation Technology. Vol. 10, No.2 (1978),
pp.77-89.
Preparation and Use of Lime Mortars: An Introduction to the
Principles of Using Lime Mortars. Scottish Lime Centre for
Historic Scotland . Edinburgh: Historic Scotland, 1995.
Schierhorn, Carolyn. "Ensuring Mortar Color Consistency."
Aberdeen's Magazine of Masonry Construction. Vol. 9, No.1
(January 1996), pp. 33-35.
"Should Air-Entrained Mortars Be Used?" Aberdeen's Magazine
of Masonry Construction. Vol. 7, No.9 (September 1994),
pp.419-422 .
Sickels-Taves, Lauren B. "Creep, Shrinkage, and Mortars in
Historic Preservation." Journal of Testing and Evaluation,
JTEVA. Vol. 23, No.6 (November 1995), pp. 447-452.
Speweik, John P. The History of Masonry Mortar in America,
1720-1995. Arlington, VA: National Lime Association, 1995.
Speweik, John P. "Repointing Right: Why Using Modern
Mortar Can Damage a Historic House." Old-House Journal.
Vol. XXV, No.4 (July-August 1997), pp. 46-5l.
Technical Notes on Brick Construction. Brick Institute of America,
Reston, VA.
"Moisture Resistance of Brick Masonry: Maintenance." 7F.
February 1986 .
"Mortars for Brick Masonry." 8 Revised II. November 1989.
"Standard Specification for Portland Cement-Lime Mortar
for Brick Masonry." 8A Revised. September 1988 .
"Mortar for Brick Masonry-Selection and Controls." 8B
Reissued. September 1988. (July/August 1976).
"Guide Specifications for Brick Masonry, Part V Mortar and
Grout."llE Revised . September 1991.
"Bonds and Patterns in Brickwork." 30 Reissued .
September 1988.
Useful Addresses
Brick Institute of America
11490 Commerce Park Drive
Reston, VA 22091
Portland Cement Association
5420 Old Orchard Road
Skokie, IL 60077
Acknowledgments
National Lime Association
200 N. Glebe Road, Suite 800
Arlington, VA 22203
Robert C. Mack, FAIA, is a principal in the firm of MacDonald & Mack,
Architects, Ltd., an architectural firm that specializes in historic
buildings in Minneapolis, Minnesota. John P. Speweik, CSI, Toledo,
Ohio, is a 5th-generation stonemason, and principal in U.s. Heritage
Group, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, which does custom historic mortar
matching. Anne Grimmer, Senior Architectural Historian, Heritage
Preservation Services Program, National Park Service, was responsible
for developing and coordinating the revision of this Preservation Brief,
incorporating professional comments, and the technical editing.
The authors and the editor wish to thank the following for the
professional and technical review they provided: Mark Macpherson and
Ron Peterson, Masonry Restoration Contractors, Macpherson-Towne
Company, Minneapolis, MN; Lorraine Schnabel, Architectural
Conservator, John Milner Associates, Inc., Philadelphia, PA; Lauren B.
Sickels-Taves, Ph.D., Architectural Conservator, Biohistory International,
Huntington Woods, MI; and the following National Park Service profes-
sional staff, including: E. Blaine Cliver, Chief, Historic American
Buildings Survey /Historic American Engineering Record; Douglas C.
Hicks, Deputy Superintendent, Historic Preservation Training Center,
Frederick, MD; Chris McGuigan, Supervisory Exhibits Specialist,
Historic Preservation Training Center, Frederick, MD; Charles E. Fisher,
Sharon C. Park, FAIA, John Sandor, Technical Preservation Services
Branch, Heritage Preservation Services, and Kay D. Weeks, Heritage
Preservation Services.
The original version of this brief, Repainting Mortar Joints in Historic Brick
Buildings, was written by Robert C. Mack in 1976, and was revised and
updated in 1980 by Robert C. Mack, de Teel Patterson Tiller, and James
S. Askins.
This publication has been prepared pursuant to the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, which directs the Secretary of the
Interior to develop and make available information concerning historic
properties. Comments about this publication should be directed to
de Teel Patterson Tiller, Chief, Heritage Preservation Services Program ,
National Park Service, 1849 C Street, N. W. Suite NC200, Washington,
D.C. 20240. This publication is not copy right ed and can be reproduced
without penalty. Normal procedures for credit to the authors and the
National Park Service are appreciated.
Front Cover: Repainting a historic brick building using a lime-based mortar.
Traditional lime mortars have a consistency that enables the mortar to cling
to a repainting tool while in a vertical position. Photo: John P. Speweik.
ISSN:0885-7016 October 1998
22
23
nwrmr e�
REPORT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
CASE NUMBER 1966-041122.HPC
15135 S. DES PLAINES ST. LANDMARK NOMINATION
Page #2 of 2
4/9/2019
Historic Structure Evaluation - The survey form from the Village's Historic Urban Survey
identifies the structure as strongly contributing, stating it has "a very high degree of integrity" and
potentially a candidate for the National Register.
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
In accordance with the Historic Preservation article of the Zoning Ordinance (Article XV), Section 9-147, subsection (7), "the commission shall evaluate the property's eligibility for landmark
designation based on its historic and/or architectural significance, the integrity of its design,
workmanship, materials, location, setting and feeling, and the extent to which it meets one or more
of the criteria."
Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance. To be listed in the National
Register of Historic Places, a property must not only be shown to be significant under the
National Register criteria but it also must have integrity. The evaluation of integrity is sometimes
a subjective judgment but it must always be grounded in an understanding of a property's
physical features and how they relate to its significance. The only significant change to the
interior of this c.1885 house was the addition of bathrooms in the first decade of the Twentieth
Century after the Village approved assessments for the construction of a system of sewers and
water lines under Ordinance No. 147 in October 1911 with the first voucher issued on December
21, 1911. The assessment for Lots 5 and 6 in Block 11 owned by Alfred Edward Mottinger was
$63.47 each payable in ten payments beginning in 1911 through 1921.
A recent cursory examination of the interior revealed what appears to be the interior of a just
completed c.1885 house with its original wood floors, painted wood doors, trim work about the
doors, windows and baseboards, stairs and the original room divisions complete with pocket
doors.
RECOMMENDATION
The detailed nomination package provides a comprehensive review of the home's history and a
thorough, well-illustrated analysis of the architectural merit for the nomination. Based on the
information available prior to the public hearing and discussion by the HPC, staff believes the
subject property qualifies for designation under the aforesaid mentioned criteria. Should the
Commission concur, the following motion is offered for your consideration.
I move we adopt the findings of fact of staff as the findings of fact of the Historic Preservation Commission and, furthermore, recommend approval of the landmark designation for the property commonly known as 15135 S. Des Plaines Street, based on criteria d, f and j of the Historic Preservation Ordinance, with a period of significance of 1885 to 1955*.
24
HISTORIC URBANIZED CORE SURVEY Plainfield Historic Preservation Commission
ADDRESS
15135 S. DesPlaines
PIN/Property Index Number
#06-03-16-213-008-0000
Historic Property Name(s)
Common Name(s)
Architectural Style
Queen Anne /Shingle Style
Vernacular Building Type
Gable Front
Construction Date
1895
Architect/Builder
Historic Use(s)
Single Family Residential
Present Use(s)
Single Family Residential
History (associated events, people, dates)
Original Town plat. The 191 2 Sanborn map, the first to show thi s block, indicates a muc h larger lot with this house, from
the alley on the north to Ottawa Street on the south. The house, with addresses of “A” on DesPlaines and 801/802/803
along Ottawa, is shown with a south ½ porch; a small single story square outbuilding is just outside the rear of the house/
east. A large 2 story carriage barn is in the far northeast corner of the full lot. By the 1931 Sanborn, the house has the
address of #23, the small outbuilding is gone, and the north half of the lot has been s ubdivided with an other house built.
Description
Limestone foundation; wood watertable; h ighly varied walls with clapboard, beadboard , and shaped shin gles; architectural
asphalt shingle gable roof. 2 stories, rec tangular shape, 2 front bays, v aried side bays. Low hip roof full-facade porch with
fluted posts on clapboard solid rail and low chee k pieces, screen ed; right bay entrance. Right/south door; left bay large
multi-light window. Oddly placed fixed sash on 2n story (diamond shaped multi-light) at extreme north edge of facade.
Tall paired 1/1 double-hung sash central. Square-shaped shingles on 2nd; beadboard and other shapes on attic level/no
fenestration. Gable front with shaped modillions. South gable pavilion with 1st story cut-away with sunburst brackets,
paneled spandrels, and cornice. 1/1 end bays and 6/fixed? central; two 1/1 above. Large square-on-end window in
front/west, 1st story; side entrance west end with incised porch. 2nd story blind except for pavilion. 2 bay rear elevation;
minimal north elevation fenestration, with a single 1/1 1st story, west end; 2nd story window boarded flush with facade
plane.
Integrity/Major Physical ch anges from original construc tion
A very high degree of integrity. Current porch appears historic, but dates to post 1944 as per Sanborn maps.
Subsidiary Building(s)/Site
Single car, gable front garage; overhead door, clapboard walls, corner boards, beadboard, and patterned wood.
Registration & Eval uation
National Register of Historic Places: Currently Listed: ___yes X no
If not currently listed, recommend: Individually X * yes no; historic district X yes ___no
Contributing XX or non-contributing
Significance statement: An outstanding example of the Queen Anne/Shingle Style with a very high degree of integrity.
*IF the interior is intact, this could be an individu al candidate for the National Register. VP; VG&Comm; O T; VG.
Village of Plainfield d esignation: Currently Listed: ___yes X no
If not currently listed, recommend: Historic Landmark X yes no; Historic District X yes ___no
Contributing XX or non-contributing
Form prepared by: ArchiSearch Historic Preservation Consultants (Alice Novak) Date of Field Survey: 8.26.05 - 81
501 N. DesPlaines
25
HISTORIC URBANIZED CORE SURVEY Plainfield Historic Preservation Commission
ADDRESS
501 N. DesPlaines
PIN/Property Index Number
#06-03-16-213-008-0000
15135 S. DesPlaines
26
1
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
Village of Plainfield Historic Preservation Commission
Nomination for Individual Landmark Listing in Register of Historic Places
c. 1885
For the property located at:
15135 S. Des Plaines Street – (f/k/a 501 N. Des Plaines Street)
06-03-16-213-008-000
Lot 5, except the North 60’ and except the East 4’ lying South of the North 60’
in Block 11 in NE ¼ of Sec. 16
Petitioners: Anthony & Nicole Solis
A request to the Village of Plainfield to consider designating the structure
at 15135 S. Des Plaines Street, a local landmark.
27
2
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
Table of Contents
Cover 1
Part I 3
Site
Part II 4
Overview
Part III 5
Architectural Style Description
Part IV 7
Photo Descriptions
Part V 18
Photo Description Key
Appendix A 20
Early Plainfield
Appendix B 26
Early History of Bartlett’s Subdivision
Appendix C 30
The Wallace Peter Hall Connection
Appendix D 35
Statement of Significance
Summary Statement of Significance 36
Exhibit Table of Contents 37
Exhibit A 38
Ingersoll’s Original Plat of Planefield
Exhibit B 39
Pre-Civil War map of Plainfield
Exhibit C 40
Ingersoll’s Addition to Plainfield
Exhibit D 41
Plat of Arnold’s Addition to Plainfield
Exhibit E 42
1850 Census of Plainfield Township
Exhibit F 43
1850, 1870 & 1880 Census Information
Exhibit G 44
Elihu Corbin’s Addition to Plainfield
Exhibit H 45
Chain of Title for 15135 S Des Plaines
Bibliography 49
28
3
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
Part I
Site
The house under consideration is a Queen Anne, Shingle style located at the northeast corner of DesPlaines
and Ottawa Streets facing the Village Green on the south seventy-two feet of Lot 5 in Block 11 of Chester
Ingersoll’s Original Plainfield. Ingersoll’s first recorded sale of lots in his newly platted village took place in
July 1835 with no additional sales until 1836 when there were eighteen additional sales. Before the end of
1836, Ingersoll’s proposed New England-style downtown public square had been rejected by Levi Arnold so
Ingersoll donated Block 10 to the residents of Plainfield with the stipulation that no permanent structures
should be built within its boundaries. This resulting two-acre park came to be known as the “Village Green”
and would eventually be surrounded by residences.
Ingersoll’s original plat of Plainfield was comprised of 13 blocks with a total of 101 lots that measured 80
feet wide and 132 feet long or nearly one-quarter of an acre in size and all the blocks except Block 13 came
with an alley fourteen feet wide dividing the two-acre blocks in half. The twenty-seven lots of Block 13
stretched along the south side of Ottawa Street from the DuPage River east to West Street (now Division).
Ingersoll sold the South half (66 feet) of Lots 5 and 6 in Block 11 along Ottawa Street to Phyloman Daggett
for $72.50 in October 1837 and in July 1839, sold the North half (66 feet) of Lots 5 and 6 with access from
DesPlaines Street and the alley to Stephen Sherwood for $50. [Ingersoll’s 1834 Plat of Plainfield – Exhibit A].
A map of pre-Civil War Plainfield [Pre-Civil War Map of Plainfield - Exhibit B] shows the presence of
houses at the four corners of Block 11. In August 1836, twenty-eight year old wagonmaker John Bill from
Vermont purchased Lot 4 at the northwest corner of Block 11 from Chester Ingersoll for five dollars and
built his wagon shop. The first school in Plainfield’s South District once held classes on the upper floor of
this wagon shop. On Lots 1 and 2 at the northeast corner of Block 11 stood a house originally built by John
Bill and his first wife, Charity Burdick. They purchased the two lots from Chester Ingersoll in October 1840
for sixty dollars and with his second wife, Minerva Smith, sold the property in March 1866 to Charles
Woodhouse for $1,000. Orison and Josephine Miles purchased Lots 7 and 8 at the southeast corner of Block
11 in February 1846 from Chester Ingersoll for fifty dollars and in August 1886, Miles’ widow Josephine
sold the house and property for $600 to Samuel and Julia Metcalf. The house under consideration in this
nomination was the second house built at the southwest corner of Block 11. In May 1848, Ezra Wright sold
the south half of Lots 5 and 6 to Winthrop and Roxana Wright for $175. Eight months later in January, 1849,
the Wrights sold the property to Elias Lyman Bartlett for $300 with the recorded deed (Contract P-185)
noting that Roxana relinquished her right of dower and tenements. [Chain of Title for 15135 S. DesPlaines –
Exhibit H]
The historical footprint of the house in this nomination can be found on Map 2 of the January 1912 Sanborn
Fire Insurance Map which also reflects the residence’s current footprint. The 1893 and 1898 Sanborn Fire
Insurance maps did not cover this segment of Plainfield. This edition of the Sanborn maps also indicated that
the house on the southeast corner of Lot 8 was no longer there. Based on research at the Will County
Recorder of Deeds, it seems likely that an earlier pre-Civil War house occupied the southwest corner of Lot 5
that was purchased in May 1858 by Jacob Hoffer for $625 from Asahel and Lydia Booth.
29
4
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
Part II
Overview
Queen Anne style architecture in North America (1880 - 1910) was very different from the slightly earlier
versions of the style found throughout the United Kingdom where it originated. In both the United States and
England, Victorian Queen Anne architecture had little to do with the British Queen Anne who ruled from
March 1702 to August 1714. Anne Stuart ruled as queen of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland
in 1702 and on May 1, 1707, Queen Anne became the monarch of the Kingdom of Great Britain after the
political union of England and Scotland and continued to reign as Queen of Great Britain and Ireland until
her death on August 1, 1714. Art and science flourished during her reign and 150 years later, Scottish
architect Richard Norman Shaw and his followers used the term Queen Anne to describe their work though
their buildings did not resemble the formal architecture of the Queen Anne period but the name stuck.
George Palliser’s Model Homes published in 1878 and William T. Comstock’s Modern Architectural
Designs published in 1881 were among the publications of the period which featured designs and plans for
Queen Anne-style houses for carpenter-builders. Thirty-seven buildings in ArchiSearch’s 2006, Plainfield’s
Historic Urban Core: An Intensive-Level Survey and Report show the Queen Anne style or influence.
30
5
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
Part III
Architectural Description
The Queen Anne style became fashionable in the 1880s and 1890s, when the industrial revolution was
building up steam in the United States. The impetus for this new American architecture style was the
Centennial Exposition of 1876 in Philadelphia and the celebration of 100 years of independence. The United
States was caught up in the excitement of new technologies. Factory-made, pre-cut architectural parts were
shuttled across the country on a rapidly expanding train network. With the first skyscrapers being built in
Chicago, East coast architects were adapting old styles into new forms. Prefabricated cast iron became the
showy ornate façade of urban merchants and bankers.
The Mesker Brothers Iron Works and George L. Mesker & Company were two competing manufacturers
and designers of ornamental sheet-metal facades and cast iron storefront components from the 1880’s
through the mid-twentieth century. The Mesker Brothers Iron Works was based in St. Louis, Missouri and
was operated by brothers Bernard and Frank Mesker. The George L. Mesker Company was operated by a
third brother, George L. Mesker and was based in Evansville, Indiana. The Mesker Brothers were sons of
John Mesker who operated a stove business in Evansville and later created galvanized iron for buildings. The
three brothers learned their iron-working skills from their father.
The company’s products were often referred to as “Meskers,” producing tin ceilings, iron railings, stairs, roof
cresting, ventilators, grates, iron awnings, skylights and freight elevators. The Meskers marketed their
products through catalogs displaying their designs. The catalogs became so successful they expanded their
print runs from 50,000 to eventually 500,000. A 1915 catalog mentioned Mesker storefronts in every state
including over 4,000 in Indiana, nearly 3,000 in Illinois, over 2,600 in Kentucky and seventeen in the
territory of Alaska. In 1899, Plainfield postmaster John Sennitt rebuilt the building [24029 (506) W. Lockport]
where he operated the Plainfield post office adjacent to the Opera House that were both destroyed in an 1898
fire purchasing cast iron ornamentation from the Mesker Brothers Iron Works in St. Louis, Missouri for the
upper façade. It remained the post office until at least 1912 and the building was eventually sold in 1962 by
descendants of John Sennitt.
The well-to-do wanted the same manufactured elegance for their homes as they had for their businesses, so
exuberant architects and builders combined architectural details to create innovative, and sometimes
excessive, homes. Variety is the simplest way to summarize the Queen Anne style: wall surfaces varied with
fish scale and other patterned shingles, a steeply asymmetrical facades with gabled pavilions and bays, a
varied roof line with multiple roof types or multiple gables, windows of various types or grouped in various
pairs and sets, and elaborate porches which often wrap facades to side elevations. Nearly all Queen Anne
style residences will have porches. Frequently porches wrapped around the side of the house as do several
examples on Bartlett Avenue, however in our example, there is a full porch on the west façade and in the
1912 Sanborn map, the house was shown with a smallish half porch on the Ottawa Street or south façade.
The 2006 Urbanized Core Survey recommended the residence as an outstanding example of the Queen
Anne/Shingle style with a very high degree of integrity for local landmark status and as a contributing
building in a local historic district; additionally should the interior be intact, the residence could be an
individual candidate for the National Register.
Shingle style homes are more dominated by patterned shingles - butt, fish scale, or undulating patterns-
sweeping roof lines (usually gable), and generally simpler building forms. The Shingle Style is a
distinctively American style which was first used for New England summer houses. The house under
31
6
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
consideration is an excellent example of the Queen Anne/Shingle style with a Gable Front vernacular form.
The walls of the house are extensively enlivened with varied wood wall materials including the original
clapboard siding and the wall planes of the house are varied with an extending gable pavilion with cut-away
bay and window groups that have been enhanced with the recent addition of period appropriate colors.
Shingle-style architecture broke free from lavish decorative designs popular in Victorian times with
architects rebelling against that Victorian fussiness by designing houses deliberately rustic with a style that
suggested a more relaxed informal style of living. These Shingle-style homes marked a significant shift in
American housing styles and the most obvious feature of a shingle-style home was the generous and
continuous use of wood shingles on the siding as well as the roof. It seems likely when this 137 year-old
house was constructed, wood shingles would have graced the roof that have since been replaced with
architectural fiberglass-asphalt shingles.
32
7
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
Part IV
Photo Descriptions
Note: See Part V for photo description keynote list.
Plate 1 – Front (west) facade
A3 A1 A1 F3 G1 F2
B1 A4 F1
33
8
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
Plate 2 – Side (south) partial façade at west half
F2 F1 F3 G1
A6 A2
G2
34
9
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
Plate 3 – Side (south) partial facade at bay window
C1 C2 D1 F1
35
10
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
Plate 4 – Side (south) partial façade at 2nd floor boxout
F2 C3 C4 A6
C1 C2 F1 B3
36
11
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
Plate 5 – Side (south) partial facade at east end
A5
F2
37
12
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
Plate 6 – Rear (east) partial facade upper
G1 A8 A8
38
13
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
Plate 7 – Rear (east) partial facade lower
B2 A8 F1
39
14
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
Plate 8 – Side (north) partial facade east end
A7 F1 A8 A8
40
15
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
Plate 9 – Side (north) partial facade west end
F1
G1
A9
41
16
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
Plate 10 – Front porch detail lower portion
E1 E2 E3
42
17
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
Plate 11 – Front porch detail upper portion
E4 E5
43
18
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
Part V
Photo Description Key
A. TYPICAL WINDOWS
A1 Single, clear glass, 1/1 vinyl double-hung; flat trim surround; simple sill.
A2 Single, clear glass, vinyl diamond window, decorative molding at perimeter
A3 Single, clear glass, vinyl awning window; flat trim surround; simple sill
A4 Single, clear glass, vinyl picture window with transom; flat trim surround; crown molding lintel extended over window;
simple sill
A5 Single, stained glass, 1/1 wood double-hung; flat trim surround; crown molding lintel extended over window; simple sill
A6 Single, clear glass, vinyl casement window; narrow flat trim surround; crown molding lintel extended over window;
simple sill
A7 Single, clear glass, wood casement window; narrow flat trim surround
A8 Single, clear glass, 1/1 vinyl double-hung; flat trim surround; crown molding lintel extended over window; simple sill.
A9 Single, clear glass, vinyl awning window; flat trim surround; crown molding lintel extended over window; simple sill
B. TYPICAL DOORS
B1 Single, wood door with full clear glass; flat trim surround sides and top; crown molding lintel.
B2 Single, paneled wood door with clear glass, 9-lite on upper half; aluminum storm door of current purchase; flat trim
surround sides and back; crown molding lintel
B3 Single, paneled wood door with 2 inset panels side-by-side on lower half and clear glass window upper half
C. 5-SIDED BAY WINDOW
C1 BASE (up to and including sill)
Water table trim board to match house trim below horizontal bullnose trim board with small overhang; rectangular inset
diagonal siding framed with flat boards articulated with quarter-round molding and painted to differentiate from main
color scheme, round pilasters painted for emphasis at outside corners with integral decorative reveals; continuous simple
wood sill.
C2 MIDDLE
Flat painted wood sheathing with two (2) single, clear glass, 1/1 vinyl double hung windows at diagonal portions and
single clear glass, vinyl picture window with transom; flat trim surround, round pilasters painted for emphasis at outside
corners with integral decorative reveals.
C3 ENTABLATURE
Rectangular inset diagonal siding (similar to base) framed with flat boards articulated with quarter-round molding and
painted to differentiate from main color scheme.
C4 ROOF
No roof; bay window is below boxed-out second floor flanked with decorative brackets on sides of box-out.
D. FOUNDATION
D1 High foundation of ashlar cut limestone block with flush joints under house, and bay window.
44
19
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
E. FRONT PORCH
E1 BASE (up to decking)
Wood framed porch with concrete pier foundations; common lumber horizontal trim below decking and at grade with
vertical trim pieces and wood lattice infill.
E2 FLOORING (decking)
Wood 1x decking running front to back.
E3 RAILINGS
Common unadorned railing with articulated balusters with alternating design
E3 SUPPORT
Wood framed columns boxed out at lower portion with horizontal 2x wood trim pieces; fluted 4-sided column wrap with
simple doric style unadorned capital.
E4 ROOF
Framed low-slope roof above boxed beams and plywood ceiling with gutters and downspout; single-board fascia.
F. TYPICAL SIDING
F1 Clapboard wood siding; yellow with white trim; corner boards with articulated top (capitol) and base.
F2 Fish scale wood siding band with horizontal wood trim above and below on west and south sides of residence.
F3 Decorative wood linear horizontal and vertical trim over stucco finish applied to upper portion of west and south gable
ends above window heads
F4 Flat trim under eave butted to underside of overhang
F5 Water table trim board.
G. TYPICAL ROOF
G1 Single ridge gable roof with moderate pitch; asphalt shingles; typical approximately 24 inch roof overhang; closed eave;
single fascia board with additional flat trim piece; decorative articulated brackets under eave at regular spacing; gutters
and traditional downspouts.
G2 Single ridge gable roof with moderate pitch on south side box out; asphalt shingles; typical approximately 24 inch roof
overhang; closed eave; single fascia board with additional flat trim piece; decorative articulated brackets under eave at
regular spacing; gutters.
45
20
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
Appendix A
Early Plainfield
The Land Ordinance of 1785 was adopted on May 20, 1785 by the Continental Congress and set the stage for
an organized and community-based westward expansion of the United States in the years after the American
Revolution. The Land Ordinance of 1785 was the effort of a five-person committee led by Thomas Jefferson
that established a systematic and ubiquitous process for surveying, planning, and selling townships on the
western frontier.
Each western township contained thirty-six square miles of land which was divided into thirty-six sections,
each containing one square mile or 640 acres. Section 1 was located at the northeast corner of each township
with subsequent sections numbered east to west; each tier had six sections and there were six rows of six
sections for a total of thirty-six sections with Section 36 found in the southeast corner. This mathematical
precision of planning was through the concerted efforts of surveyors which allowed these sections to be
easily subdivided for re-sale by settlers and land speculators. Initially government land offices sold land to
pioneers at the price of $1.25 per acre. Each township contained dedicated space for public education and
other government uses, as the centermost of the 36 sections were reserved for government or public purposes
- Sections 15, 16, 21 & 22, with Section 16 dedicated specifically for public education. Additionally roadways
were often constructed along the north-south or east-west Township or Section division lines that comprised
the Township and Range delineations.
Revolutionary War land bounty land warrants were first awarded through an Act of Congress on September
16, 1776. These were grants of free land from Congress or states like Virginia who claimed lands west of the
Appalachian Mountains in areas that would later become the states of Ohio and Kentucky as a reward for
serving in the Continental Army during the American Revolution and the War of 1812. The grants were not
automatic as veterans had to apply for them and if granted, use the warrant to apply for a land patent which
granted them ownership of the land that could be transferred or sold to other individuals. Land warrants
issued by Congress were usually for the newly established lands created by the Land Ordinance of 1785 and
the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota.
Long before there were railroads, most Chicagoans’ link to civilization was primarily by schooner to and
from New York City via the Great Lakes, the Erie Canal and the Hudson River. In the early 1830s, Chicago
was closer to a Wild West town than a metropolis. The two principal cities of the Midwest were the river
towns of Cincinnati and St. Louis, both which had good steamboat service. The closest a river steamer could
get to Chicago was Ottawa, more than 90 miles from Chicago on the Illinois River.
The Postal Act of 1792 established the role of the Postmaster General and made the United States’
Government responsible for creating post offices and establishing the delivery of the mail by private
contractors. The first Post Office in northern Illinois opened in Galena in 1826, five years before Chicago
saw one established at their settlement. With the establishment of a post office in Galena in 1826, John D.
Winters began running stagecoaches between St. Louis and Galena, carrying passengers and the U.S. Mail.
The stagecoach became the pre-dominant mode of overland public transport for passengers and mail.
Stagecoach lines were chosen not just for the convenience of passengers but to accommodate the timely
collection and distribution of the mail. Without mail contracts most stage lines would not have survived.
Chicago’s first stagecoach line arrived from Detroit in 1833 after the end of the Blackhawk War of 1832 that
46
21
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
ended an Indian revolt over ownership of Illinois farmland which now made overland travel safe west of
Chicago. In July 1833, John Taylor Temple (1804-1877) of Virginia, who had received a homeopathic
medical degree in 1824 from the University of Maryland arrived in Chicago with his wife and 4 children
with a contract from the U.S. Postmaster General to carry the mail from Chicago to Fort Howard at Green
Bay. He soon built a two-story frame house at the corner of Wells & Lake Street and a medical office at the
southwest corner of Franklin and South Water Street.
In 1831, the High Prairie Trail from Chicago to Ottawa had been laid out by State officials as both northern
Illinois’ newest official road that also used established Indian trails. Soon after the Chicago to Fort Howard
at Green Bay route began, it was discontinued and on January 1, 1834, Temple had political connections that
allowed him to secure the mail contract from Chicago to Peoria and had money to purchase a coach and set
up the necessary way stations. Temple was given a contract for operating a stagecoach line and conveying
the U.S. Mail from Chicago southwest to Peoria to meet the steamboats navigating the Illinois River from St.
Louis and later a route to Ottawa via Walkers’ Grove. The route to Ottawa started at the shore of Lake
Michigan near the banks of the Chicago River and extended almost due west following the old
Pottawattamie Indian trail along the DesPlaines River which is now part of U.S. 6 to the ford across the
DesPlaines River at Riverside, thence the road headed west to Captain Joseph Naper’s settlement at the
DuPage River ford before turning southwest towards Walker’s Grove averaging about 10 miles each hour.
Initially stage passengers stayed with settlers in Walker’s Grove, which consisted of three or four crude log
huts that offered limited comforts. Later the route was moved north to the newly platted settlement at
Plainfield (1834). Leaving Plainfield, the trail passed into what would become Kendall County in 1841,
crossing the prairie to the tiny cluster of cabins at the southernmost point of a grove of towering black walnut
trees before continuing on to Ottawa which was located at the head of navigation on the Illinois River.
The area from which Plainfield developed was first inhabited by the Potawatomie Indians. The Potawatomie
hunted the dense forests along the banks of the DuPage River and had some semi-permanent settlements.
When Illinois achieved statehood in 1818 most of the territory was wilderness. Occasional explorers, soldiers
on the marches to distant outposts, as well as Native American traders and trappers, had given glowing
descriptions of the beauties of the region. The Illinois and Michigan Canal project had been conceived during
the Wat of 1812 which prompted the initial purchases of Native American lands commencing in 1816. The
first Europeans arriving in the area were French fur traders in the 1820s, who traded peacefully with the
Potawatomie but did not establish any permanent settlements. By about 1826, American missionaries began
to arrive to Christianize the Native Americans and establish permanent settlements.
Along with the occasional pioneers who ventured into the lands covered by the Northwest Ordinance came
several early Methodist missionaries. One of these early Methodist missionaries was The Reverend Jessie
Walker who came to the area before statehood. Walker had been born in Virginia and first visited the Indiana
territory in 1806 and later was appointed to the circuit in Illinois and likely introduced his son-in-law, James
Walker, to the region. In 1828, James Walker led a party that established a small settlement and sawmill
along the DuPage River at Walkers’ Grove just south of present-day Plainfield.
This new settlement was known as Walker's Grove and the saw mill thrived in the midst of the thick forests
in the area. The DuPage River also provided essential transportation between the settlements at Fort
Dearborn at Lake Michigan (now Chicago) and Ottawa along the Illinois River. Walker's Grove was an
important link along the water and trail route. Walker's sawmill and the area's timber also supplied the fast-
growing settlement of Chicago with lumber to build their first wood-framed houses. It has been documented
that the lumber used to build the first structures in Chicago were hauled by wagons built in Plainfield by
47
22
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
John Bill and driven by Reuben Flagg and Timothy Clark from Walker's Mill – the George Washington Dole
Forwarding House and the Philip Ferdinand Wheeler Peck House – a two-story frame building in which
Peck kept a store at southeast corner of South Water and LaSalle Streets that was built in the Autumn of
1832. Walker’s Grove was also reportedly the first permanent settlement in Will County.
In 1828, Chester Ingersoll had traveled from his home in Vermont to northeast Illinois and settled at the
Walkers’ Grove settlement and four years later, joined with others to defend Fort Beggs and later opened one
of the first hotels in Chicago. In October, 1833, Chester purchased 160 acres of land in the NE ¼ of Section
16 and in December 1833, married a young actress, Phebe Wever in Chicago and together they ran the
Traveler Hotel until 1834. Ingersoll platted a town in August 1834, northeast of Walkers’ Grove, naming it
Planefield. Ingersoll platted his town with twelve nearly square blocks consisting of rectangular lots on a
modified grid plan that would be familiar to many of those newly arriving pioneer families from New
England and a rectangular Block 13 containing twenty-seven lots that stretched west from the DuPage River,
east to a north-south roadway initially called West Street, that was later changed to Division. Ingersoll’s
east-west streets were named for the three main towns in Northeastern Illinois at the time - Ottawa, Chicago
and Lockport - while his north-south streets were named for the region’s rivers - DuPage, Kankakee, Fox
River, DesPlaines, and Illinois. He envisioned a public square to become his central business district that
would be centered about the northern half of Block 3 with DesPlaines Street to the east and Fox River Street
to the west along a proposed east-west thoroughfare to be built on the section line where Sections 16 and 9
met.
Six blocks (1, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, & 12) consisted of eight lots separated by an alley with four lots north of the alley
and four lots south of the alley. Block 6 had 3 lots and Block 7 had 4 lots since they were adjacent or east of
the DuPage River and Block 13 stretched east from the DuPage River along Ottawa Street to West Street
that later came to be known as Division and was divided into twenty-seven lots all of similar size as those in
the other blocks – [Ingersoll’s 1834 Plat of Plainfield - Exhibit A].
In 1834 Chester Ingersoll built a house for his family on an open tract of land that was south of Lot 26 in
Block 13 of his newly platted town; this house was recently restored and designated a Village Landmark in
September 2013. In October 1837, Ingersoll’s oldest daughter, Melissa married Thomas Jefferson York and
soon thereafter, Ingersoll had a small cottage west of his house built for them. The location of this house was
south of Lot 25 in Block 13 and was designated a Village landmark known as “Pioneer House” in 2008. In
May 1837, Ingersoll recorded an addition to his original Village plat comprising of 12 additional blocks – 6
blocks on either side of Juliet - a new east-west street. [Ingersoll’s Addition to Plainfield – Exhibit C ] In
1851, Ingersoll’s 1837 Addition was re-surveyed and became John D. Shreffler’s Addition. Thus Ingersoll’s
1834 house was now located on Lot 2 and the house built for his daughter Melissa was now on Lot 3 in
Block 1 of Shreffler’s Addition.
Research conducted by Michael Lambert, a local Plainfield architect and historian on the James Mathers
family has found that Levi Arnold, a bachelor, likely traveled to the settlement around Walker’s Grove in
late 1831 or 1832 in the company of the family of James and Sarah Mathers, who he had met in the area of
St. Joseph, Indiana. Arnold staked claims in the area near the DuPage River and in present-day Kendall
County before returning to St. Joseph, Indiana to marry Mariah Skinner on August 6, 1833. Sometime in
early 1834, Levi Arnold and his wife Mariah arrived from Indiana and purchased the quarter section of land
north of Ingersoll’s newly platted town – the SE ¼ of Section 9 on December 11. Arnold was particularly
interested in land adjacent to the DuPage River and parcels that straddled the Chicago-Ottawa Road.
48
23
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
Unlike Ingersoll who preferred orderly development as shown in his 1834 Plat of Planefield, Arnold laid out
four streets in his addition and allowed pioneer families to build homes and businesses on his land but often
chose not to sell the land to them which allowed the creation of many irregular and disorganized lots in shape
and size. He did not embrace Ingersoll’s concept of a New England town square since a portion of Block 4 in
his corresponding addition would be needed to join Ingersoll’s planned segment. In May 1836, Ingersoll sold
Lot 3 in Block 2 to Anson Johnson for $30. This was the first recorded sale of land fronting onto the East-
West road that would eventually become Lockport Road that took place in May 1836. Arnold likely allowed
entrepreneurs to build stores along the roadway but chose not to sell them the land since the first recorded
sale on his side of the roadway took place nearly four years later in March 1840 with the sale of a five acre
parcel to Chester Bennett.
The difference in development styles likely frustrated Ingersoll’s sense of order and Arnold’s haphazard
development of the growing community likely encouraged Arnold to cultivate a new friendship with Lewis
Judson. Together in 1835, they started a new town on the east bank of the Fox River called Hudson, thus
Arnold lived in Plainfield but a short time, choosing to devote most of his energies toward the development
of his new town. Initially the new town located 10 miles northwest of Plainfield attracted few settlers and in
the Spring of 1836, Levi Arnold moved his family to Hudson renting his Plainfield home on the Chicago to
Ottawa Road, that later came to be known as Main Street to Dr. Erastus G. Wight, a circuit riding physician.
Chester Ingersoll abandoned his public square concept in 1836, opting instead for a public park located in
Block 10, now called the Village Green, which was immediately south of his failed public square concept
that would be eventually surrounded by residential housing. In 1840, as the family of Chester and Phebe
Ingersoll grew, they moved from the village north to a farm in Wheatland Township and within three years
were living on a farm near Lockport. In 1847 Ingersoll along with members of his family and numerous
families from the area left Illinois and traveled to the West to settle in California where Ingersoll died
unexpectedly in September 1849.
In February 1841, Arnold sold to Elihu Springer, the minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church, a 1¼ acre
parcel where the congregation planned to construct their house of worship. This parcel was located in the
western half of Block 6 between Chicago Street (now DesPlaines Street) on the west, Arnold Street (now
Illinois Street) on the east and the diagonal Oak Street on the north. Beginning in January 1850, the Trustees
of the Methodist Episcopal Church began selling their lots in the western portion of Block 6 in favor of
buying the lots in the eastern portion of Block 6. By May 1850, the Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal
Church had purchased the eastern half of Block 6 or that portion of the block that would become known as
Chittenden & Smiley’s subdivision after the Assessor had subdivided the area in 1866. After this parcel was
surveyed in 1867, the lots therein became designated as Lots 16 through 24.
Arnold’s town of Hudson changed its name to Lodi for a short time and soon settled on its current name of
Oswego. In 1844 Levi Arnold took sick and died in September at the age of 37. His wife Mariah, who was
32 with three young daughters had her late husband’s holdings in Plainfield surveyed which was completed
by the following September (1845) and began selling the remaining lots in the area that came to be called
“Arnold’s Addition to the Village of Plainfield.” [Reference Exhibit D].
By mid-century, businesses had spread randomly throughout Ingersoll’s Plainfield with a concentration of
restaurants, blacksmiths, liveries and hotels along DesPlaines Street where it intersected with the east-west
roadway in which the initial contracts of lots of the first commercial buildings on the north side of the
stipulated stated the “South 30 feet is reserved for a road running East-West” – these early contracts
49
24
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
referred to the roadway as DuPage Street but would it would eventually become known as “the Lockport
Road” as it was known outside of the village. As traffic increased on the east – west roadway, buildings
located elsewhere in the community were moved to either side of the roadway and often were set on every
other lot so that infill buildings only required front and rear walls, a floor, and a roof.
This thoroughfare separated the two communities begun by Arnold and Ingersoll branching eastward 6 miles
to the canal port at Lockport which in 1848 saw the opening of the Illinois and Michigan Canal. Once this
road was completed, it carried travelers going between the canal docks at Lockport and the accelerating farm
settlements west of the DuPage River with the village of Plainfield growing significantly after 1850.
By 1849 the only centralized commercial and industrial center in Plainfield that had formed was located
about the intersection of present-day Joliet Road, Division Street, and Commercial Street. Kankakee Street
was renamed James Street, in honor of James Fairbanks, who created Fairbanks’ Addition along the street
now bearing his name in 1853 and DuPage Street along the DuPage River had become abandoned.
Unfortunately, no formal adoption of street names existed between the Ingersoll and Arnold sides of the
village. In fact, names of streets changed—typically—at DuPage Street (now Lockport Street) which divided
the two sides of the village.
By 1855, all of the holdings of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the western portion of Block 6 had been
sold and replaced with those lots in the eastern half of Block 6. As the economy began growing after the
conclusion of the Civil War, the Trustees of the Church saw an opportunity to sell their lots and build a new
house of worship one block south of the noise and expanding traffic artery of Lockport Street. In October
1866, the Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church purchased Lots 10 and 11 in Block 2, at the northwest
corner of Illinois and Chicago Streets in Ingersoll’s Original Plainfield from Limon and Leah Tobias for
$350. They sold their parcels of land along the north side of Lockport Street and west of Arnold Street (now
Illinois Street) in March 1867 to James H. Smiley and George N. Chittenden once their new place of worship
had been completed. By 1869, the northern and southern portions of Plainfield were incorporated into a
single community and by the 1870s, DuPage Street became commonly known as Lockport Street.
Simultaneous to efforts of Ingersoll and Arnold, a third distinct community began to develop. In November
1834, James Mathers and James M. Turner purchased a quarter section of land in the SW ¼ of Section 10
that was east of Arnold’s SE ¼ of Section 9. In June 1836, James Mathers purchased Turner’s half share and
in July 1836, platted East Plainfield which was comprised of 96 lots along Main Street and Water Street
(which is now Plainfield-Naperville Road), which paralleled the DuPage River on which Mathers built a
sawmill and gristmill. Mathers also built himself a house in 1835 at the northeast corner of Mill and Water
Streets near his sawmill and gristmill and his partner James Turner had built a small cottage for his family at
the southeast corner of Section 10 (currently the house at the northeast corner of Lockport Street and Eastern
Avenue).
The southeastern part of the Village or the NW ¼ of Section 15 was the last portion of the Village to be
developed. In December 1834 Robert Chapman had purchased 280 acres in NE ¼ & N ½ of the NW ¼ of
Sec. 15 & S ½ of the NW ¼ of Sec. 15 and in July 1838 Chapman sold all of his holdings “excepting &
reserving from the SW corner of the S ½ of the S ½ of said NW ¼ of Sec. 15” - a 2 ½ acre parcel in the SW
corner or 20 square rods to be used as a cemetery that Chapman donated to the residents in the Spring of
1837. In 1840, Dr. Oliver J. Corbin purchased a twelve-acre parcel south of Joliet Road and in 1845 sold a
small three lot triangular parcel of land to John Dillman to build a foundry, creating Plainfield’s first
industrial park in what would become Oliver J. Corbin’s Subdivision in 1856. In 1852, a forty-acre parcel
50
25
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
was purchased by Elihu Corbin who had the land subdivided into an addition to Plainfield as well as several
subdivisions.
Commercial development was scattered in each quadrant of the village, but soon began to concentrate along
either side of the east-west DuPage Street or what later became known as “the Lockport Road” which
occupied the area where Section 16 of Ingersoll’s Original Plainfield and Section 9 of Arnold’s Addition
met. As was the case in most of the newly established towns and villages of the Northwest Territories, once
the pioneer families had built their houses and established businesses, places of worship and schools for their
children were soon to follow. Plainfield’s commercial and residential development became concentrated in
portions of the four quarter sections of prairie lands along or near to the DuPage River that made up the
Village. Soon a North-South roadway (West St. or Division) and an East-West Roadway (Lockport Road)
were created along the division lines of Sections 9, 10, 15 and 16.
Chester Ingersoll’s - NE ¼ of Sec. 16 (1833),
Levi Arnold’s - SE ¼ of Sec. 9 (1834),
James Mathers’ - SW ¼ of Sec. 10 (1835),
Elihu Corbin’s - NW ¼ of Sec. 15 (1852).
By 1869, the northern and southern portions of Plainfield were incorporated into a single community and by
the 1870s, DuPage Street became commonly known as Lockport Street. The 1870 Census listed the
population of Plainfield at 723 and there were 1,750 residents living in Plainfield Township.
51
26
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
Appendix B
In 1812, a forty-one year old Johann George Mottinger with his wife Elizabeth Lashbaugh and their six
children moved from Someset County, Pennsylvania where they had lived since their marriage in 1798 and
relocated to eastern Ohio near New Lisbon, the county seat of Columbiana County that had been created on
March 23,1803 by the Ohio legislature nearly a month after Ohio joined the union as the seventeenth state.
Nearly twelve years earlier in 1800, Adam Hahn had moved his wife and their six children to the eastern
Ohio Territory from Manchester, Maryland near Baltimore and his maternal grandfather, George Adam
Stump moved his wife and their children from York, Pennsylvania to the same area of eastern Ohio
Territory. Both Hahn and Stump had served in the Continental Army and earned Revolutionary War land
bounty warrants that they used to secure farmland in eastern Ohio. These two families along with another by
the name of Sumner formed the nucleus of the new community, New Lisbon, Ohio founded by Lewis
Kinney, a Baptist minister, who named it after Lisbon, Portugal.
John (1799 - 1883) was the oldest of eight children born to Johann and Elizabeth Mottinger and was thirteen
when his parents relocated from Somerset County, Pennsylvania to Columbiana County, Ohio. In May 1821
John married Anna Barbara Long, the youngest daughter of Killian and Anna Barbara Long. Killian Long
had moved his wife and seven children from Berks County, Pennsylvania to northeast central Ohio where he
purchased farmland in Columbiana County on September 20, 1805 near the Ohio River. John and Barbara
Mottinger moved from New Lisbon to Green Township in 1830 and purchased a 135 acre farm and would
raise their eleven children with ten surviving to adulthood. When the 1860 Census was taken, John was a
widower living on the family farm with sons Samuel Long (21) and Daniel (19), single daughter Rebecca
(23) and his married daughter Leah (30), with her husband John Bender (32) and their three children. In
December 1862 his youngest son Daniel married Elizabeth Shoemaker and in February 1863 his daughter
Rebecca became the third wife of Elias Hartong. In September 1863, John sold the family farm to Thomas
Shoemaker and with his son Samuel Long Mottinger relocated to Plainfield where his younger brother, the
Reverend George Mottinger had moved in 1845. John married Anna Mary Dillman, the widow of Michael
Dillman in December 1864 and purchased a house at the northeast corner of Lockport Street and Eastern at
the end of July 1865 where they lived until she died in April 1877. In February 1881, John sold the house in
Plainfield where his son Samuel and his wife Belle Hartong moved after his wife had died according to the
1880 Census. John moved back to Akron in Summit County to live with the families of his two daughters -
Leah and Rebecca until his death in December 1883.
Eventually children of the Mottinger, Hahn and Hartong families became intertwined and would move from
Summit and Columbiana Counties in eastern Ohio to Will County and the Plainfield area. The beginnings of
the Hartong family originated in Lancaster County of Pennsylvania. Lancaster County was located in
southeast central Pennsylvania about eighty miles east of Philadelphia and was organized on May 10, 1729
as Pennsylvania’s fourth county and was named after the city of Lancaster in the English county of
Lancashire, the native home of John Wright, an early settler. Many of the settlers to Lancaster County
originally came from German-speaking areas of Europe and spoke a dialect of German, they referred to as
“Deitsch” (Deutsch). Over the years this was corrupted to “Pennsylvania Dutch” - the settlers had nothing to
do with Holland, the Netherlands or the Dutch language.
The patriarch of the Hartong family was Christian Hartong (1758 - 1809) who lived with his wife Barbara
Schumacher (1762 - 1835) in Brecknock Township in Lancaster County raising at least nine children. Family
records from the 17th and 18th Century are often difficult to locate, read or verify and the records of the
Hartong families indicate they were quite prolific. In 1813 their oldest son Philip Hartong moved his family
52
27
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
from Lancaster County to Stark County in northeastern Ohio and in 1824, his younger brother, Jacob, a
weaver, moved his family to Summit County in eastern Ohio, which was adjacent to Stark County,
purchasing 200 acres of land that the family farmed. However after 15 years of farming, Jacob returned to
his love of weaving, supplying clothes to his family and neighbors while his sons worked the family farm.
Elias Hartong was the second of twelve children born to Jacob and Elizabeth Tritsch and one of seven boys.
He was five years old when his parents moved from Pennsylvania to their new farm in Summit County, Ohio
near Akron, Ohio in 1824. Elias married in February 1840 and over the next forty-six years would have
three wives, raise twenty-one children and purchased land in Plainfield Township soon after arriving there in
1846, using alternating residences in Will (1850, 1860, and 1880 Census’) and Summit (1870 Census)
counties [living on his father Jacob’s farm outside Akron] and was buried in Akron, Ohio in 1886.
Additionally four of Elias’ brothers - Jacob, Jonathan, Levi and Clinton also relocated to the Plainfield area
during the nineteenth century and made substantial contributions to the community.
It was in Columbiana County where a twenty year old Sarah Frances Hahn, the oldest child of Peter Hahn
and Anne Marie Stump married fifty-year old, Dr. John Garland Sowers on April 30, 1830. In 1841, they
moved with their one year old daughter, Mary Louisa to the westernmost county in Illinois - Adams County,
named in honor of the sixth President of the United States, John Quincy Adams with the county seat being
named Quincy. On January 1, 1842, they had their second child, Frances Ardelia and in May 1845 had their
third child, Andrew Jackson in Akron, Ohio. Within two years, Dr. Sowers relocated his family to Naperville
in northeastern Illinois where on January 9, 1848, their last child, Jared Henry was born. Dr. Sowers’ wife
Sarah died in September 1848 and Jared died soon thereafter with Dr. Sowers passing away during a cholera
epidemic in Naperville in July 1849. It seems likely that through correspondence and conversations by the
Sowers’ family with relatives in Ohio, the virtues of northeastern Illinois, DuPage and Will Counties were
extolled.
Sarah’s oldest brother, Peter William Hahn (1820 - 1901) began a career of circuit preaching with the
Evangelical Association in 1842 after having worked on the Hahn family Ohio farm for ten years and
married Mary Ann Mottinger (1825 - 1911) of Greensburg, Ohio, in April 1846. Mary Ann was one of
eleven children born to John and Anna Barbara Mottinger who married in New Lisbon, Ohio on May 10,
1821. Over the next 40 plus years, Mary’s husband, the Reverend Peter Hahn would criss-cross the states of
Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York and New Jersey while Mary maintained the
house and raised their children.
The Evangelical Association was known in the early 1800s as the Albright Brethren and was a body of
American Christians chiefly of German descent. Their leader, Jacob Albright, was a German-speaking
Christian native of the Lancaster, Pennsylvania area, influenced by John Wesley and the Methodist
Episcopal Church and Philip William Otterbein’s followers. In 1790 several of Jacob’s children died of
dysentery and he asked a friend of Philip William Otterbein to conduct the funeral. He was impressed and
began daily studies with a local Methodist study group and became a lay preacher in 1796 speaking across
eastern Pennsylvania, northern Maryland and Virginia organizing several groups of German-speaking
members. By 1806, a major revival movement spread throughout central and eastern Pennsylvania affecting
many religious groups. By 1807, the 220 members held its first conference and elected Jacob Albright bishop
and prepared a Book of Discipline. Bishop Albright died in 1808 and in 1816 the church took on the name
“The Evangelical Association.”
53
28
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
Mary Ann’s father, John W. Mottinger was a carpenter by trade, and purchased a 135 acre farm in Green
Township where they raised their eleven children over a nineteen year span with Susan being born in 1822
and Anna in 1841, though she died sometime before the 1850 Census and in 1856, John’s wife Anna passed
away. Mary Ann’s uncle, the Reverend George Mottinger became an ordained preacher with the Evangelical
Association in 1827 and was her father’s younger brother by five years. After eighteen years with the
Evangelical Association, George Mottinger left the Evangelical Association and moved his wife Elizabeth
Slough and their five children to Plainfield Township in Will County sometime in the summer or autumn of
1845 since on January 8, 1846, they welcomed their sixth child, Elizabeth.
On September 13, 1846, George purchased eighty acres [N½ of NW¼ of Sec. 2] in Plainfield Township for
$800 from Abbe Sanborn in Contract L-452. At the time of purchase, George received a mortgage of $400
from the seller to be repaid with three promissory notes with $133.33 due before March 1, 1848, $133.33 due
in 1849 and $133.34 due in 1850 respectively. Seventeen days later on September 30, he purchased three
additional parcels of land from Benjamin Hyland for $850 [Contract O-165-66]- a parcel of 40 acres [N½ of
W½ of NE¼ of Sec. 2] in Plainfield Township, a parcel in Wheatland Township of eighty acres [W½ of SE
¼ of Sec. 35] that was adjacent to his purchased parcel from A.C. Sanborn in Plainfield Township which
included a house and a 10 acre woodlot parcel in Section 21 of Plainfield Township south of the Village.
Five promissory notes covered the repayment of the $850 purchase price with interest of 6%, payable on
March 1 - $250 in 1847 and $150 in the succeeding years through 1851.
On May 17, 1850, George’s wife Elizabeth Slough passed away at the age of thirty-seven nearly eighteen
months after the birth of their son George “Georgie” in November 1848, however “Georgie” died on August
11, 1850 at twenty-one months old. In September, the 1850 Census had the widowed George Mottinger now
forty-one living on the family farm in Plainfield Township with his six children. On October 29, 1850,
George Mottinger married twenty-three year old Caroline Kimes in Naperville by a fellow Evangelical
minister, forty-three year old Reverend Samuel Tobias from Berks County, Pennsylvania who had relocated
from Pennsylvania to Naperville with his wife and five children in 1847. Caroline Kimes was eighteen when
she emigrated to Will County in 1845, one year after her sister had come to the United States. The 1850
Census shows Caroline living in Naperville with the Samuel Rickert family [Reference Exhibit E].
The Census of 1860 was enumerated on July 9 and had George and Caroline (Mottinger misspelled) living
on the family farm in Plainfield Township with five children from his first marriage and four young children
from his second marriage to Caroline Kimes – Lewis Henry (October 1851 – March 1935), Alfred E. (March
1853 – March 1914), Manias Oliver (February 1858 – January 1943) and Minnie Olive (February 1858 –
March 1952). The 1860 Census also lists a Margaret (Lee) as a “Mottinger” as part of the household though
not yet married and was pregnant with Charles Henry, born on October 25, 1860. It appears likely the couple
moved to Peoria to live with Margaret’s sister, Caroline (Lee) and her husband William Bramwell, a
carpenter after they had married in Indiana on April 1854.
John and Margaret (Mary) were married in Peoria on May 1, 1862 and in April 1863 welcomed their second
child William “Willie.” In June 1863, John Mottinger and William Bramwell registered for the Civil War
Draft in Peoria County – John listed being married and working as an engineer and William working as a
carpernter.. Less than six months later on December 3, 1863, John died from consumption or tuberculosis
and his body was returned to Plainfield and was buried in Sunday, December 6 at the Plainfield Township
Cemetery. The 1865 City Directory of Peoria lists Caroline as a dress and cloak maker with her husband
William living on Adams Street and her widowed sister Margaret and her two young sons living with them.
54
29
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
Sometime after the 1865 City Directory of Peoria was published, Margaret Mottinger passed away since the
1870 Census for Peoria, Illinois was enumerated on July 8, 1870 that showed seven year old William
Mottinger living with William (45) and Caroline (35) Bramwell. The whereabouts of nine year old Charles
Mottinger in 1870 is unknown [1850 Census in Plainfield Township - Exhibit E].
On April 21, 1873 the will of George Mottinger was probated by the Will County Circuit Court with his wife
as executrix nearly a month after his death. On the first page, Petition for Letters of Administration, the
surviving heirs of George Mottinger listed his wife Caroline and surviving children from both marriages and
Charles H. and William B. Mottinger, the only heirs of John W. Mottinger, deceased. Later reference is made
to “Charles and William Mottinger as the grandchildren of George Mottinger being the children of John W.
Mottinger, a deceased son of George Mottinger and are entitled to the distribution share which would have
gone to their deceased father.” The discovery of the Last Will and Testament of George Mottinger was a
fortuitous discovery since it listed the two children of John W. Mottinger and Margaret “Mary” F. Lee that
proved the existence of their two children not often found on family trees at Ancestry.com. In February 1871
William and Caroline Bramwell welcomed a daughter, Edith and sometime later William Bramwell moved
his family from Peoria to Indianapolis, Indiana. On July 20, 1878, William Mottinger passed away at the age
of fifteen and was buried at the Crown Hill Cemetery in Indianapolis [Reference Exhibit E].
55
30
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
Appendix C
In February 1840 Calvin and Nancy Colegrove purchased the south half of Lots 1 and 2 in Block 9 of
Section 16 from Chester Ingersoll with a two story house for $200 on Fox River Street. On September 6,
1842 the couple purchased the north half of Lots 1 and 2 in Block 9 and all of Lots 3 and 4 in Block 9 plus
seventeen acres of land west of the DuPage River in Section 16 from Chester Ingersoll for an additional
$241. The Census of 1850 taken on September 7 recorded the owners of the property as the Edward W.
Mitchell family. Edward Mitchell, a wheelwright had emigrated to the United States from England with his
wife and two children in 1848 and purchased the property on December 18, 1849 from James and Sally
Ballard for $500. Two additional people were listed as living in the Mitchell household – James Wraith, a
seventeen year old émigré from England serving as Mitchell’s apprentice wheelwright and a forty year old
weaver also from England, David Shaw.
In March 1849, Congress had passed a bill establishing a Census Board whose membership consisted of the
Secretary of State, the Attorney General and the Postmaster General. This Act authorized the Census Board
to prepare printed forms and schedules for the upcoming census and to hire Census Marshals to make a count
of the population in the thirty-one states and four territories – Oregon, Minnesota, New Mexico and Utah.
The official enumeration day of the Census was June 1, 1850 and for the first time the Census enumerators
were to record the names of every person in the household along with their age, sex, birthplace and
occupation of males over the age of fifteen with the results to be returned to the Secretary of the Interior by
November 1, 1850.
The only official records of new arrivals were the passenger lists furnished by incoming vessels to the United
States’ Customs officials which listed the names of all passengers, their nationality, where they embarked
and, in some cases, where they were going. For many immigrants that simple list was the only record of their
arrival in America. One could work, own property and enjoy most of the benefits of living in this country
without ever becoming a citizen.
However citizenship was a requirement for those wishing to vote, hold public office or purchase land from
the U.S. Government Land Office. Congress passed the Naturalization Act of April 14, 1802 that reduced the
residence period for naturalization from 14 years back to 5. Previously, on June 18, 1798 at a time when
political tensions were running high and there was an increased desire to guard the nation, Congress changed
the residency requirement in the Naturalization Act to guard the nation. A two-step process was put into
place that took five years after residing in the United States for two years. A person seeking citizenship first
went to a local “court of record” that was a court that kept permanent records of its proceedings and declared
that it was his “bona fide intention” to become a United States’ citizen and to renounce allegiance to his
former country which usually involved making a sworn statement before a judge and signing a document.
After three additional years, the applicant would reappear before the court with two witnesses who would
swear that he had been a good citizen and would take the oath of allegiance before a judge and be officially
declared a citizen of the United States. If the applicant was married and had children born overseas, his wife
and minor children would automatically become citizens and children born to a married couple after their
arrival in America were considered citizens by birth regardless of their parents’ status.
On December 18, 1854, Edward Mitchell and his apprentice, James Wraith, now 22, took their oaths of
citizenship from a judge of the Circuit Court of Will County at the Will County Courthouse in Joliet, Illinois.
James Wraith had served as Edward Mitchell’s apprentice for five years learning the craft of a wheelwright –
1849 – 1854. On Saturday, December 31, 1853, James Wraith married Sophia Needham and on July 1, 1854
56
31
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
purchased Lots 4, 5, and 8 from Elihu Corbin along the west side of Dillman Street in Corbin’s Addition to
Plainfield for $140 and continued to work at Mitchell’s business until September 1856 when Edward
Mitchell sold his property in Block 9 along Fox River Street and relocated his family and wheelwright
business to East Waterloo, Iowa and by 1866 had moved to Napa, California where he was listed as a Master
Wheelwright. [1850, 1870 & 1880 Census Information – Exhibit F]
It seems likely that the house that James Wraith and Sophia Needham built on Lot 8 at the northwest corner
of Dillman and Ottawa Streets was started soon after the purchase on July 1, 1854 since Sophia was pregnant
at the time with their first child, Mary Elizabeth, born November 10. James Wraith may have continued to
work for Edward Mitchell saving his money until Mitchell relocated his wheelwright business to Waterloo,
Iowa in 1856 since contract records from the Will County Recorder of Deeds do not show any recorded
mortgages for James Wraith for the purchase of his three lots, the construction of his house and possibly a
workshop for his wheelwright business on Lot 5 on Dillman Street. Four years later in 1858, James sold Lot
4 for $90. [Elihu Corbin’s Addition to Plainfield – Exhibit G]
After the deaths of both his parents in 1842 and 1844, Charles Needham with his wife Mary Webb emigrated
in October 1850 from the north-central county of Yorkshire, England via Liverpool, England with their four
children on the English steamer Liverpool to New York City. On March 20, 1855, Charles Needham bought
Lots 3 and 6 in Block 2 of Elihu Corbin’s Addition for $110 on the east side of Division Street and across the
alley from Lots 4, 5 and 8 on the west side of Dillman Street purchased in July 1854 by their son-in-law,
James Wraith, a wheelwright who had married their oldest daughter Sophia on Christmas Day in 1853.
James and Sophia lived in their house for 53 years and raised six children though two children, William and
Millicent died in December 1860, six days apart– William was two and Millicent was 15 months old - their
remaining children survived to adulthood. [Elihu Corbin’s Addition to Plainfield – Exhibit G]
In May 1870, Alfred Mottinger graduated from the Aurora Jennings Seminary at the age of seventeen. The
Jennings Seminary was an idea for higher education put forward by Reverend John Clark who arrived in
Aurora in 1852. Though he died in 1854, the school (Clark Seminary) was chartered in 1854 and opened in
1856 as the Clark Seminary School. In 1864 the school was sold to a religious group known as the Rock
River Conference of the Methodist Church. Miss Eliza Jennings was the school’s biggest contributor to the
purchase of the school hence the school was renamed in her honor - Jennings Seminary. The school averaged
over 300 students during its first 8 years under this name and in 1898, the Deaconess Society of the
Methodist Episcopal Church took over and changed it to an all-girls school continuing as a strong academic
facility for young ladies, eventually closing its doors in 1942. The school building was destroyed in a 1959
fire.
The August 10, 1870 Census listed a seventeen year old Alfred Mottinger living on the family farm in
Plainfield Township with his parents, George (65) and Caroline (42) and his siblings – Lewis (18) and
twelve year old twins Manias and Minnie. Lewis Mottinger married Mary Burkett, a school teacher in
Plainfield on October 19, 1871. Their father died in March 1873 at the age of sixty-eight and nine months
later on Christmas Day in 1873, Alfred Mottinger married Mary Elizabeth Wraith, the oldest daughter of
James Wraith and Sophia Needham. When the 1880 Census was enumerated on June 7, Alfred and his wife
Mary were living on the family farm in Plainfield Township with their two daughters – Maud was born in
July 1875 and Irene was born in April 1878. Their eighteen year old sister Minnie Mottinger had married
Solomon W.Simmons on January 2, 1877 and were living in Wheatland Township on a farm owned by
Solomon, Sr. Minnies’ twin, Manias married sixteen year old Jerousha DeLong on February 24, 1880 though
Jerousha died fifty days later on April 15 and when the 1880 Census was enumerated in Wheatland Twp. on
57
32
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
June 11, Manias was listed aa a widower employing George Wraith, the seventeen year old brother of Alfred
Mottinger’s wife, Mary Elizabeth Wraith.. After the death of their mother Caroline on August 8, 1881, the
heirs of George Mottinger – Alfred, wife Mary, Lewis, wife Mary and Manias sold the family farm to
Solomon W. Simmons and his wife, Minnie (Mottinger) for $4,700. [1850, 1870 & 1880 Census
Information - Reference Exhibit F]
On April 18, 1889 Alfred and his wife Mary purchased the house on the “South half of Lots 5 and 6 in
Block 11 in Ingersoll’s Addition to Plainfield. In Contract 264-185, the Mottinger’s purchased the house
from Reverend Edward Wright Adams and his wife Mary for $1,800. Three days later on April 18, 1889,
Alfred and Mary received a mortgage from Nathanial Brainard for $1,800 – six promissory notes of $300
each, payable on April 18 for the next six years – 1890 through 1895 with 7% interest payable annually on
the anniversary date of April 18. Reverend Adams was from New Jersey and lived there for the first thirty-
four years of his life with his wife and family before relocating to Westfield, New York where the 1865 New
York Census listed him as a Methodist clergyman. By 1870, he had moved to his new pastorate in Marengo,
Illinois and by the time of the June 1880 Census was living on LaSalle Street in Aurora with his wife Mary
and four of their children. In 1887, he came to Plainfield to begin a two year pastorate at the Methodist
Episcopal Church and purchased the property in this nomination on April 16 from Isaiah Clippinger and his
wife Clara for $650. When his two year pastorate in Plainfield ended, Edward likely returned to Aurora since
the June 1900 Census shows him with his wife Mary and their thirty-one year old daughter Carrie living in
Aurora Township.
As stated previously the historical footprint of the house in this nomination can be found on Map 2 of the
January 1912 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map which also reflects the residence’s current footprint. The 1893
and 1898 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps did not cover this segment of Plainfield. The 1912 edition of the
Sanborn maps also indicated that the house at the southeast corner of Lot 8 in Block 11 that was previously
mentioned was no longer present. Based on research at the Will County Recorder of Deeds, it seems likely
that an earlier pre-Civil War house which occupied the southwest corner of Lot 5 in Block 11 and was
purchased in May 1858 by Jacob Hoffer for $625 from Asahel and Lydia Booth was replaced by the house in
this nomination.
Though the 2005 ArchiSearch survey for the house shows a construction date of 1895, based on the contracts
from the Will County Recorder of Deeds the chain of title for the south half of Lots 5 and 6 in Block 11
indicates a span of thirteen years where Isaiah Clippinger purchased the two lots in December 1874 from
Sylvia Swan for $400 and then in April 1887 sold the two lots to Reverend Edward W. Adams for $650.
After the completion his two year pastorate at the Plainfield Methodist Episcopal Church, Reverend Adams
sold the property to Alfred Mottinger on April 18, 1889 for $1,800.
Alfred (36) and his wife Mary (34) had been married for fifteen years when they purchased the house in
August 1889 on DesPlaines Street with their three daughters – Maud (14), Irene (11) and Grace (6). Alfred’s
older brother, Lewis was elected the Will County Sheriff in November 1898 and soon after the election he
appointed Alfred his deputy. When the 1900 Census was taken in June, Alfred was still working as a Will
County deputy sheriff and his two adult daughters, Maud (24), was a music teacher who was also the
organist at the Plainfield Methodist Episcopal Church and Irene (22), was a dressmaker. Two years later in
1902, Alfred was elected to the office of Will County Clerk and was re-elected for another four year term in
1906.
58
33
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
On Wednesday, September 6, 1905, Alfred’s thirty year old daughter, Maud married forty year old Dr. John
Payne Browne, an Australian émigré who moved to the United States in 1870 with his parents and settled in
Kenosha County, Wisconsin. Their wedding was held at her parent’s house on DesPlaines Street. Dr.
Browne had been an educator prior to his enrollment at the College of Physicians and Surgeons in Chicago
that had been founded by five educators who opened the school on September 26, 1882 with 100 students
and twenty-seven faculty members. Medical licenses were not required to practice medicine in 19th Century
Chicago and “doctors” most often educated themselves by reading medical texts or “read” with practicing
physicians unless they chose to attend medical schools in the East. Compared to current requirements of a
four year undergraduate degree and a four year medical degree becoming a doctor in the nineteenth century
was a considerably easy task. In 1913 the College of Physicians and Surgeons officially changed their name
to the University of Illinois College of Medicine.
The 1920 Census had Dr. Browne and his wife living on Lockport Street with a nurse, Dollie Niver (41)
living with them. Historical records from the Will County Recorder of Deeds indicated Dr. John Payne
Browne had purchased Lot 5 in the Assessor’s Subdivision of Block 6 of Arnold’s Addition at the northwest
corner of Lockport and Division Streets on October 25, 1909 for $3,200 from the heirs of Sarah Brown. Five
years later, Dr. Browne built a brick and stucco American FourSquare house with his doctor’s office in a
front room that could be closed off from the rest of the house. The marriage lasted fifteen years as Maud died
in May 1920 from ALS or Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and cemetery records verify that, thus explaining
the reason for Dollie Niver as a live-in nurse to help care for Maud not as a renter for a room..
The onset of ALS is often so subtle that the symptoms are often overlooked but gradually these symptoms
develop into more obvious weakness or atrophy. It is a rare neurological disease that primarily affects the
nerve cells (neurons) responsible for controlling voluntary muscle movement. The disease is progressive
meaning the symptoms get worse over time. The disease was studied beginning in June 1939 when the Mayo
Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota began a case study on baseball great Lou Gehrig who had contracted the
disease that finally ended his baseball career on April 30, 1939. On June 2, 1941, he passed away from the
disease that often is referred to as “Lou Gehrig’s Disease.” In June 1925 Dr. John Browne married Alice
Graves Browne who was the principal at Plainfield High School and after his death less than than two years
later in 1927, she operated a “tourist house” renting rooms to travelers along the Lincoln Highway. Alice had
taught five years at Joliet Township High School and then came to Plainfield High School in 1908 and taught
for fourteen years before becoming the principal in 1921. While principal she specialized in the teaching of
Latin and Algebra until her retirement in 1934. When US Route 66 was re-routed down Division Street in
1939, she had more travelers to rent rooms and she often would rent rooms to local teachers into the late
1950s.
Soon after her father’s re-election as Will County’s Clerk in 1906 his youngest daughter Irene (28) was
employed as a clerk in the office in Joliet - the 1908 City Directory for Joliet & Plainfield listed her as a
clerk working at the Will County Clerk’s office and worked there until 1910 when her father’s term ended.
The 1910 Census enumerated in April lists Alfred (57) and his wife Mary (55) living at their DesPlaines
house with their two daughters, Irene (32) and Grace (26). Four years later on March 7, 1914, Alfred
Mottinger died at the age of sixty-one and was buried the next day at the Plainfield Township Cemetery.
Four years later in October 1918 their youngest daughter Grace Mottinger married John Patrick Lennon and
the 1920 Census enumerated on January 6 listed Alfred Mottinger’s widow, Mary (65) residing at her house
on DesPlaines Street with her two daughters – Irene (41) and Grace (36) and Grace’s husband John Lennon,
a shoe salesman.
59
34
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
By the time of the 1920 Census enumeration on January 6, Grace Mottinger and her husband John P. Lennon
had moved in with her widowed mother at her house on DesPlaines Street sharing the house with her sister
Irene. John Lennon was a shoe salesman and in the 1929 City Directory of Joliet and Plainfield was listed as
a shoe buyer for the Ryan and Hartney Shoe Company at 120 N. Chicago Street in Joliet. On August 12,
1933, U.S.G. Blakeley was removed as Plainfield’s postmaster and John P. Lennon was named the acting
Postmaster of Plainfield. He was nominated to be Plainfield’s Postmaster on June 15, 1934 and three days
later was confirmed and served in that position until his death on November 26, 1937. His wife Grace was
nominated as acting Plainfield Postmaster on April 25, 1938 and confirmed three days later. On May 3,
1938, Grace was appointed postmaster and was in charge by July and served as Plainfield’s postmaster until
her retirement on December 31, 1948.
In August 1920, forty-two year old Irene Mottinger married Albert Christian Steiner who was employed as a
decorator at Steiner’s Dry Goods Store at the northwest corner of Lockport and Illinois Streets owned by his
brother, Fred W. Steiner, Jr. Albert had purchased a house on Commercial Avenue in 1906, about three
blocks southeast of Irene’s parent’s house and on August 1, 1925, Albert purchased his brother’s business for
$3,500 that later became A.C. Steiner’s Dress Shop where Albert’s daughter, Elsbeth was employed as an
accountant and later operated the business for over 40 years before selling the business in 1947.
60
35
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
Appendix D
Statement of Significance
In ArchiSearch’s 2006 evaluation of this 137 year-old two-story residence notations include -
“this house is an excellent example of the Queen Anne-Shingle Style, with a Gable Front vernacular
form…..retains a very high degree of integrity, importantly including original clapboard siding.”
ArchiSearch notes “IF the interior is intact, this could be an individual candidate for the National Register!”
Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance. To be listed in the National Register of
Historic Places, a property must not only be shown to be significant under the National Register criteria but it
also must have integrity. The evaluation of integrity is sometimes a subjective judgment but it must always
be grounded in an understanding of a property’s physical features and how they relate to its significance. The
only significant change to the interior of this c.1885 house was the addition of bathrooms in the first decade
of the Twentieth Century after the Village approved assessments for the construction of a system of sewers
and water lines under Ordinance No. 147 in October 1911 with the first voucher issued on December 21,
1911. The assessment for Lots 5 and 6 in Block 11 owned by Alfred Edward Mottinger was $63.47 each
payable in ten payments beginning in 1911 through 1921.
A recent cursory examination of the interior revealed what appears to be the interior of a just completed
c.1885 house with its original wood floors, painted wood doors, trim work about the doors, windows and
baseboards, stairs and the original room divisions complete with pocket doors.
When Alfred and Mary Mottinger purchased this house in April 1889 for $1,800 from Reverend Edward
Wright Adams it seems likely that this house had been built for local druggist Isaiah Clippinger sometime
during the thirteen year period after they purchased the two half lots from Sylvia Swan in December 1874 for
$400 to April 1887 when they sold the same two half lots with the house to Reverend Adams who moved to
Plainfield to begin his two year pastorate at the Methodist Episcopal Church. This Queen Anne/Shingle
Style according to ArchiSearch is a distinctively American style which was first used for New England
summer houses and was used minimally in the late nineteenth century – c. 1885 – c. 1890.
The period of significance for this house would be c. 1885 – 1955, when the last of Mottinger children,
Grace Mottinger Lennon died at age 73 in February 1956. Records suggest that Grace lived in the house
most of her life – in 1889 Grace was six when her parents purchased the house; the 1900 Census lists her as
seventeen and a high school student; the 1910 Census has her twenty-seven living with her parents and sister
Irene; the 1920 Census has Grace living with her husband and widowed mother two years after her father
had passed; the 1930 Census lists the value of the house at $7,000 with Grace, forty-seven, her husband John
fifty-two after her mother died in 1929 and a seventeen year old cousin, Dorothy Spraker from Oklahoma;
the 1940 Census finds Grace a widow of fifty-seven after her husband had died in 1937 and working as
Plainfield’s postmaster. It appears likely that Grace lived at the house on DesPlaines Street that her parents
had purchased in 1889 for most of the next sixty-six years, though relatives of Alfred and Mary Mottinger
did not sell the property until March 1992.
61
36
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
Summary Statement of Significance
The house is nominated for designation as a local landmark in the Village of Plainfield under the following
criteria:
Criterion c: is identified with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the development
of the community, county, state or nation
Criterion d: embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style valuable for
the study of a period, type, method of construction, or use of indigenous materials;
Criterion f: embodies elements of design, detailing, materials, or craftsmanship that are of architectural
significance.
Criterion j: is suitable for preservation or restoration;
62
37
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
EXHIBITS
A. Ingersoll’s 1834 Plat of Planefield
B. Pre-Civil War Map of Plainfield - c. 1852
C. Ingersoll’s Addition to Plainfield – 1837
D. Plat of Arnold’s Addition to Plainfield – September 4, 1845 – this shows the quarter section that
came to be known as Arnold’s Addition - surveyed almost a year after Levi Arnold’s death.
E. 1850 Census in Plainfield Township
F. 1850, 1870 & 1880 Census Information
G. Elihu Corbin’s Addition to Plainfield
H. Chain of Title for 15135 S. DesPlaines Street
63
38
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
EXHIBIT A
64
39
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
EXHIBIT B
65
40
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
EXHIBIT C
66
41
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
EXHIBIT D
67
42
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
EXHIBIT E
1850 Census
Plainfield Twp.- Sept. 9 Naperville (DuPage); Aug. 26 Naperville (DuPage); Aug 24
41 George Mottinger 47 Samuel Rickert (PA) 43 Samuel Tobias (PA)
16 John W.- 6/19/1804 - 12/8/1863 37 Esther 44 Rebecca
14 Solomon - 10/11/1836 - 12/14/1925 21 Richard 16 Charles
13 Maria - 2/20/1837 - 10/5/1892 18 Edwin 14 William
11 Noah Daniel - 9/10/1839 - 7/19/1921 16 Alex 10 Maria
9 Hannah - 2/18/1840 - 11/3/1897 12 Matilda 7 Sarah
6 Elizabeth - 6/8/1846 - 2/10/1919 9 Alfred 5 Emma
24 Caroline Kimes (Gern) 2 Amelia – (IL)
1860 Census 1870 Census
Plainfield Twp. – July 9 Peoria – June 21 Peoria – July 8
55 George Mottinger(PA) 35 William A. Bramwell 45 William A. Bramwell
34 Caroline Kimes (GER) 24 Caroline O. (Lee) 35 Caroline O.
25 John W. (PA) 7 William Mottinger
21 Margaret (Lee)
23 Maria 1880 Census
21 Noah Daniel
20 Hannah Indianapolis – June 5
14 Elizabeth (IL)
8 Lewis Henry 54 William A. Bramwell
7 Alfred Edward 45 Caroline O.
2 Manias Oliver 9 Edith
2 Minnie Olive
1900 Census
Indianapolis – June 4
32 Frank C. Brown
29 Edith
4 Forest
2 Ruth
74 William A. Bramwell
68
43
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
EXHIBIT F
1850 Census 1870 Census
Plainfield (Sept. 7) Plainfield Twp. (Aug. 10)
34 Edward Mitchell 65 George Mottinger
28 Mary Mitchell 42 Caroline (Kimes)
10 Joseph 18 Lewis Henry
7 Hannah 17 Alfred Edward
1 Edward 12 Manias Oliver
17 James Wraith 12 Minnie Olive
40 David Shaw
1880 Census
Plainfield (June 25) Plainfield Twp. (June 7) Plainfield Twp. - (June 11) - Wheatland Twp.
28 Lewis Mottinger 27 Alfred Mottinger 22 Manias Mottinger 24 Solomon W. Simmons
27 Minnie (Burkett) 25 Mary (Wraith) 17 George Wraith 22 Minnie (Mottinger)
4 Jessie Mottinger 4 Maud Mottinger 23 Rosa Burkett
53 Caroline Kimes 2 Irene Mottinger
18 Almeda Burkett
15 Sophronia Burkett
69
44
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
EXHIBIT G
70
45
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
EXHIBIT H
15135 (501) S. DesPlaines
06-03-16-213-008-0000
Lot 5, except the N 60’ & except the E 4’ lying S of the N 60’ in Block 11 in NE ¼ of Sec. 16
GRANTOR GRANTEE
8/12/2011 Fannie Mae [Sp. WD – R2011079234] $115,000 Solis, Eustaquio
Solis, Anthony/Nicole
5/06/2011 Johnson, Raymond DeVere, [WD – R2011054734] Federal National Mtg. Ass.
Ruth M. Johnson Trust
11/15/2005 Johnson, Raymond D. [Deed/Trust - R2005205534] $206,000 Johnson, Raymond DeVere
Ruth M. Johnson Trust
12/17/2004 Johnson, Raymond D./Ruth[Mtg – R2004232502] $153,000 Money Shop
12/13/2004 Brown, Kerry H./Cheryl L. [QCD – R2005205533] Johnson, Raymond D.
6/19/1992 Amer. Instit. Cancer Research [WD – R92056524] $100,000 Brown, Cheryl/Kerry
3/13/1992 Harris, Dorothy L. Graves/Jack [QCD-92056523] Brown, H.Kerry/Cheryl
Lot 5 except the North 60’ thereof
12/30/1965 Bond, Frank L./Dorothy Graves [TD-R65012415] $44,000 1st National Bank of Joliet
Lot 5 in Block 11 & Lot 24 in Block 6 in the Assessor’s Subdivision in Arnold’s Addition
2/28/1963 Hartong, Louise [QCD - 2020-503] Bond, Dorothy Graves
Bond, Frank L.
Lot 5 in Block 11, excepting the North 60’ thereof
2/28/1963 Bond, Dorothy Graves [QCD - 2020-502] Hartong, Louise
Lot 5 in Block 11, excepting the North 60’ thereof
8/01/1929 Lund, Florence [QCD – 730-210] Mottinger, Mary
Lennon, Grace W.
Lots 5 & 6 in Block 11, excepting the North 60’
8/01/1929 Mottinger, Mary [WD – 723-387] Lund, Florence
(Widow of Alfred)
Mottinger, Grace & Lennon, John Lots 5 & 6 in Block 11, excepting the North 60’
Steiner, Irene (Mottinger)/Albert
71
46
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
Graves, Alice G.
(Widow of John Browne)
5/28/1914 Mottinger, Mary E.(Widow) [ WD – 499-42] $1,200 Taylor, George A.
Browne, Maud/John P.
Mottinger, Irene & Grace (unmarried daughters)
Heirs of Alfred Mottinger 60’ off of the North end of Lots 5 & 6 of Block 11; the party
of the 2nd part will assume, otherwise the levied taxes of 1913,
also ½ of all unpaid installments of any & all special assessments against the whole of said Lots
5 & 6 in Lot 11. The party of the 2nd part to have the privilege of connecting onto a sewer onto
the branch sewer already laid through Lots 5 & 6 from the main sewer running through Ottawa Street.
4/18/1889 Mottinger, Alfred E./Mary E.[ Mtg – 299-142] $1,800 Brainard, Nathaniel
6 promissory notes bearing even date herewith of $300 each payable April 18, 1890, 1891, 1892,
1893, 1894, & 1895 with interest at 7% payable annually on S ½ of Lots 5 & 6 in Block 1
4/15/1889 Adams, Edward W./Mary [ WD – 264-185] $1,800 Mottinger, Alfred E.
S ½ of Lots 5 & 6 in Block 11
4/16/1887 Clippinger, Isaiah A. /Clara [WD – 242-469] $650 Adams, Edward W.
S ½ of Lots 5 & 6 in Block 11
1/28/1878 Miles, Orison/Samantha [WD-151-105] $100 Clippinger, Isaiah
N½ of Lots 5 & 6 in Block 11
12/01/1874 Swan, Sylvia M. [WD – 159-505] $400 Clippinger, Isaiah A.
S ½ of Lots 5 & 6 in Block 11
12/20/1873 Curtis, Lewis C.(Dec.) [Mortgagee Deed – 148-512-4] $285 Swan, Sylvia M.
[J. Hagar – Executor of Will]
S ½ of Lots 5 & 6 in Block 11
6/19/1871 Hyland, Edward T./Sarah C. [WD – 123-436] $100 Swan, Sylvia M.
S ½ of Lot 6 in Block 11
5/24/1870 Curtis, Lewis C. [Executor’s Deed – 120 – 411-14] $385 Hyland, Edward T.
S ½ of Lots 5 & 6 in Block 11
5/24/1870 Hyland, Edward [SMtg. – 113-558] $285 Curtis, Lewis
(Executor Jonathan Hagar)
S ½ of Lots 5 & 6 in Block 11, payable in 1 year from May 24 at 6% interest being
the purchase money for the premises w/balance due at public sale on May 23, 1870
72
47
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
4/04/1865 Hoffer, Philip/Margaret ]WD – 112-436] $500 Curtis, Lewis C.
S ½ of Lots 5 & 6 in Block 11
2/03/1865 Hoffer, Jacob/Dorothy [WD-90-263-4] $1.00 Hoffer, Philip
Dec. Term Jacob Hoffer Estate [Administrative Deed – 90-262-64] Hoffer, Philip
1864
S ½ of Lots 5 & 6 in Block 11
5/03/1858 Booth, Lydia Emily/Asahel [WD – 57-523] $625 Hoffer, Jacob
S ½ of Lots 5 & 6 in Block 11
11/01/1855 Horton, A.R. [WD – 42-101] $400 Burlew, John E.
4/21/1852 Horton, Asa/Ann [Mtg – X-93] $380 Bartlett, Elias Lyman
S ½ of Lots 5 & 6 in Block 11; $380 paid by 7 promissory notes – 4 of $20 each due in
6 months; 1 of $100 due 11/01/1853; 1 of $100 due 11/01 1854 & 1 of $100 due 11/01/ 1855;
Tenements mentioned & notes paid off 2/14/1856
4/21/1852 Bartlett, Elias L./Rachel [ Deed – X-180] $400 Horton, Asa/Ann
S ½ of Lots 5 & 6 in Block 11 w/ Rachel Bartlett relinquishing her right of dower & tenements
2/01/1849 Bartlett, Elias Lymna [MTG - P-481] $200 Wright, Winthrop
$200 paid by 2 notes bearing even dates - Note 1 of $100 to be paid on 4/01/1850; the other
note of $100 to be paid on 4/01/1851 - released 8/19/1852
1/27/1849 Wright, Winthrop [WD – P-185] $300 Bartlett, Elias Lyman
Deeded to Wright by Ezra Wright
Being the premises deeded to Winthrop Wright by Ezra Wright described as the S½ of Lots 5 & 6
in Block 11 - deed mentions Roxana relinquishing her right of dower & tenements
5/02/1848 Wright, Ezra [WD – O-119) $175 Wright, Winthrop
1/02/1847 Woods, Charles [WD – N-174] $150 Wright, Ezra
S ½ of Lots 5 & 6 in Block 11
10/09/1846 Sottsman, Nathan [WD – M-209] $150 Woods, Charles
S ½ of Lots 5 & 6 in Block 11
73
48
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
10/18/1844 Daggett, Phyloman [WD – L-426] $100 Sottsman, Nathan
S½ of Lots 5 & 6 in Block 11
2/10/1843 Beggs, Stephen R. [WD – H-362] $100 Daggett, Phyloman
S ½ of Lots 5 & 6 in Block 11
3/08/1838 Daggett, Philoman [Deed – E-224] $72.50 Beggs, Stephen R.
10/11/1837 Ingersoll, Chester [Deed – D-191] $72.50 Daggett, Phyloman
S ½ of Lots 5 & 6 in Block 11
8/27/1834 Plat of Planefield – Record 1 – 52-53 – Survey completed by Jedidiah Woolley on 6/05/1834
12/03/1833 Ingersoll, Chester [Mtg – 1-24] $1,000 Blanchard, Francis Gurtrey
(Bachelor from Brooklyn, NY)
W ½ & E ½ of NE ¼ of Sec. 16 in Twp. 36 N Range 9E, containing
160 Acres with interest at 10% annually & in case of non-payment of said sum of $1,000, Chester
Ingersoll empowers Francis Blanchard to sell & convey the above mortgaged premises at public
auction…..acknowledged - 12/03/1833
4/02/1834 (US Land Office) to State of Illinois [Patent – 417 – 515] $200 Ingersoll, Chester
160 A. located in NE ¼ of Sec. 16 paid by Chester Ingersoll to the Auditor of Public Accounts,
Richard I. Hamilton, School Commissioner & Agent for Cook County
10/21/1833 U.S. Land Office [Patent - ] $100 Ingersoll, Chester
E ½ of NE ¼ of Sec. 16
74
49
Village of Plainfield Historic Landmark Nomination
15135 S. Des Plaines St.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A Field Guide to American Architecture, Carole Rifkind, A Plume Book, 1980, ISBN 0-452-25334-5
A History of Plainfield: Then and Now (2nd Edition), Plainfield Bicentennial Commission (Plainfield
Enterprise: Plainfield, Illinois, 1976
Ancestry.com
Appointments of US Postmasters – 1832 - 1971
Baker, John Milnes, “American House Styles: a Concise Guide,” 2nd Edition. Countryman Press, July 2,
2018.
Historic Urbanized Core Survey, Plainfield Historic Preservation Commission. ArchiSearch Historic
Preservation Consultant Alice Novak, Sept. 12, 2005
Archivists at Dickinson College, Kings College, Thomas Jefferson University, University of Pennsylvania
The History of Will County, Illinois - 1878
Plainfield Enterprise
Plainfield Historical Society Archives – Plainfield, Illinois
Plainfield Township Cemetery Records
Restoring Old Houses, Nigel Hutchins, Firefly Books, Buffalo, NY, 1997, ISBN 1-55209-144-9
Rush University Medical Center Archives (Rush Medical College)
“Sheet Metal Facades by Mesker Companies,” Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, August 7, 2012
U.S. Federal Census Records – 1830, 1840, 1850, 1860, 1870, 1880, 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, 1940
Will County Clerk’s Office
Will County Recorder’s Office Archives: Joliet, Illinois.
Researchers:
Michael Bortel
Leif Henricksen
Michael A. Lambert
David Schmidt
75