HomeMy Public PortalAbout01-12-23 HPC AgendaHistoric Preservation Commission
Thursday, January 12, 2023
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 July 14, 2022
& September 8, 2022.
07-14-2022 HPC Minutes.pdf
09-08-2022 HPC Minutes.pdf
CHAIR'S COMMENTS
COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS
PUBLIC COMMENTS (5 minutes per topic)
OLD BUSINESS
1.24136 W. LOCKPORT ST. (CASE 1979-071122.COA)
1.a.Seeking a motion to recommend approval of the requested Certificate of
Appropriateness for the property located at 24136 W. Lockport Street, subject to
execution of a Letter of Agreement with a detailed scope of work, executed between the
HPC, applicant, and Village staff to accept the following conditions of approval
(conditions to be provided by the Commission).
24136 W. Lockport St. Staff Packet
1
Historic Preservation Commission Page - 2
NEW BUSINESS
DISCUSSION
ADJOURN
REMINDERS -
January 16th - Village Offices Closed
January 17th - Plan Commissioner Meeting at 7:00 p.m.
February 6th - Village Board Meeting at 7:00 p.m.
February 9th - Historic Preservation Commission Meeting at 7:00 p.m.
2
Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission
Record of Minutes
Date: July 14, 2022 Location: Village Hall
CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL, PLEDGE
Chairman Bortel called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
Roll call: Commissioners Barvian, Derrick, Hagen, Rapp, Schmidt and Chairman Bortel were present.
Commissioner Olsen was absent.
Also, in attendance: Jonathan Proulx, Director of Planning; and Rachel Riemenschneider, Associate
Planner
Chairman Bortel led the pledge to the flag.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Derrick made a motion to approve the agenda. Seconded by Commissioner Barvian.
Voice Vote. All in favor. 0 opposed. Motion carried 6-0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Derrick made a motion to approve the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission
held on June 9, 2022, as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Hagen. Voice Vote. All in favor. 0
opposed. Motion carried 6-0.
CHAIR’S COMMENTS
Chairman Bortel stated tomorrow between 2:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m. the HPC will be allowed access to the
Bronk Farmhouse so it can be documented. Mr. Proulx stated the Will County Historic Preservation
Commission has been invited as well.
Chairman Bortel stated the Will County Historic Preservation will be meeting at the Masonic Block
meeting room on September 7th at 6:00 p.m. and the commission is invited to the meeting.
COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS
No Comments.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No Public Comments.
OLD BUSINESS
No Old Business.
NEW BUSINESS
1978-070722.COA 24012 W. LOCKPORT ST. 24012 LLC
Mr. Proulx stated the applicant is proposing a series of improvements to the building at 24012 W.
Lockport St. to prepare the structure for a new use, such as a restaurant or special event venue. The
proposed exterior modifications include the addition of an accessible ramp to the rear of the property, a
deck along the west building elevation, removal and replacement of gutters and downspouts, replacement
3
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
July 14, 2022
Page 2 of 5
doors, replacement windows, the potential infill of certain windows on the rear elevation, and
modifications to the front porch.
Mr. Proulx reviewed the staff report dated July 12, 2022. Mr. Proulx concluded in advance of any public
comment or discussion by the Historic Preservation Commission, staff supports the proposed Certificate
of Appropriateness.
Commissioner Schmidt stated he has work with the applicant in the past as his architect and was
wondering what the procedure is for him to comment/vote. Mr. Proulx stated since Commissioner
Schmidt does not have a financial stake in this property so there is no legal reason for him to not
participate in the discussion and vote.
Chairman Bortel asked if the applicant would like to make any statements. Chairman Bortel swore in
Brian Bart, contractor; and Brian Smith, applicant. Mr. Bart stated he does not have anything to add at
this time.
Chairman Bortel asked if the applicant is doing exterior and interior remodeling. Mr. Bart confirmed.
Chairman Bortel asked if the applicant is considering replacing all the windows with replacement
windows and if so why. Mr. Bart confirmed and indicated their desire to bring the windows to energy
code also so all the windows will match. Mr. Bart further explained that 3 or 4 of the windows on the rear
and side of the building are newer windows, so they are not original. Chairman Bortel asked if those
windows are visible from the street. Mr. Bart stated they are not. Chairman Bortel suspects that the
existing window can be repaired and there is an interior storm window. Mr. Bart stated they have
contacted Marvin Windows for custom replacement windows. Chairman Bortel stated the applicant
would qualify for a tax credit with the work they are completing. Mr. Smith stated the windows have
been neglected for many years, they want to save the leaded glass on the existing windows. Chairman
Bortel asked if the new windows will resemble the existing windows. Mr. Smith stated they match as
close to existing as possible; they also want to replace the canopies, front porch store front windows, and
restore front porch exterior brick. Chairman Bortel asked if they have spoken with the state regarding the
tax credit. Mr. Smith stated yes and explained how he is working with the owners of the building to the
west regarding a handicap ramp and how to improve the vacant land between the two buildings.
Commissioner Hagen asked how many of the windows are original. Mr. Smith stated probably 5 to 8
windows were replaced. Mr. Bart stated they are looking at Marvin windows. Chairman Bortel asked
Commissioner Rapp if Marvin windows were used to replace the windows on the 2nd floor of the Masonic
Block building. Commissioner Rapp was unsure.
Commissioner Schmidt asked what changes are proposed for the front elevation. Mr. Smith stated they
are proposing two possible options to the front elevation one that will remove the retail windows on the
porch and a second where they would be replacing the retail windows; all existing windows would also be
replaced. Commissioner Schmidt asked if the top arch windows will be replaced. Mr. Bart stated the
goal is to keep them or to put a new window in with the existing window in front or behind the
replacement window.
Commissioner Derrick stated there is not enough information provided to complete a COA this evening.
Commissioner Derrick stated the commission needs to make sure the work being proposed complies with
the Secretary of Interior Standards.
4
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
July 14, 2022
Page 3 of 5
Below is a list of items that will need to be completed before a COA can be approved/written by the HPC:
• Window Survey - which would include detailed conditions of each window, so they can
determine how deteriorated are the windows;
• Replace Window – Illustration of the window along with the materials, type, color,
dimension, profile and manufacture;
• Window Estimates – Repair of existing window & contractor vs. new window quote
from manufacturer;
• Handicap Ramp – List of materials and color;
• Deck – List of material, sample of railings, and color;
• Porch Railings – Need more details:
o Is this based on a historic photo?
o What are the materials, profile, and dimensions;
• Original Doors – Date of originals, photos, manufacture, dimensions, and condition of
doors. Specific details of which doors will be replaced and detailed photos of the
existing door;
• Proposed Replacement Doors – Sample, illustration, materials, hardware, and
manufacture;
• Existing Gutters- Detailed photos of existing gutters, profile, age and materials;
• Replacement Gutters - Illustration of the gutter along with the dimension, materials, and
profile;
• Masonry Work – The brick and tinted mortar are important. Please detail how the
mortar removal and replacement will comply with the best practices for historic masonry
by NPS. Aggregate, hardness, tooling, depth, and with all need to be addressed.
Mr. Smith asked who can preform the window survey. Commissioner Derrick stated she would be happy
walk the property to photograph and inventory the window. Chairman Bortel suggested having Anthony
from the state preservation office come and tour the building. Mr. Bart stated the replacement gutters will
be slightly oversized but will resemble what is currently on the building. Chairman Bortel stated if he can
find a historic picture of the building with half round gutters, he would prefer the gutters be half round.
Mr. Smith asked why they would not be able to replace the gutters with a similar product that is already
of the building. Commissioner Derrick explained gutters are low on the priority list of character defining
feature and windows are very high on the priority list, but the commission still does not have enough
information on the proposed renovation to create a COA.
Chairman Bortel suggested having the State Preservation Commission and the HPC tour the building.
Mr. Smith asked if the front window is their biggest concern. Commissioner Derrick stated the standards
apply to anything visible from any public way, which would be not include the rear of the building.
The commission explained the COA process, the purpose of the COA, how the COA items are
determined.
1979-071122.COA 24136 W. LOCKPORT ST. BEN DEVEE
Ms. Riemenschneider stated the applicant is seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for exterior
building modifications to update the restaurant previously known as Giambotta. The case will also go
before the Village Board for approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness.
5
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
July 14, 2022
Page 4 of 5
Ms. Riemenschneider reviewed the staff report dated July 14, 2022. Ms. Riemenschneider concluded
staff is confident that these modifications will preserve the historic integrity of the building, while
modernizing it for a commercial use. Staff supports the applicant’s proposed exterior modifications.
Chairman Bortel swear in Ben DeVee, applicant. Mr. DeVee clarified that they will not be installing
gaslights on the front porch. Mr. DeVee stated it is very hard to find information on what buildings are
located in the historic district.
Mr. DeVee explained the proposed window for the windows right of the front door. Chairman Bortel
asked if there is screen and if they spoken to the Will County Health Department. Mr. DeVee confirmed
that there will be a screen and he has spoken to the health department. Mr. DeVee explained where they
will be adding second entry into the building.
Commissioner Schmidt asked if there is a ramp in the rear. Mr. DeVee explained where the ramp is
located.
Commissioner Derrick asked if they will preserve the original materials and add hinges. Mr. DeVee
suggested the commission also tour his building so they can get a sense of how the windows are.
Chairman Bortel stated those windows were add a few years ago because originally the house had an
open porch.
Mr. DeVee stated they would like to add a deck to the front of the property and explained why stairs are a
safety concern, the curb appeal it will provide, and it will create separation between dinners and
pedestrians. Chairman Bortel stated the windows are six over six, so they would like them to keep that
look. Mr. DeVee stated his goal for the custom window to look exactly what the front of the house looks
like.
Commissioner Schmidt asked if the deck will be all wood. Mr. DeVee indicated it would be wood and
Trex materials.
Commissioner Derrick stated more information is needed before they can vote on a COA. Commissioner
Derrick explained if something is not original it needs to be historically sensitive.
Chairman Bortel asked if the windows to the left of the front door will remain. Mr. DeVee confirmed.
Chairman Bortel asked if he is interested in the tax credit. Mr. DeVee indicated probably not.
Commissioner Derrick is concerned that the proposed deck is changing the historic relationship of the
building to the street. Commissioner Derrick is worried that the deck will be concealing the front of the
house and would like the applicant to use materials that don’t obscure it and make it a smaller scale.
Commissioner Barvian suggested removing the deck from the left side of the building so the original
portion of the house is not obscured. Mr. DeVee explained on the side deck they would like to have a
door right from the kitchen for servicing and if they removed the deck from the left side of the house, they
would still have a stair issue for servers since they will have outdoor siting there. Chairman Bortel asked
if the deck will go out to the sidewalk. Mr. DeVee stated the deck placement has not been finalized. Mr.
Proulx explained there could be a deck encroachment and the Village would work with the applicant to
bring it into compliance.
6
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
July 14, 2022
Page 5 of 5
Commissioner Schmidt explained why he likes decks which includes decks can be removed with cause
minimal damage to the existing structure. Commissioner Schmidt suggested the deck not be attached to
the house and explained how that can be obtained. Commissioner Schmidt supports the deck and design
of the new windows.
Commissioner Barvian suggested looking into teak for the decking material. Commissioner Derrick
explained the deck itself is not historic, but a teak material is. Commissioner Derrick further stated if they
allow the deck then Trex could be a better option since they have some many options. Commissioner
Derrick asked what railing will look like. Mr. DeVee explained the material would be wood and paint it
blue and white. Commissioner Derrick stated this a primary elevation, so it needs to be sensitive.
Information needed from applicant before the next meeting includes the following:
• Replace Window – Illustration of the window along with the dimension and profile.
Wants to replacement windows to preserve the portions and appearance of the existing
elevation;
• Lighting – Cut sheet/website of lights once chosen;
• Painting Exterior – Surface prep information. Survey stated there might be a fiber
cement so just proper care just in case it is historic;
• Signage – to be submitted for consideration, needs to follow Village Code; and
• Deck – Materials and colors for deck & railing
DISCUSSION
Chairman Bortel reminded the commission of the Bronk Farm from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. tomorrow.
ADJOURN
Commissioner Barvian made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Derrick seconded the motion.
Voice Vote. All in favor. 0 opposed. Motion carried 6-0.
Meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Tracey Erickson
Recording Secretary
7
Meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission
Record of Minutes
Date: September 8, 2022 Location: Village Hall
CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL, PLEDGE
Chairman Bortel called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Roll call: Commissioners Barvian, Derrick, Hagen, Olsen, Rapp, Schmidt and Chairman Bortel were
present.
Also, in attendance: Jonathan Proulx, Director of Planning
Chairman Bortel led the pledge to the flag.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Derrick made a motion change order of old business on the agenda.
Seconded by Commissioner Barvian. Vote by roll call: Barvian, yes; Derrick, yes; Hagen, yes; Olsen,
yes; Rapp, yes; Schmidt, yes; and Bortel, yes. Motion carried 7-0.
CHAIR’S COMMENTS
Chairman Bortel stated he received a call to move the historic playhouse from the property at 15024 S.
Des Plaines St. to private property on Eastern Ave. Commissioner Derrick stated resources can be
landmarked when they are moved if the historical significance related to the structure.
Chairman Bortel stated last month he attended a CLG meeting, and a survey is being performed of all the
farmsteads in Kendall County.
Chairman Bortel indicated he is going to organize a CAMP next year.
COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS
No Comments.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No Public Comments.
OLD BUSINESS
1978-070722.COA 24012 W. LOCKPORT ST. 24012 LLC
Mr. Proulx stated the applicant proposes a series of improvements to the building at 24012 W. Lockport
St. to prepare the structure for a new use, such as a restaurant or special event venue. The proposed
exterior modifications include the addition of an accessible ramp to the rear of the property, a deck along
the west building elevation, removal and replacement of gutters and downspouts, replacement doors,
replacement windows, the potential infill of certain windows on the rear elevation, and modifications to
the front porch.
Mr. Proulx reviewed the staff report dated September 1, 2022. Mr. Proulx concluded in advance of any
public comment or discussion by the Historic Preservation Commission, staff supports the proposed
Certificate of Appropriateness.
8
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 8, 2022
Page 2 of 7
Chairman Bortel swore in Brian Bart, representing the applicant; Brian Smith, applicant.
Commissioner Derrick stated the current gutters are modern and the replacement gutters will be oversized
so the water can be removed properly but will match in profile and placement. Commissioner Olson
asked what kind of gutters they are. Mr. Bart statement the replacement gutters are regular residential and
will be 5 or 6 inches so the water can be moved to the rear of the property. Mr. Smith stated he is not
opposed to put on half round gutters if they are able hold the volume of water that needs to be drained.
Commissioner Derrick recommended the following verbiage for the gutters to be included in the Letter of
Agreement and the majority of the commission agreed to the recommendation:
Removal and replacement of gutters, including re-pitching to drain to the north; installation of
new downspouts; and connection of downspouts to drainage system to the rear (north) of the
building.
o The applicant stated that he would research whether the half-round gutter profile could be
sourced in the dimensions he needed. If so, and it was not cost-prohibitive, he would use
those. The alternative would be to use 5”-6” modern profile (ogee) gutters in a dark
brown colorway to blend in with the trim and roof.
o The applicant stated that the downspouts would be in the rear and would be larger-sized
version of traditional downspouts.
Commissioner Derrick questioned ramp materials and the shape of balusters. Mr. Smith asked if the
commission is approving the location of the ramp, too. Commissioner Derrick indicated they can discuss
it if the applicant is prepared to. Mr. Smith indicated the ramp material will be a composite wood and
would follow into the deck in the courtyard. Commissioner Olson asked if the ramp will connect the old
Buci building. Mr. Smith confirmed. Mr. Bart stated the railings will be located mostly in the rear of the
building. Commissioner Rapp asked if the pitch of the ramp is high. Mr. Bart stated it will comply with
ADA. Commissioner Olson would like something simple so it will blend in nicely. Commissioner
Schmidt asked what the height of the deck is. Mr. Bart roughly between 3 & 4 feet. Commissioner Olson
requested the deck board need to be between 4” – 6” wide composite boards. The commission and the
applicant discuss how to balance the ADA requirements with keeping the ramp sensitive to the historic
district. Commissioner Derrick requested the applicant bring back a detailed drawing and materials of the
front of the ramp.
Commissioner Derrick recommended the following verbiage for the accessible ramp to be included in the
Letter of Agreement and the commission agreed to the recommendation:
Accessible ramp along the rear (north) property line, connecting the parking lot with the subject
parcel and also providing access to the property to the west.
o Applicant stated that the decking will be 4” – 6” wide composite boards, TimberTech or
similar. Colorway selection will be woodtones (brown color family).
o The railing will be along the ramp, oriented north-south from the parking lot. Railing
design will largely be dictated by ADA compliance, but it is anticipated to be of
composite wood material and of a simple design. The HPC discourages the use of metal
and a busy, visually intrusive design.
Commissioner Derrick recommended the following verbiage for the non-historic porch to be included in
the Letter of Agreement and the commission agreed to the recommendation:
9
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 8, 2022
Page 3 of 7
Modifications to non-historic porch, including removal of existing windows
o The windows on the porch (the porch itself is from the period of significance) are a post-
Period of Significance alteration and they do not need to be retained. The applicant will
likely need to add a railing at the base of the openings where the windows were to meet code.
The applicant will consider mimicking the railing that is employed on the deck to the west
and will present the final design to the HPC for comment.
Commissioner Derrick reviewed what is important regarding the tuckpointing and repair of brick and
stucco façade.
Commissioner Derrick recommended the following verbiage for the non-historic porch to be included in
the Letter of Agreement and the commission agreed to the recommendation:
Tuckpointing and repair of brick and stucco façade as needed
o The HPC approved repointing of the brick and stucco repair by a contractor with
experience in working with historic materials.
o The work must be done in compliance with the National Park Service’s Technical
Preservation Services Brief a copy of which can be reviewed at this link
https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/rehabilitation/rehab/masonry01.htm
o It is critical that removal of the mortar be done in a way that does not nick or damage the
surrounding bricks.
o The mortar must be soft enough so that the freeze-thaw cycles associated with our
climate does not result in the bricks giving way before the mortar.
o A sample/test area will be completed by the mason to show the selected color, mortar-
mix, profile, etc. and will be approved by staff and HPC representatives prior to full
execution.
Commissioner Barvian asked how far the deck comes over to the adjacent business and Lockport St. Mr.
Smith indicated they would like to keep it even with their house. Commissioner Olson asked what the
remainder of the side deck be used for. Mr. Smith stated outdoor seating. Commissioner Schmidt
reminded the applicant they will still need to meet egress for outdoor seating. Mr. Smith stated they may
need to add stairs for a second exit on the deck. Commissioner Barvian asked how far west the deck
goes. Mr. Smith stated to the adjacent building. Commissioner Olsen suggested ending the deck before
the front of the house to make room for stairs.
Commissioner Schmidt asked if they are using existing brick. Mr. Smith stated no, they will have to
match as best as possible.
Commissioner Derrick asked if the applicant will be replacing the front door. Mr. Smith indicated he
would like to preserve the door. The commission did not have an issue with the rear door being replaced.
Commissioner Olsen asked how the fire department will feel about the swinging interior door.
Commission thought it should not be a problem because of the International Existing Building Code for
Historic Properties.
Commissioner Derrick recommended the following verbiage for the replacement doors to be included in
the Letter of Agreement and the commission agreed to the recommendation:
Replacement doors (front and rear)
o The applicant agreed to preserve in place and repair the front door.
10
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 8, 2022
Page 4 of 7
o The HPC agreed to the removal and replacement of the rear door.
Commissioner Rapp asked if the owners of the property to the west agree to the work for the access ramp.
Mr. Smith stated he has spoken with the owner and there will be a written agreement. Commissioner
Schmidt asked if the deck is on the applicant’s property. Mr. Smith stated no, there will be an easement
or lease agreement.
Commissioner Derrick stated the applicant allowed her to perform a survey of the windows in the house
and most of the windows do not function, but the windows can be repaired. Commissioner Derrick
implied that the applicant feels strongly about replacing the windows. Mr. Smith indicated that he is
having trouble finding someone to provide a quote to repair the windows and he has confirmed he would
like to replace the windows.
Commissioner Olsen left the meeting at 7:08 p.m.
Mr. Bart presented a sample of the Marvin Window they would like to use as a replacement window.
Commissioner Derrick asked if the external sills would remain and that the worse sills were in the attic.
Commissioner Derrick asked if the windows are custom made to fill the existing openings. Mr. Bart
inaudible (not near a microphone). Chairman Bortel stated the windows should not have divided lines
since the current windows do not have them. Mr. Bart inaudible (not near a microphone). Chairman
Bortel stated he will try and locate a photo of the building from the past to see if there was ever divided
lines on the windows. Commissioner Derrick asked the commission their thoughts on the windows and
replacements. Commissioner Schmidt asked which windows they trying to retain. Mr. Smith inaudible
(not near a microphone). Commissioner Derrick asked if they were retaining the windows with leaded
glass on the top portion of the window. Mr. Smith inaudible (not near a microphone). Commissioner
Derrick asked them if they were going to take off the awning. Mr. Smith inaudible (not near a
microphone). Commissioner Schmidt asked if the leaded glass is an insert. Commissioner Derrick stated
it is art glass that is part of the original window. Commissioner Barvian commented that the same design
can be incorporated into a new window. Mr. Smith indicated he does not want to get rid of the leaded
glass. Commissioner Derrick asked if the windows with the leaded glass could be repaired. Mr. Smith
inaudible (not near a microphone). Commissioner Rapp indicated the awning should stay up to protect
the leaded glass. Mr. Smith stated he would be willing to redo the awnings. Mr. Bart inaudible (not near
a microphone). Chairman Bortel asked if the windows in the attic are shielded by awning and suggested
backlighting the windows. Commissioner Derrick indicated there is no awnings and feels the leaded glass
is important to preserve. Mr. Smith inaudible (not near a microphone). Commissioner Barvian asked if
the window on the front elevation will be repaired. Mr. Smith inaudible (not near a microphone). The
commission is suggesting the repair of the two leaded glass windows on the second floor. Mr. Smith
asked if he could incorporate the glass into a new window. Commissioner Derrick stated it can be done
but she would like to see the windows repaired. Chairman Bortel agrees with repairing the leaded glass
windows.
The commission agreed the preferable option to repair all leaded glass windows, if windows can’t be
repaired the lead glass needs to be incorporate into the new window.
Commissioner Derrick recommended the following verbiage for the replacement windows and potential
infill of selected windows on the rear (north) elevation to be included in the Letter of Agreement and the
commission agreed to the recommendation:
11
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 8, 2022
Page 5 of 7
Replacement windows
o The HPC approved the replacement of the non-leaded windows with custom Marvin
aluminum-clad wood windows.
o The openings of the windows may not be altered. The custom windows must be the same
size as the existing.
o The placement of the replacement windows within the wall plane must be preserved.
o The replacement window will not have divided lights/faux divided lights, just like the
existing windows.
o The applicant agreed to repair versus replace the windows with the leaded glass – which
includes
▪ the fixed, leaded window on the stair landing, east elevation,
▪ the central pair of windows on the front elevation, 2nd story,
▪ the small fixed, central leaded window on the west elevation,
▪ the tri-partite window on the front elevation, attic (all three windows will be
repaired and preserved in place)
Potential infill of selected windows on the rear (north) elevation
o The HPC agreed to permit the infilling of the doors as proposed in the elevations
presented at the meeting with bricks that match (to the best of the applicant’s ability) the
existing bricks. Mortar joints will also match in profile, depth, etc. to the existing.
Commissioner Derrick made a motion to recommend the requested Certificate of Appropriateness for the
property located at 24012 W. Lockport Street, subject to execution of a Letter of Agreement with a
detailed scope of work as noted at the meeting, executed between the HPC, applicant, and Village staff.
Seconded by Commissioner Barvian. Vote by roll call: Hagen, yes; Rapp, yes; Schmidt, yes; Barvian,
yes; Derrick, yes; and Bortel, yes. Motion carried 6-0.
Mr. Smith stated he owns the property at 15024 S. Des Plaines St. and he is in favor of selling the
playhouse if the person is still interested.
1963-032222.COA 24035-24037 W.
LOCKPORT ST. CHRISTINA KOLLINTZAS
Mr. Proulx stated the applicant is proposing modifications to the front façade of the two storefronts that
make up the combined Uptown restaurant at 24035-24037 W. Lockport St. The objectives of the façade
improvements include enhancing the overall appearance of the restaurant and unifying the look of the two
separate buildings’ storefronts into a cohesive restaurant image. Because the properties are located in the
Village’s Downtown Historic District and the National Register of Historic Places, this work requires
approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness. While not recommended for local landmark status, the
buildings are identified as “Contributing” both locally and for the National Register district.
Mr. Proulx reviewed the staff report dated September 6, 2022. Mr. Proulx concluded Staff is seeking
direction from the Historic Preservation Commission on the use of the proposed synthetic brick material.
A sample of the brick material will be available for review and inspection at the HPC meeting. Use of the
true face brick material would be appropriate for a restoration project. However, staff notes that the
synthetic material could be applied over the original brick without permanently damaging the existing
brick.
Mr. Proulx stated the applicant is not able to attend.
12
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 8, 2022
Page 6 of 7
Chairman Bortel asked if the applicant wants synthetic brick material to look like brick or will it be
painted all the same color. Mr. Proulx stated his understanding is the synthetic brick material will cover
the entire top brick of the building and will be painted all black. Chairman Bortel did some research and
is suggesting a high-density urethane (HDU) foam be used and explained why.
Commissioner Derrick indicated when this was previously discussed they did not want the backer board
to cover all the brick and is assuming the applicant was not satisfied with doing that. Mr. Proulx
indicated his understanding is the applicant wants a uniformed look that will cover both buildings.
The commission discussed the proposed synthetic brick material verses high density urethane (HDU)
foam. Commissioner Rapp stated these are two buildings and does not agree with making it appear as
one building. Commissioner Barvian asked for clarification about the sign permit application. Mr.
Proulx explained the sign permit is being review administratively and what is being reviewed.
Commissioner Barvian asked if the sign permit meets code. Mr. Proulx explained the letter spacing does
not and he is working with the sign company, but the feedback today is needed on the synthetic brick
material. Commissioner Barvian suggested the applicant shrink the board and then the brick will be
visible around the border. Mr. Proulx explained the applicant objective is to cover all the brick in the top
of the building. Chairman Bortel stated as the building look today it still looks like two separate
buildings.
Commissioner Barvian indicated that synthetic brick material will be masking historic significance of the
building. Commissioner Derrick stated it is not consistent with the standards. Commissioner Barvian
asked who owns the building. Mr. Proulx stated the applicant states they own the building, but an
owner’s signature will be required on the letter of agreement. Commissioner Rapp stated he has been told
Steve Gruben still owns the building. Commissioner Barvian stated that the owner should be the
applicant or have provided permission for the changes being proposed. Mr. Proulx stated the ownership
will be verified before the letter of agreement is drafted.
Chairman Bortel asked the commission they want to keep with their original recommendation which
included the sign being mounted to a backer board that needs to be mounter in the mortar joints and the
backer board can from the top of the awning to bottom of cornice with width of backer allowing exposed
brick approximately 20 inches. Mr. Proulx stated that the applicant is seeking a recommendation what is
proposed but is looking for action from Village Board.
Commissioner Derrick stated she feels the COA request this evening can be denied based on it does not
meet the following criteria:
Criteria for evaluating a COA request, per Section 9-149(4) of the Zoning Code
iv. Relationship of building masses and spaces: The relationship of a structure to the open space
between it and adjoining structures should be compatible.
vii. Directional expression: Façades in historic districts should blend with and reflect the
dominant horizontal or vertical expression of adjacent structures. The directional
expression of a building after alteration, construction, or partial demolition should be
compatible with its original architectural style and character.
viii. Architectural details: Architectural details should be treated so as to make a building
compatible with its original architectural style and character and to not detract from the
inherent characteristics of surrounding structures.
13
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
September 8, 2022
Page 7 of 7
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of
deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old
in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will
be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
Commissioner Derrick made a motion to recommend approval of the requested Certificate of
Appropriateness for façade improvements at 24035-24037 W. Lockport Street, subject to execution of a
Letter of Agreement with the HPC, applicant, and Village.
Seconded by Commissioner Barvian. Vote by roll call: Hagen, no; Rapp, no; Schmidt, no; Barvian, no;
Derrick, no; and Bortel, no. Motion did not carry 6-0.
NEW BUSINESS
No New Business.
DISCUSSION
Chairman Bortel indicated that the proposed pergola for Wine and Cheese will not be constructed because
of cost.
ADJOURN
Commissioner Derrick made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Barvian seconded the motion.
Voice Vote. All in favor. 0 opposed. Motion carried 6-0.
Meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Tracey Erickson
Recording Secretary
14
TO: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
FROM: RACHEL RIEMENSCHNEIDER, ASSOCIATE PLANNER
DATE: JANUARY 12, 2023
SUBJECT: REPORT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
24136 W. LOCKPORT STREET
CASE # 1979-071122.COA
REQUEST: Certificate of Appropriateness
LOCATION: 24136 W. Lockport Street
APPLICANT: Ben Devee
CURRENT ZONING: B5- Traditional Business District
COMP. PLAN: Commercial
DISCUSSION
The applicant is seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) for exterior building
modifications to update the restaurant previously known as Giambotta. The case will also go
before the Village Board for approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness.
In accordance with the Historic Preservation article of the Zoning Code (Chapter 9, Article XV,
Section 9-149(2)), a COA is required prior to the issuance of a permit for any minor or major
work involving any new and other construction, alteration, repair, demolition, relocation, or
other material change that may affect the exterior architectural appearance of any structure or site
within an historic district or of any designated landmark building or site.
Existing Conditions/Site Context
The subject site is approximately 19,821 square feet with an existing two-story building. It was
once a residence, with an attached porch (previously addressed as 701 W. Lockport St.). Most
recently, it was a restaurant with outdoor seating in front. It is in the Downtown Historic District.
The Plainfield Historic Urbanized Core Survey (Exhibit A) from 2005 states that the subject
structure is a Gabled Ell Greek Revival house and is one of few remaining in the Village. The
survey further states that the building is easily interpreted as being an early Village house. The
adjacent land uses, zoning and street classifications are as follows:
John F. Argoudelis
PRESIDENT
Michelle Gibas
VILLAGE CLERK
TRUSTEES
Harry Benton
Kevin M. Calkins
Patricia T. Kalkanis
Cally Larson
Tom Ruane
Brian Wojowski
15
REPORT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Page #2 of 6
24136 W. LOCKPORT STREET 01/12/2023
CASE # 1979-071122.COA
North: Townhome Residences (R-3)
East: AT&T Building (B-5)
South: Vacant (B-5); W. Lockport Street (Collector); S. Fox River Street (Local)
West: Welcome Waggin’ In-Home Veterinary Care (B-5); Multi-Family Residence (R-4)
This property was considered by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) in August 2018.
The Commission provided a positive recommendation for modifications, which included
remodeling the fenced patio seating area, removing the awnings, and changing the paint color.
The Commission also supported new lighting and replacing the front door, which were never
implemented. Members declined to support changes to the windows on the left side of the front
(south) elevations and indicated that the applicant would need an additional Certificate of
Appropriateness if they desired to make changes to the foundation in the future.
ANALYSIS
The current applicant was before the HPC at the July 14, 2022, meeting. At that time, he
described the changes they planned to make to the property, including the following:
• Constructing a deck for outdoor seating, which will wrap around the eastern façade;
• Installing new light fixtures;
• Replacing the windows on the right side of the door with a retractable window;
• Painting the exterior; and
• Updating signage.
The applicant was encouraged to gather more information regarding the deck, the light fixtures,
and the windows to provide at a future meeting.
The applicant approached staff in the fall of 2022 to provide an update on the project. They
expressed that they were working with window companies regarding the retractable windows
and having supply-chain issues regarding the deck material. They also asked whether they could
paint the building prior to receiving the COA; per Section 9-149(2)(b)(i), staff confirmed that a
change in paint does not require a COA. The structure has been painted white with blue trim.
In November 2022, the applicant provided staff with details on the proposed windows and lights.
The applicant also indicated that, as a result of beginning interior demolition, the overall plans
for the building have changed since the last HPC meeting. Now, the applicant is before the HPC
requesting review of the following proposed changes:
• Constructing a deck for outdoor seating, which will wrap around the eastern façade and
be made of composite decking material (see Exhibit B);
• Replacing the roof and changing the roofline of the enclosed porch (see Exhibit C);
• Replacing the windows of the enclosed porch with retractable windows (see Exhibit D1
and D2);
• Replacing the front door of the structure (see Exhibit C); and
• Installing new light fixtures (see Exhibit E).
16
REPORT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Page #3 of 6
24136 W. LOCKPORT STREET 7/14/22
CASE # 1979-071122.COA
Deck
The applicant proposes to replace the existing patio seating area with a deck, which will wrap
around the side of the building to provide additional seating. In front (south) of the building, the
deck will occupy the same space as the existing patio. This area extends into the right-of-way,
and the applicant will be required to coordinate an easement or other access agreement with the
Public Works Department. The applicant is also working with the Building Department to
determine how far the deck can extend toward the rear (north) of the building. The applicant has
indicated that the deck will be made of composite decking material, such as Trex. The proposed
deck would either be blue or white to match the new paint scheme. The railing would be
constructed of aluminum. According to the applicant, there are continuing issues associated with
supply chain and inflated costs for this material. They plan to install this deck in the future; until
that time there will be a steel railing in front of the retractable windows.
Roof
The applicant also plans to remove and replace the existing rolled roof over the enclosed porch.
The proposed new roof would have a steeper pitch and meet the main structure closer to the
second-floor windows. The proposed roof would have grey shingles and aluminum fascia, soffit,
gutters, and downspouts. It would also include a portico detail above the new door. The applicant
plans to eventually replace all the roofing on the structure, a change which can be
administratively reviewed by staff.
Windows
The applicant proposes to replace the existing windows on the front (south) and side (east)
elevations with retractable door/window systems. This would allow the porch area to be open to
the proposed deck. Until the deck is installed, there would be steel railings in front of the
windows to ensure guests’ safety. The proposed windows would be constructed of aluminum;
they would be white with grilles/muntin. To install the windows and make the changes to roof
(as described above), the walls of the enclosed porch would be removed entirely; when the walls
are replaced, the applicant has indicated that the new siding would match the existing siding. The
applicant did not specify the material of the new siding.
(Please note that in Exhibit C, the windows are considered to be and referred to as “doors”.
Additionally, the plans incorrectly show faux siding at the bottom of the retractable doors. The
applicant has indicated these will be all glass.)
Table 1. Comparison of Window Appearance
Location Current Proposed
Size of
Window
Bank
Front (south) façade 12’4” wide
(Height not provided) 7’ x 12’
Side (east) façade 8’ wide
(Height not provided) 7’ x 8’
Number of
Windows
Front (south) façade 4 5
Side (east) façade 3 3
17
REPORT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Page #4 of 6
24136 W. LOCKPORT STREET 7/14/22
CASE # 1979-071122.COA
Door
The applicant proposes to replace the existing door and single sidelight with a new fiberglass
door and two sidelights. The proposed door and sidelights are more commercial in appearance
and are mostly comprised of windows, as opposed to the current door and sidelight which have
windows on the top half only.
Table 2. Comparison of Door Size
Current Proposed
Door only 6’8” x 3’ 6’8” x 3’
Door with sidelight(s) 6’8” x 4’6” 6’8” x 6’
Lighting
The applicant is proposing to install light fixtures in a lantern style on both the south (front) and
east (right) elevations. Please note that previously these had been identified as gas lights, which
was incorrect; they will continue to be electric fixtures. The applicant has not submitted a
photometric plan; however, the placement of the lights is primarily along Lockport Street and
should not negatively impact any residential properties.
Signage
The south elevation will also feature the existing projecting sign with new copy. Any new signs
will be required to comply with the Zoning Code and be approved through a sign permit
application.
General Guidelines
The subject site is in the Village’s Downtown Historic District. New construction and exterior
modifications to existing buildings in the historic district requires Certificate of Appropriateness
review by the Historic Preservation Commission. Criteria for evaluating requests for COA
include the following general guidelines, as well as the U.S. Secretary of the Interior Standards
for Rehabilitation. Staff has identified some of the most applicable criteria for evaluating a COA
request, per Section 9-149(4) of the Zoning Code outline below.
i. Height: The height of any proposed alteration or construction should be compatible
with the style and character of the structure and with surrounding structures.
ii. Proportions of the front facade: The relationship between the width of a building
and the height of the front elevation should be compatible with surrounding
structures.
iii. Proportions of windows and doors: The proportions and relationships between
doors and windows should be compatible with the architectural style and
character of the building.
iv. Relationship of building masses and spaces: The relationship of a structure to
the open space between it and adjoining structures should be compatible.
18
REPORT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Page #5 of 6
24136 W. LOCKPORT STREET 7/14/22
CASE # 1979-071122.COA
v. Roof shapes: The design of the roof, fascia, and Cornice should be compatible
with the architectural style and character of the building and with adjoining
structures.
vi. Scale: The scale of the structure after alteration, construction, or partial demolition
should be compatible with its architectural style and character and with the
surrounding structures.
vii. Directional expression: Facades in historic districts should blend with and reflect the
dominant horizontal or vertical expression of adjacent structures. The directional
expression of a building after alteration, construction, or partial demolition should be
compatible with its original architectural style and character.
viii. Architectural details: Architectural details should be treated so as to make a
building compatible with its original architectural style and character and to not
detract from the inherent characteristics of surrounding structures.
ix. Appurtenances: New, replaced, or restored appurtenances shall be sensitive to
the individual building or structure, its occupants, and their needs.
x. New structures: New structures in a historic district shall be compatible with, but
need not be the same as, the architectural styles and general designs and layouts of
the surrounding structures.
U.S. Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation
i. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that
requires minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site
and environment.
ii. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of
historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property
shall be avoided.
iii. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use.
Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding
conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be
undertaken.
iv. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic
significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved.
19
REPORT TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Page #6 of 6
24136 W. LOCKPORT STREET 7/14/22
CASE # 1979-071122.COA
v. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved.
vi. Deteriorated historical features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the
severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature
shall match the old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where
possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by
documentary, physical, or pictorial evidence.
vii. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic
materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be
undertaken using the gentlest means possible.
viii. Significant archaeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and
preserved. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be
undertaken.
ix. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy
historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated
from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size and architectural features
to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
x. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a
manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic
property and its environment would be unimpaired
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION
In conclusion, staff is confident that these modifications will preserve the historic integrity of the
building, while modernizing it for a commercial use. Staff supports the applicant’s proposed
exterior modifications. Should the Historic Preservation Commission concur, the following
motion is offered for your consideration:
I move we recommend approval of the requested Certificate of Appropriateness for the
property located at 24136 W. Lockport Street, subject to execution of a Letter of Agreement
with a detailed scope of work, executed between the HPC, applicant, and Village staff to accept
the following conditions of approval: (opportunity for conditions to be provided by the
Commission)
1. ______________________________________________________________
2. ______________________________________________________________
3. ______________________________________________________________
20
Exhibit A
Historic Urbanized Core Survey for
24136 W Lockport Street
21
HISTORIC URBANIZED CORE SURVEY Plainfield Historic Preservation Commission
ADDRESS
24136 W. Lockport St.
PIN/Property Index Number
#06-03-09-403-019-0000
Historic Property Name(s)
Common Name(s)
Lazy Lizard Lounge & Grill
Architectural Style
Greek Revival
Vernacular Building Type
Gabled Ell
Construction Date
c. 1850
Architect/Builder
Historic Use(s)
Single Family Residential
Present Use(s)
Commercial/Restaurant
History (associated events, people, dates)
Assessor’s Subdivision. Appears on the 1931 Sanborn map as 525, with an extending reentrant angle porch, as is extant,
and a 1 story rear wing roughly centered. A 1.5 story rectangular garage with a 1 story full-elevation rear wing was to the
NW/rear of the house. The house and garage appear the same on the 1944 Sanborn map, as the address was changing to
701.
Description
See reverse side/Continuation Sheet.
Integrity/Major Physical changes from original construction
Windows replaced. Wall material appears to have been replaced. Porch enclosed with modern materials. Long rear 1
story wing.
Subsidiary Building(s)/Site
Front lot concrete with outdoor dining. Aluminum fence (in iron appearance) outlines front setback. Asphalt driveway
west, double width. Large rear parking lot.
Registration & Evaluation
National Register of Historic Places: Currently Listed: ___yes X no
If not currently listed, recommend: Individually ___yes X no; historic district X yes no
Contributing X or non-contributing
Significance statement: One of a number of Gabled Ell Greek Revival houses which remain in the Village, contributing
to the Early Settlement Thematic despite materials changes and the front porch enclosure. This house is still easily
interpreted as being from this period, and retains the significant proportions, scale, and cornice detailing that is indicative
of these early Village houses. VP, Comm, VG&Comm, AA; EST.
Village of Plainfield designation: Currently Listed: ___yes X no
If not currently listed, recommend: Historic Landmark yes X no; Historic District X yes no
Contributing X or non-contributing
Form prepared by: ArchiSearch Historic Preservation Consultants (Alice Novak) Date of Field Survey: 11.06.05 - 321
701 W. Lockport St.
22
HISTORIC URBANIZED CORE SURVEY Plainfield Historic Preservation Commission
ADDRESS
PIN/Property Index Number
#06-03-09-403-019-0000
Description
Parged foundation; walls appear to be replacement wood or fiber cement siding; architectural asphalt shingle gable roof;
cornice with deep returns; water table. 2 stories, L-shaped front. Left/west gable front with three 1/1 double-hung sash
on 1st story, 2 shorter 1/1 on 2nd. Octagonal attic sash, modern. 1st story of side gable section concealed by porch. Shed
roof porch extends past gable front facade plane, as shown on 1931 Sanborn map; left/west modern door with four fixed?
sash right; 3 side/east windows. Wood deck with benches on either side, open rail, at entrance bays. 2nd story with 3
frieze windows interrupting the cornice. West side of gable front with 3 symmetrically placed 1/1 windows each story. 1
story long rear gable wing with small west side gable extension.
701 W. Lockport St.
24136 W. Lockport St.
23
Exhibit B
Building Plans (dated June 2022) showing Proposed Deck
24
25
26
2413627
Exhibit C
Building Plans (dated October 2022) showing proposed:
• Roof
• Retractable window placement with steel railings
• Front Door
• Light Fixture Placement
28
DRAWING INDEXSCOPE OF WORKCONSTRUCTION DATABUILDING CONSTRUCTION TYPE V- a (EXISTING)EXISTING TWO STORY MIXED-USE BUILDING INTERIOR ALTERATIONS & STAIR ADDITION TO AN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION TYPE V- a (NEW)EXISTING FLOOR AREA DATAPROPOSED FLOOR AREA DATAPROPOSED GROUP AND OCCUPANT LOAD DATA29
———30
31
32
2413633
34
35
36
2413637
38
‘’ ‘’ ½” ¼”¼” ½” ” ” ” ” ”39
40
Exhibit D1 & D2
Quote and Image Showing Approximate Details of
Proposed Retractable Windows
41
Foshan Wanjia window and door Co., Ltd
Add: No. 8, Songxing Road, Songgang, Shishan Town, Nanhai District, Foshan, Guangdong, China
Mobile: +86 18776660652 Mobile(Wechat): 187 7666 0652 Email: lucia@wanjiawindows.com
updated 29th Nov. 2022 Price Valid to Nov. 29th, 2022
PROJECT NAME: Auminum Folding door Schedule
Drawing Model Description Width ( mm )Height ( mm ) Sqm Q'ty ( pcs )Total sq.m Unit price per sq.m Total price
D-1
Product name 68 series thermal breakAluminum Folding door With high track
2438 2133 5.20 1 5.20 $218.4 $1,218.6
Material Alu,glass,hardware Thickness 2.0 mm
Color White Glass type
5mm low-e glass outside +27A with argon+5mm clear glass inside,double layers tempered glass with warm edge insutlation
Grilled /Mosquito net /
View View from inside Open style Folded outwards
Hardware black color KSBG Hardware Packing way Bubble bag+ EPE+ Wooden Box
"An extra set of $43 for an outdoor key "
D-2
Product name 68 series thermal breakAluminum Folding door With high track
3657 2133 7.80 1 7.80 $218.4 $1,830.1
Material Alu,glass,hardware Thickness 2.0 mm
Color White Glass type
5mm low-e glass outside +27A with argon+5mm clear glass inside,double layers tempered glass with warm edge insutlation
Grilled /Mosquito net /
View View from inside Open style Folded outwards
Hardware black color KSBG Hardware Packing way Bubble bag+ EPE+ Wooden Box
"An extra set of $43 for an outdoor key "
TOTAL quantity 2
TOTAL sq.m.13.0
TOTAL Weight (KG)850.0
Total CBM 3.0
TOTAL product Amount $3,049
Estimated current CIF shipping cost After the price is determined, the shipping fee will be calculated.
TOTAL Amount
Remark: The actual shipping cost is count on the loading time
1.The price basis on EXW.
2.payment terms: 30% deposit by T/T,credit card,cash, 70% balance before shipment
3.Delivery terms: shipping out from factory with 35 days after received the deposit
4.The price including export package. Our standard packing,protect goods from damaged.
5.The quotation basis on the shop drawings which approved by the buyer.
6The quotation will be available within 10 days after receiving the quotation.
7.After the customer confirms the order, if he needs to change the order, he must change the size, model, color, etc. within 24 hours after the order is confirmed.
42
68 Series folding Door Details Picture
Aluminum folding door ref picture
FACTORY
43
44
Exhibit E
Details of Proposed Light Fixture
45
Internet #313660406 Model #49255BK Store SKU #1005494080
KICHLER
Chesapeake 17 in. 1-Light Black Outdoor Light Wall Sconce with Clear Beveled Glass (1-Pack)
(19)Questions & Answers (5)
29
Hover Image to Zoom
$55.02
Pay $30.02 after $25 OFF your total qualifying purchase upon opening a new card.
Apply for a Home Depot Consumer Card
Fixture Color/Finish: Black
Home Lighting Outdoor Lighting Outdoor Wall Lighting Outdoor Sconces////
Home Decor Furniture Wall Decor Small Kitchen Appliances Kitchenware & Tableware Bedding & Bath Lighting Window Treatments Shop By Room
#1 Home Improvement Retailer
You're shopping
OPEN until 9 pm
Delivering to60490Bolingbrook Search Cart | 0 items
46
Product Details
Specifications
Dimensions: H 17 in, W 6.5 in, D 7.75 in
Delivering to: 60490 | Change
We'll send up to 3,628 to Bolingbrook for free pickup
Change Store
Protect This Item Learn more
Select a Home Depot Protection Plan by Allstate for:
-+Add to Cart
or
Buy now with
Ship to Store
PickupJan 4 - Jan 5
FREE
Ship to Home
Get it byWed, Jan 4
FREE
Scheduled Delivery
Not available for this
item
2 Year / $12.00
No thanks
1
Free & Easy Returns In Store or Online
Return this item within 90 days of purchase.Read Return Policy
Add a coastal vibe to your outdoor space with this graceful Kichler Chesapeake 17 in. 1-Light
Black Outdoor Wall Light. It features clear beveled glass panels that help illuminate your
space evenly and make it look more inviting. Its durable aluminum frame sports a clean black
finish that complements most styles of decor.
Additional Resources
From the Manufacturer
47
Sconce Type
Lantern
See Similar Items
Number of Lights
1 Light
See Similar Items
Power Source
Hardwired
See Similar Items
Fixture Material
Aluminum
See Similar Items
Damp/Wet Rating
Wet Rated
See Similar Items
Glass Type
Clear Glass
See Similar Items
Dimensions
Mounting Deck Height (in.)6
Mounting Deck Width (in.)4.5
Product Depth (in.)7.75 in
Product Height (in.)17 in
Product Width (in.)6.5 in
Details
Compatible Bulb Type Incandescent
Damp/Wet Rating Wet Rated
Durability Waterproof
Exterior Lighting Product Type Outdoor Sconce
Fixture Color/Finish Black
Fixture Material Aluminum
Glass Type Clear Glass
Included No additional accessories 48
Questions & Answers
5 Questions
Customer Reviews
4.7 out of 5 (19)
Frequently Bought Together
Indoor/Outdoor Outdoor
Light Bulb Base Code E26
Light Bulb Type Included No Bulbs Included
Light Direction Up
Maximum Bulb Wattage 100 W
Maximum Wattage (watts)0
Number of Lights 1 Light
Outdoor Lighting Features No additional features
Package Quantity 1
Power Source Hardwired
Product Size Medium
Product Weight (lb.)2.2 lb
Recommended Light Bulb Shape Code A19
Returnable 90-Day
Sconce Type Lantern
Shade Material Glass
Shape Geometric
Style Traditional
Voltage Type Line Voltage
Warranty / Certifications
Certifications and Listings CSA Listed, ETL Listed, UL Listed
Manufacturer Warranty 1 Year
How can we improve our product information? Provide feedback.
49