A G E N D A. Chairperson Charles Pipal Vice Chairperson Richard Ray Commission Members

Transcription

1 Residents and visitors are welcome to all meetings of the Preservation Commission. Public comments are welcome on any topic related to the business of the Public Body at Regular and Special Meetings. Comments may be made at any time. Individuals who wish to comment must be recognized by the Chairperson and then speak at the podium, beginning by identifying themselves by name and address. Any individual with a disability requiring a reasonable accommodation in order to participate in the meeting should contact Village Manager Jessica Frances at least five working days in advance of the next scheduled meeting at (708) ext Call to Order 2. Roll Call VILLAGE OF RIVERSIDE, ILLINOIS PRESERVATION COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Thursday, April 11, 2019 at 7:00 PM Riverside Township Hall Room 22, 27 Riverside Rd., Riverside, IL A G E N D A Chairperson Charles Pipal Vice Chairperson Richard Ray Commission Members Aberdeen Marsh Ozga Thomas Walsh Sander Kaplan Michael Leary Patricia Baum 3. Approval of the Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes: 3.1. Minutes of the February 20, 2019 Special Preservation Commission Meeting 4. Public Comment: 5. Demolitions: 6. Certificate of Appropriateness: Bloomingbank (Train Depot) Request to amend approved certificate for CCTV camera on north side of depot to install an additional camera on the north side Bloomingbank (Train Depot) Request to install a CCTV camera and multipoint radio on the southeast corner of the depot Riverside (Police/Fire Township Hall) Request to install CCTV camera on the east side of Fire Station # Bloomingbank (Cowell Residence s Coach House) Request to demolish the coach house due to deterioration. This application s review was tabled at the February 20, 2019 meeting. 7. New Business: 7.1. Discuss possible National Preservation Month activities. 8. Old Business: 9. Informational Items: 10. Presentations of Petitions, Communications and Citizen Requests: 11. Adjourn cc: Trustee Scott Lumsden, Village Manager Jessica Frances, The Landmark, and Website. Page 1 of 76

2 1. Called to Order: 7:03 pm VILLAGE OF RIVERSIDE PRESERVATION COMMISSION Special Meeting Wednesday, February 20, 2019, 7:00 pm Riverside Township Hall Room 30 SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES 2. Roll Call Present: Absent: Also Present: VICE-CHAIRPERSON RICHARD RAY COMMISSIONER MICHAEL LEARY COMMISSIONER ABERDEEN MARSH OZGA (left at 7:30 pm) COMMISSIONER SANDER KAPLAN COMMISSIONER THOMAS WALSH (arrived at 8:04 pm) CHAIRPERSON CHARLES PIPAL COMMISSIONER PATRICIA BAUM CD Director Abt Richard Merritt, Petitioner Greg Cowell, Petitioner Tom Sisulak, American Legion Post Approval of the Preservation Meeting Minutes: 3.1. Minutes of the December 13, 2018 Preservation Commission Meeting COMMISSIONER OZGA motioned to approve the minutes with an edit to item 3.2 removing the statement with change noted above, seconded by COMMISSIONER KAPLAN. Voice Vote. 3 Ayes. 1 Abstain Motion Passes. 4. Public Comment: None. 5. Demolitions: None. 6. Certificate of Appropriateness: 6.1. Report of Certificates of Appropriateness approved by Commission s Designee between December 7, 2018 and February 15, 2019 The Commission accepted the Designee s list. Page 2 of 76

3 Preservation Commission Minutes February 20, Bloomingbank (Cowell Residence s Coach House) Request to demolish the coach house due to deterioration VICE-CHAIRPERSON RAY introduced the application for a demolition of a landmarked structure. COMMISSIONER LEARY noted that this was a very serious issue to demo a landmark structure. The Petitioner, Mr. Cowell, asked if there was a way to salvage the structure without losing several hundred thousand dollars. Mr. Cowell provided a bit of history about the structure and property. He noted that he did not want his house landmarked however there was a change in the Village rules that allowed property owners with coach houses to use them as rentals if they were landmarked. Mr. Cowell stated he had the coach house landmarked at that time approximately 17 years ago so that they could utilize the coach house as an income property. COMMISSIONER LEARY asked if the coach house had ever been rented out. Mr. Cowell stated that he had several tenants however no one had lived in the coach house in approximately 15 years. He stated that it became unstable and they tried to stabilize it, but the foundation has to be addressed noting the supports and floor differentials shown in the pictures provided. COMMISSIONER LEARY asked if all these issues were existing when the Petitioner landmarked the structure. Mr. Cowell confirmed that they were and that they are expensive to fix. Mr. Cowell showed the Commission his proposal for a new garage to replace the coach house and stated this was a more cost effective solution. VICE-CHAIRPERSON RAY was concerned that without a foundation, the Petitioner would have to rebuild. COMMISSIONER KAPLAN noted that the structural engineer states a new foundation would be necessary. COMMISSIONER LEARY asked the Petitioner if he had spoken to any contractors or architects that specialize in restoration. Mr. Cowell stated that he had spoken to several contractors but the cost to do this work is very high. COMMISSIONER OZGA asked if there was a way the restoration could be staged. Both COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN and LEARY stated that it could definitely be staged. VICE-CHAIRPERSON RAY stated it would require a careful analysis. COMMISSIONER OZGA stated that she understood the economics, but is very concerned about precedent to allow essentially demolition by neglect. Both COMMISSIONERS KAPLAN and LEARY agreed with COMMISSIONER OZGA s concern. pg. 2 Page 3 of 76

4 Preservation Commission Minutes February 20, 2019 COMMISSIONER OZGA apologized but stated that she had to leave at 7:30. Director Abt stated she was trying to get a hold of COMMISSIONER WALSH. Commissioner Ozga left at 7:30 PM. There was no longer a quorum present. The Commission waited until 8:04 for Commissioner Walsh to arrive before reconvening the meeting. COMMISSIONERS WALSH joined the meeting at 8:04 pm and apologized for being late. COMMISSIONER LEARY asked about the zoning regulations for new garages. Director Abt stated that new garages cannot contain a living area and that they height is restricted to 16 ft. to the peak and 12 ft. for the sidewalls. She also noted that the garage cannot exceed 800 sq.ft. COMMISSIONER LEARY noted that the new proposed garage does not match the existing coach house and that a rebuild should really match the existing. VICE-CHAIRPERSON RAY asked about the overhead doors. Mr. Cowell said they are not original but he does have pictures of the old doors from He also noted that the doors proposed for the new garage would mimic the old doors but still be overhead doors. COMMISSIONER KAPLAN stated that there are standards for evaluating the certificates and noted that standards 5, 6 & 7 appeared to be the most applicable. These standards included: the physical condition and structural stability of the property and whether it poses a dangerous and unsafe threat to the health and safety of the community, the proposed demolition and subsequent changes in new improvements and in landscaping to the property under consideration and whether the property can be put to a reasonably beneficial use or provide a reasonable economic return for the owner without undertaking the proposed work or demolition. There was some discussion about the process and Mr. Cowell asked what would happen if the application was denied. Director Abt stated that if the Commission denies the application, the Petitioner can request an informal conference and a reconsideration which would require a public hearing to consider additional information not previously provided. If the application is still denied, the applicant can apply for a certificate of economic hardship. There is also the possibility of appealing the Commission s decision to the Village Board. Mr. Cowell thanked Director Abt for explaining the process. The Commissioners asked more questions about the foundation; if it was a rubble foundation and what type of foundation the house had. The Commissioners also asked about how many piers there were and if there was any foundation or any foundation that goes beneath the frost line. Mr. Cowell stated he did not believe there was any real foundation under the garage and described the foundation on the house to the Commissioners. VICE-CHAIRPERSON RAY stated there needed to be real investigation into the foundation, COMMISSIONER LEARY pg. 3 Page 4 of 76

5 Preservation Commission Minutes February 20, 2019 stated that there are specialists out there that do that. COMMISSIONER KAPLAN noted that the engineer did outline what needed to be done, but what was missing from the materials was a cost estimate from the engineer. Mr. Cowell again commented on the cost stating they had already spent considerable amount of money on architectural plans years ago and evaluating the structure. COMMISSIONER LEARY stated he believed that he, and probably other commissioners, would benefit from a site visit and being able to examine the structure. Director Abt noted that they would need to be scheduled through her in order to avoid any violations of the Open Meetings Act. Some Commissioners did not feel they had enough information to make their decision on such a serious topic as allowing the demolition of a landmarked structure, even if it was just a coach house. They felt the Petitioner needed to look into the cost and staging of the project and that a contractor that specialized in historical restoration should be consulted. Some Commissioners also noted that as an income property, the structure did have intrinsic economic value and provided the Petitioner with that value for several years. Director Abt noted that there was another coach house (not landmarked) that recently had to be restored including having its foundation rebuilt due to the lack of foundation when it was built and a great deal of sinking and rotting that had happened over the decades. The contractor was able to pour the piers and footings in sections and then pour the garage floor slab. Director Abt noted that she was not certain of the cost of the project but was pretty sure that it was around $80,000 for the whole rehab project (not just the foundation repair). The Commissioners asked if they could table the discussion. Director Abt stated that they could, however they needed to table it to a date certain. She noted that the next Regular Meeting of the Commission was April 11 th. COMMISSIONER KAPLAN motioned to table the discussion on the Certificate of Appropriateness for 253 Bloomingbank to April 11, 2019 at 7 PM to allow Commissioners to visit the structure and site and gather better information. Motion was seconded by COMMISSIONER LEARY. AYES: WALSH, KAPLAN, LEARY, RAY NAYS: NONE Motion Passes. 7. New Business: Bloomingbank Evidentiary Hearing on Structure to Remain in Public Right-of-Way The Petitioner, Richard Marritt, introduced himself. The Commission apologized for the delay. The Petitioner stated he would like to leave the historic Frank Lloyd Wright Planter by the driveway. pg. 4 Page 5 of 76

6 Preservation Commission Minutes February 20, 2019 Director Abt stated that the property in question was the Coonley Estate and as part of the Compliance Inspection, it was discovered that the planter is located within the public parkway. The Village Code states that the Preservation Commission must approve the structure to remain in the public right-of-way by having an evidentiary hearing to determine if the structure was built before 1972 and that it will not have an adverse impact on the historic nature of the community. She noted that documentation from the property s landmark designation was provided in their packet. VICE-CHAIRPERSON RAY stated he did not think the planter would have any adverse impact. The other Commissioner agreed that they did not want to see the planter removed. VICE-CHAIRPERSON RAY motioned to approve the structure to remain in the parkway and that the structure predates 1972 and does not have an adverse impact on the historic nature of the community. Motion was seconded by COMMISSIONER KAPLAN. AYES: WALSH, KAPLAN, LEARY, RAY NAYS: NONE Motion Passes Hardscape Permit Guthrie Park Veterans Memorial Installation of a new World War I Centennial Memorial plaque. Mr. Sisulak, from the American Legion Post, introduced himself and stated that he brought the plaque in question with him for the Commission to see and inspect. Director Abt stated that the Commission had previously reviewed an application to place the plaque on the large granite stone at the Veteran Memorial. The Commission recommended approval of the plaque installation, however the Village Board preferred an alternate approach. They recommended that it be placed on the stone where the Guthrie Park plaque is mounted on (which is next to the Veterans Memorial) and move the Guthrie plaque to the west side of the Driver memorial on the east end of the park. COMMISSIONER KAPLAN noted that the plaque would need to be inset on the Driver Memorial. He also asked if the WWI Centennial plaque was the same size as the Guthrie plaque and if it would fit on the stone. Staff noted that it was a slightly different shape and some adjustments would be needed to that stone as well. COMMISSIONER KAPLAN motioned to recommend approval of hardscape permit for the two new locations for the plaques, noting they should not have a pg. 5 Page 6 of 76

7 Preservation Commission Minutes February 20, Old Business: None. negative impact on the landmark designation given their size. COMMISSIONER WALSH seconded the motion. AYES: WALSH, KAPLAN, LEARY, RAY NAYS: NONE Motion Passes. 9. Informational Items: None. 10. Presentations of Petitions, Communications and Citizen Requests: None. 11. Adjournment: COMMISSIONER KAPLAN made a motion to adjourn the meeting. COMMISSIONER LEARY seconded the motion. Voice vote: All in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 8:47 pm. pg. 6 Page 7 of 76

8 Page 8 of 76

9 Page 9 of 76

10 Page 10 of 76

11 Page 11 of 76

12 Page 12 of 76

13 Page 13 of 76

14 Page 14 of 76

15 Page 15 of 76

16 Page 16 of 76

17 Page 17 of 76

18 Page 18 of 76

19 Page 19 of 76

20 Page 20 of 76

21 Page 21 of 76

22 Page 22 of 76

23 Page 23 of 76

24 Page 24 of 76

25 Page 25 of 76

26 Page 26 of 76

27 Page 27 of 76

28 Page 28 of 76

29 Page 29 of 76

30 Page 30 of 76

31 Page 31 of 76

32 Page 32 of 76

33 Page 33 of 76

34 Page 34 of 76

35 Page 35 of 76

36 Page 36 of 76

37 Page 37 of 76

38 Page 38 of 76

39 Page 39 of 76

40 Page 40 of 76

41 Page 41 of 76

42 Page 42 of 76

43 Page 43 of 76

44 Page 44 of 76

45 Page 45 of 76

46 MEMORANDUM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: Chairperson Pipal & Members of the Preservation Commission From: Sonya Abt, AICP, Community Development Director CC: Jessica Frances, Village Manager Re: Certificate of Appropriateness 253 Bloomingbank Date: April 5, 2019 Petitioner Greg Cowell Subject Property 253 Bloomingbank Request Certificate of Appropriateness to Demolish a Landmarked Coach House. Background The house located at 253 Bloomingbank has a coach house that was designated as a landmark. The Petitioner is requesting to demolish the coach house and rebuild a new garage. At the February 20, 2019 Special Preservation Commission meeting, the Petitioner provided some background about the property. He noted that they chose to apply for a landmark designation for the coach house when the Village amended the Village Code to allow coach houses to be rented. He stated that they had several tenants; however they had not rented the coach house in several years partially due to the condition of the structure. The Petitioner outlined the extent of the repairs that would needed to stabilize the structure and the high costs associated with making those repairs in addition to remodeling the coach house. The Commission expressed reservations about approving the demolition of a landmarked structure. They were concerned about the precedent allowing a landmark structure that had not been maintained to be demolished would set. The Commission discussed the condition of the coach house when it was purchased and when it was landmarked, whether contractors with experience doing historical rehabs had been consulted and whether the cost estimates and structural analysis provided were sufficient enough for them to make a decision. Ultimately the Commission decided that it did not have sufficient information and Tabled the application to the April 11, 2019 Regular Meeting to allow the Commissioners to visit the structure and site and gather better information. For comparison, the Building Department approved a permit to restore an existing coach house with a failing foundation in This coach house was not landmarked and was only 800 sq.ft. however it predated 1900 and had similar foundation issues. The $48,000 proposal included the rebuilding of the foundation, pouring a new garage floor slab, framing, reroofing, siding repairs/replacement and painting. The new foundation was poured in sections, and the building inspector had to inspect each section as they worked their way around the structure. Page 46 of 76

47 MEMORANDUM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Determination The Preservation Ordinance requires a certificate of appropriateness to demolish a landmark structure. The Commission must use the following criteria to determine if the proposed work or demolition is compatible and appropriate: : PRESERVATION PROTECTION OF LANDMARK BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES: (A) Certificate Of Appropriateness Required; Exterior Alteration, Addition, Demolition Or Subdivision: No designated building or structure listed in section , appendix D of this chapter shall undergo any exterior construction, addition, alteration, renovation, reconstruction, remodeling, restoration or demolition, where a building or demolition permit is required, or a subdivision of the property, without first obtaining a certificate of appropriateness for such work or proposed subdivision from the commission pursuant to the procedures provided in this section. (Ord. 2900, ) (B) Criteria: The commission shall consider, where applicable, the current standards for rehabilitation promulgated by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Interior as a criterion for its review, and shall consider, where applicable, the following criteria in determining whether or not the proposed work or subdivision is compatible and appropriate: 1. Whether such work or subdivision will highlight or positively enhance any exterior feature of the property and improvements upon which landmark status is based. 2. Whether any new improvements will have a positive effect and harmonize with the external appearance of neighboring property. 3. Whether such work or subdivision is compatible with the architectural or historical integrity of the property upon which landmark status is based. 4. Whether such work or subdivision will cause a change in the essential character of the area where the property is located. 5. The physical condition, state of repair and structural stability of the property under consideration and whether the same poses a dangerous and unsafe threat to the health and safety of the community. 6. The proposed demolition and subsequent changes in new improvements and in landscaping to the property under consideration. 7. Whether the property under consideration can be put to a reasonably beneficial use, or provide a reasonable economic return for the owner without undertaking the proposed work, subdivision or demolition. The commission may grant a certificate of appropriateness if at least four members find that the proposed work is clearly appropriate and in accordance with the applicable criteria set forth in this section. If at least four members of the commission vote to deny an application, such action shall constitute a determination by the commission that the application will have an adverse effect on the landmark designation of the subject property. Attachments: Copy of a proposal and plans for a coach house restoration approved by the Village in Copy of the certificate of appropriateness application and supporting documentation provided by the Petitioner. Copy of the landmark designation Page 47 of 76

48 Page 48 of 76

49 Page 49 of 76

50 Page 50 of 76

51 Page 51 of 76

52 Page 52 of 76

53 Page 53 of 76

54 Page 54 of 76

55 Page 55 of 76

56 Page 56 of 76

57 Page 57 of 76

58 Page 58 of 76

59 Page 59 of 76

60 Page 60 of 76

61 Page 61 of 76

62 Page 62 of 76

63 Page 63 of 76

64 Page 64 of 76

65 Page 65 of 76

66 Page 66 of 76

67 Page 67 of 76

68 Page 68 of 76

69 Page 69 of 76

70 Page 70 of 76

71 Page 71 of 76

72 Page 72 of 76

73 Page 73 of 76

74 Page 74 of 76

75 Page 75 of 76

76 MEMORANDUM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT To: Chairperson Pipal & Members of the Preservation Commission From: Sonya Abt, AICP, Community Development Director CC: Jessica Frances, Village Manager Re: National Preservation Month Activities Date: April 5, 2019 Discussion May is National Preservation Month. This is an opportunity to share and celebrate Riverside s history, culture and special places. We can even highlight our 150th Anniversary of the General Plan. This is also an opportunity to share the stories of Riverside and highlight why This Place Matters. Stories are what connect people to places Participation Ideas: Utilizing the Village s social media accounts to highlight some of our history throughout the month would be an easy and cost effective way to participate. The Commission could help pick some of our local landmark houses or historical figures and their stories to be shared on social media in addition to our village designation and the story of Riverside and the General Plan. We can highlight success stories such as the Coonley Estate and the Arcade Building; we can also share the stories of losses such as the Babson Estate. The Commission could also volunteer to help the Olmsted Society offer additional Historic Walking Tours during the month of May so people could experience both the north and south tours. The Commission could sponsor a movie night and reserve the Library to do a showing of the Riverside episode of 10 Towns That Changed America or perhaps Devil in The White City. The Library has a Motion Picture License, so if we hosted a public showing at their facility there should not be an issue. Recommendation Advise Staff on whether the Commission would like to participate in National Preservation Month and which ideas listed above or any others the Commission would like to pursue with Staff. Page 76 of 76