Owner Plans To Tear Down 'Eyesore,' Build Downtown Plainfield Triplex

PLAINFIELD, IL — The Village Board unanimously voted to allow a property owner to demolish a circa 1920 house in order to construct a multi-family building in its place.

Andrew Gaeckle, the owner of the Craftsman-influenced bungalow at 15115 James St., petitioned to tear down the structure to replace it with the three-unit building, citing the costs of restoring the property as prohibitive. The redevelopment required a demolition permit and approval of a special use for a multi-family dwelling in the B-5 zoning district.

The owners initially purchased the property to restore the one-story house, but once they took the building down to its studs, the owners and contractor determined restoration costs would exceed $800,000 for the construction work.

"When we first bought the house, we were fine with the floors being uneven; we were fine with the fact that the doors didn't close properly," Gaeckle said at the meeting. "We could see that the house had been stitched together; that part we were fine with."

It was when a ceiling tile had fallen, leading to the owners pulling it down to fix the draft coming in from the attic, that they "instantly discovered there was really no structure to even hold a heavy drywall." Moving forward with the intent to renovate, owners discovered "issue after issue," Gaeckle said.

"Plainfield's home for us, so at the thought of investing more into the property and actually making what is currently an eyesore and a danger in the community into something that would be beautiful and could stand the test of time, we're willing to invest," said Gaeckle, who has lived in Plainfield with his wife and three sons for 20 years. "This will cost me significantly more to build a three-unit home; my wife and I will reside [on] the first floor ourselves. ... [Our intention] was to keep that historical value, but now my intention is to make it something that's even more historical for the future generations."

Gaeckle said he plans to preserve "a lot" of the original structure's features and incorporate them into the new structure, which he intends to design to fit into the current downtown Plainfield architectural landscape.

Although the property is not recommended for local or National Register landmark status, a 2005 survey indicated it could contribute to a historic district. The National Register of Historic Places's significance statement said the house was a "rare, original use of stucco in the Village and a good example of the Bungalow vernacular house type with the commonly applied Craftsman influence," according to Plainfield documents.

The village's demolition permit ordinance calls for the Historic Preservation Commission to hold a public hearing to determine if an "alternatives analysis" and 90-day delay in action are warranted.

The HPC held a public hearing at its May 9 meeting, where some community members spoke in favor of demolition and one opposed it. Commissioners voted 4-3 to recommend having an alternative analysis prepared, so a recommendation was put before the Village Board Monday whether to require it or not.

The four commissioners who voted to delay demolition cited a few architectural significant features. The property is made up of two tax parcels with a total area of about 13,820 square feet, including a shared driveway used by its northern neighbor and a detached garage. The structure is believed to also include a cabin relocated from Electric Park, cobbled together with several building additions, including a stucco front porch is believed to have been designed by local architect Herbert Cowell.

"In my opinion, the goals of the alternatives analysis process are to fully evaluate the potential for remodeling and to understand those costs," Director of Planning Jonathan Proulx, who prepared the staff report, said at the meeting. "I believe the applicant has done that, in this case, by pulling a permit, by doing the work, incurring those costs and taking the time since last October. I'm just not sure what additional information we could glean in a delay that would come at a cost (to) the applicant that we don't know today."

Before voting, the Board decided that if a motion was made and seconded, a yes would mean a delay in the demolition, requiring the analysis, and a no vote would mean the owner could proceed with demolition.

The six trustees — Richard Kiefer, Siv Panicker, Tom Ruane, Vanessa Sula, Brian Wojowski and Margie Bonuchi — all voted no.