Title
title
*Deny the Appeal and Concur with the Historic Preservation Commission and Adopt an Ordinance Denying a Certificate of Appropriateness to Build a Ten-Story Addition Behind an Existing Oak Park Landmark Building, known as the Boulevard Arcade Building, located at 1035 South Boulevard
end
Introduction
overview
The Historic Preservation Commission denied a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) to Applicant, John Schiess, for 1035 South Boulevard, as the Commission found the proposed ten-story rear addition to be not in compliance with the Architectural Review Guidelines. The Historic Preservation Ordinance provides the Applicant the option to appeal to the Village Board.
end
body
Recommended Action
Support the Historic Preservation Commission's decision.
Prior Board Action
There is no prior Board action associated with this item.
Background
1035 South Boulevard, known as The Boulevard Arcade Building, is a 2-story brick commercial building in the 20th-century commercial style. The building was designed by the prominent Oak Park architect Eben E. Roberts in 1906 as a one-story, one-tenant retail structure, but with the capacity to add a second story if needed. In 1922, a local entrepreneur hired Chicago architect Arthur Jacobs to remodel the structure into a multi-tenant shopping destination to serve the expanding shopping district, which would soon be the leading shopping district of west Cook County.
The Village Board designated the Boulevard Arcade Building as an Oak Park Historic Landmark on June 4, 2007. In 2008, the building was restored to approximate the 1922 exterior appearance, including restoration of the original 1906 cast iron posts and replication of its distinctive transom glass. Its defining interior features remain the same, including a central skylight and light court, terrazzo floors, and an ornate central staircase.
The Boulevard Arcade building is significant as the only known local example of an indoor shopping arcade, designed specifically with the needs of women shoppers in mind. Its design anticipates the later popularity of indoor suburban shopping malls, but unlike those auto-oriented shopping developments, it was geared toward the adjacent public transportation and the pedestrian traffic generated by the nearby Lake-Marion-Wisconsin Business District (now Downtown Oak Park).
Additionally, the property is significant as an example of the evolution of Oak Park commercial structures over time, offering insight into how properties are remodeled and adapted to changing needs in a commercial district rather than solely demolished and replaced with new construction. It is the oldest commercial structure on South Boulevard between Home Avenue and Marion Street. A review of the 1908 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map indicates that only two commercial structures existed on that block, set amidst a row of homes: the 1902 Warrington Opera House, designed by architect E.E. Roberts (demolished), and the subject property, also designed by Roberts.
Historic Preservation Ordinance Requirements
As the property is a designated Oak Park Landmark (2007), it is subject to the Village's historic preservation requirements in Chapter 7, Article 9 of the Oak Park Village Code (Historic Preservation Ordinance). The Historic Preservation Ordinance requires a Village-issued Certificate of Appropriateness to be obtained before any demolition, or removal occurs on the site, building, structure, or improvement within the Historic District (Section 7-9-8). The Ordinance defines demolition to be the "razing or destruction, whether entirely or in significant part, of a building, structure, site, or object. Demolition includes the removal of a building, structure, or object from its site or the removal or destruction of its fa?ade or surface." Removal is defined as a "moving of an improvement from the property upon which it was originally located." (Section 7-9-2)
The project, as proposed, will exceed the scale and height of the historic landmark building and will over-power the historic landmark building. The proposed form, alignment, rhythm, spacing, and proportion of the front fa?ade do not relate to the historic landmark building. Village staff and the Commission agreed the project would constitute demolition in the Historic Preservation Ordinance and, therefore, requires a Certificate of Appropriateness. Over one hundred (100) similar proposals to construct rear additions to contributing structures in the historic districts have been processed by the Village and the Commission through the COA process in the last decade.
In determining whether to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness, the Commission, or the Village Board, when considering an appeal, shall follow the "Secretary of the Interior's Standards" and the Architectural Review Guidelines (Section 7-9-11).
Timing Considerations
The Village Board, within forty-five (45) days of the applicant filing an appeal, shall affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the Commission after due consideration of the facts contained in the record, which the Commission shall submit to the Village Board within ten (10) working days of the filing of the appeal. The Village Board shall, within ten (10) days of its decision, advise the applicants and the Commission, in writing, of its final decision. The failure of the Village Board to affirm, modify or reverse the decision of the Commission within forty-five (45) days of the applicant filing an appeal shall be considered as an affirmation by the Village Board of the decision of the Commission and a denial of the appeal.
Budget Impact
$168 to publish legal notice from Planning & Urban Design Division budget in legal notices account 1001.46202.101.550652.
Staffing Impact
There is no staffing impact associated with this item, it aligns with the department's core service delivery.
DEI Impact
There is no DEI impact associated with this item.
Community Input
The proposal was reviewed at the following HPC meetings:
HPC meeting on December 12, 2024, for a preliminary discussion of the proposed rear addition. The Commission stated that the proposal does not meet the Architectural Review Guidelines.
HPC meeting on January 9, 2025, for a formal Certificate of Appropriateness application. The Commission stated that the proposal does not meet the Architectural Review Guidelines and denied the COA application. There were fourteen (14) oral public comments and seven (7) written comments opposing granting a COA. There was one (1) oral public comment and five (5) written public comments supporting the COA.
HPC meeting on March 27, 2025, for a formal COA application. The Applicant postponed the COA application to a later date.
HPC meeting on May 22, 2025, for a formal COA application. The Commission stated that the proposal does not meet the Architectural Review Guidelines and denied the COA application. There were five (5) oral public comments and one (1) written comment opposed to the COA.
HPC meeting on July 24, 2025, for a formal COA application. The Commission stated that the proposal does not meet the Architectural Guidelines and denied the COA application. There were four (4) oral public comments and five (5) written comments opposing the COA.
The Applicant requested a public hearing on July 30, 2025, to appeal the denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness. Notice of the August 28th public hearing was mailed to the applicant on August 11, 2025, and was mailed to the property owners within 250 feet on August 11, 2025. A legal notice was published in the Wednesday Journal on August 13, 2025.
The HPC received seven (7) oral public comments and five (5) written comments opposing the issuance of a COA. Bill Bower submitted a cross-examination form. Mr. Bower asked the Applicant questions about the neighborhood meeting. The HPC adopted a resolution denying the COA on the same day as the hearing. The HPC reiterated that the project does not meet the Guidelines, and the proposed ten-story addition is not compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of the existing landmark building and its surroundings.
Following denial of the COA, the Applicant was informed that they may withdraw their COA application; or amend their proposal based on the HPC's recommendations; or appeal the decision to the Village Board within 15 days; or request a Certificate of Economic Hardship. On August 29, 2025, the Applicant requested an appeal to the Village Board.
The Historic Preservation Commission Hearing is available online here: https://www.oakpark.us/Government/Citizen-Boards-and-Commisions/Commission-TV.
Staff Recommendation
Village Staff supports the Historic Preservation Commission's recommendation. An addition of this scale, that not in compliance with the Architectural Review Guidelines, thwarts the Historic Preservation Ordinance's purpose to preserve and protect Oak Park's Architectural heritage, and will have a negative effect on the historic, aesthetic, and architectural value and significance of the existing landmark building and its environment.
Advantages:
* Protect heritage and identity - maintains tangible links to the past, giving communities a sense of continuity and shared history.
* Strengthens community pride - Residents often feel more connected to a place with visible history.
* Fosters social cohesion - Preservation projects often involve local participation and advocacy.
* Protects sense of place - Maintains the unique character of a neighborhood against homogenizing development.
Disadvantages:
* Stagnates economic development in this area.
Alternatives
Alternative 1:
Do not affirm the Historic Preservation Commission's denial of the COA and grant the COA.
Advantages:
* Promotes new residential development in an area that is appropriate for an increase in residential and mixed-use development.
Disadvantages:
* Incompatibility - New additions or modifications will conflict with the landmark's style, scale, or setting.
* Distort historical record - Changes may create a misleading version of the past.
* Weakens community identity - Historic landmarks often anchor local heritage; altering them can diminish a community's sense of place.
* Reduced heritage value - Alterations can lower the landmark's cultural and economic worth.
Anticipated Future Actions
There is no anticipated future action related to this item.
Prepared By: Mike Bruce, Village Planner/Planning & Urban Design Manager
Reviewed By: Craig Failor, Development Services Director
Approved By: Kevin J. Jackson, Village Manager
Attachment(s):
1. Ordinance - Support
2. Resolution
3. Ordinance - Reverse
4. Proposal
5. Staff Report
6. Appeal Letter
7. Opposition Letters
8. Hearing Procedure
9. Presentation
10. HPC Assessment - provided after the public hearing