Tussle between owners' rights, preservation in Geneva
Geneva aldermen are expecting to hear passionate opinions from a packed council chamber when they discuss changes in the city's historic-preservation law Tuesday.
Especially when it comes to four topics:
• Whether a landowner's consent should be required for a building to be nominated as, or designated, a local landmark;
• Whether a historic district can be created, even if the majority of property owners disapprove;
• Whether the city should implement conservation districts; and
• Whether a supermajority two-thirds vote by aldermen should be required to landmark a building without the owner's consent.
"The crux of the issue seems to be those four issues," Mayor Kevin Burns told aldermen earlier this week. They were discussing how to handle Tuesday's meeting, including whether to move it to another facility to handle the expected large crowd. So far, the committee-of-the-whole meeting is still scheduled to take place at city hall, 109 James St., immediately following a special council meeting at 7 p.m.
The revised ordinance can be viewed online in the council's meeting packet at geneva.il.us/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/05262015-515.
<h3 class="breakHead">Preservation history</h3>
The current law dates to 1995. The city has one local historic district, formed of two nationally registered districts.
Time and again in the city's surveys of residents and in strategic-plan workshops, people have said preserving the historic nature of the older parts of the city is important to them.
But there have been scuffles.
• In 2006, the owner of a home in the historic district fought the city in court, successfully, over a Historic Preservation Commission ruling that required him to get a building permit to replace wood windows. He started work without getting a permit, and was installing vinyl windows. The city argued he needed a permit because the work was a substantial alteration to the house's appearance, requiring permission from the commission. The homeowner said it wasn't a substantial change, and that there were already vinyl windows on an addition to the 1940s-era home that had been installed before the historic district was created.
It also led the city to increase efforts to let people know they were living in the historic district. It recorded the historic district on all properties, so it will show up on title reports. It also sent certified letters to all the owners, notifying them of the rules.
• Preservationists credit the law with saving Riverbank Laboratories, part of the former Fabyan estate, from being razed to make way for townhouses in 1999. The city council designated the buildings as landmarks over the objection of the owner.
• In 2011, residents of an area south of the railroad tracks and west of Batavia Avenue convinced the city council to stop studying whether their neighborhood was eligible to become a historic district. Those residents also tried to get the council then to change the law to require owner consent for landmarking, but it refused.
• And in 2012, the council denied demolition of the former Pure Oil service station on West State Street to allow a bank drive-through facility. The owner then converted the building for the drive-through, winning a prestigious Driehaus Foundation award from Landmarks Illinois in 2013.
<h3 class="breakHead">New district type</h3>
Conservation districts are a lesser district than historic districts. Typically, properties within them may not meet the U.S. Secretary of the Interior standards Geneva uses for judging historic districts. The city would aim to advise property owners how to maintain and renovate buildings to maintain the character of a district.
The new ordinance would also prohibit "demolition by neglect or deferred maintenance." Some residents have accused Kane County, for example, of the practice with the former Sixth Street School, which it wants to tear down. The building needs more than $3 million worth of work to be usable, the county estimates.
The Historic Preservation Commission voted 6-1 Tuesday to recommend the revisions to the council. Only Paul Zellmer voted "no."
"I've had concerns from the beginning with landmarking buildings without owner consent," Zellmer said. "Through education, we should be able to convince the people that own the property that landmarking their property or home would be the best solution."
Commissioner Nanette Andersson argued back that the city has used the power sparingly, and that without it more buildings would have been lost.
"It's one of the reasons Geneva is the stellar historic-preservation community that it is today," she said.