The landmarked structure at 4 E. State St. in Geneva — part of what was once the Mill Race Inn — will remain for now, after the Geneva City Council on Monday denied an appeal seeking its demolition.
On Monday, the City Council was tasked with whether to overturn a ruling of the city’s Historic Preservation Commission in December that denied a request by Dave Patzelt, president of Geneva-based Shodeen Group, for demolition of the building.
Following a lengthy discussion on Monday evening, the appeal that would allow for demolition failed in a 6-4 vote, with council members Martha Paschke, Mark Reinecke, Anaïs Bowring and William Malecki voting against it. A supermajority of seven or more council members would have been needed to overturn the Historic Preservation Commission’s decision.
The City Council vote on Monday is the latest in what has been years of discussion about the structure, previously part of the Mill Race Inn restaurant, which operated from the 1930s until it shuttered in 2011.
Though perhaps most famously a part of the popular restaurant, the building existed long before that. It first housed a blacksmith shop in the 1840s, but, before it became part of the longstanding Geneva restaurant, housed a number of other businesses too, such as a wagon manufacturing and blacksmithing shop, a cooperage and a carriage painting shop.
The site was later acquired by the Shodeen Group, and demolition of most of the property began in 2016. The 1840s-era limestone sections, at the time, were to be evaluated as to whether they could be considered a historic landmark or be incorporated within any future development of the property.
Since then, what remains of the limestone building — which was designated as a landmark in 2018 — weathered multiple requests by its owner to demolish it over the years, none of which were ultimately successful.
Then, in October, Patzelt again asked the city to demolish the structure. The request for demolition came to the city’s Historic Preservation Commission last month, and was again shot down.
The property is no longer owned by Shodeen itself, Patzelt has said, but by the Mill Race Land Company, LLC, though Shodeen Construction Company remains listed as the contractor on the original application for demolition from October.
Patzelt appealed to the City Council the day after the Preservation Commission determination was made, meaning the matter went to the City Council for a vote.
The commission’s decision in December, and the subsequent appeal by Patzelt, generated a response from some community members — a small group, for example, that was advocating for preservation of the structure completed an architectural model of it and held a community meeting just days before Monday’s City Council meeting, making a last-minute pitch to turn the building into a visitor information center.
At Monday’s meeting, Geneva Mayor Kevin Burns emphasized that the council’s role was not to serve in its usual function but in a “quasi-appellate court capacity.” He discouraged the council from considering any evidence or information beyond that which was considered at the December Historic Preservation Commission meeting.
At the meeting, Patzelt again presented his case for demolition of the structure.
He said that the records included in the application seeking demolition include things like a list of the irreparable and deteriorated building features, a cost estimate for rehabilitating the structure and a narrative on steps that have been taken to potentially relocate it.
He also pointed to the city’s previous parameters for using the site, and noted the possibility of the structure being deconstructed and put up somewhere else nearby.
“It has been eight years since we first started talking about this structure,” Patzelt said at Monday’s meeting. “And, after over 20 … public meetings, there has been no progress made by either of these parties involved in this site.”
He pointed to residents speaking out about the issue, and said that he thinks the majority reflect a desire for the structure to be demolished.
Paul Zellmer, the chair of the Historic Preservation Commission, also spoke at Monday’s meeting, sharing the commission’s reasons for its decision.
Zellmer said that public testimony showed divided views among the community, and “did not establish an objective or measurable basis to conclude that the majority of the community supports demolition.”
He also said that the applicant “did not present concrete development proposals and (demonstrate) that demolition is necessary to achieve community benefit, nor did the record establish reasonable alternatives to the demolition had been exhausted.”
Zellmer also said that deterioration of the structure does not demonstrate that demolition is in the best interest of the community, citing concerns about long-term neglect of the property, and noted that there was concern approving the demolition would “risk establishing precedent inconsistent with the intent of the historic preservation ordinance.”
In response, Patzelt acknowledged that public opinion was divided, but said that the commission was tasked with weighing how public opinion was split, and said he feels the majority are in favor of demolition.
As to the lack of a redevelopment plan, Patzelt said the developer can’t prepare one without knowing whether they are allowed to demolish the structure, but that they would do so if granted a demolition permit.
“We are also committed to trying to pay homage or pay some legacy or some documentation — visual, as well as physical — of the historic remnant structure,” Patzelt also said at Monday’s meeting. He noted the possibility of reincorporating its stone into some kind of directory map that tells the story of the historic blacksmith structure.
Patzelt declined The Beacon-News’ request for comment on Tuesday about Monday’s decision and what’s next for the structure.
But, while Monday’s vote narrowly came out in favor of the structure remaining, many of the council members shared their frustrations with the status quo when it comes to the structure’s current state.
“What remains is a partial remnant that has been significantly altered over time and is no longer functionally or physically connected to that which gave it historic significance,” Ald. Brad Kosirog, who voted in favor of demolition, said. “The code does not require preservation at any cost, nor does it require maintaining a structure where reuse is impractical and unsupported by the site’s current condition.”
Bowring, who voted against demolition, said she came to a different conclusion, arguing that the petitioner did not present sufficient evidence that demolition would be in the community’s interest.
“I think a question that remains in my mind and a lot of minds is: what is next?” Bowring asked. “I think that is part of the consideration of community interest.”
She suggested that a redevelopment that incorporates the historic structure or a new development were possibilities, and said the fact that the community would like to see changes to the site “is not the standard that they needed to demonstrate in order for (her) to support demolition.”
“I don’t think that (the developer needs) to feel as stuck as they claim to be absent granting of their demolition request,” Bowring said. “That winds up feeling like they are holding this important site hostage and saying that, if you do not give us this demolition request, we will sit on this site for an indefinite period, which is, I think, not in this community’s best interest.”
Reinecke attributed some of the contentiousness to a conflict between economic development and historic preservation.
“The thing that troubles me about this is that they are seen as being against one another, rather than as an opportunity for solution-focused thinking and collaboration, and it’s been that way for some time,” he said.
But, though he said he thinks the structure can be preserved and that he doesn’t support demolition, Reinecke also noted that the community has grown “impatient.”
“All of us would like to see something of value and use placed onto that site,” he said. “And it’s been taking a long time. And I don’t think there’s anyone who’s (saying), ‘Let’s just let it float for a bit.’ That’s not the tone of the community right now.”
Malecki, who also voted against allowing demolition, questioned whether the vote was “basically as a matter of convenience to push things forward.”
Other council members spoke more favorably of demolition.
Ald. Richard Marks, later in the meeting, suggested that it was “hard to see some practical reuse of the building as it stands now.”
And Ald. Dean Kilburg, who said he supports demolition, reiterated that progress needs to be made on the site.
“After eight years, we’re not making any progress,” Kilburg said, “and I think that contributes to the pushback from the community that something needs to be done, that that’s a responsibility now that falls upon us.”
But even those who voted in favor of overruling the commission’s determination and allowing for demolition acknowledged the community’s concerns.
“I can say with clarity there’s no clarity,” Ald. Jeff Palmquist said. “It really is a split opinion of our residents.”
Palmquist said, however, that he would support demolition “with the optimism that we will ultimately get at a better place than we would otherwise if we did not.”
“People definitely want something to happen,” Ald. Amy Mayer added to the discussion. “What I’ve been told is that they’d like City Council and the city of Geneva to excuse themselves and get out of the way of progress from happening.”
Saying that Patzelt’s plans to pay homage to the structure and to form a redevelopment plan are not enforceable, Mayer requested that the stone structure being made available for a memorial of some kind be part of the conditions for demolition, about which there was some discussion.
Paschke, for example, said she didn’t support that change and didn’t “feel comfortable making that a condition.” Both she and Bowring suggested that those conditions by the petitioner to pay homage to the structure and create a redevelopment plan for the site could have been brought forward anytime before in the years the site has been considered.
Paschke, who opposed the demolition, similar to Bowring, argued that there wasn’t enough evidence that keeping the structure is not in the best interest of the community, and suggested that it “sets a bad precedent” to “demolish a designated historic structure for nothing.”
Following Monday’s narrow vote, the structure will remain for now, though its future remains uncertain. But, over the course of Monday’s meeting, members of the council repeatedly emphasized their desire to resolve the situation going forward, rather than continuing to allow the site to sit unchanged.
“We really do want something to happen here,” Mayer said at Monday’s meeting. “I really hope that this doesn’t cause the proverbial … board game to get tossed in the air and walked away from.”
mmorrow@chicagotribune.com
