6 days ago
Historic St. Charles home to remain for now, after City Council denies request to demolish it
A historic house in downtown St. Charles, which recently made a state nonprofit's list of the most endangered historic places in Illinois, will remain for now, after the City Council Monday night denied its owner's request to demolish it.
Owned by Baker Memorial United Methodist Church, the house at 217 Cedar Ave. has for years faced an uncertain future, as its owner has pursued city approval to tear it down and reuse the space.
The house at 217 Cedar Ave. is also referred to as the Judge William D. Barry House, for its original owner.
William D. Barry was a lawyer, a Kane County judge around the time of the Civil War and the first president of the Kane County Bar Association, who may have known Abraham Lincoln, according to former board president of the St. Charles History Museum Steve Gibson.
Gibson has been researching Barry and the house since 2017, when he sat on the city's Historic Preservation Commission that first voted against demolishing the house. The building dates back to the 1840s, according to Gibson's history written for the St. Charles History Museum.
Because it's located within the city's Historic District, exterior changes to the building must be reviewed by the city and its owners must receive a certificate of appropriateness before it can be demolished. The church brought a request about the property to the city in 2017, according to past reporting, but its application was withdrawn before the City Council could vote on the house's fate.
In 2017, the church proposed creating a green space and prayer garden on the site, per the city. More recently, the church's pitch has been to turn it into parking spaces, citing a need for additional parking in the area, its financial situation and other concerns.
Baker Memorial also owns the buildings at 211-215 Cedar Ave. and the parking lots to the south, west and north of the buildings, according to past reporting. The city's Historic Preservation Commission in 2017 OK'd the demolition of the structure at 211-215 Cedar Ave., but not the house at 217 Cedar Ave., per city documents.
In October, the city's Historic Preservation Commission recommended the City Council deny the more recent request for a certificate of appropriateness to demolish the Judge Barry House, based on findings about the building's significance and architecture. In December, it went on to the City Council's Planning and Development Committee, which ultimately postponed making a decision so city staff and the church could discuss their options.
From there, the city and the church continued to discuss the house's future, including whether the city could purchase it from Baker Memorial, but they were unable to reach an agreement.
So the matter went back to the City Council Planning and Development Committee in May and was recommended for approval, despite facing some opposition from residents and advocates. But a final City Council vote on the fate of the house was delayed because of offers to buy the house or move the structure off the property, according to past reporting.
That brings the matter to Monday's meeting, when the City Council took up the issue again. But the council did not deliver the church its long-awaited green light to take down the house and put up the parking they have been expressing a need for.
Mayor Clint Hull noted the months-long conversations that have been going on among the city, church and those advocating for preservation.
'The goal has been and always will be to continue to find a solution that would be what I would characterize, and many characterize, as a win-win,' Hull said Monday evening. 'That win-win would allow the church to sell the property at a fair-market value and would also preserve the Barry House for future use.'
In their conversations, Hull said three options were being considered: Baker Memorial selling the house at a fair-market value to a person or organization that would preserve it, the church selling or giving the structure itself to a person or organization that would move it off the property and, lastly, the church selling the property to the city. But none of those options were achieved.
Hull said he has reflected on his own background as a Kane County judge as this issue has made its way through the city.
'When you make a decision like this, at the city council level or at a courtroom, you understand that people are very passionate on both sides of the issue,' Hull said. 'I have asked myself over the past three months, 'What would Judge Barry expect the City Council to do?''
He said he thinks Judge Barry would have wanted the City Council to research and understand all the facts, listen to both sides and keep an open mind, deliberate and reflect and make the decision transparently and communicate that decision.
'I can guarantee you that the City Council members that are here tonight have done all that and more,' he said at the meeting.
City Council member Jayme Muenz, who shortly after voted against allowing the building to be demolished, emphasized that many residents are concerned about a reverence for history.
'I also feel that there is a precedent that is set when you make changes to historic structures,' Muenz said. 'You decide for the entire community what that value is.'
Council member Vicki Spellman, who also voted against the house's demolition, said the issue is not just about the historic significance of the home, which has been debated, but the neighborhood it exists in.
'To me, it's not just a home,' Spellman said. 'I do think that it would affect the character of the neighborhood.'
Ultimately, the request to allow for demolition was shot down, with three council members voting for it and seven voting against.
Baker Memorial United Methodist Church did not immediately return The Beacon-News' request for comment.
Al Watts, the community engagement director of local nonprofit Preservation Partners of the Fox Valley, told The Beacon-News on Tuesday that, with demolition not an option, the Preservation Partners could assist the church with applications for grant money to do maintenance on the house, connect them with contractors or help them get information on the value of their property if they were to sell, for example.
Watts explained that members of the Preservation Partners of the Fox Valley are 'always going to be happier' that a historic building was preserved rather than demolished, but said they also don't want to see such buildings deteriorate and become a problem.
'The number one thing about historic preservation is if the building doesn't have a use, then it's never going to get saved,' Watts said. 'It's going to, eventually, it's going to get demolished one way or the other, either just because it'll literally fall down or because it'll just be too much of a problem that somebody has to knock it down. This building is not in that category yet, but, if nothing is done, eventually it will be.'
But what happens next remains to be seen.
'This is just one vote,' Hull said at Monday's meeting. 'The city is committed to continuing to work together with both sides to continue to try to figure out if we can achieve that goal of a win-win.'
