An effort to designate a downtown Riverside building as a local landmark stalled last week, as village trustees questioned both the building’s architectural merit and the willingness of the building’s owner to have the structure landmarked.

Trustees voted 4-1 on Nov. 19 to table an ordinance designating 5-7-9 Longcommon Road as a local landmark until board members could get a clear indication of support from the building’s owner on the landmark designation.

In October, the Riverside Preservation Commission voted unanimously to recommend the two-story structure at 5-7-9 Longcommon Road for local landmark status. The building, which dates to 1909, was purportedly designed by Chicago architect E.E. Roberts. In June, the village board voted to declare 3 Longcommon Road a local landmark after its owner sought the designation.

While the two properties share a common facade and appear to have been designed by the same architect and built at the same time, they are distinct from one another, with a firewall (visible only on the roof) separating them.

The owners of 3 Longcommon Road, Art and Christine Canavera, restored their property using original blueprints found in the eaves of the building. Those blueprints carry E.E. Roberts’ signature. They then sought the landmark designation for their property, which was granted.

The ownership of 5-7-9 Longcommon Road is not so clear cut, and its ownership’s views on restoration and landmark status are equally murky.

According to land records, the property is owned by a real estate trust. The property is managed by Reliable Management, and Ronald Kafka serves as the management company’s agent and spokesmen. He claims not to be the owner of the building and said last week that he does not know the owners’ views on landmarking the building.

As for his own views on landmarking the building, Kafka replied, “I don’t have any thoughts one way or another.”

After the Canaveras’ portion of the building was restored and on its way to restoration, Village President Harold J. Wiaduck Jr. said that he asked Kafka if it was possible to remove the wood siding from the first-floor facade, in place for over two decades. In August, the siding came down, revealing much of the building’s original detailing, including a nearly intact prism glass clerestory and cast iron columns bearing a tree of life motif.

At that time, Kafka stated that the building would be restored. Since that time, the prism glass has been covered by wood panels which have been stuccoed and the columns have been whitewashed. According to Kafka, the village’s Building Department has signed off on the work and that the work is “all finished.”

The way the “restoration” of the building was handled and Kafka’s opaque statements regarding the concept of landmark status for the building were among the sticking points for trustees who spoke against a landmark designation for the building.

“The key stumbling block is that owner is being coy and is not making his intentions known,” said Trustee Kevin Smith. “If he’s not on board, why are being aggressive at this point in time?

“If he was so enthused about [landmark status] then why did he put that board over [the facade]? This doesn’t smell right.”

Trustees John Scully and Thomas Shields objected to landmarking the building without the support of the building’s owner, referring to Kafka specifically.

“I’ve heard [through other parties] Kafka say that he’s for it and against it,” Scully said. “I’d make it a landmark in a moment if Mr. Kafka was sitting here. … If Kafka doesn’t give me an indication, I’m voting no.”

Neither Kafka nor anyone involved in the ownership of the building attended the Nov. 19 meeting.

Apart from the ownership’s willingness to go along with the landmark designation, some trustees also questioned the merit of the building itself, with Smith calling it “mediocre.”

“Basically what we’re being asked to do is to embrace and enshrine mediocrity,” Smith said. “Is this building that important? It isn’t to me.”

Several members of the Preservation Commission spoke in support of the landmark designation, calling the building an important, early example of the Prairie style of architecture used for a commercial building. They also argued that while the building has not yet been restored, a landmark designation could help assure a sensitive restoration in the future by the current or a future owner.

“It’s a fine piece of architecture and is historically valuable,” said Richard Ray, a Preservation Commission member. “By landmarking it, it’s an opportunity to encourage this owner or the next owner to unwrap it and restore it.”

Preservation Commission member Melissa Kotrba said that the building “stands on its own merit. The use of cast iron structural ornamentation makes this building stand out.”

Candice Grace was the only village trustee to speak in favor of landmarking the building, saying that despite not necessarily having the blessing of the owner, “sometimes we need to have vision and landmark buildings. An inspired owner could make that building beautiful. I really think it’s a building worth preserving.”

Shields responded that the building was not significant and that he’d be voting against the measure.

“Even if Kafka were here and wanted the landmark status I wouldn’t vote for it,” Shields said. “This building is not a landmark.”