A developer’s much-discussed plans for a portion of the former Pheasant Run resort site in St. Charles will not — at least at this point — be heading to the City Council for final approval, as resident and alderman pushback about the proposal continues.
After punting a decision on whether to recommend a proposed plan earlier this month, the council’s Committee of the Whole last week shot down a modified preliminary plan for the redevelopment of the site, set to be called The Shops at Pheasant Run.
But that doesn’t necessarily mean the proposed development is dead. According to St. Charles City Administrator Heather McGuire, the city is still in conversation with the developer, who could come back to the city with a modified pitch.
Located near the city’s eastern edge at East Main Street and Kautz Road, the site is the remaining 33.7 acres of what used to be the Pheasant Run Resort, a facility that shuttered in 2020.
In 2022, a fire engulfed
More Top Picks Best Pillows For Combination Sleepers With Neck Pain
large sections of the resort in flames, causing significant damage. Portions of the hotel there were destroyed by the fire, but crews were able to save the 16-story tower on the property.The remaining resort buildings were eventually demolished, but discussions about redeveloping the property have been going on for years. Parts of the former resort property have been sold off over the years, for car dealerships and an industrial park. This would be the last portion of the property to be redeveloped.
Last year, a concept plan for the site was submitted to the city by SC Landman LLC, the property owner entity of Chicago-based developer Vequity, proposing a project that would include things like retail, a bank, restaurants and a daycare.
Included in preliminary plans for the development recently presented to the city were, for example, a Chase Bank, Valvoline Oil Change and Dutch Bros Coffee. Some of the planned uses for other lots on the property had not yet been settled on and would require future city approval of their preliminary plans.
But, while the council was generally supportive of development on the site, some of the specifications of the proposed project generated pushback from St. Charles City Council members at a meeting earlier this month, on matters like the number of drive-thrus and the possibility of a car wash being located there.
In response, the applicant for the project proposed some modifications to its request — specifically dealing with the drive-thru and car wash issues.
Namely, the developer agreed to limit the project to eight drive-thrus in total and eliminate car washes as a permitted use, per documents included in last week’s Committee of the Whole meeting agenda. Under the revised proposal, five of the drive-thrus were slated for sites that already have planned uses, while the remaining three would be for the other lots whose uses had not yet been determined.
Plans for those three additional drive-thrus would have to be reviewed by the city later on, according to Russell Colby, the city’s director of community development.
Originally, the proposed redevelopment plans included a request that drive-thrus be permitted on all of the lots.
The proposed changes mean that any drive-thrus beyond the eight allowed or any proposed car washes on the site would require further city approval at a later date.
At the meeting last week, the proposal prompted criticism from several members of the public, who cited concerns like the car-oriented nature of the development, uncertainty about what the area will one day hold and a desire for a different kind of development overall.
Peter Bazos, an attorney representing the developer, acknowledged at the Committee of the Whole meeting the resident comments about how the area should be developed, but noted that the property is already zoned for business, meaning it already permits uses like car washes, vehicle sales facilities and bars.
“Any of these permitted uses … could go forward without any public hearings,” Bazos said at the meeting. “When we say we don’t want any of these things, I mean, these things are permitted now.”
However, the developer is pursuing a planned unit development, or PUD, plan because it will “enhance the project” and “speed its absorption and development.”
And the only significant change from what’s already permitted under the current zoning, according to Bazos, is the allowance for drive-thrus.
Christopher Ilekis, owner and founder of Vequity, said that, for the development to be successful, it would have to have “a lot of variety and uses throughout the project.” In addition to the eight drive-thrus, he noted, there are also multi-tenant buildings and dining and retail proposed.
Ilekis also pointed to the amenities the project would provide that “aren’t common to similar projects,” like public art, patios and pedestrian seating areas.
“Although it … is, you know, a high-traffic road, it does allow for walkable retail and dining throughout the project,” Ilekis said.
However, despite the modifications proposed, the project still faced some criticism from City Council members.
At the meeting last week, some of the pushback again centered around the number of drive-thrus, despite the proposed limitation.
“Eight (drive-thrus) out of 14 (lots) is not a pedestrian-focused development,” Ald. Vicki Spellman said. “That is a car-focused development. There’s just, there’s no way to characterize it otherwise.”
Alds. Dave Petschke, David Pietryla and Ed Bessner all expressed an interest in the site having fewer drive-thrus as well.
A couple council members were a bit more supportive of the proposal, however.
Ald. Ed Bessner, for example, pointed to “development momentum” on the city’s east side as a potential reason to support the project.
And Ald. Bryan Wirball said that, while he doesn’t support a car wash or truck stop, the city needs to move forward with the project “in a collaborative manner” because the developer has the right to put many of these uses on the property, anyway, and a PUD gives the city more control over what ultimately goes there.
Other council members were more critical of the project generally.
More Top Picks Pure Energy Electric Longboard
Ald. Ronald Silkaitis said he still didn’t think the project was a good fit for St. Charles, calling it “a big strip mall on Main Street.”
While Ald. Mark Foulkes said what had been presented thus far “hasn’t been unique and different,” and that it “doesn’t seem to have what (the city is) looking for at this time.”
Acknowledging his interest in continuing to work on developing the site, Foulkes also expressed concern about the uncertainty over what will ultimately be included in the project.
“I just struggle green lighting what I don’t know,” he said.
Ald. Ryan Bongard, meanwhile, said that “just because something is zoned, doesn’t mean that you have to build it,” and said that residents from the city’s east side “have been pretty out front about their feelings about this.”
Ald. Jayme Muenz similarly noted that residents have expressed their desire for the city’s eastern gateway to be distinct from neighboring communities, noting that there have been numerous letters sent to the city and residents speaking out at city meetings.
“I strongly believe we should … be revisiting what we want to plan our community to look like in the future, rather than waiting for developments to try and shape that one parcel at a time,” Muenz said.
Another topic of conversation last week was the possibility of the city providing financial assistance for the project.
While not part of the approvals that were under consideration at the meeting, the developer has indicated plans to seek at least $3.3 million in tax increment financing, or TIF, funds to help with the costs of redeveloping the site.
A TIF district is a sort of economic development incentive, in which the value of a property is essentially frozen, and the extra or “increment” taxes created by developing the property go into a special fund used to pay for costs related to improving the area. The property is within the Pheasant Run TIF District.
But, should it be prohibited from allowing a car wash to set up there, the developer planned to ask for an additional $1.5 million in TIF funds, because doing so eliminates a potential permitted use and could reduce the value and economic viability of the project.
As of 2031, once the project is fully built, it’s expected to generate around $611,000 in TIF revenue annually — and around $12.3 million over the remaining life of the TIF district, per the city.
At the meeting, Silkaitis asked for confirmation as to whether the developer is still looking for the additional $1.5 million in city assistance it had requested if a car wash use is not permitted, and Ilekis said its request was “going to be determined by the outcome of this meeting and what the restrictions are, if any, are placed on the property.”
Also at the meeting, a few council members indicated their support for granting TIF funds — but not the higher amount in relation to the car wash restriction.
Ultimately, a proposal to allow for only seven drive-thrus and no car washes as a permitted use narrowly failed a vote by the committee, with Bongard, Muenz, Spellman, Silkaitis and Foulkes voting against it.
The developer then responded with a proposal to allow seven drive-thrus, but a truck stop would be eliminated as a possible use on the site.
Spellman suggested a motion allowing for five drive-thrus, with any further drive-thrus requiring the special use approval process, and no car washes and no truck stops allowed as uses on the site. Spellman’s motion did not receive a second, meaning the proposal died and the committee moved on with the meeting.
Ilekis did not immediately return a request for comment about the future plans for the site.
According to McGuire, the city administrator, when a plan is voted down in this way, the developer can accept the vote against it and move on, or they can come back to the city with a modified proposal.
The city is still in conversation with the developer about the project, McGuire said on Monday, indicating that the earliest the matter could come back to the Committee of the Whole would be in early September.