Preliminary plans for a much-discussed development project on the old Pheasant Run resort site in St. Charles have won the OK of the St. Charles City Council.
At a recent meeting, the council voted 6-3 in favor of the preliminary plans, with a vote on a redevelopment agreement — including a request for $3.5 million in financial assistance from the city — expected soon.
Located at East Main Street and Kautz Road on the city’s eastern edge, the development is planned on 33.7 acres of what had been the site of the Pheasant Run resort, a facility that shuttered in 2020.
In 2022, a fire engulfed 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.
The plans for the project, to be called The Shops at Pheasant Run, have since been under discussion with the city.
In August, modified plans from the developer were shot down by St. Charles aldermen, but then a further revised plan received a positive recommendation from the Committee of the Whole in late September.
The project is slated to include businesses like Chase Bank, Valvoline Instant Oil Change and Dutch Bros Coffee, with the development of some of the other lots set to require future city approval. The overall project calls for a total of 18 to 25 businesses, with a construction cost of $70 million to $100 million.
More Top Picks Best Jumpsport Mini Trampolines For Adults
In question by some council members over the course of the discussions about the proposed project has been the number of drive-thrus permitted as part of the development, as well as the possibility of things like car washes or gas stations being built on the site. Some aldermen also expressed concern with the project’s overall concept.
As to the number of drive-thrus, the developer is limited to the five that have already been proposed and a sixth for a future business, according to a city memo included in the agenda from the recent meeting. Any additional ones would need to come back to the city as a special use request.
Car washes are prohibited on the majority of the lots under the revised plan, but could be requested as a special use on a few of the lots, the city memo indicated.
Additionally, the city has said, one lot is proposed to be a car dealership, for which there would be a five-year waiting period, after which the lot could be used for another purpose. The lot can be used for dealership inventory in the interim, per the city, and the City Council could choose to lift the five-year restriction for a specific project after three years. If that lot was proposed to be a gas station down the line, certain restrictions would apply.
The developer has also committed to a 30-month waiting period for several of the site’s center lots, intended to give them time to secure tenants that might build non-drive-thru offerings like a grocery store, fitness center or entertainment venue, per the city.
Also included in the preliminary plans is a caveat that, if the city and developer don’t come to an agreement on and enter into a redevelopment agreement within 45 days of the plans’ approval, then the plans could be vacated, Deputy City Administrator Derek Conley explained at the recent meeting.
Separate from the preliminary plans for the site approved recently, the developer is planning to seek up to $3.5 million in tax increment financing, or TIF, funds, Conley said, to help with the costs of redeveloping the site. That TIF reimbursement would be included in a redevelopment agreement that the City Council is set to vote on at a later date.
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.
Per the city, the project is expected to generate around $600,000 annually in TIF revenue at full buildout, which is expected to be in 2031. That means it would generate over $12 million in TIF revenue over the remaining life of the TIF district, according to the city.
At the meeting, Ald. Ronald Silkaitis asked why this change linking the preliminary development plans and future TIF request was happening “last minute,” rather than being included the last time the matter was discussed by the council’s members.
Conley responded that the developer contacted staff the morning of the day of the meeting, saying that this provision was “important to … their ability to move forward with the project.”
Ald. Ryan Bongard also asked about the change.
“Why make this ask that, you know, this, this has to be done this way right now … when everything has been separate through this whole process?” Bongard asked. “But now, at the 11th hour, we have to have this together so we can move forward.”
Conley said that the developer has been “clear” that it is asking for a reimbursement from the city, and that the city needed to get the preliminary development plans finalized first because that could have changed the amount the developer was requesting.
“This is just something that has been negotiated,” Conley said, “and we kind of had to get that first part finalized before we could move on to this next phase.”
And Ald. Jayme Muenz asked whether it was typical for a developer to separate their requests for preliminary plan approval and approval of a request for TIF funds. To that, Conley said the city sometimes tries “to run these two things parallel together” so they’re approved at the same meeting, but that this project depended on the plans that were finalized.
Ultimately, the preliminary plans were approved in a 6-3 vote, with Muenz, Silkaitis and Bongard voting against them.
The council’s Committee of the Whole is expected to consider the redevelopment agreement at its meeting on Oct. 19, according to Conley, and it could then potentially go on for final approval from the City Council on Nov. 2.