Well that was a cheerful article. What's your point?

I think it kind of shows that we aren't doing enough to try and turn around our stagnant businesses climate here in St. Charles. It didn't even mention the recent closing of two food establisments in downtown, the continued delays in getting 1st St developers to complete the project or any real progress with the Charlestown Mall owners.
We are completely going towards more residential projects which we don't need, the residents don't want and the market won't support with plenty of homes on the market.

Wait until you see what's happening at the Valley Shopping Center.

How about an update on VSC, Karl, what's going on over there? Never has been one of the more attractive shopping centers in the area that's for sure.

If what Karl says is true (and I have no reason to doubt it), it would appear that we are going to go through yet another in our seemingly never-ending series of headaches. What this City could do with just the slightest bit of imagination and creativity! Too bad those are things that seem to be in very short supply these days.

I would appear that April cannot come fast enough.

God save us all.

I agree that the Valley Shopping Center suffers from a lack of reinvestment; however, we don't know the situation that the current owners are in or their motivation for selling. Henry Funk has been a long-time resident of St. Charles and he deserves better.

Karl not sure where you got your information from, but I do know that what you said was a brief discussion during the Comprehensive Plan Task Force meeting, but there was no real decisions there. I personally would hate to see that area become residential and hope our city officials feel the same way.

http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/17723647/1605-West-Main-Street-Saint-Charles-IL/

http://www.loopnet.com/Listing/17723835/1595-West-Main-Street-Saint-Charles-IL/

Sorry, Adobe is crashing on me but it was page 93 of the plan commission (I think) that talks about the dated center and making it residential. I seem to remember a map there also with Walnut cutting through to 14th.

Lastly (NOT written by me)- "Mr. Henry Funk has elected to not renew my lease and is moving the shopping center in a new direction. "

The language in question is found on page 73 of the draft Comprehensive Plan, under the heading Catalyst Sites:

"The Valley Shopping Center is outdated and struggling to compete with other commercial areas in the City. Its depth is inconsistent with other commercial sites along the Main Street Corridor and the site should consider partly reverting back to residential uses."

As Kim correctly points out, there was a brief discussion on this site during the task force's recent meetings. In fact, I was the one who suggested that VSC be added to the list of catalyst sites. It's also true that our conversation was very preliminary and that no firm decisions had been made, except that the site warranted further attention. It's wild speculation to suggest that the city has any designs in mind--or that there's any connection between the task force's short discussion and lease agreements between the property owner and renters.

Next Tuesday evening, the Plan Commission will take its *first* look at the draft Comp Plan. I would urge any and all concerned citizens to engage with us in working to forge a vision document that *does* reflect the imagination and creativity that this city has to offer. That's not a promise that we will agree on all points, but I hope it will be received as a sincere invitation to keep the conversation open.

Best regards,
Brian Doyle
Member, CPTF & Plan Commission

Brian -
First, slight correction: former architect. Second, as I see it, the vision presented by the proposed Lexington Club is that of a economically-segregated, cookie-cutter suburban subdivision that has almost zero similarity to the surrounding highly diverse neighborhood (highly diverse in terms of land use, housing types, lot sizes, income levels, etc.). Well-executed New Urbanism strives to create that kind of diversity, not stamp it out. Related to all of this is the fact that we don't need more residential rooftops; we need more businesses and a consistent, well-considered vision to guide us. Any town that focuses on the development of housing only (as we seem hell-bent on doing; witness us now talking about tearing down businesses and building homes) condemns itself to higher property taxes, longer commutes, and degradation of both the environment and quality of life.

For New Urbanism to have any chance of working, there has to be higher density than what we have traditionally built; I get that. The small question is: how much more dense? The far bigger, far more important question is: how do we intrgrate this new fabric into the old in a way that does not trample the expectations of the existing residents, but also preserves enough of the core principles of New Urbanism to create a truly viable project? My fear is what kind of pablum will be deemed "good enough" by the City for any proposed redevelopment plan for the shopping center in question.

David: You raise several points, to which I'll respond out of order:

1) Residential vs. commercial development: Pages 8-9 of the draft Comp Plan (http://www.hlplanning.com/dnn/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=Jhrn7St9nGc%3d&tabid=1769&mid=2216) feature market gap analyses of the Downtown, Randall Road, and Charlestown Mall business districts. In the case of the latter two, your position is supported in that there is a unmet retail demand. Downtown, however, has an oversupply of retail space. For this reason, I support higher-density mixed-use and residential land uses "in town," especially on infill sites. I oppose higher-density land uses west of Randall Road (e.g., Corporate Reserves).

[continued]

2) Economic integration and community character: I'm glad you brought this up because it's an important issue. One of my concerns about the direction taken by Lexington Club negotiations is that the very housing units that were struck from the plan (i.e., the row homes) happened to be the most affordable. The singular focus on density that has come to characterize our public debates does very little to challenge us to attend to those social issue justice issues that I know you care about. I would wager, if the property owners of Lexington Club proposed to develop 60 neo-Victorian single-family homes prices at a $million each, very few people would care: a) if there was a market for such homes or b) if the result would be a homogenous, upper-class suburban enclave.

In short, it's not clear to me how many people are really interested in promoting the principles of New Urbanism. I am--and I would like to know more about how to distinguish between proposals that genuinely reflect that ideal and those that are *not* "good enough." To get there, I think that we need to clearly identify the principles and develop a practical framework that can be used to guide city planning.

It may be that the draft Comp Plan will help to get us there. Either way, we need your input now because, by the time April comes around, Council may have already adopted it.

Actually I think it is the Urbanism that has many concerned. The residents don't want St. Charles urbanized. Those that were born and raised here stayed here because they like their hometown feel. Those that moved here did so because of that small town, historic charm. Very few moved here hoping that one day we would become the next Oak Park. They weren't hoping to see high density developments popping up on commercial and industrial properties. Yes they want the convenience of having shopping near them and they expect to see those type of uses on properties that have been used for that in the past and for most I think they welcome the high density commercial use. With the exception of 1st street though I don 't think the majority is looking for mixed use. This is not just based off of my opinion but this is even what the City's own survey supports. If you want a place to start to help move forward start there. I know it is not what some City Officials want to hear and see, but this is what the people want. Now when it comes to Lexington, it should match the existing density again to help maintain that quaint town feel. If we lose that we lose the charm of St. Charles and why most of us live here today.

Kim -
Being afraid of New Urbanism because it contains the word "urban" is a public education problem, not a reason to not move into the future instead of trying to live in the past with our heads buried in the sand. Done correctly, New Urbanism is really nothing more than a celebration of what was awesome about functional neighborhoods in the days before the automobile took over - they were walkable and they fostered community amongst the residents. There is a reason why people who live in major cities now outlive their suburban counterparts by a significant number of years, and have better health overall: they walk...something that folks who live in small-town America used to do. New Urbanism seeks to restore that balance and create incredibly homey, incredibly livable, walkable communities. It is not about trying to become downtown Chicago.

Part of what we need to be doing right now is positioning us for the future. Doing more of the same, exactly as we have been doing it for the last 100 years is not the way to get there. Dumping in poorly considered, high density developments, just because the developer says we should is also not the way to get there. We need sensitive well-executed design that respects the context and the principles of New Urbanism.

David you are correct and that is exactly what I am talking. The problem with calling it new urbanizing is that some take the urban part way too far. I have talked to many about this and it is the word that causes the problem. Some want to urbanize to the extreme and that is where the concern comes in, what you are talking is sensible development, but not everyone is on that same page. I look at it as we are at a cross roads, the choice we make over the next few years determines our fate. Do we urbanize and lose our charm or do we push for sensible and respectful development to help protect our charm? I myself hope the later. It sounds as if you agree. New Urbanism regardless of the real meaning means different things to different people. Yes education helps, but the bottom line is I think we need to stop finding titles to apply to it and just use some common sense with these proposals. It just seems that is what we have been lacking lately. Thank goodness the Council realized it in time.

It's all fine that residents have opinions on development in the city, but they should be based in economic reality. And, if someone believes that they have the perfect idea, they can take their imagination, creativity, and - most importantly - their capital to buy property and develop high density commercial or New Urbanism. It appears that the Valley Shopping Center is available for $5 million. Why not start there?

Kim: If "urbanism" is a fuzzy concept that's vulnerable to misappropriation, how much more so enigmatic "common sense!?" Maybe we don't need a title to describe our approach to city planning but, we do need to identity and build consensus around clear principles. To that end...

I just came across a new blog this evening that I think could really help bridge the divide between our various perspectives. The blogger in question, Charles Marohn, is the executive director of a nonprofit called Strong Towns, and was recently interviewed by the website Grid Chicago. Here's an excerpt from that interview (http://gridchicago.com/2012/strong-towns-and-playborhoods-a-talk-with-charles-marohn-and-mike-lanza/):

John: So you’re a fiscal conservative, right?
Charles: Definitely.
John: So you felt like you were swimming against the tide as a Republican who supported New Urbanism ideas?
Charles: Yeah. There’s a certain element of conservatism that you can call prudence, and there’s another form of conservatism that you can call resistance to change.

For more insight on how Marohn links fiscal conservatism to new urbanism and the concept of "strong towns," see: http://www.strongtowns.org/facts.

Brian first I think one thing that needs to be made clear is no one is saying don't develope. What they are saying is lets do it appropriately and lets focus on what we really need, not just build to build. Again I use the City Survey to make my point. It was overwhelming numbers that say we don't need residential development, but we do need to focus on Commercial again those numbers were strong. What wasn't really asked is how people felt about the need for senior and disabled housing. That seems to be something most residents believe we need. It is about balance. You need to maintain a balance of housing throughout the town, not lump it in one area like it has been on the west side of town. You must remember we have two properties that are already conceptually approved for multi-family use lets work on getting those developed before we turn commercial/offic property into residential. The next issue is why do we want to compete with our downtown? We should be working to add more mixed use downtown using our existing buildings and completing First Street. That is where the high density belongs, but not by sacrificing our charm so we need to make sure we are careful with things like height and design. That is where "new urbanism makes some sense. Now Lexington is a whole different story. Yes the fact that it should be walkable makes sense, because the surrounding neighborhood is, but density is another issue. It should blend with the existing.

The reason why there has been so much push back on Lexington is this. The original proposal started out with something like 170 units if I remember right(it has been nearly 6 years so forgive me if I am off) it came down to something like 130 by the time it went to the Planning and Development Committee in 2009. The neighbors didn't fight that number at the time because there was a reduction and it was a better mix of single family and townhomes. The other issue is I think many residents were complacent. Then it comes back now with a higher number and fewer single family and more townhomes. It is a move in the wrong direction and at this point many start to realize that it is worth voicing their opinion. Now had the developer come in with what was given a positive node by the Council in 2009 there may not have been the fight and that was one of the suggestions at the May 2012 meeting but they would not do so. So the residents have been open to a compromise and the developers have not. Even with Corporate Reserves if they had proposed townhomes instead of apartments they may have gotten approved. I guess the question I have is why do you think we need more residential especially on the west side? What do we hope to accomplish with more? If it is more affordable housing why don't we look at our existing housing stock and see what can be done with that vs building more? Maybe those are the questions we need to start with.

Kim: The city's ability to support retail and commercial development is directly related to consumer dollars in the market area. Let's consider, for instance, our prospects for attracting and retaining businesses downtown. The market gap analysis conducted by Houseal Lavigne reveals that the market within a 5-minute drive of downtown is oversaturated in every business category except gas stations and nonstore retail. That's why, for instance, downtown restaurants keep going under. If promoting business downtown and avoiding competition from other (potential) commercial and retail centers are priorities, then doesn't it make sense to bring more consumer dollars into the area? We can talk about recruiting businesses all day long but if the customer base isn't here, they're not going to set up shop downtown.

[continued]

Even on Randall Road, however, the retail gap is limited to five business categories, three of which offer the lion's share of opportunity: 1) motor vehicle and parts dealers; 2) nonstore retailers; and 3) gas stations. Incidentally, the Plan Commission just reviewed an application this month to build a Discount Tires store in front of the Harley dealership. But as for clothing stores, home furnishings, electronics, sporting goods, and general merchandise (i.e., all of the "charming" types of businesses that characterize Geneva Commons), again there's no market for them--except restaurants, if we want to put downtown eateries out of business.

The situation on the east side near Charlestowne Mall is a little better--but even there, measured in consumer dollars, 91% of the retail gap is in motor vehicle and parts dealers, nonstore retailers, and gas stations.

Now, in my opinion, none of those business types are very conducive to generating social spaces that define a community's character. Basically, the retail market of the future is driven by cars and home-based shopping, which is why Americans are the fattest people on the planet.

Mixed-use development that emphasizes walkability and local businesses supporting by strong relationships is the antidote for suburban sprawl. That is why I support smart, higher-density development "in town" and oppose it in outlying areas, whose natural beauty and character I absolutely want to preserve.

One final comment I'll make is that I think it's problematic for government to withhold or delay consideration of a proposed land use entitlement solely on account of a competing business or property that is pending development in the same category. Government must not regulate private industry in such a way that gives one or more parties preferential treatment.

Brian I do understand your thoughts, but if you look at our surrounding communities they have fewer residential units than we do and yet they are bringing in more commerical. Why? Part of it is because we go shop there too. We are so far behind the times on Randall Rd it is insane. Downtown has become mostly bars and whether anyone believes it or not I have a lot of people tell me they stopped going downtown for dinner because of the problems and now are going to our neighboring communities. We have a market out west that is untapped that we don't market to, and I know this because I work out there and talk to people everyday who tell me they love St. Charles but don't go out by us anymore because there is nothing to come to except Meijer and Costco. These are people from as far as Dixon and Mendota. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the Mixed Use. I am for it downtown, but not sold on it anywhere else, partially because of the lack of transportation, partially because most successful mix use is either in downtowns or miles away from a downtown, Oak Brook for example or Naperville, much larger cities. As to your final comment again I disagree to a point. When the property is zoned for a certain use, designated in the comp plan for a certain use and someone comes in with a different idea I think we need to consider other properties and their approved uses. If not balance once again becomes an issue. For a City to work at its best balance is very important.

Brian the reason why on Randall is now limited to 5 categories is because we failed to develop our corridor when everyone else was. So they got all the versotility and we once again are left with few options. Houseal Lavigne is also not "GOD" I have been to many meetings and at times he hasn't a solid answer for questions raised. So you can't put 100% of your facts or argument simply because they said so. Sure in Downtown more food isn't needed, but this false argument for more roof tops has no basis either. I have said before and I will say again, for 75 years the community in general has been known as the Tri-Cities. Now with S. Elgin's growth it should be the Quad Cities. If we get the right concepts and variety of retail we still have a lot of opportunity. This is where finishing 1st with condos or even apts fits as would if the City would lax it's strict codes and encourage the upper floors of so many buildings to become nice residential/rental which brings in more residents and foot traffic.

The other big thing that everyone forgets about Lexington was back when they first came forward with their plan to residents, it was pitched as an "Empty Nester" community, selling it on low traffic impacts and no school impacts. They then pulled that out and came back with the mess we see now. So now when residents would be fine with a certified 55+ type community they are called " A small group of vocal residents" who oppose everything which is blatantly false. Lexington pitched it originally and also when the comp plan amendment was just starting only to switch directions. Also this original article was based on commercial businesses and what has happened in STC. All this Urbanism should be argued in it's own article if Ted would do one for it. I'm all for walkable friendly neighborhoods, that why I moved here 30 years ago. But I have also seem some very weird designs that have been built in some areas like San Francisco and Atlanta which is what worries people. I also am simply against trying to cram a hundred + town houses into an older neighborhood where there have never been anyand against the residents wishes. If the concensus of residents was for them, I would shut up and let if fly, but that is not the case, nobody here wants them yet we are called names and made out to be the villians. No neighborhood should have to bow to any developer so he can make a profit. The residents own this neighborhood and the developers need to come in and work with us.

Instead they come in thinking they should be able to dictate to us what they are willing to do for us like we owe them something. And then they have the gall to expect us to willingly finance it for them as well? BS, they will dump this junk in here then move on to their next profit party and leave us for the next 100 years dealing with the impacts and have us pay for it? Not as long as I have a voice and my neighbors stand together is that gonna happen. It astounds me how little support for the residents this City Hall has, but they always back the dreams of developers not matter what they are pitching. It's disgusting to me.

Kim and Craig: The Randall Road market area detailed in the draft Comp Plan covers a geographic area ranging from IL-88 on the south up to South Elgin and Rt 59 on the east out to Rt 47--a 15-minute driving radius. With the exception of consumer dollars in Aurora, the market gap analyses for Geneva and Batavia would be the same. So, I think we disagree on the facts. You both believe there's untapped market opportunity. I believe the reason we have so many vacancies in town is because the market is saturated in the traditional retail categories.

Craig is correct that this thread has gone off on a bit of a tangent. So I'll leave it at that. Thanks for your time and consideration. Until the next time....

Brian one final comment, I agree the encompassing area you detail is saturated with certain retailers like how many Tragets and Kohl's can you squeeze in a 8 mile square. Where I think the consultant and the committee lose site is that there are other retailers and concepts that are in other parts of the country that we may not even know about. Those opportunities are what I still believe can bring unique viable value to the area and create something very special to bring shoppers from miles around to spend their money here. Sure it will take effort and work to identify and sweet talk any of them here but with the right incentives and representatives (which I do not believe we nowl have in place) anything is possible. Look the area has had HH Gregg and ROSS come recently. That's what I am talking about. The opportunities are out there, but our economic dept isn't out there with the vision and hasn't been for years. They waste their time on residential. I also think revamping of either the St. Charles Bowl or a new state of the art bowling/entertainment facility is desperately needed along Randall road and would have virtually no competition. I do not settle for the status quo in thinking, just like you and Dave don't settle for the same in residential development which I can see your points. We need to send a delegation around or do a survey of residents to name and help us identify these businesses they have seen and enjoyed when traveling the country. It's quite simple.

In fact if we aren't willing to do this, we are then saying our future is bleek and we might as well throw in the towl that there is no other option to revive and stimulate our struggling commercial situation. We have everything to lose and nothing to gain if we don't go out actively and with vision and lots of effort to bring what we need to St. Charkles by whatever means is needed. Our problem is and has been we sit here high on our horse thinking it will simply come walking in to us, simply because we are St. Charles. That thinking has been and will kill us.

And here I thought I made a clean getaway! :)

It's very interesting that you mention incentives, Craig. That's quite progressive--even Keynesian. I don't entirely disagree but it does raise some important questions:

As a tax payer, what kinds of initiatives would you support?
Do you support raising the city's tax levy to achieve the goals you lay out?
Finally, how far should government go in its efforts to fix the market?

That's a question I think the City should gain public opinion on. After all it will be the use of our tax dollars that will fund most any measure they decide. The SSA areas have seemed to work to a certain point, our record on TIF funding has been a horrible failure, the proposed raising sales taxes on a certain area of town to revitialize to me is ridiculous because I do not see where the incentive will be to lure companies to risk the capital investment to build out their spaces when they know they will be at a disadvantage trying to sell their products and services by being forced to charge a premium sales tax, even if it is only 1/4%. Why open there when you could find space in another area on Randall Road? Unless the business is something again, that is unique and that location is the only place you can find it, then maybe..... I think the tax kick back they have offered Sears and some others on East Main might make the most sense. I also think the facade improvement matching grant we have utilized successfully downtown is another smart alternative. That we we share 50/50 with the businesses investment and maybe we need to expand that idea to help with interior build outs for a few years to kick start the change. The bottom line is it will be a bit painful for us for a while in order to spur the changes needed, but if not done what's our alternative Brian? Run down empty buildings, more blight, less revenue in the future?

All we have seen for years is this constant push for residential and recently since it's so easy and doesn't require effort or hard work, now we have many who think selling out our last prime commercial parcels to multifamily residential is the answer is crazy. That shows to me the lack of any business sense, knowledge of commercial development, long term vision, understanding that a vital business base is what will keep us attractive for living here down the road and shows a certain laziness because it's easy! The hardest and highest hurdles you are willing to confront and surpass will achieve the greatest results. That's not been our thought process for years and it needs to be. Nothing worth having is easy to achieve. Another problem is certain owners of certain properties are not great "commercial developers" yet they own prime commercial land. They like their residential because again, it's easy for them, but doesn't mean we as a city should sell out those prime parcels to accomodate their lack of development vision and experience. They bought what they new was commercial land, so either develop it as such or sell it to someone who will.

I like you and everyone else don't like paying more taxes. I am however willing to share in that problem if and only if the results will happen. Currently because of so many failed TIF deals, we are covering hundreds of thousands of dollars of lost income out of our City's funds (which is our taxes) to pay off these bonds. That's why another TIF even if it's residential will still cost us all as tax payers something in higher taxes even though the City claims it's risk free for them. That's not true entirely. The City will at some point assume care and repairs for streets, sidewalks and lighting if it's built. Under the TIF they will get $X amount of dollars for which to cover those expensies for years. If that amount fails to cover the expenses, where does the extra come from? Other funds of the City which again is our tax funded dollars. This will likely happen with most if not all other governing bodies in this TIF. When has your cost of living ever went down or your insurance, your groceries, it's the same with these other bodies, eventually the portions they receive from that TIF will not meet their obligations and they will need more revenue to cover those expenses pure and simple.

Brian look at all the help we have provided for the Arcada. Now the latest is we are going to purchase George's Sports and also rennovate the building to possibly help them expand. We seem to have the money to keep helping out one certain business venture here in town but we sat and watch Pi Pizza, the Bistro in Fox Island Sq both close as well an antique store at 3rd St & Main. Why is that? Why so much help for one and nothing to help others. This is the type of actions I have an issue with? If the programs to help businesses was fair and even across the board which it apparently is not, I wouldn't mind my taxes being used, but this looks like we are playing favorites and I have an issue with that.

Brian and finally to your question, if one simply looks to and uses the City's 2011 Priorities Survey which was a random sampling of residents, it clearly speaks to the facts the a huge percentage of residents said they feel we need to put effort into our commercial business and not into more residential or rental. So I think an open forum asking residents how we should approach and finance this direction is in order and would be welcome. It baffles me how certain people in power and those running for positions have recently and seem to keep up this argument that those who are against more housing at this time or in certain areas are a "vocal minority". They are just plain wrong and out of touch of to what the City's own survey results prove and what the people are clearly telling the City the direction they wish to move. I certainly hope the residents see who these people are that are saying this and what positions they are seeking and will make sure they are not elected. We need Officials who respect and listen to their community, after all they work for and represent them, not the other way around.

Craig I agree with you regarding incentives. We can't have a one type fits all incentive program. We need to get the residents and business owners involved, developed a multi option program and get out there and agressively market. Getting the residents involved is a big issue. We need to know what they want, what they are willing to do to help get those businesses in town and let them feel like they are playing a part in it. It has been too much of this is the way it is going to be from our administration lately. This goes for housing too. Lets find out what we really do need not just build to build. We need to really put some serious thought into this and be proactive. We also need to start looking for businesses we don't have in the area. Having 3 Walmarts, Targets, 2 Best Buys etc.. in the quad city area doesn't work. Now you look at the success of Meijer and Costco where they are not so close by that is the type of things we need to be looking for. We also need to do a better job of business retention. Reaching out to the owners and checking in to see what is happening and what they need. These have all been a problem. There is a lot to be done to move us forward and it is not just 1 thing that needs to be done to fix it. We need to work as a community to make it happne and we need City officials to encourage that unity, by asking and encouraging public input on a regular basis, instead of being so negative when they hear what they dont want to hear.

Kim, I think you well may have hit the nail on the head. It may indeed take several incentive or financial assistance programs and not just a one size fits all mentality. I agree we need to bring together all willing and interested residents. How can the ideas of many varied people from all walks of life and education levels not offer a variety of ideas to get the conversation started.

Dollar Store in VSC has announced it's closing.

I sure hope St. Charles gets another Title Loan Store, "We buy Gold" joint or Payday Loan Store in there soon.......