.

St. Charles Task Force Works to Polish Comprehensive Plan

Panel struggles with details on downtown parking as discussion of residential use in West Gateway area draws fire from representative of Near West Neighborhood Association.

Members of the St. Charles Comprehensive Plan Task Force met Wednesday night to begin ironing out some of the finer details of a plan officials hope to use to guide development across the city for the next two decades.

The task force’s work is far from over. It is scheduled to meet Oct. 30 to continue the work is began this week, as well as a meeting in November. After that, St. Charles Planning Division Manager Russell Colby said, once the task force is comfortable with the draft plan, there will be a public open house. Then the comprehensive plan would go before the St. Charles Planning Commission for a recommendation, and then there would be a hearing before the City Council.

Wednesday evening’s work focused on tweaking and changing some of the minutiae in the three sub-areas of the overall draft plan. Those sub-areas are downtown St. Charles, the West Gateway and the East Gateway.

Two issues garnered the attention of task force members on Wedmesday — one was downtown parking, particularly along Route 31 and along 1st Street, and the other was the use of the term mixed use and what that means in terms of commercial and residentil development in the West Gateway sub-area of the overall comprehensive plan.

In terms of parking, task force members struggled with what to do along Route 31, including suggestions for parking decks in specific areas along Route 31.

Task force members Betsy Penny and John Rabchuk questioned the idea of specifying certain downtown locations for the development of parking decks in the downtown sub-area plan, particularly along Route 31. Rabchuk suggested any new development along Route 31 needs to be “self-spporting” in terms of parking — meaning the development must provide parking to meet its needs without affecting other downtoewn businesses’ parking needs.

It’s an issue that many communities grapple with, particularly older, established communities whose downtowns developed before car ownership became so widespread. In recent decades, communities have struggled with who is responsible for developing parking areas in congested downtowns. Sometimes, municipal government steps in to develop parking space — whether a lot or a parking deck. The latter is costly.

But when redevelopment occurs — buildings are removed, for example, to make way for something else, communities usually use their zoning ordinances to require developers to include parking as a part of their development plans.

Devin Levigne, of Houseal Lavigne Associates, the consultants the city hired to help guide the process for drawing up the comprehensive plan, suggested along that line with an idea called cache and move parking: A developer who comes in with a plan that would remove, say 20 parking spaces, would be required in the development to not only restore those 20 spaces, but also to provide adequate parking to meet the needs of the development’s employees and patrons.

Levigne’s remarls in that regard also targeted parking needs along 1st Street.

West Gateway Residential Discussion Draws Criticism

The use of the term “mixed use” for development in the West Gateway sub-area along Randall Road sparked its own discussion — and drew concerns from a local developer who has shown interest in building multifamily homes in the area, and one of the leaders of a homeowners group intent upon barring any future development of apartments there.

David Patzelt, president of Sho-Deen, saying the town center is the big elephant in the room, said mixed use in the West Gateway area should include residential components on higher floors of retail development. He also said he does not believe the draft comprehensive plan jibes with the decisions of the St. Charles Planning Commission, which already has addressed such uses.

Levigne said the term mixed use was pulled from the West Gateway sub-area draft because it had drawn such negative reaction from residents.

The idea of mixed use, he said, would allow a commercial development to have residences on upper floors, and West Gateway-area residents have expressed grave misgivings about the development of any more apartment housing on the city’s West Side.

But the idea of a mixed commercial-residential development seemed palatable to some task force members, who wondered if deciding the omit the term “mixed use from the plan” was an over-reaction, and wondered if putting language into the plan that was more precise, or perhaps included a residential desnity range, would be an adequate solution.

Regardless, Vanessa Bell-LaSota, vice president of the Near West Neighborhood Association, expressed her concerns about the direction the task force is taking in a letter to the editor at Patch. Bell-LaSota also is president of the Concerned Coalition for Sensible Spending of St Charles, Inc.

She spoke against changing the plan to include the term mixed use, saying it is what the residents of that area have demanded.

Related:

  • Letter to the Editor: Questions St. Charles Comprehensive Plan Direction

— — —

Patch is honoring breast cancer awareness with special coverage throughout the month of October. Please take a moment to learn more about what our community offers and share information with a loved one.

  • Where to Get a Breast Examination in Kane County
  • Kane County Offers Variety of Breast Cancer Support Groups

Let Patch save you time. Get more local stories like these delivered right to your inbox or smartphone with our free newsletter. Fast signup here. Like us on Facebook.

Elizabeth R October 26, 2012 at 11:36 AM
If the Comp Plan Committess goes against what the residents have clearly stated in the numerous public meetings that were specifically held to gather those opinions, as well as ignore the City's own 2012 "City Survey" which clearly shows residents all over the City do not feel a need more housing of any kind and especially Condo and Rental, this City and Plan are in deep trouble. When a lone developer who has done nothing but screw around the City on that property that the City also lost millions on in a TIF district, wins out over the residents of this City, it is time to look at who is on these committees and who is running City Hall. The City's own survey says residents want commercial development, something St Charles has done a terrible job in recruiting compared to our neighbors S. Elgin, Geneva & Batavia who have far less "roof tops" as some try and argue are needed to attract development. This notion is a falacy with no merit, Randall Road to the North and South proves that absolutely wrong!
robert poznanski October 26, 2012 at 02:13 PM
The latest idea, to place "luxury" apartments, into the old Cardinal industries land, (which has been, and still is zoned for light industries/office) is also, not a good,idea! The residential area surrounding this parcel,is single family (just to the immediate east))and town home,s, to the West! There are more than enough apartments, at Randal and 64, to service that need, and with the taxes that we pay for education,services, etc, being strained with both the economy,and wage pressure, we certainly don't need more apartments! The owners of this property, purched it, fully knowing that they were to sell parcels, as it was zoned! Now, to make a profit, they want to change the zoning! Sorry, but I might as well try to put a high rise on my single family parcel,because, I can't sell it, for what I want, for it! It would be the same thing!!Lets get real, and protect the citizens who live here and not the developer, who profits, and leaves, here!!
Kim Malay October 27, 2012 at 12:36 AM
You are both correct. To discuss this further I will add that the West Side of town hold the majority of apartment complexes and what the Comp Plan should be doing is encouraging BALANCE. Also both developers knew full well what was expected for the properties. Shodeen took the money from the City so the City could purchase the covenents from him so the property did not have limitations and the TIF was approved for an Auto Mall. As soon as that happened Shodeen purchased the property. I myself had someone from his office tell me back in 2004 that he had no intention to use it for an auto mall that he wanted to use it for apartments and that he turned away auto dealers. He just had to wait for the right people to be in office to push it. The Key here though is he knew when he purchased the property that it was slated for some type of commercial not residential. Corporate Reserves again purchased the property and requested the zoning and agreed to develop the property with that zoning..... no residential. So why is it that we are now not only having to consider residential for both properties but worse high density residential?
Kim Malay October 27, 2012 at 12:48 AM
This issue that we need more rooftops is very questionable. Louis is right our neighbors to the North and South are doing fine with bringing in businesses and they have few homes. Our former Mayor brought in Meijer, Von Maur and already had Costco on the hook before she left office. We don't need need more rooftops we need more focus. We have spent the last 8 years and especially the last 5 years wasting time focusing on these high density/apartment developments instead of focusing bringing in more businesses and business retention. I would like to know why store like Whole Foods keep wanting to locate to St. Charles but we still have not found them a location, why Ross has located in the towns directly north and south of us but we didn't get them for the East Side. Again we have more rooftops then those two communties so rooftops are not the issue. Finally I would like add that both developers claim there is a demand for apartments. Well my question on that is if that really was the case why is it that the property behind Meijer which has basically been designated for partial residential use and has no neighbors around it potentially would be an ideal location for apartment use, but has had no interest for that use? Why because there is no big demand, there is no need for more on the West Side of town.
Steve Rogers October 27, 2012 at 03:05 AM
Kim - I know that you are running for alderman, but how about you cut down on the rhetoric and stick to the facts. Why don't you start by answering 3 questions: 1. Why would Shodeen talk to you about their plans? And, if a representative of Shodeen told you of this nefarious plan, did you notify city leaders? 2. If Costco was "on the hook" in 2005, then why was there no announcement at that time? Costco didn't get approved by the city until 2008 and opened that same year. 3. What makes you qualified to comment on development location decisions? Are you employed in this arena? Do you have some expertise in this area to qualify your comments and opinions?
Kim Malay October 27, 2012 at 03:35 AM
Steve I will be happy to answer your questions 1) Yes I did inform our aldermen, Community Development Director and Mayor which was Mayor Klinkhamer at the time. This was back in 2004. I was working for the City at the time and communicated with people from Shodeen and other developers regularly. 2) Mayor Klinkhamer had been working with Costco before she left and that work continued after she left. Bottom line is the came here with the housing stock we have. 3) I worked in The City of St. Charles Community Development for 14 years. I worked in a County Building and Zoning Department 4 years prior to that and a year with a Developer. I hope that answers your questions
Elizabeth R October 27, 2012 at 02:06 PM
Kim, sounds like you definitely have the knowledge, background experience and level head and I hope you do go elected. I wish I lived near you and could give a vote! It's plain and simple. Kim is right....both companies bought these PRIME PROPERTIES and knew what zoning they held, had they wished to change that, they both should have optioned the land and went for a zoning change before final purchase. The City owes them nothing, especially going against tax payers to kiss up with them. Public opinion has been over whelming against these housing projects just as it has been against the proposed Lexington Homes near St Pats Church. The fact Batavia, Geneva & S Elgin is and has gotten all the better commercial is absolute proof "roof tops" haven't a thing to do with securing great commercial in this area. Maybe you could argue it for Elburrn or Burlington areas but not the "TRI-CITIES" because all businesses will pull residents from all the surrounding communities which has proven itself for the last 50 years or more. And again I emphasize our 2012 City Survey which the City claimed showed the true sense of what residents wanted by like 96%. So Now listen to the residents, you after all......ANSWER TO THEM...Mayor, City Council and Comp Plan Committee Members! You weren't placed in these positions to carry out your personal agendas!!!!!!
Kim Malay October 27, 2012 at 03:19 PM
Thank you Louis. I would like to make something clear though. As many will tell you who know me through my efforts with the Near West Neighborhood Assoc., My statements on here aren't new and aren't stated because I am running for Alderman, they are because I have been an active resident and have been working for sensible and responsible development for many years especially since I left the City and formed the Near West Neighborhood Assoc. I chose to run for alderman because I do understand both sides of issues due to my experience and felt I could help move St. Charles forward. I look right now at where our City is at and we are at a cross roads. We either chose to Urbanize St. Charles with high density developments, or we protect our historic home town - small town feel by pushing for responsible development, development that has the qualities of blending with and enhances our neighborhoods, respects our neighbors and enhances our quality of life. This is the choice of our elected officials and I ask everyone why did you move here or chose to stay here? I myself moved here because of the charm and small hometown apeal and so far everyone I have asked has said the same. I have yet to hear anyone say they moved here because they had hoped for St. Charles to turn into Oak Park.
Vanessa Bell-LaSota October 27, 2012 at 05:59 PM
The Patch did not include the other elephant in the room that was not even considered until I brought it up: Red Gate Bridge. Opening around Dec 17th, development in that corridor 20 yrs out needs to be addressed in the Comp Plan. Quoting the 2010 Fed Highway Admin report: Finding of No Significant Impact: New St Charles Bridge Crossing-" Many potential impacts... would be related to additional development that may occur as a result of improved access, which could lead to changes in land use...With projected 2030 traffic on the bridge of 15,500 vehicles per day,...1,550...trucks ( light duty-limited to less than 20,000 lbs)." That is 18 years away. With 2 historic sites along Red Gate-1 landmarked & 1 in the process of landmarking, North High School and residential developments, we need to be sure the Task Force TAKES THE TIME to create a focus statement on that area NOW. Lavigne says it will be in the "land use document"-which does not exist for public access presently. Get online, e-mail the task force & consultant on the Comp Plan site-see it on the : www.stcharlesil.gov home page. Do it today.
Steve Rogers October 30, 2012 at 01:01 PM
Thanks for those responses Kim. I've been out of town but here are 3 new questions. 1. What was the response from the city officials and Mayor Klinkhamer? 2. Are there any good developments that have been done in the city? Which ones? 3. What was your job with the city and DuPage County that makes you an expert, what is your education and background, and what are you doing now?
Vanessa Bell-LaSota October 31, 2012 at 06:14 AM
Tuesday's Comp Plan meeting was a marathon, ending around 11pm. I personally appreciate that the Task Force accepted my suggestions about the wording on parcel #8, Red Gate Farm, on the Future Land Use Map, to indicate sensistivity to the protected and historic nature of the area, and also to consider the impact of FHWA Findings regarding future traffic (15,500 cars by 2030 over Red Gate bridge?) and FHWA -suggested possible resultant land use change, to protect the residential and rural land use in that corridor. We'll see on Nov 14th what makes it into the doc. Altho discussion was truncated at first by a rather stern announcement re: the agenda, as the evening continued on thru TF member discussion, beyond public comments on agenda items, many residents were able to voice their comments & concerns to the Task Force, fairly based upon what the TF members brought up, themselves. Bravo to all & thanks for all who participated,(from many neighborhoods!) TF members, residents and aldermen.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something