Presentation summary
Derek, city planning staff, presented the long-anticipated feasibility study for the former police-station site (the PD site) in downtown Saint Charles. He told the committee the study is informational only and staff are not seeking land-use decisions at this time; instead staff recommended public engagement to gather community input before narrowing options.

Key constraints
Derek said the site is about 1.75 acres and that several technical constraints will shape any redevelopment: maintained utility access along Riverside that cannot be closed; an approximately 60-foot buffer called for in the comprehensive plan; a required viewing corridor for State Avenue; adjacency to an active fire station (which raises concerns about traffic conflicts); overhead and local electrical lines along the eastern edge; and a well house/structure attached to the 1970s portion of the building that staff said would be impractical to relocate and could cost in excess of $30 million to move. Staff also presented subsurface data showing shallow bedrock and a floodplain that affects development and increases the cost of floodproofing. The consultant estimated full demolition at roughly $575,000; hazardous materials (asbestos, lead) would need remediation before demolition.

Parking and underground utilities
Staff noted downtown parking is heavily used (peak usage on the east side reported at 88%) and that one existing parking lot of about 46 spaces could be impacted in some scenarios. The consultant examined a potential parking-deck location in the northern, city-owned hillside that could yield about 90 spaces without additional land, or up to 180 spaces with land acquisition; the consultant provided an illustrative per-space cost commonly cited in the study of about $35,000 per parking space for structured parking.

Development scenarios
The study presented seven conceptual scenarios with an assessment methodology covering developer feasibility, density, site activation, parking, traffic, maintenance burden on the city and potential revenue. Scenarios ranged from full building reuse and programmed public open space with a band shell and vendor shops, to restaurant/food-and-beverage uses, townhomes (~19 units in the scenario), boutique hotel (about 60–70 rooms), mixed-use, and larger multifamily (about 70 units). Staff emphasized the scenarios are frameworks backed by technical reports (traffic counts, utility and soil reports, environmental assessments) and that the next step should be public engagement.

Costs and risks
Derek told the committee that utility relocations, bedrock, floodproofing and seawall repairs (staff estimated roughly 1,100 linear feet of seawall in need of repair) are significant cost drivers. The consultant noted that even modest building reuse would likely require financial assistance because of aging systems, hazardous-material remediation and necessary structural work. The consultant estimated demolition and remediation costs and suggested a developer could request public assistance given the site burdens.

Council reaction and next steps
Council members broadly endorsed public engagement before moving toward a preferred concept. Derek told the committee: "That site's not going anywhere. There's not any type of time limit." Staff said the city budgeted $30,000 to hire a public-engagement consultant and suggested a three-month outreach window (January–March) followed by a report to council and potential planning work to refine feasible options. Staff estimated that, if the council identifies a preferred direction after engagement, realistic planning and partner-seeking could place initial development activity in the 2026 time frame, recognizing this will be a multiyear effort.

Several committee members said they prefer city ownership and favored programmed open space or adaptive reuse over high-density residential or hotel development, and asked staff to preserve the Freedom Shrine and consider partnerships with the Park District and other local organizations for programming and operations. Staff said they have shared the study with the Park District and that the district indicated a willingness to consider partnership subject to Park District board approval.

No formal land-use action was taken; staff will proceed to public engagement as recommended and return to council with findings and potential next steps.