Council gives conceptual go‑ahead for 33‑unit Elm Street apartment conversion

Developers seeking to convert the former commercial building at 3510 West Elm Street into about 33 apartments won preliminary support from the McHenry City Council on Monday, July 21, after a conceptual presentation and council questions about building condition, parking and financial incentives.

The project team — architect Neil Gerdes of AKL Architectural Services and Ito Mardeshe, CEO of EMA Properties — told the council the 39,000‑square‑foot structure would become roughly 33 units ranging from about 505 to 2,100 square feet, with basement amenity space and loft-style apartments on the first floor. Gerdes said the exterior would remain largely unchanged and that the team expects roughly 65 parking spaces, about 1.5 spaces per unit, “well over that number.”

The developer asked the council for guidance on a possible planned unit development amendment to allow apartments on the building’s ground floor where zoning currently allows residential only on upper floors. The developer also said financial assistance could be sought later, including TIF‑based support, but that incentive requests would be “math calculations” tied to tax increment and were not yet specified.

Council members pressed on several technical and community issues: Alderman Doherty and others asked whether the building had been fully engineered and whether existing internal columns would force a smaller unit count. Gerdes said detailed engineering had not yet been done because the developer was seeking direction before committing to more detailed, costly field work.

Parking and density drew repeated attention. A council member said the plan shows 65 dedicated spaces and asked whether the development would reduce general downtown parking; the developer responded the parking is on private land and would not be available for general public use. Another alderman asked if the smaller units could become condos; the developer said the current plan is rental units but said ownership was an option the council could raise.

Council members also discussed the availability of redevelopment incentives. One councilor noted the downtown TIF fund has limited dollars remaining and questioned whether rehabilitation of an older, patchwork building or demolition and rebuilding made more fiscal sense. The developer responded the structure’s shell appeared sound and that retrofitting preserved the building’s character.

The council took a nonbinding straw‑poll at the end of the presentation. The mayor said five council members supported the developer moving forward with further due diligence and staff coordination while two members opposed; the developer was advised to work with city staff on next steps.

The council’s support was explicitly procedural: staff repeatedly described the presentation as “conceptual” and cautioned that any change to zoning would require formal hearings before the Planning & Zoning Commission and a later council vote. No ordinance, zoning amendment or commitment of incentives was made at Monday’s meeting.

What comes next: the developer may pursue detailed engineering, working drawings and a concurrent PUD amendment application; city staff said they would meet with the applicant to advise on the formal review path and materials needed for planning commission hearings.