Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building 90 Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
St. Charles Council votes to appeal Landmarks Board decision on ACF Building 90
Summary
On Feb. 3, 2026 the St. Charles City Council voted to direct staff to file an appeal of the Landmarks Board decision allowing demolition of Building 90 at the American Car Foundry complex, citing concerns about process, late-submitted materials and staff findings that the building is structurally sound.
The St. Charles City Council on Feb. 3 voted to direct staff to file an appeal of the Landmarks Board decision in Case No. D-2025-020 that found preservation of Building 90 at 900 Main Street to be economically infeasible.
Councilmember Denise Mitchell, who moved to file the appeal, said staff reports showed Building 90 is structurally sound and that the Landmarks Board did not fully engage with staff's analysis of technological and economic feasibility. "Building 90 has not been found to be technologically or economically infeasible for rehabilitation and staff does not recommend demolition," Mitchell said, urging the Council to seek fuller review.
Mitchell told the Council she was concerned a late handout from the applicant citing $4.6 million in flood mitigation costs was not included in the board packet and lacked supporting documentation. She contrasted that figure with a city flood-protection study, the Frenchtown Levee Study (Dec. 3, 2021), which estimated a Lawrence Street phase at roughly $1–$1.2 million. "That matters," Mitchell said, arguing the timing and documentation limited meaningful review and public participation.
Councilmember Vince Ratchford, who seconded the motion, said the ACF complex and Building 90 (the "Steel Shop," used for youth sports and local events) are community assets and that low attendance at the Landmarks meeting during a winter storm meant more public input was needed. "We need more time for public feedback, and an appeal gives the community a fair chance to be heard," Ratchford said.
Opponents of the appeal had argued in prior Landmarks Board proceedings for demolition; Jassen Johnson of ACF Revitalization spoke against the appeal during public comment. Several community members, including Randy Schilling and Scott Shipman, urged the Council to pursue the appeal.
The motion passed on a roll-call vote: Aye — Mary West, Michael Galba, Brian Gould, Bart Haberstroh, Mark Hollander, Denise Mitchell, Bill Otto and Vince Ratchford; Nay — Steve Hollander; Abstain — Justin Foust (who disclosed a potential conflict because the developer is a client of his business and said he would abstain). City Attorney Holly Magdziarz said staff will file the appeal within the 10-day deadline, the Council will hear the appeal within 45 days, and reversing the Landmarks Board requires a majority of the entire Council (six votes).
The Council's action is procedural: it directs staff to appeal the board decision and does not decide the merits of demolition versus preservation. The Council will later receive testimony and evidence and must apply the ordinance's technological and economic feasibility standard when it hears the appeal.
