Council tables Pheasant Run redevelopment after two-hour debate over drive‑thrus and TIF

Developer representatives presented a Planned Unit Development and preliminary plan to convert the remaining 33.7 acres of the former Pheasant Run resort into 14 lots with pad-ready infrastructure, multi‑tenant retail, restaurants and a potential 10‑acre car dealership site. Staff told the committee the site has outstanding environmental and subsurface issues and that the developer was seeking a pay‑as‑you‑go TIF reimbursement of approximately $3,300,000 to help cover extraordinary site costs.

“I represent the petitioner, S.C. Lammon LLC,” attorney Peter Bezos told the committee. “This project has sat vacant since at least 2020… When fully built out, the developer estimates a total investment in St. Charles of over $70,000,000.” The petitioner and developer, Chris Ilikas, said they had commitments for several early parcels — including a proposed Chase bank and a freestanding coffee concept — and that making certain special uses (drive‑thrus, some pet care) permitted within the PUD would speed leasing and construction.

Aldermen focused heavily on the number and type of drive‑thrus that could be permitted under a PUD and on the requested incentive. One alderman said, “I will not support just giving you unlimited drive throughs,” voicing a common concern that permitting broad drive‑thru authority could undermine the council’s ability to vet uses and could alter the character of the eastern gateway. Other council members expressed skepticism that the requested TIF level matched community goals for a distinctive East Side gateway rather than a suburban retail corridor.

Staff and the developer said the site’s bid‑level development costs and unusual subsurface conditions justified a reimbursement; staff also noted the TIF reimbursement would be capped and funded from incremental tax revenue, not the general fund. The McGrath family — identified as a likely dealership occupant for Lot 14 — said they had made a significant deposit but had not yet secured a manufacturer commission and acknowledged that if a dealership were not feasible they could sell the parcel in future.

After extensive back-and-forth, a council member moved to table the PUD for two weeks to allow additional review and negotiation; the motion to table passed on roll call. Council members asked staff to return with refined traffic and tenant information, a clearer TIF justification, and tighter proposed limits on drive‑thru uses for the final PUD hearing.