A year after Shodeen plans rejected, McHenry turns back to future of downtown development

A year ago, a majority of McHenry City Council said they were not interested in a proposal from Shodeen Group to redevelop the old city hall building on Green Street.

A month later, the Geneva-based developer brought forward an early redevelopment proposal for other downtown properties that Council also said it was not interested in.

On Monday, city staff is set to go over what property is available for redevelopment in three key areas downtown and get Council feedback on what it wants to see in those areas. The city will also seek input on the Vision 2050 comprehensive plan, approved last year.

“While the council and the public were actively involved in shaping this plan, it has become clear that a few council members are now expressing concerns about certain areas of the document – specifically, the imagery and conceptual layouts that suggest a direction not all members are comfortable supporting," Mayor Wayne Jett said in a written statement. “For that reason, I believe it’s important we have a transparent discussion about modifying the [comprehensive] plan to better reflect the actual consensus of the council and the community.”

The Council is set to meet at 6 p.m. Monday for a Committee of the Whole session, followed by the regular 7 p.m. agenda.

The Council now also is different from when Shodeen’s plans were rejected. One of the four early dissenters, Frank McClatchey, lost his reelection bid for 3rd Ward alderman to Stephen Doherty.

The other new Council member is Bobbi Baehne. She won in the 1st Ward after Vic Santi decided against a run for reelection after 20 years.

Council members Andy Glab, 2nd Ward; Chris Bassi, 4th Ward; and Michael Koch, 6th Ward, also indicated that they would not vote for approval of last year’s redevelopment plans, and all three remain on the Council.

On Monday night, city staff will ask for the Council’s preferences on height, type of developments, locations and incentives it would be comfortable including before asking developers for requests for qualifications or requests for proposals for that future development.

“The intent is not to undo good work, but to ensure developers aren’t misled by illustrations that imply a level of support that doesn’t exist. Leaving misleading visuals or concepts in the document could result in proposals that waste time, money and resources – both for developers and our taxpayers,” Jett wrote.

Future development suggested in the comprehensive plan seems similar to that brought forth by Shodeen. But on July 17 last year, the council indicated that the developer’s proposal for 1111 N. Green St. was too dense, with 88 apartments, and too tall, with six stories, including two of shared parkings.

Glab has been vocal that his preference is for owner-occupied condos downtown, rather than rental units.

Shodeen officials had also asked the city for $6 million in tax-increment financing and a $2 million grant to make the development feasible.

City Administrator Suzanne Ostrovsky had proposed a 1% dining and alcohol tax to fund that $2 million grant, along with an agreement that the city would have owned the parking structure once the project was finished.

Shodeen had also brought forward early plans for city-owned property off Green Street and the former wastewater treatment plant on the Fox River.

That concept plan included 303 apartments, 8,000 square feet of retail space and 422 parking spaces for the 2¼ acres at Route 120-Elm Street and Green Street, and 496 apartments, 839 parking spaces and a 130-room boutique hotel at the wastewater site.

The overall response from the Council and many members of the community was that the early proposals were too dense.

“We remain committed to bringing appropriate density to our downtown, but we need to be realistic,” Jett wrote. “Ideas like 800-unit apartment developments are simply not compatible with our current infrastructure or our vision for the area. My hope is that this upcoming discussion serves as an opportunity for the council and the public to clearly define what we want to see – especially regarding the open parcels across from The Vixen and the decommissioned wastewater site."