Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
La Grange trustees approve five‑story, 39‑unit development at 112 East Burlington after intense public comment
Summary
After more than 25 residents spoke—many urging preservation of the historic Jackson Square building—the Village Board voted unanimously Jan. 12 to approve a text amendment, zoning map change and special‑use planned development allowing a five‑story, 39‑unit building at 112 East Burlington, with 12 plan‑commission conditions and required engineering revisions and a memorandum of agreement with SHPO.
La Grange — The Village Board voted unanimously Jan. 12 to approve a zoning text amendment, map change and a planned development for 112 East Burlington, a five‑story residential project the applicant says will contain 39 units and 59 below‑grade parking spaces.
Trustee Thompson moved to adopt the ordinance incorporating the plan commission’s conditions; Trustee Augustine seconded the motion and the board approved the measure after extended public comment and trustee deliberations. The vote followed a public hearing process that included a 10/14/2025 plan commission recommendation (5–2) and a consulting engineer’s memo regarding sewer and stormwater impacts that the village said would be offset by designs providing an additional 15% stormwater detention capacity.
The evening’s public comment period featured more than two dozen speakers. Residents urged preservation of the historic Jackson Storage (Jackson Square) building and said the proposal contradicts the village’s 2024 comprehensive plan; they raised concerns about privacy, building height, reduced setbacks (neighbors said balconies would be as close as 12 feet), parking adequacy (the applicant proposes a 1.5:1 parking ratio), and sanitary‑sewer impacts. “This building is the welcome sign of La Grange... It’s our front door,” Mandy Levy, a resident of the historic district, told trustees, urging a pause to consider adaptive reuse.
The applicant, Dan Spain, and his project team argued the current structure is structurally compromised and financially infeasible to retrofit. “The building has experienced decades of neglect and deterioration, leaving it nearly uninsurable and incapable of being reasonably restored to meet modern safety and building standards,” Spain said. The developer said the project will add sidewalks, streetscape elements, and a stormwater retention system that exceeds baseline requirements by 15 percent.
Trustees walked through the plan commission’s 12 conditions, which the record shows were incorporated into the ordinance. Those conditions include submission of a plat of consolidation and survey prior to permit approval, execution of a development agreement to govern construction requirements and ongoing maintenance, revision and approval of engineering plans to add 15% stormwater detention capacity, landscaping and screening changes, and architectural revisions including additional decorative masonry and modifications to balcony depth. The rooftop pickleball courts originally proposed were removed in plan revisions.
The Illinois State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviewed the project as part of the Illinois EPA permitting process and, in a 10/06/2025 letter referenced by staff, determined the project would have an adverse effect on historic resources. Village staff told trustees that a memorandum of agreement with SHPO was being drafted as of 01/02/2026 to avoid, minimize or mitigate the adverse effect.
Trustees cited competing priorities in their deliberations. Trustee Augustine recounted the village’s preservation history and asked whether there was an alternative buyer or funding source that could preserve the building. Trustee Gayle and Trustee Peterson said they were not convinced adaptive reuse was feasible given current structural limitations and costs; Trustee Gayle noted precedents for five‑story buildings in the downtown area but stressed careful design and mitigation. President Kuchler said the vote before the board concerned the appropriateness of the proposed development rather than the building’s fate and noted his unease with broadly changing the code’s height allowance without consideration of future implications.
The ordinance passed unanimously; trustees recorded no no‑votes or abstentions. Next steps outlined on the record include finalization of the memorandum of agreement with SHPO, completion of the plat consolidation and surveys, submission and approval of revised engineering plans at permit stage, and compliance with the development agreement and the plan commission’s conditions before building permits are issued.
The project proponents and village staff said they expect to move forward with required technical submittals; no final construction start date was given on the record.
