Residents press council over plan to convert 1020 31st Street into 184‑unit market‑rate apartments

Downers Grove — At a July 7 first‑reading hearing, the Village Council and a packed chamber heard more than three hours of public comment on a proposal to rezone and designate 1020 31st Street as a planned unit development to convert a mostly vacant six‑story office building into 184 market‑rate apartments.

Staff and the applicant presented the plan and fielded sustained resident questions. Community development staff described the site, explained that the petition requests deviations for building height, floor‑area ratio and an interstate setback tied to an adaptive‑reuse approach, and estimated cash‑in‑lieu donations of roughly $977,000 to the park district, $124,000 to School District 58 and $48,000 to School District 99 as the subdivision‑code mitigation for parks and schools. The applicant said no tax‑increment financing or incentives are proposed and that no subsidized or voucher‑based units are planned.

Residents pressed several themes in public comment. Joanne Patton, who said she has lived on Vineyard Road for 36 years, disputed the developer’s low student‑count estimates and said the school mitigation payments would “cover one child one year” at the high school and only a few children at Bel Air, which she described as already overcrowded and lacking sewer capacity. “The figures they’re quoting — $124,000 for District 58 and $48,000 for the high school — that is a pittance compared to what it could cost,” Patton said.

Neighbors in adjacent subdivisions, including Innisbrook and Mistwood, told the council the project would alter the character of low‑density neighborhoods and stressed potential knock‑on effects if other nearby office buildings pursue similar conversions. “If we only look at one parcel at a time, we miss the opportunity to evaluate the whole parcel,” said Ben King Shah, a 30‑year resident, urging a comprehensive corridor plan rather than piecemeal rezonings.

Speakers also raised infrastructure concerns. Multiple commenters questioned the traffic study conclusions and urged an independent analysis of congestion and emergency‑vehicle access at the signalized intersection of 31st Street and Highland Avenue; others asked the village to verify water, sanitary and stormwater capacity. A traffic consultant for the project said the residential use would generate about 75% less traffic than the former office use and that the intersection has capacity, but residents disputed whether that analysis accounts for cumulative conversions of nearby office buildings.

Several speakers urged due diligence on the developer. Lynn La Palermo cited state business filings and online reviews and asked the council to “do a deeper dive” into the applicant’s corporate history before approving zoning changes. The applicant team said representatives who appeared tonight have experience converting vacant commercial buildings to mixed‑use projects and described community outreach and open houses held since the Planning & Zoning hearing.

Council members asked staff and the applicant for specific follow‑up: a student‑count estimate based on the village’s land‑dedication tables and the proposal’s unit/bedroom mix; a school‑age count tied to the developer’s plan; confirmation of water/sewer and stormwater capacity (the Downers Grove Sanitary District performs sanitary reviews); police and fire access and capacity; whether adaptive‑reuse projects require structural engineering stamps and related permitting; and a clear statement from the developer about the benefits to Downers Grove.

Staff (village management) told the council it would package the requested information — student counts and methodology, building‑permit/structural requirements, any history of moratoria, park‑district input, and a developer benefits statement — and post materials publicly (staff said information would be posted around 4:00 p.m. Friday). The item is expected to return to the council on the active agenda soon; staff noted placing an item on the active agenda gives the council the opportunity but not the obligation to vote.

The council did not vote on the rezoning or PUD tonight. Instead, members took public comment and directed staff to gather and publish technical and fiscal details to help inform deliberations at a later meeting.

Additional context: staff said the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval; the applicant said the project would remove approximately 138–186 parking spaces to add roughly 24,000 square feet of green/pervious area, provide indoor and outdoor amenities (gym, yoga, coworking, pickleball, dog park), and that the site’s existing utilities and a conceptual sanitary‑district approval support the proposal.