Village Board of Trustees - Regular Meeting

I'd also ask village clerk Saladino to invite the audience to stand and to lead us in the pledge allegiance. Please stand.

Pledge allegiance. Pledge.

United States Of

America. The republic stands a nation.

Thank you. We'll start with the president's report. We've had, substantial rains. We've had cold, very cold. We've had snow, and we've had substantial rains.

So I'd first like to thank all the village employees, that worked in the cold and other challenging conditions, to provide service for our community. This includes members of the police department that assisted with ensuring that, not only was it cold and rainy, but we also had a very large protest yesterday. And I'd like to thank the police department for their efforts. Again, LaGrange, was able to accommodate the protesters, safely and, without incident. Are also wanted to recognize the public works department who's been confronting water main breaks, the leaf pickup, the snow plowing.

We appreciate it and we know that, the efforts will continue. And again, it's just a few examples of our dedicated and talented staff. I also want to thank the residents that, helped clear the sewer grates And really, so much of the street flooding was directly related to leaves clogging and blocking the sewer grates. So to our residents, that went out there, some spent well over an hour late at night. We do appreciate your efforts, and I know your neighbors appreciate your efforts.

With regard to flooding, we were going to have, our appellate lawyers come and speak to us in closed session, but because tonight's meeting will probably go on the longer side, they're gonna come out in two weeks. And we expect that they will tell us, that the appeal is still pending, but that we, you know, as we have been should continue on with our litigation against the quarry. They're sorry, not the litigation. While the appeals going on with the litigation against the quarry, we should continue on with our construction plans and we will continue to do that. We've hired two engineering firms, Basher and Woodman and Chris Burke, Engineering.

They have met and are continuing to meet, to make sure that we're doing everything according to plan, to to hammer out the sequencing, including crossing East Avenue, restoring that, and all the quantities of all the materials that we need. We're continuing with the permitting process that involves going back and forth. We're working with permits with the Illinois EPA, the MWRD, and IDOT. We're also working with the South Lyons Township Sanitary District, to make sure all their needs are are met. We appreciate the continued support from the MWRD, and we are looking forward to, beginning construction as soon as possible.

The other sewer project that's on the top of a lot of people's minds is the Sunset And Elm project. We are still hoping to receive funding for that. We appreciate the MWRD's efforts in that regard. And again, all news that we've heard has been positive, but with federal funding in 2025, 2026, you really can't be sure until you get it. So we're hopeful on that project.

And again, long term, we have our Mars project. We have an OARS project. We have various other flood relief projects in the works and we still have the fifty fifty program where we will pay 50% of the costs for overhead sewers or check valve placement. So again, any resident that is experiencing water that's coming through, their drain pipes should invest in a overhead sewer or the check valve. Again, the village will pay half of those costs.

And we appreciate the county's effort in that regard. As everybody knows, MLK Day, Martin Luther King Junior Day is Monday, a week from today. The LaGrange community always, celebrates in different ways. Martin Luther King and his legacy, we have a couple of events coming on this weekend. The first is on Sunday.

There's a movie. Again, Sunday, January 18 at 3PM at Nazareth Academy. I am MLK junior. The next day on that Monday, MLK day, January 19, there's gonna be a community prayer breakfast at 10AM at the First Baptist Church, their fellowship hall. That's trustee McGee's church where she and her husband are the the pastors.

And I'm sure she may and trustee comments have some more information about that. But these events are put on by the LaGrange Minsterium, Caring Place Outreach, Western Star Lodge, Community Diversity Group, Sign of the Cross Ministry, First Baptist Church, local churches, community members. And everybody is welcome to both events. No need to RSVP. The Community Diversity Group has also announced the sixth annual building inclusive community conference, which aims to encourage a welcoming and inclusive culture in our community.

This year's keynote speaker will be Victor Gomez, the Illinois teacher of the year. One highlight will be a panel discussion on community accessibility featuring local organizations and miss Wheelchair Illinois, who's doctor Carrie Mulderink, who's the a graduate of Lyons Township High School class of 2009. There will also be additional opportunities to connect over pizza and salad lunch that's sponsored by Joan Smothers, a Smothers Group Compass Real Estate. The community resource fair will enable attendees to learn about various organizations and support that's available in our community. For this event, doors open on February 7 at 08:30 at the LT South Campus located at 4900 Willow Springs Road in Western Springs.

The program begins at 09:00. And, anybody interested in learning more are encouraged to visit the Lions Township Mental Health Commission's webpage. Looking ahead, many people, especially if you didn't eat dinner yet, are looking forward to LaGrange Restaurant Week, which will take place not until February 27 and last through March 8. It's a signature culinary event that's calling for you to bring your appetite to LaGrange as popular restaurants will provide exciting offerings and specials. Diners are encouraged to try a new spot they've been meaning to visit or visit their old favorites.

We do appreciate both our residents and our guests supporting our local businesses. As we get closer to the event, please check the LaGrange Business Association for updates. And with that, I'd ask manager Knight to provide a manager's report.

Thank you, president Kukler, and good evening, everyone. Just a couple of quick announcements regarding a variety of village programs. First of all, for those that have a Thursday garbage pickup, just a reminder that the final day for holiday tree pickup will be this Thursday. To be collected, trees must have all tinsel, ornaments, lights, and nails removed, before being placed at the curb, for pickup. Any trees put out after the week will require a typical collection sticker or a scheduled bulk pickup.

As was mentioned earlier, for Martin Luther King Day, on Monday, we'll be looking ahead to the village's offices being closed for an in service day. During that day, tasks will be performing records management, other general housekeeping tasks. A variety of online services will continue to be available, and we encourage people to check those out online on our website. Lastly, over the course of several weeks since the first significant snowfall in November, the Village Public Works crew have been working to collect leads that had been raked curbside for collection. Teams have been working diligently to collect those leads, all the while addressing winter weather, preparing water main breaks, and conducting numerous tasks associated with the holiday walk.

Collection of leaves has included several challenges, including a significant fall the snowfall that we had just mentioned, as well as unseasonal weather, which has resulted in people continuing to rake leaves curbside for pickup. So we are attempting to keep up with that, and we'll be working on that diligently here on the next couple of weeks. For additional information, I'd like to turn it over to director O'Brien just to provide a little bit of background on how that program is going.

Thank you. Yes. For the most part, it's going I believe it's going really well. Like as a manager of Knights has said, we have been prioritizing late leaf pickup in preparation of ending the leaf pickup season and transition snow and ice control readiness. We're expecting to kind of wrap up our leaf pickup within the next week or so.

Some of the highlights we've done recently, our posted website said that the lead pickup was going to be from October 13 through December 12 for the first significant snowfall. We pretty much have been keeping with that. We had that record snowfall. We started getting some favorable weather. We've been picking up snow leaves pretty much from December 12 all the way to as latest today.

We're gonna get a a sweeper, in conjunction with one of the neighboring communities. So we should be seeing a sweeper out there in the next couple days, sweeping the streets. You know, we recognize that streets are looking kind of dirty, so sweepers coming. Some of the reason that the sweeper has been delayed is that a lot of these snow and ice and leaves were stuck to the ground, so we were really using our bobcats and loaders to pick that stuff up before we got the sweeper here. So I guess if there's any leaves left out there, we encourage residents to mulch or compost their leaves, leaving your leaves on the lawn and going over them with a mulching lawn mower can help control weeds, improve soil quality, and provide food and nesting materials for wildlife.

So with that, I think we should be wrapping up here in the next couple weeks and really trying to set our trucks up for snow and ice control.

Thank you, director O'Brien. We appreciate your and your team's efforts. Prior to tonight's, public comment, are we putting am I sharing this? Yeah. Okay.

I'm gonna share some comments regarding 112 East Burlington, state statute and case law and the village code provide minimum requirements for planned development applications. These include the posting, a notice of public hearing, posting an agenda no less than forty eight hours prior to the hearing and holding a hearing. LaGrange zoning code and routine village practices go beyond these minimums and include mailed notice to property owners within two hundred and fifty feet of the subject property, a sign posted on the property prior to hearing and posting of the full agenda packet versus solely the agenda no later than the Friday before the hearing. 112 Burlington application has been processed consistent with all state code requirements and standard village practices. Given the complexity of the project, the packet for the planning commission was also published in a full week in advance of a typical publishing timeframe.

Plan developments are subject to the standards of approval in the zoning code. Modifications to the code regulations are provided for in the zoning code, which specifically permit flexibility and code requirements. Modifications may be granted if the board finds that the proposed plan development achieves set standards. Each plan development is evaluated on its own merits and is not dependent on any prior approvals. For the sake of clarity, tonight's vote is not on whether to demolish the building, which the applicant has the right to do through the permitting process.

Instead, the ordinance up for consideration are authorizations needed to construct the proposed development on-site. At this time, I'd like to invite deputy village manager Charity Jones to provide some additional information on this item.

Thank you, president Kukler. Yes. A little bit more background on our processes as it relates to this application. So as noted, the application for 112 Burlington Avenue is a special use for a plan development with site plan and design review permit, as well as zoning map amendment and related text amendment. Development generally development proposals fall within one of two categories.

Those approved by right, meaning that staff reviews and approves the application and if they meet the requirements through the regular building permitting process, are issued administratively. By right, developments do not have a public input process. Other development proposals require a discretionary review through a public process. Examples include planned developments, but also other types of special use permits and variations. As noted by president Kukler, state requirements and the zoning code guide those processes which provide opportunities for public input.

When an entity is considering a plan development application, the zoning code provides for a pre application meeting at which the potential applicant can present conceptual draft plans and receive preliminary information on La Grange code requirements and processes. For this application, that pre application meeting was in November 2024. The next step in the process is a formal application submitted to staff. This project's initial application was in June 2025. Following the initial application, staff from various disciplines review the plans and provide comments regarding code requirements, consistency across the various plan sets, and additional information required in order to complete the technical reviews.

The applicant then revises and resubmits their application materials. This iterative process continues until an application meets the minimum standards to advance to a public hearing. The Plan Commission conducted a public hearing on this application at the 10/14/2025 meeting. In advance of the meeting, as noted, a notice was published in the My Suburban Life newspaper on September 25. Notice was mailed to property owners within 250 feet.

A sign was placed on the building, and the full agenda packet was posted on the village website a week in advance of the meeting. Statutorily and by village code, the plan commission is charged with reviewing applications for plan developments and providing a recommendation to the village board. Prior to and during the public hearing, the commission heard concerns from residents regarding potential impacts, particularly to neighboring properties south of the proposed development, historic preservation, and potential impacts on village infrastructure. The plan commission recommended approval of the application with conditions related and in response to several of those concerns. The village board is the final authority on all plan development applications.

The village board has received all of the materials from the October plan commission meeting, all public comments received to date regarding this matter, including a letter from Landmarks Illinois urging preservation of the building, and updated plans from the applicant, which include changes in response to the Plan Commission's conditions of approval, as well as expanded three d renderings and a shadow study. Additionally, in response to public concerns regarding sewer impacts, the village's consulting engineer has provided a memo summarizing the impact of the proposed development on sanitary and storm sewer capacity.

Thank you, deputy manager Jones. With that, I'd like to request clerk Saladino read the items on the consent agenda followed by those under current business.

Matters on the consent agenda will be considered by a single motion and vote because they already been considered fully by the board at a previous meeting or have been determined to be of a routine nature. Any members of the Board of Trustees may request that an item be moved from the consent agenda to current business for separate considerations. Item a, 01/12/2026 consolidated voucher. Item b, minutes of the Village of LaGrange Board of Trustees regular meeting 12/15/2025. Current business.

This agenda item includes consideration of matters being presented to the Board of Trustees for action. Item a, an ordinance adopting a new village code for the village of La Grange. And item b, ordinances approving a zoning code amendment for planned developments within the R 8 multiple family residential district, and a special use permit for planned development, site plan, and design review permit for 112 East Burlington Avenue.

Thank you, clerk Saladino. Sorry to everyone about my phone going off. I did try to silence it. Next up is going to be public comments. This is your opportunity to talk about anything on the agenda, but, I know many of you are here to speak on 112 East Burlington.

So again, this is the time in that meeting for you to do so. For purposes, because we do want everybody to be allowed that wants to speak to be allowed that opportunity, I'd ask that you kind of line up one or two behind the speaker we know that the net who the next person is as opposed to a delay in getting up to the podium. I'd also, ask that anybody who wishes to speak, please state your name and address for the record, at least the town that you're you live in. We will be limiting, the comments to three minutes per person. And please code first.

Oops. Can I start over?

Sure.

Mandy Levy, proud resident of the historic district at 324 South Stone Avenue and vendor at Jackson Square Antique Mall. Thank you for the opportunity to address the board regarding issues that deeply concern our community. Many of us will speak tonight, and there is so much to say. But for my part, I just keep coming back to the comprehensive plan. A year ago, 11/25/2024, the village published La Grange Forward, our official master plan for the next ten to fifteen years.

We spent two years of research and planning, countless hours of engagement from the community and the village, and I'm sure many dollars putting this thing together. The plan commission studied it, the village board studied it, everyone approved it. It was published and announced to the town with great pride and fanfare. And a year later, we are evaluating proposals to fully contradict it in all the efforts and investments and promises that went into it. Why?

Two things I just don't get. First, the comprehensive plan commits key initiatives for one, historic preservation and two, community character. If saving our town's 120 year old Egyptian revival art deco landmark isn't an exercise in historic preservation and community character, I don't know what is. This building is the welcome sign of La Grange. It's the first thing every commuter sees from the train.

It's our front door. It's the nose on our face. It's a divining characteristic of our history and identity. In fact, Jackson Storage is cited specifically on page 42 of the comprehensive plan celebrated for its historic significance within our registered historic district. If we must build condos, fine, but repurpose what already exists.

A year ago, this place was important to us. What changed? Second, page 28 of the comprehensive plan shows a zoning map of the village and clearly lists the Jackson Building as commercial and protected by a review process meant to preserve the character of established areas and set a design standard for any areas that newly develop. Again, this was our master plan unanimously approved a year ago. Why are we disregarding all that and entertaining a rezoning?

What was the point? Jackson Storage has lived many lives and has many lives to live yet. If the antique mall is kaput, that's a shame, but okay. It's the historic structure we must preserve. It's a rare gem and we can use it, repurpose it, convert it.

In the right hands, think of all the inventive and innovative and beautiful things we can do with this place, things to make La Grange a destination, put us on the map. How about a boutique hotel or a social club or a gym or a theater or a music venue or a Michelin starred restaurant or a creative collective or an artisan marketplace or apartments on top and small businesses below? Or if we must, how about condos? Out of this world, industrial, loft style, warehouse condos, sleeker and more stylish than anything in the West Loop and even still with a rooftop pickleball court. Why not?

Preservation does not be in resisting progress. It means guiding growth in a way that honors our past, strengthens our present, and safeguards our future. Respectfully and somewhat desperately, I am pleading with the board to consider pausing on this proposal and casting a wider net. This is an amazing opportunity. We can't blow it. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. I I I did meant mean to comment before, I started hearing from the people. We won't the board will not be answering questions after each person or while the person speaks. We're going to allow you to speak for the three minutes without commenting and he'd make sure that we hear from everybody. Thank you.

My name is Caitlin Feta. I reside at 11 6th Avenue, which is the nine unit building directly south of the proposed development. I spoke at the October meeting but was unprepared, so just have a few points I wanted to touch on tonight regarding the development. One as many stated the comprehensive plan establishes an intention to preserve historic architecture and approve affordability in The Grange. The proposal is in direct contradiction to these objectives destroying one of our most iconic landmarks in pursuit of luxury housing which is at a price point unattainable to most.

It is devoid of the soul and character which make La Grange a destination and a charming place to live and its approval would set an unfortunate precedent for our future landscape. I do support repurposing Jackson Square for multifunctional use and or more accessible or smaller scale housing options or any of the options that were laid out by the prior speaker. Two, the developer alleges no substantive impact to traffic and parking, and I'm not sure how this could be the case. 6th Avenue is already one of the most densely populated streets in La Grange, and the proposal itself has admitted that it cannot accommodate adequate parking on-site to meet its underestimated demand of 1.5 cars per 39 multi bedroom units. I paid the village monthly for parking access and still encounter challenges myself, particularly on evenings, weekends, during events when there's snow and when hosting company.

Three, the renderings provided inaccurately or neglect to illustrate adjacent properties, including Jonathan Robinson's. I'm not sure if this is an attempt to manipulate public perception, but the north side of our building is not a solid brick wall as depicted in the renderings. It features 27 windows which look directly into our bedrooms, bathrooms, and kitchens. At the October meeting, the architect touted that their units would be filled with natural light, but this is at the expense of ours along with our privacy. My northern windows currently offer my only unobstructed view, and I wake up each morning to see the skyline reflected in my bedroom mirror.

With this development, I would look out to a veneer facade and windows and balconies looking right back into my home. Four, between the online petition, what we've heard in the meetings, input online, and in the form of written correspondence to the village with the exception of several realtors and brokers whose scripted support was solicited solicited by Dan Spain and who presumably stand to benefit financially from this development. It is evident that the majority does not want this. Yet despite an almost unanimous opposition from those in attendance at the October meeting, the proposal advanced by a vote of five to two as if our input was a mere formality towards a predetermined outcome. I believe the developer cites his connection to the village in an attempt to garner credibility and trust, but that this is ultimately agreed driven pursuit when anyone involved with might oppose if the shoe were on the other foot.

Representatives have responsibility to act in the interest of the communities they serve, and I hope this is reflected in your votes tonight. For the record, I also support concerns expressed by others with regards to the increased demand the development would place on our schools and infrastructure as well as unnecessary pollution this would cause.

Thank you.

Hello. Good evening. Can you hear me okay?

Yes. Hello.

My name is Lauren Whitney Swindle. I'm a proud resident, dreaming of living here since I was a little girl. So thank God. I've spoken before in regards to the historical significance. I'm going to read you something that has been this is exciting, especially in the architectural. I know, right? Do I smile? With that, I just wanna say thank you to everybody who's out here tonight. Attention, historic. Barry Byrne sculpt sculpture rediscovered in La Grange, Illinois.

Urgent decision tonight. We know this. Historian Timothy Samuelson, cultural historian and Eric j Nordstrom of building fifty one museum and archive announced the rediscovery of a long lost historic architectural sculpture ornament designed by celebrated architect Barry Byrne. The ornament believed to be the work of either Edgar Miller or Alfonso Ilonelli once crowned the top of the Barry Byrne designed building, constructed, not designed, constructed by Kingsley between 1923 and 1924, lost, undocumented for decades, the significant work has now been discovered in La Grange, Illinois, bringing renewed attention to its architectural and cultural importance. This rediscovery represents a rare and tangible connection to Chicago's rich legacy of progressive architecture, art modern, art deco, especially Egyptian Middle Eastern revival, and modernist sculpture ornament, said Samuelson.

Works of this caliber and are extremely rare. Rare, one of a kind. Meaning, this building is one of a kind in The United States Of America because of the people who built it, and it is here. It is here, right here for you to help preserve this for the next generation. Tim Samuelson and Richard and, excuse me, Eric Nordstrom are the ones who given have given this, and I found it even online.

I urge you to please consider this in the decision tonight. This building absolutely can be preserved and repurposed despite what has been said to you. It has been done before. There's one in Chicago, and there's also one, I believe, in Grand Rapids. Preservation architects are looking for this building. They're out there. Proper advertisement of this building is needed, and now we have it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Charles Scheifele. I am the I am a resident of the six story building sitting along the tracks at 14 South Ashland called La Grange Plaza. I am also the association president of the building and I have written you two letters. I hope you've had the opportunity to look at them. I'll answer any questions you have.

Let me speak specifically to parking of a building that has 39 as this building may condominiums and 40 condominiums as the building I am in has. We have 40 interior parking spaces. We have 20 exterior parking spaces. We have a total of 60 parking spaces. My understanding is that this building is planned for sixties 60 parking spaces.

We don't have people who don't drive. We are drivers. So it appears to me that this building as to the comment made previously as to parking has adequate parking. I not only told you that, but I told you that I can tell you on average, we use about 45 of our parking spaces. We use less than all of them on the inside, but sometimes get close to using them all.

And we use about five spaces outside on average. This building has adequate parking planned for it. As a side note, I think those who live on the south of the building should consider that their sunlight will not be blocked because this building will be on the north side of them. It also seems to me this building has the opportunity to be a positive in the community by bringing more residents in a situation of a need for more condominium housing. Our units sell fast.

They sell in private sale. They sell for top dollar. There is a need. There is a desire. And I would suggest that having more people in Downtown La Grange is only only going to help Downtown La Grange. I hear about the building, but I thought I just heard somebody say the owner can demolish it without this vote tonight. So I don't understand this to be about demolishing the building. If there's anything I can tell you more about what I've written you or about our parking situation, I'd take a question. Otherwise, thank you.

Thank you, Charles.

Hello. Good evening. My name is Kirsten. I live in La Grange directly next to 112 East Burlington. My home and my family have been thrust into this situation of having to defend our zoning code given rights from the current plans with balconies 12 feet from our lot line and a loading space three and a half feet away. We will lose privacy, and our property value will decrease. Approving this building is setting a precedent for the the rest of the village that developers have the right to abuse the zoning code if they ask permission. So as much as they have the right to ask to violate the code, we have the right to ask the village to respect the investment that we have already made into the community.

The fate

the fate of 112 East Burlington is complicated. It has layers. It is not just about creating high density housing that fits an element of the comprehensive plan. It's about how this development will be imposing an oversized building on neighbors and reducing privacy and home values. It is about replacing the historic face of this village with a building that doesn't complement the character and history of La Grange.

This single property sets a precedent for how La Grange has developed going forward, and that and that will be the legacy of this board of trustees. I've heard from a lot of residents through this process who do not support demolishing the historic Jackson Building. So many people, including my family, have moved to La Grange or stayed in La Grange for the character and the history that is unique to this village, sentiments that are also echoed in the comprehensive plan. This development is the antithesis of both of those things. It points the village in a direction that embraces tall, modern buildings, overcrowding, and makes La Grange feel generic and common.

I strongly urge you to to choose the path that respects neighbors, preservation, and character. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you.

My name excuse me. My name is Barbara Jarr. I live at 410 West Burlington Number 401, and I appreciate the opportunity to be heard on this proposal. I spoke at the plan commission meeting several weeks ago and I will just briefly echo those comments. I have three points.

First, much has been said about the desirability of preserving the existing building, but sadly, not all buildings are suitable for rehab and preservation. Considering practicality, profit, and not the least maintenance cost, I seriously doubt this building would ever make that cut. Secondly, living situations that meet the needs of seniors in La Grange are in short supply, and this concern of residents was documented when you were developing La Grange's long term plan. There are a lot of people who love LaGrange and are trying to figure out how they can continue living here, living well, independently, and near their grandchildren when the weight of a house becomes too much to carry. This proposed development helps to meet that need.

And lastly, the people behind this proposal are longtime members of this community who have established a track record for adding quality and bringing value to this town. I think that this is the right proposal at the right time and the right people, and I would urge you to move it forward. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Seamus Omahoney. I live in La Grange. I've lived here for over fifteen years, raised my family here, proud to call La Grange home. I appreciate the character that's been preserved here, that the trustees have worked very hard to maintain that wherever it could be reasonably saved.

Somewhere along the line, buying new single family housing products has become wildly expensive, and the cost to build single family housing has become quite prohibitive. In my opinion, we're very fortunate to have the ability for thoughtful multifamily development that isn't, you know, developed right up to the property line by people who live here, love this town, are willing to work through the roadblocks and challenges to try to move the town forward. I understand a lot of the concerns that have been raised, and can completely understand and respect, the thoughtfulness behind those positions. You know, parking is obviously a concern. I hope the village can continue to help address that.

Other things, I really do wish that the building was salvageable. I don't believe personally that it is practical, would make economic sense, or that anyone would really invest in doing that. And I do thoroughly believe that the benefits of the proposed development thoroughly outweigh the potential concerns. I support the development and I ask the village to consider the long term benefits of the project as the preceding speaker mentioned about, you know, a different price point for housing, adding new neighbors that are looking forward to living here at price point they can afford, thriving and spending their dollars in our great town, asking for your support. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

There's a lot of mics up here.

My name is Sean Gallivan. I've lived in La Grange my entire life. Back in October, went before the planning committee to share an excerpt from a petition I wrote to save Jackson Storage Building and some thoughts about the value of preserving our village's historical charm and integrity and preserving a vision for our community. Over 2,100 people have signed this petition. These are real these are real good faith people.

They were not emailed a script to be copied, pasted, and sent to village officials. They aren't attempting to help secure the business interest of a colleague. They're speaking out because they realize what's at stake. A piece of local history and a beloved local business available to all to be traded for an absolute eyesore of a building that seemingly makes no effort to fit the aesthetics and architectural themes of the neighborhood to be utilized by a privileged few. For many people, the success of the developers would include the forfeiting of the lifestyle many moved to La Grange to pursue.

I understand the rights of property owners. I understand. But I also understand that the sentiment of this is mine and I will do whatever I want with it is opposite of the foundational ideas that made La Grange such a wonderful place to live to begin with. The developers the developers have asked for a lot out of the village to see their plan through as they see fit. What exactly is the village gaining in return?

The developers claim to share our love of our community, but there's more to being a member of the community than simply owning property. And a $6 can for Miller Lite at the Elm, I wouldn't exactly call you a local hero, Dan. I would like to see the developers offer more creative solutions to accommodate the very clear wishes of the community. I just wanna laying your rails, building your schools, planting your trees. Not only did they have a grasp on how these things may impact the living experience at the time and in the far future, but they also had a vested interest in achieving the most optimal outcomes and crafting a community piece by piece to ensure its residents will feel proud and privileged to call it home, not just for decades, but even centuries to come.

I consider it our duty to preserve that vision. And the Jackson Storage Building and the Jackson Square Mall is a crucial piece of that, sitting directly on our BNSF rail line for over a century. In many ways, it is synonymous with the with the image of our village and should be cherished and protected. Thank you.

Thank you, Sean.

Good evening, members of the committee and citizens of La Grange. My name is Steven Serda. I live at 11 6th Avenue, Unit 3 B, and I'm here tonight as a treasurer and former president of the HOA. We appreciate the opportunity to speak, and we ask that you carefully consider the real day to day impacts this proposed development will have on those of us already live here living here. First, I want to address parking, an issue that has not been given the attention it deserves.

As I mentioned during the October meeting, the proposed plan relies on an outdated code requirement of only 1.5 parking spaces per unit. Many surrounding villages require a minimum of two spaces per unit and some even mandate additional guest parking. This proposal would only make the situation worse. I can tell you firsthand experience that it absolutely is a problem. On weekends, in the evenings, and during community events, I often drive around the block multiple times just trying to find a single parking space.

There are nights when the search ends with me parking several blocks away from my own home. Adding more residents without meaningfully increasing parking will only make an already strained situation significantly worse. While I understand the proposal may address draining issues and generate additional tax revenue, those benefits should not come at the expense of the residents who live directly next to what would be a massive new structure. That leads to my next concern, privacy and sunlight. The proposed building will dramatically reduce both my 3rd Floor unit along with all the 1st And 2nd Floor units in our building.

It will be heavily overshadowed. Natural light will be reduced, and our sense of openness will be lost. The three d architectural renderings represented to show us our our building without windows, which I believe is a serious misrepresentation. Whether intentional or not, it minimizes the very real loss of privacy we will experience. Even the modest view we currently have of the downtown skyline will be completely obstructed if this development moves forward as planned. In closing, I want to be clear. We are not opposed to development. We understand that growth is part of a thriving community, but development must be responsible. It must be safe, thoughtful, and respectful of the people who already call this neighborhood home. We're asking you to slow down, take these concerns seriously, and reconsider this proposal.

Thank you for your time, your attention, and your consideration.

Thank you.

Hello. Kurt Volkmann, seven twenty five Bell Avenue in La Grange. I'm a fifteen year resident of La Grange, but also I'm a thirty three year architect who's done historic preservations of buildings of this vintage Chicago, Milwaukee, LA, New York, DC. When you look at a building of this type, you there's about nine different guidelines or criteria you'll look at. This building at 112 fails the first two key criteria.

It is the wrong shape, wrong aspect ratio to make housing work. It doesn't have windows. You'd have to punch windows into the historic facade. The historic facade is in terrible condition. The bricks are mismatched because they just rushed and they didn't take care at how they tried to fix it. You look at the photos of protect, you know, one twelve of the 155 person Facebook page. Right? Not the 16,000 residents of La Grange, but a 155. The you know, you look there, you could see all the structural cracking that's happening in the masonry. You I walked by the building today.

There is visible structural cracking where it's shearing the brick in half in some conditions, and they just put mortar or caulk in it. This is not how you treat the building of that vintage, and this building doesn't have a long life. So we could talk about the vocal minority of people that made a Facebook page or the 120 plus people in this room right now, but there's 16,000 residents of La Grange. And we when we did the comprehensive planning, part of that was adding population knowing we needed to increase the property tax base, and we needed to increase the sewer fee base to fix all the problems of La Grange. The failing roadways, and all the sewer projects that we've talked about here at this meeting already.

That has to get done. If we don't add more population to La Grange, that says to all of us that we're, you know, gonna be responsible to pay even more property tax, and our property taxes are rising exponentially. So of no vote on this project, if you do that, you're the trustee that says, I want my neighbor to pay more in property tax every time exponentially. And that's what's gonna come up when you run for reelection. I didn't boo when you talked. Opinion.

Alright. Let's let's try to be respectful, please.

So this project is in line with the comp plan. This project is what we talked about in terms of adding population, transit oriented development near this. Yes. It should was the building you know, does it have great characteristics to it? It did at one time. It is now a failing building. It's hurtling toward obsolescence. We have a choice to do the right thing and think about La Grange for the next hundred years or try to preserve something that's gonna cost too much that makes it economically infeasible to redevelop into anything. Right?

Thanks.

Good evening, everybody. My name is Mora McCahill. Like many of you and many people here, I'm a proud product of LaGrange. The disrepair that was just commented on when you look at the history of the building and the history of the ownership of the building, in 2019, we were here with a different set of investors who bought the building with the intention to destroy it. Why would they put any money into it, right?

Now here we are again, that didn't pass because there were Landmark Illinois got involved that time as well to try to stop it. They were successful. Here we are again. I am just so encouraged by some of the youth here who are continuing on a legacy. My family lost my father this past July, and he bought our home on 100 North Catherine in 1989, and he spent a lot of time restoring it.

And so naturally, one loses your parent, the issue of legacy is forefront. I just can't imagine you sitting in your seats right now knowing the deliberate protections that were put on this building and not have that affect what your legacy is to La Grange. I mean, we really are asking what kind of product of La Grange do we wanna raise? And I mean no offense to the Spains because I'm sure they do think they are doing the right thing and they love La Grange. But, you know, my mom and dad live in a two flat and my mom is not considered an affluent retiree as was stated in some of the emails from the realtors that all chimed in.

And she also deserves to be considered. She lives in a two flat and she rents her a 2,000 square foot apartment from the 20s. She rents the top apartment out to an empty nester from Hinsdale. I just I think what we're really asking is whose voice gets to be heard? Whose diverse housing needs get to be met? I just really hope that you can consider this and consider the faces here and the type of product we wanna raise in LaGrange. Is it somebody that appreciates the history around them because they were trained to honor it and respect it and preserve it? Or is it somebody that just wants to tear it down for a select few to have bigger windows and bigger views of what to of what?

Thanks. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is John Puto, resident of La Grange, forty seven years. How did we get here tonight? We have an old building that at one point was one of La Grange's crown jewels of the roaring twenties. Now it's a tired old building with its only purpose being a place to obtain the relics of our past. In retrospect, I look back forty years ago when La Grange's entire shopping district had many issues with staying vibrant. It was dead. We were in trouble. Prime rate was 16%. Inflation was out of control.

We couldn't give a house away. Then someone in the village came up with an idea to make La Grange great again. It was called a TIF district, taxed increment financing. I don't know who thought of that concept, but it worked. It brought back it brought La Grange back to being a vibrant downtown district.

It's a shame that that same time, the Jackson Square Building didn't take advantage of that TIF program to update its facilities. Perhaps we would we would not have to be here tonight to discuss the fate of the historic building if that had occurred. Now we have to come up with a viable solution on how to keep the small town feel and not overwhelm the neighborhood with within the proper guidelines of redevelopment for favorable outcome to neighbors, developers, and investors. Perhaps we could give an incentive package for redevelopment such as the La Grange Theater received to bring it on board for a first run movie theater. They received a million dollars interest free loan from the village that they do not have to repay as long as it remains a theater.

That sounds pretty good. We can give the theater a thousand or a million bucks, but we can't do anything to preserve this building. The Burlington Building needs a creative and viable reuse purpose to fit the neighborhood. It would be nice if it could happen without destroying the rustic art deco artifacts that are part of the building. Let's keep in mind the limitations on how much development we can allow since our sewer infrastructure is substantially outdated and has major problems already.

We are limited by the Metropolitan Sanitary District because restrictors in three of the exiting locations we have restrictors in three of the tunnel shafts. The project the projected removal of these devices is 2,034 when their 7,000,000,000 gallon reservoir will be completed for the deep tunnel project. That's seven or eight years away. In short, residents should know there is no relief from from potential intense storm flooding until the reservoir is done. Anything we add to the system is a big gamble.

The village of La Grain has their hands tied. Burke Engineering sent a two page letter that stated the present storm water from from 6th Avenue parking lot would be redirected to the 7th Avenue sewer. All sanitary waste would go to 6th Avenue and go to the Casa Avenue sewer. Thank you, mister Pluto. Are we done? We are.

You're kidding. Time flies. I got

I don't finish. I don't

If you wanna cut my legs off, just tell me you wanna cut my legs off.

I I You know,

I try to be nice. Okay?

I know I know you do.

I I I've been I've been trying so bad. I have another another minute.

Okay. Go ahead. Just speak over my strong objection.

Alright. All sanitary waste should go to the 6th Avenue, and the gist is we add thirty thirty nine kitchens and baths and switch all storm water waste to Tilden Avenue overflow. This letter did not say anything positive other than a slightly small smaller amount of water going to the Casa Avenue combination sewer, and a greater amount would be going to the Tilden Avenue combined sewer overflow, which also will share the 31 unit building that is in progress over on Hillgrove. At the Brainerd Avenue project and the Burlington project, they both will use the same Tilden Avenue sewer that could impact the Ogden Avenue underpass and the Northeast section of our village. We need further written clarification from the proposed sewer usages combining the total 50 households that are already on a restricted system.

My recommendation for a moratorium on all high density projects until 2034 until our combination over slope overflows will be restrictor free. Thank you, mister Toledo.

Hi, Eva Thompson. 700 Block Of South Spring. I've born and raised in La Grange. I can't really speak to the building itself. I think it's a really cool building. I think it'd be a shame to see it go. My question really lands as who are these condos for? Are they for young families coming to La Grande or are they for senior citizens who already own homes here? I consider In considering the future. We have to consider the people who will be inhabiting it.

And if these homes are not affordable for people my age, you know, I'm in my thirties. I'm a young professional. Believe it or not. I know I might not look it. But I thanks.

I know.

I can't afford the condos that are going up there. And I think if you want people to live in the Grange long term affordable housing has to be the priority and whatever whatever happens in terms of whether we are able to retrofit that building to be affordable housing if the building has to come down. I don't know. I'm not an expert in this area, but I am an expert in I got bills to pay and it's getting really hard to do that. So a place to be able to afford to live, I think needs to be the priority of LaGrange and anywhere.

You know, if if young families if people can't afford to have their family here, then families aren't going to be here. And that's the whole point of this town. I grew up here. I remember when this was a hub for arts in a really big way. Know, I remember we do still have the art fair and we still do the like, don't know. One year it was elephants. One year it was benches. There's something on the main drag all the time, but To see Jackson Square go the route of housing for people for affluent retirees because won't somebody think of the affluent retirees? There are better things we can do with that space. The first speaker mentioned a music venue.

I work in live sound. I think that would be awesome. If I could work in the town that I live, imagine. There are a lot of things that could be done with that space that would benefit the community at large rather than a select few with more money than I'll ever have. So cheers.

Thank you.

Good evening, everyone. Al Foreman, 56 7th Avenue in the historic district of LaGrange. I've numerous comments on the items related to 112 East Burlington. My primary message is we must do better than this. The historical significance of the Jackson Storage Building has been confirmed, yet a required memorandum of agreement has not been completed.

Why is the board poised to vote on the project in the absence of this foundational document? Where can I find an economic impact analysis of the 112 East Burlington project? The value proposition to the village has not been quantified. How can trustees make an informed decision as they consider this project? Why is the project generating so many variances to the existing village zoning code?

Why why consider a text amendment to increase maximum height allowance to 75 feet? Why allow this path of least resistance and establish precedence? I'm troubled by incomplete thinking such as statements that 112 East Burlington will not have impact on the school enrollment. The applicant has failed to consider new families that would purchase the so called empty nester homes. The applicant's package includes modeling of shadows cast by the structure while omitting the potential reflective impacts and completely ignoring the sound impacts attributable to balconies, the rooftop, and amplifying train noise down 6th And 7th Avenue.

Pages 897 to 915 in the agenda package include must read material. The ballot stuffing letters from the realtor community, most following scripts provided by the applicant are interesting to say the least. Read them and consider how this proposal attempts to wrap itself in the comprehensive plan while ignoring other pillars of that plan such as historical preservation and affordable housing. I'm holding up page two of the village budget package. It's the village organization chart.

I wanna stress the fact that the top of the chart says La Grange residents. Please ensure voices carry equal weight when the board votes on this matter. My last words to guide you are we must do better than this. Thank you.

Thank you.

I am Jonathan Robinson, and I live in the single family home directly next to this project. Trustees and president, you have my formal written request. The most important request is to send this back to the Planning Commission for a more fair and reasonable hearing. What happened there was an atrocity. They didn't listen to anything.

Nothing changed. That's a negotiation between this applicant and this community, and it's a travesty that that went through in one commission meeting. And no one no one was heard. The village has no history of developers proposing to reduce setbacks at planned commission hearings in the direction of other residential properties, single family or even larger condos or apartments. I'd like to take a second to thank all previous developers that have worked in the grains for being respectful to their residential neighbors.

Thank you. This project is the first where the developer is demanding to reduce the setbacks toward a residential property, and the developer is requesting to reduce those setbacks significantly. The developer is requesting to reduce the code required setback of 29 feet seven inches to our lot line down to 18 feet to their building, 12 feet to their balconies, and three and a half feet to their loading space where the trash truck comes to get the trash. The developers requested to reduce the setbacks to 60%, 40%, and 12% of the code required minimum amount. This is not insignificant.

This is not the correct direction for this village. What does the developer get from the reduced setbacks? Hundreds of more square feet of building. What are they gonna do with that? They will literally make millions of more dollars. What do we get? To be adversely affected by the project and lose the enjoyment of our property through a significant loss of privacy. A five story building 29 feet seven inches from our property line would affect us enough. But why does the developer deserve to move it even closer? Simply because the developer asked?

What is the different what is different this time than any other time on any other project that has ever happened in this village? What happened here? Right. I'm not asking for the developer not to build this building. I am asking for the developer to build their building 29 feet seven inches away from my property line as the zoning code requires.

Allowing the developer to dictate what high density housing in this village is and that high density housing in this village does not need to be respectful to the existing neighbors or obey the current zoning code is not acceptable. The comprehensive plan has not put into law what high density is. That has not translated into law. You have not done that yet. And you are allowing him to dictate that. And that is wrong and it's literally illegal.

Thank you.

Would this building not be considered high density housing if it had 1,500 to 1,800 square foot units instead of 1,800 to 2,400 square foot units as it does now? Would this building not be considered high density housing if it had five less units? High density housing and respecting the existing neighbors with full code required setbacks can both happen. Please help me implement a situation in our village consistent with our past practices and create situations where both high density housing exists and code required setbacks are not reduced. It's not that big of a deal. We have done it historically forever. Why does it change now? What is different about this building?

I Thank you.

I'd like to take a second to thank everyone in this community who has stepped up and helped us and supported us. And I'd also like to say that tomorrow, I'm trying to give it back. I'll be at the plan commission meeting in order to try to set a law so that this doesn't happen to anyone else. I'm going through a legal process to present to change the codes so that four story buildings are not allowed next to single family homes in this town. So this never happens to anyone else again. Change.org, LaGrange. You can see my petitions. You can see where I'm headed. Thank you.

Thank you.

Watch out, Tucker.

Good

evening. My name is Bethany Alexander, and I'm actually a resident of Westchester, but I grew up in the LaGrange area since the early eighties. I'm also a realtor, and I know real the term realtor's kinda got a little bit of a bad name, but I'm I'm not that realtor. And I'm also a proponent of historic preservation. And I work a lot in real estate in the La Grange area, Westchester, and the Oak Park area, which is also very adamant about historic preservation.

I will say there's a lot about this project that I don't know, so I'm being very well educated tonight. So thank you for what everybody has said. When I and I just learned about all of this about a week ago when I read about it online, but it has been on my mind ever since then. And I think about what other it's a beautiful building. I've loved the building since I was a kid before I knew what historic preservation was about.

And I think and, yes, it sounds like there's problems with the building, and and there's challenges with it and all of that. But that's where time comes in, and that's where care and consideration plays a part. And maybe the whole building isn't practical to be repurposed, but there are other ways to use that building and to save that facade. And when I think about vacations I've taken in Washington DC and just list last summer, was in Memphis. And throughout their downtown area, they have taken really cool old buildings, and they literally leave the front facade, restructure, you know, re support, restructure it, and then build a contemporary building behind it.

That's where you can merge the past and the present and the future together. I think there have been a very a lot of very valid, particularly with the last gentleman who's a neighbor of the build proposal, that need to be taken in consideration. And I think that there's that needs those need those the design probably needs to be addressed. And from a real estate perspective, what has been talked about with affordable housing as a realtor, sure, it'd be great to sell million dollar houses all the day long and make a lot of money, but that's not what it's about for me. To me, it's about finding a home and a community for my clients, and it is getting harder and harder to do that here.

And it's getting harder and harder to do it in Oak Park as they continue to develop. And if anybody has traveled into Oak Park lately, it's beginning to look more like the West Loop. And from what I have heard about this design, I feel like you're enter potentially entering a slippery slope. If this building is in the historic district I'll be very quick. This is my last point.

This building is in the historic district. It is a historically appropriate structure. It has integrity. There are a lot of other buildings and homes in the historic district that do as well. If this precedent precedent is set, what's not to say down the road somebody wants to tear down a house to build something new that's in the historic district. What then? And what does then what does the village become? So Thank you. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Beth Myberg. I have lived on Bluff Avenue for thirty two years. I have seen a lot of projects in this village. Some I agree with, some I don't. But I do agree that Jackson Square does need some renovation. It does need some uplifting. We all agree on that. But we do not need any more multiunit buildings in this village. We're saturated with multiunit buildings here.

There's million dollar condos on almost every corner in on Burlington and Hillgrove. I think that if this project was planned next to any one of your homes, it would have been defeated a long time ago. And I think you really need to consider the people who actually live here that are close to that planned project. It's completely out of bounds. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi there. Let's see. I can read I made it really big so I can read it and I still can't read it. I know. Okay. Louder. Sorry. I'm so quiet. Okay. My name is Leslie Conklin. I actually live in DeKalb, Illinois and I drove in for this meeting. I wanna thank you for hearing me tonight and you probably wonder why I'm here from DeKalb. Well, I didn't come forward right away when I first learned that the building was going to be torn down. In fact, I had already made my peace with that possibility. I assumed the decision would be made and that it was simply something I would have to accept quietly.

And for most of my life, this building wasn't something I thought about in historic terms. It was my grandfather's building. It was my father's building. It was my building when I opened up Jackson Square Mall. Had I had it to do over again had I had it to do over again, I wish we could have kept it in the family because we would have maintained it and we would have done everything we could have done to preserve it, but that point had that has sailed.

So anyway, I never thought of it in historic terms, so I stayed quiet. But over the past several weeks, something has changed and I began speaking with people throughout the community and historians, individuals with knowledge of local history, Many of them have no connection to my family at all, and what I heard again and again was concern, not nostalgia, not sentimentality, but a shared belief that something meaningful could be lost. I came to understand that this building holds a real historic purpose and a real historic significance beyond my own memories. Its architecture, its original purpose, and preservation on Burlington Avenue reflect a period in La Grange development that is increasingly rare. It represents how this town grew, how businesses once rooted themselves deeply into a community.

Mister Jackson, who I heard about my whole life, built this when he was a he was super proud to build this building. They ran a moving and storage company. They built this beautiful building to be downtown. That's pride. That was pride. He was so proud of what he could bring to the town. My grandmother once told me that he built it to look like a bank so everyone would know that everything was safe if they stored it here. I want to acknowledge the position that you are in. You are tasked with balancing preservation growth, financial realities, and the needs of a modern community, and I respect that responsibility. I am not a resident here, so I don't have that leg to stand on.

But I do believe the progress does not have to mean erasure. The building stood for generations, and it's adapted and changed to many several different purposes. And hopefully, that could happen again. I am I am not an architect, so I would love to see some of it preserved. Once a structure like this is demolished, we lose more than the brick and mortar, we lose all that craftsmanship that cannot be replicated, We lose physical connection to the people who built this town and their labor and persistence and pride.

What replaces it may be new, it may be functional, but it could exist anywhere. And this building can only exist here where it is now. I came tonight I came here tonight not to demand an answer, or an outcome, but to simply speak before the decision is finalized so that if I have to say goodbye to this building, I can know that I took the time to ask you to think about it very carefully. I'm asking the board to pause before making a permanent decision. And I will tell you, I almost did not come here tonight.

But my daughter, who also grew up in that building, who's now 32 years old, told me, and I think it's relevant, once you make once I would make the decision to not come, tomorrow, I wouldn't be able to attend. And once you make the decision to take it down, the next day and the next week and the next year, you can't reverse that decision. And it is because what my daughter told me that I am here tonight, and I thank you for your time.

Les Leslie. Leslie. Leslie. Let me violate my one rule of not asking you questions. Can you let me know what years your family owned the building?

My grandpa bought it from mister Jackson, oh my gosh, probably in the forties. Maybe I would get that from my dad. Actually, someone spoke to my dad today and he probably has a better answer. So my father is now 85, worked there his whole life, then my dad my grandpa, Bill Conklin senior bought it from mister Jackson himself. But I don't know the exact year I could get that for you.

And when did you sell it?

We sold it maybe five years maybe five years ago, six years ago. We rented it back for two years and ran it as the mall. And then, after though that after we stopped renting it, then it went then new ownership to the mall took over. And I would like to say, again, in retrospect, I wish we had hung on to it just a little bit longer because we did we did take care of it. And you know why we didn't take any TIF money? Because my grandfather would have never taken a dime. All the repairs he did,

he did on his own.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Victoria Rowe. I am almost a lifelong member of La Grange or resident of La Grange. I live currently on the zero block of South Stone Avenue, and at the end of my block, I have the beautiful Stone Avenue train station. Also on my block is a beautiful vintage apartment building, and I just wanna caution today's board about high density residential areas.

It is very difficult to find parking on my block, and we have a two hour restriction on my block because we are near the train station and right near Lyon's Township High School North Campus. And there are exceedingly violations of that two hour parking, of which I've contacted our chief of police, and he has responded, and they do ticket. But the main culprits of the parking of people parking longer than two hours are the people who live in that apartment building and or high school students. And so, again, I caution the board today about putting up more high density structures without adequate parking. One and a half spaces per unit is not enough.

It should be at least two, if not more. And I would just hope that you would take that into consideration. I would never want anything to happen to that park, the apartment building on my block, but, again, it was built at a time when people didn't drive, and now people drive, and the cars are on the street twenty four hours, seven days a week, even parking overnight. And a lot of times, they are not ticketed ticketed because our police are are stretched. This is a large village to to accommodate with parking. So thank you very much.

Thank you. Again, if anybody wants to speak, if you could stand up and line up so we know.

Hi there. You guys are you need a drink of water or something? You okay? I'm Anna Whitetway. I live at 249 South Edgewood Avenue in LaGrange. I am a forty five year member of the community. I grew up in Connecticut, in New England. And my little town had codes that required colonial architecture for any business in the downtown business district. We had a small little village just like LaGrange which is why I moved here. And McDonald's decided that they wanted to have a building in the business district and they were a big bully.

And guess what? Our trustees stood behind the code of colonial architecture and so McDonald's built their building with red brick and white fancy trim on the outside and the golden arches were on the inside. Okay. So, then I moved to St. Louis, then I moved to California where I taught school and I was supposed to teach California history.

Try to find a historic building in California. It's in their textbooks and they have old pictures of them. So, I decided to take a different bent on this building. And if none of you have ever read this book, it is the La Grange Centennial History, and it was written by the people that built my house in 1979. We're coming up in three years on our one hundred and fiftieth anniversary in La Grange.

I hope you pay attention to that a little bit, and maybe that historic thing will bill will kinda tuck in for you. In the back of this book, they interviewed all of the previous presidents of the village, and I'd like to read to you a couple of quotes from those presidents. One of the reasons La Grange is a beautiful community is because it has never been a boom town. It has never had a cheap subdivision. These are all quotes from presidents of the village.

Objectionable features are prevented from gaining a start in any neighborhood. How about that? To select a home site in a resident district, provide beautiful grounds, and then have the ugly brick wall of an apartment building rise on your lot line is the heartbreaking experience that frequently happens when you select a community that has just grown up without guidance as many places have. Happily, a protective zoning ordinance has been adopted by LaGrange. It was a forward step that will mean much to the future of our village.

The Heritage and Architecture Commission was established to promote the highest possible architectural quality and compatibility in the construction or reconstruction of public offices, businesses, residents, and industrial buildings. It also determined which properties and buildings were of historical and cultural value and planned the preservation of such community assets.

Thank you, miss Whiteway.

Hang on. I got one more. Only one. Public improvements are carefully watched to see that the contractors deliver what you pay for. These improvements are never forced upon the citizens when they do not want them or when they get no benefit from the improvement. The majority present at the hearings determine the action of the Board of Trustees.

Thank you.

Read this book.

Evening. Joe Fedora, 217 West Harris. I wanna say a few things about debunking some things that were said and issue a warning. Debunking, great speech, but you're a little bit wrong. I live adjacent to 40 South Ashland. And actually, I live adjacent to 40 South Ashland, and that's a five story building they allowed. They allowed, and they didn't police.

They screwed you over. Call me later. They didn't do it legally.

Alright. Alright. Alright. Please please let let's be respectful. We'll

talk. Yeah.

Let's be respectful.

So debunk. Property lines, they built on over 75 of the property line. Adjacent to sidewalks, you're not the first. My point is is it's already happened. The board has approved that action, and the worst thing is is the warning part.

For the neighbors adjacent to and anywhere near that property that's gonna be developed because they're gonna approve it, have fun. It's gonna be two years of hell. Contractors doing things prior to posted hours, not policed by his group, and allowed by that group. Property damage to your homes, to your cars, not policed by that group, and not fined by that group. Gonna be hell.

So I hope that you could deal with that. I hope you can. We were talking about schools. There is not one kid that went to a LaGrange school that ever lived at 40 South Ashland. So never used the schools, paid the taxes. I don't know if that's good or bad, but that's not the population demographic we want. We want families. We want people that can afford housing. This property, I don't know what it calls for from an equal housing opportunity, but we build pillars. We do things to help people that wanna succeed and be happy in LaGrange.

This property ain't gonna do it. The first guy with the White Sox hat you need a new team, by the way. The first guy with the White Sox hat said, a $6 Miller Lite at the Elm? This is the guy that didn't even want the pet parade because it it prohibited him from selling a $6 Miller Lite. And dude, get some edible food too, by the way, because I live a block away, and I don't even eat your food.

But anyway, listen. Do what you can, fight, and just know that you're not alone. Because I had hair before the 40 South Ashland property. And I dealt with Mark, I've dealt with her, and I've dealt with your office, and you guys need to be accountable for making sure the people that pay your salary are able to actually live as well as they can, whatever you decide. The other thing is, the warning for that group, if they pass this, you have one option, get rid of them. Thank

you.

Good evening. Joyce Hagan McIntosh, 44 7th Avenue in LaGrange. I want us all to take a moment and look at the room we're in and the building we're in. Like, in this in this village, it has always been clear to me that we respect history, we respect preservation. Many of the people speaking have already said words that I would already say.

My neighbors said much of it perfectly and I appreciate it. Some people have talked about some of the concerns I have. Parking over field schools, know, flooding, all those good things that you've heard lots and lots about. And I appreciate the citizens are sharing their voices and writing proposals for ways to move ahead since we're here for better planning, and I have signed those. So thank you for those initiatives.

I guess I wanna speak to my concern about the way business is being done right now in our village. So people have to jump through hoops to make the slightest change to their homes or when they're building a new build and they have to stick to those building codes. I learned that when I added a sunroom. My neighbors down the hill from me built a new build brick home and their bay window was out too far. They had to redo it.

So I voted for several of you based on your commitment to our community, the idea that you would make things better for all people in LaGrange. So why bend the rules? Why not stick to code, make people do it right? You've made a decision that you're okay tearing something down, then please make sure that what you build is done right.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Peg Maester and I live at 46 North Ashland

in

La Grange. I've appeared before you before as the chair of the housing committee of the La Grange League of Women Voters. And, I appeared tonight as a private citizen as well to point you back to something that was mentioned quite a few times earlier in the evening. And, that was to the comprehensive plan that we spent several months, long months working with you on. And noting that this project, in my mind, does not comport with the plan as I understood it.

So, on the subject affordability, on density, and a few other issues. So, please give it your careful consideration in light of the work that was put into that plan. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good evening board, fellow members of the community. I ask you, is this not a town built on history? Yes. Is this not a town built on character? Yes. Is this not a town built on this community? Yes. We get your name? Can we get your name? Everyone in this room Can

we get your name?

Everyone in this room, everyone tuning in from home, my name is Kevin McElroy. I'm a ten year resident of LaGrange. My wife and I are long time members of the Chicago Architecture Center. Our home is a 125 years old. Dan, I am not opposed to the development in La Grange, but whatever project goes in there needs to be done responsibly as adaptive reuse, not as wipe out the history demolition.

I've heard advocates here today, advocates that are are are talking about the planning or their opinion that they don't think this building can be saved. There was even someone here from Indiana talking about that. The developer has provided his own paid survey to support that, and you all are basing a decision that affects this community on a paid and biased assessment. This is far too important of a decision for this community to base it on that. We need to support the city plan that was developed last year, agreed upon, and put into action, a plan that was brought up again earlier today, a plan that calls out and supports the Jackson Square Mall, a plan that supports history, a a plan that supports character.

This is our community. We must save the Jackson Square Mall. We must preserve that history. We must do this today. Thank you.

Thank you, Kevin.

Hello, everyone. My name is Ariana Asensio. I live in the 11 6th Avenue Condominium. So the condominium that is right adjacent to where this property is going to be built. I know last time I spoke here in October, I went on record and said that Dan had lied about speaking to our facility.

I'm here to say that he has since spoken with us and he apologized for lying but I think that's something that stands out to me when you are doing business with anyone. If you are able to lie about something as simple as speaking to your neighbor, it's something to question but I implore you that I I understand that people make mistakes and I understand that people have responsibilities and I implore you as members of the trustee board to take responsibility in what you represent and don't make mistakes. We as citizens are not opposed to change but we are opposed to disrespect, we are opposed to people not respecting what we want and I would just ask that you take what we have to say into consideration and just to debunk a little bit about what some of the other residents were saying about the parking, is a simple Google search, I was doing it during the meeting but if you Google about how much, how many cars, sorry, how many cars an average $700,000 condominium own, it comes out to be about two to three, meaning that the restrictions that La Grange has aren't in code with even what Google has as a super, as a simple Google search so I would just highly consider the older residents, the new newer residents that are here because I'm new to La Grange, our concerns, what we're trying to say and what we're trying to get across but also your responsibilities as trustees to represent us.

This is also a call to action to the rest of the community. I have yet to vote in La Grange, but I'm very excited to vote on the trustees that do reflect the La Grange vote and do reflect what La Grange citizens really like. So, yeah, that's all I have to say. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Again, not seeing any other commenters. I appreciate you all coming out and and speaking your mind. I appreciate how you all were respectful for each other and to the board. I thank you very much. At this time, we're going to move through matters that are on the consent agenda that have been read by clerk Saladino. And, I would ask for a motion on the consent agenda.

I move for approval of the consent agenda as presented.

Second.

Thank you, trustee Gallant, trustee O'Brien. Any discussion on that? Trustee Augustine.

Thank you. President Kuklaar as previously stated, I recuse myself from voting any agenda items related to the village prosecutor.

Thank you. Seeing no other comments on the consent agenda, I would ask for a roll call vote.

Trustee Augustine.

Aye.

Trustee McGee.

Aye.

Trustee Thompson?

Aye.

Trustee Peterson?

Aye.

Trustee O'Brien? Aye. Trustee Gail?

Aye.

There's two things on the current agenda. The first I'm going to introduce, which is a code amendment. I do not expect it to take too long, for people that are worried about how long that may take. I I don't think it will be too controversial. So, with that, I'll start.

Item A under concern of current under current business is an ordinance adopting a new village code for the village of La Grange. This item is in relation to the strategic priority set forth during the twenty twenty one to twenty three strategic plan to make the village code available online in a searchable format. At that time, it was also recognized that the code was in need of updating as it had not been comprehensively updated since 1993. To accomplish this, the village board approved a contract with Munich Code LLC in February 2022 conduct a comprehensive update. Munichode initiated the update by providing an initial proposed draft for review by staff and the village attorney.

Staff and the attorneys reviewed every section of the code, capturing commentary and suggesting edits as review proceeded. The edits and commentary were which were based upon local government best practices and village operational considerations were subsequently provided to Municode for review and incorporation. A Municode attorney performed a legal review of the input and coordinated the efforts to incorporate the changes. Once completed, a revised draft was presented for consideration. This draft underwent another review by the village attorney and staff in preparation for consideration by the village board.

During the course of several meetings held in 2024, the proposed changes were reviewed by the village board with input captured and incorporated into the proposed final draft. MuniCode produced a proposed final draft in late twenty twenty five, which is new Village Code now presented as part of this ordinance. If it's adopted, the new code will be effective starting 02/01/2026. In this regard, I entertain a motion and a second to approve this item.

Move for approval of the new village ordinance as presented.

Second.

Thank you, trustee Gale. And trustee Peterson, any discussion regarding item a? Trustee Gale.

Thanks. I thank you, mister president. I simply wanted to thank, the staff and thank, the village attorney for putting this together for us. It's been a long time coming, having everything organized in one coherent place. So I just wanted to say thanks to thanks to the staff.

Thank you, trustee Gale. I I would echo that. It's going to be nice for the residents to be able to search electronically from their homes or offices when they have a question regarding the code. Seeing no other comments, I would ask trustee Saladino for a roll call vote.

Trustee Thompson? Aye. Trustee McGee? Aye. Trustee Augustine?

Aye. Trustee

Gail? Aye. Trustee Peterson.

Aye.

And trustee O'Brien. Aye.

And that matter passes unanimously. Next up is the item that most of the people spoke about, which is b, ordinance approving a zoning code amendment for planned development within the R 8 multi multiple family residential district and a special use permit for a planned development site plan design review permit for 112 East Burlington Avenue, and that's referred to trustee Thompson.

Thank you, president Coogler. And I appreciate the opportunity to introduce this item for board discussion and vote. This is emotional issue for a lot of residents and visitors to the village of LaGrange. I, along with the entire board and staff, do appreciate each and every one of your perspectives and for you coming out tonight. It does mean a lot to us that you came out to share your opinion.

This is probably the one of the longest ordinances we have ever published as far as the building goes to present to to group tonight. And this and one of the most studied and discussed projects we've ever taken in a long time in this village. So please excuse me for the time it takes to review the ordinance and details so that we all understand fully what has been presented to the board tonight and in your comments. Please also note that all, if not all of us, most of us will have comments at the end of this as we discuss this matter before we go to vote. So this is to give everyone a complete understanding, and this issue will take some time as we go through it.

But with that said, an ordinance approving the zoning code amendment to increase the maximum height allowable and planned development district within the R 8 multiple residential district. The five South six LLC, the applicant is a property owner of 112 East Burlington Avenue and 5 6th Avenue. The applicant is seeking to construct a 5 story building on the subject property. The applicant is requesting approval of special use for the planned development, site plan, and design review permit. The applicant is also seeking approval to amend the zoning code as it relates to the maximum allow height for the planned development with the R 8 multiple family resident district and the zoning map amendment from C 1 District to the R 8 District.

The project proposes the construction of a five store residential building with 39 residential units. The building provides a mix of residential unit types including fifteen two bedroom, two bath with den units, eight three bedroom, three bath units, and sixteen three bedroom, three bath with den units. Each residential unit will have a balcony and all units will have access to a shared community room and roof deck located on the building's 5th Floor. The site plan includes 59 parking spaces located in the parking structure below the 1st Floor. The applicant is also proposing an interior bicycle parking.

The applicant proposes improvements to the Burlington Avenue right of way adjacent to the development to install curb extensions and downtown streetscape elements. In addition to the planned development, site plan, and design review permit, the applicant is seeking approval of a text amendment to section four dash one ten h dot two, which states that no planned development in the R 8 District may increase the maximum allowable height greater than five stories and or 70 feet except in the area North Of Hillgrove Avenue and East Of LaGrange Road, where the maximum allowable height is seven stories and or 90 feet. The proposed amendment would change the maximum height to five stories and or 75 feet for planned developments in the R 8 District except in the area North Of Hillgrove Avenue and East Of LaGrange Road, which would remain at 90 feet. The applicant was reviewed the application was reviewed by the plan commission at a public hearing on 10/14/2025. At the public hearing, the applicant presented the proposed plans.

25 members of public spoke at the hearing and the majority stating concerns with the proposed development's height, modern facade design, impacts on LaGrange Historical District, potential concerns for public infrastructure, and impacting neighbor neighboring properties, particularly neighboring properties immediately south of the proposed development. A small number of residents spoke in favor of the development, diversifying the village's housing stock and supporting long range community goals for development. The complete minutes for the October hearing are included as attachment seven. Attachment five is the full plan commission agenda packet as published on 10/07/2025, and attachment four is the upload of materials and public comments that were distributed to the plan commission on 10/14/2025. After deliberation, the Planning Commission voted five to two to recommend approval of the application with 12 conditions.

The following table summarizes the Planning Commission's conditions of approval changes The applicant is made to the proposed plans in response to those conditions. Number one, a plat of consolidation must be submitted and approved prior to the building permit issuance. The plat has been provided and is under review. Its finalization is a requirement of the proposed ordinance. Number two, a current platter survey must be submitted prior to consideration of the applicant by the village board.

The platter survey has been provided. Number three, a development agreement must be included as part of the planned development ordinance to specify requirements during construction, the requirements for the covenants, and restrictions in ongoing landscaping maintenance. Development agreement has been executed by the applicant as part of the proposed ordinance. Revised the engineering plans for the village engineer's comments provide additional 15% stormwater detention capacity prior to consideration of the application by the village board. Compliance with other engineering comments will be required at the time of building permit.

Engineering plans have been revised and approved by the village's consulting engineer. Prior to the consideration of the application by the village board, revising the landscape plans to modify the proposed planters in the Burlington Avenue right of way of improvements consistent with the landscape architect's comments. And number two, revise the plant materials between the southeast retaining wall and the south property line to evergreen shrubs with the mature height of four to six feet. Revise the plant and or screening materials to the west of the loading area to ensure that its screening is in course with village standards. And number four, determine whether the existing Mid Dock overhead street lights can be removed or should be retained.

If retained, total planter beds may be needed to be reduced. Compliance with other landscaping plans reviewed. Comments will be required at the time of building permit. Landscape plans have been revised and supported by the or approved by the village's consulting landscape architect. Number six, provide consolate by the village board, revise all site plans to reduce the loading area payment by a 150 square feet on the western side of the loading area where feasible as reviewed by the consulting traffic engineer.

For any reduced pavement area, provide additional open space landscaping with plant material. The loading zone pavement has been reduced by six inches along its entire length, so the setback from the south property line is three foot six rather than three feet previously proposed. The pavement area has been further reduced on the western edge of the loading zone to provide additional landscape area. The changes represent a pavement reduction of approximately a 114 square feet, but in the opinion of the village consulting traffic engineer is the maximum reduction feasible given the required building egress at South Southeastern Stairwell location of the refuse collection doors required turning movements for vehicles utilizing the loading area. Number seven, revised architectural plans to replace corrugated siding on the South stairwells with another material already present on the exterior floors one through four prior to village board of consideration with application.

Courage gated siding has been removed and replaced with 12 inch horizontal aluminum panels for the 5th Floor cloud Room and on the 1 1st To 4th Floor on the South elevation. Number eight, additionals to staff condition five with regard to the landscape plan incorporate to the extent possible additional canopy trees near the southern property line for the benefit of the property owners to the south of Prose development. The village consulting landscape architecture advised that the space is already maximally planted with canopy trees, but recommended replacing two inch caliper canopy trees with three inch caliper trees to facilitate faster establishment of canopy cover. The plans have been revised accordingly. Number nine, eliminate the roof rooftop pickleball courts.

The pickleball courts have been removed. 10, evaluate the plans to reduce the protrusion of the south facing balconies to the extent possible. The balcony deaths have been reduced by one foot from seven foot eight to six foot eight. Review of adding an awning or some other covered entry feature to the front entrance feature of the building. Any revisions should be circulated to the DRC commissioners for review and comment prior to planning plan advancing to the village board.

Revived plans do not add an awning or canopy, but do introduce additional architectural details that call attention to the front entrance on the Burlington elevation. The plans were circulated to the design review commissioners. Three provided comments on the plans. One commissioner felt the prior building design was more appropriate. Two commissioners noted that the revisions reflect an improved design that is more in keeping with design guidelines.

One of the commissioners noticed specifically that the additional architectural elements near the front entrance were an appropriate substitute that accomplished the same goal of a canopy or similar feature. Finally, number 12, review the architectural plans for opportunity to expand the use of decorative brickwork on the building. Additional decorative masonry elements have been added on the Burlington Avenue elevation. Brick soldier courses was added above the windows on the south elevation. Architectural details added to the windows and balcony handrails were edited on all elevations.

A more decorative cornice on the parapet wall has been introduced around the entire perimeter of the building. In addition to the changes recommended by the Planning Commission, the applicant has provided additional three d renderings to visualize the development within the context of the neighboring properties and shadow study reflecting shadow conditions of the summer and winter solstices. Several material colors for for various siding elements have been updated or clarified based on the material selection availability. The applicant has also revised proposed floor assembly, the materials used to construct the floors between the stories that resulted in a four inch increase to each residential floor and a cons one foot four inch height increase for the architectural elements above the 5th Floor. The maximum building height is measured from grades at 7th Avenue to the top of the elevator shaft, remains the same 74 feet two inches.

An updated platter survey was received in December and reflects that property's total size was slightly larger than previously reflected in the submitted plans. Corresponding minor reductions in lot coverage, building coverage, and lot area per unit are reflected in attached ordinance and plans. As reported during the fourth October fourteenth twenty twenty five plant commission meeting, due to the proposed project's need for an e IEPA permit, Illinois Illinois EPA permit, a review under the Illinois State Agency Historical Resource Protection Act is required. On 10/06/2025, the Illinois State Historic Preservation Office provided a letter that determined that the proposed project result in an adverse effect which must be avoided, minimized, or mitigated through the execution of a memorandum of agreement between the applicant, the SHPO. Per the SHPO, the memorandum was being drafted of 01/02/2026.

After the 10/14/2025 plant commission meeting, it was identified that the staff memorandum containing an error regarding potential student generation. The staff memo stated the development was projected to house six students based on the standard form we used to project potential school age population. After review, the village staff concluded the calculation was incorrect due to the typographical error in the calculations that inadvertently excluded projected student generation from the three bedroom units. The correct estimate is 10 elementary middle aged school students with four high school students. During the following 10/14/2025 plan commission meeting, residents raised concerns regarding the impact of proposed development on local storm and sanitary sewer capacity.

Attachment 8 in the in the deck is in the is the village's consulting engineer summary of proposed developments impact on the sewers during rain events. This memo describes how the reduction in storm water will more than offset the potential new sanitary flow from the proposed development. Staff has worked with the village attorney in developing the attached ordinance. The application has agreed to comply with the conditions of the planning commission which have been incorporated into the attached ordinance approving the plan development site plan and design review. Staff recommends approval of the tax ordinances recommended by the planning commission. I make a motion that that we vote to approve the ordinance changes as well.

I'll second. Second.

Thank you, trustee Thompson. I'll record that was trustee Augustine the seconded. Charity, one question then I'll open up to the trustees. On the text amendment for increasing the height in an r eight, it's currently 70 feet?

Correct. And it it's the allowable modification that the village board can provide through a plan development.

So why did 40 South Ashland have to be stuck where they were stuck? Why didn't couldn't they go to 70 feet?

Their plans were approved based on the outcome of the application and the public hearing process for that particular development.

So so when that was approved, was it 70 feet at that time?

Yes.

So going forward, the plan commission or the board doesn't have to approve every 70 foot, every 75 foot building that comes through.

That is correct.

We could say

Each project is evaluated on its own merits as to the standards of the code.

Thank you. I'll open it up to trustee comments. After trustee comments, I expect that we will be I'll say something briefly and then we'll be voting. Oh. Oh, I I've been told that we have a presentation from the developer.

Do you want trustees to ask questions during this or not? Sure. Okay.

Hi, everyone. Thank you for coming this evening. My name is Dan Spain, and I'm one of the owners of the properties at 112 East Avenue and 5 South 6th Avenue here in La Grange. I'd like to begin by introducing my team. Joining us tonight is Jack Stoneberg, our architect, who has extensive experience with projects of this scale and character. We're also joined by Mark Balo of Bono Consulting, my civil engineer, and my attorney, Dan Haywood. I'd also like to introduce Teresa Sullivan who has been running the storage building and antique mall for the past five years. She's going to speak for a couple minutes on the current state of the building.

Hey, everyone. My name is Theresa O'Sullivan. I am a resident of LaGrange as well. Thank you for giving me the time to speak on this. As Dan elaborated, I have run the mall and the self storage for over five years now. I was one of the partners that sold it to Dan, so I do support this. One of the things that I wanna elaborate about the building is its condition. Probably the elevator is one of our biggest concerns. It is at the end of its life cycle and modernizing that will the costs start at half $1,000,000 and go up from there.

Are you paying for it?

Please try to be respectful. Don't yell out comments. And if somebody yells out comments, try to ignore it.

Okay.

What else? Changing in use from my understanding with, you know, speaking with the village before with my partners would trigger adapting to modern code requirements which would mean building new stairs. There's only one egress in the building and those stairs are not up to code, adding sprinklers, just the costs were just skyrocketing for repurposing the building. Then as well, we did tuck point the building in 2023 and it did not resolve the issue that we have with the front door where it is challenging to open and close that front door oftentimes having to give it a little bump to get it to open. What else?

I have lots of notes. I'm not gonna read seven pages because everybody wouldn't go to sleep.

Patricia, can I notate did your your group bought it from the the family that was longtime owners? Right?

Correct.

And did you buy it with the intention to demolish the building? Yes. Yes. I'm No. A That was the plan. I mean, they came to the board shortly after purchasing it with plans. So

Yes. But I am moving the mall. I have a bid on another building to move it. So unlike some of the rumors that I mean circulating on Facebook or the calls that we get every day, we are moving the mall. So I'm excited to do that. And the Conklin family did build a great business, so I appreciate that. Another part of the, you know, the building is when we get heavy rains, water will come in off the East Parking Lot. That's that corner of 6th Avenue and Burlington. You know, the 1st Floor on the excuse me. It's the west side of the building.

That's below grade of our parking lot. So we do get water that comes in through there. But, you know, if it was possible for us to repurpose the building, we would have done it. Unfortunately, it just you know, we presented expanding the self storage and current you know, the village use codes said we couldn't expand the self storage into the lower level which that we had a developer who came in and made an offer contingent on that and when that was not an option, they rescinded their offer. And then Dan came and made his offer, we accepted it.

So Dan and his team have been great to work with, and I look forward to moving them all. Thank you for your time.

Thank thank you for coming out tonight.

As many of you know, after a significant amount of community input and discussion over an eighteen month period, the LaGrange forward comprehensive plan was approved by the village trustees in November 2024. That plan provides a clear framework for how LaGrange can grow thoughtfully while preserving what makes this community special. There are a few key takeaways from the plan that are especially relevant this evening. First, it identifies higher density residential development as most appropriate near public transportation, a conclusion also found by the BNSF Railroad Corridor Subarea Plan. This acknowledges a fundamental reality.

LaGrange is a built out landlocked community. That means future growth must come from the careful redevelopment of existing land or properties rather than outward expansion. Importantly, on Page 35, the plan emphasizes the need for more diverse housing options, homes that meet the needs of residents at different life stages, including seniors, professionals, young families, and members of the local workforce. These groups currently have limited housing choices in communities like LaGrange, particularly when it comes to ownership housing that is walkable, well located, and manageable in scale. That context is what makes projects like this both challenging and essential.

We fully understand that change is uncomfortable, especially in a community people care deeply about. But thoughtful redevelopment also brings important benefits, new long term residents, an expanded tax base, and consistent support for local businesses. These are the elements that help keep LaGrange vibrant, resilient, and economically healthy. With the ongoing housing shortage, both nationally and right here in

our

region, we believe the best and highest use of this land is to create new homes for people who want to be part of La Grange. Condominium housing, in particular, plays a critical role. It provides ownership opportunities for residents who want to stay in town but no longer need a single family home as well as for those who value walkability, transit access, and proximity to downtown. Data from similar Western suburban communities shows that condominiums are not sitting vacant. They are absorbed quickly by people who already have ties to their communities.

These are owner occupants who become long term stakeholders supporting local shops, restaurants, and services year round. We believe that welcoming new residents strengthens LaGrange. Offering a broader range of housing options helps ensure that current residents can remain here as their needs change and that future generations have the opportunity to live, work, and raise families in the community they grew up in. When who when new housing is opposed, it can unintentionally result in exclusion, limiting who has the ability to call LaGrange home. Our goal is the opposite, to support a future that is inclusive, sustainable, and aligned with the values and planning goals this village has already embraced.

Also, by allowing this development to move forward, we are investing in an essential infrastructure that will benefit not only this building and the unit owners, but the surrounding neighborhood as a whole. The project includes significant supporting infrastructure designed for long term community benefit, including new sidewalks and a stormwater retention system. The system exceeds baseline requirements, providing an additional 15% of stormwater capacity, which will help mitigate flooding, improve drainage, and strengthen resilience for nearby properties. In light of recent flooding this past week, we feel this is a great benefit, especially at this location. There is an 11 foot slope from 6th Avenue to 7th Avenue.

And as we all know, the underpass of the train on Ogden Avenue is always an issue and has regular flooding. When we purchased the property in 2024, we explored whether the existing building could be renovated and converted to residential use. We know the art deco facade is what many people associate with this building, and our first priority was to try to save it. But unfortunately, it is not structurally independent from the rest of the building. And after consulting with our architect, builder, and structural engineer, it became clear that this was not a viable option.

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. Earlier this year, a complaint triggered a village inspection, which resulted in numerous code violations and confirming serious concerns regarding the long term safety and structural integrity of the building. The reality is that the building cannot be safely rehabilitated to meet today's standards of living, including compliance with current life safety codes. While we have engaged a structural engineer to address immediate safety concerns, any attempt at full long term rehabilitation would be structurally and financially unsustainable for any owner. You've already heard from Therese talk about recent estimates for the elevator replacement.

That alone is quite substantial, and this is only one component of the extensive repairs required. The building has major design flaws, including a six foot ceiling height through the entirety of the 2nd Floor. This makes improvements almost impossible. Unfortunately, meaningful reuse of the existing building would require millions of dollars in investment and still would not result in a functional or efficient residential structure. Given these realities, we are working with Steve Dasevich of the Illinois State Historic Preservation Agency to ensure that the building's history is fully documented.

We feel it is extremely important to get as many photographs and record the history of this building. That said, we are proud to be proposing a redevelopment plan that is thoughtful, community orientated, and consistent with the village's long term goals. Our proposal includes 39 residential units with 59 parking spaces, which represents a 1.5 to one parking ratio. All parking will be located entirely beneath the building. We have spoken with multiple local realtors who have confirmed this ratio aligns well with similar developments and that comparable units with similar or lower parking ratios have been successfully absorbed.

The trend we are seeing is that most people excuse me, the trend we are seeing is that people are becoming increasingly environmentally conscious and are making greater use of available public transit. Also, the Illinois People Over Parking Act will be passed later this year, which will prohibit local governments from requiring minimum parking for new developments located near public transportation hubs. In addition, KLOA, an independent third party traffic consultant, evaluated the project and concluded it would not create additional stress on LaGrange's existing traffic patterns. Regarding the condominium units and the building itself, these will be larger residential units, ranging in size from approximately 1,500 square feet to 2,200 square feet. And you heard the unit breakdown by Trustee Thompson.

In response to the changes requested by the Planning Commission, all those adjustments were modified and made, including adjusting the area of exterior balconies on the south by 15% or one foot. A solar shade and a shadow study was produced, which also showed no impact on the south adjacent properties. I believe our track record in this community speaks for itself. We take great pride, my wife and I, in what we've brought to LaGrange so far, and we care deeply about doing them doing this project the right way. Also, to the people in the crowd, I live in a 127 year old Victorian single family home.

I am local. We also I consider La Grange Park local. We just did a fully rehabbed building in Downtown La Grange in which we're bringing more people into our amazing downtown area. Those people are gonna be spending money at our local shops and restaurants, and you can have extended families, colleagues staying at that place. I believe housing is new housing is necessary in order to bring LaGrange forward. I thank you for your time. Happy to answer any questions.

Trustees, any questions? Seeing none. I I have a question. Sorry. We the time to ask questions, it has to be over. We're we're unable to entertain questions from the audience. This is the time now for the trustees to ask or state any comments or questions they may have.

Trustee Thompson. Thank you, president Kuklaer. You know, this building is unique in our our village's history. And let's talk about the building and some of the problems with it. So this building known as Jackson Square, has a history of the early days of La Grange and the La Grange surrounding area.

It was built to service the moving and storage industry in this area. It was built at a time when trucks were not used, but horses and carriage were used, which is an interesting thing to think of. The building was purpose built for the La Grange area. If you think about La Grange back in the nineteen hundreds, it was a fast growing area at this time with and this building was built with people still moving out of the city into LaGrange because of the disease from the from the fire and lack of housing and plumbing in the city. We also had new people moving into the area.

This area was originally settled by people that built large homes to quote unquote escape the heat of the city in the summertime. During many of those homes were grand homes with parlors and even dance halls, and I've been in many of these homes in the attic in the Top Floor. So you could come to a ballroom in some of these houses. This brought about a unique storage need in this area. Piano storage.

A lot of these people want to store their pianos when they were away for the winter or so it was protected. This 2nd Floor of this building was built to withstand the weight of grand pianos stored in large quantities on a small floor. So the floor is about two and a half feet thick poured concrete rebar. How did they accomplish that? The ceiling height is mister Spain mentioned is six feet.

So you have a six foot floor building, six foot floor, 2nd Floor of this building that is two and a half feet of concrete below and a foot and a half of concrete above. That is not fixable. This area was also now, in fact, some of the pianos are still stored there now. If you walk through the building, which I have spent a lot of time in this building trying to look at how we could convert this building, there are still a lot of pianos there, which I bet you will find are abandoned because nobody knows what to do with a grand piano anymore. The area was used, it's been noted, as car storage.

However, this car storage was only for a short time during World War two when people were away to war and needed to store their car where they had no place when they gave up their homes. The entire building on every floor is built a very thick load bearing concrete. The building, since it was built for moving and storage, only needed heat on one floor. So there are no utilities on any floor in this building except for the 1st Floor. There is no water or sewer on any floor above it.

The electrical run to the floors that are above is only done through small conduit really just to manage lights. The building was never built to be retrofitted for storm sewer, water, or massive power needs on the floors. What does this mean about the building? So let's look at the inside of the building. The building has a four floor that is has a wide open space with very small windows and a sloping floor with no utilities.

When you walk in it, if you drop a marble, it will instantly roll from the east to the west because the floor slopes. Yes. There is small electrical service drilled in, but nothing else. People actually looked under the current owner with trees to put a a vents space in the Top Floor. But when they realized three major issues, no services, no plumbing, no kitchen ability to put in there, also no safe way to get to that floor.

The elevator is truly not up to code. It is not legal for passenger service in a large quantity area and the stairs are not legal or compliant to use. The 3rd Floor is the only private storage area in this building. This floor is made up of small storage rooms with block concrete walls and metal doors. Again, no utilities and lights except for the hallway.

I would best describe this floor as a prison from Europe in the eighteen sixties. It is a very frightening floor to walk into because it is dark and it has to have all this concrete busted out, again, not very high heights. The building has one elevator that must be replaced, as mister Spain and Therese just mentioned. It is worn out and not up to code. And it has one staircase that is not legally compliant for stair height or width and does not meet OSHA requirements.

What does this mean? That if this building is upgraded, that stairwell have to be destroyed or removed and then two stairwells will have to go in the building to replace it. So the parking lot on the west end of the building will now become a stairwell structure as it is replaced, and something will have to be done to that. The building has been off on and off the market for probably a decade as the original family sold it, and now Teresa's group has sold it. No one has ever approached the building about we're saving this building or rehabbing it.

Five years ago, a developer had a plan to tear it down and build condos. They decided not to build them, not because Landmarks Illinois got involved. They got tired of dealing with the with the village board and walked away from the process. The most recent pass owners also, as as Therese mentioned, reproached the village about turning it into a mini storage unit. The village code does not allow for mini storage except an industrial section, heavy industrial section, and any other in grades would, of course, enforce the building to do all these other upgrades.

In the last two years, let's be clear about this, in the last two years, two separate groups have looked at have dying this building and upgrading it and fixing up or doing something with it. Both of those groups, Dan Spain's group and one other who will remain nameless at this time, both agreed the building should be torn down and a new building to replace it. This building just cannot continue to operate under its current condition. The unfortunately, building has outlived its purpose and usefulness. I appreciate the citizens.

I really do. Wanted to save it and reaching out to Landmarks Illinois. We did get an email from Landmarks Illinois on Friday. I immediately called her, asked her what her plan was for the building. Her comment was she's never been here or looked at the building.

She said, I have some consultants I can refer you to that can do tax abatements or plans or credits, and I can co connect you with a consulting engineer that might be able look at a way to develop it, but we have no plan to buy the building or save the building. We just responded to letters and emails from citizens. If this project does not go through, this building will now become vacant and abandoned. And Therese has made it very clear she is moving within the next six months. Therese told me personally, the antique mall for her side of it cannot make money due to the expense of maintaining the building and trying to get insurance.

The new development actually will add some green space when you look at the new building that will actually add green space to an area that currently has all concrete. It provides setbacks from Burlington Avenue and it adds parking for residents, which as Dan stated, actually incorrectly by the way, people over parking becomes law June 26. What does the people over parking law mean? The state legislature passed unanimously a rule back in September that no construction or no parking requirements within a half mile of a commuter railroad track in the Chicago area could have any parking restrictions to block the development of of residential parking or residential building. So that means any codes that the village currently have are null and void.

So there's no one and a half, two that's all gone come June. It was signed by Pritzker during the Christmas break, very quietly, but it was signed into law and it goes into effect June 26. So all parking requirements within a half mile of railroad track either way are gone June 26. So we could block this tonight and mister Spain could come back in six months and eliminate the downstairs parking on it. I don't think it would work for condos in this area, but there's no requirement that he have parking going forward.

The the flooding does provide the flooding basin as was in Dun And Hillgrove Avenue provides a 115% of the requirement for rain run water store off in this run water rain water runoff. In this particular area, there is no rainwater coverage. So any rain falls, hits the ground, runs toward the under Ogden Avenue underpass and floods it. We will now have a place to capture rainwater and pull it in and we'll send it running down the street. That is a huge improvement just like it is in the in the Hillgrove area.

Now for some clarifications that have been published, which I think need to be addressed because I have been hit by many citizens in this town about this. They need to be and these need to be addressed because they're being pushed on on Facebook and social media. The historic district of LaGrange will not go away if we lose this building. The historic district was created in large part to protect historic homes from being torn down and replaced with modern homes. It was interesting to see an article in the past this week, as a matter of fact, where a Hensdale official commented on the number of historic homes in La Grange versus the all the teardowns they had occur in their village, saying that because they had allowed a lot of their older homes to be torn down, they do not have a lead service line issue that we have.

It will take I will take our historic homes and saving those historic homes over only having 30 lead lines to replace as the village of Hensdale does. But even Hensdale notes the significance of our historic district. However, it should also be noted, there is nothing that stops anyone from buying a house in this town and knocking it down tomorrow. We do not have any strong, stringent codes that save homes in this town. So our historic district has worked very well in protecting our homes, but we don't have rules that block it. So we need to make sure we understand that. We get a tax credit for living in the historic district. This one got a lot of people calling me. We do not get a tax credit for living in the historic district. There is no tax credit or discount for living here.

There never has been and there never will be. So we will not be losing our tax credit on your homeowners taxes if this building disappears. There is one item I was not aware of. I called Patrick Heinz, the Alliance Township tax assessor, to come verify this information and he said, no, there is no tax credit that you get for living in the Village Historic District. However, if you do any improvement historically correct to a building or home in the historic district and it increases the value of that home, you can apply for a ten year tax abatement on that increased amount of money that the value of your home.

So if it increased your home value by $300,000, you could apply for a tax abatement that will abate that for ten years. Patrick Hines will be happy to help you get that credit. I wish I had known about that five years ago when I did a lot of work on my own. I would certainly be going for that. Property values will not go down if this building is demolished, and realtors do not want it or they're only after the greed for it.

I have reached out to several realtors about this project. They state several out it several items. This building will not have any effect on property values. There is a need for condos like these being proposed that are very much in demand in LaGrange. There are very few nicer, high level condos or townhomes available in LaGrange for people who want to downsize as they become empty nesters.

We lose citizens to other towns when they decide to make the move from their current home to a downsized home because we don't have them available. My neighbor moved to Burridge the other day because she could not find one of these units in town. There are available condos on the market now if people want to downsize. Not really. As of 3PM today, there are three available in LaGrange.

One two bedroom and two one bedrooms. All are walk up units without balconies and older buildings. There is one townhome priced at 425,000 homes dollars with no inside photos, and then the three condos are priced from 300 to $179,000. These are not the types of units that people are looking to step down from their homes in LaGrange to move into. Schools are too crowded and this will cause more issues.

District one hundred two just passed a massive bond issue to handle overcrowding in our schools. Our enrollment varies every year in the village of LaGrange. We have empty nesters that move out and we have families that move in. If we don't if we tear this building down and build new condos, it just means those empty nesters stay here. They don't leave, but the families still come when people leave the town.

It has been posted on social media and this is the last thing I want to say, and this is really personal to me. It has been posted on social media and I have been asked to my face if some of the officials on this are getting kickbacks or something out of this development. First, let me clarify: This board, like all village boards and LaGrange and commissions, are unpaid roles. We do these roles for the sake of the village and the residents. We are elected officials and must comply with all state laws and reporting requirements, which means every year we must submit a record of economic interest to the state and declare where our income comes from and what investments we have.

If we do not do this correctly, we are in violation of state law and subject to prosecution. And if you've seen in the news, several other villages have been officials have been arrested for violating these rules. The only item that we may vote on that we might get a benefit out of by sitting on this board is if we saw flooding in this town and we'll all have less water in our basements or flooding in our homes. But past that, nothing we do gains us anything. So I just wanna make sure people understood those clarifications and understand really the the issues with the building. And I thank you for your time.

Let me just interject. I I'm not going to comment on most of the things you said, Trustee Thompson, but I can't let one thing pass. You indicated that Teresa and her investment group got tired of dealing with the village board. I don't believe that's true. I can tell you this, the matter never came before the village board. I think it's an insult to the village board. I served on that village board. We never did anything to tire Teresa or her financial group. It went to the different commissions and they chose not to pursue with the project. With that, I would ask if there's any other trustee comments. Trustee Augustine.

I do. I have a few things to say and I'll probably break it into a couple pieces because it gets a little long. One thing I do wanna say about what trustee Thompson said and what president Kukler said just now is, I was on the ballots run for trustee at the time that the first development for Jackson came through. So of course, I went to the plan commission meetings, of them fascinating. It did not receive a recommendation from the plan commission, but the applicant did come to the village board as I recall at that meeting.

But what happened to the village board was it was recommended that since so much was so close, so much had been addressed and handled, that rather than voting on something that hadn't been received a recommended vote, I think the I think it might have been a three two vote. I'm not sure.

Three two vote in the plan commission or the The

other way, two three. Whatever it was, it was it was to the negative. So it was a not recommendation from the plan, which oftentimes projects do come to the board even if they're not recommended by certain commissions. We have the right to review them. We but at that meeting, it was it was recommended that the applicant go back to the plan commission where it had been quite a battle, never seen anything like it. And figure out the last little bits that were sticking points before they came back to the village board to have the vote. That's my recollection.

That that may be true, but I think the way that would be defined is they withdrew their application.

Yeah. My understanding was that they did not call

I'm not gonna debate what what the previous board did. I I think the board dealt with them very respectfully. There was any suggestion. Otherwise, I take offense to that.

I'm simply saying what I observed, and I don't think I'm being disrespectful. I'm just saying what I observed about the process as I was running for the the village trustee. Moving on. First, thanks to this amazing crowd of residents and lovers of La Grange. Everything that's been said here tonight and that the Planning Commission has been very carefully thought through and reasoned.

Really just some nearly poetic statements of support for the history we have in this village and wonderful appeals for why to keep this building and not proceed with allowing the development. I wanted to just talk about some of the history because so much of what we're talking about really is history. I mean, we are talking about approving this building, but we are talking about it in context of history in a town that is full of it. So as I've said, we we vote tonight on an important and highly visible matter. We have quite a divided public on this one to say the least.

And since all of us are here talking about history, please be patient as I tell you some stories about the town we love. Again, thank you for caring so deeply and for showing us how much you all love this town and the places in it. I do too, and I have all my life. I may have the most unique relationship to this town of anyone in this room. It doesn't make my opinion or my vote any more important, but it may help to explain why I have a lot to say tonight.

I am very familiar with LaGrange history. I am the great, great, great granddaughter of our village founder, FD Kassett. I have four ancestors who have served on this board. Three were village presidents, including George Marshall Fox, who is also our town's first doctor. I'm proud of their service, and I'm proud of mine. I was born at LaGrange Memorial Hospital fifty six years ago. I went to kindergarten Spring Avenue. After moving a little further north, I went to Saint Francis. I was the fifth grade princess in the pet parade, and that was super embarrassing. I wore pants.

It just was not a comfortable place for me. I participated in a lot of things in town, and I love this town. I played little league baseball, and I ran all over this place, all over town with my friends as a kid on a routine basis. On the West Side, my stopping my stomping grounds were stopping at Pro Shervan's Pharmacy where I'd stock up on candy. In the downtown area near here, I'd run into Lockhart Sporting Goods, Slocums, Gishi's Shoes, about my first record at Beautiful Day, candy from Mompaz Candy Emporium, Sandwich Corp restaurant for those of you who know, you know.

Great, great price. I ducked my head into the Magnavot store to peek at the Siamese cats that they always had running around. And for books and stickers for my growing collection, I'd head over to the Book Nook, which is now our Starbucks. All those places are gone. When I walk down and walk around town now, I I don't see it how you see it.

I still see the old places and and all the memories are fond. I have seen a lot of change in this town. I love this town, always did, always will. My first vivid memory of historic change was in the early eighties. In around seventh or eighth grade, instead of walking home, I'd often well, in in all through grade school, I'd I'd often walk over to the Northwest Corner Of La Grange Road in Hillgrove, where my mom was working as a realtor at Cosset and Company, a business founded in 1873.

It was a great little it was a great little place and it was a family business. Just this tiny little single story wood sided structure perched up on a little bit of a berm right there on the corner. I'd sit at the secretary's desk by the door and play with old things, stamps and and just relics, maps, and just old stuff I didn't I didn't even know what it was and I would pretend like I was working. I I can still remember what that place smelled like. I can still picture looking out the windows.

Somehow the land rights had been sold to someone else, and an ever increasing competition led to my uncle Bud who was the owner at the time to close the business. Shortly thereafter, and unbeknownst to us, my mom and I and our family, it was torn down without notice. It broke our hearts when we learned. I like to think we could have saved it if we knew, but maybe not. It then became a used car lot for a short period of time.

What sits there now, as you may have gathered, is Walgreens. And if you're curious, you can find a commemorative stone with a brass plate describing what had once been there in the parking lot. Have to really go searching, though. It's kind of covered up by bushes and things. Thing you need to understand is that this town cares and always has cared about its history and also about being sustainable, relevant, and good change.

By the nineteen seventies, interest rates were, as some have recommended suggested here tonight, 18%. I know that sounds unbelievable, but it really was, and it was that way for a while. Businesses were fleeing small towns all across America for the new thing. Massive malls, retail, large retail development, bigger space, cheaper rent, and parking galore. You might find it hard to believe based on how things look today in this town and especially in this downtown.

But if you lived here then, like I did, and Shuana, you can back me up on this. It was awful, and it has been mentioned here tonight. It was was awful. Nothing shy of urban blight. By no fault of our own, our once revered downtown was in a retail crisis.

So ripe with vacancies and tacky facades that were put up to cover neglected crumbling old buildings that my mom would drive all the way around it to avoid people seeing it. But today, our downtown is a draw again. A feather in our cap once more, but it took years for it to claw back, and the village was very involved, and the residents were very involved, and the businesses were very involved in making that happen. By the early nineteen seventies, the writing was on the wall. Our business community and the writing was on the on the wall for our business community and equally for our old homes.

On 08/08/1979, the La Grange Village Historic District was entered into the national record of historic places. It took nine years of work to make that happen, And it wasn't developed because of because businesses were fleeing that. That's not why it was developed. It was done to save the lovely old homes, the historic old homes, particularly the the old and aging. Well, they just fallen out of out of fashion, and they seemed expensive to to save.

And this was, again, happening around the country, certainly in Hinsdale. There was a developer interested in buying blocks of La Grange Road between Casa and Maple to build track apartments. And iDot was trying to turn La Grange into a La Grange Road into a much larger transportation artery. They planned to remove our parallel parking in town and make it five or six lanes right here and then increase the speed. The village was doing its level best to prevent that, but it seemed we didn't have the justifications to stop it until we did.

A group of smart and caring residents stepped up, led by a woman who seeks no attention but still lives right here in La Grange. She traveled to DC on her own to figure out the process, and over the course of nine years, made it happen. And she and the village, they helped make they helped make what we what we see here today happen. Your historic district was a result of a small handful of people who talked the village into doing something. The village was generally open to it, but it wasn't easy.

Historic District. This is referenced in the plan commission and is referenced in that blue and green book that miss Whiteway showed us. I have copies of that. I've read it. It's a good one. The historic district, though, in doing so, setting out to get folks to appreciate the housing stock and to not tear our old homes down, which many valued at the time, but the developers didn't seem to care about. They formed the heritage and architectural commission. They assessed our homes and the clearly historic nature of our community as a whole and made the case. In doing so, they held two public meetings. The turnout was massive.

The meetings were to explain what this could do to save the homes and the pros and cons of adopting a preservation ordinance on the enactment of a heritage landmark designation. It was noted that ninety nine point nine percent of those in attendance, and that was the room where we are right now tonight, It was packed. And they had the following response. Well, home is my castle and knowing it's going to tell me what I can and cannot do with it. It was said by a member of this commission that if Heritage and Architectural Commission had recommended such a provision, constraints on what people could do with their home properties, that the village board at the time would not have voted to approve the historic District.

So restrictive so restrictive so restrictive ordinance did not result, but the historic District was born. It is greatly responsible for returning for a returning sense of history. Our unique housing stock was something that we wanted to see remain. In a letter he wrote years later, former village president Lee Berkey said this. In 1970, in the early years of my service as village president, I became increasingly disturbed by what appeared to be the deterioration of the older residential section of La Grange.

Lovely old homes built between 1890 and 1910 were fit were falling into disrepair and seemed on the verge of becoming slum property. In the hope of averting this decay, the village manager, the village attorney, and I drafted an ordinance creating the Heritage and Architectural Commission that I hoped would chart the course for restoration, preservation, and growth of the village. The commission's powers were advisory only, but they had a lot to do with what came in that in that period of time. Signs were reviewed, parking, and a lot of discussion with the commissions that were intact at the time. Extending the work of the heritage and architectural commission, the village then under the unretiring untiring leadership and vision of Janine McLaughlin created an historical district covering the older residential portion of the village under which homeowners in that area were accorded special tax advantage if they restored their homes to their original grandeur, as trustee Thompson said.

I didn't know that either, by the way. Wish I did when I repaired my two porches. Although neither the Heritage and Architectural Commission nor the village had either the purpose or the power to interfere with the lawful use of private property in the historic district, The fact that the commission began to mark and draw attention to such property led to a remarkable revitalization of a large part of the village. Thereafter, under the work of Main Street and streetscape programs, the appearance of the business section was also improved remarkably. I say this to clarify the intent and origin story of the historic district.

It has no legal teeth, but it sent a signal and it worked. The homes were at risk, but the old buildings were, but the old buildings were and still are useful structures, and many still remain today. The years immediately following saw, as I mentioned, Main Street program, which led to the the the deeper sidewalks and the streetscaping with pavers downtown the downtown area in particular. And La Grange became, I think, the second town in Illinois to secure a TIF district as mister Paluto mentioned. The TIF district project was huge.

And this town used it very well to the degree that I don't know if you're still getting at charity, but I'm I'm told that our village staff would get calls for years. How did you do it? How did you turn this town around so successfully with that TIF money? Because I think we all know sometimes those are abused these days, and sometimes it just doesn't work. But it was really a resident business and and village staff coordinated project, and it worked it worked really well.

Huge sections of La Grange north of the tracks were purchased through the TIF. Dozens of buildings were raised, and the area was reinvented. That too was, by the way, you won't be surprised, a town splitting controversial matter. It packed this room, but it absolutely did work. And we have the value now of hindsight to know that it did.

Those leaders, I'm sure, sat in rooms like this and felt pressure like this and didn't know. Hope would come but hope that it would work, and it did. I mean, there was just a ton of work that was done. The TIF included a facade program with zero interest loans for businesses to peel off the old tacky exteriors, restore the brick beneath. It was remarkably successful, and you can see it if you look up and down our downtown streets here and on the West End.

They are they're they're in large part the original buildings, and they're in good shape. But they invested in it. They did spend their money, but at a at a zero interest, was just enough for them. In combination with the fact that the village was behind them, and the village wanted to see the town thrive again. It wasn't we weren't gonna get businesses back here if we didn't look good. They were just gonna keep going. We're all fortunate to live in a town that has managed itself so well. That people really, really want to live here. Businesses want to set up their small businesses here. People from near and far see see La Grange's destination.

There's much to offer in a charming atmosphere. They want to shop, dine, and see a movie here. And we have managed the turning tides for a long time, reinventing when needed. And we are careful, but not afraid of change. Because of that, if a business or a residential project comes to us, the the the staff or the board, and we see it as a good fit, we may let them set up.

We're not. More and more people want to live here. But as a village, we are not desperate nor do we actively seek out new development. Projects come to us. And for anyone who thinks this is simply about revenue, I tell you that's not the case.

We've turned down many a project here. For some of you, this might be your first experience with the village, but I assure you it's not mine. And I have seen our commissions press applicants many times causing them to go or change. The process has worked. We're a town that's proud of bringing in what we think will work and and being fortunate enough to be able to turn away those things that we we think won't.

And rest assured, there is no dark master plan to convert every space along the BNSF corridor into units. We've had two this year if you include this one, and none none for years before that unless you include the the Masonic home development. But some of the the five story condos that are in the area are twenty or thirty years before. Many on this board and on the plan commission that reviewed a similar similar project in 2019 have known that this property has been up for sale for a decade or so. So I see this decision before us tonight through a lens looking back at what the town once was, what it has been through, and what the potential could be.

It won't help any of you to hear me say, you think this is bad, because I've seen these sweeping changes in my half century here, and yet, La Grange has survived. The plan commission and board members are residents just like you. The difference is that we volunteered to become a part of the civic process. And with that comes important decisions and an obligation to weigh those decisions against public opinion and with public opinion, independent research, general observations, a willingness to learn more than you ever thought you could about code and the laws of the village, and how to apply them in a just manner. And and importantly, a curiosity for learning about what the village needs, how it may change, what it takes to stay strong and true.

And importantly, I think everyone who sits back here, and the plan commission sits here too when they have their meetings. I hope that they're always asking themselves what I asked, which was which is how does my vote impact the community today, and how may it serve the community down the road? So again, we see what you see, but we look at these projects in a a unique way. We must because it is not about what I want. It is about what is good for the village.

And those answers aren't always crystal clear or easy to make or easy to find. Many of us on the board have been here for years, elected to this role as a village trustee, we're elected. Many on the planning commission have also been in their roles for several terms or longer, longer than many of the people up on this board. Plan commissioners apply for the commissioner role and are appointed by the president. Some have served under three, maybe four different presidents, and so they have a lot of experience.

In those many years, over many cases and projects, we review. We review we each learn more about the village and the guidelines it adheres to. We learn where it makes sense to stretch and where we should consider contracting. As for the comprehensive plan, there are many things in this advisory document. It is a guide.

It is a recommendation. And while it can be frustrating when it supports one thing, but also says something else that may in contradictory. It's it's a general guide, and we use it to our advantage, and I think we've used it well. But when I was looking at the 2005 plan comprehensive plan before we voted on this one. There's a lot of things in there that we didn't do and we didn't revisit. And I do hope that this board follows through on what we said when we voted it in, which is that we revisit that on an annual basis. How are we doing with the comp plan? Do we still like what we said? Do we wanna follow-up on some of those things? And one of them is affordable housing.

And I worked with some of the people in this room tonight to get language about affordable housing in that comp plan so that you knew that there were people up here who were interested in seeing that happen. It's not just about building lower priced developments. There are grants and and tax matters that go into it. So the village will have would have to agree to commission and then begin to figure out how we write it into our code. And then look at future projects through that lens and with that ask.

And it's tricky. Affordable housing is not low income housing, but it is a very specific thing, I'm still learning. And I'm curious about going further. And so I hope tonight through this discussion, because it's come up several times, that this board will, this year, visit and take very seriously affordable housing is something that we need in conjunction with many other things. My vote is based on feedback from the community, as well as my lifetime experience in seeing how this town has shifted, changed, and adjusted in the last half century. I'm gonna have more to add, but I'm gonna take a breather and drink some water and let some other folks weigh in for a minute.

Okay. Do you know how much more you're gonna have?

Pages.

Okay. I'm not sure if we should break tonight or if we're gonna be able to finish. We usually try to end around ten. So we'll have to maybe come back and you can let us know how long you think you're gonna be and we can decide if we should go forward or if we break. Any trustee comments? Trustee Gale.

Thank thank you mister president. I'll I'll try to be out I've got some thoughts I wanted to share. I wanted to thank, first, everybody that came out and spoke. I think we are a we make better decisions. We're a stronger community when we work as collaboratively as we can, and we hear everybody's voices up here at the dais. And I wanna thank everybody that's also emailed and and in other ways communicated with us even though I may not have been able to respond to every email. I wanna thank everybody for for reaching out. I want to thank our staff. This has been a a heavy lift. This has been a lot of work with this development, and so I wanna thank thank you guys for your hard work and effort.

I wanna thank trustee Augustine and and trustee Thompson for their statements and and especially trustee Augustine's history of of the of the village. I think that's important that folks hear that. And so I just wanted to share three quick quick thoughts. First was with respect to some of the nuts and bolts of this project. We sometimes lose lose sight of that.

You know, we're gonna get 15% more water retention than what's needed. I think that's that's a great benefit for for the village. We've had a traffic study showing that, you know, we're gonna be able to accommodate the traffic that's related to this project. While I'm not thrilled with the with respect to the the height change, you know, we have done all buildings before. 14 South Ashland comes to mind.

That's a five story building with a slope roof and dormers at the top as well. And that's fit within the community, and it's it's something we've been able to to to do. And similarly on this project, we've got setbacks, maybe not as as as much as we'd want, but, you know, the building is is setback, and it it tries to work within the the character of the area. Well, that's with respect to just the nuts and bolts. With respect to adaptive reuse of Jackson Square, you know, what I've heard is we've got past and present owners that are saying this just isn't compatible for reuse.

You know, I I like the building too. You know? And I'd love to see it. I'd love to see it saved. I'd love to see that history go forward. But, also, someone's gotta come forward and and save it. Someone's got to say, I'm going to be the developer that will will do that, and that's not what's what's in front of us. And so, you know, that's where that's where that sits. And finally, you know, in my view, we've done projects like this before. 40 South Ashland comes to mind that was mentioned.

111 East Cossitt as well. It's not out of our character to have have a project like this as part of our walkable downtown transit oriented developments. And so with that, those are just some of my my thoughts with respect to it. And I I I do do like having a development. I do like the idea of new residents and people being able to come and and become part of our community. And I do wanna echo my last point is I wanna see affordable housing as well. This may not be the opportunity for that, but it is something I would like us to see going forward.

Thank you, trustee Gale. Trustee Peterson.

So I also wanna thank the residents, for coming out and sharing your thoughts and your perspectives and also the emails that we received. The the board we've given a great deal of time considering the relevant facts of the proposal and the applicant and the resident considerations. I have come to the conclusion that the building is not up to code and is proposing, and it is cost prohibitive to get it to code to fit in any type of plan. And I agree with trustee Gail that a developer willing to rehabilitate and incur the cost, incur the and make the investment that has not occurred. So here we are right now.

I also wanna say that I was on the I was a liaison to the divine re review committee. And at the time, I learned a lot and I was very impressed by their professionalism, their knowledge, and their commitment to our commitment of the commissioners. And so I believe that the DRC has addressed the concerns of the plan commission, and I am confident in their decisions and their recommendations. So with that, I will turn the floor back over to

Well, let me see if any other trustees wanna speak before trustee Augustine speaks again.

I might have just like to stay again along with the other trustees. We appreciate the emails and our residents taking time to come out to share your concerns. I too have been in this community for six and a half decades. I love LaGrange. I have never thought of living anywhere but LaGrange.

I have seen many many buildings that I have come to love. I've I've walked past 112 all of my life, but not just that building. There have been many buildings. I can't even begin to name them that were very dear to me. And at some point in time, the village had to make a decision as to whether to keep that building or have that building torn down.

And so I've seen many buildings torn down. I grew up in a house that was built in the twenties and about ten years ago we had to tear that house down and it was life shattering for me. So I just wanna leave with the residents. We have some that are gonna be happy with our decision and we have others that are not gonna be happy with us. They're gonna have all kinds of opinions about us.

But we take our position as leaders for this community very serious. We don't make decisions without thinking about them and praying about them and trying to gather all the facts. We've heard a lot of facts. We've read a lot of facts. We've heard stories.

We've heard opinions. And what I have seen tonight is a lot of pain and a lot of emotion. But I want to encourage you to just ask for peace for whatever decision is made. Things that we can't change in life, we have to come to grips with them and ask for courage to make changes where changes are needed. And then last of all, ask for wisdom to have the strength to do what is right.

And so that's what we as a board, that's our purpose. It is to make the decision that is best for every resident of LaGrange. And out of the sixty five years I have been here, I have never felt that a decision was made in this village that was not in the best interest of its residents. And I'm not just saying it tonight. I said it before I became a trustee.

I didn't make the time to go out to village meetings because I felt that we're doing such a good job leading our community. And so I just wanna encourage you to know that we are giving it our best. That's it.

Thank you, trustee McGee. Trustee Augustine, I don't wanna rush you. I'm just trying to get an idea how much longer.

Couple minutes.

Oh, that's fine. And again, no no rush.

Okay. This building is is is very attractive from front, 1st Floor. I love walking in. I love shopping at Jackson Square Antique Mall. That's probably the only reason I I'm ever going down the street that way and noticing it.

Because the building, all four sides, maybe it was built with the thought that there'd be buildings that go in on the side of it, but you you can see the the side walls. The other sides aren't very attractive. I've had some people say that it's in fact kind of looks like a bit of a blight if you're driving up Burlington towards it. It's a a patchwork of bricks bricks in the in the wall in a parking lot. And you only see this beautiful facade when you're when you look when you turn your head as you drive by or if you're going in shopping.

And of course, if you're going coming and going on the train, I agree. It's a it's a wonderful thing to see when you come in. There are buildings in town, many. This this hall, as we've talked about. By the way, this hall, think you mentioned it, it was originally built for the Lions Township.

Before La Grange was La Grange, was a handful of farmers and a few people in the late eighteen hundreds who started to build houses here to get away from the city as trustee Thompson suggested. And the and the smallest, the closest form of government was the township system. And they set up shop right here and they built this building. And in and around the eighties, when the village was doing some of their work in this basement and some of their work over, above the police and fire station. That's where the board meetings were, above the police station, fire station.

The village wanted to buy it. And Lions Township wasn't so sure they wanted to sell it to us. They thought maybe we put it on the open market, see what happens. But again, this village fought hard to make sure that this building stayed what it is, and they won. We were able to get this building and here we are.

And I hope we we don't leave and I'll tell you, I know that staff would Well, they wouldn't like to move, but they would like certain things to work better. It's hard to heat and it's hard to cool and it it's got its issues, but we maintain it. We keep up with it and it's gorgeous and it is a signature structure in this village. Another signature structure that more of us see, I think, and more visitors see, I believe. Well, you know, let's not fight about how many people are on the train, but it's I always look think of La Grange Road in these couple of blocks here is is is a bit of a billboard by way of having that theater.

That sign says, this town is historic. How many towns in our area still have their small hometown theater? Not many. And and and over the years, the business owners of and operators of that theater, by the way, it's the last of three. We had two before that years ago, but they were all torn down. So we had one remaining. And when I was going there and some of you in this room were going there, it was once rain. It was absolutely gorgeous and the curtains would come up and down before and after each movie. It was a wonderful asset to the community and it and it absolutely is an economic driver in in many ways for this community. And that is why at one point, and it was very controversial.

Everything is it seems, but some more than others. Very controversial for this village to decide to make, you know, for a better essentially an investment in that business. Because when when the more recent owners purchased it, they realized it was gonna need more work than they could probably afford to do to keep it open. They came to the village, the village figured something out because it has such a useful potential and because it is so good for the other businesses in this town. People come to that theater and they shop and dine before or after.

They know about this town because of that theater and that neon marquee. And it is an essential business, and the owners have always improved and upgraded and kept up with it. That is a 100 year old property, and it still works, and it's still relevant, and it's still necessary, and it's a very important part of this town. Jackson does not seem to have done that. You know, it's not there's a lot of buildings like it that still function as storage buildings.

The the Reeby storage facility in Lincoln Park, which if you've lived there, you've you've undoubtedly see it. It is a beautiful another beautiful Kingsley building, with even more, I think, prominent decor on its facade. They have that's a very it's a it's a piece of the Reebie moving company's portfolio. It is highly utilized. And if you look inside of it, you will see it's fresh and painted and light and very historic.

And they have new elevators. I I honestly, having toured Jackson Square, was shocked that and it's cool, that old elevator, one of the original, I think, pre patent Otis elevators. But I was shocked that that was still there. I'm not sure I would have trusted that situation to put my place, put my goods up on the Top Floor. And and I'm glad that they've been able to keep it going, but but that is of concern obviously for the current owners.

And I think if there had been a lot of continued reinvestment in that structure, we wouldn't be sitting here tonight. And I don't know why it happened or didn't happen. Obviously, by the time the current owners got it, they felt like it had gone too far. They'll try to hang on to it, but it didn't work out for them as we've heard. Here we are. So the Jackson Building has been in decline. The reinvestment does not seem to have been there. Could it be restored? Absolutely. We know that those things are in the news right now.

There's a beautiful building in Humboldt Park right now designed by Jens Jensen, a very famous landscape architect. He lived in Chicago for many, many years. He's world famous. It's a beautiful building. It was not a storage building, but it went out of use. It sat vacant in a neighborhood that was in decline for decades. That neighborhood is starting to come back. But what is it going to be? They're gonna save the facade, and they're gonna build affordable senior living units around it. They're buying properties around it. So there's gonna be a big building around the facade. They are saving that, and that's neat. And I love that. But that's what became of that building. It sat vacant on that block for years.

And in reading the article, looks like it took many more years to get the funding. They've tipped it. They've got federal funding. They've got grant funding. They've got affordable housing funding. But it took years and it had to be in such steep decline of in that neighborhood and as a structure for it to be eligible for those things. I don't wanna see that happen to Jackson. My last question is, and I'm not saying it's rhetorical, but I'll ask the rest of this board. I don't know. I haven't really been asked by many residents.

And by the way, I've spoken to many people who support the development and many I've heard from certainly more passionately who say, please don't let this go. But I've heard from many who support it who don't really wanna engage in this process, but they shared it with me and it sounds like others. But I ask those who want to save it, if not this, what? And if it hasn't been saved yet, who will step in? And and and someone said it and and I I don't disagree.

Now that it's made these headlines, perhaps there will be someone who steps forward. Someone with deep pockets, someone who wants to save this building, but who doesn't need to make a return on their investment because it is prohibitively expensive to do what they would need to do to bring it up to code. That's just a fact. So is is is it is it that maybe the public is asking us to do something with this? Some have asked that maybe we should, we the village should save it.

We'd have to step in and buy that if if it was supported from the developer and that would be a great cost. Even if we could, would residents want to spend village money on this property at this time? Especially as we face massive flood mitigation projects and lead pipe replacement expenses. I don't I don't know. But I I haven't heard too much that makes me feel strongly about the potential of other development.

I'd love to see it, but it feels to me like this building hasn't done its work over time to invest in it, to keep it something that we'd all like it to be. And I'm not so sure this town is is is really interested in seeing it sit there on and not utilized because it doesn't sound like the structure is gonna be able to do much any for for much longer. So those are just some questions that I have. And that's it for my statement.

Thank you, Trustee Augustine. Seeing no other comments by the trustees, I'll be much briefer than I than I thought I was going to be. I do wanna say a few things and I understand the emotions. I understand the people coming out with really the idea of saving Jackson Square. Again, as we started out, that really wasn't put before the board tonight.

What was put before tonight is what is the appropriate building for this property. And I really fear that this save Jackson Square has consumed so much and consumed the plan commission and that we lost sight of really what's appropriate for this property. And since we know as a board that we can't save Jackson Square, we're like, okay, well then this has to be approved. And I appreciate what the plan commission does. I appreciate what the plan commission did in this case, except I have concerns.

I also have the easy role. I don't vote tonight. I only vote if it's a three three tie. And so it's easy for me to to to say things when I don't have to vote. But I can tell you, as trustee Augustine said, there's stretching and contracting that goes on. I'm very fearful of this height being stretched. I think that what trustee Gale said, the 14 South Ashland, the 40 South Ashland, Those properties are in the 50 foot range. That's what I think is appropriate. I'm not looking at this site in particular. I'm looking just for building or near their adjacent to the railroad tracks.

That to me is what is appropriate. 75 feet isn't. And I don't I'm not real comfortable moving a text amendment to say now 75 feet is. And the next developer to come in and say, well, you gave them 75, let's do 80. I would much rather this board send to the plan commission.

Okay. We think that was stretching a little too far. Let's get back to 40 South Ashland, 14 South Ashland, and use those as our guides and not use this that I do believe will pass, unanimously by this board. I I don't think this should be used by developers going forward. There's another thing that was discussed in parking.

And I think a lot of it was discussed because of the concerns I had and expressed to the developer. And he did the developer did their job in saying, hey, here's some other buildings. And I did speak with the people in those other buildings and they say, there's enough parking that they as the gentleman came, he wrote us and said, in his building, there's there's there's parking. Parking is a concern to mine as trustee Thompson said, because the legislature in Illinois did pass a a a new law that says if it's close to a transportation center and all metro stations are defined as a transportation center, we cannot regulate parking for a developer. But we can and we absolutely should in this building should absolutely be included in it.

That the purchasers understand they are prohibited from parking overnight on our streets. They are prohibited from parking in our village lots. The older buildings, the one that's next to this, can get a parking sticker. Our code specifically says, and, Charity, you may know the year, a building has to be constructed prior to

'93, I believe.

1993 for their residents to use our parking facility. The reason was because the board in '93 understood that developers will push them into our parking and we don't have enough of it. So I'd like to see an ordinance on the parking changed where the developers have to tell their purchasers that they're limited to whatever parking is provided by the developer and that's going for in perpetuity. We also right now allow residents to call in and park overnight, five nights a week. I think that's probably high for any resident.

But again, I would like to see that changed so that new development after 01/01/2026, does those residents can't call in and park overnight. We don't need 39 residents parking on 6th Avenue or 7th Avenue a couple of nights a week. That's not fair to the residents. And again, the developers confident that he has enough parking. I'll I'll I'll believe that. I'm I'm fine with that. But that is something that I I do think we should look at. Lastly, I'm very happy to hear that Teresa is able to relocate the retail. I'm very concerned about the retail. The developer is a tenant coming before the Planning Commission tomorrow to change our retail rules.

I think that's a terrible idea. I think we need to start protecting our retail in the core business district. And I hope that the planning commission, will look at that very seriously. So with that, I would ask for a roll call vote.

Trustee O'Brien. Aye. Trustee Peterson.

Aye.

Trustee Gail. Aye.

Trustee Augustine?

Aye. Trustee McGee? Aye.

Trustee Thompson?

Aye. Aye.

And that passes unanimously. Next up is public comments on matters not on tonight's agenda. So by definition, we can't talk about 114 South Ashland. But if you have anything to talk about that's not on tonight's agenda, and you can talk about what's on tomorrow's planning commission agenda though. That would be allowed.

I I just would like to note that when you bring prewritten deliberations to a meeting that was supposed to include public persuasion. It kinda hurts our feelings that you might have walked in with a plan. Just wanted to note that. What's happened to me if it is legal, it shouldn't be legal. And so what I have done is gone through the process to propose amendments to the zoning code that make what I've experienced better for the next person.

It is obviously too late for myself, but I am in the process and I will I'm moving forward tomorrow at 07:00 to propose four amendments to the zoning code. The first is a simple, in my opinion, very simple request to record the plan commission meeting meetings. We're in the same room that we do here. It's a very simple process. It's not a lot of effort. Broadcast them just like we do these. It's a very simple request. Nothing big. It would have helped me to understand what a plan commission meeting is. It possibly could have helped me to understand what was talked about in 2019 and why everybody loved this situation then.

The second provision is a simple provision that I think we need to make neighborhood meetings mandatory before someone puts an application in. I think that they need to have a neighborhood meeting so that they can announce to the neighborhood what is going on, give them some understanding what's happening, present to them what's what's what's there and going on. It's absolutely no burden to the village. It is all on the developer. And so it's a very simple thing to increase community engagement, make this process better, help notice.

The third provision is that I am proposing that these planned developments when these buildings are four or more stories are not allowed to share a lot line with a single family home. I don't think it's fair what I've been through. I am a single person on a single property, and some man with a team a team has been getting hours in front of this village, in front of these commissions, in front of everything. Why I have gotten minutes and had to beg, steal, and borrow to get those and been denigrated. There was a new rule made in this town to limit how much I talked.

This has been a miserable process, and no one deserves to go through it. I would not wish this on my worst enemy. So I am proposing that this never happens to another resident in this village for eternity, at least as long as you keep my law and use it. The fourth one is that no code modifications. This village does not denigrate residential properties until this project and 40 South Ashland.

40 South Ashland was a travesty. And if you go back and look at the record, they did not propose to break the setbacks in the planning commission. All of a sudden, when it went to the the trustees board of trustees, it was violated. They moved the garages seven 13 feet into the setback that everyone agreed should be 20 feet. And the actual ordinance, the letter of the law, does not include that. And so between that project and this project are the only two times in this village's history that we've denigrated a single family home. And so I want to stop that. I want I'm proposing that no code modifications to do something like reduce a setback in the direction of a single family home pass. No one deserves what I've been through. No one.

No one. No one. And the fact that I can't get elected officials to have a conversation with me, return emails about serious concerns I have, and no one can explain to me why this process has been so abusive to me. No one can help me with this process. It's been horrific, and I don't want this to ever happen to another person ever. And so I am doing what I should. I am going through the legal process to ask to change this in this village so that this does not happen again. And this is not anti development. This is respecting what's there, and that's already in the code, and that's already there. There is no need to break setbacks to build these things bigger.

There is no need to give them millions and more dollars, millions and more hundreds of more square feet to do this at the expense of residents that are already here that have already paid, and it's just not right. And so I'm doing my effort. I am being a democratic person and attempting to fix what I see as wrong. And so anyone here to support me, I have four positions on change.org. If you search LaGrange, you will see them. Feel free to agree with any or all of them. Feel free to oppose them. Feel free to come tomorrow night and agree with them or oppose them. But I'm that is what I'm doing to fix the situation. I am for the next guy. I understand what legacy is. I understand that this will do nothing for me, but I hope it helps one person in the future. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Laura West, LaGrange. A comment not on the agenda as I think it's time for just to reiterate how horribly our village failed another flooding test in the rain and to, just implore all the work that can be done. We need more. We need it now. We need it. We needed it fifty years ago. We continue to need action. It's just making it worse. A January flood, you know, unheard of. So we're gonna keep getting them. Thank you for all your work on it. And, the sooner the better. Let's please continue, that path as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Laura. Seeing no other public comments, any trustee comments? Trustee Eichstein.

Thank you, president Kukler. First, to mister Robinson's disappointment with prepared comments. I had quite a bit of prepared comment. I'm sorry to hear that if if it was anything that I did that you may have felt insulted by that. I felt it was very important to put things together so I could get through a lot of information that I thought would be important to share.

I often speak off the cuff. I spoke quite a bit off the cuff tonight, but I had some prepared. So and I have met with you and I have tried my best to have good discussions. And I'm sorry for, what goes on with you, but I, you know, stated the reasons for why I needed to support it. Secondly, with miss West, the flooding that we saw recently, was compounded by the fact that I think our leaf program, is a problem.

And I've talked about it before, and I hope that this board can revisit it again. We had a snow before we were done picking up our leaves, which we allow people to put on their streets. That prevented us from picking them up soon enough. And then the one two punch, the two punch, is that we had heavy rains in January, which no one expects either. So it made it very difficult and that added to the problems, especially in areas where we don't usually see flooding. So I hope that this board can take a look and revisit our leaf program and change it in such a way that our leaves no longer contribute to the problems with flooding.

Thank you, trustee Augustine. Seeing no other trustee comments, I would entertain a motion to adjourn or I guess all in favor of adjourning at, 10:50, please say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Any opposed? And we adjourned at 10:50. We will be back in two weeks. Thank you.

I don't know.

But it's valid.