Skip to main content

Vote No - Sigwalt Apartments, 11 Variances Too Many

76 Comments

K
Kate Erickson
8 years ago Featured

I am very concerned about overcrowding to an already crowded downtown. This will have huge impacts on the safety of this community with increased traffic and parking. This takes away from the reason many of us bought in Arlington Hts- the safety and family friendly community.

T
Toni Casey
8 years ago

No

C
Christopher Tokarczyk
8 years ago

No

A
Anonymous
8 years ago

No

L
Leah schlott
8 years ago Featured

This is definitely not what was planned years back when the property became available. Back then I was told that brownstone town houses were scheduled. That would much more agreeable and stable than apartments of any kind.

M
Michele M McIlrath
8 years ago

Michele McIlrath 114 South Kaspar AH,IL 60004

A
Anonymous
8 years ago

What many don’t realize is that this block was once a single family block, with a small surface parking lot on the southeast corner to support the AT&T building and a small commercial building and surface lot on the very north side. The parking deck was extended to the west above Highland in 2005 to accommodate the growing needs for the downtown. Since then, the Village has done nothing to solve the continuing problems with parking. Instead, they’re trying to push through more density with a project that meets virtually none of the R-7 zoning requirements. The planning staff advocates for a project that requires an egregious amount of variances that is in violation of the zoning code which restricts an unlimited amount of variances for a Planned Unit Development. The requirement is that the petitioner must show how they exceed other requirements of the municipal code. They have not shown that nor have they discussed this during the plan commission meeting on February 28th. The planning department slipped in a feeble explanation into the staff report right before the meeting. These examples were left out of the petitioner’s letter for justifications for variances relaying to section 9.5, thus indicating that our planning staff is actively working for the developer to ensure that our Village Board votes yes. This is the same planning department that should be ensuring that developers follow our zoning codes and ordinances. This is a conflict of interest.

V
Victoria Kingsbury
8 years ago

Voting no!

T
Theresa Jordan
8 years ago Featured

Please vote NO. This building is much too large for this site and doesn't fit in with the neighborhood. It will increase traffic and traffic hazards on the surrounding streets and I have children who walk to school on these streets every day!

A
Anonymous
8 years ago

This building, it’s planned use and architecture do not fit in with the neighborhood.

A
AlanZamin
8 years ago

I vote No on new apt. Development

L
Laura Putzbach
8 years ago

Too large taking away from village feel

V
Vera DeGiorgio
8 years ago

Please VOTE NO - Sigwalt Apartments this proposed development is not at all appropriate for this site.

L
Lisa Ragone Peters
8 years ago

Traffic on my street if terrible now. People race past my home going to South Middle School and the Vail Street Garage. This will make it so much worse.

R
Rosemary Sherry
8 years ago

The proposed building complex is too much for the property. There needs to be room for trees with an adequate set back. More green space overall is needed.

S
Surjit Randhava
8 years ago

I am not totally familiar with the details of the proposed project. However, I was disappointed at the March 7 meeting in which the CA Ventures representative seemed totally clueless about various matters, including the cost of the land.