Laserfiche WebLink
Session 1670, Minutes <br />June 24, 1996 <br /> <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />dense rental development will be detrimental to the area. Residents are appreciative that Mr. Aboussie <br />has finally met with them, but it did not change their unanimous vote to oppose the development because <br />of the negative impact they feel it will have on the neighborhood. It was also felt that the restriction of <br />three occupants per apartment may not be legally enforceable, particularly when a new owner takes over. <br />She said neighbors are concerned about the future, as they have invested in their own properties for the <br />long run. She urged the Council to deny this permit and try to find a different use for this property, <br />suggesting a doctor's building or a business that will not negatively impact the neighborhood. <br /> <br />Mr. Donald Wylan, 7354 Melrose, was concerned about density, suggesting there would be too many <br />people and too many cars in too confined an area. Other concerns were the potential for excessive noise; <br />the probability that renters will not take as good care of the property as owners; that University City al- <br />ready has 30% rental property; that it does not meet Olive Boulevard development goals as stated in the <br />Olive development plans; that it will not project a positive community image; that it will not increase the <br />value of surrounding property; and it will not enhance community resources. He recommended that the <br />site plan be denied and aggressive action taken to locate someone who will develop and manage the <br />property in accordance with University City's development goals. <br /> <br />Mr. Lindsay M. Cann, 6833 Waterman, treasurer ofOhave Sholom Cemetery, said he was concerned <br />about the cemetery's future if the proposed plan is approved. The promises given by the current devel- <br />oper may not be honored by a future owner, which could affect the integrity of the cemetery. If that <br />happens, the cemetery does not have money to bring a court suit. Another concern is for safety--the <br />front apartment building would make it impossible to see the cemetery from Olive, which means all kinds <br />of things might go on there that no one could see. <br /> <br />Mr. Rudolph Oppenheim, 7561 Drexel, president of Ohave Sholom Cemetery, said he talked to the <br />developer and his attorney, who said a fence could be built around the cemetery, but if it was fenced with <br />locked gates, it would be hard on those visiting the cemetery to have to carry a key. He was concerned <br />about the cemetery's safety from a visual standpoint. He suggested that some way be found to view the <br />cemetery from Olive Boulevard. <br /> <br />Ms. Roselee Lipschitz, 1149 Burch Lane, said her opinions are the same as Ms Locke's and others who <br />spoke against the development. Ms. Lipschitz said she was told the apartments would be one-bedroom <br />and now finds they are two-bedroom; she felt the City's occupancy regulations would allow more than <br />three people per apartment. She wondered if pets wlll be allowed, and who will clean up after them. <br /> <br />Ms. Dora Manigo Johnson, 1169 Burch Lane, had numerous concerns about the proposed plans, one <br />being density. A second concern was safety, especially as applied to demolition of the current buildings-- <br />she wondered about asbestos and other dangerous materials being released. Also, since her home is di- <br />rectly behind the site, she was concerned about property damage if anything untoward happened there. <br />She urged the Council to listen to the neighbors and deny this site plan. <br /> <br />Ms. Brenda Walker, 7405 Anrose Drive, spoke against the proposed development. She noted that in <br /> <br /> <br />