06/24/96 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 1670, Minutes June 24, 1996 Page 6 previous occupancies, there had never been as many as 100 people living on the site as there would be with current plans, but even so, her family's activities were restricted then and their property trespassed. She felt the building did have asbestos and wished to know how neighbors would be protected when it is razed. She noted that a complete fence is not shown on the plans. She also said the development would be too dense, particularly if the other three apartment complexes in the immediate area are taken into account. She felt there would be too many cars for the number of parking spaces available. She referred to a newspaper article in which Mr. Aboussie and Mr. W. A. Thomas were cited for diverting HUD funds on another project. Mr. Martin Spizman, 8136 Stanford, said he was in shock at what he has heard. He felt when the rabbin- ical college was on the site, neighbors felt safe and the cemetery was safe. He suggested the present plans will protect the cemetery, whereas trees in front of the cemetery now make it difficult to observe. He pointed out that Mr. Aboussie has provided a center drive for the cemetery in addition to plenty of parking. He said the proposed plans are beautiful, and suggested that tenants paying market rent will not want to damage the buildings or leave trash around. He pointed out that other apartments in the area rent for about half that proposed for these, and that this plan would be much better than a commer- cial development that might generate a great deal of traffic. He urged Council to approve the site plan. Ms. Pat Hatchett, 1131 Burch, understood the interest in having this site developed, but she did not feel an apartment complex was the answer. She suggested a low-use commercial operation, such as offices. She felt the neighborhood was stabilized now, but apartment dwellers often change frequently and stabilization is harder to achieve. She suggested that Council deny this project. Mr. Schoomer moved to lift this item from the table. Mr. Wagner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Wagner said he had the highest regard for Mr. Aboussie and his associates for their record of devel- opments in the St. Louis area, and appreciated them taking the time to talk with the affected neighbor- hood groups. He also hoped Mr. Aboussie will have future activities in University City. However, for many reasons, he felt the proposed project is not right for University City, and he will oppose it. Mr. Ware said he visited several neighbors on Burch Lane; in addition, he walked the site and made several observations in an attempt to be objective and consider all points of view. Everyone he spoke with was completely opposed to adding more people to this area, so he saw it as a density issue. Mr. Lieberman said one concern regarding this project was density, and although a restricted covenent was proposed to limit occupancy to three per apartment, he felt that probably was not enforceable, with a potential for many more than 96 tenants. A second concern was possible cemetery vandalism, since the cemetery would be surrounded on all four sides. A third concern was the matter of onsite security which he felt had not been adequately addressed. He said assurances about certain things should have been given but couldn't be because they may not be legally enforceable. He said he could not vote for a project with so many unanswered questions about impact on the neighborhood and Olive Boulevard.