06/03/96 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 1668, Minutes June 3, 1996 Page 5 containers, increasing offstreet parking and preferably putting it in parking lots, shielding lighting from adjacent residences, ~abmission of open space landscape development plans including play/recreation areas, and the maximum limitation on density. He understood a new revised plan may be submitted. He said perhaps all the conditions can only be met by removing one or more of the proposed buildings, especially at the front west portion of the site. Approval may be granted if legally enforceable assurances can be given that all of the suggested conditions will be met, he said. Mr. David Dempsey, 325 DeBaliviere, attomey representing developer Louis Aboussie, noted the num- ber of apartments has been reduced from 43 to 32, and the overall density is slightly above l0 units per acre, which he said was low. He believed the set of restrictions were what the City wanted and that attorney Shu Simon had approved it as to form. He said two changes that were made improved cemetery access/egress. He said Mr. Goldman had also recommended changes that would increase the offstreet parking spaces to 61. Another change agreed to would change one parking area so the refuse area would be accessible to the appropriate side of the refuse vehicles. He said the developer will agree to all the changes sugl~ested by Mr. Goldman in his memo of last week. A circular driveway recorded as an easement will clear up questions of access to the cemetery; a water line to the cemetery will be in- stalled as will a perimeter fence around the cemetery. He said the $3 million cost of this project should ensure that the area will be properly maintained for many years; it also erases the question of what may happen to the cemetery in the future. He pointed out tax abatement has not been requested for this pro- ject, and rents would not be subsidized. It also replaces a deteriorating property with a fine development that will stabilize the area. As for removing one of the buildings, he said it would ruin the economics and the project probably would not be feasible. He said his client has attempted to meet every conceiv- able City requirement, and he asked for a favorable vote. Ms. Roselee Lipschitz, 1149 Burch Lane, who lives adjacent to the subject property, said she and her neighbors will attend Council meetings until Council decides not to have this property developed by Mr. Aboussie. She said there was not enough room on this property for the planned development, and the density would be too high. Ms. Linda Locke, 7340 Melrose, president of Musick Neighborhood Association (north of the proposed development) suggested that the discourtesy shown by the developer to the adjacent neighborhoods may be emblematic of his attitude toward the project and its location. She said neighbors felt this develop- ment would not only not stabilize the area but would destabilize it in 10 or 15 years. Neighbors are very concerned about puttiag more rental property in this area which will only increase the noise, density, litter, etc., and decrease property values. Musick voted unanimously at its last meeting to oppose the project, and if necessary, a petition could be circulated to back that up. Neighbors were also concerned about the cemetery since children in the development may find it an "attractive nuisance." She urged Council to deny this request even though it may have met all requirements, as it is not in the best interests of University City nor adjacent neighborhoods. Mrs. Thompson asked if residents had met with the developer. Ms. Locke said that has not been done as this is the first time the developer has attended; however, neighbors have looked at the development plans previously submitted, and the density is unacceptable. Mrs. Thompson asked if the neighbors could not now accept the plan since changes were