05/20/96 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 1667, Minutes May 20, 1996 Page 6 In response to Mr. Lioberman, Mr. Ollendorff'said there was nothing in City ordinances that would pro- tect the cemetery on this property; the only way to do that is approve a site plan with that provision. The applicant has agreed to allow water service and access from the parking lot to the cemetery. Mrs. Thompson asked if the developer has met with the neighbors to discuss the plans. Mayor Adams said he was not aware of such a meeting. Mr. Munkel asked if there had been any preliminary feedback from staff.regarding EMS and fire access to this site. He was also concerned there were only four dumpsters for eight buildings, and the parking did not seem close enough to some of the apartments. Mr. Ollendorff. said the revised plan arrived late Thursday, so in order Io get the material to Council in a timely manner, a thorough review was not possi- ble. However, a quick review indicated there were still problems with refuse collection and other items. Mr. Munkel asked how this project fits in with the City's comprehensive plan. Mr. Ollendorff. said the plan for Olive includes admissibility of residential development but emphasizes commercial development on the frontage. This property is quite deep and would be more suitable for commercial development in front and residential development on the back portion, but that would be very difficult to do, so the best solution may be all residential. Mr. Clem Craig, 7409 Anrose, said he lives directly south of the planned development and is concerned about noise and lights, and he hopes a privacy fence at least six feet high is built. Also, a very large dying pine tree on the property should be removed. In addition, the back of the property is like a jungle. In response to Mrs. Thompson, Mr. Craig said the developer has not met with the neighbors. Ms. Brenda Walker, 7405 Anrose, was angry that the developer sent a representative only once to the meetings to address residents' concerns. She said even though the number of apartments was reduced, the development is still too dense. She feels it will not be a quality development and will attract people who will not take care of the property. Also, four dumpsters is not enough. She pointed out two other developments on Olive without adequate refuse disposal, noting the messiness of the area. She also said the issue of HUD money which she raised at the last meeting has never been addressed. Ms. Linda Locke, 7340 Melrose, president of Musick Neighborhood Association, directly north of the proposed development, said members voted unanimously at the last neighborhood meeting to oppose the development because it does nothing for this part of the City. It is also too dense, and since Univer- sity City already has 30% rental property, no more is needed. There is no place for children to play, but the cemetery may be a~ "attractive nuisance" to them. Noise could also be a problem, as it is in other nearby apartment complexes. She said the mission of the Council is to do what's right now and in the future, and the proposed complex does not fulfill that mission. Ms. Roselee Lipschitz, 1149 Burch Lane, said her property adjoins the subject property, and she and her neighbors had received no information about it even though it has been discussed for some time. She did not want this dense complex in her back yard and said it would not be good for the City. She also wanted to be sure neighbors are kept informed by their councilmembers.