[Maillist] MLK and West`

[Mike Ward]

Ben:

Thanks for your two cents. I agree with your commen,ts, though I still
don't think we want to get into the position of designing the project. Hale
will just says that's what he's offering to do if we go along with MF-6.

Mike

Ben Schotz wrote:

> Here's MTCW (my two cents' worth):
> But first I gotta understand what we're talking about. And for this
> purpose a short chronology is perhaps in order. The first meeting Mr.
> Hale had with several neighbors was at Bill Monroe's house about 3 weeks
> ago and was attended by only me, Bill, Megan Meisenbach, Phil Wiley, and
> perhaps one or two others. The first meeting which was for the
> neighborhood as a whole to discuss Mr. Hale's proposal was at Mark
> Seeger and Jeff Harper's house about 2 weeks ago. That second meeting
> was sparsely attended (about 11 households, I think), but a principle
> was clearly articulated and if not unanimously then virtually
> unanimously supported: the neighborhood should oppose any attempts for
> any more intensive zoning on any piece of property in the neighborhood.
> It was suggested, in fact, that this position, if adopted by the
> neighborhood as a whole, be publicized so that any person who is
> thinking of making an approach to the neighborhood would know our
> position ahead of time.
> In the current case, Mr. Hale's proposals regarding the MLK and West
> property, that would mean that the neighborhood would oppose a change
> from MF-4/LO to MF-6.
> At the meeting at Bill Monroe's house on September 11, Mr. Hale showed
> us his scaled-down vision for the property: 47 units, 94 cars, 68 feet
> high. It could be built either after an zoning change to MF-6 or it
> could be done under the present zoning with several variances granted by
> the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Hale would clearly prefer to go the zoning
> change route because it would require less time to accomplish, and
> clearly time = money in his business. And this approach, according to
> him, is also preferable to the Board of Adjustment, i.e. the B of A
> would rather see a "simple" zoning change to enable a development rather
> than a bunch of variances with no zoning change. But since the
> neighborhood, in line with our overriding principle, does not support
> the zoning change, the approach involving variances is the only one left
> for Mr. Hale with us. It was suggested (by me?) that perhaps the B of A
> would look more kindly on an application for several variances if the
> neighborhood went to them along with the developer. Mr. Hale didn't know
> how the B of A would look upon such an approach, but he said he would be
> more than happy to approach the B of A along with the neighborhood under
> one condition: he would require in writing from the neighborhood that if
> the B of A did not grant the variances that then the neighborhood would
> not oppose the zoning change to MF-6 to allow the project to go forward.
>
> With this as background, for two reasons I don't see what any
> discussions with this sclaed-down project as a basis could accomplish.
> Since the neighborhood will not support a zoning change, I do not think
> it can go to the B of A with the developer if there is a chance that a
> failure there implies the neighborhood's approval for the zoning change.
> And that is Mr. Hale's condition for going the B of A route with the
> neighborhood. Further: if, at some time in the future, after some sort
> of elaborate negotiations between the neighborhood and the developer, a
> project along the lines of a negotiated agreement but requiring a zoning
> change did come before City Council, I think the neighborhood's position
> opposing that zoning change would be severely weakened. If the
> neighborhood had essentially agreed to the project under exisitng zoning
> with variances, the Council's attitude might very well be "What's the
> big deal here over this zoning change; it's just letters on a map after
> all,"
> So if the purpose of "negotiation" is to work within the framework of
> Mr.Hale's latest proposal which he will take along with the neighborhood
> to seek the necessary variances, I think we cannot engage in such
> discussions.
> BUT if you are talking about the neighborhood first coming up with a
> firm idea of what it wants to see on that property and presenting that
> to Mr Hale to see if he will go for it, I think that makes a lot of
> sense. And if Mr.Hale doesn't go for it, perhaps there is some developer
> out there who will, and we can go out looking. This seems to me to put
> us in the best position to get what we want on that property.
> That having been said, I think it very unlikely that Mr. Hale will take
> part in this second sortr of such discussion. He has said more than once
> that he will not be a party to a process wherein the neighborhood
> designs the project. And that's exactly what we want to do. I also think
> the time-frame he says he has to stick with will not allow this. But I
> think he should be given the opportunity.
> That maybe more than two cents' worth, but there it is.
> In Solidarity,
> Ben Schotz
>
> _______________________________________________
> Maillist mailing list
> Maillist at judgeshill.org
> http://judgeshill.org/mailman/listinfo/maillist_judgeshill.org

___________________________________________________________________________
Subscribe online to receive home delivery or our new electronic edition!
Go to http://www.statesman.com/search/content/circulation/indexe.html for more information
NEW! PostYourStuff! Make your online Statesman Classifieds private party ads POP with photos.
Go to http://www.statesman.com/hp/content/classifieds/indexe.html to post your own ads.