Scot, and Andrew et al,

Thank you for taking the time to compile some notes and distributing them to
the neighborhood. For the record, I am in favor of raising the zoning of
Dean Fall¼s property to NC3-65.

I must clarify a few points made in the notes:

Dean Falls will not develop without the NC3-65 zoning across the entire lot
because it is not economically feasible. He also is not asking for NC3-85
zoning because that level of development would not be economically feasible.

By code, a 65' building can be wood frame over a concrete base. For a taller
building, the structural system must be upgraded to a concrete or steel
frame. This makes for a much more expensive building due to cost of
materials and labor. Mr. Falls has hired an architect to conduct a
feasibility study for his property, and has learned that a 65' tall
mixed-use building will be the best investment for his money.

Mr. Falls shared with us that he might apply for a variance to allow a
portion of the new building to be taller than 65', so that it can "compete"
with a potential 85' tall building to the south. This taller portion would
be a tower or some other architectural feature.

I also must clarify the "meeting minutes":

Item 1: As explained above, Mr. Falls said he will not develop without the
change in zoning because it would not be a sound investment. No one
threatened to hold anyone hostage.

Item 2: There were questions raised about who the Miller Park Neighborhood
Association represents. A flyer was distributed to some people who attended
the meeting that stated that the community does not support the zoning
change. However, it was clear at this meeting that much of the community
strongly supports the zoning change. Mr. Falls has the support of the
neighbors directly adjacent to the property. The Miller Park Neighborhood
Association notes are extremely one-sided and do not mention the support
that Mr. Falls received. If the Miller Park Neighborhood Association is only
going to represent one opinion, then it cannot say that it represents the
community.

Item 3: There was a question about Mr. Falls' stewardship of the property
which was strongly responded to by several long-term residents of the
neighborhood. Neighbors attested to the improvements that Mr. Falls has
managed to instill on the property since he has acquired it. Long-term
neighbors are confident of Mr. Falls¼ ability as a landowner.

Item 4: I don't have any comment except that the opinions of people who did
attend this meeting as long-term residents, (most of whom are black,
incidentally), have not been represented in these notes.

Item 5: There was a discussion about the transition of the building toward
the lower zoning area. Many neighbors supported the NC3-65 zoning and about
an equal number were opposed to it.

Item 6: This item was not a part of the meeting. Input is essential; this is
why the meeting happened. However, the flip side of voicing an opinion is to
listen to other opinions. Good communities are made up of a variety of
opinions. We cannot continue to misrepresent the wishes of the community if
we want to represent the neighborhood.

And, may I suggest that a more neutral party be enlisted to record meeting
minutes in the future.
 

Thank you,
 

Karen J. McHegg
2203 East Olive Street
329-5484
kjmchegg@mindspring.com