variance

I had a good conversation with Jamil Alam about the BOA application for
the Howard's property. He confirmed that indeed he no longer has a
contract on the Howard property, and he is not at all interested in
pursuing a variance from the BOA without a letter of support from the
neighborhood.

In this conversation, he told me that he has gotten very mixed messages
from individuals in this neighborhood about the desire for mixed use,

Good points, Patrick.

I am just so fascinated about all this discussion (like the ones about the
hangar) - about what "we" should do with the property at old Howard's and old
Parkers.

To my knowledge "we" have not purchased that property (just like we did not own
the hangar).

If/when Endeavor passes on the Howard/Parker property (I assume they will not go
through with buying the property at this point) the property will go back on the

Patrick -

Martin Thomen wrote:
> So the headline on the website says "Success"- on what exactly I'm
> really not sure. Success in driving away a developer who obviously
> values the neighborhood? Success in refusing to negotiate?

I'm really not trying to be mean, but calling the vote last night a
"Success" for the folks opposed to granting a variance shows a very high
level of inexperience with these sorts of processes. Specifically, if

Sebastian -On Oct 1, 2007, at 10:36 PM, Mary Patrick wrote:

Sebastian,

Congratulations. What a masterful job you did this evening of managing what
turned out to be a most civil, productive and exemplary meeting of neighbors
who care for their neighborhood.

And, I was so heartened to know how many people in the neighborhood are willing
to attend and participate. What a lovely surpise. Perhaps, we can become a
very viable neighborhood in terms of numbers of participants in the NA process.

Hello everybody. We had an amazing turnout at our meeting tonight --
more than 150 people turned out to decide whether we, as a neighborhood,
should support a compatibility variance for the Parker and Howard's
sites.

I will admit that I was afraid this would be a contentious meeting, but
it wasn't -- everybody was civil and respectful. I am so proud to live
in this neighborhood with so many smart and engaged people.

Kelly Hall wrote:
> Also, I have never been able to quite understand why
> Endeavor would be telling us that it's either the
> variance or no retail.

As far as I know, Endeavor has never said "it's either the variance or
no retail". What Endeavor has been saying all along is it's the either
the variance or no deal. They were quite clear about this at the NLNPT
meeting.

Although one would think 2 floors of residential above 1 floor of retail

Also, I have never been able to quite understand why
Endeavor would be telling us that it's either the
variance or no retail. Doesn't retail fetch higher
rents than residential? So if they can't have four
stories (3 residential and 1 retail) wouldn't 2
stories of residential and one retail be better for
them than no retail? Can someone please explain this
logic to me?

--- Clay Crenshaw wrote:

> John -
>

Patrick,

You forgot something: those delightful squawk boxes at the drive-throughs.
Remember years ago when the biggest issue we (the N.A.) were dealing with
was trying to bring an end to hearing the pages being announced at Leif
Johnson Ford?

Don Smith

-----Original Message-----
From: [at] [mailto: [at] ] On Behalf Of Patrick Goetz
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 2:37 PM
To: nnadl; Nndl@14gram. Com; NLPT Chat-line