[{"MatterHistoryId":80597,"MatterHistoryGuid":"D02AB5F3-623A-434A-8E62-00AB1B9E8BFA","MatterHistoryLastModifiedUtc":"2024-03-27T18:11:23.2","MatterHistoryRowVersion":"AAAAAAC/rec=","MatterHistoryEventId":3580,"MatterHistoryAgendaSequence":6,"MatterHistoryMinutesSequence":6,"MatterHistoryAgendaNumber":null,"MatterHistoryVideo":195825,"MatterHistoryVideoIndex":42,"MatterHistoryVersion":"1","MatterHistoryAgendaNote":null,"MatterHistoryMinutesNote":null,"MatterHistoryActionDate":"2024-03-19T00:00:00","MatterHistoryActionId":386,"MatterHistoryActionName":"Tabled","MatterHistoryActionText":"This item is scheduled for a special called meeting on April 2nd, 2024 at 1:30pm.","MatterHistoryActionBodyId":197,"MatterHistoryActionBodyName":"Board of Zoning Adjustments","MatterHistoryPassedFlag":null,"MatterHistoryPassedFlagName":null,"MatterHistoryRollCallFlag":0,"MatterHistoryFlagExtra":null,"MatterHistoryTally":null,"MatterHistoryAccelaRecordId":null,"MatterHistoryConsent":0,"MatterHistoryMoverId":null,"MatterHistoryMoverName":null,"MatterHistorySeconderId":null,"MatterHistorySeconderName":null,"MatterHistoryMatterStatusId":138},{"MatterHistoryId":80811,"MatterHistoryGuid":"DC9F2660-1E07-4036-B802-958322B92E0E","MatterHistoryLastModifiedUtc":"2024-04-04T18:33:32.737","MatterHistoryRowVersion":"AAAAAADAKpg=","MatterHistoryEventId":3613,"MatterHistoryAgendaSequence":6,"MatterHistoryMinutesSequence":6,"MatterHistoryAgendaNumber":null,"MatterHistoryVideo":196414,"MatterHistoryVideoIndex":30,"MatterHistoryVersion":"1","MatterHistoryAgendaNote":null,"MatterHistoryMinutesNote":null,"MatterHistoryActionDate":"2024-04-02T00:00:00","MatterHistoryActionId":386,"MatterHistoryActionName":"Tabled","MatterHistoryActionText":"Doug Gilmore (Chair): Our first request we’re all aware of on 516 Gee needs to be table because Little and the city have been meeting and got to work out compromises and we thought we might of have a good compromise as of this morning but around midday we got notice from the owner of that building Mr. Parnell, is going to come to the next meeting, the regularly scheduled meeting, and that meeting is on April 16th. We will reconvene about that.\r\nUnable to transcribe\r\nMonica Pearcy (City Planner): Yeah, we can just keep it tabled if there’s not going to be any discussion. \r\nDoug Gilmore: Motion to table, all approved, and denied. Okay, and that was all we had on the agenda. For those of you who came to talk about 516 Gee, please come to the meeting April 16th at 1:30, in this room.\r\nUnable to transcribe\r\n\r\nTabled","MatterHistoryActionBodyId":197,"MatterHistoryActionBodyName":"Board of Zoning Adjustments","MatterHistoryPassedFlag":null,"MatterHistoryPassedFlagName":null,"MatterHistoryRollCallFlag":0,"MatterHistoryFlagExtra":0,"MatterHistoryTally":null,"MatterHistoryAccelaRecordId":null,"MatterHistoryConsent":0,"MatterHistoryMoverId":null,"MatterHistoryMoverName":null,"MatterHistorySeconderId":null,"MatterHistorySeconderName":null,"MatterHistoryMatterStatusId":138},{"MatterHistoryId":80879,"MatterHistoryGuid":"1DF9A92C-C088-4A77-8299-3B0362FC5E3B","MatterHistoryLastModifiedUtc":"2024-04-23T20:15:31.13","MatterHistoryRowVersion":"AAAAAADAiRo=","MatterHistoryEventId":3581,"MatterHistoryAgendaSequence":15,"MatterHistoryMinutesSequence":15,"MatterHistoryAgendaNumber":null,"MatterHistoryVideo":197136,"MatterHistoryVideoIndex":4732,"MatterHistoryVersion":"1","MatterHistoryAgendaNote":null,"MatterHistoryMinutesNote":null,"MatterHistoryActionDate":"2024-04-16T00:00:00","MatterHistoryActionId":386,"MatterHistoryActionName":"Tabled","MatterHistoryActionText":"Scott Troud (Proponent): Board Members, I’m Scott Troud, I’m an attorney for JBA properties that has built this building, I apologize for my appearance, I didn’t know about this meeting until an hour beforehand, that’s not y’all’s fault I was hired a week ago. First and foremost and I don’t know what the feeling is on this but I would like to ask for a little bit more time to better reprise myself of how things have come together with regard to this building and to speak with the city a little more on it, I don’t know if that’s an option at the moment, but an hour was a bit of a short notice.\r\nDoug Gilmore (Chair): We understand this fiasco has been drug out for a long time, and there’s been a lot of interested people in this room to get it resolved. \r\nScott Troud: Yes, I understand.\r\nDoug Gilmore: And I understand, from your stand point, you needing more time, and I think that’s an honest assessment of your situation, and we can put it on for next meeting. I’m not going to call for another special meeting, we did that last time, and you weren’t involved in it, and I know that, but the Purnells pulled it off and we have a right to do that. \r\nScott Troud: Understood. \r\nDoug Gilmore: So, I’ll see what the board wants to do about tabling it. \r\nKevin Bailey: We haven’t even un-tabled it.\r\nDoug Gilmore: Oh, so what are we even talking for? But we can leave it tabled and does the board see any problem with that as far as? Alright.\r\nDerrel Smith (City Planner): The city will need to stop work on it. \r\nCarol Duncan (City Treasurer): I mean they’re still working on the building.\r\nDerrel Smith: Yeah they’ll have to call for a stop work order, before.\r\nDoug Gilmore: If you would inform your client to not do any more work, they have done work since, we’re talking about driveways, and sidewalks.\r\nScott Troud: Right, and that’s part of the problem, I’ve looked through what my clients have, we’ve had some initial discussions with getting documents out of the city, my understanding is that they do have a building permit, as the time correct?\r\nKevin Bailey: I’m sorry Mr. Chairman but if we’re gonna talk about it we’ll need to un-table it.\r\nScott Troud: I’m sorry, I’ll pull it was just regarding the work order. \r\nUnable to transcribe\r\nScott Troud: And it is a problem for me too, the fact that this is the 3rd meeting on this issue, is in itself news to me, so obviously I want to get this moving, quickly, I just don’t have.\r\nDoug Gilmore: We’ll call it a continuance.\r\n\r\nA motion was made that this matter be Tabled . The motion PASSED with the following vote:","MatterHistoryActionBodyId":197,"MatterHistoryActionBodyName":"Board of Zoning Adjustments","MatterHistoryPassedFlag":1,"MatterHistoryPassedFlagName":"Pass","MatterHistoryRollCallFlag":0,"MatterHistoryFlagExtra":null,"MatterHistoryTally":null,"MatterHistoryAccelaRecordId":null,"MatterHistoryConsent":0,"MatterHistoryMoverId":null,"MatterHistoryMoverName":null,"MatterHistorySeconderId":null,"MatterHistorySeconderName":null,"MatterHistoryMatterStatusId":138},{"MatterHistoryId":81073,"MatterHistoryGuid":"B6B1108E-1335-4C12-835B-0E2F92351B4D","MatterHistoryLastModifiedUtc":"2024-07-11T14:17:49.35","MatterHistoryRowVersion":"AAAAAADC9RU=","MatterHistoryEventId":3583,"MatterHistoryAgendaSequence":11,"MatterHistoryMinutesSequence":11,"MatterHistoryAgendaNumber":null,"MatterHistoryVideo":198440,"MatterHistoryVideoIndex":2465,"MatterHistoryVersion":"1","MatterHistoryAgendaNote":null,"MatterHistoryMinutesNote":null,"MatterHistoryActionDate":"2024-05-21T00:00:00","MatterHistoryActionId":383,"MatterHistoryActionName":"Approved","MatterHistoryActionText":"Doug Gilmore (Chair): Alright the one we have been waiting for, for a long time. Need to un-table.\r\nRick Miles (Board): Mr. Chairman I move that we un-table this to move forward.\r\nCasey Caples (Board): Second.\r\nDoug Gilmore: Alright, everybody in agreement with that say ‘Aye.’\r\nBoard (All): Aye\r\nDoug Gilmore: Come on up, Mr. Troutt\r\nScott Troutt (Proponent): Yes, sir. How are y’all today?\r\nDoug Gilmore: Good.\r\nScott Troutt: Good, since the last time that I was here, I had a pretty good opportunity to take a look over every single document that has come and gone with the City of Jonesboro. I think I have a pretty good handle on things as noted in the original petition. What we are asking for is a variance from the 60% requirement down to the 30% requirement and the reason why ultimately is that we had an architect actually produce the plans. Everything was, the distances were very clearly denoted on those plans. It clearly said that it was 30 feet. Looking at the actual size of the lot, it’s approximately 33% of the frontage that is less of course than the 60% that has been requested. My clients got a pretty long ways in this process before they heard anything one way or the other from the city. This building had been substantially completed whenever there was first any suggestion that there was going to be an issue with this frontage. At this point, we really can’t go back on what’s there. It’s going to be hard to justify my clients spending potentially tens of thousands of dollars to try and comply with the requirement and frankly, the plan that I’ve seen for compliance with the 60% rule. It looks legitimately terrible. I mean, I know that’s not necessarily a consideration for zoning adjustments for any decision but all it’s going to do is create a blind spot from the road to the parking lot. That option wasn’t going to work. However, I will say, otherwise we remain fully and very interested in coming to some kind of a compromise here because ultimately my client has a building that’s been built. The report is that it lacks paint I believe and a little bit of interior work. A lot of money has been invested in this thing and it would just, I mean, there would be an equitable problem if we didn’t come up with something at this. \r\nDoug Gilmore: Mr. Troutt you may or may not know that there has been a lot of discussion with this board, the city, and your architect. Trying to have a resolution before you were called in, the city and the architect had thought to come up with a resolution but apparently the owners didn’t necessarily agree with that. Is that how it’s understood?\r\nScott Troutt: That is how it’s understood. \r\nDoug Gilmore: According to the drawing that was proposed to the city would add a wall with a walk through between the wall and the building and then have that front door added with an awning to make it look like an entrance which, it should have been there from the start, but yet here we are. So, what is the problem with doing that?\r\nScott Troutt: The problem with doing that is the additional cost and that it’s entirely redundant. It doesn’t change. It’s compliance for the sake of compliance and nothing more. It just doesn’t make a lot of practical sense. That was my client’s objection to it. They remained a similar objection and I’m not entirely clear, I mean can a wall constitute frontage? That’s another question in and of itself and I don’t know the answer to that question. I don’t think that the city code is entirely clear about it. I don’t know that, that was ever an option to begin with. That’s part of the problem. But as I noted earlier, fundamentally we have an issue of equity here. My client, and I know there has been conversations. My understanding is, there was an issue here back in February. Again, the building had been mostly completed by that point. But in any event, a stop work order wasn’t actually issued. It appears all the way up until the prior board meeting here. So, that is a big part of the issue is just trying to you know, salvage the costs here and for that matter, trying not to do something that, just-\r\nDoug Gilmore: I understand, your situation. They don’t want to spend any more money and that’s what it comes down to.\r\nScott Troutt: And that’s not the case-\r\nDoug Gilmore: Now well, let’s talk about what do they want to do? Are they going to add a front to the building? Are they just going to leave it like it is?\r\nScott Troutt: Alright, as in adding a door there-\r\nDoug Gilmore: No, not a door, a façade that looks like a door. That’s what the city and the architect agreed to make it look as if it’s a door.\r\nScott Troutt: As far as I know they’re absolutely agreeable to that. \r\nDoug Gilmore: That’s a good place to start.\r\nScott Troutt: Okay.\r\nDoug Gilmore: So the other problem is the wall. Are they just not agreeing to pay for that wall?\r\nScott Troutt: It is both, that and it is again that I don’t know if it was a solution that-\r\nDoug Gilmore: If it satisfies the city that the walls built, are they willing to pay for it?\r\nScott Troutt: My understanding is no.\r\nDoug Gilmore: I’m trying to get to the meat of the matter. Now, what’s been done about the utilities, the City Water and Light agreed to move those or does anybody know?\r\nDerrel Smith (City Planner): We haven’t heard anything, we asked but haven’t seen any movement yet.\r\nDoug Gilmore: I have the mayor’s office over there, Tony you talk to City Water and Light about moving those? Come on up here please, Tony.\r\nTony Thomas (Chief Operating Officer): Yes, we will continue dialogue with City Water and Light in that regard as to what the desire of the city is in regards to the movement of utilities from the front of that facility to an area that’s agreeable to both the city and the property. \r\nDoug Gilmore: Well, the question is have they agreed to move them?\r\nTony Thomas: They have not that I am aware of at this particular point in time. Based upon our Thursday morning meetings but we’re continuing to-\r\nDoug Gilmore: Do you know what their reasoning is?\r\nTony Thomas: Based upon the information we’ve received from them, they actually go from the closest distance to their pole, that’s the only rationale we’ve been given. That they make the connection from the closest distance to their source.\r\nDoug Gilmore: So, I just had some underground utilities ran on my property from an independent contractor. I called I called the city and they told us where to put it. We put it there, they hooked it up, no charge. So, was there or was there not in a discussion from the first about we want this to be at a certain location or did City Water Light just choose or tell the city where to put the utilities? How does that work?\r\nDerrel Smith: The location shown on the original plans was at the back of the building. That was what was shown on the plans. City Water and Light, apparently when their electrician called to set up the meter, City Water and Light told them they wanted it on the front. \r\nCasey Caples (Board): Does it show on the east or the south?\r\nDerrel Smith: It was shown on the east and that’s where it was approved on the plans.\r\nCasey Caple: Now it’s on the west?\r\nDerrel Smith: Correct.\r\nTony Thomas: Yeah, and the only rationale we’ve been given is the distance from the power source.\r\nCasey Caples: I mean everybody like a shorter distance, it’s always less money. I get that. Not always with appearance. \r\nTony Thomas: But we will continue to push the issue with City Water and Light in order to get the utilities relocated on that property.\r\nDoug Gilmore: Thank you.\r\nKevin Bailey: Mr. Chair, so I don’t feel like we are the governing body about the type of construction or how it’s belt. That’s inspections from a drive-by appearance, the building wasn’t built per the plans that were submitted by the city whether it’s in the 30 percent frontage compliance or 60%. Even the building that is there now has not been built as per the submitted plans. There’s no garage on the end, there’s no dumpster enclosures, there’s no walls wither side. So, while I don’t feel like we should be into the governing of the particulars about it, I believe we are here to pass or not pass a frontage reduction for 60% to 30% is all we’re here to hear today. And with that said, that all I feel like we should be discussing. \r\nDoug Gilmore: Well, you know you deal with something for as long as ladies carry babies, you kind of take a little ownership.\r\nKevin Bailey: I get it, I drive by the building every day my office is a half mile from there.\r\nDoug Gilmore: Me too.\r\nScott Troutt: I’m sorry, I don’t know if this is out of turn but I was going to offer a quick suggestion here. You had mentioned that it wasn’t built in line with the plans. I just want to be clear. This plan-\r\nKevin Bailey: That’s the sidelines Scott, building elevation plans call for a garage on the back end with an overhead door. It’s not there. \r\nScott Troutt: I do see that, the garage with the overhead. I didn’t see, but we’re not talking about, I know there was a subsequent plan that was submitted for the wall, but we’re not talking about that, we’re talking about the wall portion.\r\nKevin Bailey: There’s some walls on the original plan that are not there as well.\r\nScott Troutt: I got you. \r\nKevin Bailey: Anyway I don’t want the BZA to be arguing about the build of the project, we’re just here to vote on the 60% to 30% variance.\r\nScott Troutt: I can understand that. Absolutely, I actually spoke with the general contractor and I did want to propose a solution for whatever it’s worth with regard to the service intake. My client’s completely fine with building a safe enclosure that would go along with the building itself and kind of cover that. I know that, that admittedly does look a little off. Having it just hanging out like that. It reminds me of when they used to have services, back when I was a kid.\r\nDoug Gilmore: So, it’s been brought to my knowledge that the architect would help endure the cost of that added wall in the front of the building. To add the width the city is asking for. You know, if there’s a resolution to get it to sixty, that’s what I’m going for. But you understand Mr. Troutt that the front of that building and at this time looks nowhere near what a door is supposed to look like. \r\nScott Troutt: Yes, I’ve been over there, it does in fact just have, it’s a window, for all intents and purposes. And I don’t think that anything cosmetic like that, it won’t be a major issue with that type of cosmetic thing. If you were talking masonry and all that, that’d be different. I have not discussed it with my client whether or not that would be, I struggled to find a reason why that would be an issue. But I’d have to talk to my clients.\r\nDoug Gilmore: Questions from the group?\r\nKevin Bailey: The city is open to communications with the developer as to trying to find a resolution without granting this variance to my understanding? Is that correct Derrel?\r\nDerrel Smith: Yes.\r\nCasey Caples: Let me ask this question, I’m gonna break it down. It’s kind of simple for myself. Let’s say it wasn’t Bill. Drawings came to the city, you had to come get a variance because you’re reducing from 60 or you’re wanting to go to 33 percent frontage. How would the city have felt about the difference in the 60% coverage? I guess, I was trying to look at it as if it wasn’t there. The hard part is it is there. So, I feel like this board, kinda like Kevin was going down, we need to look at just the 60% that variance alone on its own, the meters, City Water Light stuff, you do it one way, you probably should have done it that way. Or at least attempted to. Is my feelings on that. You know, anything you broke or did differently that you didn’t submit and get approved. That’s a risk we all take right? I’m just kind of wondering how the board feels about just a reduction. If they just came in for variance and the building wasn’t built now. Is how I would look at it. \r\nDoug Gilmore: Scott step aside a minute. I’m going to ask if anyone is here to speak for or against this?\r\nKevin Bailey: So, before you speak, I would ask again that we talk about just the variance.\r\nPatty Lak (Opposed): Yes, sir.\r\nKevin Bailey: That we not talk about the construction because that’s not what we’re here to hear. Okay?\r\nPatti Lak (Public): Okay, Patti Lak, 4801 Forest Hill Road. First I wanna say that this has been tabled since March on that and so, even though Kevin was saying that, this has been a huge mistake, it never should have ever happened in the first place and so we’ve had these meetings over and over again talking about this one variance of 60 versus 30. But that’s not the only one that this building has a problem with. You know, it has a problem with a door, whether it’s a door, or looks like a door. We don’t have a door. We don’t have, the meters are on the side. The meters should have never been on this side of the road. The sidewalks, the parking there’s a lot of variances to this, so even if you guys are being on the spot right now to grant this, that building still does not meet all the codes that are supposed to be on that. Someone messed up. You know, and let’s just face it. The plans were given to the planning department. They should have never been approved because we know what was in existence and we can’t change something that has not just one but has 5 different variances. So, no one’s being accountable and you guys are the ones that are going to have to take the fall for it. But it’s not.\r\nKevin Bailey: No, ma’am we are not going to take the fault.\r\nPatti Lak: Not the fault for it, but you guys are the ones, all eyes are on you right now. \r\nDoug Gilmore: Well, we appreciate that Patti, we didn’t feel that earlier.\r\nPatti Lak: So, I ask you guys that, this is not really your issue. This is really the city’s issue.\r\nDoug Gilmore: That’s exactly what I was going to say. All the things that you have talked about have been addressed. There’s only one person that can fix the issues that as they became apparent, or I guess, it’s all the people that work for the mayor. They work for the city.\r\nPatti Lak: Correct.\r\nDoug Gilmore: There’s only one person who is charge of the city and that’s the Mayor. He’s in charge of taking care of, to make sure this doesn’t happen again. All eyes look to Harold rather, than this group of guys right here that picked up this problem unexpectedly. Now, we don’t like it any better than you do. We don’t like any of the code problems, any better than you do. But we’re trying our best to make this happen and we don’t need to reiterate over and over again. What we all know is apparent and the apparent lack of either interest in the property, they didn’t care, it’s just on Gee Street, whatever the attitude was. Somebody didn’t pay attention. In Derrel’s office, in engineering, in code, nobody, let’s just say this, didn’t give a crap it seems. From a West ender which I am. So we’re not going to reiterate that now. We’ve done that. So we’re going to face the issues that’s in front of us. And all we can do is move forward. There’s not going to be any bloodletting today. Nobody’s gonna be held off in handcuffs. It’s our mayor’s job to take care of his departments. \r\nPatti Lak: Well, I agree and-\r\nDoug Gilmore: And I trust Harold Copenhaver to do that. \r\nPatti Lak: Well, I do too and I just hope that you guys, because there has been mistakes before already in our city and I have to tell you is that was the building that’s out towards me. You know that big shed got built without anybody looking at what was going on. The same thing happened here. No one was paying attention that was going on. SO, this is not the first time that it’s happened. It’s the second time. So, I don’t think you guys are the ones that are to be the ones to decide this today. Thank you.\r\nScott Troutt: From what I can tell, oddly enough, Arkansas law sits out, MAPC’s, Boards of Zoning Adjustment in particular, as being effectively appellate bodies. So, what I am curious about is whenever we requested a variance we ultimately, one would normally have to do that off of an administrative decision form the city at least from how state law is written, and I’m kind of curious, I don’t know that the city actually did anything prior to it coming for variance. Did they? As in the city didn’t issue a stop work order itself? That at least the paper that we got said it was from the BZA proper right? Am I correct on that?\r\nDoug Gilmore: That’s correct.\r\nScott Troutt: I mean, in which case, in the absence of an actual act by the city that does simplify matters quite a bit, because we would have effectively been appealing from nothing. We can, in essence, dismiss the-\r\nDoug Gilmore: You can appeal our decision to an appellate court.\r\nScott Troutt: No, absolutely. What I’m saying is under the state statute, it provides the BZA as an appellate body from any administrative action done by the city.\r\nDoug Gilmore: That’s what we do. \r\nScott Troutt: Right, absolutely.\r\nDoug Gilmore: Every month. \r\nScott Troutt: Right, what I’m trying to bring up is I don’t know that we were actually appealing off of any sort of adverse action. So, it could very well be that we are just in front of the board at the wrong time. That is possible.\r\nDoug Gilmore: This building has been at the wrong place, at the wrong time for the last several months. \r\nScott Troutt: I totally understand, I really do.\r\nDoug Gilmore: The architect did, I think he was originally the one that asked for the variance.\r\nScott Troutt: I believe he was.\r\nDoug Gilmore: So we got it in a legitimate way. So now, we’re just trying to figure out what the next step is. And in order to do that we’re trying to get either you or the architect, the owner to negotiate a resolution to the issue or. We won’t, I mean we can’t these guys up here, are not going to take the fault. I mean, this is not what we’re here for. No, but you, see the problems. We all know the problems. They’re ever before us, somebody needs to get a situation in hand and have a resolution which I thought we had but apparently, we didn’t. And it takes the guy with the money writing the checks to agree to whatever this resolution is. \r\nScott Troutt: And admittedly there is a as noted, I did not expect the thing regarding the architect paying for it. So, it could very well be that would change, whenever I make a phone call promptly after this. I don’t know. The only reason I’m mentioning that is it may be a relief valve of sorts. To go ahead and let the city do whatever it needs to do. Which may not have been happening. Admittedly but at the same time, the procedure is a little strange here.\r\nDoug Gilmore: I really don’t know where you’re going with all that, but I can, let me ask you one more time to step aside. Anyone else who would like to speak toward the issue come one up, just the variance of 60 to 30.\r\nCatherine Norville (Pubic): Hi, I’m Catherine Norville, I live at 636 West Strawn and I work at 920 Gee Street. Since I do live and work in the West End, these codes are important to me and I would urge you not to vote on this until a resolution is made bringing this building in line with all the codes. On this or an agreement is done with it. I feel like this is opening a door to where it’s going to be easier to ask for forgiveness rather than permission. Going down the road and as someone who has to live and work in that neighborhood, this matters to me. I also wanted to bring up this was not listed on the May 14th paper announcement for the agenda. This item was not on there. \r\nDoug Gilmore: That’s duly noted, and we’ll make sure that doesn’t happen again. \r\nCatherine Norville: Thank you.\r\nJeff Spencer (Public): Good afternoon, I’m Jeff Spencer I live at 701 Floyd. I appreciate the opportunity to come up here and speak with you guys. You got a tough job, I know from experience and we really appreciate what you do. I’d also like to, I have not met the Parnells, the owners of the project but we really appreciate them investing in Gee Street. What was there was an ancient old house that was about to collapse and they definitely improved that lot. And I’m investing about 5 projects on Gee Street, one on Nettleton Circle. I live a couple of blocks from Gee Street, so, I’m very interested in what happens there naturally and obviously. I’m not here to urge you to vote either way on that variance of the 60 to 30%. But I think that it’s important to understand why that’s important. Why it’s there to start with 52 years ago, I went to work in construction. I’ve pretty much been at it ever since and I generally don’t always agree with builders and developers but I do see that side of it. How difficult it is to get projects done and have to comply with everything. But we have a new code downtown and it’s not full of suggestions, it’s full of law. Major difference is that it’s a form-based code where most of the cities in the country are accustomed to use base codes. You can’t build a five-plex in Ridge Point and use it as a five-plex. But if you accidentally did, you could easily fix that. You stop the use. But the form base code is a lot different, buildings that people tend to gravitate toward. They like them in particular because of their particular forms and that usually is expressed through traditional architecture. And not everybody is a huge fan of traditional architecture. But it’s hard to find people that just don’t like it. They’re drawn to the right proportion and scale. Our best example is that little bank there, on the corner behind the courthouse. You could put the ruler to that and you’d find that if that building were a person, the parts of the building would be split up about like a person is. So, the form-based code looks at our city and says where they already exist, we want to try and keep it. And they say where it doesn’t exist or where we want to make it even more human scaled. We make these changes. For example we got two streets that connect downtown to Gee Street. Most all the West End looks exactly the same. Built under the same zoning and codes. But they’ve said these two streets we want to make them even more pedestrian oriented. So on Jefferson and Huntington, you can come up to within 10 feet of the street. We’re closing up the street, making a room out of it. It becomes sheltered and cozy and comfortable to be on. Those two streets, you have to fill up 50% of the lot rather than 30 for the rest of the residential areas for example. So, they’re transforming that but they can’t do it as they build it’s done as you rebuild. So, we’re talking a century-long project. And if it were new and we made a mistake like we’ve made here, you say we caught it, we don’t do that again. But to fix this mistake we have to wait for that building to age out. A building like that’s gonna last. It could last hundreds of years if we wouldn’t tear stuff down. But most of the buildings on Gee Street are modern architecture and that building fits Gee Street perfectly in my opinion. It’s modern, it’s neat, and I would say the architect, he’s done incredible things in our area. He’s probably done more single-family homes than just about everybody I know. Stuff that other people wouldn’t touch and he’s overspent on them and he’s really done a good contribution to our neighborhood. So, I’m very disappointed to see that building didn’t front the street and that it didn’t fill up that 60 percent. If those other two streets are being transformed into a more pedestrian-oriented street, Gee Street is also being transformed. It’s commercial mixed use. Well, it’s not mixed use now. It’s commercial. Well, what is the use they want to mix in? It would be residential. So, Gee Street becomes a street that you can live and work on. Well, people don’t like to live on streets that are full of gaps particularly in a commercial area. So, that’s the reason you want more coverage on Gee Street because it’s commercial mixed use. So, yes, that building fits what Gee already is in many ways. A bunch of parking lots with buildings that are there and every building on Gee is not going to be able to be redeveloped exactly like you’d like where you fill up 60%, you get the parking either in the rear or have some kind of on street parking or collected parking, parking somewhere like that. But overtime, building by building is how that happens. So, my concern and I have to admit a lot of people say why is this such a big deal? Well, it’s a big deal for the reasons I just mentioned. It’s a long, long-term thing. You can’t fix it overnight. The form is just as important as the use. And we’ve had several new projects and to be honest we’ve not really hit the form on any of them yet. And there’s just a point where you gotta put your foot down. There’s a story that always comes to my mind about a teacher who couldn’t handle her students and one day she asked the kids, why don’t you guys act like Miss Brown’s class? And they said, Miss Brown won’t put up with it. Well, I guess what I’m saying in the West End, we’re tired of codes not being followed because they do have the force of law and in the long run, if people understand the form-based code, you’re gonna build stuff that’s extremely valuable. You’re going to build in the beauty and you’re gonna build in the scale and you’re going to build places where people like to be on their feet. And I could support it with lots of data but anybody can do their own research. Places that get this thing right are a lot. And in some cases the most valuable real estate in the city. Besides the fact that you halt that business of going in and wiping out our original housing stock. And then just building basically boxes with lids on the m. People get in, they’re happy at first. Everything is new. They can’t see out, their buildings are nondescript. It’s all parking everywhere. And we can do better than that and that code keeps the downtown are from becoming that kind of place. And thank you very much.\r\nDoug Gilmore: Thank you for your passion and all the information you have given us. For sure. Questions? Anyone else would like to speak? \r\nJeff Spencer: Doug can I add one thing? A thought that just keeps coming into my head is, I don’t see why you couldn’t figure out some way for the city to help pay, to get that street wall and the idea behind the street wall is a way to make the building look extended. Honestly it outta come to the corner and have a door through there but you, if the thing got approved, shouldn’t have and I know as I said right from the start, if I get permission to build something, I’m going to expect to build it. So, I don’t know how you’d find the funs but at some point, you know, the bucks gotta stop somewhere. Thank you.\r\nJeff Ranson (Public): Jeff Ranson, 1224 West Matthews Avenue. Mr. Bailey is correct, the issue at hand is for y’all to approve or disapprove this amendment. By not doing though, I think you’re setting the city up for a possibility of a lawsuit. And I know the city doesn’t want that. But maybe that’s exactly what the city needs, the city needs to start being responsible for the actions of its departments. So, if the Mayor has to dull out money because his departments are not following its own codes, then maybe that’s what needs to happen for things to change and thing to be done. Correctly in this city. Thank you.\r\nKevin Bailey: Mr. Chair I motion that we put the variance for the 60 to 30% on the floor for a vote.\r\nRick Miles: Second.\r\nDoug Gilmore: To drive this point, there is no variance, so I would suggest negotiations you need to come up and talk some more come on, but that’s where we’re at today.\r\n\r\nA motion was made by Kevin Bailey, seconded by Rick Miles, that this matter be Approved . The motion FAILED with the following vote.","MatterHistoryActionBodyId":197,"MatterHistoryActionBodyName":"Board of Zoning Adjustments","MatterHistoryPassedFlag":0,"MatterHistoryPassedFlagName":"Fail","MatterHistoryRollCallFlag":0,"MatterHistoryFlagExtra":null,"MatterHistoryTally":null,"MatterHistoryAccelaRecordId":null,"MatterHistoryConsent":0,"MatterHistoryMoverId":874,"MatterHistoryMoverName":"Kevin Bailey","MatterHistorySeconderId":221,"MatterHistorySeconderName":"Rick Miles","MatterHistoryMatterStatusId":63}]