Please keep the remarks to within five minutes.

Your case is going to be denied, you have two options.

Before a vote on a motion is made on your case, you may request that the board deferred case to a future meeting in order to modify the request.

Or you may request that your case be withdrawal.

If a case is denied, the applicant must wait twelve months to reapply to the sport and same request.

Appeals of decisions this board are made to change the court.

And I'd also like to uh ask everybody, or not ask.

I hope everybody has a great 250th 4th of July.

So with all that being said, I have June minutes that we're just shooting.

Do I have a motion to accept?

So moved.

Mr.

Manual motion seconded.

Okay.

Ms.

Rashid seconded.

All those in favor say aye.

Minutes are approved.

I don't have any revisions of the agenda.

I do have other business.

We will conduct a chairman election again.

And I've been sub question about problem notes.

We have no old business, so we'll be able to start in the new Ms.

Wood.

Good morning, board.

Just as a reminder to reintroduce myself in Lynnwood.

I'm the new development review planner with Lane Development Office.

So I'll be transitioning into the board administrator board.

So I meet you here.

Applicant is Dale Schmidt.

The zoning is RM15, residential neighborhood zone, which is a single manly detached residential zone.

Variance request is a reduction in the side and rear yard setback for an accessory structure.

It's a metal hurdle.

The applicant construct over there pool.

And it's the reduction from five feet to two feet.

This instance is very unique to the site.

So I think it will be best if you hear more of the details about the reason for the variance from the applicant.

And he has his representative here as well.

And so here's just a reminder of the request for the applicant.

Thanks.

For accessory structures, the interior side setback is five feet in the code.

The applicant is requesting two feet.

And similarly for the rear setback for accessory structures of five feet, and the applicant is asking for two feet as well for the pergola.

Oh, this is a typo.

Sorry about just ignore that.

It's two feet two feet.

Here is an uh aerial image of the site here.

Um it'll be back in this back corner.

That's the request.

Other side meant.

Oh, sorry.

Thank you.

This site here.

You have some photographs as well.

Um this is the narrative that was in your packet that the applicant can go into more detail on um the reason for the request.

So the site back, excuse me, the site plan showing the setback reductions with the interior and rear setback there.

There is some site photo photographs supplied by the applicant.

And some neighboring property photos.

And then lastly, the applicant did submit a letter of support from an adjacent neighbor.

Um, saying that they are have no opposition to the request.

Is there an address on that support letter?

We require an address to know how close they live to the property.

Just as it is in the second sentence.

I'm sorry, you need to introduce yourself as for the record so that the court reporter will have new spoke.

Alan Jones of Stone Creek Consulting.

Um Alan, can you turn your mic on, please?

It's on.

Oh, and let me remind all the board members today.

This meeting is being recorded, so we have to use our mics.

Uh that's the end of this presentation from staff.

Happy to answer any questions and to answer your question, Chairman.

It was um 217 Peak Street, an adjacent property.

Okay, and I can show you that on a map if you need.

Go back to the overhead, GIS.

Is the applicant present?

Yes, sir.

Come on there.

Well, good morning.

My name is Alan Jones with Stone Creek Consulting.

I'm a landscape architect and land planner.

And just to answer the initial question, the letter of support from Mr.

Josh Barr.

He owns this property right here.

And he also owns the property back here.

Uh so the variance request is for this back.

We'll call the top right-hand corner.

So the immediate property owners to this property are both owned by Josh Barr, and he is in support of our request.

So a little bit of history on this site.

And Stringer's Ridge is just to the northwest of this site, and an ornament amount of water comes off of Stringer's Ridge and has uh comes down Manning Street.

Uh there was a lot of flooding issues in his backyard.

Um he uh actually ended up working with the city transportation department to get additional curves built on Merriam Street uh to help with some of the some of that runoff issues that were flooding his backyard.

Uh so he actually spent his own money, I think it was about 10,000 or so of his own money uh to improve the curbs along Merriam Street to help with stormwater.

Uh but in addition, while he was working on the on the the other part of the piece was to working on some improvements in the backyard, uh, which is putting in a pool deck, a pool, uh, a kitchen net and a covering over over the kitchen and raising the backyard in order to help uh with flooding issues uh in the rear.

Uh from street view, you can actually see here from the construction.

Um at the time he was going to put a much larger uh canopy over the kitchen.

Um, but his neighbor uh at the time asked if he could have something maybe a little smaller scale, a little a little more modest, uh, so it wouldn't impede his view you know of of Stringer's Ridge uh from his property.

Um he said, yes, I would be I'd be happy to work with you.

Um so he kind of put the the canopy portion on hold for a little while and then it came back uh and was getting ready to construct the canopy uh of about an eight foot height uh with single sloped roof.

Um and the city came out uh with a notice of violation because he was within the five foot setback, um, and it was also considered a combustible materials uh within five feet.

Uh ironically, the fences wouldn't, but um, but anyways, um the the so he take he has now since taken down uh the the wooden column supports that he was working with uh for that uh for that canopy.

And he is coming back with a request to have that setback reduction uh for the canopy over over the kitchen uh 16 by 16, 16 by 16 uh is is the size uh of the canopy.

Uh and it's two it's you know, yes, it's it's providing shade for the kitchen, um, but the primary also reason is to help collect the stormwater uh that's raining, you know, that falls on this site.

Uh because right now, as water does fall on this site um over the kitchen area, a lot of it does continue to uh hit the saturated soils in the backyard and also it it directs to his neighbor's property.

Um, you know, I think by code he could technically just put up a free standing, uh like a 16 by 20 kind of carnival tent kind of thing.

It's not anchored to the ground, uh just using sandbags.

Um, but you know, all those uh canopies have pitched roofs, and so it would be pitching water onto his neighbors.

Um so he would just like an opportunity to put in a metal canopy structure over the kitchen, have it anchored to the ground um to have it more safe, um, and also a way to collect water in the in the columns and get it into the underground drainage system uh that's on the property, and then eventually gets into the storm sewer.

Um so that that's a kind of a long-winded way to say that there's been a lot of water issues on this site, and this is kind of the final piece of of getting the stormwater under control.

Um, and also the the vacant lot to the north that you can see in the picture right here, since I'm referring to it a point.

Uh, my understanding is the uh this will eventually be uh a new home will be constructed here, so it's kind of paramount to to get the water issues resolved on his property before uh you know before this neighbor begins to construct a home over on that property.

Um and I'll kind of let uh Dale or yeah, Dale come up and kind of speak a little bit more on some of the the other uh features of the backyard introduce yourself and what's your relationship with your street address.

My name is Dale Schmick.

I live at 225 Peak Street.

I, along with my husband, Derek Silvera are the owners of this home, and I am the applicant.

Dale D-A-L-E Schmick, S-C-H-M-I-C-K and Derek D-E-R-E-K S-I-L-V-E-I-R-A.

Thank you.

Okay, go ahead.

Uh thank you all for your time and service here today, your service to the community.

The unfinished lumber that you saw in the picture in the presentation has been removed as was requested by uh the city's inspector.

I have a current picture of that, and I brought copies if it's appropriate to hand that out there.

Yes, sir.

Just to make sure that the court report gets to copy that.

Very good, sir.

Thank you.

The the issue we have been facing is one of absorption as much as runoff all the water from the neighborhood lands in our backyard because we're the gully.

When we did the work we did, we added some special aggregate to try to collect the water.

We augmented the drains to pull water away.

And so what we're faced with now is I can't add more water to a saturated lot.

So we've got to finish the one little piece that didn't get done during the rest of the work, which is to collect that rainwater.

So the pergolus system we found has drainage in the in the uprights, it'll collect the water, bring the water down, that'll let us bring it into the drainage system and get it out of the area, not into the neighboring lots, which is why Josh and Lauren are supportive because we're helping their lots as well deal with their water issues.

My comments.

And then the only thing I'd like to close with is I kind of did a kind of tour through the neighborhood.

Um, and there is a uh, I guess a lot of uh properties that appear to be probably not in conformance, so this probably wouldn't be any less non-conforming, but car parts and shipping containers that are kind of sitting on property lines.

You know, I think if this if this case, if we were putting the pergola along the right of way along Marriam Street, I think this would be a different uh maybe a harder harder request or a harder discussion.

Um, but the fact that we're not putting it along the right of way, we're putting it on along an adjacent property lines or the the neighborhood that's that lives owns both properties as in support of this.

Uh, I think this is a reasonable ask.

Um I have a couple of questions for you.

One we got to start with whose district this is, and of course, Mr.

Bentley's it's not here, so I'll teach you it for you.

This kind of looks remember when the developer subdivided this plaque, which was done in July 2021.

If I'm not mistaken to get some type of variance, because I remember this vaguely from the five in correcting my assumptions on that, we said that you created the three lots, therefore you created the hardship.

Now, uh Mr.

Jones, you're well aware this board has to find hardship in this case to grant success back to Dutch.

Yes, sir.

Water runoff is not one of the criteria for the hardship.

So I'm having a little problem with the hardship issue, but just to topography to go on record.

I'd like the attorney to read the hardship statute into the record.

Sure.

It's uh 78.

I'm sorry, 3876.

I think it's that's the view.

Right?

Oh movement, sorry.

You make my this okay.

That's it.

All right.

Go ahead, sir.

Let's start up there, Brad.

Okay, sorry.

Okay.

Uh 3876 E uh criteria.

Uh, the Board of Zoning Appeals may authorize a variance from the strict application of this code to relieve such difficulties, difficulties or hardship only in accordance with the following criteria.

One, that by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a specific piece of property at the time of enactment of the zoning regulations, or by reason of exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations or condition of such piece of property, the strict application of this code would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or undue hardships upon the owner to develop their property.

Two, that the relief of the peculiar hardships, practical difficulties, or undue hardships granted by the board would not establish substantial detriment to the public good or substantially impair the intent and purpose of this code.

Three, that the peculiar hardship, practical difficulties or undue hardships apply to the particular land or building, regardless of the owner.

Four, that the peculiar hardship, practical difficulties or undue hardship have not been created by the property owner.

And five, that the peculiar hardship, practical difficulties or undue hardships relate only to the premises for the benefit of which the variance is thought would not be generally applicable to other premises in the city or the personal conditions of the applicant.

Thank you, Mr.

Trundle.

Mr.

Jones.

Yes, sir.

Could you enlighten me on what your hardship is here?

Um Mr.

Schmidt bought this property.

Did you buy it from a builder, Mr.

Schmidt?

We bought it from Josh Barr.

And he built the house.

Yes, sir.

So it's brand new construction.

Uh three years, four years now.

Okay.

So what hardship um are you claiming on this?

Sure.

Emil, if you wouldn't mind scrolling back up to the what the definition was in the beginning there, thank you.

Right there, uh I item one.

So, you know, the way this reads is you know, it says exceptional narrowness, shallowness, shape of specific piece of the property at the time of zoning that meant um, or uh exceptional topography conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional situations or condition of such a piece of property.

You know, not every, you know, for this one, you could say topography, because at the time of when he started construction of the of the backyard, it was uh the topography was basically a bowl and holding a lot of the city's water coming off the stringer's ridge.

Um so he's been working on improving the topographic issues with the flooding issues in the backyard and raising that elevation.

And the canopy was always part of the original solution for the overall stormwater piece with the backyard design.

Um, I think there's some flexibility in how you you know look at the the definition of a hardship, um looking at exceptional situations or conditions of the piece of property.

Um so with this one with uh with this the stormwater issues being at the bottom of Stringer's Ridge where all the water comes through uh with the low spot that he's been trying to correct.

Um yes, when he bought the property, it the backyard already flooded.

Um he's got pictures that show his backyard flooded before he started construction of his backyard.

So he's been trying to rectify uh the backyard by raising the site, getting it out of that kind of that flooding area.

Um, and this this canopy was that final piece of the stormwater solution to try to not only impact his property but also avoid impacting his neighbor's property.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Jones.

You're welcome.

Uh Mr.

Moore, do you have questions for the guy?

Is the use you should I'm sorry, is the pool already in?

Yes, the pool and the kitchen are already in.

Okay, so that means that this can't be moved to three feet and three feet because the pool's in the way now.

Uh it's it's going over the kitchen.

The kitchen's already also installed, and so the canopy is is going over the kitchen corner, not over the pool.

Okay, so there's no way to reduce the size of the canopy because it's got a fit.

Okay.

All right.

That's it.

Mr.

Brock, questions for the applicant?

Yeah.

Can we build the GIS?

If you would please use your mic.

Yeah, I used to live in this neighborhood.

I'm familiar with exactly where this is.

Um we can you pull it up a little deeper.

No, that's as far as I can on this, but I can pull the the Google maps if that's easier.

Or you mean zoomed out more?

Yes, zoom out more.

Thank you.

So being pretty familiar with this neighborhood.

Um I would say, do you know what the the depth of this slot is?

We could pull it up on GIS, but I believe it's your standard one twenty-five, one fifty foot deep-up, but I'd have to pull that up on the GIS.

Can we confirm that?

It should be pretty easy.

And I believe in the application he submitted the copy of the survey, so it should have the uh 100, sorry.

It's a hundred.

So um, I would say that neighborhood, it's not a standard 125, it's a standard 150.

Small.

So it's whatever 33% shallower.

So it's a shallowness of a lot would definitely be um reasoning, um, which also would be a reason to slide into your um five foot setback.

Um, and also I guess the intent of the code is to be five foot off, and this is on a corner.

So is it not a 15-foot setback?

On the right-of-way side it would have been, but this is on the private property side.

So it's on the private.

So this is only on the right, the right hand side.

Yeah, the corner is right.

Yeah, the corner is right here.

That's the corner that we're talking about right there.

And corner setbacks for primary structures is different than accessory.

So the house corner setback would have been bigger, but for an interior accessory, that's why it's reduced to the five.

Okay.

Yeah.

Well, so that's kind of like I was just thinking through the fencing.

Um, probably for traffic.

Like it's gonna make no difference, but since it's on the other side, so for me, the shallowness of this lot would give you reasoning to get a variance into the side setback.

Questions for the applicant, Mr.

Manual.

Yes, Mr.

Chairman, Mr.

Jones or Mr.

Smith, do we have in your submission a photograph that would show us the location uh of the completed pool and uh I guess it's an outdoor kitchen?

Yes, that this is the the photo that we have uh that you had shown earlier that shows the okay.

Well, if you want to approach and pass those out, is that the same photo you go over?

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

So the picture you're looking at that I just passed out is a view of the kitchen, and then you have a piece of the pool there on the left, and then the fence behind.

The direction we're looking in this photograph, we can see a fence beyond the outdoor kitchen, and there's a white house that you can see.

So where is that?

The white house is the neighbor's house right.

Let me see if we're back to the overhead, GIS, please.

Yeah.

Zoom out just one click.

Okay.

The White House from that perspective is gonna be 27.

27, yeah.

It's gonna be this house right here.

And while you're pointing, can you put your pointer on the corner where that outdoor kitchen is?

Right there.

So that's the corner where this pergola you propose to place the pergola.

Yes, sir.

Am I correct, Mr.

Jones, that the pergola is to provide shade for the outdoor or I guess protection for the outdoor kitchen?

It's twofold is protection for the kitchen, but also to help with the stonewater issues that are currently washing water onto the neighbor's property.

Now, this pergola, is it a is it standalone?

The proposed will be standalone.

It's it'll be built into the kitchen.

Um, it'll have metal post and uh and a metal roof.

Um, it'll be a single slope roof.

Um because the original design was a much larger roof configuration, and that's where the the adjacent neighbor was like, can we have something smaller so it doesn't impede my view as much?

So Dale has agreed to do a do a less imposing uh roof structure over the kitchen, so it's about an eight-foot height uh with a single slope roof.

So if there were no pool or outdoor kitchen, would you still be building the pergola to control the water coming onto this property?

I don't know if that's a fair question, because it is a fair question.

So we repeat the question then.

If you were not if you had not constructed a pool in an outdoor kitchen, if the yard were just grass as we see it in this overhead, would your solution to the groundwater accumulation be to build a standalone pergola in this corner?

Not the only solution, no.

Um would it be the solution?

No, the the the solution is everything that's been done to the backyard to raise the elevation uh and to help sheet flow water appropriately.

Well, would you need the pergola or an additional solution to water accumulating in the backyard if you didn't have the pool or the outdoor kitchen?

Let me answer that.

When we bought the house, we had no idea it was the collecting bowl for the neighborhood.

It was soon after that we started having the issue.

We've raised it up to the point that the yard level is the same as the house.

We're at a point that we can't make the ground absorb anymore.

If we had not done the pool and not done the kitchen, we would be having to do something to capture the rain that would now have to be elevated because the ground can't handle it anymore to get that water somewhere out of there.

I also want to point out, and by no means am I an expert in understanding city rules, but our understanding at the time that the pool was put in that the roof was we could have built the roof then because the accessory structure rules were still in its process.

So this is in a sense a matter of finishing what we had started and now having to address the you know the rules that have come into place.

Thank you, Mr.

Schmidt.

I want to go back to Mr.

Jones for a moment.

What I'm I'm struggling with, Mr.

Jones.

It seems to me your your contention is there's a water problem in the backyard that your client did not create.

A building a standalone pergola on one corner is a solution to dealing with the groundwater.

Or not groundwater, but the water that's accumulating from the rainfall.

And I'm having a little trouble being convinced of that.

Sure.

And if I may, I think the because as Dale mentioned, the original intent was to have the you know the canopy as part of the overall design.

And everything else on the site was designed to either you know filter through the pool or have other drains that were designed in the backyard to catch the water and get it out.

Uh this piece of the of the kitchen, he was all he was planning to go ahead and put that roof structure on, uh, as he mentioned.

Um but that got put on hold when when you know when his neighbor asked if he could do something a little less imposing.

Uh so that roof was part of the overall design package for the backyard uh for the designer that he hired uh to to work through those to those backyard improvements.

So Mr.

Jones, now that you've constructed the pool and the pad for the outdoor kitchen, in most of the backyard consumed either in the pool or this pad?

Correct, which is part of the and part of that design was to have the roof structure to collect the water instead of having to go onto the pad, which is now going to be now going onto his neighbor's property.

So as his neighbor gets ready to build on that vacant lot next door, and as you know, he has his backyard, he's trying to reduce the amount of water that's coming from his property onto his neighbor's property.

So he's not creating hardship on somebody else.

So you've you've constructed a pool and a pad, and that's going to put more water on your neighbor from raising the elevation when that kitchen pad got put in, it does have some of that water does go onto the neighbor's property.

So putting this roof structure over is allowing him to capture that water, not let it get into the pad under the kitchen so that way he can control it, get into the pipe systems that was built in the backyard and get into the city storm and get it and get it out of there.

Well, haven't you just uh magnified the problem and now you want a pergola to partially fix it?

Not partially fix it.

That was part of the original design intent.

Um, but that goes back to the original the original.

You can talk about the roof structure, but it was a much larger uh canopy that he was wanting to put over the kitchen.

Um so he put that on hold while he was working through with his neighbor, okay.

What would be an appropriate design that you would be acceptable for?

Oh thank you, Mr.

Jones.

Mr.

Foster, questions for the applicant?

Uh I have a question.

Yes, sir.

The moves rubs in the complex, how is that going to be for what was the water roads in the water?

Yeah, so the right.

So the the canopy that the system that he's looking at constructing has uh will be a single slip roof uh with a with a gutter system that collects the water, puts it into the vertical posts.

Will there be a drain system within those posts?

And that will tie into the stormwater system that's already installed in the backyard, so it'll get into the pipes and then take take it away back into the city storm system.

So you would drain it.

I agree.

Yes.

Okay, right.

Okay, yes, yeah.

Or no, no, I'm sorry.

Uh let me correct that.

Um just below the kitchen is where we've put in this aggregates.

We're going to direct the water into those aggregates, which then gets it into the system.

It's like a like a pervious rock system.

Yeah.

Like a French drain, basically.

Yeah.

Okay.

Is there a manhole for drainage in your backyard?

So yes or no?

No, sir.

Thank you.

So the water is not draining directly into the sewer system.

It's draining onto your land.

And so the roof structure is going to force all the water onto the aggregate area of your property.

Yes, sir.

And then into the drainage systems that were built and then onto the sewer.

Okay.

You have questions for the applicant.

You got a hold of that.

All right.

So just one quick question.

Is the kitchen itself within the setbacks?

It is, but it it but since it's not a doesn't have a roof on it, it's not considered a accessory structure.

Ms.

Rashi, do you have questions for the applicant?

No, I do not.

Mr.

Gyer.

You have a couple.

Can we pull up the topo lines omely?

Yeah.

Yeah.

There's your drainage soil that your contour signature that shows where all the water flows from stringer bridge.

Microphone.

Oh.

So looking at this the contour signature.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Do you guys Mr.

Guy?

My apologies.

No problem.

So as the water comes down the ridge, it goes to Merriam Street and down the curbs that you put in.

So you're only thinking what the water that's on your acreage.

And the lot behind you has got the same line, so it's not going to drain to you.

It's going to drain to the right on that picture.

Is that a question?

Yes.

Yeah, so right, right.

So the way that the general sloping of this of this area is from will to say from west to east.

Um, you know, because right now he could go ahead and put a I think it was like a 16 by 20 pop-up canopy and just use sandbags to hold it down by not anchoring into the ground, but all those tint canopies are are pitched roof systems, and so that would actually sheet that would change the overhead drainage.

So it would be pitching water in on both directions.

Okay, I understand.

Um you pull up the view from the package that shows the structure in the corner of the lot.

The blur from period does come in over here.

Yes, that's right.

Up one.

The overhead view.

So what am I looking at with those black squares in the corner?

Are those and are those on the property line?

So right.

So the the red is the property line.

The yellow are the the kind of the corners of of the kitchen.

And then the posts are, I mean, his his original request was to be able to do zero setback, um, putting it right there on the corners where the fence is.

Um, but I think he's able to inset that one foot.

Uh so that way, you know, it's it's getting off the off the fence line.

So those those would just come on the corners.

It would be kind of tied into the actual kitchen itself, so to speak.

Um, you know, so shifting this to have a one foot setback on the north and the east.

So that's one foot as opposed to two as requested.

Yes.

So the request is for a one-foot setback, not a two.

Yeah, and I think that was I mean, it's right there for you know doing the right in the language here was to do a one-foot offset.

Okay, no further questions, thank you.

Um, and now I'm a little confused here.

So for hold on, Miss Wood.

The Mr.

Jones, are you saying that the applicant is now asking for a reduction to one feet instead of two feet?

Yes.

I think that was the original.

I'll let Daniel speak to that.

We will do whatever you want us to do.

The closer we get it to the fence, the more water we'll take away from the neighbor's yard.

We can still meet the two foot.

Okay, thank you.

Um, is there anybody here that wishes to speak on this case for or be against seeing none?

Um I want to get a motion on the floor on this because I want discussion.

Would somebody pitch it for me?

This is Paul Besby's district.

So I need somebody to make a motion on this case, please.

I'll pitch it on it, Scott.

Um, just real quick the open question.

Do you guys have a survey?

No, sir.

It's a platted lot.

It was created in 2021 by the builder.

Not that I'm not that I'm aware of.

Okay.

I think you submitted platted lot in the application.

A motion to approve the setback reduction variants from 5 feet to two feet.

Due to how was that word in the for that for change?

Oh, from uh exceptional situation.

Exceptional situation and shallowness of the lot.

Very hard any motion.

I want to say contingent on the boundary survey.

You want to require the applicant to get a survey?

That's correct.

Okay.

All right.

That's the motion that's on the floor right now.

Do I have a second?

Hearing no second.

Okay, Mr.

Foster.

Mr.

Mr.

Foster seconded.

Discussion.

Mr.

Geyer.

No, none.

Ms.

Rashid.

None.

Ms.

Gregory.

None at the moment.

Mr.

Foster, do you have any discussion?

Um saying uh flood more.

I mean it's going more round.

So it is an explorer.

It affects everybody.

I know it's got said that build the build those lots.

And I don't know if you are aware of it, but that is a problem.

And I kind of I understand what you're doing.

So it could either come in flows and flooding into your home, which it did my own in a 25.

That's all.

Mr.

Manuel, discussion.

No.

Mr.

Brock, any discussion you'd like to add?

Um, yeah, I I just I agree.

Um and I want to say this lot is definitively narrow or shallower than the average lot in that neighborhood.

It is 33% narrow, which would I think kind of require you to get a variance for a structure like this?

That's my opinion.

Mr.

Moore, discussion.

Could we scroll down on the code here?

I think to maybe uh stop right there.

Let me read just one second.

Could could I ask Mr.

Chairman uh clarification on number four that the peculiar hardship practical difficulties or undue hardship have not been created by the property owner?

Uh check it you're asking our attorney.

Yes, Mr.

Trundle.

The the question would be he is now the property owner, but he bought the home, he did not develop the home.

So does that in my reading?

He he is the property owner that did not create the issue.

The the issue uh could you know also be part of how we handle runoff on that particular road, you know, city government wise, but it am I interpreting that correctly?

That he's he is the property owner, he did not cause this because he didn't develop the property, he only purchased it.

Yeah, I I think that would be if a prior owner, you know, created the conditions.

I I think that would under that not be held, should not be held against the current owner.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Attorney.

Uh that that's all I have.

Okay.

Um I have just a little bit of discussion on this case.

Um, I understand that the issue of the shallowest of the lot has been brought up, and it is a narrow lot.

Can you go back to the overhead GIS take off the contours?

If you look at this situation, this was two horizontal lots combined into three vertical lots created by a plat in July of 2021, done by the builder, Mr.

Barr, so that he could build out three lots instead of two houses.

So I'm not exactly and I know this isn't Mr.

Schmidt's fault.

This was the builder that did this, so he could sell more structures.

So I I'm not following the hardship of the shallowness of the lot or the narrowness of the lot, because I'm sure it was created by the builder who Mr.

Schmidt purchased a newly built home from and knew the dimensions at that time.

Secondly, I do have an issue with the water runoff.

I sympathize with you, but you've built a pool and a concrete pad for a kitchen in the back in a very near small backyard.

Um I have a real problem with how you're remediating water runoff when you've built a pool and concrete pad that's not permeable.

So I will not be supporting this.

And the other thing I'd like to add is I don't think that we should put an undue burden on the applicant by requiring a survey, which would be quite expensive.

So I'm also gonna not support the motion that's on the floor.

Thank you.

We're voting on 2636.

Mr.

No.

Mr.

Manual.

No.

Mr.

Foster.

Yes.

Ms.

Gregory.

No.

Ms.

Rasheed.

No.

Mr.

Brock.

Yes.

Mr.

Moore.

Yes.

And the chair votes no.

I have three yeses and five no's.

The motion fails.

Would anybody else like to pee a chit for maybe another motion or maybe change something?

Or are we going to roll it to next month for lack of a majority vote?

It's up to this board.

Motion to roll it to next month.

I'm sorry, Mr.

Brock.

I I I might have misunder, I mean you misunderstood me.

If the motion on the floor fails to receive a majority under our rules and procedures, it's automatically moved to next month.

We don't need a motion for that.

However, any member is free to make another motion that might very well get a majority and pass, and we don't roll this to next month.

It's up to this board.

Sure.

My thought uh is we're asking for variance and the size of that.

And there's some discussion whether it's one foot or two foot or asking for two foot, really uh one foot.

I think it's survey personally super helpful to your cause.

Because I mean, you basically no one has any idea where it's going.

Let's see if you're guessing between you and your neighbor.

Talking about the physical where the structure goes.

Yeah.

Any survey.

I mean, uh the f defense lines, the the property line.

Hold on, hold hold on.

We got a point of order here.

Mr.

Brock has the floor, so the court reporter can identify who's speaking.

Continue, Mr.

Brock.

Was there an initial survey with the fence on that that's a question?

Can I deal with every day?

Um when we bought the house, the builder already constructed all the fencing.

We were told by them that that it is on the property line.

If we need to confirm that, we're happy to do that.

It will take some time, but we all know surveyors are busy, but sure.

That's just a thought.

I may help your cause and may not.

Mr.

Chairman, is the floor open for motion?

Yes, sir.

On BZA number 26-36 225 Peak Street, a move that the application be denied.

I have a second.

Second by Mr.

Geyer.

Any discussion?

Mr.

I guess not.

No.

Ms.

Rasheed.

Any discussion?

No.

Ms.

Gregory?

No, Mr.

Chair.

Mr.

Foster.

Mr.

Manual, any discussion?

Yes, Mr.

Chairman.

Is part of Mr.

Moore's question to counsel?

Something that may have been lost in that is that list of criteria for exception is to be read in the conjunctive.

So the item that specific inquiry was made about that it not being the fault of the owner.

That's only one of the things to consider.

Okay, Mr.

Moore, any discussion?

Mr.

Brock.

Um yeah, and just this is just a general question.

Uh asking the board, like, is it our job to figure out ways to say no?

Or are we in the are we assisting with facilitating variances if they qualify?

That's a question just to ask the board.

Uh that's something we can consider.

All right, we're voting on Mr.

Manuel's motion to deny 2636.

Mr.

Guy.

Yes.

Mr.

Manual.

Yes.

Mr.

Foster.

No.

Ms.

Gregory.

Yes.

Ms.

Rasheed.

Yes.

Mr.

Brock.

No.

Ms.

Mr.

Moore.

No.

And chair votes yes.

One three.

Five to three.

Motion to deny is approved.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

Next case.

Next case, BZA 2639, located at 5943 Hickson Pike.

The applicant is Clint Wolford.

Zoning is CC commercial corridor zone.

Council district district three.

And the request is a special exceptions for a drive-thru facility as an accessory use to a commercial bank.

It's an aerial view of the site.

It's a vacant piece of property.

The narrative describes that the property previously was zoned C2, which did allow drive-throughs without the need for a special exception, but since has been zoned to CC with the new zoning requirements requiring this additional process.

Basically, we're selling the property to a um commercial lender that's coming to the market.

Um previously the property as you said was on C2.

We had site plans to build a um strip center there that had a um drive-thru attached to it already that was permitted, but we changed plans and decided to sell the property.

So we're asking that um since it was already zone C2 previously, it's kind of fallen into this CC situation requiring us to ask for the special exemption.

Spell your last name, please.

W-O-L-F-O-R-D.

Can you go back to the site plan, please?

Mr.

Wolford, this board has to take into consideration a lot of factors, including everything around it, public wellness, public good consideration, everything.

This to me doesn't look like the actual site plan of what your client or what your purchaser is going to build on the property.

And my issue personally is if we're gonna approve you to be able to put a drive-thru on this property, we need to see what the drive-through is gonna look like, where it's gonna be site plan, something other than an artist rendition.

If we have to make a decision on what we're looking at today, then the one condition I'm gonna put on the motion is is that this can't change.

And I doubt right now that your client who's probably contingent upon purchasing this property is gonna build exactly what we're looking at today.

I can't speak for them specifically, and that and that's and that's my problem.

You see where I'm my thinking is well, sort of, but at the at the end of the day, that is a site plan, it's not just a rendering.

That is technically a building sitting on the site as it would sit, presumably.

I'm gonna ask the their broker a question real quick.

Do you have any idea?

Yeah, you're asking him, he needs to come up and state his name for the record.

So our court reporter has.

What was the question?

The question was is this rendering that we're seeing here today representative of what they're actually going to build.

Can we state that to them?

I guess what he's asking.

I mean, to my to my knowledge, yes, but uh uh, you know, I I can't speak for them as well.

I do wish they were here so they could testify instead of you testifying on their behalf.

Um, but we can proceed.

We just might have to put special conditions on it or not.

It's the will of this board.

Mr.

Moore, do you have questions for the applicant?

No.

Mr.

Brock.

Um yeah, I guess maybe alleviate Scott's concerns.

You don't have a site plan with mentions on it, dude.

I do not know.

Uh I can tell you previously, though, there was a 12,000 200 roughly square foot structure on there that was 80 foot in depth with a Starbucks drive-thru on the end of it that was permitted by the city, and we ended up having because of some issues with timing on some other tenants, we ended up having to scrap that plan.

So there's been a drive-thru is already on this permitted on this property previously when it was you know, the structure that said that we were going to build.

It's pretty similar.

Uh, this drive-thru was over a little bit further over, closer to Jack's.

Jack's has a drive-thru on it as that's sitting right next door to us.

Okay, no further questions.

Mr.

Manual.

Yes.

Mr.

Wallford, is this on Hickson Pike next to the Jacks there?

Yes, sir.

Directly across from Publix.

All right.

That's what can so it seems to me that uh the chair's question's pretty legitimate.

And it seems like that that you and Mr.

Harper are sort of in a bad uh position because you're not really the one gonna be building building on a lot, and you can't answer for what they're gonna be constructing.

If uh we go forward with a motion today, I feel certain they're gonna be some tight restrictions upon us granting a permit that the new owner may not want to live with.

So this is a question to you.

Do you is it better if we pass a pass your request, grant your request, but put restrictions on it, or if we delay this for till our August meeting to give the new owner time to come in with some drawings that would alleviate you know our chairs concerned.

Because I'll tell you about what it's gonna look like.

If I'm going the if there's a motion to approve, it's gonna be based on exactly what has been presented today, is built exactly like it shows and ex on the ground.

And if it varies, then the permit will be invalid.

So what I'm really asked, giving you a choice, what do you what's your pleasure?

Because I understand that you're the current owner and seller and not gonna be the one to actually building.

I mean, it's hard for me to answer without these guys, like you said, without these guys being here.

I well, quite frankly, they ought to be here.

You're known to me as someone that's been involved in construction and development in your family for many years in his community.

So, you know, you're used to doing business with these folks and folks that are buying and want to build need to come in with their drawings and somebody that can speak for them.

Well, I understand that frankly, since it's already zones C2, and we kind of inherited this inadvertently, it's been a little bit of a hardship on us when we didn't have to apply for this previously.

I mean, the news the new zoning ordinance was not intended to put a hardship on us, basically, that has been put on us.

I mean, that's that's the reality of it.

Now I'm having to come in here and ask for something that seems, in my view, a little bit out of character with what is already there.

I mean, we've got a guy next, we've got Jack's next door to us that's got a drive-thru that was built four years ago.

I mean, they weren't asking them where exactly is that drive-thru going to be sitting where it's at.

So I mean, I it's hard again, it's hard for me to to answer your question.

Uh not with them not being here, but you know, and I don't know if um if um if we move forward that they do build it just like it is.

I don't know, you know, if they're gonna approve purchasing the property if y'all put that restriction on it.

So I guess we probably should wait till August.

You will consult with Mr.

Harper for sure.

Yeah, I'm just gonna ask ask a question, I guess.

So I think today's purpose, according to my client was just to get the approval for a drive-thru.

And then when they submit their plans to the city for uh the building and getting the permit uh during that process, it would be determined uh whether they were within code as far as the location and that type of thing.

So I thought I think they thought and and us as well that this was just for the use of a you know permission for the use of a drive-thru.

I agree.

So that's you know, my thoughts.

We can always ask Mr.

Trundle, our counsel for an opinion on that.

But generally, it's been my experience with the board that we don't grant things in a vacuum.

Or based merely on a rendering.

So Mr.

Chairman, you want to have our council explain Mr.

Chairman.

Uh staff has some information as far as the process and kind of about these special exceptions that I think would be really helpful to the situation.

Umily has prepared all of this for you guys, so I think it would be helpful if she was able to go through it before we continue discussion.

Such as to what resolution such as the how special exceptions should be looked at.

And you can go to 3875 D2.

And additionally, the um timeline of this project so that you guys can get background information as well.

So I have the criteria listed here for the special exceptions review criteria that I'm happy to go through.

Uh essentially, um, it's looking at the specific use at that specific location and determining um if there are any impacts to neighboring land or public need for the use at this location.

And so here are the review criteria.

Staff has um provided a narrative on our um recommendations, happy to go through.

Um, otherwise, I at least have the review criteria here.

Um, and that the exception will not endanger the public health safety or welfare.

Um staff's opinion that this is not the case.

The drive-thru is associated with the bank in a commercial zoning district where similar uses were previously permitted by right in the former C2 zone.

The use is compatible with the commercial character of the area.

The anticipated traffic noise and operational impacts are not expected to exceed those typically associated with other commercial uses in the district as well.

Um the exception will not endanger, or excuse me.

That was the second part is the development will be required to comply with all building fire electrical zoning and other federal, state, and local codes at the time of construction, which includes submitting detailed plans to demonstrate compliance.

So there are also additional drive-thru standards, which was what I was trying to pull up for reference that are required through the zoning review that um all accessory drive-throughs have to meet at the time of permitting.

Um, secondly, this exception is compatible with the general land use of adjacent properties and other property within the immediate vicinity.

As previously stated, there are um non-residential land uses and other commercial drive-throughs immediately adjacent next to the site along Hicks and Pike.

So there is precedence for drive-through facilities along this commercial corridor.

And as you can see here, some of the land uses, these are some auto-oriented commercial uses, um, commercial grocery store here, and then the adjacent drive-thru already, and also a church, which is not really considered commercial, but does have traffic impacts that could be similar in nature to the drive-thru at different times of the day and different days of the week.

Thirdly, that the um location is consistent with the spirit intent of this code and adopted city policies.

Uh the request is compatible with the neighborhood center place type recommendation in plan Chattanooga.

This is the new comprehensive plan that was adopted by planning commission in June 2026.

So staff is recommending to approve, and here you can see this location in pink is what the plan recommends.

So based on those factors, staff would recommend um to approve.

However, that is at the discretion of the board.

Thank you.

Yes.

Upon receipt of a complete application, the Board of Appeals will consider this special exception at a public hearing.

The Board of Appeals will evaluate the application based upon the evidence presented at the public hearing, persuade to approve standards.

The board must either approve, approve with conditions, or deny the special exception.

The board may impose additional conditions and restrictions upon the establishment, location, construction, maintenance, and operation of the special exception as deemed necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare.

Provided, however, there were an application for a variance or special exception involves only the addition to or an extension of an existing building that's not applicable.

It's brand new building.

Now would you scroll down to E, please?

The criteria.

Okay, the proposed special exception will not endanger the public health, safety, and welfare.

Back up in that main paragraph under 3875.

The special exception with business zone does not constitute an assurance or presumption.

The special section will be approved.

Rather, each special exception must be evaluated on an individual basis in relation to all applicable standards of this code.

Such evaluation will determine whether approval of a special exception is appropriate at a particular location and in a particular manner proposed.

Thank you, Ms.

Wood.

Okay.

Back to Mr.

Wolford.

My concern, and we've granted drive-throughs in several places in a CC zone.

The city council, for some reason, when they rewrote the zoning code, they changed it to we have to grant a special exception for a drive-thru in a CC zone.

I don't know what their intent was on that, but they put all this evaluation criteria on this board to grant the drive-thru.

Now we've granted several.

We've granted one I know for canes on Gunbarrel Road.

Um we've granted some other ones in some other locations.

But in those specific examples, we were able to look at everything.

And my only problem is we're not looking for everything on this one.

Granted, it may be a drive-thru in the area, but I don't know where they're going to build the drive-thru, how big it is.

I mean, we've looked at um Chick-fil-A's drive-thru.

We had an special exception on that.

So my concern, and this is just my personal concern.

This is it may not be the whole board's.

We've got to evaluate all this criteria.

And the only thing I see that's been submitted to this board is looks like an artist rendition of a site plan that you guys can't guarantee is going to be exactly what they build.

That's my concern.

If you all are that concerned about it, we'll move to the August meeting and I'll have a site plan drawn, submitted to you all that will show the dimensions and everything that you need to see.

Or the applicant be present to answer our questions.

But they're not the applicant, I am.

I own the property.

I'm the problem, I misspoke, Mr.

Wolf.

Or have somebody that represents it.

If the site plan is all that you're requiring that shows this is definitively what they're going to build, and this is what they're going to submit to the city for building permits.

If that's what you want, that's what I'll get you.

But I need to know now that that's what you're asking me for.

Because I feel like I I know you you you're saying that city you don't know what they intended when they did this.

I think it's a little bit ridiculous personally.

Okay.

I think it's overboard, but if if it's gonna suffice you guys that I get that site plan and say this is what they're gonna build, this is what they're gonna submit to the city, and that's what your conditions will be on it, then I'm happy to do that.

Mr.

Wolford, I appreciate your concern on that.

However, that's just my concern.

It may not be this entire board.

So but I don't I don't want to get it hold on.

Let's go around.

I haven't asked for everybody yeah, okay.

Mr.

Geyer, have any questions for the applicant?

No, I have none.

Ms.

Rasheed.

No, I have no Miss Gregory.

No questions at the moment, Mr.

Chair.

Okay, I'm going to open this up for discussion, Mr.

Wolford.

I've expressed my opinion.

I'd like to hear from my other board members.

It's up to this board, not me personally.

Okay.

So Mr.

Moore.

Yeah, I I would agree with you, Mr.

Chairman.

If if we're going to approve a special a special exception, we have to know what we're approving first.

And I think if the applicant is unsure that this is what the ultimate buyer is gonna want, I think it makes it it puts us in a difficult position.

Uh I think it we could either hurt him or help him.

So that's my comment.

Mr.

Brock.

Uh I guess say procedurally, like if the staff recommends that we approve it, it goes to the next process, and then they get to dictate that it's in with whatever I guess code or set acts, but how is it the kind of way it goes there?

So it is outlined that we have to do a staff recommendation for special exceptions.

And so that is why Emily goes through each one of the criteria and she does the research of does it address that criteria?

And if it does, she like she did today, shows that to you guys.

Um, and then she will recommend to approve or deny.

Um, for this one in particular, it met all of the criteria, and um, like she she showed you the land uses around it and how she felt like it did not detriment the public safety and welfare.

Um, and additionally, uh whenever it if it is approved by you guys, drive-throughs specifically are one of the special exceptions.

We have uh quite a bit of criteria.

Emily, can you pull that up for me, please?

Um, that we have to review uh on top of building codes and on top of um the electric mechanical, all of those things.

We have specific drive-through things here that show um uh specific stacking and um how the signs must face the property.

There's what 10 items is it?

Sorry, I tried to try to zoom out, but all that to say is whenever it's approved, um it is going to go through a rigid review whenever it comes in for drive-throughs specifically.

So you'll see stacking spacing provided in a certain way.

They have to can you go down again?

Have specific lanes um designated for certain things, the minimum width for the drive-thru.

So all of these things will have to be met whenever they submit plans for a building permit.

And so done from that point of view and thought we're covered, so I feel comfortable approving it.

Mr.

Manuel.

I have a lot of sympathy for Mr.

Walford.

Uh I tend to agree with him somewhat with regard to some of the city council's action.

It does seem anomalous that you were approved for a drive-thru, and then the city uh council chose to change that and not provide a grandfather provision that would be applicable where you could avoid having to come back and ask for the same thing again.

However, I do think for your own protection and the buyer's protection, it'd be better.

Miss Gregory.

I don't think I have any comment at the moment, Mr.

Chair.

Okay, Miss Rashid.

Not at the moment, no question, Mr.

Geyer.

Yeah, this is all possible discussion for review drive-through system use property immediately.

No other side.

I don't understand the need for us to have to tell us.

Mr.

Wolf, I'll give you the courtesy.

How would you like us proceed?

If you want us to go ahead and vote on it today, I just would ask that you are do would you like us to roll it to August?

I just uh would ask that you look at what's up there.

As she said, we've got we're gonna have requirements we've got to meet.

I'm not sure it's a so you want us to vote on it.

I think if we get denied, we've got to wait a whole year.

Yeah.

So I guess I I would whatever you'd like, sir.

I'll give you a choice.

Um, I guess can I hear what the motion is?

Is it again, please?

Once we make the motion, we have to vote on it.

I guess and we're gonna have to roll it to next month.

Okay.

Mr.

Chairman, if the floor, if the chair's uh floor is open for motion, I have one.

Go ahead, Mr.

Manual.

I move that we move that we continue this to the August meeting in order to give the applicant time to submit a site plan.

Do I have a second?

Second by Ms.

Rashid.

Ms.

Rushi.

Ms.

Gregory.

Mr.

Manual.

No.

Mr.

Rock?

No.

Ms.

Moore.

Let the records reflect that Mr.

Foster has stepped out of the meeting.

He had to leave early, so we're now down to seven uh members present.

We're voting to defer case 2639 to the August meeting, Mr.

Gyer.

Yes.

Mr.

Manual.

Yes.

Mr.

Foster.

I'm sorry, Mr.

Foster has left.

Ms.

Ms.

Gregory.

Yes.

Ms.

Rashid.

Yes.

Mr.

Brock.

Yes.

Mr.

Moore.

Yes.

And chair votes.

Yes.

Your uh your case is deferred to the August.

Uh thank you, sir.

Okay, that includes our agenda business, however.

Due to uh I guess improper publication on my part, we have to hold a chair and vice chair election again today.

These are special rules and um our special rules of procedures say that this is to be done June and our new chair takes over in July.

However, due to me not mentioning proper publication, we'll have that again at this meeting.

Um I do believe uh motions were sent to Shelby.

Shelby uh who has uh sent you motions for chair.

Any other motions?

Okay, at this time the floor is open for any person that would like to make a nomination other than me because that has been done.

Anybody seeing none?

All those in favor say aye.

Opposed vice chair is uh motion received on that.

Mr.

Betbees, uh the floor is now open for nominations to nominate anybody besides Mr.

Betbees hearing none.

All those in favor say aye.

Mr.

Bedbees will continue to be our vice chair, and I thank you for the honor to continue to be your chair at this time.

We are done with our regular order of business.

We will take a 10-minute break and then we will have an ethics training class for this board.

We are adjourned.

Uh yeah, I've got it on my left office.

We're taking the 15 minutes.

Oh, it's at least attending.

Okay.