Board of Adjustment Meeting Part #2

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Board of Adjustment met on December 16, 2011, at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky. The board considered six agenda items during the meeting, including variance requests, conditional use permits, and administrative reviews for various properties and businesses throughout the city. The board took one motion and vote during the session and heard three public comments. Of the six items presented, two were approved with conditions, two were denied, one was approved with conditions, and one was postponed to a future meeting.

Votes and Decisions

Motion A-2011-81: Administrative Review of Taxi Business Operations at 1084 Wellington Way

The Board voted on an administrative review to determine if dispatch and vehicle use associated with a taxi business is permitted in a Professional Office (P-1) zone at 1084 Wellington Way. 16:25

The motion, presented by Mr. Chair, passed by voice vote.

The Board approved the use subject to the following conditions:

• Any storage of cabs is prohibited in the P-1 zone.
• No more than three taxis shall be parked on the property at any one time, each for no more than one hour.
• Taxis used by employees working in the office must be identified to Building Inspection and are not counted toward the three-vehicle limit.
• Building Inspection shall report back to the Board of Adjustment in June regarding compliance.
• Any more intense use by taxis shall be considered storage and in violation of the zoning ordinance.

Public Comment

Three speakers addressed the meeting regarding taxi business operations in the P-1 zone.

Greg Kujowski 2:44 explained the taxi business's operational practices, noting that only one to three taxis are present at any time. He stated that vehicles are stored off-site and used primarily for dispatch and accounting purposes. Kujowski emphasized the business's commitment to being a good neighbor and expressed willingness to comply with conditions.

Mr. Todd 1:05 raised concerns about taxi storage and enforcement. He noted the continued presence of taxis despite a cease and desist order, suggesting the business was not complying with regulations. Mr. Todd expressed concern that enforcement would be difficult without proper oversight.

Michelle Sjogren 4:58 provided clarification on vehicle presence at the site. She explained that the Honda Accord visible in photographs was the driver manager's vehicle, used for after-hours business purposes. Sjogren stated that the business had been operating with minimal vehicles on-site.

Contested Items

Taxi Operations in P-1 Zone

A heated discussion arose regarding taxi operations in the P-1 zone. The primary concern centered on non-compliance with a previously issued cease and desist order. The appearance of a taxi fleet in the zone prompted significant debate among meeting participants about enforcement challenges and the ability to ensure adherence to prior directives.

The discussion was contentious, with strong concerns raised about the violation of the existing cease and desist order. Participants grappled with the practical difficulties of enforcing compliance and preventing unauthorized taxi operations in the designated zone.

Following the heated debate, the matter was resolved through a conditional approval, indicating that taxi operations in the P-1 zone would be permitted subject to specific conditions designed to address the enforcement and compliance concerns that had been raised during the discussion.

Hallmark Student Development Co., LLC - Variance to reduce front yard from 20 to 5 feet

Case Number: V-2011-82

The Board considered a variance request submitted by Hallmark Student Development Co., LLC to reduce the front yard setback requirement from 20 feet to 5 feet. The variance was proposed for a property designated for wholesale and warehouse use located in a B-4 and A-U zone.

Staff Recommendation

Staff recommended postponement of the variance request. The primary reason for this recommendation was that the property had not yet been rezoned to R-5, which was a necessary prerequisite for the variance to proceed.

Outcome

The Board postponed consideration of this variance request.

Boone Creek Adventures, LLC - Conditional use permit for agricultural market and outdoor recreational facility

Item Identifier: C-2011-70

Type: Conditional use permit discussion

Overview

The Board considered a conditional use permit application from Boone Creek Adventures, LLC for two components: an agricultural market and an outdoor recreational facility.

Staff Recommendation and Board Action

Staff recommended approval of the outdoor recreational facility portion with conditions. However, staff recommended that the agricultural market portion be postponed indefinitely to allow for further planning and consideration.

The Board approved the conditional use permit with conditions for the outdoor recreational facility. The agricultural market component was postponed indefinitely as recommended by staff.

Outcome

The conditional use permit was approved with conditions for the outdoor recreational facility portion. The agricultural market portion was not approved at this time and was postponed indefinitely pending further planning.

Bethsida Baptist Church - Conditional use permit to expand church in R-2/R-3 zone

The board considered a conditional use permit application (C-2011-79) for Bethsida Baptist Church to expand its facilities in an R-2/R-3 residential zone.

Staff recommended approval of the church expansion, subject to several conditions designed to address impacts on the surrounding residential area:

• Landscaping requirements
• Parking design specifications
• Storm water management measures
• Emergency response planning

The board approved the conditional use permit with these conditions in place.

Ball and Wright Capital Holdings - Administrative review for third wall sign in P-1 zone

Item: A-2011-71

Overview

This agenda item addressed an administrative review request from Ball and Wright Capital Holdings for a third wall sign in a P-1 zone.

Staff Recommendation

Staff recommended disapproval of the request. The recommendation was based on two primary grounds:

• The zoning ordinance contains limits on the number of wall signs permitted in the P-1 zone
• Prior Board conditions established restrictions that would not permit an additional sign

Staff noted that they lacked authority to increase sign allowances beyond what the zoning ordinance specifies.

Outcome

The request was denied.

Crestwood Christian Church - Administrative review for four directional signs in R-1C zone

Item: A-2011-80

Proposal: Crestwood Christian Church requested an administrative review for four directional signs to be located in an R-1C residential zone.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommended disapproval of the request. The basis for this recommendation was that directional signs are not permitted uses in R-1C zones according to zoning regulations. Staff noted that the Board lacks the authority to override existing zoning regulations to approve this request.

Outcome: The request was denied.

Greg Kujowski - Administrative review for taxi dispatch and vehicle use in P-1 z

16:25

The Board heard arguments regarding whether taxi dispatch operations and limited vehicle presence were permissible in a P-1 zone. Key speakers in the discussion included Greg Kujowski, Mr. Todd, and Michelle Sjogren.

The central question before the Board was whether the proposed taxi dispatch and vehicle use activities could be conducted within the zoning restrictions of the P-1 zone. The discussion involved examining the permissibility of these operations under existing zoning regulations and considering what conditions might be necessary to allow the use while protecting the character of the zone.

After hearing arguments and discussing the matter, the Board approved the appeal with strict conditions. These conditions were designed to prevent storage of vehicles in the P-1 zone and to limit the presence of vehicles associated with the taxi dispatch operation. The conditions imposed reflected the Board's intent to allow the requested use while maintaining controls to ensure it would not expand beyond the approved scope or create impacts inconsistent with the zone's intended purpose.

Outcome: Approved with conditions