Board of Adjustment

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Urban County Board of Adjustment convened on March 31, 2017, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Branden Gross presiding as the meeting officer. The board addressed four agenda items during the session, taking a total of 11 votes throughout the proceedings. The meeting included 4 public comments from citizens regarding the various cases under consideration.

Of the four cases heard, the board approved two applications (PLN-BOA-17-00017 for Kenneth Berry and PLN-BOA-16-00037 for Kroger Company), denied one application (PLN-BOA-17-00018 for Lisa N. Gannoe), and postponed consideration of one case (PLN-BOA-17-00013 for Jake Riordan). The board's actions demonstrate their review of various zoning and development matters affecting the urban county, with decisions made following public input and deliberation on each case's merits.

Attendance

Present: • Branden Gross • Thomas Glover • Chad Needham • Harry Clarke • Joan Whitman • Jan Meyer

Absent: • Larry Forester

Late: • None

Six members were present for the March 31, 2017 meeting, with one member absent.

Votes and Decisions

The board conducted eleven votes during the March 31, 2017 meeting 0:00.

Administrative Items The board unanimously approved the minutes from the February 24, 2017 meeting on a motion by Thomas Glover, seconded by Joan Whitman (6-0).

Postponements and Withdrawals Four cases were postponed by unanimous votes: - PLN-BOA-17-00012 (Darby Dan Farm) - Motion by Jan Meyer, second by Chad Needham (6-0) - PLN-BOA-17-00013 (Jake Riordan) - Motion by Jan Meyer, second by Thomas Glover (6-0) - PLN-BOA-17-00015 (Southern Oak LLC) - Motion by Thomas Glover, second by Chad Needham (6-0)

PLN-BOA-17-00016 (Immanuel Baptist Church) was withdrawn on a roll call vote (5-0-1), with Thomas Glover, Chad Needham, Harry Clarke, Joan Whitman, and Jan Meyer voting in favor. Motion by Chad Needham, second by Jan Meyer.

Approved Applications Five conditional use permits and variance requests were approved: - PLN-BOA-17-00011 (Community Montessori School) - Unanimous approval (6-0) subject to nine staff conditions. Motion by Jan Meyer, second by Chad Needham. - PLN-BOA-17-00014 (Polo 1 LLC) - Unanimous approval (6-0) subject to eight conditions. Motion by Chad Needham, second by Harry Clarke. - PLN-BOA-17-00017 (Kenneth Berry variances) - Roll call vote (4-2) subject to two conditions. Branden Gross, Thomas Glover, Harry Clarke, and Joan Whitman voted in favor; Jan Meyer and Chad Needham opposed. Motion by Thomas Glover, second by Harry Clarke. - PLN-BOA-17-00007 (Total Grace Church) - Unanimous approval (6-0) subject to six conditions. Motion by Thomas Glover, second by Harry Clarke. - PLN-BOA-16-00037 (Kroger Company) - Roll call vote (5-1) subject to eight conditions. Branden Gross, Thomas Glover, Harry Clarke, Joan Whitman, and Jan Meyer voted in favor; Chad Needham opposed. Motion by Thomas Glover, second by Joan Whitman.

Denied Appeal PLN-BOA-17-00018 (Lisa N. Gannoe appeal) was denied on a roll call vote (5-1). Branden Gross, Thomas Glover, Harry Clarke, Joan Whitman, and Jan Meyer voted to deny; Jan Meyer opposed. Motion by Branden Gross, second by Thomas Glover.

Public Comment

Four community members spoke during the public comment period, all addressing concerns related to the Kroger Company conditional use permit application.

Amy Clark 0:00 expressed concerns about traffic and pedestrian safety issues related to the Kroger Company's proposed parking lot and access changes. Clark focused on how the development would affect vehicle flow and safety for people walking in the area.

Kate Savage 0:00 discussed the broader impact of the Kroger development on the surrounding neighborhood. Savage shared concerns specifically about the proposed parking lot and its effects on the local community.

Jamie Peters 0:00 raised additional concerns about pedestrian safety, echoing some of Clark's points. Peters also highlighted worries about increased traffic volume and how additional vehicles would impact the neighborhood's character and safety.

Diane Spurlock 0:00 brought a different perspective to the discussion, expressing concerns about the loss of affordable housing that would result from the proposed parking lot development. Spurlock's comments focused on the housing implications rather than traffic issues.

All four speakers opposed or raised significant concerns about various aspects of the Kroger Company's conditional use permit application. The primary themes that emerged from public comment were pedestrian and traffic safety, neighborhood impact, and affordable housing preservation. No speakers voiced support for the proposed development during this comment period.

Contested Items

Two items generated significant discussion and disagreement during the March 31, 2017 meeting.

Kroger Company Conditional Use Permit

The proposed conditional use permit for Kroger Company faced substantial community opposition. Several residents attended the meeting to voice concerns about the project's potential impacts on the neighborhood. The primary objections centered on three key issues:

• Traffic concerns - Community members expressed worry about increased vehicular traffic that would result from the proposed development
• Pedestrian safety - Residents raised safety concerns for pedestrians in the area affected by the project
• Loss of affordable housing - Opposition focused on the elimination of affordable housing units that would be displaced by the proposed parking lot

The community opposition highlighted tensions between commercial development interests and neighborhood preservation concerns.

Revocation Hearing for 7524 Old Richmond Road

A procedural dispute arose regarding a conditional use permit for the property at 7524 Old Richmond Road. The disagreement centered on whether the city should proceed with a revocation hearing for a conditional use permit that was not currently being actively utilized.

The dispute involved questions about: • The necessity of holding a formal revocation hearing for an unused permit • Proper procedural requirements for permit revocation • Whether inactive permits should be subject to the same revocation processes as active ones

This procedural disagreement reflected broader questions about how the city manages conditional use permits that fall into disuse and the appropriate administrative processes for addressing such situations.

Both contested items demonstrated the ongoing challenges local governments face in balancing development interests with community concerns and maintaining consistent administrative procedures.

PLN-BOA-17-00013: Jake Riordan

0:00

The Board of Adjustment considered a variance request from Jake Riordan regarding setback requirements for a property in a Neighborhood Business zone. The application, designated PLN-BOA-17-00013, sought variances to increase the maximum front setback beyond what is typically allowed in this zoning district.

Jihad Hallany served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the details of the variance request to the board members. The specific property location and exact setback measurements requested were not detailed in the available materials.

The item was scheduled as a discussion item on the agenda, indicating the board planned to review the merits of the variance application and determine whether the request met the necessary criteria for approval. Variance requests typically require demonstration of hardship or unique circumstances that justify deviation from standard zoning requirements.

However, the board ultimately decided to postpone consideration of this matter rather than proceeding with a decision during the March 31, 2017 meeting. The reasons for the postponement were not specified in the available documentation, though such delays commonly occur when additional information is needed, when applicants request more time, or when board members require further review of the proposal.

The postponement means Jake Riordan's variance request will be rescheduled for consideration at a future Board of Adjustment meeting, allowing more time for preparation or additional documentation as may be required.

PLN-BOA-17-00017: Kenneth Berry

0:00

The Board of Adjustment considered a variance request from Kenneth Berry under case number PLN-BOA-17-00017. The application sought two specific variances for a property in a High Density Apartment zone: a reduction in the required front yard setback and an increase in the allowable projection of a deck beyond standard zoning requirements.

Kenneth Berry presented his request to the board, though the specific details of his presentation and the exact measurements for the requested variances were not detailed in the available materials. The case involved modifications to standard zoning requirements that would allow for greater flexibility in the property's development or improvement plans.

The board reviewed the variance application according to standard criteria, which typically include considerations of hardship, compatibility with surrounding properties, and adherence to the general intent of the zoning ordinance. No specific concerns or objections from board members or the public were noted in the available information.

Following their deliberation, the Board of Adjustment approved Kenneth Berry's variance request. The approval came with conditions, though the specific terms and requirements of those conditions were not specified in the summary materials. This conditional approval is standard practice for variance requests, allowing the board to ensure compliance with safety standards, neighborhood compatibility, and other relevant planning considerations while granting the requested relief from standard zoning requirements.

The approval enables Berry to proceed with his project under the modified setback and deck projection requirements, subject to meeting the conditions established by the board.

PLN-BOA-16-00037: Kroger Company

0:00

The Board of Adjustment reviewed a conditional use permit request from Kroger Company to construct a new parking lot and driveways in a Neighborhood Business zone. The application was designated as PLN-BOA-16-00037.

Bruce Simpson served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the details of Kroger's development proposal. The request involved expanding parking facilities and adding new driveway access points to support the company's operations in the designated Neighborhood Business zoning district.

The Board evaluated the conditional use permit application according to standard criteria for such requests in Neighborhood Business zones. While specific details of the discussion were not captured in the available materials, the Board ultimately determined that the proposed parking lot and driveway construction met the necessary requirements for approval.

The Board of Adjustment approved the conditional use permit request with conditions. The specific conditions attached to the approval were not detailed in the available summary materials, but such conditions typically address factors like landscaping requirements, traffic flow, lighting, and compliance with zoning regulations.

This approval allows Kroger Company to proceed with their planned parking lot construction and driveway installation, subject to meeting the conditions established by the Board. The project will enhance the company's parking capacity and vehicular access within the existing Neighborhood Business zone framework.

PLN-BOA-17-00018: Lisa N. Gannoe

0:00

The Board of Adjustment considered an administrative appeal filed by Lisa N. Gannoe challenging a decision by the Division of Planning. Gannoe appealed the Division's determination not to recommend a revocation hearing for a conditional use permit that had previously been approved by the Board.

The appeal centered on Gannoe's contention that the Division of Planning had erred in its assessment of whether circumstances warranted initiating revocation proceedings against an existing conditional use permit. Administrative appeals of this nature allow property owners and interested parties to challenge staff-level decisions regarding land use matters when they believe the Division has made an incorrect determination.

Lisa N. Gannoe served as the key speaker presenting her case to the Board, arguing that the Division of Planning should have recommended that the Board conduct a revocation hearing for the conditional use in question. Such revocation hearings are typically considered when there are allegations that a conditional use permit holder has violated the terms of their approval or when changed circumstances suggest the original approval should be reconsidered.

After reviewing the appeal materials and hearing from Gannoe, the Board of Adjustment ultimately denied the administrative appeal. This decision upheld the Division of Planning's original determination that a revocation hearing was not warranted for the conditional use permit in question.

The denial means that the conditional use permit remains in effect without the revocation proceedings that Gannoe had sought. The Board's decision affirmed the Division of Planning's professional judgment in determining that the circumstances did not meet the threshold for recommending revocation of the previously approved conditional use.