Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-02-2024October 2, 2024 5:30 p.m. Paducah City Hall Commission Chambers Attendees: Erna Boykin, Jim Chapman, Vice-Chair Patrick Perry Absent: Chairwoman Carol Young Staff: Joshua P. Sommer, Planner III Guests: Nathan Strickland, Mike & Tammie Lawson Vice-Chair Perry called the called meeting of the Paducah Board of Adjustment to order at 5:30 pm. The Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. flag was recited. The roll was taken. Mrs. Boykin offered: I move that the minutes for August 26, 2024 be waived and that the minutes of said meeting be approved with a correction on page four from “make” to “made”. Mr. Chapman seconded. Vice-Chair Perry called for the vote. 3 Ayes (Boykin, Chapman, Perry), 0 Nays Continued Petitions Case# VAR2024-0011 1028 North 32nd Street Front yard variance request of 70 feet to allow an electronic message sign to be installed on the property line, 80 feet from the nearest residential structure. Planner III Josh Sommer stated new information had been received for this Petition. He explained that the brightness of the proposed sign would be less than the existing sign. New technology allows an electronic message sign to be less bright than a standard sign, due to the measurement in nits. Mr. Chapman offered: I move that case VAR2024-0011 pertaining to 1028 North 32nd Street be removed from the table. As a reminder, the motion on the floor is as follows: I move that this Board deny the petition of the 32nd Street Church of Christ for an approximate 70’ variance for an electronic message sign to be installed on the south property line at 1028 North 32nd Street. I further move that the variance be denied based on the following findings of fact: The proposal is not supported by the Board of Commissioner’s priorities, specifically Quality of Life. The proposal is not supported by the City of Paducah Comprehensive Plan, specifically referencing signage on page 3-25. Nearby residents should reasonably be able to conduct night-time activities without light spillover from nearby properties. The existing sign is a legal nonconformity, because it does not meet the prescribed 10-foot front-yard setback. Therefore, it can be maintained and repaired, but should not be altered or fundamentally changed. The spirit and intent of the City of Paducah Zoning Ordinance is to keep light contained to the subject properties or otherwise in intent with the Zoning Ordinance pursuant to Kentucky State Caselaw, specifically Dieruf v. Louisville & Jefferson County Board of Health. KRS 100.243 (a) and (b) do not apply to this site, as there are no special circumstances relevant to the site nor would the Petitioner be deprived of the reasonable use of the land, as a static sign can be, and has been, utilized. An existing single-family home is located approximately 80 feet away. The site is shown as Neighborhood Conservation on the Future Land Use Map. This means that any residential and residential-adjacent land uses such as churches, schools and daycares should conform to the performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance to help protect the integrity of the nearby residential neighborhood. Mrs. Boykin seconded. Vice-Chair Perry re-opened the public hearing and invited the Petitioner to speak. Nathan Strickland, professional representative for the Petitioner, spoke. He explained the difference between nits and lumens. He described that the existing sign can only emit a set number of lumens, based upon the sign being static. He described the relationship between the nits and lumens. Based on submitted data, the electronic message sign would emit less light, measured in nits, than the existing sign. Mr. Strickland stated the light measurements for the proposed sign were based off a white screen. Graphics or lettering would further reduce the amount of light being produced. Vice-Chair Perry asked if the new technology would be considered in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Sommer stated that the next time a major text amendment to the sign code was done, it was possible to include the new technology and would possibly reach out to Mr. Strickland for guidance. Mr. Chapman asked if the sign would be monitored at night. Mr. Strickland stated the sign would dim automatically. Mr. Chapman stated he felt a condition of approval should be sign should be capped at 30% at night. After a brief discussion, the Board felt it was best to vote on the motion on the floor and then introduce a new motion. Hearing no further public comment, Vice-Chair Perry closed the public hearing. No further questions were asked. Vice-Chair Perry called for the vote. 3 Ayes (Boykin, Chapman, Perry), 0 Nays Mr. Chapman offered: I move that the variance of 70’ be approved with the condition that the brightness of the sign be capped at 30% at night based on the Board finding new technology will lead to a less bright sign. I further move the Board accept and make part of the record the submitted information by the Petitioner’s Professional Representative. Mrs. Boykin seconded. Vice-Chair Perry called for the vote. 3 Ayes (Boykin, Chapman, Perry), 0 Nays New Petitions Case# VAR2024-0012 1238 Pillar Chase Variance request of eight feet for a 378 square foot pool house to be constructed on the east property line. Planner III Josh Sommer presented the staff report. He stated the proposal was for an eight-foot variance to allow a new pool house to be constructed on the east property line. The pool house is proposed to be 378 square feet and be primarily brick. The fence behind would also be part of the structure. This would negate the need to maintain space around the structure. He also stated less storm water runoff would be created by placing the structure in the proposed location. Mrs. Boykin offered: I move that this Board approve the petition of Mike Lawson for an eight-foot variance request for a new pool house to be constructed on the east property line at 1238 Pillar Chase. I further move that the variance be approved based on the following findings of fact: The accessory structure is constructed as part of the brick fence, thereby negating the need for maintenance around the structure. The proposed location would be the most conducive to reducing storm water runoff. The proposed location would be the most conducive to retaining attractive landscaping. The City of Paducah Comprehensive Plan supports a wide variety of community character types of housing and thereby; by extension, accessory structures that are to scale and in appropriate locations. A priority of the Board of Commissioners is Quality of Life. The approval of this variance would help enhance the quality of life for the present and future homeowners. Mr. Chapman seconded. Vice-Chair Perry opened the public hearing and invited the public to speak. Mr. and Mrs. Lawson were present. Mr. Lawson stated the overview given by Mr. Sommer was sufficient and they had nothing to add. Hearing no further public comment, Vice-Chair Perry closed the public hearing. No questions were asked. Vice-Chair Perry called for the vote. 3 Ayes (Boykin, Chapman, Perry), 0 Nays Other Business Adjournment The BOA adjourned at 5:58 pm. Respectfully submitted by Joshua P. Sommer, AICP