No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-18-2024November 18, 2024 5:30 p.m. Paducah City Hall Commission Chambers Attendees: Erna Boykin, Jim Chapman, Vice-Chair Patrick Perry, Chairwoman Carol Young Absent: Staff: Joshua P. Sommer, Planner III Guests: George Abert Chairwoman Young 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 reading of the minutes for October 28, 2024 be waived and that the minutes of said meeting, as prepared by staff, be approved as written. Mr. Chapman seconded. Vice-Chair Perry called for the vote. 4 Ayes (Boykin, Chapman, Perry, Young), 0 Nays Continued Petitions New Petitions Case# VAR2024-0013 3810 & 3814; 3820 & 3824; 3900 & 3904; 3920 & 3924 and 3930 & 3934 Pines Road Variance request of six inches on the north side yards and five inches on the south side yards for five two-family structures in the R-1 Zone. Planner III Josh Sommer presented the staff report. He stated the Board of Adjustment has granted a variance in the past for the same dimensions for an existing structure at 3910 & 3914 Pines Road. He stated staff was in favor of the variance because the R-1 Zone has eight-foot setbacks, as opposed to six in other residential zones. The variance is minimal and still provides a generous side yard. If the variance were not approved, either new architectural plans would have to be produced or a new plat submitted. Either one of these items could be viewed as an unnecessary hardship on the petitioner. Vice-Chair Perry offered: I move that this Board receive and file the application of Westwood Development LLC for a six-inch side yard variance request on the north and a five-inch side yard variance request on the south for an existing two-family structure to remain as constructed 7’ 6” from the north property line and 7’ 7” from the south property line. I further move that the variance be approved based on the following findings of fact: The requested variances are minimal in nature. Remodeling the two-family structure would result in new architectural drawings being produced and submitted for approval when existing drawings could be utilized. Replatting of the lots would result in an anomaly in the viewshed of Pines Road once the two-family structures are finished, as the lots directly north and south of the existing structure would be narrower than the existing lots. The lots containing each side of the two-family structure are 50’ in width, when they could be as small as approximately 37.5’. The 50’ lots would help to strengthen and further the intent and character of the R-1 Low Density Residential Zone. The City of Paducah Comprehensive Plan supports population growth. A goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to “Ensure a wide variety of community character types that provide residential opportunities for a full range of life styles and incomes”. Housing is a Board of Commissioners priority, pursuant to Municipal Order #2863. If new plans had to be produced and submitted or a new plat generated and approved, an unnecessary hardship would be placed on the applicant, pursuant to KRS 100.243 (b). Mr. Chapman seconded. Chairwoman Young opened the public hearing and invited the Petitioner to speak. The Petitioner was not present, nor was anyone present to speak in favor of the variance. Mr. George Abert, 3910 Pines Road, spoke. He stated he was a next-door neighbor. Mr. Abert asked if sidewalks could be included in the petition. He also mentioned a stormwater swale that would be needed. Hearing no further public comment, Chairwoman Young closed the public hearing. Discussion was made about the requirement of sidewalks. Chairwoman Young mentioned that some developments in McCracken County were requiring sidewalks. Mrs. Boykin also spoke favorable for requiring sidewalks. Mr. Chapman stated he felt uncomfortable requiring sidewalks as that is out of the Board’s purview. He also stated there would not be sidewalks to connect to. Mr. Sommer stated that typically sidewalks are approved at the platting stage, which in this case was in 2007. Sidewalks are included in the subdivision ordinance, which the Planning Commission has purview over. No further questions were asked. Chairwoman Young called for the vote. 2 Ayes (Chapman, Perry) 2 Nays (Boykin, Young) After the vote, Mr. Chapman asked if the reason for the nay votes were because sidewalks were not being required. Chairwoman Young and Mrs. Boykin stated that was correct. Other Business Adjournment The BOA adjourned at 5:44 pm. Respectfully submitted by Joshua P. Sommer, AICP