No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Hearing Packet 02-11-2025NOTICE OF SPECIAL CALLED MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF PADUCAH, KENTUCKY TO: Commission/Media/Public There will be a Special Called Meeting of the Board of Commissioners of the City of Paducah at 3:30 p.m., on Tuesday, February 11, 2025, held in the Commission Chambers of City Hall located at 300 South Fifth Street, Paducah, KY 42003. The Agenda for the meeting is included below. L Call to Order IL Hearing regarding the Rezoning of 200 Fountain Avenue III. Adjournment George Bray, Mayor CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Executed by electronic mail and facsimile of a copy to the Commission/Media on February 6, 2025. Lindsay Parish, City Clerk STAFF REPORT PADUCAH BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS APPLICATION INFORMATION ADDRESS 200 Fountain Avenue CASE No. ZON2024-0002 OWNER Nathan Myers AGENT -- REQUEST Proposed rezoning from R-1 Low Density Residential to Neighborhood Services Zone HEARING DATE February 11, 2025 GENERAL SITE INFORMATION CURRENT ZONING R-1 Low Density Residential Zone CURRENT LAND USE Single-family home COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Neighborhood Conservation SURROUNDING AREA INFORMATION SURROUNDING ZONING I SURROUNDING LAND USE NORTH NSZ Single-family SOUTH R-1 Commercial/ multi -family EAST R-1 Single-family WEST NSZ/ R-1 Single-family SITE HISTORY The house is 1,019 square feet. It was permitted in May of 1987. On May 6, 2024; a public hearing was held before the Paducah Planning Commission on the proposed rezoning of the above -referenced lot from R-1 Low Density Residential Zone to NSZ Neighborhood Services Zone. The purpose of which was to hear and decide the zoning map amendment and also a conditional use request for a short-term rental therewith, in accordance with KRS 100.202 (5). This KRS allows the Planning Commission to assume the powers of a Board of Adjustment to hear and decide petitions for conditional uses and variances in conjunction with a rezoning request. The motion failed to pass with a 4-2 vote with Chairman Wade and Vice -Chair Morrison voting "Aye" and Commissioners Carman, Griffin, Kaler and Rhodes voting "Nay". After this motion failed, no motion was then made to forward a definitive recommendation of approval or denial to the Board of Commissioners pursuant to KRS 100.2111 (3). Included therewith, no Findings of Fact was adopted pursuant to Section 126-176 (e) (4) of the Paducah Zoning Ordinance. This was a procedural error later noted by the Planning Commission's counsel. Due to the procedural error, the rezoning petition was then placed on the Planning Commission agenda for June 3, 2024. The purpose of this agenda item was to make a definitive recommendation of approval or denial to the Board of Commissioners and make Findings of Fact to support the recommendation. No public hearing was conducted at this meeting, as the Planning Commission had to make a recommendation and corresponding Findings of Fact based on the existing record; which was the staff report, Mr. Coscarelli's written opposition and the testimony of the speakers. Following a majority vote of "Nay" on a motion to deny the rezoning petition, a motion was made to grant the rezoning request in order to rezone 200 Fountain Avenue to NSZ. That motion passed with a 3-2 vote with Chairman Wade, Vice -Chair Morrison and Commissioner Griffin voting "Aye" and Commissioners Carman and Rhodes voting "Nay". Please see the Resolution recommending approval included in your packets. Mr. Coscarelli then submitted a written request for the Board of Commissioners to decide the map amendment on June 14, 2024. This request was made in accordance with KRS 100.2111 (4) (a). Therefore, the Board of Commissioners will now ultimately decide the proposed rezoning from R-1 Low Density Residential Zone to NSZ Neighborhood Services Zone. Future Land Use Map 1:2000 t. nsz a -s Total area proposed to be rezoned STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS KRS 100.213 "Before any map amendment is granted, the planning commission or the legislative body or fiscal court must find that the map amendment is in agreement with the adopted comprehensive plan, or, in the absence of such a finding, that one or more of the following apply and such finding shall be recorded in the minutes and records of the Planning Commission or the legislative body or fiscal court: (a) That the existing zoning classification given to the property is inappropriate and that the proposed zoning classification is appropriate; and (b) That there have been major changes of an economic, physical or social nature within the area involved which were not anticipated in the adopted comprehensive plan and which have substantially altered the basic character of such area." CONSIDERATIONS -- REZONING This location is adjacent next to the Neighborhood Services Zone. An expansion of this zone would therefore not be spot zoning, but a continuation thereof. Additionally, the site is contained within the Jefferson Street -Fountain Avenue Historic District, established in July of 1982. The current lot is 89' X 90' or a total of 8,010 square feet. Therefore, this lot is non -conforming with respect to being in the R-1 Zone. The prescribed smallest lot size is 12,000 square feet in the R-1 Zone for a single-family structure. The prescribed smallest lot size is 8,000 square feet in the NSZ for a single- family structure. Nonconformities are addressed at length in the City of Paducah Comprehensive Plan as follows: Nonconformity should be viewed as undesirable. The only exception is when the desire to have the use be discontinued because of it's nuisance potential. First, nonconforming status is a burden on the landowner who may have difficulty getting loans to improve a nonconforming structure. Second, there are the costs and frustration of seeking relief. Third, it is a burden on staff and zoning boards to deal with requests for many variances that result when the conditions are common, as in a whole block. When areas are nonconforming, there is a tendency to grant variations even though they do not meet the statutory or legal standards for granting variations. There is no protection of the public health, safety and welfare or any other benefit in having significant nonconforming areas. In the developed area, the protection of neighborhoods means that zoning regulations must closely match what is on the ground and few uses should be nonconforming. Except where land values are so high and the neighborhood so desirable that the marketplace is forcing redevelopment, the fact is that nonconforming uses will remain so for many years. Only the most noxious uses should be nonconforming. The test should be whether the use is such a nuisance or so negative to the community that it needs to be eliminated. Residential areas should not be zoned so they are nonconforming. It is clear that areas that are nonconforming are less likely to seek reinvestment than areas that are conforming. These older areas need every encouragement to reinvest in the homes and neighborhood. Areas that have a significant number of nonconforming lots include older portions of the Cityhat were established before the adoption ofzoning in the City of Paducah. As you know, the Board of Commissioners voted on the new Comprehensive Plan on January 27, 2025. Although it has not yet been adopted by the Fiscal Court, it is expected to pass. Although the verbiage is different, the new Comprehensive Plan is consistent in intent with respect to nonconformities and provides: Continue to explore zoning strategies andprovisions for overcoming "nonconformities " that can stand in the way of beneficial uses and reuse of property, including infill development and redevelopment activity. Nonconformities arise when a pre-existing condition does not comply with zoning regulations that were adopted or changed later, which is the case in various areas both inside Paducah and elsewhere in McCracken County. Aspects of a property that most commonly can end up nonconforming include it's use, size, width or depth of the lot and the setback and/or height of buildings. The typical zoning framework prevents all nonconforming uses and buildings from expanding or being altered in certain ways. Therefore, nonconforming lots often cannot be built on feasibly. This approach usually locks nonconformities in place for the long term, sometimes contributing to disinvestment and blight. Bringing this structure into the Neighborhood Services Zone would afford additional protections to this home. The exterior changes in this zone are approved and administered by the Historic Architectural Review Commission (HARC). Because this home is on a prominent corner and on a major thoroughfare into the Fountain Avenue Neighborhood, additional protections afforded to this home, and by extension it's neighbors, would help to further the goals and objectives of establishing the historic district. When the Neighborhood Services Zone was enacted in April of 2007, this lot should have been included in the NSZ due to it's nonconforming status. Therefore, under KRS 100.213 (a), the existing zoning classification is inappropriate and the proposed zoning classification is appropriate. The rezoning from R-1 Low Density Residential Zone to Neighborhood Services Zone would be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Further the Comprehensive Plan states • "Continued investment in the cultural, historic, and educational assets is, likewise, important". Page 1-18; • "Objective B: Sustain and enhance existing community character." Page 5-13 & Page 8-6 "Renewed respect for historic fabric and the community character inherent in early commercial and residential built environment, as evidenced by the ongoing revitalization of downtown Paducah and the Lowertown neighborhood, the levee wall mural program, and other improvements. From an economic development standpoint, reinforcing character works as a means to: o generate economic activity through tourism; o increase its attractiveness for place -based investment decisions, and; o comport with the theories first advanced by Richard Florida, a Carnegie Mellon professor, whose popular book, The Rise of the Creative Class, postulates that quality of life — as defined by young, creative entrepreneurs, rather than middle class families — represents a more efficient growth engine for a vibrant economy than traditional economic development measures. The logic holds that creative workers who launch innovative fast-growing companies seek communities providing cultural offerings, recreational amenities, architectural character, and other interesting people as evidenced by the rise of places like Austin and Seattle during the boom years of the 1990's". Page 1-19 There are several short-term rentals already in operation in central Paducah near the subject property. Some of the STR's include, but are not necessarily limited to; • 612 Fountain Avenue • 2110 Jefferson Street • 326 North 16th Street • 305 South 21st Street • 1906 C Street • 1828 Guthrie Avenue • 2532 Clark Street • 2804 Kentucky Avenue • 1722 Park Avenue • 1321 Jefferson Street • 1607 Jefferson Based on these listings, a short-term rental would not be out of place regarding location in the central portion of the City of Paducah. They are all located less than a mile from the subject property. The furthest STR is 3,248 from the subject property. The recommendation from the Paducah Planning Commission is for approval of the zone change from R- 1 Low Density Residential Zone to NSZ Neighborhood Services Zone. Pursuant to KRS 100.2111 (5), it shall take a majority of the entire Board of Commissioners to override the recommendation of the Planning Commission. EXCERPTS FROM THE PADUCAH ZONING ORDINANCE Sec. 126-102. Low Density Residential Zone, R-1. The purpose of this zone is to provide for residential development of an open nature. (1) Principal permitted uses. a. Single-family dwellings; b. Two-family dwellings; c. Park, playground or community center owned and operated by a governmental agency; d. Special event short-term rentals. (2) Single-family dwellings. a. Minimum ground floor area. No building shall be erected for residential purposes having a ground floor area of less than one thousand, two hundred (1,200) square feet, exclusive of porches, breezeways, terraces, garages and exterior and secondary stairways. b. Minimum yard requirements. 1. Front yard: Forty (40) feet. 2. Side yard: Eight (8) feet. 3. Rear yard: Twenty-five (25) feet. 4. Lots abutting two (2) streets shall comply with the front yard setback provisions along the street upon which the building on the corner lot fronts. A fifteen (15) -foot reduction in the front yard provisions is allowed on the side yard facing the secondary street, provided such reduction does not result in a side yard of less than twenty-five (25) feet. c. Minimum area requirements. 1. Minimum lot area: Twelve thousand (12,000) square feet. 2. Minimum lot width: Seventy-five (75) feet. d. Maximum building height: Thirty-five (35) feet. e. Parking shall be per section 126-71. Additionally, there shall be no more than four (4) vehicles parked in any front yard. And: 1. All parking shall be minimally semi -improved to a dense grade aggregate surface. 2. All trailers, campers, motor homes and boats shall not be allowed in any front yard. Such trailers and vehicles which do not exceed dimensions of eight (8) feet by twenty-four (24) feet may be stored in the rear or side yard of any lot. Such trailers and vehicles which do exceed dimensions of eight (8) feet by twenty-four (24) feet may be stored in the rear or side yard of any lot; provided side yard requirements are maintained and the trailer or vehicles are not used as a dwelling. 3. Commercial vehicles, equipment and trucks with axle weights greater than one (1) ton, and/or heights greater than eight (8) feet, and/or lengths greater than thirty (30) feet shall not be parked in the R-1 Zone. Commercial passenger cars and light duty trucks otherwise complying from the requirements of this section are exempt from this requirement. (3) Two-family dwellings. a. Minimum yard requirements. 1. Front yard: Forty (40) feet. 2. Side yard: Eight (8) feet. 3. Rear yard: Twenty-five (25) feet. b. Minimum area requirements. 1. Minimum lot area: Seven thousand (7,000) square feet per unit. 2. Minimum lot width: Seventy-five (75) feet (per structure). c. Maximum building height: Thirty-five (35) feet. d. Parking shall be per subsection (2) (e) of this section. (4) Conditionally permitted uses. a. Multi -family dwellings; b. Daycare nurseries; c. Home occupations; d. Places of worship. (5) Multi family dwellings. a. Minimum yard requirements. I. Front yard: Forty (40) feet. 2. Side yard: Eight (8) feet. 3. Rear yard: Twenty-five (25) feet. b. Minimum area requirements. 1. Minimum lot area: Five thousand (5,000) square feet per unit; four (4) or more units, four thousand (4,000) square feet per unit. 2. Minimum lot width: Seventy-five (75) feet. c. Maximum building height. None. (6) Daycare nurseries. a. Minimum lot area: One hundred (100) square feet per child. b. Minimum yard requirements: The requirements of the zone apply to the project where located. c. A four (4) foot wire mesh fence, or other appropriate fence as may be required by the Board of Adjustment, shall enclose the entire play area. Sec. 126-120. Neighborhood Services Zone, NSZ The purpose of this zone is to provide for primarily residential uses and encourage such development by right, according to standards that will ensure harmony with the existing historic residential environment. Limited commercial uses may be introduced provided compliance with a conditional use permit upholding the historic fabric of the neighborhood. 1. Principal permitted uses. a. Single-family dwellings. 1. Minimum lot area: Eight thousand (8,000) square feet 2. Minimum lot width: Fifty (50) feet. b. Two-family dwellings. 1. Minimum lot area: Four thousand (4,000) square feet per unit. 2. Minimum lot width: Fifty (50) feet (per structure). c. Park, playground or community center owned and operated by a governmental agency. d. Special event short-term rentals. 2. Conditionally permitted uses. The following shall require written approval from the Historical and Architectural Review Commission: a. Multi -family dwellings. 1. Minimum lot area: Three thousand (3,000) square feet per unit. 2. Minimum lot width: Sixty (60) feet. b. Home occupations. c. Professional offices. d. Daycares. e. Beauty shops and barbershops. f. Places of worship. g. Short-term rentals. h. The following uses, provided they are conducted wholly within a building except for off-street loading and unloading: 1. Retail establishments (product processing is allowed only if the products are sold at retail on the premises); 2. Personal and convenience service establishments; 3. Restaurant (excluding drive-thru); 4. Any other use not listed which, in the HARC's opinion, would be compatible with the above uses. 3. Minimum yard requirements. a. Front yard: Twenty-five (25) feet. b. Side yard: Six (6) feet. c. Rear yard: Twenty-five (25) feet. 4. Minimum area requirements for non-residential structures: a. Minimum lot area: Eight thousand (8,000) square feet. b. Minimum lot width: Fifty (50) feet. 5. Maximum building height. Thirty-six (36) feet, however, additional feet may be allowed with design approval from the HARC based on the scale of adjacent structures. 6. Additional regulations: a. Off-street loading areas may not face any public right-of-way. b. No loading or unloading shall be allowed between 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. c. The Historical and Architectural Review Commission (HARC) shall have sole jurisdiction as a special board of adjustment over the NSZ pursuant to KRS 82.026 and 100.217. 7. Plan approval required for new construction and for changes in exterior appearance. In order to maintain the existing character of the neighborhood; plans for architectural design, site layout or changes in style of architectural elements must be approved by the Historical and Architectural Review Commission (HARC). The HARC may require changes to the plan as deemed necessary or desirable to ensure proper design standards, to minimize traffic difficulties, to safeguard adjacent properties and to preserve the intent of the NSZ. a. Certificate of Zoning Compliance required. 1. No person shall, without first applying for and obtaining a special conditional use permit, to be known as a Certificate of Zoning Compliance, make any changes in exterior appearance to any exterior portion of any structures in the NSZ. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance must be issued by the Planning Department before a building permit can be obtained. 2. Infill/new construction and additions to existing structures. All new construction and additions to existing structures must first be issued a Certificate of Zoning Compliance before any construction begins. 3. Existing structures. i. Changes to the design or style of any exterior feature on an existing structure requires a Certificate of Zoning Compliance. H. Administrative approvals. In the following instances, Certificates of Zoning Compliance can be issued by the Zoning Administrator. A. In instances where the design or style of any exterior feature is replicated and replaced with a new material, the Zoning Administrator has the authority to administratively approve the application for a Certificate of Zoning Compliance. The proposed materials must comply with the approved building materials list found in the design guidelines. B. New accessory structures that use the same building materials and an appropriately sized and style of windows and doors that complement the existing primary structure can be administratively approved. Features considered include structure orientation, openings, roof pitch, siding and color scheme. C. Cutting or removal of trees that are more than one (1) foot in diameter measured at one (1) foot off of the ground require a Certificate of Zoning Compliance. Removal of trees can be approved administratively. D. Changing the color of a surface that has already been painted can be approved administratively. E. Fences that are determined to comply with the advisory design guidelines can be approved administratively. F. Any proposed demolition of a principal structure requires a Certificate of Zoning Compliance prior to obtaining a demolition permit. Demolitions outside of the Demolition Control Zone can be approved administratively. b. Applications for a Certificate of Zoning Compliance. 1. Applications for a Certificate of Zoning Compliance are submitted to the Planning Department. 2. A public hearing is required on all applications except for administrative approvals as outlined in this section. 3. Grounds for granting a Certificate of Zoning Compliance. The HARC must make written findings of fact as follows: i. The proposed exterior changes comply with the intent of the Neighborhood Services Zone. ii. The proposed exterior changes are in harmony with the adopted design guidelines. iii. The HARC shall adopt design guidelines for the NSZ to act as a guide for board decisions on plan approvals and changes to the exterior appearance of existing structures. The document shall be made available to the public to aid in the design approval process. iv. Maintenance and safety standards. A. All buildings within this zone shall be maintained to meet the requirements of the building code and property maintenance codes of the City. B. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the City Building Officials from enforcing all State statutes and provisions of this code and any other ordinances of the City pertaining to the public safety. v. Appeals. Any person aggrieved by any action of the Zoning Administrator may appeal their decision to the HARC pursuant to KRS 100.257. Any person aggrieved by any action of the HARC may appeal the decision to the Circuit Court in the manner prescribed for appeals from actions of boards of adjustment. PRINCIPALLY PERMITTED USES Please note that the Principal Permitted Uses contained in Section 126-102 (1) of the R-1 Low Density Residential Zone and Section 126-120 (1) of the Neighborhood Services Zone are exactly the same. The primary difference between the land uses of the zones is that the NSZ also has conditional uses, including short-term rentals, that can be approved by the Historic Architecture Review Commission (HARC). The HARC is a Board of Adjustment that hears and decides conditional uses and variances in the City's historic zones. The HARC also oversees major exterior changes to structures and property. This is the primary way that the City of Paducah maintains and enhances three of our historic districts. The HARC has no purview over the any portion of the R-1 Zone. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST FOR THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL Depending on the outcome of the decision of the Board of Commissioners, the future of the short-term rental approved by the Planning Commission at the June 3rd meeting, will be determined. If the Board of Commissioners agrees with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to rezone the property from R-1 to NSZ, the zoning change will be effectuated via ordinance. If the Board of Commissioners disagrees with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and does not approve the rezoning of the property, then only a special event short-term rental may be conducted. A special event short-term rental is a unit that can be rented out twice a year for no longer than seven days. RECOMMENDED MOTION The Paducah Planning Commission has recommended approval of the rezoning request from R-1 Low Density Residential Zone to NSZ Neighborhood Services Zone to the Board of Commissioners. Staff also recommends rezoning the property from R-1 to NSZ as well. A RESOLUTION CONSTITUTING THE FINAL REPORT OF THE PADUCAH PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE FROM R-1 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE) TO NSZ (NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES ZONE) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 200 FOUNTAIN AVENUE. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on May 6, 2024 by the Paducah Planning Commission after advertisement pursuant to law; and WHEREAS, this Commission has duly considered said proposal and has heard and considered the objections and suggestions of all interested parties who appeared at said hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did not forward a recommendation for either approval or denial to the Board of Commissioners on May 6"'; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the record submitted at the May 6`'' meeting, consisting of given testimony, the staff report and a submitted opposition in order to make a recommendation; and WHEREAS, at the June 3`d meeting, the Planning Commission voted affirmatively to send a positive recommendation to the Board of Commissioners; and WHEREAS, the existing zoning, R-1 (Low Density Residential Zone) is inappropriate and NSZ (Neighborhood Services Zone) is appropriate. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PADUCAH PLANNING COMMISSION: SECTION 1. That this Commission recommend approval to the Board of Commissioners the proposed amendment of the Paducah Zoning Map so as to change the zoning for the aforementioned area from R-1 (Low Density Residential Zone) to NSZ (Neighborhood Services Zone). SECTION 2. Additional terms of approval agreed upon by the Commission and Developer are as follows: 1. None at this time. SECTION 3. That this Resolution shall be treated as, and is, the final report of the Paducah Planning Commission respecting the matters appearing herein. SECTION 4. That if any section, paragraph or provision of this Resolution shall be found to be inoperative, ineffective or invalid for any cause, the deficiency or invalidity of such section, paragraph or provision shall not affect any other section, paragraph or provision hereof, it being the purpose and intent of this Resolution to make each and every section, paragraph and provision hereof separable from all other sections, paragraphs and provisions. Bob Wade, Chairman Adopted by the Paducah Planning Commission on June 3, 2024 Documents Provided by Nathan Myers Nathan Myers 212 Fountain Avenue Paducah, KY 42001 270-556-9617 natemyers16@gmail.com 06/28/2024 Paducah Board of Commissioners City of Paducah 300 S. 5th St. Paducah, KY 42003 SUBJ: Consideration of Zoning Map Amendment and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Short Term Rental (STR) at 200 Fountain Avenue Dear Board of Commissioners, I'm writing this letter as a companion to the submission of reference materials, background information, and salient points of response to the Request for Board of Commissioners to Decide Zoning Map Amendment submitted by Mr. William "Bill" Coscarelli on June 17, 2024, in concern of the Paducah Planning Commission's approval of a motion on June 3, 2024 to recommend to the Board of Commissioners that the zoning change request and conditional use permit be approved for the property located at 200 Fountain Avenue, Paducah, KY 42001 (ZON2024-0002). I have attached additional materials for the Board's consideration, including a history of my experience with the property and the neighborhood (Attachment 1), a narrative response to the inaccuracies regarding administrative and technical information presented in the appeal (Attachment 2), an annotated version of the appeal with direct notation of the referenced inaccuracies (Attachment 3), and the City's staff report concerning the request and recommending approval (Attachment 4). While addressed in further detail in the attached materials, I would like to briefly summarize here why I am requesting the Board of Commissioners uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the City: 1. My ownership of the property is very personal and important to me; I purchased the house to address a family hardship, and while that circumstance no longer exists, I am still personally and emotionally attached to the house from that experience and desire the utmost preservation and protection of the house and the area. The proposed use is consistent with my desire to have regular access to the property to conduct maintenance and upkeep, and to ensure the property is well maintained now and in the future. 2. This type of request has been approved in the past, and is for conditional use, not a "by right", which allows for the negation of the proposed use if conditions to mitigate any Page 1 of 2 actual or perceived concerns are not met. In other words, the approval of this request does not constitute a permanent or irrevocable change to the use of the property. 3. As to any imagined or unforeseen negative consequences from the use of the property as sought, I am the most concerned individual and would be most impacted, as the property adjoins my residence at 212 Fountain Avenue. Therefore, use of the property as requested is safeguarded from neglect, irresponsible use, and the consequences of absentee ownership. As a resident myself, I desire nothing more than the preservation of the neighborhood's charm, character, and peaceful, enjoyable atmosphere. If use of the property as a short-term rental began to have a negative impact on the neighborhood, I would be the very first person to take action to cease such use. a. It is important to emphasize here that granting this request does not allow for the use of the property as requested permanently or indefinitely. The process of applying for a conditional use permit and for a business license ensures that proper review and vetting of future owners would occur before the proposed use could continue under different ownership. In the hypothetical situation where the property is sold and a subsequent owner may not be as invested in the community and neighborhood as myself, these safeguards would be in place to prevent any sort of intolerable negligence or misuse. b. The above concern addressed, I would further emphasize (consistent with what you'll find in the attached materials) that I have no plans at this time or in the future to sell the property; it is an important and cherished house from which my family and I attach great sentimental and emotional value. 4. Finally, I believe it is beneficial to all parties to understand that the essence of the appeal seems to be opposition to the proposed use of the property as a short-term rental. The accompanying write-up by the appellant attempts to frame opposition to the proposed use in terms of ordinance, statute, and history, but these arguments are largely inaccurate or incomplete. As noted by the City in its report and included in the findings of fact adopted by the Planning Commission as a part of its recommendation to approve, the request is correct in terms of statute, ordinance, and procedure. Thank you for your time in considering this letter and the attached materials; it is never easy to balance the desires and concerns of constituents against each other. However, like the City and the Planning Commission, I feel that this request represents a reasonable allowance that will provide positive opportunities for tourism, growth, and development of the City consistent with the comprehensive plan and without impacting the famed charm and character of the area; I hope you will come to the same conclusion. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to me at my contact information provided above. Thank you, Nathan Myers Page 2 of 2 Attachment 1 Experience with the Fountain Avenue Neighborhood and 200 Fountain Avenue from 2022 until Present, with a Brief History of Moving to Paducah Nathan Myers 06/28/2024 With pardons, I have decided to write this in a narrative format so that it reads chronologically and allows for a story to be told; namely, the story of how I came to be proud Paducah resident and now desire to continue living and thriving in this unique city. I will do my best to keep this brief, but I offer apologies now if I use excess detail in this account. I grew up down the road in Ballard County in Gage (near Kevil), although the distinction is rarely made. After I graduated from Ballard Memorial High School, I attended the United States Naval Academy and became a Submarine Officer after a few years of study and training. During this period of service, my mother was diagnosed with glioblastoma, a very aggressive form of brain cancer. I knew then that I would be resigning my commission when my period of required service was met, and moving back to Western Kentucky to spend as much time as possible with her and my family. When that time came, in May of 2021, I made the move back here. For about 6 months, I lived at home with my family and my mom. Thankfully, she had responded well to treatment up until that point, and we were able to take several family trips and do things that we'd been putting off. With things stable in her treatment and after feeling that I might need to explore new career opportunities (although I certainly enjoyed my half year vacation), I decided to rent an apartment in Paducah and start my j ob search. I was fortunate in that I was able to begin working at Beltline Electric here in Paducah. This opportunity offered a new industry for me to learn about, but more importantly, it allowed me to remain here locally to both work and spend time with family. At this point, things were still going well with my mother's treatment, and I was enjoying living nearby in Paducah and growing in my new role. I had decided around this time in early 2022 that I should begin searching for a house in Paducah since I planned to live here long-term; at that time, the market was extremely competitive, and it took several months of searching and rejected offers to find the house I live in now: 212 Fountain Avenue. While an old historic house with an incredible amount of work to do to restore it, I decided I was up to the challenge and made the purchase in August of 2022. Page 1 of 5 Attachment 1 212 Fountain Avenue I accepted this challenge happily, and was also grateful that my family, including my mother, were incredibly supportive and excited about the potential of restoring this house as well. After moving in, my mom and my grandmother were active almost everyday at the house working inside or out to begin the process of restoration. It was only a few months later, however, that my mom's periodic checkup and scans revealed a recurrence of her tumor, which were presaged by seizures that had never occurred before. In December of 2022, she went back in for surgery at MD Andersen in Houston and began another protocol of radiation and chemotherapy. It was following this surgery that her aphasia intensified and she had trouble communicating; this combined with the possibility of seizures meant that she could no longer work. In this situation, I was doing my best to support her and my family, and while 212 Fountain Avenue (my current house) provided some opportunities for her and my grandmother to clean and improve things in the yard, the majority of work occurring prevented painting, decorating, and other interior work. In fact, at that time I was engaged in investing significant money and energy into rebuilding the front porch roof, reroofing the main roof, and making structural repairs in the attic and roof system. Unfortunately, this meant that there was not much at my house for her to do, which had allowed her much diversion and an opportunity for utility after she could not work. Page 2 of 5 Attachment 1 It was around this time that my current neighbor, Dwight Smith, was considering putting the house at 200 Fountain Avenue on the market. His mother, Miss Lena, was moving into assisted care as Dwight was moving out. I recognized an opportunity for further investment in the city and a possible utility in the house as a place for visiting family and friends to stay, but more importantly as a project that my mother and grandmother could work on in the interim. Therefore, I discussed the matter with Dwight and effected the sale in May of 2023. After taking ownership of the property, my mom and grandmother immediately began a serious overhaul and cleaning/redecorating of the interior; I couldn't keep them out if I had tried. They poured themselves into it, and directed me (sometimes quite forcefully) as to what I needed to have done. They were essentially my bosses, and my mom was the chief, directing me to have the walls repainted, the trim and baseboards refinished, the shades and blinds replaced, and the light fixtures and hardware updated. While it may have seemed intense to someone else to have their mother directing what they should do and bossing them around on a house they had just bought, to me it was a great relief and I happily bore the burden and expense because she was both in theory and reality directing her energies and efforts towards productive purposes. The culmination of the work she had me do was to renovate the bathroom and improve the standards therein; the biggest project by far, but well worth it and her satisfaction once it was done was the only reward I needed. Page 3 of 5 Attachment 1 It's also worth mentioning that both my mother and grandmother were absolutely committed to cleaning up the yard and leaves and improving the landscaping, and not a day in the summer went by that I was not told I needed to mow or weed eat regardless of how recently I had done so. Unfortunately, in the fall of 2023, my mothers cancer came back. It was at this point that further surgery or invasive treatment was not an option, and the best we could do was some limited chemotherapy and quality of life measures. My mom was soon not able to do much in the way of working on or cleaning or directing my efforts on either my house or at 200 Fountain Avenue, but she fought hard to do so until it was no longer feasible. She became wheelchair bound in November of 2023, and at that point the best I could do was to make changes and improvements and take pictures so I could her when I visited. Things continued on and ran their course. In January of this year my mom passed away. It has certainly been one of the hardest experiences of my life, and I'm not even close to beginning to have felt the full measure of this loss. I can't speak too much about it at this moment, because I'm not ready to. All I can say is that I bought 200 Fountain Avenue with the goal of having it available for family and friends, but my most pressing and important goal at the time was to provide another avenue, no matter how costly or unreasonable, for my mom to feel joy day to day and feel productive. I think I succeeded in that goal, and I wouldn't change a thing. Furthermore, after all of that, I have no desire to part with the property. I'm not going to sell it, and I don't feel like having long-term renters inside of it either; it would break my heart to get the house back after 6 or 12 months and find out that irreparable damage had been done to the character of the house or the things my mom had worked on. Instead, I'm going to keep the property for my own personal use; I probably will live in it temporarily at some points as I make major improvements to my house at 212 Fountain Avenue, which could do with a fair amount of rewiring and a panel replacement, among some other structural improvements which will make living in it uncomfortable while they're taking place. Additionally, I'm going to keep it furnished for visiting family and friends to use. Most of them don't like staying in hotels and the other accommodation options here are limited. With that paradigm in mind, I think it's reasonable to place the property into some productive use throughout the times in the year when myself or family and friends are not visiting. While I'll keep the house regardless, it would be preferable if when not in use by me and mine that it is used as a short-term rental. This additional revenue would help offset the cost of maintaining the property and should in theory expedite and improve my work and investment in 212 Fountain Avenue (which I'm also committed deeply to since my family and my mom also did much there). I appreciate anyone who stuck around this long to read all of the above; I did apologize ahead of time. However, before I close out, I did mention I'd discuss the neighborhood as well. Some has been said about the character and nature of the neighborhood, wanting to keep community spirit alive, etc. I can appreciate that, and I hope the same. Most everyone has been friendly to me, and I've had very few disagreements or issues with any of my neighbors. The Fountain Avenue neighborhood does indeed seem to be a shining example of some of the best residential Paducah Page 4 of 5 Attachment 1 has to offer. I guess I wanted to mention that because I really enjoy living there myself, and don't want to see the neighborhood changed for the worse. I would not be requesting this proposed use for 200 Fountain Avenue if I thought it was going to degrade what we have there; I'm just trying to add to it, as I think allowing new people to come and stay there and see what we're about here in Paducah would be a good thing for the neighborhood and the city. And at the end of the day, if using 200 Fountain Avenue caused problems or was seriously making an issue in the neighborhood, I live right next door and would be the first one to cease operating it as a STR. I want to keep the neighborhood safe, friendly, and quiet, and while I don't think or project that people wanting to visit Paducah inherently would disturb that, I'll be on standby to pull the plug if so. Page 5 of 5 Attachment 2 Narrative Addressal of Appeal Nathan Myers 6/28/2024 For convenience, this narrative summary addresses the submitted appeal in concern of ZON2024- 0002's recommendation of approval from the Planning Commission to the Board of Commission. The marked up, annotated version of the appeal (Attachment 3) is provided for direct reference, if desired. This addressal contains personal commentary and observations, whereas Attachment 3 deals purely in addressing technical and factual errors, and does not delve into matters of opinion or perspective. The Appeal Request ("Request for Board of Commissioners to Decide Zoning Map Amendment") Consistent with Kentucky Revised Statutes and Section 126-176 of the City of Paducah's Code of Ordinances, appeal of the Planning Commission's recommendation for approval of the requested zone change and request for conditional use permit was made within (21) days of the positive recommendation. However, it is of note that the appeal, provided via "Request for Board of Commissioners to Decide Zoning Map Amendment", was not submitted in a complete or appropriate manner. While I do not object to the appeal being accepted and processed (the assumption must be made that the appeal was filed in good faith and to the best of the appellant's ability), it is important to note where the form is inaccurate. I have only included the salient and important discrepancies here, while full annotation is provided in Attachment 3 and also addresses other minor or less important errors. The following must be noted here, however: 1. The "Zone Change Requested" block failed to characterize the entirety of the zone change: just "NSZ" was noted. The zone change recommended by the City and the Planning Commission is from R-1 to NSZ with a conditional use permit for short term rental. I note this here because the conditional use permit for short term rental is integral to the request and was included in the recommendation for approval. 2. The "Date of PPC public hearing" block inaccurately describes a negative vote from the Planning Commission at the original meeting to discuss the request. The vote on the May 6, 2024 meeting did not "deny" the request, rather, the vote that carried was to deny the motion to recommend approval of the request at that time. In effect, it was a vote to consider the request at the next meeting. Related, the block below ("PPC Recommendation") inaccurately marks both the "Approve" and "Deny" boxes. The only box that should have been checked was "Approve", reflecting the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Board of Commissioners that the request be approved. Page 1 of 5 Attachment 2 3. It is unclear from the appeal from who the appellant(s) are. The appeal form is structured consistent with other forms and documentation involved in city government; requests, appeals, and other filings are made by a single entity or person, while interested parties are listed elsewhere or noted outside of the form. It can be inferred from the address listed on the appeal form and the email address/method of transmission that the appellant is Mr. William Coscarelli. The other names and signatures are irrelevant in the scope of filing an appeal, and the (3) additional names and signatures listed seem to have been included in an attempt to lend credibility or force to the appeal. Such an inclusion is inappropriate on an appeal filing and is somewhat odd considering the exclusion of other addresses, phone numbers, or email addresses (other listed individuals also absent from transmission of the appeal via email). Regulatory and Community Objections to Rezoning 200 Fountain Avenue This section contains the majority of inaccuracies, errors, and misleading statements. I do not mean to characterize these failings in a vindictive manner; I believe they were made in good faith. However, I believe it's important for the Board of Commissioners to understand where and how this section of the appeal paints an incorrect picture of the request. First, the characterization of this section as "community" objections to the request is incorrect and prejudicial. It is impossible for this appeal to be seen as "the community's" objections to the request; no data, polling, or canvassing documentation is included to support the idea that more members of the community other than the appellant and the three (3) other listed names; for that matter, I'm a member of the community, and I support the request. Even if the appeal included some type of informal polling or gathered statements, these would additionally be considered prejudicial due to their being collected in what would be likely a solicitous and biased manner. The democratic traditions in our society and processes defined by federal, state, and local (in this case, City of Paducah codes and ordinances) spurn such prejudicial methods of "voting" or opinion gathering, as it is open to manipulation and misrepresentation. Although not provided with the original appeal, it is my recommendation that the Board reject or disregard any submission of such material as may be provided by the appellant before the meeting to address this matter, and further I recommend the Board only consider any additional opinions, objections, or statements that are either (a) provided directly to the City or the Board and signed by the individual, or (b) provided during the public hearing. These are the only reliable indicators of community sentiment. Second, the "regulatory" objections to the request are numerous, and I will attempt to treat them as they appear in the appeal: 1. The Paducah Comprehensive Plan is quoted, specifically, "Residential areas should not be zoned so they are non -conforming". The inclusion of this section of the comprehensive plan supports the request, as noted by the City and the Planning Commission, as approving the request would clear a non -conforming zone designation; 200 Fountain Avenue is Page 2 of 5 Attachment 2 currently non -conforming to the R-1 zoning standards, and rezoning to NSZ would bring the property's zone designation into conformity. 2. It is stated that "Converting 200 Fountain to a Short -Term Rental (not to be confused with a B&B designation) is at odds with the R-1 designation.". This statement is illogical, as the request is to rezone 200 Fountain Avenue to NSZ, which allows short term rental with conditional use permit (which is basis of the request). 3. KRS 100.21 is referenced, but I believe the appellant meant to reference KRS 100.213, where the text presented is sourced. In any case, the responses provided to the text of the statute are unnecessary and misleading: the Planning Commission found that the map amendment was in agreement with the adopted comprehensive plan as defined in section (1), and therefore the requirements of the statute are met to approve a map amendment. Subpoints (a) and (b) are unnecessary to address once the criteria of section (1) is met. a. The addressal of subpoint (a) in the appeal misinterprets what a conforming or nonconforming use is. An understandable mistake, but irrelevant to the request. b. The addressal of subpoint (b) seems to misunderstand the nature of the request; the appeal shows commercial buildings across the street from the property and opines about the loss of residential character. However, as acknowledged and even pointed to in the appeal, this lot and building is zoned R-1, the current zoning of 200 Fountain Avenue; it would logically follow, then, that maintaining the property in the R-1 designation is not advantageous to preserving its residential character. The appeal seems to conflate the issue of zoning and the conditional use permit for short term rental, and seems to be (confusingly) attempting to request that the property remain in an R-1 designation while pointing to the issue of loss of character in another R-1 zoned property. 4. The appeal states that rezoning 200 Fountain Avenue is in direct conflict with the city's strategic goal of "Investment in the improvement of our housing stock to help grow our community". In this section follows highly problematic and prejudicial commentary: a. The statement is made: "Mr. Myers purchased the house in 2023. It is a two- bedroom, one bath home with a two -car garage. He purchased it for $110,000. Think instead, if the house were available for purchase for a new Allied Health graduate from SIU or Murray who was moving here to work at a hospital; no doubt, we would easily have added another family to the area—not a series of temporary visitors in a Short -Term Rental." This statement is predicated on false equivalency: that somehow, the request for rezoning and conditional use permit is directly related to the conditions of purchase and theoretical sale of the house; the request is entirely unrelated the conditions of purchase or sale of the house, or indeed the occupation or education of the theoretical owners. In truth, this statement in the appeal seems Page 3 of 5 Attachment 2 to be suggesting that the appellant(s) would somehow desire to force a sale of the house, rather than deal with the subject of the request and its merits. It furthermore deals with hypotheticals which have been stated repeatedly to be irrelevant: I am not selling the house, and any inheritors of the house (close family with the same attachment to the property) will not be selling the house. Therefore, the inclusion of this statement seems vindictive and possibly predicated on desires or motives other than addressing the proposed use and request. 5. The appeal goes on to reference that the neighborhood area is recognized on the National Register of Historic Places and provides a history/mapping of the neighborhood. However, the appeal does not directly provide any context or objection to the request in this section. In my view, the positive commentary concerning the neighborhood supports the request, in that it would provide a managed, controlled opportunity for visitors and tourists to enjoy the "showcase" neighborhood of Paducah and attract future tourism and residents. 6. The final section entitled "Loss of Community Relationships" makes several confusing an unsubstantiated statements: a. The first is the statement: "Transient visitors benefit from the kindness of the community — but move on — Red Coats do not!" This statement seems to suggest that visitors or tourists are not welcome in Paducah. In a generous reading, I believe the appellant was trying to state that all housing units in the city should be reserved for residents and no tourists/visitors should be allowed to rent them while visiting. This does not reflect reality or current city policy and code that does in fact allow short term rentals by right or by conditional use (as this request desires). b. The second is the statement: "Marriott has a very good Short Term Rental program with their Residence Inns. We benefit most by letting them serve our visitors and concentrating on building our city population and services." This statement is confusing; I believe the appellant is referencing the hotel in the mall area, which is certainly not a "short term rental" and is not germane to the discussion of lodging availability in downtown. Marriot does indeed offer a "Homes & Villas" program, which is similar to short term rental, but the closest availability for this program is in Lovelaceville, and decidedly outside of Paducah. c. The third statement reads: "Finally, as was mentioned during comments in previous sessions, we don't believe Paducah codes prevent a squatter's assumption of a property. Opening the issue of a squatter "rights" assumption; before solving the problem, would likely be a mistake given Paducah's already noticeable homeless population." This statement is entirely confusing and irrelevant to this request. Squatter's rights and adverse possession are entirely outside of the context of a request for a map amendment and conditional use permit. Again, adopting a generous reading, I believe the appellant is trying to falsely equate short term Page 4 of 5 Attachment 2 rentals with homelessness or adverse possession by the logic that a property being used for short term rental is vacant for short periods in which a person could theoretically break and enter into the property. Breaking and entering and trespassing are both criminal conduct that have straightforward legal recourse and are entirely irrelevant to the request before the Board of Commissioners. It is of note, however, that during my ownership of the property for over a year not once has there been even an attempt to force entry or occupy the property illegally despite being vacant all of that period (excluding maintenance, cleaning, etc.; vacancy used here to communicate no residents). d. The last statement is: "The issue of temporary visitors and the negative consequences is becoming an issue in a number of cities" and is accompanied by a graphic from the Lexington Herald Ledger's website's online publication showing a quote from an article "I want neighbors, not strangers. Some Lexington residents worry Airbnbs are taking over." i. The statement and graphic do not offer any substantiation of the "negative consequences" or provide any examples, so I'm unsure why they were included in the appeal, other than to vaguely suggest that there are negative consequences or worries without evidence. ii. For my part, I have traveled quite a bit during my time in the Navy, and have lived in cities including Charleston, SC, Annapolis, MD, and Mystic, CT, which are all cities famed for their population growth, comfortable and walkable neighborhoods, and tourism. In other words, they are all great cities to visit and live in. Each one of them allows short-term rentals downtown, as they recognize the benefits that come with allowing tourists to enjoy and experience the city as if they were a resident, if only for a few days. Those tourists often become repeat visitors and decide to relocate to the city because they had such a great experience visiting and staying in a downtown residence. To address the concerns implied by the statement and graphic, I agree that the number of units operating and areas should be controlled through city process and approval (hence my request), but I believe (consistent with the City's report and the Planning Commission's recommendation) that this request represents a reasonable way to provide at least one licensed short term rental in the showcase neighborhood of the city. I have no further comments concerning the appeal, except to say I do not believe the substance of the appeal other than the cover page (less the referenced issues) should be considered due to the issues presented above. Page 5 of 5 Attachment 3 � c e& fcr Bard ff. Commissioners b Decide Zoning Map Amendment Address of property requested for zone change: _ 200 Fountain Avenue, Paducah, KY Acreage involved: gQ x 89 Zone change requested: NSZ Applicant: Nathan Myers Date of PPC public hearin : 515—voted 4-2 to deny the charge request; 5l3 --voted 3-2 to accept PPC Recommendation,: Date: 013 APPROVE I x I DENY X NOTICE FOR 8{7AF2D OF COrVINIiSSIONERS TO DECIDE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (Must be flied within 21 days of PPC recommendation 1 NOTICE FILED BY: Please indicate by checking Board of Commissioners the appropriate box for a Aggrieved Person request to have the Board of x Commissioners decide rezoning petition Name (please print): William & Teri Coscareili, Terri & Jack Buri Address: 220 Fountain Phone Number: 270-564-0488 Email Address: CasCarel@siu.edu Signature: ` Date Notice fled: June 17, 2024 i Submittal of this notice serves as written request in accordance with KRS 900.2111 to the City of Paducah Planning Coom mission (PPC) 'that the final decision on the above -referenced map amendment is to be made by the Board of Commissioners. If no written request is made by the Board of Commissioners or any aggrieved person within 21 days after the final action of the PPC, then the recommendation made by the PPC shall become final and if recommended for approval by the PPC, the mop amendment shall be automatically implemented subject to the provisions of KRS 100.347 RECEIVED IN PPC OFFICE ON: G T'r MEWN=�xWx0P PADUCAH Be the Best Attachment 3 Regulatory and Community Objections to Rezoning 200 Fountain Avenue The proposed rezoning of 200 Fountain Avenue from R-1 to NSZ should not be approved. R-1 is correct as 200 Fountain has been a part of a discreet neighborhood since the 1900s and so recognized under current zoning. "Residential areas should 200 Fountain Avenue was once the address for Vice -President not be zoned so Barkley. The house and lot were later divided up and part of the they are non- original house was moved to face Jefferson from the original lot. PVA records seem to indicate this decision was made in February, conforming" 1912. Here is a current 2024 zoning map of the Jefferson Street area: --Paducah Comprehensive Plan KRS 100.21 Requirements As you can see, the length of Jefferson, in the brown, is R-1. This includes 200 Fountain, which is highlighted with a box. R-1 on Jefferson has been a stable pattern at least since 1912. Converting 200 Fountain to a Short -Term Rental (not to be confused with a B&B designation) is at odds with the R-1 designation and would be like knocking out a center tooth from the middle of about 40 teeth (parcels to the right and left). Findings necessary for proposed map amendment: (1) Before any map amendment is granted, the planning commission or the legislative body or fiscal court must find that the map amendment is in agreement with the adopted comprehensive plan, or, in the absence of such a finding, that one (1) or more of the following apply and such finding shall be recorded in the minutes and records of the planning commission or the legislative body or fiscal court: Attachment 3 (a) That the existing zoning classification given to the property is inappropriate and that the proposed zoning classification is appropriate; Response: The history of the street and the stability of the R-1 zone designation over time would make this rezoning nonconforming to the consistent housing plan of Jefferson. (b) That there have been major changes of an economic, physical, or social nature within the area involved which were not anticipated in the adopted comprehensive plan and which have substantially altered the basic character of such area. Response: Any changes that have evolved over the years have happened on the non-residential side of Jefferson Street. The houses on the North side of the street have remained intact as part of a growing and maturing residential neighborhood; therefore, no major changes of an economic, physical, or social nature have altered the housing. The perfect example of what happens to a modification on Jefferson of R-1 is the creation of a single office building and asphalt parking lot directly across Jefferson from 200 Fountain. These are NOT neighbors. W__In:� Attachment 3 A Paducah Strategic Goal: Paducah has a goal to improve lower cost housing for the continued "Investment in health of the community. The Fountain Avenue Project is a prime the example of setting a fair target point for new or renewed houses ($150,000). (At the moment I believe there is only one house left in improvement the Project that has not been rehabbed.) of our housing stock to help Rezoning 200 Fountain is in direct conflict with this city goal. Mr. grow our Myers purchased the house in 2023. It is a two-bedroom, one bath community" home with a two -car garage. He purchased it for $110,000. Think instead, if the house were available for purchase for a new Allied Health graduate from SIU or Murray who was moving here to work at a hospital; no doubt, we would easily have added another family to the area—not a series of temporary visitors in a Short -Term Rental. National In 1982 the neighborhood area was recognized on the National Register of Register of Historic Places. Their designation does not match one - Historic Places to -one with the city zoning; but their mapping recognized the Narrative distinct nature of Jefferson and the neighborhoods to the North vs. Jefferson and the area to the South, though touching Broadway in places. "When originally developed, the Jefferson Street -Fountain Avenue neighborhood laid on the western boundary of the city of Paducah. Since then, the west end area of Paducah has become the town's leading residential area. The Jefferson Street -Fountain Avenue area now lies in the center of town. Jefferson Street serves as a major traffic artery between the west end residential area and the downtown commercial district. Because of the beauty of the historic houses and the park -like medians, the Jefferson Street and Fountain Avenue area has always served as a showcase for this western Kentucky city. The boundaries of the Jefferson Street -Fountain Avenue District were drawn to include the most architecturally and historically significant structures in the neighborhood. The boundaries include Jefferson Street froml4th Street to 28th Street. Stretches of Jefferson Street above and below this area were not included because of commercial encroachment. The three block section of Fountain Avenue was included because it contains the most significant structures on the street." Here is the map: Attachment 3 Map from Paducah National Historic Places: _ _ a its LIL— •!Rf*t*lF "I 'I lie' i `+ r !! - iCC ES. A'rcIx e L LOT � /f I R..�El�ll ..:T.. 11 RODFIT- S do i• rT e••sw+.+ t� � � n ee I� tT. � a L� ! I 1 { �4 or i` i /Qur Tlu Mt"' � Q • 17 !T QA I i � � �,�� IT 6T o I= r *� I40 t rT = i �� '• tr 1 � !" - gni �d o! M K+t�. .r ■�rD I CL I� is !r l M4 M !T pE I! It Attachment 3 Loss of Communities work best when people share goals and actions. Community Members of Paducah sponsor arts and music festivals, Red Coat Relationships Ambassadors meet and greet visitors in all settings. Transient visitors benefit from the kindness of the community—but move on -- Red Coats do not! Marriott has a very good Short Term Rental program with their Residence Inns. We benefit most by letting them serve our visitors and concentrating on building our city population and services. Finally, as was mentioned during comments in previous sessions, we don't believe Paducah codes prevent a squatter's assumption of a property. Opening the issue of a squatter "rights" assumption; before solving the problem, would likely be a mistake given Paducah's already noticeable homeless population. The issue of temporary visitors and the negative consequences is becoming an issue in a number of cities. Lexington most recently. 1*4PM Tue AprU Attachment 4 STAFF REPORT PADUCAH PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION INFORMATION ADDRESS 200 Fountain Avenue CASE No. ZON2024-0002 OWNER Nathan Myers AGENT -- REQUEST Proposed rezoning from R -I Low Density Residential to Neighborhood Services Zone and short-term rental pursuant to KRS 100.202 5 HEARING DATE May 6, 2024 GENERAL SITE INFORMATION CURRENT ZONING R-1 Low Density Residential Zone CURRENT LAND USE Single-family home COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Neighborhood Conservation SURROUNDING AREA INFORMATION SITE HISTORY The house is 1,019 square feet. It was permitted in May of 1987. SURROUNDING ZONING SURROUNDING LAND USE NORTH NSZ Single-family SOUTH R-1 Commercial/ multi -family EAST R -I Single-family WEST NSZ/ R-1 Single-family SITE HISTORY The house is 1,019 square feet. It was permitted in May of 1987. KRUGER ST _ iCYPRESS ST (Py7) t i MYRTLE AVE(FVi) F r [{� Qom` PRAMS f _ Attachment 4 4 III I I�� ILI Attachment 4 7 Nsz � .T R-1 63 'y Total area proposed to be rezoned The submittal for consideration has two parts. The Petitioner requests that the property located at 200 Fountain Avenue be rezoned from R-1 Low Density Residential Zone to Neighborhood Services Zone. The Petitioner further requests that the Planning Commission, acting under statutory authority contained in KRS 100.202 (5) and Section 126-176 (g) of the Paducah Zoning Ordinance, grant a conditional use for a short-term rental at this location. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS KRS 100.213 "Before any map amendment is granted, the planning commission or the legislative body or fiscal court must find that the map amendment is in agreement with the adopted comprehensive plan, or, in the absence of such a finding, that one or more of the following apply and such finding shall be recorded in the minutes and records of the Planning Commission or the legislative body or fiscal court: (a) That the existing zoning classification given to the property is inappropriate and that the proposed zoning classification is appropriate; and (b) That there have been major changes of an economic, physical or social nature within the area involved which were not anticipated in the adopted comprehensive plan and which have substantially altered the basic character of such area." CONSIDERATIONS -- REZONING Attachment 4 This location is adjacent next to the Neighborhood Services Zone. An expansion of this zone would therefore not be a spot zoning, but a continuation thereof. Additionally, the site is contained within the Jefferson Street -Fountain Avenue Historic District, established in July of 1982. The current lot is 89' X 90' or a total of 8,010 square feet. Therefore, this lot is non -conforming with respect to being in the R-1 Zone. The prescribed smallest lot size is 12,000 square feet in the R-1 Zone for a single-family structure. The prescribed smallest lot size is 8,000 square feet in the NSZ for a single- family structure. Nonconformities are addressed at length in the City of Paducah Comprehensive Plan as follows: "Nonconformity should be viewed as undesirable. The only exception is when the desire to have the use be discontinued because of it's nuisance potential. First, nonconforming status is a burden on the landowner who may have difficulty getting loans to improve a nonconforming structure. Second, there are the costs and frustration ofseeking relief. Third, it is a burden on staff andzoning boards to deal with requests for many variances that result when the conditions are common, as in a whole block. When areas are nonconforming, there is a tendency to grant variations even though they do not meet the statutory or legal standards for granting variations. There is no protection of the public health, safety and welfare or any other benefit in having significant nonconforming areas. In the developed area, the protection of neighborhoods means that zoning regulations must closely match what is on the ground and few uses should be nonconforming. Except where land values are so high and the neighborhood so desirable that the marketplace is forcing redevelopment, the fact is that nonconforming uses will remain so for many years. Only the most noxious uses should be nonconforming. The test should be whether the use is such a nuisance or so negative to the community that it needs to be eliminated. Residential areas should not be zoned so they are nonconforming. It is clear that areas that are nonconforming are less likely to seek reinvestment than areas that are conforming. These older areas need every encouragement to reinvest in the homes and neighborhood. Areas that have a significant number of nonconforming lots include older portions of the City hat were established before the adoption ofzoning in the City of Paducah. " Bringing this structure into the Neighborhood Services Zone would afford additional protections to this home. The exterior changes in this zone are approved and administered by the Historic Architectural Review Commission (HARC). Because this home is on a prominent corner and on a major thoroughfare into the Fountain Avenue Neighborhood, additional protections afforded to this home, and by extension it's neighbors, would help to further the goals and objectives of establishing the historic district. EXCERPT FROM THE PADUCAH ZONING ORDINANCE Sec. 126-120. Neighborhood Services Zone, NSZ The purpose of this zone is to provide for primarily residential uses and encourage such development by right, according to standards that will ensure harmony with the existing historic residential environment. Limited commercial uses may be introduced provided compliance with a conditional use permit upholding the historic fabric of the neighborhood. 1. Principal permitted uses. a. Single-family dwellings. Attachment 4 1. Minimum lot area: Eight thousand (8,000) square feet 2. Minimum lot width: Fifty (50) feet. b. Two-family dwellings. 1. Minimum lot area: Four thousand (4,000) square feet per unit. 2. Minimum lot width: Fifty (50) feet (per structure). c. Park, playground or community center owned and operated by a governmental agency. d. Special event short-term rentals. 2. Conditionally permitted uses. The following shall require written approval from the Historical and Architectural Review Commission: a. Multi -family dwellings. 1. Minimum lot area: Three thousand (3,000) square feet per unit. 2. Minimum lot width: Sixty (60) feet. b. Home occupations. c. Professional offices. d. Daycares. e. Beauty shops and barbershops. f. Places of worship. g. Short-term rentals. h. The following uses, provided they are conducted wholly within a building except for off-street loading and unloading: 1. Retail establishments (product processing is allowed only if the products are sold at retail on the premises); 2. Personal and convenience service establishments; 3. Restaurant (excluding drive-thru); 4. Any other use not listed which, in the HARC's opinion, would be compatible with the above uses. 3. Minimum yard requirements. a. Front yard: Twenty-five (25) feet. b. Side yard: Six (6) feet. c. Rear yard: Twenty-five (25) feet. 4. Minimum area requirements for non-residential structures: a. Minimum lot area: Eight thousand (8,000) square feet. b. Minimum lot width: Fifty (50) feet. Attachment 4 5. Maximum building height. Thirty-six (36) feet, however, additional feet may be allowed with design approval from the HARC based on the scale of adjacent structures. 6. Additional regulations: a. Off-street loading areas may not face any public right-of-way. b. No loading or unloading shall be allowed between 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. c. The Historical and Architectural Review Commission (HARC) shall have sole jurisdiction as a special board of adjustment over the NSZ pursuant to KRS 82.026 and 100.217. 7. Plan approval required for new construction and for changes in exterior appearance. In order to maintain the existing character of the neighborhood; plans for architectural design, site layout or changes in style of architectural elements must be approved by the Historical and Architectural Review Commission (HARC). The HARC may require changes to the plan as deemed necessary or desirable to ensure proper design standards, to minimize traffic difficulties, to safeguard adjacent properties and to preserve the intent of the NSZ. a. Certificate of Zoning Compliance required. 1. No person shall, without first applying for and obtaining a special conditional use permit, to be known as a Certificate of Zoning Compliance, make any changes in exterior appearance to any exterior portion of any structures in the NSZ. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance must be issued by the Planning Department before a building permit can be obtained. 2. Infill/new construction and additions to existing structures. All new construction and additions to existing structures must first be issued a Certificate of Zoning Compliance before any construction begins. Existing structures. i. Changes to the design or style of any exterior feature on an existing structure requires a Certificate of Zoning Compliance. ii. Administrative approvals. In the following instances, Certificates of Zoning Compliance can be issued by the Zoning Administrator. A. In instances where the design or style of any exterior feature is replicated and replaced with a new material, the Zoning Administrator has the authority to administratively approve the application for a Certificate of Zoning Compliance. The proposed materials must comply with the approved building materials list found in the design guidelines. B. New accessory structures that use the same building materials and an appropriately sized and style of windows and doors that complement the existing primary structure can be administratively approved. Features considered include structure orientation, openings, roof pitch, siding and color scheme. C. Cutting or removal of trees that are more than one (1) foot in diameter measured at one (1) foot off of the ground require a Certificate of Zoning Compliance. Removal of trees can be approved administratively. Attachment 4 D. Changing the color of a surface that has already been painted can be approved administratively. E. Fences that are determined to comply with the advisory design guidelines can be approved administratively. F. Any proposed demolition of a principal structure requires a Certificate of Zoning Compliance prior to obtaining a demolition permit. Demolitions outside of the Demolition Control Zone can be approved administratively. b. Applications for a Certificate of Zoning Compliance. 1. Applications for a Certificate of Zoning Compliance are submitted to the Planning Department. 2. A public hearing is required on all applications except for administrative approvals as outlined in this section. 3. Grounds for granting a Certificate of Zoning Compliance. The HARC must make written findings of fact as follows: i. The proposed exterior changes comply with the intent of the Neighborhood Services Zone. ii. The proposed exterior changes are in harmony with the adopted design guidelines. iii. The HARC shall adopt design guidelines for the NSZ to act as a guide for board decisions on plan approvals and changes to the exterior appearance of existing structures. The document shall be made available to the public to aid in the design approval process. iv. Maintenance and safety standards. A. All buildings within this zone shall be maintained to meet the requirements of the building code and property maintenance codes of the City. B. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the City Building Officials from enforcing all State statutes and provisions of this code and any other ordinances of the City pertaining to the public safety. v. Appeals. Any person aggrieved by any action of the Zoning Administrator may appeal their decision to the HARC pursuant to KRS 100.257. Any person aggrieved by any action of the HARC may appeal the decision to the Circuit Court in the manner prescribed for appeals from actions of boards of adjustment. CONSIDERATIONS -- CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST Acting under the statutory authority contained in KRS 100.202 (5) and codified in Section 126-176 (g) of the Paducah Zoning Ordinance, the Petitioner has requested the home be utilized as a short-term rental. Section 126-68 of the Paducah Zoning Ordinance indicates the criteria required to approve conditional uses. The Planning Commission must find that: 1. The proposed conditional use is to be located in a zone wherein such use may be permitted; and 2. The conditional use... Attachment 4 • Is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of this chapter, • Will not substantially and permanently injure the appropriate use of neighboring property, and • Will serve the public convenience and welfare The Petitioner requests to operate a short-term rental at 200 Fountain Avenue. Short-term rentals are conditionally permitted in the Neighborhood Services Zone, pursuant to Section 126-120 (2) (g) of the Paducah Zoning Ordinance. The entire house is proposed to be a STR with additional access to the fenced backyard. The home contains two bedrooms. The number of guests is proposed to be no more than four at a time. The site has a driveway off Fountain Avenue in which guests would park. The driveway is approximately 65' long, which can accommodate two or three vehicles tandem -style. There is also on -street parking on Fountain Avenue available if needed. A garage exists at the end of the driveway that will be retained for the Petitioner's private use. The Petitioner has no specific guest demographic in mind, but would like for visitors to stay multiple days or for the weekends. One-night stays could be a secondary option. The STR is intended for guests that would like to visit Paducah and all our amenities. This location is not within a residential subdivision. This site is on the edge of the NSZ and within the Jefferson Street -Fountain Avenue Historic District. The home also fronts on Jefferson Street, a high- volume collector street in this location. An apartment complex and a commercial business are located on the south side of Jefferson Street across from this location. The proposed STR is centrally located in the City of Paducah. This site has easy vehicular access. The site is one block from Broadway, which is a minor arterial. The site is three blocks from Martin Luther King Jr. Drive/ Park Avenue, also major arterials. Further, the site is centrally located to shopping, dining and entertainment in both downtown Paducah and in the Regional Trade Center. All of Paducah's other historic districts are nearby. The Fire Prevention Division has not offered any specific concerns regarding this request. Staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit based on the following findings of fact 1. The site has convenient ingress and egress to Broadway which is a minor arterial. 2. The site has convenient ingress and egress to Martin Luther King Jr. Drive/ Park Avenue, both of which are major arterials. 3. The site is not within a residential subdivision. 4. The site is on the edge of the Neighborhood Services Zone. 5. An apartment building and commercial building are located to the south of the site, which minimizes an entirely residential character. 6. The number of guests will be limited to no more than four at a time. 7. The site is centrally located within the City of Paducah, giving guests easy access to shopping, dining and entertainment in both the downtown area and at the Regional Trade Center. 8. The site is within the Jefferson Street -Fountain Avenue Historic District. Attachment 4 9. Other City of Paducah historic districts are nearby, affording guests a unique cultural experience. 10. The driveway contains sufficient parking for up to three vehicles tandem -style. RECOMMENDED MOTION Based on the above, staff recommends approval of the rezoning and conditional use request and recommends the following motion: I move that this Commission adopt a resolution approving the Neighborhood Services Zone classification for property located at 200 Fountain Avenue. I further move that the approval be based on the following findings offact: 1. The rezoning is in compliance with the City of Paducah Comprehensive Plan. 2. The Comprehensive Plan speaks at length about the abolishment of nonconforming uses, stating specifically that nonconformity should be viewed as undesirable. 3. The rezoning of this lot would remove the nonconforming status of the lot in the R-1 Zone to a conforming status in the Neighborhood Services Zone. 4. The site is in the Jefferson Street Fountain Avenue Historic District. S. The site is on a prominent corner leading into the greater Fountain Avenue Neighborhood. Additional protections would be placed on the home and the neighborhood at large, by way of exterior approvals being reviewed by the Historic Architecture Review Commission. 6. An apartment building and commercial building are located to the south of the site, which minimizes an entirely residential character as the R-1 Zone would suggest. 7. The Neighborhood Services Zone is located adjacent to this site, therefore spot zoning would be negated. Ifurther move that this Commission approve the conditional use request ofNathan Myers for a short-term rental to be located in the Neighborhood Services Zone at 200 Fountain Avenue. Attachment 4 I further move that the approval be based on the following findings offact: 1. The site has convenient ingress and egress to Broadway which is a minor arterial. 2. The site has convenient ingress and egress to Martin Luther King Jr. Drivel Park Avenue, both of which are major arterials. 3. The site is not within a residential subdivision. 4. The site is on the edge of the Neighborhood Services Zone. 5. An apartment building and commercial building are located to the south of the site, which minimizes an entirely residential character. 6. The number ofguests will be limited to no more than four at a time. 7. The site is centrally located within the City of Paducah, giving guests easy access to shopping, dining and entertainment in both the downtown area and at the Regional Trade Center. 8. The site is within the Jefferson Street -Fountain Avenue Historic District. 9. Other City of Paducah historic districts are nearby, affording guests a unique cultural experience. 10. The driveway contains sufficient parking for up to three vehicles tandem -style. NEXT STEPS: Should the Commission be inclined to approve the Conditional Use permit: • The Petitioner will need to obtain a City of Paducah business license from the Finance Department. • The Petitioner will need to file a McCracken County Transient Room Tax Form with the McCracken County Finance Department. • A Certificate of Land Use Restriction (CLUR) will be recorded at the McCracken County Clerk's Office. • Building permits may be required from the Fire Prevention Division. Nathan Myers 212 Fountain Avenue Paducah, KY 42001 270-556-9617 natemyers16@gmail.com 02/02/2025 Paducah Board of Commissioners City of Paducah 300 S 5th St Paducah, KY 42003 SUBJ: Consideration of Zoning Map Amendment and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Short— Term Rental (STR) at 200 Fountain Avenue Dear Board of Commissioners, I'm writing this letter as a follow up to my previous letter and submission with respect to the appeal via a Request for Board of Commissioners to Decide Zoning Map Amendment, in concern of the property located at 200 Fountain Avenue, Paducah, KY 42001. I am respectfully requesting that the Board of Commissioners uphold the decision and findings of fact of the Planning Commission as executed on June 3, 2024. The following pages include the materials and supporting references that I had submitted in September 2024; those remain as they were originally submitted, with the only changes being this letter appended to the front of the package in addition to a two-page overview of the matter. I felt it was important to provide a brief recollection of the facts and positions, for your convenience in considering this matter: I purchased and moved into my current residence at 212 Fountain Avenue in August of 2022. Subsequently, I purchased 200 Fountain Avenue in May of 2023, primarily as a project for my mother and grandmother to work on and improve outdated or degraded components of the home's interior and function. Short-term rentals (STR) were not the goal of the purchase, but became a "nice to have" idea to utilize the property once I determined that the house would be used for friends and family visiting, and that I would not sell the property. 2. I submitted my initial request in the period of March through April of 2024 to the Planning Commission, as allowed per the Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) and Paducah Code of Ordinances, upon the advice of City Planning (I had originally submitted a rezoning request only and had planned to request the conditional use permit separately). The request was for a rezoning from R-1 (Low Density Residential) to NSZ (Neighborhood Services Zone), with conditional use permit (CUP) to allow STR. Page 1 of 2 The Planning Commission considered the matter twice. The first meeting on 5/6/2024 resulted in no recommendation being made to the Board of Commissioners. The second meeting on 6/3/2024 resulted in the Planning Commission approving a motion of favorable recommendation to the Board of Commissioners, adopting the findings of fact recommended by City Staff. 4. Following favorable recommendation, appeal took place by resident(s) of 200 Fountain Avenue to have the Board of Commissioners hear the matter. As discussed on the 9/17/2024 Board of Commissioners meeting, greater than 90 days had elapsed since recommendation from the Planning Commission had been made, and the City's interpretation of relevant statutory authority yielded that the recommendation from the Planning Commission had become effective. 6. Following the results of the 9/17/2024 meeting, suit was filed in the McCracken County Circuit Court against the City and myself (as property owner) seemingly to enact appeal provisions under certain sections of the Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS). Due to the personal expense and difficulty of continuing a suit in the Circuit Court, I agreed to the idea of having this matter heard again in front of the Board of Commissioners. It was not my intention to burden the Board with further proceedings, but given the time and expense of defending a lawsuit, another Board hearing remained the most feasible option to timely resolve the matter. This brings us to where we are now: back to the Board of Commissioners hearing the matter once more. I regret to further burden the Board and all parties involved; such burden of my own and the City's resources was never my intention when making what I thought was a straightforward request to facilitate a good idea. The above considered, I request that the Board of Commissioners uphold the recommendation of the Planning Commission, for reasons expounded upon in depth in the following pages. I will not reiterate all of them here, only that I believe it is the right thing to do to uphold the appointed Committee's decision. The conversations, questions, and deliberations of that body laid bare the motive and concerns of this request, to include that this request was made in the right way, with the right intentions, and that approving this request would prove a net gain for myself, the City, and the area. I appreciate your time and efforts in your public service, and I'd like to thank you for your time in reading these materials. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to me at my contact information provided herein; alternatively, I am prepared to answer any and all questions you may have at the special meeting. Thank you, Nathan Myers Page 2 of 2 200 Fountain Ave. Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit Application Overview Question Before the Board: Whether to uphold the City of Paducah Planning Commission's decision to grant Mr. Nathan Myers's rezoning and condition use request for 200 Fountain Ave. Key Terms • Low -Density Residential Zone (R-1) (See Paducah Zoning Code § 126-102) • Neighborhood Services Zone (NSZ) (See Paducah Zoning Code § 126-120) • Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (See Paducah Zoning Code § 126-68) The Property: 200 Fountain Ave. is a 1,019 sq. ft. residential home with two bedrooms, one bathroom, and an open kitchen -dining -living area. It also has a two -car detached garage. Nathan Myers purchased the property in May 2023. Mr. Myers's primary residence is immediately next door, at 212 Fountain Ave. 200 Fountain Ave. is currently zoned as R-1. Short-term rentals are not permitted for properties in the R-1 zone, and thus, to operate a short-term rental, 200 Fountain Ave. must be rezoned to NSZ and approved for conditional use as an STR. Summary of the Application & Timeline • March/April 2024: Mr. Myers filed an application with the Planning Commission (1) to rezone the property located at 200 Fountain Ave. to NSZ and (2) for a conditional use permit authorizing use of the property as a short-term rental. • May 6, 2024: The Planning Commission held a hearing on the application. • June 6, 2024: The Planning Commission held a second hearing on the application. The application was approved. • June 17, 2024: As represented, Mr. William ("Bill") Coscarelli submitted a "Request for the Board of Commissioners to Deciding Zoning Map Amendment," essentially asking the Board of Commissioners to reverse the decision of the Planning Commission. • September 17, 2024: The Board of Commissioners heard the matter. Counsel for the City advised that the BoC was only considering a zoning map amendment, because the Planning Commission had already approved the rezoning. The BoC voted to table the matter. • October 2, 2024: Mr. Coscarelli and the Jefferson Street Area Association ("JSAA") filed a lawsuit in the McCracken County Circuit Court claiming (1) they had been denied due process and (2) the Planning Commission's decision was arbitrary and capricious. • December 19, 2024: The parties reached agreement on staying the lawsuit and allowing the BoC to hold another hearing on the matter, ultimately scheduled for February 11, 2025. Page 1 of 2 200 Fountain Ave. Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit Application Overview Key Points of Opposition: Those opposing the application have proffered the following arguments. Opponent/Appellant Arguments Counterpoint In their written submissions or Whether or not 200 Fountain Ave. is approved for use statements in previous hearings, as an STR, Mr. Myers is not selling the property. opponents of the conditional use have Lobbying for prevention of the property's use as an expressed the sentiment that they STR will not change the fact that the property will not "want neighbors, not visitors," and provide Mr. Coscarelli and others with a new, allowing 200 Fountain Ave. to operate permanent neighbor. as an STR would deprive them of neighbors. In their written submissions or The only conditional use Mr. Myers has sought is for statements in previous hearings, use of the property as a short-term rental. Concern over opponents of the conditional use have any other use of the property is irrelevant because there raised concern over 200 Fountain Ave. is only one conditional use sought here, and thus, only being used as a halfway house or rehab one that the Board can approve. center or a location for businesses. In their written submissions or No concrete evidence has been presented in the course statements in previous hearings, of this matter to date to suggest that Paducah is opponents of the conditional use have experiencing a housing shortage or a widespread issue raised concern over short-term rentals with home prices. This case involves a single property, driving up the cost of property in the and the notion that one short-term rental could city of Paducah. significantly impact home values across the city is not supported by evidence or by common sense. In their written submissions or The type of short-term rental that would be operated in statements in previous hearings, this instance aligns with the 2025 draft Comprehensive opponents of the conditional use have Plan. Specifically, because Mr. Myers lives suggested that allowing short-term immediately next door to the property that would be rentals at 200 Fountain Ave. is rented, and because Mr. Myers and his family have inconsistent with the City's sentimental value in the property, the property will be Comprehensive Plan. well-managed, and any potential negative impacts will be promptly corrected. The STR considered here will protect neighborhood integrity while balancing the promotion of tourism and economic opportunity for Mr. Myers as a young propertyowner. The Board Should Uphold the Plannin- Commission's Decision Denying this application will have a chilling effect on property owners going through the proper channels to operate short-term rentals, risking their operation without permits. Allowing this single STR will provide another overnight accommodation option for downtown tourists during peak events like Quilt Week, Iron Mom, and BBQ on the River. The Planning Commission previously found that the rezoning and conditional use sought here comply with the City of Paducah Comprehensive Plan, among other key Findings of Fact. There is no compelling reason to overturn those previous findings. Page 2 of 2 Documents Provided by William 10 Coscarelli June, 2014 ZON2024-0002 200 Fountain Avenue I believe the proposed the proposed rezoning from R-1 to NSW should not be approved. I believe R-1 is correct as 200 Fountain has been a part of a discreet neighborhood since the 1900s. As the city report writes: "Residential areas should not be zoned so they are nonconforming." Turning a house on Fountain into a Short Term Rental is a nonconforming change to a neighborhood that is currently single families. The damage of changing 200 Fountain began, actually, with 200 Fountain itself. Here is a picture of Fountain Avenue about 1905. The empty lot in the foreground is my house at 220 Fountain. The first house you see is Nathan's. Then you see 200 Fountain as it looked for many years. In fact, it is my understanding the VP Barkley was born there. I can't find the reasons, but the 1905 house was later cut up and moved behind the 200 Fountain lot to face Jefferson Avenue. You can see the significant effect of leaving R-1 for the adjacent zone. :::Now* No I'm as i ■------- 71 F -P, In point of fact, the view from 200 Fountain includes a, literally, burnt out apartment building which has sat for probably three years, As well as a lack of attention developing to The English. The south side of the 100 block of Fountain was slowly modified and turned into a multi -story office building, a large piece of asphalt, and a tiny office building at the 1:34PM iue Ap,30 SlMAM other side. As well, Lexington is going through a degree of turmoil over short term rentals in their city, as they reported: The suggestions that HARC will monitor changes seems optimistic as the board has quite a bit to do under the current historical guidelines. I would also add that while the city is losing people to new construction in the Strawberry Hills area, and the mayor is talking about more affordable housing in the city; converting 200 Fountain from R-1 to NSZ to serve as a short-term rental property will also result in the loss of an attractive affordable housing unit when more are needed. In summary, the zoning change is not warranted and there is a history of neighborhood degradation once a zoning foot is in the door. I find Nathan a pleasant neighbor and wish that I didn't feel obliged to write this ... but neighborhoods need some stability and Paducah needs more affordable housing. William Coscarelli 220 Fountain Avenue Zequest fcr Burd of CDnrnissiel hers to Decide Zoning Map AI � e� Idl � e� lIt Address of property requested for zone change: 200 Fountain Avenue, Paducah, KY Acreage involved: go X gg Zone change requested: NSZ Applicant: Nathan Myers Date of PPC public hearing; 5l6 --voted 4-2 to deny the change request; 613 --voted 3-2 to accept PPC Recommendation: Date: 613 APPROVE x DENY x NOTICE FOR BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TO DECIDE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT (Must be filed wilhirn 21 days of PPC recommendation) NOTICE FILED BY: Please indicate by checking Board of Commissioners the appropriate box for a Aggrieved Person request to have the Board of dX Commissioners decide rezoning petition Name (please print): William & Teri Coscarelli, Terri Jack Buri Address: 220 Fountain Phone Number: 270-564-0488 Email Address: cascarel@Sill.edu C Signature: Date Notice filed: June 17, 2024 Submittal of this notice serves as written request in accordance with KRS 100.2111 to the City of Paducah Planning Commission (PPC) that the final decision on the above -referenced map amendment is to be made by the Board of Commissioners. If no written request is made by the Board of Commissioners or any aggrieved person within 21 days after the final action of the PPC, then the recommendation made by the PPC shall become final and if recommended for approval by the PPC, the reap amendment shall be automatically implemented subject to the provisions of KRS 100.347 RECEIVED IN PPC OFFICE ON: PADU AH Be the Res[ Regulatory and Community Objections to Rezoning 200 Fountain Avenue The proposed rezoning of 200 Fountain Avenue from R-1 to NSZ should not be approved. R-1 is correct as 200 Fountain has been a part of a discreet neighborhood since the 1900s and so recognized under current zoning. "Residential areas should 200 Fountain Avenue was once the address for Vice -President not be zoned so Barkley. The house and lot were later divided up and part of the they are non- original house was moved to face Jefferson from the original lot. PVA records seem to indicate this decision was made in February, conforming" 1912. Here is a current 2024 zoning map of the Jefferson Street area: --Paducah Comprehensive Plan KRS 100.21 Requirements As you can see, the length of Jefferson, in the brown, is R-1. This includes 200 Fountain, which is highlighted with a box. R-1 on Jefferson has been a stable pattern at least since 1912. Converting 200 Fountain to a Short -Term Rental (not to be confused with a B&B designation) is at odds with the R-1 designation and would be like knocking out a center tooth from the middle of about 40 teeth (parcels to the right and left). Findings necessary for proposed map amendment: (1) Before any map amendment is granted, the planning commission or the legislative body or fiscal court must find that the map amendment is in agreement with the adopted comprehensive plan, or, in the absence of such a finding, that one (1) or more of the following apply and such finding shall be recorded in the minutes and records of the planning commission or the legislative body or fiscal court: (a) That the existing zoning classification given to the property is inappropriate and that the proposed zoning classification is appropriate; Response: The history of the street and the stability of the R-1 zone designation over time would make this rezoning nonconforming to the consistent housing plan of Jefferson. (b) That there have been major changes of an economic, physical, or social nature within the area involved which were not anticipated in the adopted comprehensive plan and which have substantially altered the basic character of such area. Response: Any changes that have evolved over the years have happened on the non-residential side of Jefferson Street. The houses on the North side of the street have remained intact as part of a growing and maturing residential neighborhood; therefore, no major changes of an economic, physical, or social nature have altered the housing. The perfect example of what happens to a modification on Jefferson of R-1 is the creation of a single office building and asphalt parking lot directly across Jefferson from 200 Fountain. A Paducah Strategic Goal: Paducah has a goal to improve lower cost housing for the continued "Investment in health of the community. The Fountain Avenue Project is a prime the example of setting a fair target point for new or renewed houses ($150,000). (At the moment I believe there is only one house left in improvement the Project that has not been rehabbed.) of our housing stock to help Rezoning 200 Fountain is in direct conflict with this city goal. Mr. grow our Myers purchased the house in 2023. It is a two-bedroom, one bath community" home with a two -car garage. He purchased it for $110,000. Think instead, if the house were available for purchase for a new Allied Health graduate from SIU or Murray who was moving here to work at a hospital; no doubt, we would easily have added another family to the area—not a series of temporary visitors in a Short -Term Rental. National In 1982 the neighborhood area was recognized on the National Register of Register of Historic Places. Their designation does not match one - Historic Places to -one with the city zoning; but their mapping recognized the Narrative distinct nature of Jefferson and the neighborhoods to the North vs. Jefferson and the area to the South, though touching Broadway in places. "When originally developed, the Jefferson Street -Fountain Avenue neighborhood laid on the western boundary of the city of Paducah. Since then, the west end area of Paducah has become the town's leading residential area. The Jefferson Street -Fountain Avenue area now lies in the center of town. Jefferson Street serves as a major traffic artery between the west end residential area and the downtown commercial district. Because of the beauty of the historic houses and the park -like medians, the Jefferson Street and Fountain Avenue area has always served as a showcase for this western Kentucky city. The boundaries of the Jefferson Street -Fountain Avenue District were drawn to include the most architecturally and historically significant structures in the neighborhood. The boundaries include Jefferson Street froml4th Street to 28th Street. Stretches of Jefferson Street above and below this area were not included because of commercial encroachment. The three block section of Fountain Avenue was included because it contains the most significant structures on the street." Here is the map: Map from Paducah National Historic Places: _ _ a •!Rf*t*lits F i `+ r !! - iCC ES. A'rcIx e L LOT � /f !�■ tT 2 G I F.. �El�ll ..:T.. 11 RODS do i• rT e••sw+.+ t� � � Its � = f n Re { �� t a 1�4 0 1j i` i /Qur Tlu Mt"' � Q • 17 !T QA I i � � �,�� IT !TD[I o I= r 40 i �s a � '• tr �d o! M K+t�. .r ■�rD I CL I� is !r ------------- L3 It Loss of Communities work best when people share goals and actions. Community Members of Paducah sponsor arts and music festivals, Red Coat Relationships Ambassadors meet and greet visitors in all settings. Transient visitors benefit from the kindness of the community—but move on -- Red Coats do not! Marriott has a very good Short Term Rental program with their Residence Inns. We benefit most by letting them serve our visitors and concentrating on building our city population and services. Finally, as was mentioned during comments in previous sessions, we don't believe Paducah codes prevent a squatter's assumption of a property. Opening the issue of a squatter "rights" assumption; before solving the problem, would likely be a mistake given Paducah's already noticeable homeless population. The issue of temporary visitors and the negative consequences is becoming an issue in a number of cities. Lexington most recently. 1*4PM Tue AprU r � �