Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-14-2022MINUTES OF THE PADUCAH PLANNING COMMISSION/ URCDA J U Lv 14, 2022 Paducah City Hall Commission Chambers 5:30 P.M. Attendees: Chairwoman Cathy Crecelius, Vice -Chair Lorraine Schramke, Joe Benberry, Paul Bradford, Bob Wade Absent: David Morrison; Valerie Pollard Staff: Nic Hutchison, Director of Planning; Joshua P. Sommer, Senior Planner Guests: Randy Dumes, Burton Washburn, William "Anthony" Evans, Matt Jennings, Kathleen Gillespie, Jim Whitman Chairwoman Crecelius called the called meeting of the Paducah Planning Commission to order at 5:30 pm. The Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. flag was recited. The roll was taken. Commissioner Wade offered: I move that the reading of the minutes for June 6, 2022 be waived and that the minutes of said meeting, as prepared by staff, be approved as written. Vice -Chair Schramke seconded. No corrections were requested. Chairwoman Crecelius called for the vote. 5 Ayes (Benberry, Bradford, Crecelius, Schramke, Wade), 0 Nays URCDA New Petitions Case # SOA2022-0002 633 Fountain Avenue Sale of Asset. Commissioner Benberry offered: I move that the URCDA find that the property located at 633 Fountain Avenue is surplus property. I further move the bid of $100.00 for the property is accepted. I further move the property be transferred to Kevin Boyd subject to the standard clause applied in the Fountain Avenue Redevelopment Area stating that the property would revert back to the City if the owner fails to comply with the submitted proposal and substantially complete the project within two years. Commissioner Wade seconded. MINUTES OF THE PADUCAH PLANNING COMMISSION/ URCDA—continued page 2 / 6 Mr. Sommer explained this this proposal is either for a single-family home or a potential duplex. Both would be principally permitted on this lot. He further explained the lot is in the Neighborhood Commercial Corridor Zone, which would require exterior approvals from the Fire Prevention Department. 5 Ayes (Benberry, Bradford, Crecelius, Schramke, Wade), 0 Nays Planning Commission New Petitions Case # ZON2022-0005 5345 Hinkleville Road Rezone 5345 Hinkleville Road to Highway Business Zone. Vice -Chair Schramke offered: I move that this Commission adopt a resolution recommending the Highway Business Zone classification for property located at 5345 Hinkleville Road I further move this Commission adopt the following findings offact in support ofsaid recommendation: 1. The parcels, although currently vacant, are urban in character because commercial uses surround these properties. 2. Commercial vehicular uses are highly prevalent along the Highway 60 corridor and in the immediate vicinity, both in the City of Paducah and in McCracken County, therefore; the future utilization of these parcels would be commercial as well. 3. The north parcels have one point of ingress/egress onto Highway 60 and no sidewalks, therefore they are dependent upon motor vehicle access, which is a hallmark of the Highway Business Zone. 4. Highway Business Zone borders this property on all four sides; therefore, this site would be a continuation of this zone. 5. In 2020, the Average Annual Daily Traffic count just west of the site was 14,319 vehicles. Commissioner Benberry seconded. Chairwoman Crecelius explained the property owner requested annexation into the City and further explained the property comes into the City as an R-1 Low Density Residential Zone. Mr. Jim Whitman approached the podium. He stated his property was surrounded by Ms. Reed's property and a stream flows through his property. He asked what area was specifically requested to be rezoned. Mr. Sommer stated it was the 3+ acre parcel on the Highway 60 side of her property. Mr. Whitman indicated that answered his question and had no objections. No further questions were asked. Chairwoman Crecelius called for the vote. 5 Ayes (Benberry, Bradford, Crecelius, Schramke, Wade), 0 Nays Case # ZON2022-0006 1630 North Friendshiu Road Rezone 1630 North Friendship Road to Convenience & Service Zone. Commissioner Wade offered: MINUTES OF THE PADUCAH PLANNING COMMISSION/ URCDA —continued page 3 / 6 I move that this Commission adopt a resolution recommending the Convenience & Service Zone classification for property located at 1630 North Friendship Road. Ifurther move this Commission adopt the following findings of fact in support of said recommendation: 1. The parcel is urban in character. 2. This parcel begins as a transition point to single-family homes in both the City and County. The Convenience & Service Zone is intended to provide convenient shopping areas to serve nearby residential areas. 3. North Friendship Road is proposed to be widened in this area, which will facilitate and encourage commercial growth. 4. The site is approximately 640 feet away f•om the North Friendship Road and Blandville Road intersection, thereby further facilitating and encouraging commercial growth. 5. Convenience & Service Zone borders this property to the north; therefore, this site would be a continuation of this zone. 6. In 2021, the Average Annual Daily Traffic count of North Friendship Road between New Holt Road and Blandville Road was 7.503 vehicles. I further move the following conditions be placed on said approval as follows: 1. No automotive (rental, sales, service, refueling or washing) shall be allowed on the site in perpetuity. 2. All lighting shall be pointed downward or shielded to keep lighting contained to the site. 3. Any proposed drive-through windows and/or speaker boards shall be placed to the back of any potential future buildings. 4. Any non-residential developments shall install evergreen screening and an 8' tall minimum privacy fence on the east and west sides of the site. Commissioner Benberry seconded Commissioner Bradford stated he had a potential conflict of interest in this case, recused himself and left the Commission Chambers. Chairwoman Crecelius stated he would be called back when the case was finished. Chairwoman Crecelius asked if anyone would like to speak in support of the zone change. Mr. William Evans spoke. He stated the property was a great location and would have a future walking path. Chairwoman Crecelius asked if he had any ideas on what he would like to use the property for. Mr. Evans stated there had been a lot of ideas over the last seven years and he may be looking for a potential partner to redevelop the site. Chairwoman Crecelius asked if anyone would like to speak in opposition to the proposal. Mr. Burton Washburn spoke and stated he was an attorney representing Randy and Melissa Dumes who owns the apartments next door. He speculated about how the zoning request came about. He stated he was a business man and had no problem with maximizing the use of the property. Mr. Washburn further stated was the request was to rezone the property without a development plan. He reiterated Mr. Evans did not have a plan for the property at this time. Mr. Washburn further stated that the proposed conditions did take away some potential conditional uses. He stated he felt a development plan was required. Mr. Washburn suggested Mr. Evans submit a MINUTES OF THE PADUCAH PLANNING COMMISSION/ URCDA—continued page 4 / 6 development plan to determine what zone it should be. He stated Urbanizing Residential was the zone in the county. Commissioner Schramke asked Mr. Hutchison if a development plan was needed. Mr. Hutchison stated under the annexation portion a development plan was not required. Under a rezoning it would be required. Commissioner Benberry asked how the Comprehensive Plan applies. Mr. Hutchison stated since the property was not in the City, the Comprehensive Plan would not address it. Chairwoman Crecelius asked what the corresponding City zone would be? Mr. Sommer stated it would be B-1 and further stated an apartment complex is allowed in Urbanizing Residential. Commissioner Benberry asked where the B-1 Zone was located. Mr. Sommer it was on the north side of North Friendship Road. Commissioner Wade asked if B-1 would be appropriate for the apartment complex should they annex. Mr. Sommer stated B-1 would be appropriate based on the location of the B-1 Zone across the street. Mr. Sommer stated if a different zone were to be applied, it could be construed as a spot zone. Mr. Washburn asked if the Findings of Fact were based on the Comprehensive Plan. Chairwoman Crecelius stated this parcel was not addressed in the Comprehensive Plan as it had just been annexed. However, a new Comprehensive Plan being developed was imminent. Mr. Washburn asked if the finding would be that the R-1 zoning is inappropriate. Chairwoman Crecelius stated that newly annexed property receives the R-1 designation. Commissioner Benberry asked what was the reasoning to oppose the B-1 Zone. Mr. Washburn stated his clients' apartment complex could be adversely affected by various uses. Chairwoman Crecelius asked if the proposal could be postponed. Mr. Sommer stated it could be postponed. Mr. Hutchison stated he would like to reach out to legal counsel as well. Vice -Chair Schramke made a motion to table the proposal generally until a development plan is received. Commissioner Benberry seconded. No further questions were asked. Chairwoman Crecelius called for the vote. 4 Ayes (Benberry, Crecelius, Schramke, Wade), 0 Nays Commissioner Bradford then rejoined the meeting. Case # ZON2022-0007 3404, 3416 & 3420 Park Avenue Rezone 3404, 3416 & 3420 Park Avenue to Light Industrial Zone. Commissioner Bradford offered: I move that this Commission adopt a resolution recommending the M-1 Light Industrial Zone classification for property located at 3404, 3416 & 3420 Park Avenue. I further move this Commission adopt the following findings offact in support of said recommendation: 1. The initial building will contain an office, which is a commercial use at the point nearest Park Avenue. MINUTES OF THE PADUCAH PLANNING COMMISSION/ URCDA—continuedpage 5 /6 2. The intent to facilitate commercial uses near Park Avenue and industrial uses behind them is apparent since the zoning scheme has been in place since at least 1976. 3. The proposed initial building would be in line with the front fagade of the existing commercial building. If the zoning were not changed, the building would set further back, thereby creating an uneven viewshed. 4. The redevelopment of all three lots would abolish two flag lots, which is contrary to the Paducah Subdivision Ordinance. 5. M-1 Light Industrial Zone borders this property to the south; therefore, this site would be a continuation of this zone. Vice -Chair Schramke seconded. Chairwoman Crecelius asked if anyone would like to speak in favor of the proposal. Mr. Matt Jennings spoke. He stated the proposal was a climate -controlled storage facility with an office up front. The existing office building beside the proposed building would remain. Mr. Sommer stated the drawings provided to the Commission was the most recent. Commissioner Bradford asked if these parcels had two different rezoning classifications. Mr. Sommer stated they did. Commissioner Bradford asked how the two designations came about. Mr. Sommer stated there had been two since at least 1976. No further questions were asked. Chairwoman Crecelius called for the vote. 5 Ayes (Benberry, Bradford, Crecelius, Schramke, Wade), 0 Nays Case # VAC2022-0001 1250 South 4th Street Vacate and close an alley and a portion of South 0' Street. Commissioner Benberry offered: I move that this Commission open the public hearing regarding case VAC2022-0001 for property located at 1250 South 4`" Street. I further move that the Right -of -Way closure plat of the area described above be continued generally. Commissioner Wade seconded. Chairwoman Crecelius stated the Petitioner requested the item to be tabled due to some potential changes to be made. 5 Ayes (Benberry, Bradford, Crecelius, Schramke, Wade), 0 Nays Other Business Readopt Goals & Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan Readoption with minor changes. Vice -Chair Schramke offered: MINUTES OF THE PADUCAH PLANNING COMMISSION/ URCDA—continued page 6 / 6 I move that this Commission re -adopt the Goals & Objectives of the City of Paducah Comprehensive Plan as amended. I further move that this Commission find as fact that the original research for the Comprehensive Plan is still valid, pursuant to KRS 100.197. Commissioner Bradford seconded. Mr. Sommer explained an RFP was forthcoming for a City -County Comprehensive Plan. Upon a consultant being awarded the Comprehensive Plan, it would need to be complete in one year. Mr. Sommer then went over each proposed change to the Goals & Objectives. No questions were asked. Chairwoman Crecelius called for the vote. 5 Ayes (Benberry, Bradford, Crecelius, Schramke, Wade), 0 Nays Adjournment Chairwoman Crecelius adjourned the meeting at 6:15 PM. Respectfully submitted by Joshua P. Sommer