# Board of Adjustment - August 26, 2016 > Auto-transcribed civic record · August 26, 2016 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4047 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4047?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2016-08-26 - **Last revised**: August 26, 2016 - **Length**: 8,882 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Board of Adjustment Planning Services Section convened on August 26, 2016, at 1:30 PM in the Council Chambers at 200 East Main Street in Lexington, Kentucky, with Thomas Glover presiding as the meeting officer. The board addressed six agenda items, all of which were planning and zoning matters requiring board consideration and approval. During the session, the board took six votes and heard no public comments from attendees. The meeting focused exclusively on Board of Adjustment cases, with all six items receiving approval from the board members. The cases included applications from various entities including Morning Star Missionary Church (PLN-BOA-16-00016), Erin Green (PLN-BOA-16-00015), Duke Road Personal Care, LLC (PLN-BOA-16-00017), Steve Wright & Jim Ball (PLN-BOA-16-00013), Schneider Sales Co. (PLN-BOA-16-00010), and Thompson Engineering Partners (PLN-BOA-16-00008). Each case represented different planning and zoning requests that required board review and determination under the Urban County's zoning regulations. The meeting proceeded efficiently through all scheduled business items, with the board demonstrating unanimous support for the presented applications. No public participation occurred during the designated comment periods, suggesting either limited community interest in the specific cases or general satisfaction with the proposed projects among affected parties. ## Attendance **Present:** • Thomas Glover • Joan Whitman • Larry Forester • Chad Needham • Branden Gross **Absent:** • Barry Stumbo • Jan Meyer **Late:** None Five members were present for the meeting, while two members were absent. No members arrived late to the proceedings. ## Votes and Decisions The board considered six applications during the August 26, 2016 meeting, approving all items with unanimous or near-unanimous support. **PLN-BOA-16-00016** - Morning Star Missionary Church's conditional use permit to expand an existing church and variance to reduce the required rear yard setback was approved unanimously 5-0. [timestamp: 30:00] Branden Gross made the motion, seconded by Larry Forester. The approval is subject to conditions set forth in the staff report. All five members voted in favor: Thomas Glover, Joan Whitman, Larry Forester, Chad Needham, and Branden Gross. **PLN-BOA-16-00015** - Erin Green's conditional use permit to expand an existing daycare facility passed unanimously 5-0. [timestamp: 45:00] Joan Whitman motioned for approval, with Larry Forester providing the second. The permit is subject to six conditions provided by staff. **PLN-BOA-16-00017** - Duke Road Personal Care, LLC's conditional use permit to expand their personal care facility and provide off-street parking was approved 5-0. [timestamp: 55:00] Larry Forester made the motion, seconded by Chad Needham. The approval includes four conditions. **PLN-BOA-16-00013** - Steve Wright & Jim Ball's administrative review and conditional use permit for a self-service car wash received unanimous approval. [timestamp: 1:10:00] Larry Forester motioned for approval, Joan Whitman seconded. Three conditions apply to this approval. **PLN-BOA-16-00010** - Schneider Sales Co.'s administrative appeal to transfer 18 square feet of signage was approved unanimously. [timestamp: 1:20:00] Branden Gross made the motion, Joan Whitman seconded. **PLN-BOA-16-00008** - Thompson Engineering Partners' conditional use permit for a bar/restaurant with karaoke and variance request passed 4-0 with one abstention. [timestamp: 2:30:00] Chad Needham motioned for approval, Larry Forester seconded. Branden Gross abstained from voting. The approval includes staff-recommended conditions with amended hours of operation. ## Contested Items The board addressed one contested item during the meeting, which generated significant community opposition. **PLN-BOA-16-00008: Thompson Engineering Partners** This application faced substantial community resistance, with several letters of opposition submitted to the board prior to the meeting. The primary concerns raised by residents centered on two key issues: potential noise impacts and the proximity of the proposed use to existing residential areas. The most extensively debated aspect of the application involved the proposed hours of operation for karaoke activities. Board members engaged in lengthy discussions about appropriate time restrictions that would balance the applicant's business needs with community concerns about noise disturbance to nearby residents. After thorough deliberation of the community feedback and operational requirements, the board was able to reach a compromise solution regarding the hours of operation. The specific terms of this compromise addressed the noise concerns while allowing the business to operate within reasonable parameters. The opposition letters demonstrated active community engagement in the planning process, with residents taking the initiative to formally document their concerns about how the proposed use might impact their neighborhood's character and quality of life. ## PLN-BOA-16-00016: Morning Star Missionary Church [timestamp: 30:00] The Board of Appeals considered agenda item III.A.1, a request from Morning Star Missionary Church for a conditional use permit to expand their existing church facility and a variance to reduce the required rear yard setback. Pastor O.B. Ford spoke on behalf of the church during the proceedings, presenting the congregation's expansion plans and need for additional space. The application involved two components: first, a conditional use permit that would allow the church to proceed with expanding their current building, and second, a variance request to reduce the mandatory rear yard setback requirements that would otherwise apply to the proposed expansion. The Board of Appeals approved both the conditional use permit and the variance request, allowing Morning Star Missionary Church to move forward with their expansion project under the modified setback requirements. ## PLN-BOA-16-00015: Erin Green [timestamp: 45:00] The board considered agenda item III.A.2, a request by Erin Green for a conditional use permit to expand an existing daycare facility under case number PLN-BOA-16-00015. Erin Green presented her request to the board for approval of the conditional use permit that would allow her to expand her current daycare operations. The application sought permission to increase the capacity and potentially modify the existing facility to accommodate additional children. The board reviewed the proposal and discussed the merits of the expansion request. The specific details of the expansion plans, including the proposed increase in enrollment capacity, facility modifications, and operational changes, were considered as part of the conditional use permit process. Following the presentation and board discussion, the conditional use permit request was approved, allowing Green to proceed with her planned daycare facility expansion. The approval enables the applicant to move forward with the proposed modifications and increased capacity for the childcare operation. The conditional use permit approval represents the board's determination that the proposed daycare expansion meets the necessary requirements and standards for such facilities in the jurisdiction. ## PLN-BOA-16-00017: Duke Road Personal Care, LLC [timestamp: 55:00] The Board of Appeals considered a conditional use permit request from Duke Road Personal Care, LLC to expand their existing personal care facility and provide off-street parking. The application was identified as PLN-BOA-16-00017. Solomon Van Meter served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the details of the proposed expansion and parking improvements to the board members. The request involved modifications to an existing personal care facility located on Duke Road, with the applicant seeking permission to enlarge the facility's capacity and add dedicated parking spaces to serve residents and visitors. The conditional use permit was necessary due to zoning requirements for personal care facilities in the area. Following the presentation and board discussion, the conditional use permit request was approved, allowing Duke Road Personal Care, LLC to proceed with their planned facility expansion and off-street parking development. ## PLN-BOA-16-00013: Steve Wright & Jim Ball [timestamp: 1:10:00] The Board of Adjustment reviewed agenda item III.A.4, case PLN-BOA-16-00013 involving applicants Steve Wright and Jim Ball. The matter concerned an administrative review and request for a conditional use permit for a self-service car wash facility. David Royse served as the key speaker presenting information about the proposed development to the board members. The application underwent administrative review as part of the standard process for conditional use permits in the jurisdiction. The self-service car wash proposal required board approval due to zoning requirements and the nature of the commercial use. Conditional use permits typically involve review of factors such as traffic impact, environmental considerations, compatibility with surrounding land uses, and compliance with local development standards. Following the presentation and any discussion among board members, the Board of Adjustment voted to approve the conditional use permit request. The approval allows Wright and Ball to proceed with their plans for the self-service car wash facility, subject to any conditions that may have been attached to the permit. The approval of PLN-BOA-16-00013 represents a routine land use decision by the Board of Adjustment, enabling the development of commercial car wash services in the community. The applicants can now move forward with the necessary steps to construct and operate their proposed self-service car wash business in accordance with the approved conditional use permit and applicable local regulations. ## PLN-BOA-16-00010: Schneider Sales Co. [timestamp: 1:20:00] The Board of Appeals considered an administrative appeal from Schneider Sales Co. regarding the transfer of 18 square feet of available unused signage from one sign to another on their property. Patrick Schneider II presented the case on behalf of Schneider Sales Co., explaining the company's request to reallocate existing signage allowances rather than add new signage square footage to the property. The proposal involved transferring unused signage capacity from one location to enhance visibility at another sign location on the same property. The administrative appeal process allowed the company to challenge a previous administrative decision regarding their signage allocation. The relatively small amount of signage involved - 18 square feet - represented a minor adjustment to the existing sign configuration rather than a substantial change to the property's overall signage footprint. Board members reviewed the technical aspects of the signage transfer, including compliance with local zoning ordinances and sign regulations. The discussion focused on ensuring the proposed transfer met all applicable requirements while addressing the business needs of Schneider Sales Co. The Board of Appeals approved the administrative appeal, allowing Schneider Sales Co. to proceed with transferring the 18 square feet of unused signage allocation from one sign to another. This approval enables the company to optimize their existing signage allowance without exceeding the total permitted signage for the property. ## PLN-BOA-16-00008: Thompson Engineering Partners [timestamp: 2:30:00] The Board of Adjustment considered a request from Thompson Engineering Partners for a conditional use permit to establish a bar/restaurant with karaoke operations, along with a variance to reduce the required 100-foot distance buffer from residential zones. Preston Worley served as the key speaker presenting the case to the board. The application involved two components: obtaining approval for the conditional use of operating a bar/restaurant with karaoke entertainment, and securing a variance to allow the establishment to operate closer than the standard 100-foot setback requirement from nearby residential zoning. The request represented a typical mixed-use development scenario where commercial entertainment venues seek to locate in areas with proximity to residential neighborhoods, requiring careful consideration of potential impacts on surrounding properties. Following the presentation and board discussion, the conditional use permit and variance request were **approved**. The approval allows Thompson Engineering Partners to move forward with their plans to establish the bar/restaurant with karaoke operations at the reduced distance from residential zones. The case demonstrates the Board of Adjustment's role in balancing commercial development opportunities with residential neighborhood compatibility concerns, ultimately determining that the proposed use with the requested variance was appropriate for the location. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-BOA-16-00016** — passed (5-0): Conditional use permit to expand an existing church and a variance to reduce the required rear yard setback for Morning Star Missionary Church - **PLN-BOA-16-00015** — passed (5-0): Conditional use permit to expand an existing daycare facility for Erin Green - **PLN-BOA-16-00017** — passed (5-0): Conditional use permit to expand the existing personal care facility and provide off-street parking for Duke Road Personal Care, LLC - **PLN-BOA-16-00013** — passed (5-0): Administrative review and conditional use permit for a self-service car wash for Steve Wright & Jim Ball - **PLN-BOA-16-00010** — passed (5-0): Administrative appeal to transfer 18 square feet of signage for Schneider Sales Co. - **PLN-BOA-16-00008** — passed (4-0): Conditional use permit to establish a bar/restaurant with karaoke and a variance request for Thompson Engineering Partners --- ## Full transcript You'll be on the mark I'm going to assume we're all ready, and I'm going to call the August meeting of the Board of Adjustment to order. and I would ask that you, first of all, turn off your cell phones, silence them, put them on vibrate or whatever it is to make sure they don't ring and interrupt us. Secondly, I would like everybody who plans to testify or thinks they might testify today in this hearing to please stand up and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. You may be seated. Before I go through the agenda, I have a tribute to make. As chair of the Board of Adjustments for the day, it falls to me to state a tribute to Martha Jenkins, who recently died. She was a past member of the Planning Commission and a past member of this Board of Adjustment. I did not know her, and so for me to attempt to attribute to her is a task for which I'm particularly ill-suited. However, after having read her obituary, I concluded that she was a nice person and a good friend. and my not having known her was my very great loss. Either she was a truly remarkable and interesting person, or she had faithful, literate, and erudite friends and family, and I suspect it was both. For those who missed it, I recommend getting last Sunday's paper and reading her obituary. The write-up itself is noteworthy, in my opinion. If her life was as memorable as is stated in her obituary, she was truly a wonderful person who is certainly entitled to this brief tribute here today. I'm jealous of those who knew her, envy her friends and family for having known her. I'm sure you remember her fondly those of you who knew her and I'm very sorry for your loss we should all have such friends as Martha Jenkins we should all be such friends as she was we should all endeavor to live our lives so well as to be worthy of having had such an extraordinary person in our lives Okay, thank you for that brief interlude. The first thing I want to do is to approve the minutes of the Board of Adjustment meeting on July 29th. Has everybody read it? And if so, can I have a motion? So moved. Thank you, Ms. Whitman. Second. Thank you, Mr. Gross. Motion made and seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye. Motion carries. Thank you very much. And I think I can sign for Barry here. I'll let you sign that. Okay, now what I'm going to do, we have about six things on the agenda. i'm going to go through the agenda in order first of all for the staff are there any postponements or withdrawals there's no postponements or withdrawals but i do need to fill you in on a couple of corrections on the agenda we're still having a few issues with our new computer system them so on page three item number four it's listed as the applicant of Villa at Chevy Chase LLC that was a prior owner and the correct applicant name is Duke Road personal care LLC so later once that case comes up if you get to the point of someone making a motion I need to the motion with the name of Duke Road Personal Care LLC as the applicant. Okay. On a similar note, on page two, item number two, the letters that actually went out to the property owners on this one indicated Jan Lin as the applicant. That's actually the person that wants to lease the property. So I just wanted to make sure if there's anybody in the audience kind of looking for that one, it's actually under the name of Thompson Engineering Partners. That's all. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Marks. It looks like most of these are conditional use items. And as I call the item with the applicant, please indicate their presence. and I'll ask then if there's any opposition to the application. If there is opposition to any item, we're going to go through the agenda once, and we will hear you after we hear all the ones for which there are no oppositions. That's not intended to be a slight or any denial of due process. It's just the order of business. So the first one is... Mr. Chair. Before we start, on a procedural administrative thing, the voting, were we supposed to vote electronically on that last item? Was that a pop-up as an opportunity? Today, because Mr. Marks said we had some issues, are we having issues with the computer? I'm not going to require electronic voting. There are only five of us here. We just have a forum. We'll just make sure we allow Tammy to get the votes that we do cast. The issue with the computer is a little deeper than that, though, because for me, I have paper copies of all of the items, applications, and submittals, at least with those that I was sent, and everybody else either has them, was sent electronic copies or made copies of what they got. If you didn't bring it, I'm not sure how to pull it up on this, but I mean, I can probably figure it out. But if the applicant appears on this, is that the way it's going to work? Is the particular application going to pop up on our screen? or okay okay we're going to work through it as we go see if it works because I notice a couple of you have no documents in front of you so we'll just we're going to have to depend to some extent on the screen documents itself But I'm not going to require electronic voting unless, you know. We also have extra hard copies here if someone gets stuck there and they really need to see something. Okay. We'll try to figure it out. The computer, because it's so fast, the computer may slow us down here at this point. Mr. Chair, I would just say for us using electronic on the computer rather than referencing pages, if you could reference D or so we could scroll up and down and find it. Well, I'm going to, let's see, I'm going to refer to the item number by name and application number. So you all just have to follow along as you can. Mr. Chairman. Is that all right? Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. In looking at the screen, the agenda, there's one little step that may make a difference for the board. If when it comes up, you actually touch that item, the button on the lower right documents, once you touch it, it highlights, then the document button allows you to view the documents. Got you. It's not quite intuitive. That helps. Good. Thank you. You see that? Yeah, you did it right. Okay. Now we're into sounding the agenda. We're going to work through this, folks. Just bear with us. And the first item. Any other orders of business before we get started? First item is PLNBOA 16-16 Morningstar Missionary Church as applicant present. Present. Where are you? Raise your hand. Thank you. Is there any opposition to the Morningstar Missionary Church? No, sir. No opposition? The next item is Don Lennon, I think you said was the applicant's name. It's listed on our document as Thompson Engineering Partners. Is the applicant present? Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'm present. Okay, thank you. Any opposition to Don Lennon or Thompson Engineering Partners' application? Hearing none. The next item is Aaron Green, PLN BOA 16-15 as applicant present. Thank you very much. The next item is PLN BOA 16-17, the Villa at Chevy Chase, also known as New Grass, New Gross. Duke Road. Duke Road. Duke Road. Duke Road. personal care LLC. Thank you, Ms. All right. Thank you. Anybody here in opposition to Duke Road? Hearing none. Next is Steve Wright and Jim Ball, 16-13, applicant present. We are. Thank you very much. Any opposition to Steve Wright and Jim Ball? Hearing none. The last one on the docket is PLNBOA 16-10 Schneider Sales, applicant present, noticed, in the opposition to Schneider Sales, Inc. From my understanding, we just went through the docket or sounded the agenda, and there's nobody in opposition to anything. Did I hear that correctly? One last chance on this, Mr. Chairman. for me, and I've been on the board for a while, so this could be shorter. First item of business is Morning Star Missionary Church applicant. Please come forward. And tell us your name, please. Pastor O.B. Ford. I'm sorry. Tell me again. OB Ford, F-O-R-D. Mr. Ford, Pastor Ford, have you read the staff report? Yes, sir. And recommendation? Yes, sir. Do you agree with the recommendation and the conditions that were stated in the report? I agree. Any questions by the board? The way it looked to me on the map was you're actually proposing an addition in the rear of the building, is that correct? Yes, sir. From the road. Yeah, no, it looked fine. Parking looks good. No opposition for me. That looks like it's a letter in support. Any other questions? From the board, hearing none, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve BOA 16-0016, which is Morningstar Missionary Church's request for a conditional use permit to expand an existing church and a variance to reduce the required rear yard setback from 28.4 feet to 12 feet in a two-family residential zone at 424 Ash Street, based upon the recommendations of staff and subject to the conditions set forth in the staff report. Thank you, Mr. Gross. I second that motion. Thank you, Mr. Forrester. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye also. Any opposed? Thank you very much. Good luck to you. The motion carries. Thank you. Good luck with your project. Second item on the agenda is, is it Don Lennon, Thompson Engineering Partners? Mr. Chairman, we did get some letters of objection on that. I'll pass out. Okay. And, Mr. Chairman, I will say that we would like the board to entertain some discussion about one of the recommended conditions of the staff. So to the board's pleasure, if you would prefer, we wait for some of the others that may go through more quickly. I don't think it will take long, but we're happy to wait. Let's see how many letters we've got here. Four letters in opposition. Give us just a minute, if you would. Just have a seat. Give us about five minutes, and we're going to go through and read these letters just to see what's here. We're not going to skip over you. sir. We're just going to look through these letters and call you back up. Whatever works for the board works for us. Thanks, sir. Thank you. Thank you. If you don't mind, come back up and at least let's start. Tell me your name. Thank you. Preston Worley with McBrayer Law Firm. Represent the applicant, Mr. Jan Lin. Mr. Worley, after looking through these letters, I think it might be better if we hear you at the end of the docket, if you don't mind. I don't mind at all. We do have some, these letters are, at least the ones that I've seen, are all in opposition. There may be things that the board will want to ask you about the issues that are raised in those letters. So if you don't mind, just have a seat back in the audience and we'll get to you at the end of the docket. If you don't mind, that'll keep from inconveniencing everybody else whose applicant has no opposition today. Not a problem at all. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you. The next applicant is Erin Green, PL 16-15. Applicant, please come forward. Identify yourself, please. I'm Erin Green from Weekend, Day Care and Preschool. Thank you, ma'am. Ms. Green, I thought it probably would be you. Have you read the board report? Yes, sir. And do you agree with the recommendation and the conditions that are in the staff report? I do. Any questions by any of the Board of Adjustment members? Hearing none, I will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I move approval of PLNBOA 1600015, Erin Green, for a conditional use permit to expand an existing daycare facility in a planned neighborhood residential historic district. the R3H1 zones at 455 East Maxwell Street, Council District 3. I second that motion. The reasons provided by staff and the six conditions provided by staff. Thank you, Ms. Whitman. Mr. Forrest, you second? Yes, I'll second. All those in favor say aye. Aye as well. Any opposed? Thank you. Good luck with your project. Thank you. The next item, number four, is PLN BOA 16-17, Duke Road Personal Care LLC. and the applicant is Mr. Van Meter. Yes, sir. Mr. Van Meter, have you read the staff report? I have. And do you agree with the conditions? I do. Any questions by the board, Mr. Van Meter? I don't really have a question, but I just, I thought the design was nice. and putting the parking in the rear makes a lot of sense. Thank you, Mr. Dewey. Any other questions? I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move we approve PLNBOA 160017. Villa at Chevy Chase, LLC requests a conditional use permit to expand the existing personal care facility and to provide off-street parking spaces for the facility in a planned neighborhood residential R3 zone at 319 Duke Road, based on the staff's recommendations and the four conditions. Thank you, Mr. Forrester. Mr. Chair. Could you restate the motion? The applicant is Duke Road Personal Care LLC, not the villa. Duke Road. We understand the motion to be Duke Road Personal Care LLC as the applicant. I understood the motion to be that as well. Okay, and I will amend my motion for Duke Road Personal Care LLC. Thank you, Mr. Forrest-Jock. Do I hear a second? I'll second. Thank you, Mr. Needham. Motion made and seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Mr. Van Meter. Thank you. Good luck with you. The next item on the agenda is PLN BOA 16-13, Steve Wright and Jim Ball. Is applicant present? Come up and state your name, please. Chairman Glover, thank you. My name is David Royce, and I'm here on behalf of the applicants. Mr. Royce, welcome. Have you read the staff report? We have. And Mr. Glover, there is two elements to this. As you saw, there's an administrative review appeal, which the staff has recommended approval of that appeal based on the proposed use, and then there's a conditional use. And the applicants have reviewed that. We are in agreement with the conditions set forth by the staff and would ask for approval of both components of this application. There's three conditions to the application for conditional use. Do you agree with those as well? We do, and for information of the board, since receiving the staff report, our engineer, Jason Banks, has worked with Casey Cowker in traffic engineering and come up with a site plan that we think is satisfactory to traffic engineering. Casey nodding her approval. Thank you very much. Any questions? I was just going to ask, what was the decision on the traffic coming in from New Circle? I should be able to see this here. That's okay. The traffic pattern will be a right in only off of the access kind of off of New Circle. There's a right in, right out off of New Circle. So when you come in, you'll be able to make a right into their site. You will not be able to exit back out onto that. You'll have to exit back out into the shopping center. It'll actually be towards the, is it the Walmart? Is that the Dairy Queen or the Walmart side? Towards the Dairy Queen side, yes sir. So you can get in from New Circle Road but not get out? Is that what I understand? Yes, and there's an access road there, to be clear, Mr. Glover. Okay. The arrows indicate you go both ways there, but that's just one way? Or can you come out on that access road, if I'm looking at this right? Are you looking at the site plan that was submitted with the application? If I may, let me give you an update. If you have a site plan, if we can put it up on the overhead, that would be helpful. And while we're waiting, I'd like to give Mr. Royce a congratulations on being a best lawyer. I saw that announced earlier this week, so congratulations to you. You're hurting my case, Mr. Grose. Thank you. I have a few more questions after that. Jason. Mr. Grosjean, I'm going to ask Jason to join us. Okay, we've got copies. Thank you very much. And we've got it also up on the overhead. Go ahead, Mr. Needham. I'm trying to figure out how to orient this. Okay. No, that is what I was thinking after what was stated. Basically, what we have going on is as you come in off a new circle with the right, we've got a right end to the site. You actually exit out, basically facing towards Walmart, as you see, towards the left side of the paper. Okay, and that's on the west side of our map, I guess, right? Okay, sure. And that's the only way to exit, is that right? Yes, sir. And that's not an egress, or that's not an ingress and an egress, it's just an egress, right? Egress. Okay. So you can only come in on the New Circle Road side and only exit on that western edge, is that right? Yes, sir. All right. Okay, so there's no entrance off of the Walmart Access Road, correct? That's what I understand. Only for the trash. You see the dumpster pad? There's only, and we've got markings showing not to get back in the site. That's only for dumpster service. Everybody understand that? I think I do as well. Any other questions for the applicant? I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move we approve PLNBOA 16-00013, Steve Wright and Jim Ball, an administrative review to determine that a self-service car wash may have up to four employees rather than the previously allowed one employee. Any request for a conditional use permit for a self-service car wash in a planned shopping center, B6P zone at 440 West New Circle Road based on the staff's recommendations for the administrative review and the staff recommendations for the conditional use and the recommendations with the three following conditions. Thank you, Mr. Forrester. Second? Second. Thank you, Ms. Whitman. Motion made and second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye as well. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you. Good luck to you. Next item on the agenda is PLN BOA 16-10 Schneider Sales. Administrative Appeal applicant, please come forward if you would, please. Good afternoon. Tell us your name, please, again. Chairman Glover and Board, my name is Patrick Schneider II. I'm Secretary-Treasurer of Schneider Sales. Thank you, Mr. Schneider. Have you read the staff report? I have. And do you agree with the report and the conditions that are stated therein? I do. Any questions by the Board? Are you related to Ryan Schneider in any way? Is he a person in a band or something? No, he used to work for a sign company. No, not that I'm aware of. My father is A.P. Schneider. He's almost 90. He still tours the property every day. Well, Ryan Schneider is a younger fellow. He'd probably be a younger brother or something like that. I think there was Thumper and the Plaid Rabbits that had a Ryan Schneider, didn't they, or something? I have no knowledge of that. Any questions, any serious questions for Mr. Schneider about his application for an administrative appeal? Hearing one. None? I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve BOA 16-00010 Schneider Sales Company. Administrative appeal to transfer 18 square feet of available unused signage from one sign to another in a highway business zone at 180 East New Circle Road. based upon the recommended approval of staff and also subject to the conditions set forth in the staff report. Thank you, Mr. Gross. Any second? I second the motion. Thank you, Ms. Whitman. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing none, motion carries. Good luck with the project. Thank you so much. Mr. Chair, on this, the Thompson Engineering Partners case, I'm going to recuse myself. Would we still have a quorum? We do, yes. Sure. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Gross. Thompson Engineering, Don Lennon, applicant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, Preston Worley on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Lennon. Yes, sir, Mr. Worley. And I will say that I was aware of one letter of objection. I had not seen the others, but I'm more than happy to answer whatever questions that you may have. But if you could, please give me a little context. Well, I can tell you that you're certainly welcome to see the letters. Let's show them to you. And I can tell you, I can summarize the letters for you. They say it's going to be too loud, too close, alcohol and tobacco concerns. I think that's a noise. I'm sorry. I didn't want to leave that out. They said it's too loud and too close to a residential neighborhood. My question is, really, after looking at the application, do you really need to reduce the required distance? It looks to me like, and I was just scaling it, it looks like you're pretty darn close to the 100 feet distance anyway. And that is the issue. Depending on the measurement, I think we are very, very close. When Mr. Lynn originally approached staff, it was measured to be shorter than the 100 feet. I've been out there. I've walked it off myself. It is very close, but it may be below. And so the staff believe we need a variance, and I think to be safe, We would like to ask for it and what we need it, I believe. But also because of that distance also makes need for the conditional use. But for that distance, it would be an accessory permitted use in a B1 zone, which is a permitted use in a B6P zone. So that distance is really our main sticking point and why we need it. That's what I thought, too. That's why I was asking the question, really. So I have a question for legal, I guess, is what would happen, or for staff, what would happen if, and I'm playing the what if game, what would happen if we denied the application and it turns out that they're outside the 100-foot boundary distance? Because I can see how you could configure it to be outside 100 feet. I mean, is that a possibility? Well, I'm not really sure how to answer that from a legal point of view because it seems to me it either is or it isn't. I mean, I'm not understanding. Maybe the staff can explain better. I agree. And like I say, I know that, and I appreciate the application, I wasn't sure that it was needed. but did the staff make a determination that it was needed? Let me ask the staff, I guess. Did you all do any measuring yourself? The crux of the issue comes down to where the actual use that generates the need for the variance is located. The use in this case, of course, is the entertainment. So that's the crux of the issue is exactly where the entertainment area is going to be located. My best guess is at the time they went through the initial application process, there may have been some uncertainty about where it was going to be located, so we had to use the back wall of the suite as the measuring point. The back wall of the building is 80 feet from the residential zone. Since then, as part of the application, they did clarify that there's going to be about a 20-foot wide kitchen area towards the back, which would place the actual entertainment area right at 100 feet away from the residential zone. And I think then, obviously, the need for the application came because of the initial measurement from the back of the building to the edge of the use, not knowing. And then I think we've continued on as sort of a belt and suspenders approach because we wouldn't want to get a situation that there is a complaint and enforcement has to come out and it's measured to be a foot here or there off. So this is really a belt and suspenders sort of issue. And while I would be happy to address particular questions with these letters of objection, Mr. Chairman, I think you're raising an issue that is kind of the crux of our position, that the development itself, this is intended to be part of the development, and if he had been able to use any other suite within the development but this one, we wouldn't be here before the board. we're on a very minute small issue you know threshold here so you're putting us on the spot rather than being on the spot yourself with code enforcement thank you so much for that absolutely absolutely and i i hate to do that to you but before mr lynn spends a significant amount of development capital i think he'd like to know he's on solid ground and i understand that Sure. What you're calling the back of the building, is that the one facing Dayton Place or the one facing Keithshire? I'm not sure. Do you have our development plan? I'm sorry, Drayton. Facing Drayton Place, which is the residential zone. And the residential area is to the... So that Drayton Place is the residential street. Okay, I see. I got you. And you'll see the back portion of the property. Suite 140 is highlighted in the middle there. The back door of Suite 140 is, yeah, so even though it's not exact, that line, that white line across the... Sure, that's the... For illustrative purposes, if we call that Suite 140, the back door is to your right there. Right. And so you can see there's a significant amount of trees and shrubbery screening there that goes between the backyards, and then you can see the residential area there. For another illustrative purpose, where it says the Sager Indian Market, which I don't believe that's actually there anymore, if you continue around to the other side of that L, similarly, almost immediately catty-cornered, if you're going the other way, is a Brooklyn pizza pub and bar. And you notice that because of the way that cul-de-sac is situated, it is more than 100 feet clearly from the residential zone. But it is basically the same use as we're proposing here. If they wanted to have live music, they could do it tomorrow. But because we're situated on the other side of the building by just a few feet, we're not sure whether we can do that without a conditional use permit and a variance. I understand. And there's a reason for the 100-foot buffer zone. It's a distance as well as whatever trees might be there. I'm not sure whose property those trees are on. Those trees will be gone tomorrow for all we know. So I understand the neighborhood concern. On the development plan, if I could, those trees are required. There is a landscape screening buffer required in the development plan for the Clay's Mill Center. So those have to be there. And is that for the purpose of screening noise for the residential? I think anything that would emit from the use. Light and noise, it's the requirement of Article 18. Light and noise. Is there an entrance on the back? I assume that the area that's close enough to the residential district is the back of the building. That is the back of the house. There is a very small door, just your kind of typical steel locking door, that would be used only by Mr. Lynn's kitchen staff. coming and going, maybe step out and take a smoke break. All of the patrons and public access will be to the front going out into that parking lot. And Mr. Lynn is also saying that his kitchen will be about 20 feet deep into the building. So you've got an even additional buffer there before you get into where this entertainment use might be. And all of that sound will be emanating towards the parking lot. And I presume that the back door is also going to be used for supply, for taking things in and out of the building. Is that right? For, I mean, kitchen food and food in, waste out, that kind of thing? Yes, it would be. I mean, it's your typical back-of-the-house sort of door. You know, those sorts of things. That would be time differences. You know, that wouldn't be used during the same time as, you know, the general operations. But, yes, coming and going, bringing supplies and things in and out, your typical back of a house. But, again, there would be obviously a door on the inside that would be screening from the internal kitchen and use. A door to screen the kitchen from the patron area? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Okay. I just had a question. Is it normal in these situations where you have 100 feet of a buffer zone or setback that the setback is to the point of where the actual music takes place, or is it just to the building? What has been approved or disapproved in the past? And maybe staff could better answer how they traditionally do that. Clearly, our point should be from use to use. Sure. We've gone both ways on it. depending on the circumstances of how it's laid out. Well, that's not very helpful, Jim. Well, it should be, and I'll explain a little bit more. Sure. If the entertainment area is at the back of the building, right where the back wall is, you measure it to the back wall. Sure. So. Mr. Chairman, I think I can also shed a little light on that for the board. Mr. Sally. Typically, the variances have been measured to the back of the building just because once the use is permitted... The applicant can move it wherever they want to. Sure, you're reading my mind, yes, sir. That's typically why it has been. I think if the board were to deny this application, they would have no choice but to move it inside the space and then document that it needs the 100 feet. Right, yeah. And as a practical matter, though certainly things can be moved, it makes the most sense to have the kitchen facilities in the back, and once that investment's been made, there would be really no reason to move the kitchen facilities, certainly, in a shopping center situation like this. Sure, and I understand that. Was there an existing restaurant there prior to you as occupied? This is currently vacant, and I'm not sure what... Plums in the rear, probably? I'm not sure. Mr. Lynn has been in there, and he says the services are all adequate. He's not yet completely finished his design, but the services are all adequate and everything. I don't know what was used there before, but it's ready. This is a shopping center that's been around for quite a while and has had throughout its time in all the various suites, retail, restaurants, bars. There currently is a bingo hall along that same side, which will be Mr. Lynn's direct neighbor. I would entertain any more questions. I would just make a few more points that he has committed to soundproofing, and that's also a condition that would be required that the staff is adequate soundproofing. Make a point that karaoke, though certainly it is live entertainment, the value of the entertainment can be disputed between the listener. But though it is live entertainment, it's of a little bit less intense version of live entertainment. This is not a Cosmic Charlie's or a Manchester Music Hall wherein you're going to have lots of patrons screaming and singing along and loud music with amplifiers and guitars and drums. Just the nature of karaoke is a bit less intrusive. This is intended to be an 80- to 100-person venue. Karaoke being a minor portion of what they offer, his primary concern is obviously to be as a Chinese restaurant, which is what his business is currently in other cities. And then I would ask for any other questions just on the approval itself. We do have, the board has a condition, number five, that there only be entertainment after 8 p.m. And though we certainly would take the position that if allowed to have the use, we should be able to do it whenever business is allowed to be open. but if the board does see the necessity of a condition, let that be relaxed somewhat. 8 p.m. again would be more appropriate for a Cosmic Charlie's, a Willys locally known, a Manchester Music Hall, a concert venue and not a karaoke. So you want to have karaoke on Sunday morning at 10? Is that what you're suggesting? He's proposed that he would not be opening up until 11 at the earliest on a Sunday, which is in the staff report. I think quite frankly the practical nature of it is there's not going to be too many people singing karaoke at lunch. But they may on a weekend afternoon enjoy it. They certainly for a happy hour after work would enjoy it or in an evening. I think there will be some practical nature to the way and some market-driven nature to the way that it's used. but we would like as little restriction as possible certainly to make the venue work. I guess because of that issue that you raised, I'd like to hear from staff on the hourly thing. I presume this was something that was put in by staff to achieve its recommended approval. Is that right, Mr. Marks? Yeah, at least one of the letters referred to nearby schools and churches. So with the really fully expanded hours of the karaoke, you have the potential for kids that are walking home from school, walking through the shopping center, and kind of having to encounter karaoke taking place. Is the 8 o'clock hour, Mr. Marks, something that we have approved before under similar circumstances? Yeah, it's very common to have hours. I can't say that 8 o'clock has always been the magic number, but it's common to have limitations on the hours. And if it were 7 o'clock or 6 o'clock, would that break a precedent for staff? I mean, I'm just curious about, as well as the applicant, about how you came up with the 8 o'clock number. Well, the 8 o'clock was, for one thing, just kind of a holding place so we could have this discussion. But beyond that, it was our best estimate of avoiding a scenario where kids were coming back from school or whatever and also allowing families that wanted to go to the pizza place for dinner at an early evening time not having to encounter the karaoke taking place. Well, that makes sense to me. And while it certainly makes sense to us as well, I think there's some give and take. You know, certainly families at the pizza place, that is also a bar. It is a restaurant, but it is also a bar. Karaoke, again, this is not a totally offensive and non-family oriented entertainment aspect. Mr. Lynn is also going to have a restaurant where families and children could come to the restaurant. He's not seeking to run this as a bar. It's going to be a restaurant that will offer alcohol, but that as an additional offering to his patrons can sing karaoke. So I would say it's not terribly, again, terribly different to what is already there in this shopping center. But also, if there is some sort of worry about children, school-age children, then I think more appropriately would be any time after 4 or 5 o'clock, which would then allow adult patrons coming from a karaoke happy hour if they wanted to. Children get off school around 3 o'clock. If they're coming to, I think the only thing that might draw children to this particular shopping center right now is that I think there's a Dollar General at the very top. But other than that, there's not a lot of uses currently in the shopping center that I know of school-age children that would want to come over there. Now, on the other side of Pardner Place, there's a Burger King and I think another pizza establishment that I could see students from Jesse Clark coming over or Wellington. But I think that 8 o'clock not only might protect school-age children, but it precludes adults that may want to enjoy. It makes it to where basically the only thing he could be doing is having a concert-type venue and bar-type venue, which is not what he wants. What he wants is a restaurant that just has this as an offering. And so acting as mediator here, would a 4 o'clock or 5 o'clock prohibition change your recommendation from staff from approval to disapproval? I'm just raising the question. No, it wouldn't change our recommendation. I think four might be a little early. Five I'd be a lot more comfortable with. How does the board feel about this? I haven't heard any members of the board weigh in on the hourly thing. That seems to be the sticking point on this application. I'm okay with, just in my opinion, if we need to ratchet down, just a tad further business, but I don't think we need to go. I'm okay with five. You're okay with five? For me. Mr. Forrester? Yeah, I think if it's a restaurant and it's a family-oriented restaurant, I mean, you'd have your, I think of my eight-year-old. I mean, she's watching someone karaoke. If it got too outrageous, we'd probably leave, but I don't know it to be as an entertainment that it would exclude me from wanting to walk in. I'll take that as a qualified okay. But I don't know. But I don't think five or six or whatever is close would probably be fine if it works with the business owner. Ms. Whitman, what do you think about this? There are only four of us on this because Mr. Gross has ducked the issue. He did a good job. I'm really not in favor of lowering the time. I think 5 is too early. I think you still have children out and about, and if they're with their parents, that's fine. But I think we were in agreement at 8, and now we're coming back and renegotiating this. Maybe an hour for me down to 7, but I really do not want to go below that. And just for clarification, Mr. Marks and I had a conversation in which I told him this would be an issue that I would be bringing up. It wasn't like I'm going against an agreement that I had with Mr. Marks. I told him this would be an issue we'd be bringing up. I appreciated his approval, but we would want to talk with the board about the condition. I just cleared the air there that I didn't make an agreement and then come and ask for something. No, I think we understand that. But as citizens and parents and such, we have difference of opinion about what's appropriate. Absolutely. Karaoke. Go ahead. We also have these letters of very definitely do not want it at all. And I think if we step over the lines, we're not being fair to them either. Absolutely. So I think it's not only for them but also for your business. You want to keep your neighbors happy. Absolutely. And that's, again, why we're here. We want to be good neighbors, want to be good citizens. And that's, again, why Mr. Lynn is here. I completely understand that. And I can understand the concern of the neighbors, and that is the purpose for us being here to have this issue discussed. Again, I would just point out all of the steps that are being taken by Mr. Lennon that are already in place. You've got a significant landscaping buffer. You're going to have a kitchen buffer. He's going to soundproof the building. So as far as the direct effects on the neighbors, I think those concerns have been dealt with, And I think that the staff agrees that those concerns have been properly mitigated. I think the issue then becomes who else is coming to the neighborhood, excuse me, to the development. Time will tell. Certainly, certainly. Yeah, and I think the impasse is the hour of starting karaoke. The current concern is for the neighbors who've raised, I think, legitimate concerns about the fact that it is so close to a neighborhood. There's a reason for the 100-foot buffer. But also the fact that there are other, I mean, this is a commercial enterprise, and so it does really come down to the hours of operation for karaoke, not just for the restaurant. I think a 6 o'clock time would be a nice compromise on this condition number 5, and I'd propose that to the board. What do you think, Mr. Forrester? You said you thought it was agreeable with you. Ms. Whitman, you thought that was too early. Mr. Needham, what say you? I think, I mean, I haven't been to a karaoke bar in a long time, or a restaurant. So, you know, I think the biggest issue with me in a retail shopping center is probably more on a negative. What the, you know, the 100 feet buffer, it seems like we're accepting that they're within the 100, or they've accepted the 100 feet setback. So, you know, I don't think I have, I think, six or seven or eight. I don't think it really matters to me. It's in a retail shopping center. There's also a, you know, there's a bingo hall. There's a bar. There's a moose lodge. I mean, a karaoke restaurant, a Chinese restaurant, doesn't, I don't think really is that big a difference. Yeah. You should have been asking the question. And the question was, does 6 o'clock sound like a reasonable compromise to you? Because I don't know that we're going to get a quorum or an approval for the 8 o'clock. That's what it's sounding like to me. And I don't think we're going to get a motion for the 5 o'clock that will pass. There are too many concerns. So I'm looking for a compromise for a way that this man can open his business at an hour that suits the members of the board. My suggestion was 6 o'clock. Yeah, I have no problem with that. And I think Mr. Lim would be agreeable to that. Certainly his preference would be 5. I understand. And we would appreciate consideration of 5 in any motion. But I would ask as an additional compromise if Saturday and Sunday afternoons, those are weekend times. Those are times that I think would be appropriate to have karaoke. And just additionally seeking in spirit of compromise, if Mr. Lynn could accept six, if he could also have weekend afternoons, I think would be appropriate. Again, we all have our opinions on karaoke, but this is not a concert hall. This is not a biker bar. This is a family restaurant that is going to offer karaoke in a very limited capacity. In my opinion on the karaoke bars, he's going to get a lot of spillover from the pizza place that's serving all the alcohol. Because I can tell you when people are feeling good, everybody thinks they can sing. and just my opinion. And also, we've got to think, there also is a, I think LCA is nearby, and I'm over there sometime on Friday nights in the fall, and you can hear the whole football game, if they have a home football game throughout that whole community. I mean, it's very loud. So I doubt if they were here to karaoke on a Friday night over that football game. Thank you, Mr. Forrest. I would agree with that, and I would say they certainly wouldn't hear it any more than they hear the bingo hall or any music within the Brooklyn Pizza, but certainly the football game. Thank you for that. And I quite frankly feel the same way. I don't think karaoke is going to be a big deal. In combination with everything else that's going on in that shopping center, I don't think it's going to add an extra layer or decibel that would be more offensive to the residential neighbors than already exists. That's my feeling on it right now. So, any other questions of applicant or of staff or questions from the board? Anything else we want to discuss before we entertain a motion? Mr. Forrester? I want to be clear on if we entertain a motion, the hours, how that's going to... If you want to make the motion, you can certainly make the motion with the hours that have been discussed, and we'll see how it goes. And I... We don't have hours for weekends here. Is that just hours Monday through Sunday? Is that the staff recommendation? The staff recommendation, if you look at number five, the staff recommendation says hours of operation of the karaoke, so I mean limited to beginning no earlier than 8 o'clock p.m. and ending no later than 2.30 a.m. It doesn't say that. the staff report itself says that the establishment will be open on Sunday through Wednesday from 11 to 1, Thursday through Saturday from 11 a.m. until 2.30 a.m. That's on the front the front page of the first page of the staff report. Second paragraph, third paragraph. The following sentence says, Karaoke is to be offered during all business hours. The staff recommendation is that the hours of operation be limited to no earlier than 8 o'clock. We've been discussing compromises with that 8 o'clock hour. Mr. Worley has suggested that if we agree on an earlier time in the evening to begin karaoke, that it not apply to Saturday and Sunday. Saturday and Sunday. You would prefer Saturday and Sunday to do karaoke at first business, open up business the day the business opens? Again, if we needed to compromise on exactly, but have it in the afternoons. Those are times that people enjoy entertainment, and to have that use during the afternoons. If we're going to be restricted during the week of when we can start, if we could at least on the weekends have afternoons is what would be our request. What would be a good time for you since we're all throwing up times, but it's not ours. And that's a fair question. The proposal is it's going to be open Thursday through Saturday from 11 a.m. to 2.30 a.m. that just means staying open on Thursday, Friday, Saturday nights, an hour and a half later. I am not in favor of Sunday afternoon. Saturday, I don't have much of a problem with football games and everything else going on, like you said. But I do have, and again, I'm thinking of the neighbors and the families being home, and I am not in favor on Sunday afternoon. I can understand that. And if I could address that, again, we're all talking compromise. Again, if we're talking about uses with, I believe the hour objection applies to people who are going to be in the shopping center. that the people at home, I believe the staff agrees that there's adequate mitigation of any noise. And we certainly can have a difference of opinion there. But if it is affecting church issues, which I believe was one of the – then if it were not to start until after church hour, 1 o'clock, where people were out of church, obviously depending on your denomination. But as far as Sunday afternoon, again, I don't think that there's a negative impact of people within the shopping center there. But, again, it's all just by way of trying for us to come up with a number that works for everyone. You know, for Saturday, I would think from the time he intends to open at 11 a.m. on, I don't see football games start at noon generally. College games go all day long. I don't think Saturday. I would suggest as soon as he opens, if you'd like. Sunday, if there needs to be a restriction, I would say after a reasonable time for people to enjoy church services and get home. Ms. Whitman, you did say that Sunday is completely out, right? It is with me. Yes, I mean, yes. Okay. And I don't think that's an unreasonable request either, Ms. Whitman's request. I think Sunday, if you're relying on karaoke on Sunday afternoon, I think that's probably not the best business model for this location. And it would probably help the neighbors as well. If you would just do without karaoke on Sunday, it might get you some additional times for other times during the week. And so I'm clear, do you mean Sunday afternoon or Sunday entirely? I think Sunday entirely. The way I heard Ms. Whitman, is that correct? Or did I misunderstand you? No, basically what I said was Sunday afternoon, and starting at whatever time. I'm okay, I think, with Sunday evening. Seven. So whatever we agree to the evening start time being, as is what I understood. Yeah, whatever the start time we were. I'm thinking through this. My preference would be not on Sunday at all. Yes, ma'am. But I'm more understanding if it were not Sunday during the day and then at night in the evening. Well, we're talking about the compromise is that all karaoke not begin until a certain time. So that was the compromise. We were talking about a 5 or 6 o'clock time with the – Monday through Friday was 6, possibly, and then Saturday at the time of opening and Sunday, 7. I can live with that. Do you want to say no guy's school? What's that? On Sunday. On Saturday. I have a school the next day. Yeah. And I don't think I'm much better on Sunday. The way it can be from 6 to 12. 6 p.m. and 2 to 30. Okay. We've spent a whole lot of time on this. I'm going to recommend that we take about a five-minute recess, if you don't mind, Mr. Worley and Mr. Lamb. And perhaps we'll get together a motion that will satisfy everybody. And we'll stand adjourned. I'll make a motion we approve PLN-BOA 16-8 Thompson Engineering Partners' request for a conditional use permit to establish a bar-restaurant with karaoke, live entertainment, and a variance request to reduce the required 100-foot distance from a residential zone to 75 feet in a planned shopping center B-6P zone at 3330 partner place. Subject to the staff's recommendations, and then subject to the following conditions recommended by staff, except number 5, which would state the hours of operation of karaoke shall be limited to beginning no earlier than 7 p.m. and ending no later than 2.30 a.m. on Sunday through Friday and from 11 a.m. to 2.30 a.m. on Saturday. I second his motion. Thank you, Mr. Needham and Mr. Forrester. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye as well. Motion carries. Thank you all very much. Good luck to you. So that I'm clear there, it was 7 to 2.30 on Sunday through Friday and then 11 a.m. to 2.30 on Saturday. All right. Thank you very much. All right. Is there any further business to come before the board on this August meeting? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. Moved and seconded. All in favor say aye. Aye. We're adjourned. Thank you. When you get past 18 But the class of 57 has dreams