# Board of Adjustment - January 27, 2017 > Auto-transcribed civic record · January 27, 2017 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4156 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4156?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2017-01-27 - **Last revised**: January 27, 2017 - **Length**: 7,946 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 Board of Adjustment convened on January 27, 2017, 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 four agenda items, all involving appeals related to variance and conditional use permits for local businesses. During the session, the board took four votes and heard one public comment from attendees. The meeting resulted in the approval of three appeals: the RIMTYME Variance Appeal, the CHAMPS ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX Conditional Use Appeal, and the VILLAGE ANIMAL HOSPITAL, LLC Conditional Use Appeal. However, the KROGER COMPANY Conditional Use Appeal was postponed for future consideration. The board's actions demonstrate their ongoing role in reviewing zoning decisions and providing businesses with opportunities to appeal administrative determinations regarding land use and development requirements in Lexington. ## Attendance The following members were present at the meeting on January 27, 2017: • Thomas Glover • Branden Gross • Chad Needham • Larry Forester • Joan Whitman • Jan Meyer No members were reported as absent or late for this meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The board considered four applications during the meeting, with three approvals and one postponement. **PLN-BOA-16-00056 - RIMTYME Variance Request** [timestamp: 15:30] Branden Gross motioned to approve RIMTYME's request for a variance to reduce the required perimeter boundary setback from 50 feet to 10 feet, seconded by Chad Needham. The motion passed unanimously 6-0, with all members voting in favor: Thomas Glover, Branden Gross, Chad Needham, Larry Forester, Joan Whitman, and Jan Meyer. The approval was subject to conditions in the staff report. **PLN-BOA-16-00054 - CHAMPS ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX Conditional Use Permit** [timestamp: 45:00] Larry Forester motioned to approve CHAMPS ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX's request for a conditional use permit to amend previously imposed conditions, seconded by Joan Whitman. The motion passed unanimously 6-0, with all six board members voting in favor. The approval omitted condition #3 and amended condition #4 to add 'spirits'. **PLN-BOA-16-00055 - VILLAGE ANIMAL HOSPITAL Conditional Use Permit** [timestamp: 60:00] Jan Meyer motioned to approve VILLAGE ANIMAL HOSPITAL, LLC's request for a conditional use permit to establish a small animal hospital/veterinary clinic, seconded by Joan Whitman. The motion passed unanimously 6-0, with all board members voting in favor. The approval was subject to the four conditions recommended by staff. **PLN-BOA-16-00037 - KROGER COMPANY Conditional Use Permit** [timestamp: 90:00] Jan Meyer motioned to postpone KROGER COMPANY's request for a conditional use permit to construct a new parking lot and driveways until the March 31, 2017 hearing, seconded by Larry Forester. The motion to postpone passed 4-2 in a roll call vote. Voting in favor were Thomas Glover, Branden Gross, Larry Forester, and Jan Meyer. Voting against were Joan Whitman and Chad Needham. ## Public Comment One member of the public addressed the meeting during the public comment period. Amy Clark spoke regarding the Kroger Company application [timestamp: 120:00]. Clark discussed the commercial corridor study and emphasized the potential value this information could provide to citizens when reviewing the traffic impact study. Her comments focused on how the corridor study data could assist community members in better understanding and evaluating the traffic-related implications of the proposed Kroger development. ## Appointments The meeting included several appointments to the Board of Adjustment. Three individuals were either appointed or reappointed to serve on this municipal board. The appointments were as follows: • **Branden Gross** was appointed to the Board of Adjustment • **Thomas Glover** was reappointed to the Board of Adjustment • **Joan Whitman** was reappointed to the Board of Adjustment These appointments ensure continued representation on the Board of Adjustment, with one new member joining two returning members who were selected to continue their service. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one contested item that generated significant community opposition and resulted in a postponement of the decision. **Kroger Company Conditional Use Appeal** The Kroger Company's request for a conditional use permit faced substantial community opposition during the meeting. The nature of the disagreement centered around the company's conditional use application, though the specific details of what type of development or modification Kroger was seeking were not specified in the available records. The level of community opposition was significant enough to influence the proceedings, with residents or stakeholders expressing concerns about the proposed conditional use. This opposition created enough controversy that the decision-making body chose not to proceed with a vote on the matter during this meeting. As a result of the community pushback, the decision on the Kroger Company's conditional use appeal was postponed. This postponement allowed for additional time to address community concerns and potentially seek resolution between the applicant and opposing parties before bringing the matter back for consideration at a future meeting. The postponement demonstrates the impact that organized community opposition can have on municipal decision-making processes, particularly when it comes to conditional use permits that may affect local neighborhoods or business districts. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this contested item discussion.* ## RIMTYME Variance Appeal [timestamp: 15:30] The board considered agenda item III.B.1, a variance request from RIMTYME to reduce the required perimeter boundary setback from 50 feet to 10 feet in a Planned Shopping Center (B-6P) zone. Adam Bender served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the case for the variance reduction. The request sought to significantly decrease the standard setback requirement by 40 feet, from the typical 50-foot perimeter boundary setback down to just 10 feet. This type of variance is common in commercial zoning situations where property owners seek to maximize their usable land area within the constraints of existing lot configurations. The Planned Shopping Center (B-6P) zoning designation typically requires larger setbacks to provide adequate buffering between commercial activities and adjacent properties. The board ultimately approved the variance request, allowing RIMTYME to proceed with the reduced 10-foot setback rather than adhering to the standard 50-foot requirement. This approval enables the applicant to utilize more of their property for their intended commercial use while still maintaining some boundary separation. The approval of this variance represents a standard municipal process where property owners can request modifications to zoning requirements when they can demonstrate that strict adherence to the original requirements would create unnecessary hardship or prevent reasonable use of their property. ## CHAMPS ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX Conditional Use Appeal [timestamp: 45:00] The council considered agenda item III.C.3, a request to amend previously imposed conditions for operation of Champs Entertainment Complex and allow continued operation under different ownership. Joe Champa served as the key speaker for this conditional use appeal. The request centered on modifying existing operational conditions that had been placed on the entertainment complex and securing approval for the facility to continue operating under new ownership. The appeal sought to address specific conditions that had been previously imposed on the Champs Entertainment Complex, though the exact nature of these conditions was not detailed in the available materials. The ownership change required council approval to ensure continuity of operations while maintaining appropriate oversight of the entertainment venue. Following discussion of the appeal, the council approved the request. This approval allows the Champs Entertainment Complex to continue operations under the new ownership structure while operating under the amended conditions as presented in the appeal. The approval ensures the entertainment complex can maintain its operations during the ownership transition while addressing any regulatory requirements that had been previously established for the facility. ## VILLAGE ANIMAL HOSPITAL, LLC Conditional Use Appeal [timestamp: 60:00] The board considered agenda item III.C.4, a conditional use appeal from Village Animal Hospital, LLC requesting approval to establish a small animal hospital and veterinary clinic in a Professional Office (P-1) zoned area. Kim Sears served as the key speaker presenting the request to the board. The proposal involved establishing veterinary services in a zone typically designated for professional office uses, which required conditional use approval due to the specialized nature of animal hospital operations. The application sought permission to operate a small animal hospital and veterinary clinic, which would provide medical care and treatment services for pets and other small animals. Such facilities typically require special considerations for parking, waste management, noise control, and compatibility with surrounding professional office uses. The board reviewed the conditional use request and determined that the proposed veterinary clinic met the necessary criteria for approval in the P-1 zone. The application was approved, allowing Village Animal Hospital, LLC to proceed with establishing their small animal hospital and veterinary clinic at the proposed location. This approval enables the veterinary practice to serve the community's pet care needs while operating within the professional office district, subject to any conditions or requirements established as part of the conditional use permit. ## KROGER COMPANY Conditional Use Appeal [timestamp: 90:00] The board considered agenda item III.C.1, a conditional use appeal from the Kroger Company requesting permission to construct a new parking lot and driveways in a Neighborhood Business (B-1) zone. Bruce Simpson served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the company's request to the board. The specific details of the proposed parking lot construction, including location, size, and design specifications, were not elaborated upon in the available meeting materials. Similarly, the reasons for the conditional use appeal requirement and any initial concerns that may have prompted the appeal process were not detailed in the extracted information. Following the presentation and any discussion that may have occurred, the board decided to postpone action on the Kroger Company's conditional use appeal. The reasons for the postponement and any timeline for when the item might return for consideration were not specified in the available materials. The postponement suggests that additional information, review, or consideration may be needed before the board can make a final determination on the Kroger Company's request to construct the new parking lot and driveways in the B-1 zoned area. --- ## Decisions - **PLN-BOA-16-00056** — passed (6-0): RIMTYME - request for a variance to reduce the required perimeter boundary setback from 50 feet to 10 feet - **PLN-BOA-16-00054** — passed (6-0): CHAMPS ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX - request for a conditional use permit to amend previously imposed conditions - **PLN-BOA-16-00055** — passed (6-0): VILLAGE ANIMAL HOSPITAL, LLC - request for a conditional use permit to establish a small animal hospital/veterinary clinic - **PLN-BOA-16-00037** — postponed (4-2): KROGER COMPANY - request for a conditional use permit to construct a new parking lot and driveways --- ## Full transcript I'm loving you, the things you do, yeah, is forever on me, loving you, yeah I count the blessings We keep our love blue There's one for me And a million for you There's just so much That I want to say But when I look at you Welcome to the January meeting of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government's Board of Adjustment. We have a short docket today. We'll see if it's also a brief docket, and we'll find out as we get into it. The first thing I'd like to do is to ask everyone here to silence their cell phones. and to make sure we don't have any unplanned interruptions during the calling of the docket and the testimony today. Secondly, what I'm going to do that you all may or may not be familiar with, the board is, I will call the docket, or rather sound the agenda, we'll call the entire docket first if there are, and I'll ask if there's any opposition to the applications that are called. If there are any, then I would ask that where there is opposition, that those people in opposition and the applicant, since they will be at the end of the docket, if they wouldn't mind stepping out while we hear the rest of the agenda and see if there are issues which can be worked out in advance of the board hearing testimony and making a decision on that contested application. With that said, I would like to ask everybody who intends or may testify today to please stand and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. You may be seated. Before we sound the agenda, have there been any withdrawals or requests for postponements or any other kind of administrative matters we need to take up? Clays Mill Baptist Church has withdrawn their application. Thank you, ma'am. And before I sound the agenda, there is an at one another administrative matter. We need to approve the minutes from December. I hope you all have had a chance on the board to review the minutes. and if so, I will entertain a motion. So moved. Thank you. Mr. Gross, is there a second? I second. Mr. Forrester, minutes are approved. Okay. So the first item on the agenda is PLNBOA 16-56, RIM time request for variances. The applicant present. Okay, thank you. We'll get to you in just a minute. I'm just going to sound the agenda right now. We'll take testimony and listen to you after we go through the whole docket. The second item is under conditional use appeals. Clay's Mill Baptist Church has been withdrawn. The second is PLN BOA 16-37. Kroger Company is the applicant present. Mr. Simpson, is there any opposition to Kroger Company? I see one, two, three. Okay. In that case, there being opposition, we will call the Kroger case at the end of the docket. And I would ask that if you all wouldn't mind if you would step outside into the hall and see if there are issues that can be worked out while we call the rest of the docket and here are the other cases. You know, I didn't ask if there was any opposition to Rim Time's application. Is there any opposition to the first item I called, Rim Time? Seeing none. The next on the docket is Champs Entertainment Complex. PLN BOA 16-54 is the applicant present. Okay. Is there any opposition to Champs Entertainment? Seeing none, thank you. We'll get to you shortly. The next item is PLN BOA 16-55 Village Animal Hospital is the applicant present. Thank you, ma'am. Is there any opposition to Village Animal Hospital LLC? Seeing none. That completes the sounding of the agenda. We will hear rim time. Come on up and let's hear from you. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Adam Bender. I'm with CMW, and I'm here with the developer, Jeff Urie, for the new rim time store. This is near the corner. I'll put a mic down towards you if you don't mind. Thank you. Tell me your name again. Adam Bender. I'm with CMW Engineering. This site is located in the Kroger Plaza on East New Circle near Bryan Station. This is in a B6P zone, the entire shopping center is. And there's a setback variance from the zone line of 50 feet. and we would like to reduce that to 10 feet. There was a variance already on this site from a Long John Silver's that reduced it to 25 feet. Up and down New Circle, all of the properties are in a B3 zone, which requires no side yard setback. Many of these buildings are right up against the property line, so reducing our setback to 10 feet would keep with the aesthetics that have already been established in that area. It's going to be a one-story building, so I don't believe that it's going to cause any sort of a nuisance or hazard. And there are many easements on this very small lot that we're having to deal with. Creating this variance is going to help out with our layout a great deal. So we have limited options as far as building placement. We are also putting through a major development plan. We had a technical review committee meeting on Wednesday that went very well. And speaking with Casey Kalker, she suggested that we put in a new public sidewalk. This site does not have a public sidewalk, so we will include that in our plan. That's not on the site plan that you have in front of you, but we will be including that. When do you plan on doing that? Oh, that's going to be included in our development plan. Okay. Thank you. Are there any staff comments about this one? Questions from the board? Any board member have a question about Rim Time's application? I just, you've read the staff report and will abide by the conditions that. Yes, we agree to all the conditions. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we approve PLNBOA 16-00056 rim times, request for a variance to reduce the required perimeter boundary setback from 50 feet to 10 feet in a planned shopping center zone at 361 East New Circle Road in Council District 6 based upon the recommendations of staff and subject to the conditions in the report. Thank you, Mr. Gross. Do I hear a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Needham. Motion made and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you and good luck to you. Thank you. The next item with no opposition is Champs Entertainment Complex. Is applicant present? Please come forward. Thanks, Mr. Glover. I'm Joe Champa. This is my son, Nick. Good afternoon. And we're the people who run Champs Entertainment Complex. We want to talk about three of the conditions. Number one and number five, we don't have a problem with those two conditions. And not necessarily in order, but in number four, well, before I start, we're being characterized as a sports bar, cafe, and that is so far out from what we do. We have a restaurant inside our facility. In that restaurant, we deal with people that are coming in to play golf, laser tag, or skating. Mostly as parents, they come to a quiet place. They can watch a game if they want. They can work on their computer. But we are not a sports bar or cafe. We don't promote it outside. We're not interested in having people come in there just to drink. So that characterization, I think, needs to be explained. That being said, on the second part of number four, facilities shall not include any reference to a sports bar cafe or the serving of beer and wine. I assume you're talking about outside signage. I just want to get a clarification on that. That's correct. You're talking about number three? Thank you. No, four. The second half of number four. Okay. Okay. That clarification is fine, so we don't have a problem with number four. Okay. Number three, it says we may not serve any alcoholic beverages other than beer and wine. The new liquor license now includes beer, wine, and spirits. Now, we haven't been serving spirits. However, we've come up with situations that puts us in an unfair, competitive situation with people who do. We have had banks. We've had major corporations. We've had individuals, like right now we're negotiating with a wedding party to have a rehearsal dinner, and they want alcohol. Now, we have no intentions of selling this at our public sessions. We are looking to do this at our corporate events, private events that are within what we do. So for that reason, we would like to add spirits. You'd like to add spirits to the language of number three? Right. It says we shall not serve any beverage other than beer and wine. and I think it should serve, you know, actually I think we should take it out for a couple reasons. One, I think what we do and how we do it is the right way. Two, you've got the ABC, which is pretty darn strong. I mean, they're not going to put up with anything that's out of the way. So I think there is a checks and balance even if that's not in there. But whether it's in there or not, we would like to be able to serve spirits. Okay. What else? Well, on number two, the lighting, I'm not sure. I talked to Jim a bit about this, and I'm not sure why it's in there, because everybody in the whole court and the whole development has the exact same lighting. Now, if we were going to change the lighting, we'd put LED lights in for two reasons. One, a whole lot more economical. and two, they're brighter. So you're talking safety. So, you know, for that reason. But they would be the same in the same cans. So I really don't know why that's in there. Because we're bound by the city engineer and planning and zoning to have those kind of lights in there. To have what kind of lights? Well, the type of lights that they described in number two. Okay. A shoebox or similar design. So how does that conflict with this condition? Well, it was new. It hadn't been on the list. I hadn't seen that before. Maybe it was in there and I missed it, but I just was surprised that it was there because we've never had an issue with this before. Well, it's my understanding that these conditions one through five are a restatement of the existing conditions. That's correct. The condition has been there all along. Okay. That wasn't eliminated when we eliminated the last one. Okay. I just didn't recall when we went through council before, we had a number of restrictions that were taken out after our year review. I just didn't recall the parking lot lighting. I mean, to us, I don't think it needs to be there, but it's no big deal. That's kind of like we're going to have, whether it's incandescent or LED. What else have you got? I want you to say what you need to say, and we can get clarification from staff or take questions from the board after you finish. But I want you to raise any issues that you have now so we can do it all at once so we don't go back and forth. That's basically what we have. Okay. Staff, do you all want to respond further or need to clarify anything else? i think that the remaining can excuse me let me say one more thing i sure i want to get this in you know we serve alcohol but when we have a university party we don't serve it at all the reason is we've got a lot of miners in there and we know we can't control it so what i'm saying is we do the right thing we've been around here 40 something years we've got a pretty good reputation And we value that reputation. So just giving you that example, I mean, that's something where we give up making money for the common good. And we do this voluntarily. Nobody has to tell us to do that. That's all. Sure. Well, I mean, we don't have to write into the conditions you can't serve alcohol to minors. So there are certain things that are not necessary. Yeah, but what I'm saying is we could try to do it that way, but we know. We've been around the block. We know when you've got a bunch of college kids in there, you're not going to control that kind of situation. Somebody buys it and gives it to some freshman or sophomore. So I'm just making that point of what we do and how we do things. Sure. Okay. I understand. Anything further from staff? I think an important distinction is that a restaurant is only allowed as an accessory use in this situation. A restaurant or a banquet hall is not a permitted use in this zone. unless it's an accessory to another use, having no direct access to the exterior, no vis signs visible from the exterior, and serving food only for employees and visitors. So I think that that's where the remaining conditions are coming from, is limiting the restaurant, cafe, to an accessory use. I don't understand what she's saying. I don't see the difference. If we serve beer and wine, what's the difference between beer, wine, and spirits? You're referring to an 822C where it actually says a facility for serving food only for employees and visitors having no? Yes. So the condition just says what the zoning ordinance says. So it's not like we would have to essentially, I guess, override the zoning ordinance if we were to delete it? The conditional use is for the recreational facility, and the restaurant is an accessory to that. It's not its own conditional use. That would not be permitted. Okay. I'm not sure what's not permitted. We're talking about spirits. You're talking about outside entrance, outside entrance. Oh, we're not, as far as outside entrance, we're not, we don't want an outside entrance. Okay. I think the alternative, what Mr. Gross and what staff are saying is that the zoning ordinance itself has these conditions in it, and that's why they're included in your application. What condition are you talking about? 8-22C was the one that Mr. Gross brought up. Okay, well I don't know what 8-22C is. It says that facilities for serving food only for employees and visitors having no direct access to the exterior and having no signs visible from the exterior of the building are permissible accessory uses in the I-1 zone. We don't have an issue with that. Okay. Condition number four addresses that. Sorry. Yeah. And so that's why it's in as condition four. Okay, well, again, I'm... Number three. We're talking about number three, where we want to add the spirits. Okay. I mean, that's the issue that I was talking about. We serve beer and wine. Say that again. He's not understanding the accessibility. I'm not sure. I'm not sure. I think what is the accessory use part is maybe what you're not understanding, and maybe staff could give us an explanation of accessory use. What I'm saying is if we're in accessory use, which the restaurant is, and we're serving beer and wine, what's the difference with beer, wine, and spirits? That's where I'm not understanding. I understand everything else. Something that I think was discussed the last time you came before the board pretty significantly was that as an accessory use, it is for your customers who are using the recreational facility. They're not there just to eat and drink. And I think the concern at that point was that you don't want drunk people roller skating. I mean. Look, you're taking this to a different level. We've had this license for 10 years. We have never had one problem with people drinking and skating or drinking and playing laser tag. This is not a bar. It's not a place that people are coming in to go to that place. It's people that are coming in, parents, of course, or a big brother or something like that, big sister. But it is not someplace somebody's going to get tanked up. I mean, if we would have had problems, we would have had problems in the last 10 years. And all we're asking is to have a competitive, competitive, competitive, not advantage, or the same as our competitors do. You know, if we have an event, if we have, let's say, this rehearsal dinner, well, they're not going to just have a rehearsal dinner. they're going to take part in the activities that we have. Because most people that want to have something, I mean, let's face it, having a rehearsal dinner at a skating facility or an entertainment complex, they're not going there just to eat. They're going there from a nostalgia point of view. I loved this growing up, but they might have met there. And they're going to take advantage of what we have, not just to sit and eat and drink. Would that use even be allowed in this, underneath this conditional use? That technically would be a banquet facility, which is not a permitted use in this zone. So as I understand it, the applicant's request to add the word spirits would take it out of the accessory use as a sports bar and put it into a banquet facility category? Is that what I understand? I think the only reason we'd have to call it a banquet facility is if he was having special events and parties, whatever, that were unrelated to people going there to use the entertainment complex. Thank you. If we could clarify that, then we might get over this hump. We would never rent it out just for food and drink. You're going to have to partake in what we do. If that's the case, we wouldn't have to call it a banquet facility on its own. And you all do have the latitude to loosen up on condition three if you choose to. Our feelings was that it just helped to ensure it would continue as an accessory use. It will always continue that way. If you do choose to loosen up, we'd probably just get rid of that condition altogether. Yeah, that's what I would say. what he's really requesting is to do away with that language of number three. And what I want to know is if that would violate the ordinance, or would that disqualify him for this, or would that change the character of his application in any way, or something like that to make us have to do something larger, reconsider it? I don't think so. I think that that condition is there, as Jim said, to ensure that it remains an accessory use, that it is accessory to the recreational activities. And previously when they came before the board, there was a lot of concern about safety in having alcohol in an environment where a lot of the patrons were children. So those were kind of the two issues that we saw and decided to leave that condition as is. So if the condition were removed, what are your concerns that it could evolve into a sports bar serving all kinds of alcohol? Correct. That's the general concern is that it just takes it a little bit further out of the realm of accessory, but that is kind of up to you guys at this point. The accessory language doesn't speak to specifically types of alcohol that are permitted. Well, I think I may have asked this earlier, and you probably answered it. If we removed condition number three, would that change the character of the place from an accessory use? No. Okay. How would the staff, hypothetically, what would occur? At what point do you think the line would be crossed between an accessory and we get... Well, it could happen with the condition as it's currently worded. If someone wants to get a beer and they have no interest in doing the entertainment stuff, they might know that it's there and they just go there to have a beer. So that's really not going to change if you allow liquor sales. The same thing could happen. So to the applicant's credit, there has not been a history of any problems at this location over how many years it's been in operation. We don't have complaints. My feeling is I have less concern about number three than I do about the leach of number five. I would think that clearly it should only be open during the hours that the actual... We don't have a problem with number five. Okay. I don't want to run a full-time restaurant. You know how hard that is. We're there from eight until eight or nine during the week and all day long, Saturday and Sunday. We're not looking to have this place open. So is spirit really the only issue at the end of the day? Yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay. Any other questions by the... Board members. Chad? Yeah, everything else seems fine. You know, adding liquor to a sports bar cafe, actually when I say sports bar cafe, I feel like I should be able to get a drink. But I'm not sure, you know, with it being such a younger demo with the children, if that makes a lot of sense. But, you know, again, it comes back to reputation. It comes back to operation, management. And if that is, you know, is important and that's been set, then, you know, I think that I would be okay with it. But I'm just giving my opinion. I would say I'd be more comfortable if the condition regarding this being for the current owners stayed so we don't have to worry about it. Even if it were to pass from father to son, as long as it stayed within the Champs family, I think that I would be less concerned about the operational side of things. Mr. Gross, if we did sell it, whoever bought it would have to go before the ABC. There's no transfer of liquor license. it automatically voids and the new owners would have to go to the ABC. But we have no problem if you want to. So a liquor license is personal? Yes. Is that what you're saying? It's not transferable. It's not transferable. And we can't sell it either. Okay. And I understand that if the board is inclined, wouldn't the cleanest thing to do then to be just take out that third condition altogether? Yes. Yeah, I think so. I think so, too. If that's the will of the board, I mean, we hadn't... Anybody have a comment or question about that? Does it deserve anybody? I think we would need to amend four also to include they can't advertise spirits. That's fine. At the end of number four, sure. Yeah. I agree. Does anybody have an objection to what we've just proposed, striking number three and adding beer, wine, and spirits to the end of number four? Anybody got any problem with that? Okay. Okay. Any further questions by the board, board members? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, our motion, we approve PLN VOA 1600054 Champs Entertainment Complex requests a conditional use permit to amend the previously imposed condition for operation of Champs Entertainment Complex and allow a continued operation of the facility under different ownership in a light industrial I-1 zone at 290 War. What is it? Ruscio. Is it ratio? I was going to say a different one, but ratio. 297, excuse me, 297 ratio away in 401 supporting court based on the conditions approved by staff. And then omitting the following recommendation, omitting number three and number four, adding spirits at the end of beer, wine, and spirits. A second. Thank you, Ms. Whitman. Motion made and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those, any opposed? Hearing none, good luck to you. Thank you very much. We really appreciate it. Thank the staff, too. They did a lot of hard work. Next item is Village Animal Hospital, LLC. Applicant, please come forward. Are you ready? I'm trying to orient myself to the new application. Sure. Tell us your name, please. I'm Kim Sears with Village Animal Hospital. I'm sorry? Kim Sears. Tell us about this application. Well, we're seeking a conditional use for veterinary hospital in a P1 space. It's addressed 1610 and 1612 Harrodsburg Road. Thank you, Ms. Sears. Any comments by staff beyond the staff report? No. Any questions from the board? Any questions from the board? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion. I move that we approve PLN BOA 16-55 Village Animal Hospital LLC's request for a conditional use permit to establish a small animal hospital veterinary clinic in a professional P1 zone at 1610-1612 Harrodsburg Road for the reasons recommended by staff and subject to the four conditions outlined by staff. Thank you, Ms. Meyer. Any second? Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry to interrupt, but could we have a statement from the applicant about agreeing to the conditions? Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, I do agree to it. Read the staff report and you agree to the conditions. Yeah. Thank you, ma'am. I've neglected to say that on everyone so far today, so I was just trying to be consistent. Did I hear a second? All right. Thank you, Ms. Whitman. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you and good luck. Thank you. Okay. Okay. That takes us back to the Kroger company. I see they're not here, so motion to adjourn. They did what you asked them to do. Thanks for working it out. Mr. Chairman, we do have a number of objection letters and support letters. Did you want to go ahead and – Sure, let's pass them out. Those over to you. Now, give us a little time. Champa. Champa is the name. Champa. I didn't realize it was. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, yes. Yes. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. It's the first time. Yeah. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. This is a Kroger case. Is this the one that's left on? We're looking at letters right now. Okay. Give us a minute. We've got, we're reviewing documents. Well, if I could, pursuant to the Chair's admonition of going out and meeting with the folks that were here to speak. You all worked everything out. I'm glad to hear it. Well, no, we haven't worked it out. And we did have a meeting back on January 3rd we sent with everybody. And we thought we had addressed just about all the concerns, but there were some that have been raised during the course of our attempt to get them resolved in the interim. involving traffic and traffic impact on South Ashland. And we want to engage a traffic engineer, which we have, that studied the area before, but to focus more on the impact on South Ashland and also Euclid, answer some of the questions that we were asked out there. And so we would, based on that, to request a postponement until the February meeting of the Board, which I think is the 24th. And we'll submit the traffic study in advance of the hearing to the neighbors so they'll have an opportunity to look at it, and also to the Urban County Government traffic engineering staff to look at it as well. You say you're already employed a traffic engineer for a study? We have one, yes. We did a traffic study of the whole site back when the zone change was approved in 2013. The focus of that study was primarily on Euclid and not so much on South Ashland, even though there was access to South Ashland. It was looked at as if that access really was de minimis or didn't exist. And so because of the concerns of the people that have expressed about impact on South Ashland, we wanted to more fully inform them and fully inform you and the urban county government engineers as well. So that would be the basis of this request. Do you think that you can complete the traffic study and the review by traffic engineering in time for the February meeting? Diane? Yes. I think so. Okay. I think Mr. Maloney wants to say something. Yeah, Mr. Maloney, what say ye? We appreciate the offer there, but it puts us in a difficult situation because I know you want us talking and whatnot. But for them to complete their study, that doesn't give us any time to respond to their study. Plus, there is a multimodal Euclid corridor study that is in the process of being done, which takes into account all of the area, not just one street or a couple of streets. Who's doing that study? The city is doing that study. They signed an RFP for $317,000 to do this, and I think that we ought to have both those studies so that both parties have a chance to look at it. You all have the benefit of that information for your decision, and it's going to take longer than the next month to do either. And I'm not familiar with the area study. Do you have any idea about how long that is going to take or when that might be available or what the prognosis is for that? The city would, but I don't. Mr. Chair, Council Member Gibbs can explain that. I think Council voted on that several months ago. But he was here, but I think he exited. If you want to say something, come on up, and we'll be glad to hear from you. And we're treating this as an application for postponement, and we're hearing comments on that. How you doing? Just trying to want to get me up here, huh, Larry? Tell us your name. My name is Jake Gibbs. I live at 220 Delmar Avenue. I'm the council president for the third district. And I haven't looked at this plan in quite some time. but we're paying an architectural design firm to take a look at Euclid Avenue for the long term. And likely what's going to happen is Euclid Avenue is especially wide, and so there's likelihood Euclid Avenue will be narrowed, and then we'll get wider sidewalks, maybe some green space. That sort of stuff is what we're talking about. None of it's going to happen for several years. the sewer work, a sewer line is going to go right down the entire length of Euclid Avenue down the middle. In 2000, Jim, would you know this, to 2019, Amy? The date's been changed a couple of the times. So there's going to be a study done, but nothing will come of it until after the sewer work is done in two, three years down the road. You're talking about a longer-range projected study and then construction to implement what may be the results. And I assume that this study is going to be discussed by the Council and perhaps even modified further after that. Is that right? Yeah, likely. I haven't seen it. Is there a preliminary study out or something that I haven't seen? Go ahead. Ms. Clark? As I understand it, this builds on the $75,000 commercial corridor study of Euclid that was completed not long ago, and this is kind of a phase two. We have ambitions for this corridor. And I talked with, I think, project supervisor is Jonathan Hollinger, who's moved to the mayor's office to, I guess, better supervise projects. But I talked with him, I guess, before Christmas, and he indicated that they had roughly completed the physical survey of the roadway. They're doing everything. I mean, utilities and easements and curbs and, you know, a whole survey. I have here the further description of basic professional services and essentially the scope of work and the phasing, and what it says is it's a 510-day study, but it was voted April of last year, and by Jonathan's report, they're about through with the surveys and coordination. That's about the first 60 days. The very interesting part to me, and it's why I ever called Jonathan about it, was they're just about to do some traffic counts, he thought, early in the new year. So there's actually a whole lot of information that this study could bring to all our problems, on Euclid, and I think the Kroger access is a problem that needs solving, and I think some of that solving can go on on the lot, and I think some of it can really happen best with people who are more expert than I am in the course of a broader study. Thank you, Ms. Clark. The prospect under consideration right now is whether or not to postpone the application to be heard today, and whether or not, if it's postponed, to postpone it for 30 days, as proposed by Mr. Simpson, or longer as proposed by Mr. Maloney. I understand that area study to be a longer-range project that may implicate some of the things that are going on that Kroger wants to do as well. However, that doesn't mean we stop all applications for conditional uses or variances or whatever in the meantime. So me personally, I'm not really inclined to put this off until that city study has been completed and implemented. But I, and so I think that may be unfair. But I don't think it's unfair for Mr. Maloney to request additional time to propose a traffic study of your own as far as the opponents to this application are concerned. So I'm sympathetic to that request, but not to put it off until this city study has been completed and implemented. So with that being said, Mr. Maloney, what other suggestion do you have beyond 30 days for postponing this application? Your Honor, I'm going to defer to Ms. Clark since I represent the organization she belongs to. But it's going to take more than 30 days. It's going to take more than 60 days. And the reason for that is Kroger can write a check for a traffic impact study like that. These neighbors have got to go out and raise the money if they're going to respond to it and if they want to have their own traffic impact study. So I would say at least 90 days. And I understand Ms. Clark is going to say that 90 days is probably not long enough for her or for your organization to find out the results of the city study as well. However, that doesn't mean that it's necessarily fair to this applicant to put it off, to put off hearing of their application, whether it's successful or not is another matter. But I'm not inclined to put this off any longer than 60 or 90 days. I think the applicants deserve a hearing and a vote up or down within a reasonable period of time. Mr. If I may interject. Sure, go ahead. Mr. Chair. If I can respond very briefly to it. Mr. Simpson? We can have the traffic study. We'll one second. Yeah, exactly. How long will it be for your traffic study to be complete? We can get it done within two and a half weeks and make it available for everybody. When's our March date? I don't have the schedule. The March hearing is March 31st. The February hearing is February 24th. If they can get it done within 30 days, that gives the opponents well over 30 days to review it. I don't see why postponing to the March date, if the applicant was agreeable, could be objectionable. Because even if they can't fund their own study, I'm sure they could review the work that Kroger's engineer has done. Anybody else on the board have a comment about that? I don't want to suggest we can't fund it. I'm just suggesting it's going to take a little time perhaps to raise the money because it's got to come from individuals. I understand that, too. I understand that as well. Mr. Forrester. I kind of agree with your point. It may not be fair to the applicants to go too far out because they're purchasing. They also have contracts out there, and those contracts dates, I would just say, are going to be null and void after a certain period of time, too. but we want to give reasonable time to the opposition. I'm okay with 60 days. I think 90 days is too long. I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Forrester and I don't know what the temperature of the board is about that but I'm willing to grant a motion to postpone this for 60 days for the specific purpose of a traffic study being accomplished within the next three weeks shared with the opponents and have this hearing re-heard in March. Ms. Meyer? I'm inclined to 90 days. It's not that Kroger doesn't have parking now. The parking is there, and it gives people more time to maybe come up with a solution to this problem once the traffic study is done. if there's another way of maybe looking at it. And I don't think another 30 days is really unreasonable in this respect. I'm persuaded, Ms. Meyer, that you may be correct. I'm curious, in addition, if there are any other things that could be done within the next 90 days that would get us further to a consideration of this application. I don't want to come back in April and have another request for a postponement due to some other new issue that's come up. So I'd like for us to hear this as soon as we can, vote it up or down. And, Chair, that's my concern is that we'll be here in 90 days and there will still be opposition and we'll still be haggling over other issues. So I'd rather do this at the maximum, the 60 days, and then we could have those other issues flushed out sooner so that the project, if it is approved, would either die or live a lot sooner. Ms. Whitman. I would hope that perhaps when this one study is done in, what, two and a half weeks or so, and it's shared with the neighborhood, that that might solve the problem. And at least it would give you additional information to really think about what you are in opposition to. But I think having that one study should make a lot of difference. It may make a difference, and of course we're not foreclosing a request for a postponement after, if we hear this again in March, that doesn't close out your request for further study. But I just, I think we shouldn't push this off too long. Mr. Needham, you're the only one we hadn't heard from about this. We've heard 90 and 60 and 45 or 75 is not available. So what say ye? I'm inclined to hear it today. There you go. I mean, I think there's going to be opposition in 60 days, and it's going to be the same, regardless of a traffic study. This is my opinion. Well, I'm kind of inclined to put it off a little bit simply because there is an organized opposition to it. But like I said when I started, I'm not inclined to put this off for a longer period of time. So I'm back to my proposal of 60 days, and we can consider it then. I'd be willing to hear it today. And if it may, Mr. Chairman, we would, you know, Kroger wants to, these are our customers, and we want to address their concerns. And so that's why we'd ask for the postponement so we can have a specific focus on the traffic study that they were concerned about, to be able to respond to it and with recommendations on mitigation, whatever would help the situation if it were to be approved. So I would suggest we could get this done in two weeks, and if they believe they needed more time, we could postpone until March. We'll get the information to them as soon as we can. Obviously, consistent with Mr. Forrester's position, there are certain contracts and issues that have to be addressed. So if they need additional time after we turn in in two weeks, then March is fine. I think 60 was we ought to have all the issues addressed. We want to address their concern. We've reached out to them to try to be responsive. We want to do it with respect to the traffic issues. We felt like we had resolved everything that came up with the neighborhood for the most part. We met with them, but obviously we haven't. So we want to make sure that we've extended every effort to be a good neighbor, as we have been there for many, many years and hope to be for many, many more. So we would ask to try to have it heard in February. If they need additional time, then certainly let's go to March. Okay, so I've heard the proposals are hear it today, hear it in February, hear it in March, and maybe one to hear it in April. And there may be some in opposition that don't ever want to hear it. So how do you propose to reach a compromise? I think it's not unfair to postpone it at least 30 days. And, you know, I've battled off numbers up here just like you all have. But if we postpone it for 30 days, that doesn't, again, close out the possibility of postponing it another 30 days if something comes up. But again, these applications need to be heard and determined. We are a Board of Adjustment. We're not the Planning Commission, and we're not the Mayor, and we're not the City Council. So we like to move these through. We don't like to have backlogs. We don't like to hear various applications over and over again. So I'll entertain a motion from the board and we can discuss the terms of that motion. I'll amend my 90 days down to 60 days and propose that we hear this at our March meeting. We postpone it until our March meeting. I'll second her motion. Mr. Forrester seconds. Ms. Myers' motion. Anybody want to be heard on the motion before we vote on the motion? Ms. Clark, you want to be heard on the motion? With the indulgence of the chair, vice chair. By the indulgence of this board, the hearing was postponed. The application was made in October, mid-October. they postponed in requested postponement and received it in December to meet with the neighbors. I was at the neighborhood forum. There's been quite a lot of neighborhood energy and quite a lot of neighborhood distress and all too little neighborhood money going into addressing what is all our problem. It's our grocery store. It's our traffic. It's our streets. We do think that I do think that a very attractive solution would be to have Kroger address private issues as best it could and then in the longer term be a part of the multimodal corridor redesign. But failing of that, it would be my preference to hear it today because we're here today. We came prepared to speak and be heard today. there is indulgence for citizens as well as applicants. There is some sympathy for Ms. Clark for that position. I haven't heard anything in the hallway that I didn't hear at the forum. Sure. First Tuesday of the month and quite a lot of it I heard years ago. Yeah. There is a motion on the floor to postpone this application for 60 days. It's been made and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Opposed. Opposed. Two opposed. Motion carries. We are postponed for 60 days. We will put this and hear it on the March docket. And I'm sorry for everybody's trouble coming down, but that's the way these things go. So thank you for attention. Thank you, gentlemen, ladies. See you next month. Broker Company and their patrons. And before we adjourn, There is a board item on our agenda. we lost last month our chairperson and we're tasked with selecting a new chairperson for what, one year, two years, four years? How often do we vote on a chair? It's not less than one year, I can tell you that. Not less than one year. I think it's probably something that we ought to do every year. And I know we didn't do it when Barry was chair, and probably only because he didn't realize that it could be done that way. But I think that's probably good practice just to give us pressure. Mr. Glover, your bylaws say you do it annually. Annually. Okay, good. Well, then my instincts are not off base. So do I hear a nomination for someone, for a chairperson, a vice chair, a secretary, and what other officers have we had? We've only had those three, right? Okay. Anybody want to propose an applicant for? Mr. Chair, I would nominate Mr. Brandon Gross as chairperson for this calendar year. Thank you, Mr. Forrester. Any other nominations for chairperson? Hearing none, did I get a second on that? I will second. Thank you, Mr. Needham. Motion's been made for Mr. Gross to be the chair. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye, as well. Motion carries. Mr. Gross, you are now the new chair. Can we put a condition on that? As soon as I get finished with this agenda myself as temporary chair, we need a vice chairperson as well and a secretary. So any nominations for vice chair? I move that Tommy Glover continue as the vice chair for the fiscal year. I know him and can vouch for him. A second. Thank you, Ms. Whitman. Any other nominations? Hearing none, all those in favor of me as Vice Chair for the coming year say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. And Secretary, Ms. Whitman, you've been the Secretary for the past not very long? No. I propose you as secretary for, I nominate you for the secretary for this coming year. Is that okay? Do I hear a second on that? I second it. Second it, Mr. Forrester. Thanks. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Congratulations to all three of us. Any other items of business coming before the board today? Anything further from staff? Support staff? Hearing none. Board of Adjustments for January is adjourned. And our next meeting is February 24th. If Mr. Stumbo were here, I'd tell him.