Opponents urge council to keep restrictions at Old National plaza as waxing salon seeks modification and special‑use permit

A proposed waxing studio at Old National Plaza drew divided attention at the Jan. 14 City Council meeting, where the council heard two related land‑use requests: a modification to existing zoning conditions and a special‑use permit to allow a waxing salon at 6385 Old National Highway Unit 9.

Henry Bailey, counsel for Brazilian Wax Old National LLC, told the council the modification request was narrowly tailored to allow a waxing salon only in the specific tenant space next to Little Caesars where an old T‑Mobile had been located. Bailey said the applicant mailed roughly 4,000 notices within a one‑mile radius and held a public participation meeting with about six attendees. “The request that we made from a modification standpoint was to modify the conditions to only allow a waxing salon in this specific tenant space and not to remove that condition from the entirety of the property,” Bailey told council.

Neighbor opposition Michael Venable, speaking as a nearby resident, urged denial. He said restrictions on the plaza had been adopted after a long neighborhood process and were intended to avoid a concentration of convenience, personal‑services and other uses that residents considered undesirable. “This application needs to be denied. The modifications should should stay the way it is because it was purposely done, and everybody knew why it was done, and it should stay there,” Venable said.

Planning and staff recommendations Planning staff told council that the Planning Commission had recommended denial for the special‑use permit, while staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The council record shows staff recommended approval “conditional” for the special‑use permit and noted the Planning Commission’s denial recommendation.

Public‑participation and scope Bailey emphasized the applicant’s narrowed scope—he said the modification would apply only to the identified suite, not the entire plaza—and noted the public‑participation effort. Opponents said the corridor already has a long history of personal‑service uses and that the original conditions were put in place deliberately to encourage a different mix of tenants; they asked council to preserve those restrictions.

Why it matters The hearing reflects a recurring land‑use debate: whether to preserve a curated tenant mix in a commercial corridor or allow additional small personal‑service businesses that proponents say serve residents and support local entrepreneurship. The Planning Commission, staff and neighbors disagreed on the appropriate outcome for this plaza.

Outcome The transcript records the public hearings, the applicant’s presentation and public opposition, and it records that the Planning Commission recommended denial of the special‑use permit while staff recommended conditional approval; the meeting transcript does not show a final council vote on either the modification or the special‑use permit that night.

Ending Council members closed both hearings and did not record a final decision in the provided transcript; staff will carry forward any next steps, including scheduling final action if the cases return to council.