03/08/2005 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

She reviewed that Section 1139.01(b)(4) of the Zoning Code described those types of service establishments which are permitted in North Olmsted. Section 1139.01(c) states that other service establishments may be permitted if determined to be a similar use according to section 1123.10. That section gives the Commission the ability to rule on a proposed use based on the following standards: • Use is not listed in any other classification of permitted uses • Use is more appropriate and conforms to basic characteristics of the district in which it is to be located • Use does not create dangers to health and safety, adverse impacts related to noise, vibration, dust, smoke, etc. more so than other uses permitted in district • Use does not create traffic to greater extent than other permitted uses She reminded the commission that the applicant previously appeared before the Commission on April 23, 2002 with a request for determination of similar use for a tattoo and body piercing establishment. The Commission denied the request and following the motion, Chairman Koeth advised the applicant to work with the City to pursue a zoning text amendment. She was not aware of what efforts the applicant had made since the 2002 meeting in regards to a zoning code change. She found it difficult to find a permitted use within chapter 1139 of the City's Zoning Code that easily relates to the applicant's proposed use. Additionally, a significant number of issues were raised at the 2002 Planning Commission meeting. The Commission discussed business operations, licensing, health and safety issues, staffing, and parlcing, and mare. It suggested to her that the Commission had a' number of concerns that could best be resolved through zoning amendments. She further advised that if the Planning Commission ruled that the proposed use was a similax use all such future uses, would be permitted without Planning Commissions review in any general retail business zoned area. Her recommendation is for the Commission to reject the determination of similar use and instead recommend the applicant pursue a zoning text amendment. Mr. Conway said the zoning code was tightened up in,1991 and the language was pretty open ended. Planning and Council decided to tighten the uses by being more specific. He agreed with the Planning Director that he could find no similar uses. Mr. O'Malley voiced his agreement with the Planning Directors and Building Commissioners statements. , Applicants Presentation: Mr. Sexstella felt that the use was similar to a massage therapy office. HeI suggested that in the past, the use had been compared to hair salons and dentist offices, but he does not believe they are similar. , Commissions Comments: Mr. Koeth questioned if Mr. Sexstella talked'to anyone about addressing the issue after his last meeting. Mr. Yager believed that the city officials had more knowledge and that the commission should follow their recommendation. Mr. Spalding voiced a concern regarding health issues. He felt that it would be beneficial for. l the applicant to worlc with the City Planner to find a category to fit into. 1VIrs. Hoff-Smrth stated she was concerned that if the use was permitted it would open a Pandora's Box. All future uses similar to tattoo, and body piercing shops would become a permitted use in any general retail business district. 7