05/10/2006 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

and safety concerns were brought up and it was disclosed that their business is regulated by the State of Ohio and the County Board of Health requirements. He said the Commission could assume that the use would not occur without a license being issued by the State. The business is not in any way an improper use which should be kept in mind when determining similar use to other retail service establishments in the General Retail District. Mr. Royer, the applicant's attorney, and Mr. Wulff, the owner, each came forward to present their request. Mr. Royer reviewed that tattooing was governed by many rules, regulations standards and requires a license to operate. Under Chapter 1139 there are lists of items which are acceptable. Among the list of acceptable uses is barber shops, beauty shops, tanning salons, nail salons and ear piercing shops. His client's business is the same as each of those businesses as each of them provides a method in which their clients can outwardly express themselves through their appearance. Currently those businesses mentioned each have establislunents operating within the General Retail District. Under 1123.10(a), the tattoo parlor is not listed in any other classification of permitted buildings or uses. Under 1123.10(b), the use is more appropriate and conforms to the basic characteristics of the district in which it is to be located. His clients shop will be located right next door to a tanning salon. Regarding 1123.10(c), his client's business will not create dangers to health, safety, and does not create offensive noise, vibration, dust, heat smoke, odor, glare or other objectionable influences to an extent greater than normally resulting from other uses permitted in the same district. Under 1123.10(d), such use does not create traffic to a greater extent than the other uses permitted in the same district. The business will not generate more traffic to the site then there currently is now. A copy of Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 3701-9 was passed out to each cominissioner and addresses the process his client has to go through to receive and renew his license to open a tattoo establishment in North Olmsted or anywhere else. The second packet chapter 3701-9-09 reviews that the County health authorities have a right to deny a license or inspect a business and either suspend or revolce a license for any infraction of the rules. In accordance to the law his client is not allowed to tattoo anyone who is 16 years old or under. Between the ages of 16 and 18 years old requires parental consent. His client has never in all the years he has been tattooing been cited or charged with tattooing anyone under the age of 16 or tattooing someone between 16 and 18 without their parent's consent. Therefore in terms of health and safety his client has a track record which shows that he will follow the law and be closely goveined by the county authorities. Allowing his clients business will not create problems for North Olmsted. The location of the business will not be located near any business which serves alcohol or a convenient store which sales alcohol. Although by law they are not allowed to tattoo someone under the influence of alcohol. Allowing this use will not create a nuisance or danger to the city or minors of the city of North Olmsted. Furthermore determining in favor of similar use would not open the flood gates and allow any tattoo parlor in any area of the general retail district. Each applicant is a separate case. Ms. Wenger aslced for clarification from Mr. O'Malley whether in fact a determination of similar use would malce any tattoo parlor allowed without a determination of similar use. Mr. O'Malley advised that a determination of similar use would not allow any future tattoo parlor owners to open a business anywhere in the General Retail District. Each case would be loolced at separately. The Planning & Design Commission is making an administrative determination on a case by case scenario rather than changing the zoning code. Mr. Bohlmann pointed out that there was a liquor establishment within 200 feet of the proposed location. He felt that as the city is currently addressing the issue in the review of the zoning codes the commission should wait until the process is completed. Ms. Wenger advised that although the issue is being addressed in the review process it would probably take a year 4