03/28/2007 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r; the commission and city council in 2006 and Mr. Wulff opened his shop in September of 2006. Since opening they have not received nor are they aware of the City being burdened with any problems, concerns, complaints or crime rates increasing within the community from opening the shop. If the commission rules in his client's favor Ms. Zayas would go through a licensing procedure. Their request is governed by chapter 1123.10 of the zoning code. To address the four factors: A). The use is not identified in the cities code under section (A) as a permitted or un-permitted use. B). As mentioned generally tattooing and body piercing are found/located in the same location. He thinks it is appropriate and conforms to the basic characteristics of the General Retail District. He is certain that ear piercing is currently being conducted within the General Retail District. His client as stated in the documents on file that approximately 35% to 50% of her piercing are ear piercing which is already going on within the district. C). Tattoo Faction has been in operation since September 2006 without any incidents or complaints and the proposed use would be regulated by the Cuyahoga County Board of Health. His client's neighbors are not present to complain about the business or their cliental. They are not aware of an increase in crime in the area or problems due to the opening of the tattoo shop. D). There are no traffic issues as there are a minimum of 40 parking spaces in the front of the center as well as additional parking behind the center. His client would be the only body piercing professional in the shop so traffic volume would be minimal. Mr. Lasko asked if Ms. Zayas would be an employee of the existing business or an independent contractor of the business. Mr. Wulff advised that Ms. Zayas would be an independent contractor. His expertise is strictly tattooing therefore he prefer her piercing remain independent. Keeping the businesses separate allows Ms. Zayas the authority to control her business practices independently from his practice. Mr. Lasko questioned how liability/malpractice issues were addressed by both the tattooing and body piercing business. Mr. Wulff said that he has individual liability insurance on each operator in his shop as well as shop liability coverage, and waivers which must be signed by all clients. Ms. Zayas stated that she would have liability insurance as well as waivers which must be signed by all clients. Mrs. Meredith reviewed that when Mr. Wulff was seeking his determination of similar use he was asked if there was any intent to have body piercing and he said there would not. Mr. Wulff said that at the time he was not looking to add body piercing and was trying to concentrate on establishing a professional business upscale, clean and fit into North Olmsted. Mr. Bohlmann commented that when the tattoo shop came before the commission he was against the shop. He not only lives near the plaza but he does business at the plaza quite often and he has not heard anything against the shop since it opened. Mr. Malone visited the shop and found it very upscale, clean and looked like a medical center. The commission concluded in their review the similar use of body piercing in the General Retail District based upon information presented by the applicant or representatives of the administration the commission finds that the use is not listed in any other classification of permitted buildings or uses. The commission finds that the proposed use is more appropriate and conforms to the basic characteristics of the district in which it is to be located than in any other district. Their findings are based upon the information which was presented by the applicant together with what was presented by Mr. O'Malley and Ms. Wenger in relation to what is going on in the General Retail Business District pertaining to piercing i.e. Great Northern Mall having ear piercing booths. 5