06/03/2010 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

internet access for three years. Mr. Thorne said when the occupancy application was submitted he spoke with Mr. Grayshaw in the building department. The application states the business us is a business center and there was no discussion as to how the business would be ran or the number of computers which would be installed. Mr. Hartnett asked Mr. Thorne a series of yes and no questions pertaining to the application documents which were submitted and received for obtaining an occupancy permit. The only complaint which Mr. Thorne is aware of is a large delivery truclc parked across two spaces and the neighbor called police and the truck was parked correctly. The tax relief agreement with the County was briefly reviewed. Mr. Thorne said the business plan had not changed since he opened his business. He removed the counter which was in place, added electrical lines and outlets for power to the computers. The walls were painted, wall sconces added and new flooring installed prior to opening. He opened his business in March and if the occupancy is pulled it would put him in financial stress as he is obligated for the five year lease and all equipment purchased. Mr. Hawk reviewed his architectural credentials and affiliations in the architectural field. He visited the site and was asked to create an as built plan which was submitted to the city. The plans were prepared May 20, 2010 and the site was viewed ten days prior to the dated plans. Based upon his observations of the site it meets Ohio building codes although the drawings used were not full working plans of the center. He believes that the site complies with both the requirements of business and assembly of the Ohio Building Codes OBC which were reviewed in detail including the exceptions. The Certificate of use and occupancy was reviewed by Mr. Hawlc who said he was brought in after the building official ruled the use had changed. However he believes that the category for the Surf Shop should be a business following OBC table maximum floor area allowed per occupant which was read aloud. Using the OBC Mr. Hawk calculates that there can be up to 100 people based on the floor space and toilets provided however their plan which was submitted states no more than 49 people will be in the space. His opinion is that the site in question is a business no different from a call center. He sought the opinion of the International Code Council for a definition of gaming equipment versus computers used for gaming and was told if the computers are basic computers then they are not gaming machines such as pinball and slots. They did not receive the opinion in writing but once received it will be submitted. With sixteen hundred square feet of space the space complies with both business and assembly but preferably business. He pointed out one or two small issues regarding violations which are not health or safety issues, one is to provide a drinking fountain which can be a bottle water dispenser and slop sink needs to be installed in the utility room. Mr. Hartnett said his client has made a substantial investment in North Olmsted and the business and has tried to keep everything in compliance to code however there were things he was not aware of including real-estate tax requirements which has now been addressed. His client has not preformed any changes or repairs to the space which requires permits. Mr. Hawk testified that the use is in fact a business use and qualifies as such. Mr. Mitchell reviewed the documents which were submitted to the Building department by the applicant noting that the applicant stated there would be no more than 15 people in the space and the business was a business center which provides coping, faxing and internet services. Once the application is submitted his department has 10 days to review and issue an occupancy permit or issue a letter stating why it is denied. A sketch of the floor plan was submitted which he 4