04/23/2002 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

is not correct. It is an application for a similar use permit. A variance means it is at odds with the uses permitted in the district, and this is that it is "similar to" or consistent with the uses that are permitted in the district, although it is not specifically listed among those identified. It is siinilar in character. It is not listed in any other classification as a permitted use. It is more appropriate and conforms to the basic characteristics of the district where it is to be located. It does not create any dangers to health and safety and it does not create traffic to a greater extent than other uses in the district. It is a general business district and some of the listed uses it is being compared to would be a profE;ssional office, i.e., doctor, or dentist. Mr.Asseff said his point is he does not believe it is the same thing or similar to a physicians office, or dentist office. Those professionals are required to be certifie;d by the state to practice what they do. There is no certification required here. Mr. Spalding agreed. with that assessment. He said the City does not have any code or section covering the operations of such a business. He asked Mr. O'Malley if it would be appropriate to have one in place. Mr. O'Malley said it could be addressed. He indicated Council could add the specific description to the list of pernutted uses. Mr. Asseff asked Mr. Rymarczyk how many variances are being requested. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated there is one parking variance request. NIr. Asseff asked if the riumber of spaces required is a function of the square footage of the building. Mr. Rymarczyk said it is based on the use of the facility. For a doctor's office there are five spaces required per doctor. He said they have 3 practitioners so that's 15 spaces right there, plus one for the additional tenant. The number needed is 16 but the maximum they have is 14. Mr. Koeth asked Mr. Sexstella to confirm that he would eliminate one practitioner. 1V1r. Sexstella said it could be done. They can rotate them to keep it within code. Mr. Rymarczyk pointed out if that was the case, no variance would be needed. Mr. Asseff said it would have to specifically state that a maximum of two practitioners would be allowed to be in the building at any particular time. Mr. Spalding said the sectioit allows offices for dentists, doctors, or other recognized professionals. He commented the proposed business does not fit into that category. Mr. Rymarczyk indicated the main purpose for that was for the amount of parking required, for a comparison. Therefore the determination was based on the doctor or dentist type of ratio. Mr. Koeth asked what category it would fall under since they aren't certified or recognized in that sense. Mr. O'Malley said the board has the authority to deterrriine if the use is similar to 1139.01 (b)(4)(A)(2), offices for architects, clergymen, engineers, lawyers, dentists, doctors, or other established, recognized professionals. Mr. Spalding asked if they can go with another section. Mr. O'Malley said if the board finds it is similar to barber shops, beauty shops, and custom tailors, there is another provision of the code that lists those businesses. Mr. Koeth asked Mr. Rymarczyk if under that rule there is any difference. He replied that would wipe out th.e parking variance. Mr. Koeth suggested they approve the Buckeye Building, Nathan Sexstella, under the code 1139.01 (b)(4)(E), rather than the 1139.01 (4)(A)(2). He added that he does not think there needs to be a parking variance. R. Koeth motioned to approve Buckeye Building (Nathan Sexstella) of 23203 Lorain Road. Proposal consists of deternunation of similar use for a Body Piercing/Tattoo Parlor as ainended under sections 1139.01(b)(4)(E) and that parking variance will not be required. With the stipulation that th.ere will be no teaching at the facility at this time. The motion was seconded by Mr. Allan. Roll call on the motion: R. Koeth, C. Allan, W. Spalding; yes, and S. Asseff, no. Motion Denied. Mr. Koeth indicated he would also like to have Mr. Vidra and Mr. Sexstella work with either the City or with the Planning Commission on putting together a chapter in the book concerning tattoos and piercing. They could possibly use the guidelines of the APP. He would like it to get in the books and have it under the code it should be. Mr. Sexstella indicated they would be happy to do that. I.W. O'Malley indicated that would be a request and a motion is not needed. Mr. Rymarczyk confirrned that no variance will be needed. He said their next step is to go to the Board of Zoning and Di;velopment. Mr. Spalding pointed out they are just approving the tattoo and body piercing. It ? 6