Peachtree City Planning Commission members on Aug. 11 reviewed a council-initiated zoning text amendment aimed at defining and regulating cosmetic tattooing and microblading within the city.

Planning staff said the change was prompted by council direction and inquiries from local businesses and county actions. Staff noted the city currently regulates traditional tattoo parlors as a restricted use in General Commercial (GC) zoning and that the Peachtree City code does not yet include definitions or placement guidance for cosmetic tattooing, microblading or other body-art subcategories. "This is strictly a conversation," planning staff said, explaining that the commission was being asked to advise on draft language that staff will return with for a future vote.

The staff memo presented two broad approaches for the commission to recommend to council: (1) keep tattoo-related uses restricted (expand the restricted list to explicitly mention cosmetic tattooing and microblading), or (2) permit the uses but limit their locations — staff suggested placing permitted locations in Light Industrial or Limited-Use Industrial districts and using a spacing requirement to limit saturation. Staff said one sample spacing figure used by other municipalities is 5,000 feet between establishments.

Commissioners pressed staff on enforcement and the treatment of existing businesses. Planning staff said businesses currently operating cosmetic services are typically licensed as spas and had not been separately licensed or identified as microblading/cosmetic tattooing providers. If council adopts regulations that do not allow the use in a particular zone, the city will notify operators during business-license renewal and pursue code-enforcement actions if the use continues; staff said the city does not plan to treat these as grandfathered uses. "They, technically, were never allowed," planning staff said.

Commissioners generally supported drafting language to allow the use in specified nonretail industrial districts while keeping GC retail areas restricted; they asked staff to return with a drafted ordinance, a map showing the affected zoning districts, comparative spacing examples from other municipalities, and suggested input from the city arborist and legal review. Several commissioners said saturation was a core concern and supported a substantial spacing standard; one commissioner suggested the 5,000-foot figure is a reasonable starting point but asked staff to document where that number came from.

Because the item was a public hearing, the chair opened the floor to supporters and opponents; no members of the public spoke for or against the amendment during the hearing.

Next steps: staff will draft ordinance language reflecting the direction given — either a restricted-use expansion or a permitted-use text with location and spacing limits — and return it to the planning commission before it is scheduled for council consideration.