Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Code Amendment topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Centerville staff to bring body‑art code amendments back for public hearing after commission adds 'scar camouflage'

3350758 · May 15, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Centerville staff on April 23 presented draft zoning code amendments governing body‑art and permanent cosmetics and the Planning Commission directed staff to schedule a public hearing after adding language to allow scar camouflage.

Centerville staff on April 23 presented draft zoning code amendments to regulate body‑art establishments and permanent cosmetics and the Planning Commission directed staff to schedule a public hearing on the amendments after the commission added language for scar camouflage.

Staff said the draft is a synthesis of Centerville and Layton code language and that existing, conflicting language in the city code would be replaced. The proposal covers permanent cosmetics (microblading, lash enhancement, scalp pigmentation and similar services), body‑art (tattooing) and excludes practices defined as medical procedures by the state. The staff presentation noted the commission’s prior direction and the distinction between conceptual phrasing and enforceable code language.

Commissioners discussed whether certain services should be permitted or conditional and where in the city those uses would be allowed. One commissioner said the scar‑camouflage technique (used to lighten or darken scars to better match adjacent skin) would be “an excellent addition to permanent cosmetics,” and staff agreed to add it to the defined list of permanent cosmetic services. Commissioners also debated whether tattooing and permanent cosmetics should be a permitted use or a conditional use in commercial/industrial zones; several commissioners favored keeping such uses in industrial zones (IH and IBH) or making them conditional there rather than allowing them in planned‑development overlays.

Staff advised that specific operational controls (hours, noise, sanitation and inspections) are handled through code provisions and other city ordinances; business hours are not broadly regulated in the city code beyond noise and nuisance standards. After discussion, commissioners directed staff to finalize the draft with scar‑camouflage language, mark the table of uses to show the proposed conditional/permitted status, and return the ordinance for a public hearing (staff suggested advertising the hearing by the end of the week and bringing the item back at the next available meeting, either May 28 or June 11).

Next steps: staff will incorporate the commission’s direction, add scar‑camouflage to the permanent‑cosmetics definition, mark the table of uses as directed (conditional in selected zones), and post the amendment for public hearing as a code amendment item.