Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears staff recommendation to separate tattooing from permanent cosmetics in zoning code
Summary
City staff recommended defining tattooing and permanent cosmetics as separate land uses and updating zoning tables; the planning commission had recommended combining them, and councilors asked staff to return with clarified language and potentially send major changes back to planning commission for public hearing.
City staff presented a proposed municipal code amendment to separate "tattooing" and "permanent cosmetics" (permanent makeup, microblading and related services) into distinct land-use definitions and to update the land-use table accordingly.
Senior planning staff said tattoo shops and permanent-cosmetic businesses have different business models and market areas: tattooing is typically appointment-driven and regional in draw, so staff recommended locating tattooing in the CH (commercial highway) zone; permanent cosmetics and similar beauty services often operate as neighborhood or local services and were proposed for a broader set of zones, including PV. Staff emphasized the change would codify existing administrative approvals that have been used for several years.
The Planning Commission recommended a different approach: a single combined definition of "body art" and a recommendation to disallow body art in the PV zone. Staff warned that enforcing that change now could create many nonconforming uses because several existing businesses have relied on PV zoning. Council members pressed staff for additional data on how many salons or businesses perform permanent-cosmetic services; staff said licensing records do not break the uses into separate categories but estimated there are "dozens" of such businesses and that many operate as booth-rentals or home-based operations.
Several councilors said they understood the rationale for separate definitions and emphasized the need for careful, compatible placement of uses to protect adjacent residential neighborhoods. One councilor asked whether the detailed list of procedures in the draft definition needed to be exhaustive; staff said they could review the wording with legal and consider categorizing many items under a medical or "other" umbrella rather than enumerating every procedure. Staff confirmed that, because the proposed amendment would be more than a minor change, it would return to the Planning Commission for recommendation and then come back to council with notice and a public hearing.
No ordinance was adopted at the meeting. Staff will revise the proposed definitions, consult legal on simplifying the medical/procedure language, and bring the amendment back through the Planning Commission before the council considers a formal adoption and public hearing.
