Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates tattoo/body-art rules, tables ordinance for revisions
Summary
After an extended debate on definitions, minors, zoning and proximity rules, the Kamas City Council voted to table a proposed body art (tattoo and piercing) ordinance and asked staff to return a revised draft within two weeks.
The Kamas City Council on Sept. 8 considered a proposed ordinance to add a body art facilities section to the Kamas Municipal Code, remove tattoo shops from the adult-oriented business definition, and permit body art facilities in specified commercial and light industrial zones.
Jill (city staff) presented the planning commission's recommendation and the proposed changes: separate tattooing from adult-oriented businesses, define "body art," permit body art facilities in the general commercial, entry-corridor commercial and light industrial zones, and regulate parking and hours. Jill said the planning commission held hearings Aug. 7 and Sept. 2 and recommended the inclusion of the new code section. She told the council the city currently has business-licensed tattoo artists but no licensed body-art facilities.
Council discussion focused on several technical and policy points: whether to include cosmetic/permanent makeup and microblading in the body art definition (planning recommended separate treatment under an aesthetician code), how to treat ear piercing and parental consent for minors, the county health-code and Utah State Medical Board regulation references, limits on the number of facilities and practitioners, hours of operation, separation/proximity rules ("distancing"), and sign/neon restrictions. Tattoo practitioner Casey O'Leary addressed the council, saying cosmetic tattooing often uses different equipment and training than tattooing.
Councilmembers agreed on multiple directions for staff: combine ear piercing into a general "body piercing" definition (remove the carve-out for the non-cartilaginous lobe), reference Utah state code/Utah State Medical Board procedures for minors rather than creating a separate local standard, remove the proposed proximity/distance restriction (section g), clarify that the planning commission intended to limit the city to no more than two body art facilities and up to two practitioners per facility as a starting point, and retain separate treatment of microblading/permanent cosmetics in a forthcoming aesthetics code.
After the discussion, a councilmember moved to table the ordinance so the council could review a revised draft containing the changes. The motion to table passed; the council asked staff to provide the revised ordinance within two weeks so the council could act at its next meeting.
