City planners refine body‑art rules; send draft back for attorney review

City planning commissioners debated a proposed body‑art ordinance that would strictly limit tattoo and body‑piercing businesses and then voted to table the draft until city legal review is complete.

The commission discussed limiting the city to two licensed body‑art facilities, capping each facility at two practitioners, and directing that the business license be issued to the facility rather than an individual. Commissioners and staff hashed out details about whether permanent cosmetics, microneedling and microblading belong under the same definition as tattooing and body piercing and whether some services should be moved into a separate “personal services” or aesthetician category.

Planning staff member Jill said staff had circulated a draft and repeatedly sought legal review: “I sent it to him a couple of times … he said he would get to it, but he has not.” Commissioners repeatedly requested a formal attorney review before forwarding the ordinance to city council.

The group clarified other operational rules in the draft. The commission settled on a parking standard described as “one parking space per chair plus one space per employee on the largest shift.” Commissioners also discussed distance buffers from sensitive uses (schools, day cares, churches) but did not adopt any specific separation distances at the meeting. The county health department and its sanitation rules will continue to apply to practitioners; staff noted facilities must comply with Summit County health‑department requirements.

Commissioners debated the treatment of permanent cosmetics and related services. One commissioner asked, “Where does microneedling, where do injection services, where does our holistic medical spa fall into this?” Staff and other commissioners agreed microblading and some permanent‑cosmetics services have different training and safety regimes and recommended creating a separate definition or moving them to the personal‑services section rather than including them inside the body‑art facility definition.

On licensing, the commission agreed the municipal business license should issue to the facility; each practitioner would also need to meet whatever health or practitioner licensing requirements exist and be recorded for regulatory purposes. Commissioners discussed examples — salons that employ multiple practitioners under a single payroll versus independent operators who would require separate business registrations — and noted the distinction matters for how many practitioners a facility may host.

After clarifying those points and other editorial changes to the draft, the commission passed a motion to table the item pending attorney review and to reconvene quickly (via a special meeting if necessary) once legal comments are received. The motion passed by voice vote; the transcript does not record a roll‑call tally.

The commission directed staff to revise language so the ordinance will: (1) limit the number of body‑art facilities in the city to two; (2) limit each facility to two practitioners; (3) make the Kansas City business license a facility license while requiring practitioners to hold their required practitioner credentials; (4) require compliance with Summit County health rules; and (5) separate permanent cosmetics/microblading from tattooing in the definitions or move those services to a personal‑services section.

Next steps: staff will incorporate the edits and seek the city attorney’s sign‑off; commissioners said they would review the attorney’s changes and hold a special meeting if the attorney’s response comes back quickly.