Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning Tattooing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kamas staff, commissioners discuss where to allow permanent cosmetic tattooing and related rules
Summary
City planners and commissioners discussed drafting a definition for permanent cosmetic scarification/tattooing, which zoning districts to allow the practice in, and possible conditions such as hours, age limits and parental consent.
City staff and commission members in Kamas spent significant time reviewing how to define and regulate permanent cosmetic scarification and tattooing, including which zoning districts should allow those uses and what conditions to attach.
Planners recommended adopting a clear, inclusive definition for “permanent cosmetic scarification or tattooing” and then specifying permitted locations, with commercial and industrial zoning identified as the most appropriate. Staff noted that other cities adopted the state definition and then allowed the use in certain commercial/industrial districts; those examples informed the discussion.
The commission focused on operational conditions. Members and staff debated age limits and parental consent: several participants said no minors should be allowed, while others proposed allowing 18-year-olds with parental consent but noted liability concerns. One staff speaker said parental consent could be included as an exception in the ordinance language.
Commissioners also pressed staff on other typical conditional-use restrictions. Topics raised included hours of operation (one participant preferred a 9 p.m. closing rather than 10 p.m.), distance/separation requirements from sensitive uses, and whether to require camera coverage or check-in procedures. Staff said they would research common conditional-use conditions other cities apply and compile possible language for the commission to consider.
A recurring concern was procedural: whether to treat tattooing as a conditional use—requiring individual public hearings and allowing site-specific conditions—or to establish a citywide ordinance with set limitations. Multiple speakers cautioned that granting exceptions or variances in individual cases could prompt many similar requests and make consistent enforcement difficult. One staff member recommended writing the conditions into the ordinance so the city would not repeatedly rely on ad-hoc approvals.
Staff also identified specific overlay and district questions for the commission to resolve, such as whether mixed-use overlays should require ground-floor commercial uses and how those rules interact with any allowance for tattooing. The discussion closed with staff agreeing to draft suggested ordinance language and a list of typical conditional-use conditions from peer cities for the commission’s next review.
The meeting record shows no final vote on regulatory language during this session; commissioners directed staff to prepare draft ordinance options and sample conditional-use conditions for a future public hearing.
