Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning And Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council denies two specific-use permits for tattoo/body-piercing studios and postpones a third case
Summary
The council denied two SUP applications for tattoo/body-piercing establishments at shopping-center suites after staff and residents raised proximity and comprehensive-plan compatibility concerns; a separate zoning case was postponed to April 1.
The Garland City Council on March 18 denied two separate requests for specific-use permits (SUPs) to operate tattoo/body-piercing establishments inside existing shopping-center suites and postponed a third zoning case to April 1 at the applicant’s request.
Case 8A (977 W. Centerville Road, Suite 6): Planning staff recommended denial, citing compatibility concerns with surrounding uses and the city’s comprehensive plan’s community-center designation; the GDC’s 500-foot proximity rule for tattoo/body-piercing establishments and other “sensitive uses” was considered, and staff explained how measurement rules apply. The Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended approval for three years with restricted hours (10 a.m.–6 p.m., Monday–Saturday), but Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Luck moved to deny the SUP “as presented.” The motion to deny passed, with Councilmember Ott opposed to the denial.
Case 8B (1350 Northwest Highway, Suite 107): Staff described the applicant as providing a mix of medical tattoo services (e.g., restorative tattooing for mastectomy patients or corrective pigmentation) and recreational tattooing. Staff said the proposed use could not be categorized as “permanent cosmetics” or personal services because it included non-medical tattooing; that classification requires an SUP. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval for five years with conditions (hours and interior screening); staff recommended denial citing proximity to a daycare and surrounding residential uses. Council denied the SUP; the clerk reported the denial prevailed with Councilmembers Dutton and Ott opposed.
Case 8C (zoning case Z-2441): Councilmember Bass moved to postpone the case to the council’s April 1 meeting at the applicant’s request, and the motion carried unanimously.
Applicants and proponents who spoke described medical and restorative tattoo services (breast-cancer-related areola restoration, scar concealment, and other corrective work) and said the studios offer a sterile, appointment-driven practice rather than a 24-hour or nightlife operation. Opponents in the notification area cited compatibility concerns and proximity to daycare and residential properties.
Council members noted they were voting on land use (the SUP) not on the individual applicant’s medical services; staff and applicants discussed whether a use limited 100% to medical/permanent-cosmetic procedures would fit in a different zoning category (personal services) and therefore not require an SUP.
