Garland Plan Commission postpones decision on tattoo studio after applicant frames business as medical tattooing

The Garland Plan Commission voted unanimously Feb. 10 to postpone consideration of a request by Native Management LLC for a specific-use provision to operate a tattoo and body-art studio at 1350 Northwest Highway until the commission's Feb. 24 meeting.

Staff said the property is within a Plan Development (PD) with a base zoning of Community Retail (CR) and that the Garland Development Code requires a specific-use permit for tattoo/body-piercing establishments. Staff recommended denial, citing the comprehensive plan's guidance for retail and destination uses and the site's proximity to a daycare and a multifamily subdivision. The code also bars tattoo uses within 500 feet of a daycare, public school, residential area or another tattoo establishment.

Applicant Cynthia Olathe, who said she owns a Plano studio and would operate the Garland location, told commissioners the business focuses on medical and reconstructive tattooing, including procedures to help breast-cancer survivors and to address pigmentation loss. "Our studio is not just focused" on conventional tattooing, Olathe said, describing doctor referrals and saying the studio's medical-related services would represent roughly "60 to 75%" of business. She said normal hours would be roughly 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., with Saturday hours and occasional later appointments.

Hugo Reyes, who identified himself as a physician working with the applicant's referral network, explained the medical context for referrals and scar modification by tattooing.

Commissioners and staff discussed whether the proposed use could be classified as "permanent cosmetics" or "personal services" under the Garland Development Code rather than as a tattoo/body-piercing establishment; personal-services uses in CR do not require a specific-use permit if they meet the definition and are the primary use. Staff said it could be difficult to assure that the business would remain exclusively medical if an SUP were approved because an SUP applies to the use rather than the operator, and future owners could operate differently.

Staff noted outreach statistics: 128 notices mailed; five responses received (three in opposition from within the notification area, one in favor, and one opposed from outside the notification area). Based on the analysis and the comprehensive-plan concerns, staff recommended denial.

Commissioners asked staff to confer with building inspection and other departments to clarify whether the operation could be classified as a permitted personal-services use (permanent cosmetics/medical tattooing) rather than a tattoo establishment that would need an SUP. Several commissioners said the applicant's medical focus merited further review. Commissioner Dalton moved to postpone the item to the Feb. 24 meeting; the motion, seconded by Commissioner Parrish, passed unanimously.

The postponement gives staff time to consult building inspection and potentially provide guidance to the applicant about pursuing a personal-services classification (which, if confirmed, could eliminate the need for an SUP). The applicant said she would work with staff and provide additional materials before the next hearing.

Votes and next steps: the case was postponed to the Feb. 24 Plan Commission meeting. Staff said the applicant could withdraw and refile as a personal-services use if building inspection agrees that permanent-cosmetic/medical-tattoo activity is the primary, permitted use.