Definitions could affect city ordinances on housing, tattoo businesses
The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) discussed cosmetic tattooing and accessory dwelling units, among other items of business at Monday night’s meeting.
After opening the meeting at 6:03 p.m., the group unanimously accepted their previous month’s meeting minutes.
NEW BUSINESS
The group heard a request for an application for cosmetic tattooing at 312 Davis St., also known as Salon LaVeau. Community Development Director Tory Niewiadomski said that Salon LaVeau stated they wished to expand their business into microblading, and so turned in the application for cosmetic tattooing. The city sent out 10 letters to property owners within 200 feet of the business and received no responses, positive or negative, on the application.
“Does the permit go with the location or the business owner?” member Chuck Sickles asked.
Niewiadomski told him that under current city code, the application applied to the person applying for it, although under the next agenda item they could discuss such a thing.
Sickles asked if “the person could go anywhere,” and Niewiadomski said under state law the answer was no.
The permit was unanimously approved.
Member Tommy Harrison asked how the group could know if permits they approve reach final approval after appearing before the Zoning Board of Adjustments.
Special use permits in Sulphur Springs are typically a two-step process, with the P&Z initially recommending or denying approval and the Zoning Board of Adjustments (ZBA) giving final approval or denial. If a permit is denied in P&Z it typically does not move on to ZBA, but a plan approved in P&Z may later be denied by ZBA.
Niewiadomski told Harrison that once ZBA minutes are approved they become public record, but if Harrison wanted, Niewiadomski could, in the future, begin meetings by advising P&Z about which of their decisions were accepted or denied by ZBA.
At that point, Niewiadomski realized that ZBA member Jay Julian was a member of the citizen audience and asked him if he wished to speak about the permanent cosmetic application as a citizen. Julian said he did not and the meeting continued. The group decided to re-vote, as they had now called for comments from the citizen audience, and the permit was again approved unanimously.
PERMANENT MAKEUP
The group then moved into a discussion on permanent makeup, cosmetic tattooing and microblading. Niewiadomski said it had been “the most common special use permit,” and stated that P&Z might like the city council to consider an ordinance where certain zoning districts could open these kinds of businesses without seeking special use permits from the city.
Niewiadomski provided the group a sample definition of permanent makeup/ cosmetic tattooing, which was “tattoo pigmentation as a means of creating designs that resemble makeup… or other enhancing colors to the face… or artificial eyebrows and disguise scars.”
“How would we differentiate this from a decorative tattoo parlor?” member Pat Chase asked.
“Currently, we don’t,” Niewiadomski said. “That’s why it’s a special use permit process… . There is no distinction between a fullbody tattoo shop/piercing studio. If we were to consider this, this would be the definition for the permanent makeup that would allow people to be able to perform this. If they want to do a full-body tattoo, they still need a permit.”
Chase clarified that permanent makeup is still a form of tattoo, as Niewiadomski stated the word “tattoo” in his definition of permanent makeup.
“When you go to the state and get a license, I think it has to do with you breaking the skin when you do permanent make up, that’s my understanding,” Niewiadomski said.
Niewiadomski said that permanent cosmetics have “more or less been routinely approved” by the city and “wanted language that distinguishes this from a normal tattoo.”
“I do like the fact of separating the two, so in the future someone doesn’t sneak in there and start doing the decorative tattooing under the same zoning,” Sickles said. “I know there are a lot of folks who don’t want a bunch of tattoo parlors around town.”
“I like the wording of it; I don’t see anything I would add or retract,” member Craig English stated.
Niewiadomski stated he was only presenting this to the group for discussion, and it did not require action.
As such, the group moved forward.
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
Since November 2019, P&Z has had discussions centered on the approval or denial and the definition of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). During a February work session regarding ADUs, P&Z members expressed their concerns over maintaining high quality of the structures.
“We felt very strongly about having the structures built on-site,” Niewiadomski reviewed for the group Monday. “We didn’t necessarily want a portable storage shed that gets converted.”
Furthermore, Niewiadomski summed up the group had previously discussed that they “weren’t sure tiny homes really fit the model of the city.”
Things the group had agreed on previously is that they would like to see one of the dwellings on the site be owner-occupied, at least 320 square feet and not to exceed 75% of the larger home on the site. The height should not exceed 25 feet at the peak of the roof, with the exception of converted garages, Niewiadomski reviewed. In discussion with city attorney Jim McLeroy, Niewiadomski added what P&Z previously discussed: ADUs shall not be prefabricated buildings and need to be constructed on-site or modular construction.
English wanted to clarify what “modular” meant, and Niewiadomski stated it meant that parts of an ADU could be constructed prior to its installation on a site, but not all of it could be built previously.
The ADU should also match the materials of the home on a lot of 2 acres or less. ADUs on 2 acres or more need not match the original home, Niewiadomski stated.
English and Sickles wanted to know if ADUs would include garden shed conversions, and Niewiadomski stated under these guidelines, such conversions would not fit.
Sickles also asked if in the future, those whose ADU fell outside of the ordinance could come before P&Z and ZBA to request a special use permit.
“Once we create these standards, now that we have standards, I don’t think that would be allowed,” Niewiadomski said. “We can add that in on a case-by-case basis if you’d like.”
“I don’t always think it’s the best thing to have a one-size-fits-all rule, but sometimes it seems like that’s for the better,” Sickles observed about ADUs. “We want it to have meat and bones where it’s applicable across the board.”
English said he anticipated that many ADUs would be rental units. Harrison said he was under the impression the smaller homes would serve as dwellings for extended family. Niewiadomski said they would serve as both, as well as a way to maximize land value while using infrastructure the city had already placed.
The group also discussed grandfathering in homes that already have garage apartments.
The group resolved to discuss ADUs further next month as they found the discussion productive.
With no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 7:03 p.m.