Tattoo/piercing studio in downtown? - Cyburbia Forums

Suburb Repairman · 2008-11-07, 03:17 PM

I have been asked to evaluate whether tattoo/piercing studios should be allowed as a by-right or conditional use in our Central Business District; they are currently prohibited. This is a small city of 50,000+ with a university having 30,000 enrolled. The university is adjacent, and practically a part of downtown.

There are currently two tattoo studios in downtown, which are legal non-conforming uses from years ago.

I'm a bit indifferent about the whole thing, but I've never been in a place with a mega-high concentration of tattoo studios either to see the effects. Any thoughts on what I should consider as I evaluate how to treat these things?

I have checked notes from when the Code was amended to prohibit the tattoo studios, but it was part of a comprehensive revision and was not specifically discussed that I can tell.

Chet · 2008-11-07, 03:39 PM

My opinion is "by right". In a city of that size I wouldn't worry about a "concentration". The market is only going to support a few of these places, even as a college town.

Don't forget -- Most every tattoo shop also does body piercing.

Seabishop · 2008-11-07, 03:53 PM

In the similarly sized city where I used to work the tattoo studios were some of the nicest facades downtown and never caused trouble. My opinion is "by-right" because as a land use they don't have any more negative effects than any other retail or office use. I don't think it would be fair to subject them to a public hearing process for no good reason.

jmello · 2008-11-07, 03:55 PM

We are a college town and we have two tattoo parlors downtown. I beleive they are by right. I am a transportation planner, so my specific knowledge of the code is limited.

boiker · 2008-11-07, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Chet

My opinion is "by right". In a city of that size I wouldn't worry about a "concentration". The market is only going to support a few of these places, even as a college town.

Don't forget -- Most every tattoo shop also does body piercing.

Exactly. I agree. I don't know what the big fear in these kinds of uses are anyway. Is there is a studio that directly ties/correlates deviant behavoir, crime, or other social ills to these uses? Or is it the past that plagues them?

Gedunker · 2008-11-07, 04:04 PM

About two-thirds of your size, branch campus of the state university away from our CBD. We require Special Exception/Conditional Use for them. We have some 'high end' places and some places that would make sailors proud (sorry, sailors). The latter tend to be shoe-string operations and, uh, use an abundance of low-end signage (always over-sized and chintzy) in an attempt to survive. They rarely do, but someone's ready with a new one as soon as the place vacates.

Off-topic:

World-famous Tattoo Charlie's tag line: "Done while you wait".

Cardinal · 2008-11-07, 05:02 PM

There are two concerns. One is a more general question if the balance of non-retail to retail businesses tips to a point where there is no longer a sufficient quantity of retail businesses to have a viable retail district. Some non-retail uses, such as restaurants, can help to support retail. Others do not. Tattoo parlors are arguably the latter. The second concern is whether a tattoo parlor is going to project a negative image or attract activity that may detract from neighboring business or the district as a whole. It's a little bit like the drunk sleeping in a doorway. Yes, he may be harmless, but his presence does not want to make you linger. For these reasons, if you are going to allow the use, I would do so as a conditional use. That extra bit of control lets you evaluate the location, operation, and aesthetics on a case-by-case basis to determine if it will have any harmful impacts.

Otis · 2008-11-07, 06:07 PM

I would go with by right. I think a lot of the concerns about tattoo parlors was when "tattoo" meant "bikers and drunken sailors." Times have changed.

It seems like around Otisville the tattoo craze is winding down. I see fewer young women with tattoos than there used to be. Maybe that's just me hoping.

Suburb Repairman · 2008-11-07, 06:09 PM

These are all great so far! Part of why I'm not super worried is that our rents are high enough downtown that I'm not sure the "Sailor" type can afford it. That said, I really like Cardinal's observations on the retail v. non-retail stuff. Very helpful.

vagaplanner · 2008-11-07, 10:37 PM

By-right all the way! There really is no good reason to require conditional/special use permits. A town where I worked didn't allow them in downtown at all, but they were a bunch of d!cks! Got fired from there!

Seabishop · 2008-11-10, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cardinal

There are two concerns. One is a more general question if the balance of non-retail to retail businesses tips to a point where there is no longer a sufficient quantity of retail businesses to have a viable retail district. Some non-retail uses, such as restaurants, can help to support retail. Others do not. Tattoo parlors are arguably the latter. The second concern is whether a tattoo parlor is going to project a negative image or attract activity that may detract from neighboring business or the district as a whole. It's a little bit like the drunk sleeping in a doorway. Yes, he may be harmless, but his presence does not want to make you linger. For these reasons, if you are going to allow the use, I would do so as a conditional use. That extra bit of control lets you evaluate the location, operation, and aesthetics on a case-by-case basis to determine if it will have any harmful impacts.

Your local commission members will probably disagree, but a modern tattoo parlor can contribute to the vitality of a arts district when you're trying to attract young people.

As a seperate note, I think I'm going to invest in a tattoo-removal company and become a millionaire as todays college kids age.

Plannerbabs · 2008-11-12, 11:53 AM

There's another possibility for allowing tattoo parlors, but still limiting where they can go. Some places will allow them by right, but not within a given distance of schools, religious institutions, etc. As long as they're outside that buffer, say, 600 feet, they're fine. Closer than that, and they'd have to go through some sort of hearing process, typically a development standards variance.

RandomPlanner... · 2009-04-30, 01:59 PM

Help. I'm reviewing a proposed Zoning Code that defines Adult Business to include Body Piercing and Tattoo Shops, only allowed through Special Permit in the Light Manufacturing District. What does the giant brian think of such regulations?

I'm not liking it and think it's prejudicial. But I need more feedback (please).

RichmondJake · 2009-04-30, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RandomPlanner...

Help. I'm reviewing a proposed Zoning Code that defines Adult Business to include Body Piercing and Tattoo Shops, only allowed through Special Permit in the Light Manufacturing District. What does the giant brian think of such regulations?

I'm not liking it and think it's prejudicial. But I need more feedback (please).

We have the same thing in our community. Only allowed in commercial zones and prohibited along tourist corridors and within 2000 feet of a school, church or residentially zoned property.

Do I care? Not really.

shell_waster · 2009-04-30, 02:20 PM

An option is to establish supplemental standards associated with individual uses.

For example, body art is subject to the type and/or style of signage (limited window signs especially), hours of operation, distances from other body art studios, distance from other uses such as residential, churches, schools etc, (as was already pointed out). Either they meet these supplemental standards and stay in compliance or they deviate from them and are cited by code enforcement, more than X citations and convictions in a calendar year and their business license is revoked.

dvdneal · 2009-04-30, 11:16 PM

I tend to support the parlors, they bring in artists who will work on not only skin, but other media as well. If the town is afraid of concentration, just use a buffer requirement. Our town is on the over sensitive side. We are changing our code to only allow them in industrial zones with buffer requirements and no arterial street visibility. Now if someone were to mention how much tax revenue the city is losing from soccer moms and police officers going to a neighboring city to get tattoos, maybe we would lighten up?

Seabishop · 2009-05-01, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RandomPlanner...

I'm not liking it and think it's prejudicial. But I need more feedback (please).

I don't like it and I think it's prejudicial. Tattoo studios don't really have any more negative impacts than other business. People just don't like the idea of seeing people with tattoos. I'm not some militant tattoo activist, it just seems like one of those things that has no basis in reality. Why a tattoo studio have to be relegated to some industrial area or far from a church is beyond me. (Of course, my town would explode if I ever suggested allowing tattoo studios downtown.)

kalimotxo · 2009-05-01, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RandomPlanner...

Help. I'm reviewing a proposed Zoning Code that defines Adult Business to include Body Piercing and Tattoo Shops, only allowed through Special Permit in the Light Manufacturing District. What does the giant brian think of such regulations?

I'm not liking it and think it's prejudicial. But I need more feedback (please).

My brother is a tattoo artist and he's worked in two tattoo shops located in downtown Leesburg, VA. It's smaller town, to be sure, but it's also the county seat of Loudoun - the perennial richest county in the nation per capita. There is no lack of uppity newbs there who would rather not have such a taint on "their" downtown, but I definitely agree that such attitudes are prejudicial. Most any downtown would allow a bar of some sort, something that would likely bring more unwanted behavior than a tattoo parlor.

I have no background in zoning, but I think pushing tattoo parlors to the fringe would have some unintended detrimental effects (akin to urban renewal projects using freeways to "amputate" blighted areas from downtowns). It would seem to me that a tattoo parlor located in an industrial area would probably attract more unwanted behavior simply by being out of the spotlight, so to speak. A tattoo parlor located downtown would likely self-correct to be cleaner and less tolerant of negative behavior in order to avoid unwanted attention from cops and health inspectors.

So, if you want a dirty tattoo parlor in the shadows away from the eyes of tourists and retail shoppers, an exclusive zoning code like the aforementioned would do that. I'd think a town would be better off allowing them by-right or not allowing them at all.

Lyburnum · 2009-05-01, 11:44 AM

Does anyone else work in a City where tattoo parlors are a completely prohibited use? I do. A guy made a public appearance before the City Council to ask that they be allowed in one of our zoning districts and he was told by most council members that that will never happen. Hope this isn't too much of a tangent.

Dan · 2009-05-01, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Seabishop

I don't like it and I think it's prejudicial. Tattoo studios don't really have any more negative impacts than other business. People just don't like the idea of seeing people with tattoos. I'm not some militant tattoo activist, it just seems like one of those things that has no basis in reality. Why a tattoo studio have to be relegated to some industrial area or far from a church is beyond me. (Of course, my town would explode if I ever suggested allowing tattoo studios downtown.)

In my very first job as a planner, I had to make a zoning interpretation for tattoo parlors; there was no mention of them in the code. I decided that they're the equivalent of a barber or beauty shop, since they offer a personal service related to a person's appearance, and they have the same, if not less traffic.

I don't understand tattoo parlor spacing from a place of worship either. Really, I don't understand spacing from places of worship for a number of uses, like bars and liquor stores. Are such provisions rooted in 1920s-1950s blue-blood New England or Baptist Southern culture, where it was felt those uses would corrupt churchgoers?

FWW, I don't have tats, and I don't really like the appearance of tats or body mods unless they are subtle.

Seabishop · 2009-05-01, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dan

In my very first job as a planner, I had to make a zoning interpretation for tattoo parlors; there was no mention of them in the code. I decided that they're the equivalent of a barber or beauty shop, since they offer a personal service related to a person's appearance, and they have the same, if not less traffic.

I had a similar situation recently except the interpretation was the commission's call. They decided it was not like a barber shop and was a "use not mentioned" and therefore not allowed anywhere. Really it met the met the same category as a barber shop or a nail salon just fine. So we now allow factories, big box stores, and even adult business (with strict limitations), but tattoo parlors are a completely forbidden use.
In a small town no commission member wants to be the one who allowed "that tattoo parlor" on Main Street.

That's it, I'm getting a tattoo!

vagaplanner · 2009-05-01, 02:56 PM

I would say "by-right". I've never understood the big deal about tatt studios, especially in a city of 50K. One small town in Florida I worked for didn't want one because at a previous one, the employees (not your everyday looking characters) would stand around on the sidewalk in front of the building and smoke cigs. Good management should be able to control this type of stuff.

ams522002 · 2009-05-19, 06:10 PM

I have the same situation on the planning commission agenda for tonight's meeting. I am recommending it be placed in the downtown business district zoning as a permitted (by right) use. I also believe there is some leftover fears of tattoo parlors from days gone by (I will need to talk elderly planning commissioner "Gertrude" off the cliff on this one

), but I agree they can contribute to a more lively arts scene and in this case, bring people to a somewhat struggling small, rural downtown.

natski · 2009-05-23, 07:24 AM

I have only just read this thread and i have to stay im astounded that Tattoo parlors are considered an adult business.

We allow tattoo parlors in our business zones and have no further restrictions on them, except for public health stuff. Im not exactly sure how it works, but there is some form of legal age where you can get a tattoo (without your parents consent). They are not compared to bordellos or brothels..

In my city these are not permitted in commercial areas or residential areas- yup they are only permitted in industrial areas and have to be so many metres from schools.

Tattoo parlors activate the street, you get quite a few people going in and out of them and they have nothing to hide... brothels on the other hand..... you get my picture.

jonnyrotten · 2009-06-04, 04:05 PM

I recently helped a relative work out his entitlements with a city that didin't want their tatoo and piercing business in a quaint (albeit completely empty) downtown. After getting familiar with the business, I was surprised to find that his core group of regular customers was comprised of the local police department. That helped defeat the "bikers, druggies and drunks, oh my" arguments from the Planning Director and Mayor.

2008-11-07, 03:17 PM	#1
Suburb Repairman Professional Dog Trainer Registered: Jun 2003 Location: at the neighboring pub Posts: 3,722	Tattoo/piercing studio in downtown? I have been asked to evaluate whether tattoo/piercing studios should be allowed as a by-right or conditional use in our Central Business District; they are currently prohibited. This is a small city of 50,000+ with a university having 30,000 enrolled. The university is adjacent, and practically a part of downtown. There are currently two tattoo studios in downtown, which are legal non-conforming uses from years ago. I'm a bit indifferent about the whole thing, but I've never been in a place with a mega-high concentration of tattoo studios either to see the effects. Any thoughts on what I should consider as I evaluate how to treat these things? I have checked notes from when the Code was amended to prohibit the tattoo studios, but it was part of a comprehensive revision and was not specifically discussed that I can tell. __________________ "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." - Herman Göring at the Nuremburg trials (thoughts on democracy)

2008-11-07, 03:39 PM	#2
Chet Cyburbian Registered: Aug 2001 Location: Off the tarmac Posts: 8,484	My opinion is "by right". In a city of that size I wouldn't worry about a "concentration". The market is only going to support a few of these places, even as a college town. Don't forget -- Most every tattoo shop also does body piercing. __________________ Your daily moment of Zen:Do not walk behind me, for I may not lead. Do not walk ahead of me, for I may not follow. Do not walk beside me either. Just leave me the hell alone.

2008-11-07, 05:02 PM	#7
Cardinal Cyburbian Registered: Aug 2001 Location: The Cheese State Posts: 7,952	There are two concerns. One is a more general question if the balance of non-retail to retail businesses tips to a point where there is no longer a sufficient quantity of retail businesses to have a viable retail district. Some non-retail uses, such as restaurants, can help to support retail. Others do not. Tattoo parlors are arguably the latter. The second concern is whether a tattoo parlor is going to project a negative image or attract activity that may detract from neighboring business or the district as a whole. It's a little bit like the drunk sleeping in a doorway. Yes, he may be harmless, but his presence does not want to make you linger. For these reasons, if you are going to allow the use, I would do so as a conditional use. That extra bit of control lets you evaluate the location, operation, and aesthetics on a case-by-case basis to determine if it will have any harmful impacts. __________________ APA - Extorting money from professional planners for 25 years

2008-11-07, 06:09 PM	#9
Suburb Repairman Professional Dog Trainer Registered: Jun 2003 Location: at the neighboring pub Posts: 3,722	These are all great so far! Part of why I'm not super worried is that our rents are high enough downtown that I'm not sure the "Sailor" type can afford it. That said, I really like Cardinal's observations on the retail v. non-retail stuff. Very helpful. __________________ "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." - Herman Göring at the Nuremburg trials (thoughts on democracy)

2008-11-07, 10:37 PM	#10
vagaplanner Cyburbian Registered: Jan 2006 Location: Yo momma's house! Posts: 285	By-right all the way! There really is no good reason to require conditional/special use permits. A town where I worked didn't allow them in downtown at all, but they were a bunch of d!cks! Got fired from there! __________________ ...my lifestyle determines my death style! - Metallica

2008-11-07, 03:53 PM	#3
Seabishop Cyburbian Registered: Nov 2002 Location: USA Posts: 3,180	In the similarly sized city where I used to work the tattoo studios were some of the nicest facades downtown and never caused trouble. My opinion is "by-right" because as a land use they don't have any more negative effects than any other retail or office use. I don't think it would be fair to subject them to a public hearing process for no good reason.

2008-11-07, 03:55 PM	#4
jmello Cyburbian Registered: Mar 2005 Location: Clayobyrne, CB Posts: 2,524	We are a college town and we have two tattoo parlors downtown. I beleive they are by right. I am a transportation planner, so my specific knowledge of the code is limited.

2008-11-07, 06:07 PM	#8
Otis Cyburbian Plus Registered: Mar 2002 Location: Upper left edge Posts: 1,346	I would go with by right. I think a lot of the concerns about tattoo parlors was when "tattoo" meant "bikers and drunken sailors." Times have changed. It seems like around Otisville the tattoo craze is winding down. I see fewer young women with tattoos than there used to be. Maybe that's just me hoping.

2008-11-12, 11:53 AM	#12
Plannerbabs Cyburbian Registered: Jul 2003 Location: Who cares. Posts: 1,028	There's another possibility for allowing tattoo parlors, but still limiting where they can go. Some places will allow them by right, but not within a given distance of schools, religious institutions, etc. As long as they're outside that buffer, say, 600 feet, they're fine. Closer than that, and they'd have to go through some sort of hearing process, typically a development standards variance. __________________ I don't dream. I plan.

2009-04-30, 01:59 PM	#13
RandomPlanner... Cyburbian Registered: Mar 2005 Location: Dibs on the Northeast Posts: 569	Tattoos as Adult Business?? Help. I'm reviewing a proposed Zoning Code that defines Adult Business to include Body Piercing and Tattoo Shops, only allowed through Special Permit in the Light Manufacturing District. What does the giant brian think of such regulations? I'm not liking it and think it's prejudicial. But I need more feedback (please). __________________ How do I know you are who you think you are?

2009-04-30, 02:20 PM	#15
shell_waster Cyburbian Registered: Apr 2009 Location: Rockdale Posts: 35	An option is to establish supplemental standards associated with individual uses. For example, body art is subject to the type and/or style of signage (limited window signs especially), hours of operation, distances from other body art studios, distance from other uses such as residential, churches, schools etc, (as was already pointed out). Either they meet these supplemental standards and stay in compliance or they deviate from them and are cited by code enforcement, more than X citations and convictions in a calendar year and their business license is revoked.

2009-04-30, 11:16 PM	#16
dvdneal Cyburbian Registered: Jan 2009 Location: lost in arizona Posts: 203	I tend to support the parlors, they bring in artists who will work on not only skin, but other media as well. If the town is afraid of concentration, just use a buffer requirement. Our town is on the over sensitive side. We are changing our code to only allow them in industrial zones with buffer requirements and no arterial street visibility. Now if someone were to mention how much tax revenue the city is losing from soccer moms and police officers going to a neighboring city to get tattoos, maybe we would lighten up?

2009-05-01, 11:44 AM	#19
Lyburnum Cyburbian Registered: May 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 42	Tattoo Parlors Prohibited City-Wide Does anyone else work in a City where tattoo parlors are a completely prohibited use? I do. A guy made a public appearance before the City Council to ask that they be allowed in one of our zoning districts and he was told by most council members that that will never happen. Hope this isn't too much of a tangent.

2009-05-01, 02:56 PM	#22
vagaplanner Cyburbian Registered: Jan 2006 Location: Yo momma's house! Posts: 285	I would say "by-right". I've never understood the big deal about tatt studios, especially in a city of 50K. One small town in Florida I worked for didn't want one because at a previous one, the employees (not your everyday looking characters) would stand around on the sidewalk in front of the building and smoke cigs. Good management should be able to control this type of stuff. __________________ ...my lifestyle determines my death style! - Metallica

2009-05-19, 06:10 PM	#23
ams522002 Member Registered: Aug 2007 Location: Up Nort' Posts: 16	I have the same situation on the planning commission agenda for tonight's meeting. I am recommending it be placed in the downtown business district zoning as a permitted (by right) use. I also believe there is some leftover fears of tattoo parlors from days gone by (I will need to talk elderly planning commissioner "Gertrude" off the cliff on this one), but I agree they can contribute to a more lively arts scene and in this case, bring people to a somewhat struggling small, rural downtown.

2009-05-23, 07:24 AM	#24
natski Cyburbian Registered: Jun 2005 Location: In my own little bubble Posts: 1,963	I have only just read this thread and i have to stay im astounded that Tattoo parlors are considered an adult business. We allow tattoo parlors in our business zones and have no further restrictions on them, except for public health stuff. Im not exactly sure how it works, but there is some form of legal age where you can get a tattoo (without your parents consent). They are not compared to bordellos or brothels.. In my city these are not permitted in commercial areas or residential areas- yup they are only permitted in industrial areas and have to be so many metres from schools. Tattoo parlors activate the street, you get quite a few people going in and out of them and they have nothing to hide... brothels on the other hand..... you get my picture. __________________ "Have you ever wondered if there was more to life, other than being really, really, ridiculously good looking?" Zoolander

2009-06-04, 04:05 PM	#25
jonnyrotten Member Registered: Jan 2005 Location: CA Posts: 18	I recently helped a relative work out his entitlements with a city that didin't want their tatoo and piercing business in a quaint (albeit completely empty) downtown. After getting familiar with the business, I was surprised to find that his core group of regular customers was comprised of the local police department. That helped defeat the "bikers, druggies and drunks, oh my" arguments from the Planning Director and Mayor.