Mesa council rejects tattoo parlor's bid

Got ink? That's out of the question at one Mesa intersection.

Mesa council deciding tattoo parlor's fate

The City Council late Monday night rejected a tattoo parlor application in a 6-1 vote, with Mayor Scott Smith the lone dissenting voice on what turned into a deeper, philosophical debate about the city's decision-making process for businesses of the tattoo parlor, pawn shop or plasma center nature.

It also forced the question of whether such businesses tend to follow or create a declining neighborhood.

Ultimately, council members voting in opposition of Angel Tattoo, proposed for Dobson and Baseline roads, cited reasons ranging from incompatibility with the neighborhood, concentration of such businesses and intense opposition from the neighbors.

They also characterized the parlor as a business that would bring no economic value to Mesa because there's no sales tax charged on such services.

Such establishments have to satisfy a stipulation of being outside a 1,200-foot buffer from the same type of service, or a school. They also require a council-use permit, which is based on what's acknowledged to be a subjective judgment call on whether such a business would be a detriment to the neighborhood.

Smith, however, said while he isn't necessarily a fan of tattoos personally, he wasn't convinced that there were any tangible concerns over tattoo parlors, other than a negative "perception."

Mesa planning director John Wesley described these as a classic "chicken and egg" conundrum, with there being no specific indication one way or the other, but the perception exists that as a bunch, these businesses contribute to a decline.

Smith said the perception may stem from how the businesses advertise their storefronts: flashing lights, neon. The way to deal with that would be to demand a higher standard, the mayor added.

He said he would apply the same standard for a tattoo parlor as a "lemonade stand."

"I have a real concern over the subjective approach" of the process, Smith said.

"I don't get tattoos ... It's not my right to understand the choices (people make). But I (also) wouldn't support a lemonade stand that has gaudy signs," Smith said.

Councilman Dennis Kavanaugh, who was on the council in 1997, when use permits were established for tattoo parlors, said the goal at the time was to address the issue of "overconcentration" of those businesses, as well as payday loan centers and massage parlor-type establishments. In addition to limiting their use, the city also sought input from neighbors before new applications were accepted. But Kavanaugh also seemed amenable to reexamine the city's zoning code to see if "what we have is best practice."

The planning and zoning board had, in February, recommended denial of this application, although board member Scott Perkinson questioned whether the current discretionary option with the council was fair.

Kavanaugh, who represents the west Mesa district where the Angel Tattoo site was leased, staunchly opposed the application from the outset.

Kavanaugh agreed with the Dobson Ranch Homeowners Association that the neighborhood doesn't need another tattoo parlor when it already has two close by. The strip mall also has what he considers a concentration of other unseemly businesses: a massage parlor and a payday loan center, and even more in the neighborhood.

In Monday's two-hour debate, those in favor of Angel Tattoo parlor opening at Dobson and Baseline roads, said it was being hurt by a negative perception without any real facts backing it.

Jeff Welker, representing the tattoo parlor owner, Ryan Coleman, urged the council to treat the application the same way as a 2006 application for another tattoo parlor, Damage Ink, which has since closed.

In that case, the council made an exception and allowed the parlor to open, despite being within the 1,200-foot buffer of Dobson High School, because none of the other concerns associated with negative perceptions were seen to have any tangible merit.

Welker said this time, the site met all requirements, which should make for an even easier decision for the council. But he said it was clear the council was treating this application differently from the Damage Ink one, because this time the concentration of uses was being taken into account.

"I have a serious concern that an informal criteria is being established by which Ryan Coleman's application is being evaluated than the last one," Welker said, of the negative perception about tattoo parlors.

But those opposed, including dozens of residents who showed up at the meeting, said the neighborhood and its property values would decline, and it would attract society's negative elements such as gang members, thereby increasing chances of criminal activity. The tattoo site is close to Rhodes Jr. High School, although outside the required 1,200-foot buffer, another strong concern from the neighborhood association.

Joanne Smith, a Dobson Ranch resident, questioned whether the business would be able to keep a pledge of not doing any racist or gang tattoos, or how the city would track such activity. She added that such an establishment is best placed in a more commercial area.

West Mesa resident Dawn Roberts, however, urged the council to "update" their impression of who gets tattoos and that these are part of "mainstream culture, not seedy back alley places."

Meanwhile, the Goldwater Institute has filed suit in a similar case in Maricopa County Superior Court against Tempe, on grounds that the City Council violated the equal protection clause and the free speech rights of a couple by not allowing them to set shop in Tempe. The couple run Mesa tattoo parlor Virtual Reality.

Goldwater attorney Carrie Ann Sitren told the Mesa City Council about the case and urged them to consider these issues before they make a decision.

Kavanaugh, a lawyer by profession, dismissed the Goldwater Institute's interpretation, saying there are differences in the two cases and that if taken to the extreme, cities would not be able to have any zoning codes.