My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-09-2012 Planning Comm. Agenda
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2012
>
02-09-2012 Planning Comm. Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/6/2012 12:42:03 PM
Creation date
2/6/2012 12:04:16 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Q.7. What kinds of regulations can the City adopt? <br />A.7. Essentially, the City can create restrictions by zoning district that limit the <br />ability of the establishments, or the patrons of the establishments, to have an <br />impact on defined sensitive populations. These usually take the form of defining <br />the uses, specifying which zoning district such uses can be located in, and then <br />creating a buffer zone from sensitive land uses that the City wishes to protect <br />from the secondary effects of the establishment. It is critical to note, however, <br />that the zones and the buffers need to be placed in such a way that adult uses have <br />a "reasonable" opportunity to locate in the community (see the comment on <br />"pretextual" prohibitions above). <br />Q.B. How much "opportunity" does our ordinance have to provide to avoid being <br />considered a "pretextual" prohibition? One lot? An entire shopping center? <br />A.B. Unfortunately, this is where the requirements are a little murky. The court's <br />standard in Renton was a "reasonable" opportunity, a preciously minimal guide. <br />In Renton, Washington, evidence was introduced that the ordinance regulating <br />adult uses created an opportunity area of 5% of the City. The courts found this <br />area to be meet its' standard of reasonableness. In the years since, many <br />communities have confused the 5% threshold as some sort of silver bullet <br />standard. It is not. However, it is the only real guidance we have, so we think of <br />it as a good target to show evidence of reasonableness. Coming too far short of <br />that threshold should raise some questions about the effect of the ordinance in <br />illegally regulating expression. <br />Q.9. What are these sensitive uses we can protect? <br />A.9. Little Canada's ordinance is typical, listing the following: <br />a. Residentially zoned property. <br />b. A licensed day care center. <br />c. A public or private educational facility classified as an elementary, junior <br />high or senior high. <br />d. A public library. <br />e. A public park. <br />f. Public zoned property. <br />Q.10. How much buffer can we leave from these uses? <br />A.10. Little Canada's current ordinance provides a 500 foot buffer. Others rely <br />only on the zoning district boundaries, and several ordinances use 100 feet or <br />some increment as their buffer zone. The balancing act is to provide some <br />separation, while continuing to provide a reasonable opportunity area. <br />Q.11. What if all of the land we provide is taken up by buildings and current <br />uses? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.