12-26-1990 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DEC -20 -199th 17 :22 FROM S_JEENEI 8 BORER Mr. Joel R. Hanson December 20, 1990 Page Two Ti_ LITTLE -:iN DP P.O2:'12 districts, and the quality of urban life, not to suppress the expression of unpopular views." Id. at 929. At the time of enactment, the Council should discuss and make specific findings of fact as to the secondary effects of adult use businesses in the City of Little Canada. Existing case law allows the Council to rely upon studies in other cities which establish an effect on the City's neighborhoods. As a result, I have enclosed with this letter a copy of pages 6 -14 of the Report of the Attorney General's Working Group on the Regulation of Sexually Oriented Businesses. The evidence contained in that report, which relates to studies in Minneapolis, St. Paul, Indianapolis, Phoenix and Los Angeles, may appropriately be relied upon by the Council in determining the impact of adult uses within the City of Little Canada. Once it is determined that there is a substantial governmental interest in combating the secondary effects of adult uses, restrictions on adult uses are constitutional under present law so long as those restrictions do not unreasonably limit the opportunity of adult use businesses to operate within the City. City Planner Grittman's "opportunity analysis," found at pages 4 and 5 of his report, directly addresses this issue. As you will note, Table 2 of the Report indicates that enactment of the ordinance would result in 92 acres of commercially zoned property within the City which would be available for adult use as a principal use. In the Renton case, the Supreme Court found that the availability of 5% of the City's acreage for adult theatres was constitutionally sufficient. In Alexander v. City of Minneapolis, 698 F.2d. 936 (983), however, a Federal Appeals Court held that the Minneapolis ordinance which left less than 1% of the City's property available for adult uses was unconstitutional. We believe that the proposed 300 foot separation between adult uses and between adult uses and other planned uses, as found in Section 2 of the proposed zoning ordinance, is likely to survive constitutional challenge. We recommend against any revision of the ordinance which would increase the required separation in the ordinance. Despite the fact that the Renton Court upheld a required separation of 1,000 feet, such a restriction might be held constitutionally impermissible in Little Canada since it apparently results in restricting the opportunity area for adult uses within the City to approximately 1 %. (See Table 2 of the Planner's Report at page 5). Similarly, the fact that St. Paul's ordinance providing for an 800 foot separation between adult uses and residential use was Page 74