Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> INTRODUCTION <br /> • <br /> On November 5, 1986, the City Council adopted a resolution requesting the <br /> Planning Commission to study possible amendments to the Zoning Code so as to <br /> restrict adult uses to Industrially Zoned Districts only, and other amendments <br /> relating to adult uses which the Commission should deem advisable. This <br /> request was the result of a growing concern among Saint Paul citizens that the <br /> City's existing adult entertainment zoning provisions, adopted in 1983, do not <br /> adequately address the land use problems associated with adult entertainment. <br /> The following is a chronology of notable events related to the adult <br /> entertainment zoning issue in Saint Paul which have occurred subsequent to the <br /> City Council's request: <br /> November 5, 1986 City Council resolution (Council File No. 86-1564) <br /> requesting the Planning Commission to study the issue <br /> of adult entertainment and to consider amendments to <br /> the Zoning Code proposed by Councilmember William L. <br /> Wilson. <br /> June 26, 1987 Planning Commission public' hearing on proposed <br /> amendments--Part 1. <br /> July 10, 1987 Planning Commission public hearing on proposed <br /> amendments--Part 2. <br /> August 14, 1987 Planning Commission resolution"forwarding-40-acre' ' • <br /> study to Mayor and City Council for review and action <br /> and recommending amendments attached to the 40-acre <br /> study. <br /> November 17, 1987 Mayor Latimer transmits amendments to City Council and <br /> recommends approval. <br /> January 28, 1988 City Council public hearing on proposed amendments; <br /> proposed amendments referred to Housing and Economic <br /> Development Committee. <br /> April 14, 1988 Housing and Economic Development Committee recommends <br /> substitute amendment; Mayor Latimer announces support <br /> of substitute amendment. <br /> The substitute amendment differs from the original proposal in several basic <br /> ways. First, whereas the original proposal was to restrict adult uses to <br /> industrial zones, the substitute amendment also permits adult uses in B-3, B-4 <br /> and B-5 commercial zones. Secondly, the original proposal was to maximize the <br /> distance between adult uses and residential areas while the substitute <br /> amendment relaxes this requirement somewhat and places a greater emphasis on <br /> deconcentration through increasing the required spacing between adult uses. <br /> Finally, the substitute amendment requires that each type of adult use be <br /> considered a single use (and thus, no more than one type of adult use is <br /> allowed in any one building) ; under the original proposal, multi-functional <br /> adult facilities would have been permitted. <br /> 1 <br />