CCP 01-25-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e . . ARI?EN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JANUARY 6, 1999 7 business claims tlJey are not, the City would need some sort of mechanism to allow review of the businesses books. He also suggested tlJat a business having any level of adult use be required to provide financial records which would verifY tlJe arnount of adult use receipts. Mr. Ringwald suggested Staff look into this question further. Commissioner Baker pointed out that, often times witlJ liquor licensee applications, tlJe applicant is required to provide a copy oftlJeir lease or ownership paperwork. He indicated that he did not find this type of requirement in tlJe draft Ordinance and he felt this is could be helpful information. Mr. Miller explained that this would also be a part oftlJe licensing application, not tlJe Zoning portion of the Ordinance. Commissioner Sand referred to Acting Chair Rye's earlier question of when tlJese uses becarne protected. He stated that Exhibit A, attached to Exhibit N, provides the history of the case logs, from botlJ the Unites States Supreme Court aIld Appeals Court decisions. The history goes back to decisions made in 1976 and 1986. Commissioner SaIld referred to a legal paper included in tlJe attachments written by a City Attorney in Rochester, Minnesota listing cases in Minnesota which have been considered. Commissioner SaIld referred to tlJe admonition in Renton stating that tlJere be all allowance for reasonable alternative avenues of communication. In Renton, the affect of the Ordinance was tlJat it limited adult theaters to approximately 5 percent of the City's totallaIld area, which in this case was upheld as adequate. Additionally, there was a case in the City of Crystal dealing with limited space availability. Commissioner Sand indicated tlJat, in reading these cases, he was concemed that the BetlJel College property may be looked at by the Court as a ploy to avoid having the area on Dunlap Street be considered too restrictive. If the BetlJel property is eliminated, and all that is left is the Dunlap property, this would be a very small portion of the City. Commissioner SaIld stated he would be concerned whether or not this would withstaIld the challenges on the size of tlJe area as discussed in these related cases. Commissioner Sand asked Staff if a copy of tlJe City of Crystal case was included in tlJe information packet. Mr. Ringwald stated it was not. Commissioner SaIld referred to a letter dated December 26, 1997 from Mr. Miller to Jim Thompson of Kennedy aIld Graven which mentions the City of Crystal case. He read from the letter that, after reading the Crystal decision, Mr. Miller indicated he had some concerns. One was tlJat the petition for review by the Supreme Court was eventually denied, therefore, the Appeals Court's decision stands as is. Commissioner SaIld noted that, since the Commission did not have a copy of the case, he was not sure what tlJat decision was. He indicated iliat what was available was an article by an individual saying that there was something wrong with the secondary affects analysis performed by tlJe City of Crystal. There had also been a reference as to whether or not the City had allowed enough 1aIld area to meet the tests. Mr. Miller stated that, in this case, the Courts found in favor of the City of Crystal. Commissioner SaIld indicated that tlJe reason he raised this concern is because he feels Staff must be careful how the OrdinaIlce is structured. He reiterated the previous concern that tlJe 1,00D-foot setback may be too much aIld suggested Staff consider less of a setback requirement. Commissioner Sand stated that he had read tlJe Ordinance from the City of Crystal aIld he found it to be very thorough. He suggested iliat tlJe City of Arden Hills definitions should track tlJe