My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2002_0506_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2002
>
2002_0506_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 4:03:59 PM
Creation date
10/25/2010 1:47:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
151
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
Extract of 1�Tinutes from Planning Commission meeting of 1�Tay 1, 2002: <br />Plannin� File 3394: A request by the City of Roseville to amend the City Code, Chapter 10, <br />Section 1005 and Section 1002, by adding regulations to sexually oriented business uses and <br />adding Section 1017. <br />Chair Duncan opened the hearing and requested Andrea McDowell Poehler, Attorney, Campbell <br />Knutson to provide a summary of the project report dated May l, 2002. <br />Andrea McDowell Poehler explained the proposed zoning ordinance amendment, noting that <br />sexually oriented businesses ha�e some protection by the Supreme Court so that the City 1) must <br />ha�e government purpose to regulate secondary effects; 2) reasonable alternatives for use, <br />including at least 5% of the land area must be identified. <br />The negative secondary effects as shown in the findings resolution were described; the Planning <br />Commission resolution should establish the findings for Roseville and may use experience and <br />records from other communities <br />Andrea McDowell Poehler explained the setback in the proposed ordinance of 1,320 l.f, setback <br />from "R" and `B- 1" zones. <br />Currently the City of Roseville does not ha�e any Code regulations relating to sexually oriented <br />business uses in the City, other than through minimal regulation in the licensing of liquor. <br />The City Attorney and Staff recommended that the Planning Commission and Council: 1) study <br />the facts and adopt a resolution of findings of fact, and 2) adopt an ordinance (attached) for the <br />purpose of defining the use and regulating the location of sexually oriented businesses in `B" and <br />"P' zones. Separation (1,320 feet) from any residential zone or `B-1" zone (which may include <br />residential units) would be required. <br />Member Olson explained that she is opposed to allowing a business shown to attract crime <br />(negative secondary affects) to occupy parcels in 8% of the community land. (Joel Jamnik <br />explained First Amendment rights are guaranteed for these activities. The City is attempting to <br />achieve a balance which respect to the First Amendment). <br />Member Traynor commented that there are no churches, schools or other such uses in this <br />mapped area. <br />Member Olson asked that the list of similar uses include civic buildings, city hall and parks. She <br />asked if conditional use permits could be used to improve on-site improvements such as lighting <br />and screening. Andrea McDowell Poehler recommended against additional conditions because of <br />Supreme Court directions. Joel Jamnik explained that conditional use permits could undercut the <br />ordinance. <br />Member Olson asked if recreation buildings or civic buildings would be properly protected. <br />Andrea McDowell Poehler explained that the sensitive uses in the ordinance ha�e been accepted <br />by the Courts. <br />There being no further discussion, the Chair closed the hearing. <br />Motion: Member Duncan moved, seconded by Member Mulder, to adopt a resolution of findings <br />of fact regarding effects of sexually oriented businesses. <br />Member Mulder strongly recommended approval. <br />Ayes: 6 <br />Nays: 0 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.