As some of you may know, my jurisdiction has been sued in Federal court challenging our adult-oriented business (AOB) ordinance. Mediation failed but the litigation is pending. As we vowed at the end of mediation, we’ve been working diligently and in good faith with the plaintiff to identify appropriate locations for the business. In a meeting with the plaintiff’s attorney today, we stumbled upon a potential solution: we tossed the idea around of creating a new zone district (I suggested we name it the “C-X”, Entertainment Zone District), that would preempt our AOB ordinance and allow the business. The new zone district’s allowed uses would include AOBs, tattoo parlors, bars, nightclubs, and other similar uses and contain performance standards written in such a fashion that the code would still significantly restrict their potential locations. Here’s the twist: one of the performance standards would require the new zone district be located in an area that is predominately developed with nightclubs, bars, cabarets, and the like, yet still require a minimum separation between AOBs (1,500 feet). See the difference? Separating AOB uses but restricting them to areas developed with bars and nightclubs.
Yes, a specific site has been identified.
Does anyone have experience in this area they’d like to share or links to ordinances that impose similar restrictions? Please don’t post links to AOB ordinances; those are easy to find. My direction is to create a new zone district. I’ve just started my research and will share what I discover.
Let’s not turn this thread into a discussion on the merits or non-merits of this constitutionally protected form of expression.
Thanks for any leads you can provide.