Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/02/1999

Home

Page 4 .-. February 10, 1999 Z.B. prohibited them from locating within 750 feet of schools, daycare centers, play- grounds, churches, residential areas, or other adult businesses. A.F.M. Limited applied for a special permit to open a business that would sell clothes, adult books, and adult videotapes. ,At a h, e.aring, A.F.M. presented evidence it complied with all special permit requirements except that its pro- posed location was within 750 feet of a residential district. The company asked the city to issue it a permit anyway. The city denied A.F.M.'s request, and the company sued the city. It sought a court order prohibiting the city from preventing it from opening and operat- ing a business as described in its special permit application. A.F.M. claimed the city's zoning restrictions were an unconstitutional limit on its free speech rights and weren't designed to address a substantial govern- ment interest. The company' showed that the city's zoning scheme confined adult businesses to .11 percent of the city's total developable land- one small city block already completely occupied by a bank, an outdoor storage area, and a car wash. The city argued its zoning ordinance was constitutional because it was de- signed to combat the negative"secondary effects of adult uses and wasn't in- tended to prevent businesses from selling adult materials. A.F.M. asked the court for an order temporarily preventing the city from enforcing the ordinance against it pending the outcome of the trial. The court "issued the order, finding that confining adult businesses to such a tiny area effectively prevented adult businesses from operating anywhere in the city. The court said the city had to ensure that its regulatory scheme didn't unreasonably prevent businesses from selling nonobscene materials anywhere in the city. The state's highest court took it upon itself to review the trial court's tem- porary order. DECISION: Temporary order affirmed. Pending the outcome of A.F.M.'s l~wsuit, the city couldn't prevent A.F.M. from opening a store as described in the'company's special permit application. Even if the city's regulations were otherwise constitutional, the temporary order was proper because the city failed to show A.F.M. had any reasonable alternative means of selling the merchandise it wanted to sell. The city's zon- ing scheme limited adult businesses to only .11 percent of the city's develop- able land, a small city block that was already fully occupied. Limiting adult businesses to such a small area prevented any such businesses from operating anywhere in the city, which violated adult businesses' free speech rights. The city didn't present any explanation as to why it was reasonable to restrict adult businesses to such a miniscule portion of the city's developable land. see also: Renton v. Playtime Theatres Inc., 475 U.S. 4!, 89 L.Ed. 2d 29, 106 S. Ct. 925 (1986). see also: Walnut Properties Inc. v. Whittier, 861 F. 2d 1!02 (1988). _53