|
App. B / Adult Businesses
<br />City of Ann Arbor, 824 F.2d 489, 490, 493 (6th Cir. 1987)
<br />(remanding for a determination of excessive restriction). See
<br />also 11126 Baltimore Boulevard, Inc. u. Prince George's
<br />County of Maryland, 684 F. Supp. 884 (D. Md. 1988) (20
<br />alternative locations sufficient); Alexander v. City o f Minnea-
<br />polis, 698 F.2d 936, 939 n.7 (8th Cir. 1983) (pre -Renton; 12
<br />relocation sites for at least 28 existing adult establishments
<br />not sufficient).
<br />The sufficiency of sites available for adult entertain^ient
<br />uses may be measured in relation to a number of factors. See,
<br />e.g., Alexander II, supra, slip op. at 22-23 (insufficient if
<br />relocation site owners refuse to sell or lease); International
<br />Food & Beverage Systems, Inc., 794 F.2d 1620, 1626 (11th
<br />Cir. 1986) (suggesting number of sites should be determined
<br />by reference to community needs, incidence of establish-
<br />ments in other cities, goals of city plan); Basiardanes v. City
<br />of Galveston, 682 F.2d 1203, 1209 (5th Cir. 1982) (pre -Renton
<br />case striking zoning regulation restricting adult theaters to
<br />industrial areas that were "largely a patchwork of swamps,
<br />warehouses, and railroad tracks lacking] access reads
<br />and retail establishments"),
<br />However, the fact that land zoned for adult establishments
<br />is already occupied or not currently for sale or lease will not
<br />invalidate a zoning ordinance. Renton, supra, 476 U.S. at
<br />63-54, 106 S. Ct. at 932; but see Alexander II, supra, slip op.
<br />at 22-23 (reasonable relocation opportunity absent where
<br />owners refuse to sell or rent). There is no requirement chat
<br />it be economically advantageous for a sexually oriented
<br />business to locate in the areas permitted by law.
<br />3. Distance Requirements
<br />Another factor that may be examined by some couo- s is
<br />the distance requirement established by an adult entertain-
<br />ment zoning ordinance. In SDJ, Inc. v. Houston, 837 F.2d
<br />1268 (6th Cir. 1988), the Court was asked to invalidate a
<br />418
<br />Minnesota Attorney General's Report / App, G
<br />760 -foot distancing requirement on the ground that the city
<br />had not proved that 760 feet, as opposed to some other
<br />distance, was necessary to serve the city's interest.
<br />The Court found that an adult entertainment zoning or-
<br />dinance is "sufficiently well tailored if it effectively promotes
<br />the government's stated interest" and declined to "second-
<br />guess" the city council. Houston, supra, 837 F.2d at 1276.
<br />Courts have sustained both requirements that sexually
<br />oriented businesses be located at specified distances from
<br />each other, see Young, supra, (upholding distance require-
<br />ment of 1000 feet between sexually oriented businesses), and
<br />requirements that sexually oriented businesses be located at
<br />fixed distances from other sensitive uses, see Renton, supra,
<br />(upholding distance requirement of 1000 feet between sexu-
<br />ally oriented businesses and residential zones, single -or -
<br />multiple family dwellings, churches, parks or schools).
<br />The Working Group heard testimony that when an ordi-
<br />nance establishes distances between sexually oriented uses,
<br />an additional regulation may be needed to prevent operators
<br />of these businesses from defeating the intent of the regula-
<br />tion by concentrating sexually oriented businesses of various
<br />types under one roof, as in a sexually oriented mini -mall. The
<br />city of St. Paul has adopted an ordinance preventing more
<br />than one adult use (e.g., sexually oriented theater, bookstore,
<br />massage parlor) from locating within a single building. A
<br />similar ordinance was upheld in the North Carolina case of
<br />Hart Book Stores, Inc, v. Edmisten, 612 F. 2d 821 (4th Cir.
<br />1979), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 929 (1980).
<br />The experience with multiple -use sexually oriented busi-
<br />nesses at the University -Dale intersection suggests that
<br />these businesses have a greater potential for causing neigh-
<br />borhood problems than do single -use sexually oriented busi-
<br />nesses. Following Renton, it is suggested that lawmakers
<br />document the adverse effects which the community seeks to
<br />prevent by prohibiting multiple -use businesses before enact-
<br />ing this type of ordinance.
<br />d19
<br />
|