Rosemount Council Tightens Restrictions on 'Adult' Businesses

Rosemount may not have any adult businesses within its borders, but that didn't stop the Rosemount City Council from tightening its rules governing strip clubs, adult video stores and other similar establishments on Tuesday night.

New regulations approved by the council restrict the development of an adult-oriented business in the city to an area zoned "general industrial" north of County Road 42, and prohibit adult businesses from serving alcohol.

The new rules also state that individuals previously convicted of sex trafficking, prostitution, obscenity or drug-related crimes cannot apply for an adult business license in the city.

Click here to view the new regulations in their entirety.

Rosemount city officials were quick to point out that they have not received any proposals from an adult business interested in opening in town. Instead, Rosemount Community Development Director Kim Lindquist described the ordinance amendments approved Tuesday as "housekeeping" actions.

Previous city ordinances allowed adult use businesses in any area of the city zoned heavy or general industrial, including areas south of County Road 42. But the UMore Park development is creating new industrial areas in the community, and the city didn't want to open the door for adult businesses in those proposed neighborhoods, Lindquist said.

"With the UMore property presumably coming online and potentially having industrial where it never would have before, we just want to make sure that we weren't providing an additional unintended consequence that we weren’t thinking of," Lindquist said.

Because certain adult uses are constitutionally protected as free speech, the city cannot completely ban adult businesses, Rosemount City Attorney Charles Lefevere told the council. Nor can the city make it unreasonably difficult for a strip club or other business to operate in the city.

"It’s a protected activity, and by licensing it, it’s being controlled," Lefevere said. "It has to be allowed, and this latest revision reduces this area even further, but it's a reduction that we think is defensible, if there’s a constitutional challenge."