Goodland commission tables adult-entertainment ordinance, asks planning commission to redraft definitions and fees

The Goodland City Commission voted to table two proposed zoning ordinances on adult-entertainment establishments and sent them back to the planning commission with direction to tighten definitions and reconsider licensing and fee provisions.

The ordinance (No. 1796) would amend multiple sections of the Goodland Municipal Code to define “adult entertainment establishment,” add it to the C‑1 use table as a conditional use, and set use standards including a 1,000‑foot buffer from daycare centers, schools, parks, religious institutions and residential districts. The planning commission recommended the amendment after a public hearing; staff explained the draft removes an older numerical “30%” test for classification and replaces it with more specific definitions and a conditional‑use process.

“They’re proposing a $250 application fee and a $2,000 a year license fee for entertainment businesses,” said Zach Valentine, district manager for Bridal Time Corner Markets and Vape Time, which operates two Goodland stores. Valentine told commissioners his stores sell a small amount of adult novelty items and asked whether large retailers that stock similar items, such as Walmart, would be treated the same under the draft ordinance.

Staff clarified the ordinance measures distances from property line to property line; planning staff estimated Walmart is about 550 feet from the ball field, which would place it inside the proposed 1,000‑foot buffer if the draft language applied. City staff and commissioners discussed enforcement practicalities of an inventory‑ or floor‑area‑based test and whether common retail items (including some pharmacy items) might be unintentionally captured.

City attorney Jake urged caution on practical enforceability. “Legally speaking, if you applied it across the board to everybody exactly the same, most likely you’d pass legal muster,” he said, but added that the draft in its current form was “a little impractical” and could be difficult to implement.

Given the range of concerns — the definition of qualifying activities vs. merchandising, the 1,000‑foot buffer and the proposed licensing structure — the commission voted to table Ordinances 1796 and 1797 and return them to the planning commission with written recommendations for revision and clearer definitions. The commission asked staff to supply specific points for the planning commission to consider before returning new language for action.

The commission’s action does not adopt any of the proposed code changes; it instructs the planning commission to redraft and provide a revised recommendation. No implementation deadline was set; the planning commission will present revised language at a future meeting.