The commission took extended testimony on Z250026, a request to align split zoning for two lots at a Highway 78 intersection (applicant: Wes Bertoldi). Staff recommended denial of C‑5 in that corridor, saying the county’s future land use designates the intersection as a commercial corridor intended for essential lifeline services such as grocery, pharmacy and health care rather than high‑intensity adult‑oriented uses.

Staff cited legal precedent (Renton v. Playtime Theatres, U.S. Supreme Court, 1986) and referenced academic and real‑estate market summaries suggesting nearby adult entertainment can correlate with higher per‑capita violent crime and lower residential property values. In response, the applicant’s attorney, Brandon Prince, said the adult‑oriented business had operated "well over a decade," maintained a continuous business license and could accept restrictions limiting future C‑5 uses to the historical adult entertainment operation. "This is not a new, adult entertainment establishment," Prince told the commission, adding his clients would consider restricted allowances.

Staff and commissioners questioned whether holding an active business license proves continuous operation. Staff stated the business "hasn't been operating since September," and cited the zoning ordinance section that treats a use as discontinued after more than one year of non‑operation; the ordinance provision referenced in the hearing was section 16.02. Because the parties disputed the operational status and potential remedies, the applicant requested a carryover to consult with clients; the commission voted to accept the carryover request and reschedule the case to a later meeting.

Clarifying details: staff argued C‑5 is inconsistent with the county’s comprehensive plan for that corridor and warned about setting precedent; the applicant offered to accept a condition restricting C‑5 to historical uses only. The commission noted it does not typically adopt conditional zoning limited to a single use and suggested withdrawal, carryover or a recommendation of denial could follow; the applicant chose carryover.

Next steps: the applicant will confer with clients and either withdraw, modify the request or return at a future meeting; absent an applicant change, the planning commission will again consider the item and forward a recommendation to the county commission.