10/10/1996, Public Hearing Meeting Minutes2258
MINUTES OF
KENNEDALE CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING - OCTOBER 10, 1996
100 E. BROADWAY ST. - COMMUNITY CENTER
Mayor Mundy called the public hearing to order at 7:30 p.m.
Members present were Mayor Mundy, and Councilmember's Wright, McCraw,
Barrett, Boone and Kovach.
Staff present were David Geeslin, Kathy Turner, Vicki Thompson, Linda
Royster, Michael Box, and legal counsel Wayne K. Olson.
Public Hearing No. 1 - To receive citizens comments regarding amending
the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 11 "Licenses, Taxation and
Miscellaneous Business Regulations" of the Kennedale City Code (1991),
as amended; Providing for the Licensing of Sexually Oriented Businesses;
Providing Locational Requirements; Providing Additional Regulations
Appropriate to Different Types of Sexually Oriented Businesses;
Providing for Appeals; Providing for Amortization of Nonconforming
Sexually Oriented Businesses.
Ms. Donna Easterling, Attorney representing the Freeman Family Trust and
H&A Land Company dba Showtime Cabaret addressed council with two
packets, "Contract with the City of Kennedale" and a position statement
referring to the constitutionality of sexually oriented businesses.
Ms. Easterling spoke about the chronological outline of doing business
with the City of Kennedale since the annexation of Showtime Cabaret.
She stated that when the annexation took place it was with the
understanding that Showtime Cabaret operate as a legal non conforming
use as presented on the petition which Council approved. Also, she feels
that there is a variety of ways to modify the proposed ordinance as
Showtime is the only sexually oriented business within the city limits.
Furthermore, Ms. Easterling addressed the constitutionality of the
proposed ordinance. She brought forth the need for the City to do an
independent study instead of basing facts on someone else's study, which
addresses secondary affects of sexually oriented businesses. In
addition, Ms. Easterling explained the definition of secondary affects,
and by this definition one must prove a sexually oriented business
causes adverse affects within a community. And by using other cities
studies, Kennedale is saying based on those cities' studys Showtime will
create an adverse affect within Kennedale. She went on to say that two
supreme court rulings have been handed down prohibiting cities from
using other studies, and the burden now lies within each city to prove
that these type of uses create an adverse affect.
In closing, Ms. Easterling requested that Council strongly review the
position statement and see what the verdict could end up as because the
language in the proposed ordinance would shut her client down, and she
does not want to end up in court. She requested council to work with
her client to make the use conforming or make it a legal non conforming
use, and at the same time, to please give this matter due consideration.
Mr. Harry Freeman, owner of Showtime Cabaret stated that the City of
Kennedale is going to have to deal with him in some way or another
depending on whichever approach the city wants. He said he considers
himself as a fairly good operator, keeps his business clean, and is
concerned about his property. Mr. Freeman explained that he even took
2259
steps to purchase the Village Creek Tire store even though he did not
need it, and demolished it to improve the appearance of his business, as
he has a very consciousness attitude about how his establishments look
and how they are operated.
Next, Mr. Freemen said he will fight and spend huge sums of money to
protect all his interests. He stated he did not know if the city would
be willing to spend a lot of money on something that could be resolved
if they would just sit down and talk to him.
In addition, Mr. Freeman said he did not mind the City having an
ordinance regulating sexually oriented businesses, but wanted Council to
remember that the City made a deal with him. Mr. Freeman put up $35,000
to lay a sewer line, and he did not do this so he could turn around and
have to pursue legal maneuvers. He went on to say that he has
challenged several cities and he has won 99 percent (99~)of the time.
Once more, Mr. Freeman stated that he did not have a problem working
with the city in some way that will satisfy all parties. He is more
than willing to meet with the city and work out an arrangement.
In closing, he said that the way the law is written, he feels that the
City had a contract with him, and the City would be liable for all his
attorney fees and repayment of the $35,000. He also expressed that he
would not have come to the City of Kennedale if he had known he would be
in a legal maneuver nine months later, and said if the City does not
want his business then to turn around and disannex him.
Mr. John Faltynski, business partners with Mr. Freeman stated he had
worked with Mr. Freeman for the past seven years, and said if the city
was to obtain a sexually oriented business, then Mr. Freeman is the type
of business person the city would want because he operates legally
within all local and state laws. On the other hand, Mr. Faltynski
addressed that the City of Fort Worth does not try to restrict sexually
oriented business, but to regulate them and establish reasonable and
uniform regulations to prevent the concentration of sexually oriented
business in any given part of the city. Also, they include operators of
sexually oriented business to be generally charged with applying with
the policy of keeping their business inside, keeping it indoors and
keeping it under control, which he said they do very well.
Last, Mr. Faltynski said that when they annexed into the city, they
intended to work with the city and be a good business who would return
tax money back to the city.
Mayor Mundy stated that the main comments were focused on the clause in
the ordinance relative to amortization, and questioned if there were any
other references that needed to be brought forth.
Mr. Freeman replied that the City's ordinance being presented looked a
lot like the City of Arlington's with the exception of addressing a no
touch provision. He said Arlington is the only city that enforces this
provision and it has to be policed in order to enforce which costs tax
payers money. Also, he said Dallas and Fort Worth do not have a no
touch provision but he would like to see this addressed.
Mr. Easterling stated that she had not read the ordinance in detail
except the amortization clause which she was concerned with. With that
in mind, she cannot fully answer Mayor Mundy's question.
2260
There being no further discussion, Mayor Mundy closed the public hearing
at 7:50 p.m.
APPROVED:
Mayor Rob r Mundy
ATTEST:
City Sec etary
1