Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/06/1997 City Council 006382 Ratified 2/24/97 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 6, 1997 The Regular Session of the City Council of the City of The Colony, Texas was called to order at 7:30 p.m. on the 6th day of January, 1997, at City Hall with the following Council roll call: William W. Manning, Mayor Present Bill Longo, Councilmember Present Mary Watts, Councilmember Present David Stanwick, Councilmember Present Wilma Avey, Councilmember Present John Dillard, Councilmember Present Dave Heiman, Councilmember Present and with seven present, a quorum was established and the following items were addressed: INVOCATION - Mark Kirby PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. CITIZEN INPUT Mayor Manning asked that all speakers be shown the same courtesy. Joyce Fulco, 4712 Clover Valley, asked if the storage buildings being built along F.M. 423 will be bricked over the metal. Mayor Manning said he believed so. David Heiman, 5949 Fox Dr., asked when the capital improvements committees, set up to review items to be placed on a future bond issue, would be brought back together. Johnny Smith advised the committees were not dis-banded, just put on hold until the Comprehensive Plan is complete, then the committees will make recommendations based on that plan. Lois LeBlanc, 5312 Rice Dr., gave the council some suggestions: 1. P&Z should not give personal opinions about proposed council action on certain issues; (2) need to target heating cases for SUP's in a certain length of nme. Dan Byme, 5201 Gibson, said he has heard about development coming here for years and has heard the Mayor warn us about our bad reputation. He hopes The Colony will try to get quality development. He said the council is elected to lead not to bicker. Mr. Byme doesn't want liquor stores on Hwy. 121, stating he came from a city with very strict zoning laws and he finds it hard to believe the city can govern signs but can't say no to liquor stores on 121. This is the last area north of Dallas to be developed and asked the council to do their job right...stop fighting and get on with leading. Officer Mark Phillips, The Colony Police Department, presented Joshua Paisley with a certificate of recognition for his honesty and thinking of others. Before Christmas, Joshua found a $100.00 bill in the grocery store. On his own, he turned in the money because he thought the 5 006383 Ratified 2/24/97 person who lost it probably really needed it. 3. CONSIDERATION OF ACTION TO BE TAKEN AS A RESULT OF THE REPORT RECEIVED FROM WORTH BLAKE REGARDING THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN At the December 16, 1996, council meeting, Mr. Worth Blake presented the above report. Action regarding his recommendation was postponed until this meeting. Council may take action at this time. Mr. Blake could not be at the meeting due to inclement weather. No action taken. 4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETINGS HELD NOVEMBER 18, DECEMBER 16, 19, AND 27, 1996 Council meeting minutes have been prepared for the council review and approval. Councilman Avey asked the November 18, 1996, minutes be voted on separately. Motion to approve the November 18, 1996, nfinutes - Dillard; second - Stanwick, carried with the following roll call vote: Aye - Longo, Watts, Stanwick, Dillard, Manning No - Avey Abstain - Kovatch Motion to approve the nfinutes of December 16, 19 and 27, 1996 - Stanwick, second Dillard carried with all members voting Aye. 5. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE ANNEXATION OF 75.1288 ACRES OF LAND CONTIGUOUS TO THE COLONY AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED BELOW GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST PORTION OF THE CITY BOUNDED ON THE EAST BY THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD, THE SOUTH AND WEST BY THE TOWN OF HEBRON, AND THE NORTH BY THE CITY OF THE COLONY The City has been petitioned by Henry Billingsley to annex the above described property. The Town of Hebron is to take action at their fn'st council meeting in January to disannex said property. This is the first of two required public hearings. The second public hearing is scheduled to be held on January 13, 1997. Mayor Manning opened the public hearing. Councilman Watts noted this is the first public hearing and it was stated the second public hearing will be January 13, 1997. Mayor Manning closed the public hearing. 006384 Ratified 2/24/97 13. CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORING A ~DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT WITH FARRELL PROPERTIES PROVIDING FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT TO FARRELL PROPERTIES FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION OF OVERSIZED WASTEWATER LINE ALONG MEMORIAL DRIVE IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $30,062.69 This is the first of the developer's agreements to be entered into by the city and various developer's along Memorial Drive. By this agreement the city agrees to reimburse Farrell Properties a portion of their share of the cost to install oversized wastewater lines. The funds will be taken from Impact Fees. The City Attorney has reviewed the documents, prepared the agreement and recommends approval. Motion to approve the agreement as written - Kovatch; second - Dillard. Councilman Watts clarified that impact fees will reimburse the city for this so the city will not be bearing the cost of development. Motion carried with all members voting Aye. 12. CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE AND AWARD OF BIDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF A CHIPPER FOR THE RECYCLING PROGRAM AND APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CONTRACT FOR SAME The city has received a grant with which to purchase the above named chipper. There was one bidder, Equipment of Texas, Inc. and staff does recommend award of the bid to that company for a purchase price of $21,672.72. Pat Dunlap addressed the council advising the chipper will immediately be used for approximately 1,000 Christmas trees which are already on site. It will also be used for the spring clean-up and other projects. Motion to award the bids to Equipment of Texas, h~c. as recommended and approve the ordinance as written - Stanwick; second - Dillard, carried with all members voting Aye with the exception of Councilman Watts who voted No. 6. DISCUSSION OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF BEVERAGE AND/OR LIQUOR STORES WITHIN THE STATE HIGHWAY 121 CORRIDOR AND ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION TO BE TAKEN AS A RESULT OF THE DISCUSSION Councilman Kovatch, "A number of you have contacted me about your concerns with the 121 corridor and this issue. I appreciate the input and I would like to see it continue. And what I'd like to is to .... you know the basic issue here is whether we say yes or no and how firm a legal ground are we on and what is right for the city, O.K. What I'm going to propose that we do at this point is attempt, one last time, because five is not acceptable to me either, talk to the developers because that is the firmest and legal way. This is not about being afraid to run off 7 006385 Ratified 2/24/97 and take on the liquor stores. The issue is whether or not the State has acted in it's capacity to prevent us from doing so. And if we decide not at any point in time, to any of the liquor stores, the fact of the matter is, we are going to go to court over it and we will probably go at least two or three levels. I don't have a problem with doing it, I want to make sure that everyone is aware that's what's going to happen and that it is probably going to cost us, the attorney fees, probably anywhere from 50 to several hundred thousand dollars to take care of that. And we may or may not win. We don't know for sure. Our attorneys have given their opinion on whether or not our ordinances since they pre-date the legislatures action in 1987, on whether or not they're to actually, we're going to be able to enforce them and whether or not the court will overturn them. Obviously, the liquor store companies supporting the liquor stores have a different take on the issue than our city attorneys. So what I'd like to do, I'd like to put at this time, is one thing let's take one last shot at it, and spend the next week doing so. Bring this item, 7,8, and 11 all back ~Monday night and if we have made no progress I'm prepared to recommend that we do what we need to do. I don't want you to get the impression that we're trying to stall you so that you won't come back next week, I hope you do. I will tell you that after this meeting I will come back in here and make myself available for as long as you want to talk. Or until like 6:00 a.m. when I have to go to work. But that's, I mean we have tried in the past to negotiate with the property owners on voluntary deed restrictions, deed covenants as were mentioned earlier, in writing are the most assured way of firmly resolving the issue and resolving it permanently. If we can do that, that not only saves us from having to go to court, it also is a lot firmer ground, because we, it's possible that we may lose, but we may win, I don't know. The attorneys have, obviously, they're not going to guarantee. At that point, I think it would be prudent, I know it's not going to be very popular this evening, but I think I would be derelict in my duty if I didn't try one last time. I don't think a week is going to hurt us. A week from now, we will still be at this exact point, and we can still take the exact same actions'. Motion to postpone items 6, 7, 8 and 11 until January 13, 1997. Mayor Manning, "You're leaving out 9 and 10"? Councilman Kovatch said, "Well, I guess the issue I've, what I've heard, and you guys, those of you here tonight may correct me. But what I have consistently heard in the last three public meetings is that the...Oops, let me re- phrase that, 6,7,8 and 10. 9 and 11 are the convenience store permits to sell beer and wine and I have consistently heard for the last three meetings that that's not at issue, the issue is the package, the liquor store or the beverage store, so I don't think that is an issue and those two can go on and be discussed tonight and be acted on tonight. The other four is what we would like to give us one more week to try get us on firmer ground legally and see what we can come up with. If we can't come up with a better solution, next week we will have these four items and we will be able to act on them just as we would be able to act on them right now. We lose no ground by waiting a week". Mayor Manning, "So you're making a motion then to postpone 6, 7, 8 and 10. Is there a second to that motion? There being no second..." Councilman Dillard, 'Tll second". Mayor Manning, "I'm sorry. The motion on the floor is to postpone those four items until next Monday, is that correct"? Councilman Kovatch, "Yes, the 13th". Mayor Manning, "Ms. Avey". Councilman Avey, "Are we planning on having a work session between now and then or just -- 006386 Ratified 2/24/97 discuss it at that time"? Councilman Kovatch, ~'.What the actions will be taken, the Mayor will step in with the property owners and talk to them and discuss the issue with them and see if we can come up with a better arrar.gement using a covenant, a deed covenant, that covers the property from, that covers pretty tnuch the entire 121 corridor, under one covenant, which would have to be agreed to by all the property owners. And if they all agree to it and they all put it down it is my understanding that they would all have to agree in order for it to be lifted. One property owner could not lift it unilaterally. And the city could not lift it. And we would be looking at negotiating not just a number but also the specific location of where the beverage stores would go if there were any". Mayor Manning, "Let me suggest to you that we do this on the 20th rather than the 13th in order to make certain that we've got adequate time and because there are a lot of people who've watched the council meetings on cable and would be precluded from doing so we did on the 13th". Councilman Kovatch, "Oh, the 13th will not be televised9. O.K. we'll amend it to the 20th". Mayor Manning, "Is that O.K. with you"? Councilman Dillard, "That's frae". Mayor Manning, "Ms. Watts.". Councilman Watts, "If I could ask the city attorney, do we not have to have public hearings and take action on a public hearing within a given amount of time". Pete Eckert, "Within a reasonable period of time, Ms. Watts, I don't think two weeks is certainly unreasonable as Mr. Kovatch has suggested". Councilman Watts, "O.K.". Mr. Eckert, "You have to act on it within a reasonable time otherwise we go back through a re-advertising process". Councilman Watts, "But there is not a defined time"? Mr. Eckert, "No, no". Councilman Watts, "O.K. Mr. Kovatch, I believe Mayor Manning has already worked with the developers and if we are not going to do another work shop, and if his "best shot" resulted in 5 liquor stores on 121 when I believe the majority of the residents want no liquor stores, I think this issue ought to be addressed tonight once and for all. Putting it off a week or two weeks is not going to accomplish any better results on the 121 corridor. If I may also ask the city attorney.. Deed covenants by the property owners are something that the city cannot have any influence over whatsoever. It is basically their word that they will make these covenants and keep them". Mr. Eckert, "Deed restrictions are not normally enforced by the city because you have a comprehensive zoning ordinance, but they can placed on the property by the property owner". Councilman Watts, "The property owner can place the covenants on there and the property can change or remove those covenants without consulting the City". Mr. Eckert, "Well, it depends on how they are worded. They could be removed if there is a majority or by the property owner". Councilman Watts, "But the city cannot control or influence". Mr. Eckert, "But they would be filed of record and normally once deed restrictions are placed on the property they are not removed unless another action takes effect, like they expire after a certain number of years, we would just have to look at that issue". Councilman Watts, "So there's no guarantee, if the developers agree. So getting an agreement from the developers in the next week or two weeks is really no permanent guarantee". Mr. Eckert, "Well, it may be depending on how it's worded. I have not been involved in the discussions up to this point. I would anticipate being involved in them in the next few weeks". Councilman Kovatch, "If I did not feel comfortable that it would not be permanent, then it's not...I'm looking for a permanent solution". Councilman Watts, "I think most of us are". Councilman Kovatch, "And even a council action tonight, is not a permanent solution". Mayor Manning, "Ms. Watts you still have the floor". Councilman Watts, "I would still like to see 9 006387 006387 Ratified 2/24/97 Ratified 2/24/97 action taken on agenda item 6". Mayor Manning, "Is there further discussion? Anyone else care to discuss this? The motion on the floor is to postpone items 6, 7, 8 and 10 until our meeting on the 20th in order that we can try to get some restrictive covenants placed on the property voluntarily by the property owners. Ms. Avey". Councilman Avey, "Who would be involved in these discussions? Are we going to make it a part of the motion that .... " Councilman Kovatch, "If you would like to". Mayor Manning, "Right now we're dealing with tabling these issues". Councilman Avey, "But between now and then we are talking about negotiating with the developers and I think council has a right to discuss who they would like involved, if this motion passes". Mayor Manning, "We will take that up as a separate issue". Councilman Watts, "If I could". Mayor Manning, "Ms. Watts". Councilman Watts, "I'd like to use my overhead at this time, if I may. It's part of further discussion". Mayor Manning, "O.K., keep it to the topic, if you will please". Councilman Watts, "Over the weekend I was reviewing my Oath of Office, and yes, this does pertain to this issue. When we came in tonight, there was a lelter on our dais from our city attorney to Edward Walts, one of the developers, and it says 'in summary, we believe the ordinances of the city that were adopted prior to June 11, 1987, relating to the zoning process for the sale of alcoholic beverages and a beverage store are not pre-empted and that the city council retains the right to exercise its legislative discretion in reviewing the application for a specific use permit'. Our city attorney is advising us for the ~econd time, in writing, that this council has the legislative authority to just say no, period, to liquor stores on 121. In reviewing my Oath of Office this weekend, and I'll read it, 'I, Mary Blair Watts, do solemnly swear, that I will faithfully execute the duties of Councilman Place 2 for the City of The Colony, Denton County, of the State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State, so help me God.' "The Constitution starts out, 'We, the people.' This is our city Charter, the preamble starts out, 'We, the people of the City of The Colony, believing in modem government to meet modern needs while maintaining responsiveness to the desires of the residents, (repeated) maintaining responsiveness to the desires of the residents, and of our community as a whole, do adopt this charter as the basic foundation of our city govemment. We charge them to preserve the freedoms and independence which have been enjoyed by our city since its incorporation in 1977, undisturbed by conflict of commercial or political interests.' Councilman Watts, "This is a commercial interest that is being discussed tonight and we the people of the City of The Colony, and I consider myself one of the people of the City of The Colony. I was elected by the people, at large, to represent them undisturbed by conflict of commercial or political interests. I think it's evident even if you just look out here without anyone speaking that they know in two weeks or one week or two days it's not going to change. The majority of these people want you (council) to vote no and if you vote to delay this and in two weeks if you vote for these liquor stores, you are in violation of your oath of office." Councilman Dillard said, "Eighteen years ago this city was dry." At this point the audience advised they could not hear. Councilman Dillard continued, "Thank you, I appreciate you pointing that out to me. Eighteen years ago the people of this city turned out in mass to vote this city wet." Again, the audience said they could not hear. Councilman Dillard continued, 'Tm speaking as loud as I can speak. The will of the people was heard, we are a city that is wet. 10 · 006388 Ratified 2/24/97 Liquor is allowed in this city, it's legal. If you want to change this, you need to get together a group that wants to have a city wide election, that will have to be run by the county, and try to vote it No. It's as simple as that. But as long as we are wet, these people have a right to do business. I represent Place 5 and when I talk to my constituents in Place 5, it's six to one in favor of free enterprise and building capitalistic businesses on 121 that bring in revenue. It's as simple as that. At this point, the Mayor had to call the audience down. Mayor Manning, "I won't tolerate this. I've asked you to be courteous to these speakers. You're courteous to ones that are speaking to the way you'd like to hear it. Do not be discourteous to those who speak otherwise, or Yll clear the chamber and I don't want to have to do that. You will decide that." Councilman Dillard continued, "Mr. Mayor, there's 24,000 people in this city and I don't believe the people in here represent the majority. We have a point of order, there is a motion and a second, we need to go ahead and take the vote on tabling these items." Mayor Manning, "Is there further discussion? Ms. Hicks we are going to do a roll call vote, if you will please poll the council? Aye vote postpones items 6, 7, 8, and 10". The motion failed with the following roll call vote: Aye - Dillard, Kovatch, Manning No - Longo, Watts, Stanwick, Avey Mayor Manning, "The motion fails, we will continue discussion of the resolution". Councilman Kovatch, "Mayor would you like me to, well I would like to..the resolution I don't know if you need to read it all". Mayor Manning, "Let me read the preamble on the agenda. Item 6 is discussion of a 'A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF THE COLONY, TEXAS FULFILLING ITS RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITY PROPOSING AS A GUIDELINE A LIMITATION ON THE NUMBER OF BEVERAGE STORES ALONG THAT PORTION OF THE CITY KNOWN AS THE "STATE HIGHWAY 121 CORRIDOR"' The following persons addressed the council expressing their opposition to the sale of alcohol along S.H. 121. David Bayliss, 4001 Heron Cove, stated he is opposed to convenience stores as well as liquor stores. Roy Winegar, 5500 Slay, read a letter, which had been given to the council prior to the meeting. (See Attachment "A"). The letter explained that some persons in the audience were wearing green signs opposing the issue of liquor stores on Highway 121 and it expressed various reasons why liquor should not be sold at all along 121. Harley Wallis, 4636 Archer, opposed liquor stores and asked the council to have a vision for the future for the city. David Spofford, 4325 Newton, opposed to liquor stores, stated just because we are wet we don't have to build them anywhere a developer wants. Gary McClure, 4925 Roberts, opposed to the sale of liquor for off-premises consumption along 121 because it is the front door to our community and asked if we want to be the City by the Lake or the city behind the liquor stores? 11 006389 Ratified 2/24/97 Bob Cmwford, 1109 Wood Heights, Lewisville, asked the council to vote no to the liquor stores and shared the story of how his daughter, son and grandchild were killed by a drank driver on 121 in 1993. Tommy Jackson, 5705 Trego, asked the council not to allow one more liquor store. He asked the council to consider what they hear at this meeting and vote responsibly. Carole Arrington, 4113 Gardner, asked the council to vote against any more beer and liquor stores in the city. Don't let The Colony be known as "Booze Alley". Carl Adkins, 4624 Archer, decided to speak after reading a letter from Centennial Stores about their investment in The Colony and that is why their request should be approved. He said he has an investment in The Colony too and wonders how much his taxes will be missed if he leaves. Floyd Romero, 5857 Baker, asked the council to drive around the metroplex and look at the areas around liquor stores and, if they approve, to go ahead and vote for it. He said the council needs Mayor Manning clarified that an Aye vote will postpone items 6, 7, 8, and 10. The motion failed with the following roll call vote: Aye - Dillard, Kovatch, Maiming No - Longo, Watts, Stanwick, Avey Mayor Manning read the caption of the resolution as follows and then opened the floor to public input. "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF THE COLONY, TEXAS FULFILLING ITS RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITY PROPOSING AS A GUIDELINE A LIMITATION ON THE NUMBER OF BEVERAGE STORES ALONG THAT PORTION OF THE CITY KNOWN AS THE "STATE HIGHWAY 121 CORRIDOR" The following persons addressed the council expressing their opposition to the sale of alcohol along S.H. 121. David Bayliss, 4001 Heron Cove, stated he is opposed to convenience stores as well as liquor stores. Roy Winegar, 5500 Slay, read a letter, which had been given to the council prior to the meeting. (See Attachment 'A'). The letter explained that some perscns in the audience were wearing green signs opposing the issue of liquor stores on Highway 121 and it expressed various reasons why liquor should not be sold at all along 121. Harley Wallis, 4636 Archer, opposed liquor stores and asked the council to have a vision for the future for the city. David Spofford, 4325 Newton, opposed to liquor stores, stated just because we are wet we don't have to build them anywhere a developer wants. Gary McClure, 4925 Roberts, opposed to the sale of liquor for off-premises consumption along 121 because it is the front door to our community and asked if we want to be the City by the Lake or the city behind the liquor stores? 12 006390 Ratified 2/24/97 Bob Crawford, 1109 Wood Heights, Lewisville, asked the council to vote no to the liquor stores and shared the story of how his daughter, son and grandchild were killed by a drank driver on 121 in 1993. Tommy Jackson, 5705 Trego, asked the council not to allow one more liquor store. He asked the council to consider what they hear at this meeting and vote responsibly. Carole Arrington, 4113 Gardner, asked the council to vote against any more beer and liquor stores in the city. Don't let The Colony be known as "Booze Alley". Carl Adkins, 4624 Archer, decided to speak after reading a letter from Centennial Stores about their investment in The Colony and that is why their request should be approved. He said he has an investment in The Colony too and wonders how much his taxes will be missed if he leaves. Floyd Romero, 5857 Baker, asked the council to drive around the metroplex and look at the areas around liquor stores and, if they approve, to go ahead and vote for it. He said the council needs to be like David with Goliath and fight the giant. Pam Leyerle, 4244 Fryer, said she is opposed to liquor stores and asked the council to vote and get it settled tonight. Walter Leyerle, 4244 Fryer, distributed pictures of liquor stores along 1-35 in Dallas and noted that there is nothing around them. He opposes liquor stores along 121. Jackie Rector, 4133 Durbin, along with her son, opposed liquor stores on behalf of her family and her church. We tell children to say no to drugs but our city is saying alcohol is O.K. Melinda Preston, 4121 Durbin, opposed to liquor stores, she wants a family community. Connie Hudson, 5913 Carroll, said if the council votes yes they will be opposing what the people want. Jerry_ Sebastian, 7033 Northpointe, liquor stores will not give us a community to be proud of. Bruce Scofield, 4517 Newport, pastor of First Baptist Church, representing himself, not every person in his congregation, opposed to "drowning the city" by adding liquor stores on 121. Craig Sloan, 5416 Baker, asked if Centennial will pay for added law enforcement, make contributions to alcohol assistance agencies (AA), etc. Opposed to liquor stores on 121. David Greer, 4164 Ballard, commended Bill Longo for his integrity over the last 6 months and told Councilman Dillard he should be ashamed of himselfi Asked for hands to support him (Dillard). Wanted to know how police officers feel about this issue. Hillary Kamen, 7508 Lakeland, said we don't need anymore liquor stores in this town. Laura Bickerstaff, 4908 Arbor Glen, moved here to get away from Dallas atmosphere; drank driving, crime, gang activity. Mayor Manning, "The issue before us is a resolution of the city council of the City of The Colony regarding the allowable number of beverage and/or liquor stores within the State Highway 121 Corridor and any appropriate action to be taken as a result of the discussion. We will now discuss the content of this resolution and I presume you care to speak Mr. Stanwick". Councilman Stanwick, "A couple of things, and I want to add some probably somewhat unpopular thoughts, but I want to express both sides of the issue. There were quite a few comments that we were going after liquor stores, that we were rushing into something, that we were encouraging it. And all we've done up to this point is hear from someone who wants to open it. They have come to us. I would love to see us be more proactive in going after those things that we want to see on 121. That hasn't happened up to this point. I also want to caution against making this an extreme issue. That you're either anti-liquor or that you're pro-liquor. 13 006391 006391 Ratified 2/24/97 I think it's unanimous that nobody is pro-liquor, however, you have to be somewhat neutral, this is a legal business. I don't necessarily have a problem with alcohol and I enjoy a drink every once in a while. I've heard mentioned the family values and although I agree that alcohol does contribute to.. it's an easy out for someone who has a problem to begin with. And if it weren't alcohol it would be drugs or it would be something else. Those people who have a problem would fred an outlet. Alcohol is just one means of doing that. However, I want to point out, if we are going to talk about family values, how many of you shop at Blockbuster where they sell video games of Mortal Combat and rent movies like '91/2 Weeks' or anyone of a dozen "R" rated movies. How many of you go to Eckerds and get ginseng or caffeine diet pills or any one of a number of over the counter drugs that you can get. I realize that alcohol is a drug but in moderation and everything in moderation is not necessarily bad. If we are going to mention places, I've heard Harry Hines, I've heard Stemmons. I also want to mention Beltline Road between the tollway and Josey Lane. If you drive up and down Beltline you will find beverage stores on Beltline, and I would almost dare you just driving down Beltline to try to count them. Because you can't. There are so many other businesses surrounding the liquor stores. There's a Payless Cashway directly across the street from a Centennial. And I would almost dare you to try to drive down Beltline and try to find the Centennial. There's a sign out front, but with the sign ordinances that Farmers Branch has or Addison, whichever city that's in, the landscaping and the way the building is situated. Eventually along 121 will be developed out and two businesses will not make a difference. They'll be hidden from view. Finally, I think it's also unanimous that nobody wants to see a row of 'anything' out on 121. I don't want to see a row of fast food places on 121. I don't want to see a row of dry cleaners or a row of retail stores or a row of anything. I want to see a variety out there. We've got to start somewhere and I wish we were staring with a Loews or a Wal-Mart or anything else, but nobody else is out here staring it. Again, they have come to us. We're not rushing into anything. We can deny it and that's frae. I don't know what they'll do regarding a law suit or not. But again, remove the thought of liquor, if there were any other business coming in, we would be embracing them with open arms if it were any other business...video store, if it were a retail, if it were a market or anything. Alcohol, I don't believe anybody is pro-alcohol, but you can be neutral. I don't believe it is as much of a negative as many people believe it to be". Mayor Manning, "Mr. Longo". Councilman Longo, "Sitting up here as a councilperson who has to vote on a lot of important issue, I find if I listen to emotions, friendship, personalities or pressure and not the facts, can only lead to trouble. So I want to throw some facts out tonight and why I'm going to vote a certain way, if we ever get to it. There's been remarks made about deed restrictions. I bought my house in 1974, Fox and Jacobs had deed restrictions this long. I couldn't put a clothes line up because somebody would see it from the street. I drive through this city and I see a lot of monstrosities and I wonder what happened to the deed restrictions that were supposed to safeguard my home. Developer's promises. I sat on the council...IBM...they blew...they came to The Colony and said I am going to buy a 1000 acres of land from Fox and Jacobs over by Paige and all. IBM said we won't purchase the land until you close that street that runs from Paige past Pizza Inn and Larry's to 121. At that time, we only had two roads out of The Colony and they weren't very good. That was 423 and Paige. IBM flew people from Los Angeles to sit down with me and showed me beautiful pictures of what they were going to do with that land. IBM said we are not in the land holding business, we are going to build. I don't -- 14 006392 Ratified 2/24/97 know what they built down there, or maybe in my age, I can't see very well but I don't see the canvass that they promised me when I voted to close that road that the citizens needed to get out of The Colony. This past week my phone has been ringing. I have not received one phone call saying vote yes for liquor stores. I've gone out on the internet. I've requested people give me feedback. I am trying to get the facts. One person turned around and sent me an E-mail letter and said I love my booze stores, I love booze, but for God's sakes not on 121. In 1995 the traffic count shows that we had 65,000 vehicles traveling east and west on 121, 65,000. I've sat out there with a police officer and seen cars going by at 80-90 miles an hour, 10:00 o'clock at night, 11:00 o'clock at night. 423 and 121 in a 24 hour period, 24,000 cars at that intersection, in a 24 hour period. They say the sales tax will allow us to do a lot of wonderful things. The police department has one of the highest budgets in our budget and their under manned and nobody's going to tell me that we have enough police officers out there. And I don't want the Police Chief to get up and say yes I'm alright because he's got to look at the council, his bosses. But we are under manned in the police department. The fire department has 4 people on duty. They are under manned. We are going to develop some land, the Billingsley tract, there's so much development going on we are under manned in all departments. And I don't think the sales tax from 5 liquor stores are going to satisfy the needs. And I would also like to remind some people when I first started it was only two, we've got up to 5 and I want to know when it's going to end. So that's my facts." Mayor Manning, "Mr. Kovatch". Councilman Kovatch, "A couple of things, I asked you not to mistake deliberate consideration with limited vision. I also have sat on the EDC for the last month with Craig and with Councilperson Watts and we all share the view that we need to start beating the bushes and some of us have done so. For me it has never been about what I would like, it's been about what [ thought could be done. Unfortunately the State has made it a cloudy issue for us. For that you need to talk to your State legislators about changing that. They's really tied cities' hands. We don't not know if this will sail or not in court. I'm perfectly willing to give it a try. I put this resolution on the agenda so the council would make a public statement on the issue. This has been for me a deliberating of the pros and cons, which is one of the reasons I kept wishing it would be tabled, so that we could be sure it was done and done right the first time. Sorry, I wrote things down then I went and put them in order as the order I want to say them and now I can't find them. The sales tax has never been an issue with me, it wasn't about that. I do want you guys to remember two things actually. There are probably, what, Chief would you say there's 300 people in this room"? Chief Joe Clark, "Probably about 150". Councilman Kovatch, "I want to remind you that on May 4, 1996, 569 residents showed up in the last municipal election. And you guys are almost 25% of that, so please remember that May 3 of this year. And remember one thing what this council can do the next council can undo. And with that I'd like to read the resolution if possible and introduce it as a motion". Mayor Manning,"If you want to read it into the record you're welcome to". Councilman Kovatch, "As long as nobody's saying anything because I'd like for them., there's no copy for everyone". Mayor Manning, "There's no motion at this point in time". Councilman Kovatch, "O.K. Iql just read it into the record then and we'll take a look at it. This is: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF THE COLONY, TEXAS FULFILLING ITS RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITY PROPOSING AS A GUIDELINE A LIMITATION ON THE NUMBER OF 15 006393 Ratified 2/24/97 BEVERAGE STORES ALONG THAT PORTION OF THE CiTY KNOWN AS THE "STATE HIGHWAY 121 CORRIDOR"' WHEREAS, the City Council acknowledges the responsibility it has in describing the City of The Colony to the world; and WHEREAS, the City Council concurs with the vision of the Board of Directors of the Economic Development Corporation (EDC) regarding the kind of image the EDC wishes to achieve; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the special circumstances surrounding the "State Highway 121 Corridor" as defined by the "Development Guidelines for the State Highway 121 Corridor" that were developed by the Planning and Zoning Commission and adopted by this council on July 1, 1996; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that although the "State Highway 121 Corridor" is a small portion of the city (less than 1,000) acres), it contains the two (2) most important entrances to our city (out of only three [3] total); and WHEREAS, the City Council shares the EDC's concern that the image of the "State Highway 121 Corridor" directly reflects the reputation of the City of The Colony; and WHEREAS, the City Council also shares the EDC's desire to attract businesses along the "State Highway 121 Corridor" which are complimentary to fulfilling the goals and the vision statement contained within the Economic Development portion of the Comprehensive Plan for the City of The Colony; and WHEREAS, the City Council further shares the desire of many of its fellow citizens to limit the number of beverage stores along the "State Highway 121 Corridor" as expressed during -- public meetings on December 2, 16, and 19, 1996, as well as January 6, 1997; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that numerous "beverage stores"; as defined in the City of The Colony Code of Ordinances; engaging in liquor sales for off-premises consumption along the "State Highway 121 Corridor" would be extremely detrimental to the City of The Colony for the following reasons: 1. Numerous beverage stores along the "State Highway 121 Corridor" would create an image that The Colony's sole purpose is to provide liquor to the surrounding communities. 2. Numerous beverage stores along the "State Highway 121 Corridor" would inhibit the City of The Colony from protecting its youth. These youth make up almost half of the city's population and the age-group that is most susceptible to engaging in the illegal consumption of alcohol attend The Colony High School which is located close to the "State Highway 121 Corridor". 3. Numerous beverage stores along the "State Highway 121 Corridor" would adversely effect the composition of businesses that would fill the corridor due to the fact that some of the business that the would like to attract would not locate in a development that contains a beverage store. 4. Numerous beverage stores along the "State Highway 121 Corridor" would cause a decrease in property values along the corridor and inhibit the ability of property owners to develop property with the corridor. 5. A decrease in property values along the "State Highway 121 Corridor" would indirectly cause a decrease in property values in the remainder of the City of The Colony. -- 16 006394 Ratified 2/24/97 6. That the occurrence of any or all of the previously stated adverse effects would have a severe negative impact on the ability of the City of The Colony to meet its financial obligations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF THE COLONY, TEXAS: Section 1. For reasons stated above, the City Council hereby finds that it is reasonable and prudent, for planning purposes, to establish a guideline that the number of beverage stores along the "State Highway 121 Corridor" be limited to no more than 0 .; provided, however, that the goals and objectives stated herein shall not serve as an endorsement for any beverage store, but that each applicant for a specific use permit for a beverage store shall be governed by the ordinances, rules and regulations of the City. Section 2. That the City Council hereby directs the City staff to inform those persons interested in locating a beverage store along the "State Highway 121 Corridor" the terms of this Resolution. Section 3. That the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of The Colony shall act in accordance with this resolution. Motion to approve the resolution with the number of liquor stores allowed as zero - Kovatch. Mayor Manning, "Mr. Dillard". Councilman Dillard, "I want to thank y'all for all coming out here and to point out something to y'all that I think you've overlooked. One, you've attacked me. Why? You don't know my intentions. Most people don't even know me. Some of you do. I going to work hard for this city to try to build a better city, help develop zoning, help with development to make this a better place to live. You can sit there and judge me if you wish, but remember what the scripture says about judging your fellowman. What we stand to lose when we go to court. But if you remember the meeting we had the other night it wasn't talking about how we can avoid litigation, it's how we're going to defend ourselves. We will lose. We'll lose because the State is going to regulate this particular situation because the State laws aren't clear. We can treat this business, whether we want it or not, just any other business, whether it's a shoe store, a toy store, or a liquor store. I really don't want a liquor store on 121. I don't want it at the entrance of our city. I don't frequent the liquor stores here nor do I drink in my home. But the bottom line is we have control at this time. Our Special Use Permits allow us to develop standards that most businesses cannot meet. We stand a chance if we lose in court, and I say if, because when you go to corn% you never know. We will lose those Special Use Permit requirements. The State will sa5 you guys have goofed it up, we're going to regulate this and those guys can build whatever they want and how many they want to build, and your stands don't apply. We have a similar case in Dallas, it's Cinemark vs Dallas. I think back a year or two. The theater wanted to build on a piece of property it owned and wasn't allowed to. They sued the City of Dallas and received millions of dollars in settlement. Bottom line is..legal business, legal zoning, they passed all the requirements the City of Dallas placed on them. The City of Dallas lost in court. Now hn concerned for the welfare and financial being of this city and the 17 006395 Ratified 2/24/97 citizens. We can't afford litigation. If you're willing to pay for it, fine. But you're talking about a minimum of several hundred thousand dollars if we're successful. If we lose I have no idea how high it could go. Am I scared of litigation, you darned right. Because it effects the bottom line and that comes in as tax dollars. My concern, one, loss of revenue, not from the liquor store, but loss of revenue because we don't see the volume of growth out there because of the nature of our attitude. Two, we lose in court, we lose the control of location and appearance of liquor stores. Three, once we've lost that we can't control the number, we can't control the location and we can't control the appearance. Right now with only two or three companies willing to build at the standards we require. If that's gets changed for any reason, we're up the creek. We will get store fronts that look like crap, that look like just what Wally showed. I know Wally. He went to a great deal of trouble to get those pictures and that's what we'll get. Right now we are trying to maintain control. My concern is once we've lost that we get Harry Hines. So my intentions are to control the mess we have. This man wants zero, that lady wants zero. What's the right number. If the State dictates to us..we say we want zero, the State says oh you can't have zero, you can have as many as these people want. We have lost". Mayor Manning, "Mr. Kovatch". Councilman Kovatch, "Mr. Eckert, what_should we go to court over the liquor issue and lose on the Specific Use Permit would the Specific Use Permit be declared invalid as it applies to liquor stores or as it applies to every business. It's my understanding that the State law says we can't restrict liquor stores anymore than we restrict any other business. So as long as we are restricting all the other businesses in a similar fashion, are we on legal ground in this area, to uphold the SUP, maybe not for the liquor stores, but, maybe not for denying the liquor stores, as long as comply with all the restrictions that we place on every other business". Mr. Eckert, "Mr. Kovatch, as I have stated to the council before, we're really talking about the application of your zoning ordinances and how they deal with beverage stores, that were enacted, those ordinances that were in place prior to the cut off date in 109.57. And we have indicated to you that those ordinances, one your comprehensive ordinance was adopted in the late 70's and amendments to that all occur, except the 1000 foot rule, which came in after 87, we've advised you that it is probably not enforceable for the sheer fact that it was enacted after June 11, 87. But prior to the time those specific use requirements were in place. It has been our position that they're governed by, the application is governed by any, just like any other application on any other type use that might require a SUP. The SUP requirements in this State are zoning, are in fact, some Texas cases have so held. You asked the question, what if we lose. The question is whether the pre-emptive effect of 109.57 will let us apply those ordinances and if we can, then it's just like any other zoning case. I mean, this council has not over the last many years that I have been associated with it, granted every zoning request. You haven't turned down every one either. But ifs to be examined on a case by case basis and by using the Specific Use Permit process you are allowed to take into consideration the adjacency and compatibility issues that we have talked about. Now that would be the issue as I see it. Whether we can apply those provisions of our ordinance. If we can't and the court so holds then we nm the risk". Councilman Kovatch, "Wait a second, it would be two issues; one whether or not we can apply it to liquor stores and two, the separate issue would be whether we could just throw it out altogether. As long as we apply it to everyone in all my knowledge it would still be applicable". Mr. Eckert," That's correct." Mayor Manning, "Ms. Avey". Councilman Avey, "It was just answered, thank you". 18 006396 Ratified 2/24/97 Mayor Manning, "We have a motion on the floor but there is no second. Is there a second to the motion for this resolution"? Councilman Watts, "Can we have a synopsis of the resolution"? Councilman Kovatch, "The last portion of it basically is that we would resolve to.. that no beverage stores on State Highway 121, we would instruct the city staff to inform anyone coming in for the application process that this is the council's position on it and that we would request that the Planning and Zoning Commission not only be informed but act in accordance with it". Mayor Manning," Ms. Avey". Councilman Avey, "Sorry there is one question. Pete if this resolution is passed would it have any effect on the case being for or against"? Mr. Eckert,"As indicated to you in the past or when Mr. Kovatch talked about the resolution a couple of weeks ago is that it needs to be used as a guideline only. And that it cannot be specifically applied in any particular case because that will stand on it's on merit. And because if you try to apply it, it of course has a post 1987 effect". Councilman Kovatch, "I'm simply looking for a public statement, because unfortunately, if we made it a regulation, I talked to Mr. Hill and Mr. Eckert about that. If we made it a regulation and said the Planning and Zoning Commission had to do this and the council had to abide by this then it would be pre-empted by the State alcohol law and be thrown out. So that's the reason it's not a... Did anybody have trouble heating that, well that's a first. O.K. the resolution is just a guideline because that is all it can be. Unfortunately if I was to introduce it as a quote unquote law of the city or city ordinance it would be pre- empted by the State's law from 1987 since it was passed after, so there's no way I can put together a resolution to order the city staff to do it, and order the Planning and Zoning and the Council to abide by the resolution. We can only submit it as a guideline. It is intended as a public statement and then later on down with the other agenda items we can continue to act on it". Councilman Dillard, "I don't agree with some of the things stated in this particular resolution, but because of the concerns that we have over litigation, we have got to establish a standard. You've gone to a great deal of trouble and I commend you for putting that together so we will have something to stand on in court and for that purpose, I may not necessarily support what he is stating there, but I will second his motion". Mayor Manning, "Ms. Watts". Councilman Watts, "I would like to point out that during public hearing any person that addresses council that is a citizen of The Colony is in effect establishing testimony that the city attorney needs and can use to defend what we have talked about here tonight. Any time you see a public hearing being posted about zoning or a public hearing addressing anything, be it local, or city or statewide, please attend the public hearing because that is something the law, a judge would recognize as testimony and is taken into much greater consideration than a resolution and you people coming out to these public hearings, this however is not a public hearing. When you did attend the public hearings and that testimony was created, you the people have done a greater service to an attorney than this council can by resolution. There are many public hearings coming up. There are Planning and Zoning signs up and down Paige from Morningside Elementary to the City of Carrollton. All of that is up for re-zoning and there are public hearings that are going to held, there have to be two and you need to attend those public hearings and understand how all of that undeveloped land is up for consideration. Part of the problem in one of these developments in particular was zoned Business Park. If you read our Code of Ordinances, that basically says it's an office building and can only have support businesses in it and a full fledged 6000 square foot liquor store would not 19 006397 Ratified 2/24/97 necessarily be a support business to an office building. However, an overlay zoning called a Planned Development was put over that which then did allow all of that area to be susceptible to a Specific Use Permit, which is a third layer of zoning. So zoning issues are extremely critical to this city in the future and anytime, I don't care where you live, if you hear of a public hearing, if you see a white zoning sign on the side of road. Find the date and attend that public hearing to create the testimony which the attorneys need to deal with any issues you want them to do from a legislative standpoint. I am very pleased to hear the resolution to just say no as we have asked our children to do. My fear was that there would be a vote to approve the store tonight, one or two or ten. And my fear is that will result in a wet/dry election and those people who have invested a million and a half to get this far, before that election took place, may invest six million to build their building only to be voted out by the people and unfortunately where the majority of these people are simply saying no more liquor stores if a wet/dry election is forced, then all of the people who own liquor stores in this town will be forced out of business. And I don't think that's what anybody wants. So I am truly pleased with this motion to limit the 121 Corridor to zero stores. He did however point out it is a resolution, we have four more agenda items that will require a vote by this council as to whether to approve beer and wine or beverage stores, they are two separate issues, and so each time this is addressed, you will need to count on your Councilmembers to vote appropriately". Mayor Manning, "Further discussion? It's been moved and seconded that we pass the resolution as read with a zero in the blank, Ms. Hicks if you will please poll the council". Motion carried with the following roll call vote: Aye - Longo, Watts, Avey, Kovatch No - Stanwick, Manning Abstain - Dillard 7. DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENT(S) TO THE STATE HIGHWAY 121 CORRIDOR GUIDELINES REGARDING THE ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF BEVERAGE AND/OR LIQUOR STORES WITHIN THE STATE HIGHWAY 121 CORRIDOR AND ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION TO BE TAKEN AS A RESULT OF THE DISCUSSION FOR THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 9 (PD-9) FOR THE (BP) BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF STATE HIGHWAY 121 AND PAIGE ROAD; AND RELATED SITE PLAN Mayor Manning, "Again, Mr. Kovatch, this was your item. There doesn't appear to be anything in the back up". Councilman Kovatch,"No, at this point I would just like to refer to the resolution and ask the Planning and Zoning to add any appropriate documentation to the Corridor guidelines. I ran out of words". Mayor Manning," O.K., so you're not recommending that we take any action on this item tonight"? Councilman Kovatch,"No". Mayor Manning,"Does anyone else care to discuss this or present anything on this item. We will then move to Item 8". 2O 006398 Ratified 2/24/97 8. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ESTABLISHING SPECIAL USE PERMIT NUMBER 59 PROVIDING FOR A BEVERAGE STORE UPON PROPERTY CURRENTLY ZONED FOR THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 9 (PD-9) FOR THE (BP) BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF STATE HIGHWAY 121 AND PAIGE ROAD; AND RELATED SITE PLAN Motion to deny the special use permit request - Kovatch; second - Watts, carried with the following roll call vote: Aye - Longo, Watts, Avey, Kovatch No - Stanwick, Dillard, Manning 9. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ESTABLISHING SPECIAL USE PERMIT NUMBER 60 PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF BEER AND WINE FOR OFF-PREMISE CONSUMPTION UPON PROPERTY CURRENTLY ZONED FOR THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 9 (PD-9) FOR THE (BP)BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF STATE HIGHWAY 121 AND PAIGE ROAD; AND RELATED SITE PLAN Councilman Kovatch, "A quick question for the city attomey. The legal ground for this is different because we've already approved the S&S, is that correct? Or should we say again, we approved one but we are not going to approve anymore? The concern I have, is if we go forward in this direction, we may also be looking at turning down Albertson's and the ramifications of some of those possibilities. It's a little different argument and because we have already let one in we may not be standing on firm legal ground". Mr. Eckert, "Well you have allowed beer and wine SUPs before, but in the context of applying the comprehensive ordinance, and it's amendments prior to '87 each stands on its own merit. That's what I have indicated to the council in the past. So I don't know that the granting of one Mr. Kovatch is necessarily pertinent. It's certainly an issue that the council needs to discuss. Again, it's an SUP and it needs to be examined on it's own merits not the previous one or anyone before it". Motion to approve the special use permit for the sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption - Dillard; second - Stanwick carried with the following roll call vote: No - Longo, Watts, Avey, Kovatch Mayor Manning, "We need a reading on this Pete. Do we need a motion to deny since the motion to approve failed"? Mr. Eckert, "The council has spoken on the issue". Mayor Manning, "So the SUP is denied because the motion to approve failed". 21 006399 006399 Ratified 2/24/97 Ratified 2/24/97 10. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF THE COLONY AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ESTABLISHING SPECIAL USE PERMIT NUMBER 62, PROVIDING FOR A BEVERAGE STORE UPON PROPERTY CURRENTLY ZONED FOR THE (BP) BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF STATE HIGHWAY 121 AND F.M. 423/MAIN STREET; AND RELATED SITE PLAN Motion to deny the special use permit for a beverage store - Kovatch; second - Watts, carried with the following roll call vote: Aye - Longo, Watts, Avey, Kovatch No - Stanwick, Dillard, Manning 11. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF THE COLONY AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AND ESTABLISHING SPECIAL USE PERMIT NUMBER 63, PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF BEER AND WINE FOR OFF-PREMISE CONSUMPTION UPON PROPERTY CURRENTLY ZONED FOR THE (BP) BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST INTERSECTION OF STATE HIGHWAY 121 AND F.M. 423/MAIN STREET; AND RELATED SITE PLAN Councilman Avey,"Can we separate the site plan and the SUP, is that possible"? Mayor Manning, "I suppose we can, I'm not sure the business owner would agree really care if you approved the site plan without the SUP". Jeff Stone, "Actually I would, I'd like that". Mayor Manning, "Would you, O.K.. In that case we will take up the site plan fa'st. We've had the site plan, now this is the convenience store and the gas station". Councilman Kovatch, "If you can separate them, I'll make a motion to approve the site plan". Motion to approve the site plan - Kovatch; second - Dillard. Councilman Avey, "The approval of the site plan is not, Ym sorry. The approval of the site plan fa'st is not saying that we are going to say yes to the SUP, or we still have our options open"? (Options are still open) Councilman Stanwick, "My understanding is that the site plan is only required for the SUP otherwise we don't require a site plan just as normal preliminary platting, final platting. The only reason we require a site plan here is due to the SUP, is that correct"? Mr. Chavez, "That's correct". Councilman Stanwick, "So it doesn't really matter whether we approve or not the site plan, because it is not part of the normal process anyway". Mr. Chavez, "That's correct, this particular property is not in the Planned Development District. The Planned Development District requires site plan approval. Councilman Stanwick, "So even if we deny the SUP, he is still free to develop anything else he wants to out there within the other constraints, but we don't have to approve his site plan outside of the SUP process". Mayor Manning," We need to be cautious, however, because if we have a motion to deny the SUP, the way this is written, it combines the two, wo we need to be cautious, I think, because I think the council is then going to deny the site plan". Mr. Smith, "Does the city have any liability in court 22 006400 Ratified 2/24/97 if we approve one and not approve the other"? Mr. Eckert, "Well you're approving the site plan separate from the SUP. What we are checking, I've asked Sam to check is to see if anywhere on the site plan is some liquor related uses, which you might approve without realizing it". Mr. Smith, "I'm just concerned for the city's position in a court of law, if we're going to deny the SUP, can approving the site plan have a negative impact of the city"? Mr. Eckert,"No it's not going to effect it one way or the other. Sam have you checked that"? Mr. Chavez, "Yes, I have. I don't have a copy of the site plan. What council could do is amend staff stipulations to stipulate that the sale of beer and wine and/or liquor will not be allowed". Mayor Manning, "And any references to the sale of beer and wine should be removed from the site plan itself'. Councilman Kovatch, "Yd like to withdraw my motion". Councilman Avey, "Sam, I have a copy if you want to look at it". Mayor Manning, "Mr. Stanwick, I believe still has the floor". Councilman Stanwick, "O.K. Yd like give...I guess it was Centennial that we did earlier...number 8 and 9...If the same logic holds true that the reason we're separating out the SUP and the site plan is to allow them to continue to developing without the SUP, I don't know, but I want to give them the same courtesy and the same option of proceeding with the site plan. I don't know if you're in the business of doing speculative development, but if you want to build the building to try to recover some of that, I want to give you the same courtesy and the same option of separating those out". Mayor Manning, "I was going to go back to that to see if you wanted to do that". Councilman Kovatch, "I guess with saying regardless if we, without the Specific Use Permit we haven't approve the final plat right"? Councilman Kovatch, "So all they have to do is come forward with the final plat". Mayor Manning, "The final plat has been approved". Councilman Kovatch, "So then tonight, denying the SUP and therefore the site plan has no effect on the final plat, since the site plan is only required by the SUP". Councilman Stanwick, "That's my point". Councilman Kovatch, "So if doing that, so we really, we don't need to do anything. We need to treat this the way we treated the earlier one and if they wish to go ahead and develop the property according to the building plan, they can continue to do that". Mayor Manning, "Well, let me ask Pete then. If we deny this, the way it's written, which says that we are considering approval of an SUP and approval of the related site plan, if we deny, the way this is written, do we then deny the site plan"?. Mr. Eckert, "You deny the site plan because it's required of an SUP for a convenience/beverage store. I believe Sam you indicated that it's not needed if there is no application for an SUP for a beverage store, is that correct"? Mr. Chavez, "That's correct". Mr. Eckert, "Yes, it's not needed so they can proceed". Mayor Manning, "So they can use the site plan that they have already proposed"? Mr. Eckert, "That's right". Councilman Kovatch, "Point of order, I'd like to remind you once again the folks in the back can't hear us". Mayor Manning, "So that means the people with Centennial, if they so choose to go forward with the convenience store, knowing that they can't sell anything there other than cokes and gasoline, they are welcome to do that". Mr. Eckert, "That's correct". Mayor Manning, "item 11 again, we do not have a motion on the floor at this point in time. Do we have a motion on this item"? 23 006401 Ratified 2/24/97 Motion to approve the request - Kovatch; second - Dillard carried with the following roll call vote: Aye - Stanwick, Dillard, Manning No - Longo, Watts, Avey, Kovatch Recess 10:20 p.m. Reconvene: 10:35 p.m. 14. GENERAL DISCUSSION REGARDING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CONSIDERATION OF ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION TO BE TAKEN AS A RESULT OF THE DISCUSSION Councilman Kovatch asked when the city went out to bid for city attorney services last and stated 'he thought it would be in the best interest to go out for bid for that purpose. Mr. Smith advised you can't go out to bid for that type of service. Councilman Kovatch asked how to go about looking at other firms and Mr. Smith advised we could seek RFP's. Motion to request proposals for city attorney services to be complete within 60 days - Kovatch. Mr. Smith asked what services would be included. Councilman Kovatch said the full spectrum of services provided currently. Councilman Longo said he is uneasy making any changes now since the city has some potential problems. He suggested sitting down with Cowles & Thompson and trying to work out any problems that may exist. Councilman Stanwick said he is happy with Cowles & Thompson and with the city attomey Pete Eckert and with John Hill. He said they do a good job of tag teaming and support. Councilman Watts agreed with Councilman Kovatch stating she thinks what he wants is to identify the options. She said she doesn't understand how legal representation is structured in the city. Councilman Watts asked for an explanation of who (in. the firm) represents the city and how. Councilman Avey agreed that a def'mition of areas and who covers them is needed. She also wants to know if the city can go to other fkms for services. Motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Eckert said he would be happy to work with Mr. Smith and prepare the information the council has requested. Councilman Watts and Councilman Kovatch thanked Mr. Eckert and John Hill for their patience in the liquor issue. 15. CITY MANAGER AND STAFF REPORTS Reminder of the Special Session on January 13, 1997. 10:45 p.m. -- 24 006402 Ratified 2/24/97 16. EXECUTIVE SESSION AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 551.071 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION, TO-WIT: A. RICHARD KAMEN, DEBRA AND DANIEL FOESHER et al., PLAINTIFFS, v. CITY OF THE COLONY, TEXAS, DEFENDANTS, Case No. 4:96CV335 11:14 p.m. Reconvene in open session At this time Mayor Manning advised the council that he has asked Councilman Kovatch to serve as council liaison to staff with regard to the city manager search. He clarified that Ms. Hicks will continue to serve in the capacity of the liaison with Dr. Geisel. Any requests from council regarding the search should go through Councilman Kovatch. With no further business to address, Mayor Manning adjourned the meeting at 11:20 p.m. APPROVED: William W. Manning, i(I~-yor ~~ ATTEST: Patti ,~. Hicks, TRMC, City' Secretary 25 ~-~][/~"~' i~J "AT?ACHMENT A" Janua~/3, 1997 CITY SECRETARY PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO TltE MAYOR AND EACtt COUNCIL MEMBER BEFORE THE L4~TIARY 6. ~997 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. Dear Mayor a~d City Cotmcil, Se. amd in the audience ton/ght, wmfi.t~ the fluoresc~t gree~ signs, are same at/zens who oppose the issue of liquor stores on Highway 121. We othaose any 1/quor stores on H~hway 121. We feel that: - The Cotmcil has the legislative author/tv tn "Ju~c my No to hqua' stores on Highway 121" and we asree with the d.ty attorney, ewen if it c.'msc~ i/~gation. A few dollars now for t/~a'tim/s t~s expemve than m/iiions for a cure. - Lkl uor revenues are h~es and h~.daches. $i00,000 of lkl, uor sales to 8ene~ata $1,000 of tax revenues never equaled the pric~ of one I/re and the heartache it causes. - The argume~l; of liquor s'ton~ for revenue or nothing is not valid. Hopefully we will start to am'act such businesses as build/n8 supply centare and movie th_~a'es_ ~ also revenue. Liquor ki!tq whether il; ks bought in a lm-.ckase -stare, ~~ ~ a ~~[, b~, co~ w~e ~ m a ~b~m of ~y of ~me. D~ ~ ~ty d~ · e fi~ ~d ~~ d~e ~ed by - ~ m ~ve ~ w~ mn~m ~ ~bum m ~ d~ ~H ~d ~ dm~e. ~O ]~'r ~ ~ + ..... - a~ ~he ~n~i ~,t ~r,,~ c~ .... ~' !t w~ ~ mom ~ ~o+~,u~i' our - Liq~ ~ ~ hom~ ~ a ~lt of ~di~o~. - ~mr ~ s~ ~ o~ c~d~ "Itg ok ~d ~ol m d~" ag a time wh~ ~ey ~ sup~ m "Jm ~y No m drags ~ ~qu~[" - ~ m wo~d be our front d~ welcome m~ f~ ~ md - ~ m ~ ~e wm~ ~ of b~. Why ~ wo~d ~~ ~y oa ~ ~. We ~ wh~ we ~ - !fiquor stores would p~vemt busimesse~ without high 5c~_'_m! liabilities from loc~ in our commumty, such as those in No~th Plano aad Nc~th Can~oiltom. - Liquor stores att,-~ drivers from dry commlmities who ar~ wanting to purchase ii~uor. This camtes congestion t~at would no~ be preseat except to purchase li~ uor. Th~s adds to aa overcrowded and already dangerous highway. The risk of death and pt~.xmx~y dam~e is increased whe~ a driver is ~mder the influemce 8oing to a liquor ztore or comsaimed wkile drivi~ from a liquor store. - IJqucr stores here would create a hub of distribution for ~m3umdi~j dry communities that do not want the albatross of hquo~ in their community. -Lm. uor razzes contribute to and increase the risk of being killed or maimed by a drunk driver on the state ~ mo~t deadly lake near a m~a~stically deadly highway. This ~roblem is eve~ more compounded ia a state that is str~gliag aga~n~ l~;~in~ smt~ wit~ DUIs. - Liquor stores will hetp to cream a name for this city. Not a name you and I, in the future, want to he a part of. Our houmdari~ will be f~ll of death and d~vzuc~ion from the decay within, not a city with life and hope. Conti~ui~ to do the same stupid thins in this comm~l~ity, as has bee~ tried ixl other ~_ comm~ties of America, amd expect~ differeml~ remxlts on ~ issue would be a good de/mit, ion of insanity. The oaly answer is "No" and deep dor,~n we should each ic~ow SL~ce~iy, Concerned Citizens Against Liquor on Highway 12i Written by Roy Winegar, Citizen Place 3 VOT FOR LIQUOR STORES ON 121. I LIVE IN PLAC NAME: ADDRESS: