Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP.C. MINUTES 12-07-81TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY Minutes of Regular Meeting November 16, 1981 The Planning Agency held a regular meeting Monday, November 16, 1981, at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City Hall, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Pro Tempore Ronald B. Hoesterey at 3:00 p.m. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mr. Edgar and the invocation was given by Mr. Hoesterey. ROLL CALL Present: Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy Absent: Sharp and Saltarelli A1 so present: Michael Brotemarkle, Community Development Director William Huston, City Manager Alan Burns, Deputy City Attorney Maria Ivory, Recording Secretary MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting held November 2, 1981, were ap- proved as submitted. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None NEW BUSINESS 1. Preliminary Plan, South/Central Redevelopment Project Mr. Huston presented the staff report and said staff recommends the Agency adopt Resolution No. 2007 which would refer the Preliminary Plan to the Redevelopment Agency. At an October 1981 workshop the Agency did recommend establishment of a preliminary plan and project area. The two project areas have been combined into one redevelopment project to save cost and also because of the nature of the areas. If Resolution No. 2007 is approved the Redevelopment Agency would then conduct a public hearing on the City's second project area. Mr. Edgar suggested the South Area "A" Project Boundaries be amended to read: "...then south and easterly to ~e easterly bounda~ of Red Hill Avenue ..... " This change would enable Redevelopment to complete- ly cover the possibility of grade crossing. RESOLUTION NO. 2007. " .......... A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN RECOMMENDING TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY THE ADOPTION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE SOUTH/CENTRAL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ......... "Moved by Edgar to adopt Resolution No. 2007 as amended. The motion was seconded by Hoesterey and carried by the fol- lowing vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Kennedy, Edgar and Hoesterey None Sharp and Saltarelli NOTE: Mr. Saltarelli entered the Council Chambers at 3:07 p.m. and was counted present. OLD BUSINESS: None PUBLIC CONCERNS: None STAFF CONCERNS: None Planning Agency Minutes November 16, 1981 Page 2 AGENCY CONCERNS: Mr. Saltarelli asked whether the project now under construction on Newport Avenue meets parking requirements. Mr. Brotemarkle replied that it does meet parking requirements and both zoning and height re- quirements for the district. The parking is located behind the build- ing under construction. ADJOURNMENT At 3:08 p.m. upon motion of Hoesterey the Agency adjourned to the 7:30 p.m. meeting. The motion was seconded by Edgar and carried unanimous- ly. TUSTIN PLANNING AGENCY Minutes of 7:30 Meeting November 16, 1981 The Planning Agency was called to order at 7:34 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Edgar, Hoesterey, Kennedy Absent: Sharp and Saltarell i PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. USE PERMIT 81-31 Applicant: Location: Request: Mangano, Oecosta, and Mesenbrink. 14722 Newport Avenue To permit a family entertainment center including electronic games, large screen T.V. viewing, and a fast food restaurant. Mr. Brotemarkle presented the staff report and said the facility was situated at the northeast corner of Sycamore and Newport. The appli- cant proposes to operate a 6,000 sq. foot space divided evenly for family entertainment and food operation with beer. The only subject of the use permit is the 46 electronic games included in the enter- tainment area which by code constitutes an arcade. The other uses proposed are permitted by code. Staff's analysis included input from the police department concerning congregations of juveniles due to three schools within this vicinity and once congregated the students could become a nuisance due to loitering, noise, mischief, etc. The primary difference in this activity and others approved such as the Tustin Lanes Bowling, Sgt. Pepperoni Pizza Parlor and Taylor's Restau- rant is the electronic games were in much less proportion. Staff's recommendation is denial by adoption of Resolution No. 2006. The key issue is the location of this operation near the schools and hospi- tal. On Friday, November 13, 1981 the department received two letters of protest: one from Stewart Development Company and basically it states upon being notified they disagree with the use at this location because there has been a high number of juveniles in this area congre- gating; in addition a letter from the manager of OcitaHouse, a non- profit organization, states they concur with Stewart Development and point out they have had the same problem with large congregations of juveniles in the area and the entertainment center would bring in fur- ther potential for problems. The public hearing portion on Use Permit 81-31 was opened. Planning Agency Minutes November 16, 1981 Page 3 Mr. Paul J. Raynor, 15662 Myrtle Avenue, Tustin, Executive Director of Ocita House, stated he has been a resident of Tustin for 19 years and lived approximately three blocks from the proposed entertainment cen- ter. He said there has been thievery from teenagers in this area and felt the center would be a detriment to the community. Mt.John Harrison, President of Sycamore Gardens Home Owners Associa- tion stated he was speaking on behalf of the Association in opposition to the proposed use of the site for basically the same reasons as pre- sented in staff's report; i.e., vandalism, loitering, noise and drink- ing. This would potentially aggrevate those problems. He said there was also a hazard to children crossing the street to use the facili- ties and he wondered what the hours of operation would be. Mr. John Zier stated he lived a couple of blocks from the project and he was opposed to it being so close to his home. Mr. Mesenbrink of the firm MOM, said his feelings were that staff's report misrepresents what they are proposing. Mr. Mesenbrink present- ed several visual aides. The proposed name of the establishment would be Parcheesy's. The theme will be entertainment for the entire family as well as a tiny tot area. The management plans to sponsor baseball teams, an after game meeting place and birthday parties. The site they have selected offers the best location for a useof this magnitude because the building is so well buffered with a wall 6 feet hight a- round the property and there is also a wall around the 7-11 store. The main emphasis is on the restaurant and not on gaming activities. It was not true that 50% of the area was devoted to games. One of the areas has a large screen T.V. and they are working with people trained in childhood education and the younger children will play with objects which are safe and non-toxic. The restaurant, represents 60% of the total space and the gaming represents only 10%. The hours of opera- tion would be from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Mr. Hoesterey asked how the restaurant would be laid out to help miti- gate concerns of an arcade. Mr. Mesenbrink responded the restaurant would be in good taste. He said they were in the process of laying out the restaurant and the plans from the architect will be revised and their hope is to create an environment kids could relate to. Mr. Mangano of the firm MDM, said he lived in Santa Aha. He stated he originally built the building as a commercial site and they are peti- tioning because they find there is a need for such a use in the area. Mr. Mangano detailed the amount of money to be invested and said that because of the high investment, the reputation that they es- tablish was very important to them. He agreed that the problem of vandalism does exist but the building itself is separate with no imme- diate tenancy that would create a problem and they did intend to close at a reasonable hour. As far as loitering problems that was going to be his and not the neighborhood's. He said he intends to enforce pro- per controls and if it does become a problem he would engage a securi- ty guard and whatever was necessary to keep neighborhood tranquility. They would like to put into the community and not take away from it and develop a tax base which would realize revenues for the City of Tustin. Mr. Hoesterey commented that he had been to Chuckie's Cheese Pizza and asked if the proposed operation would be similar to that. Mr. Mangano replied "No" because they cater to children and his opera- tion would be much smaller and they have no animated objects which re- duces the noise level considerably. Planning Agency Minu%es November 16, 1981 Page 4 Mr. Oecosta of the firm MOM, stated he has lived in Tustin Meadows for 10 years and if he didn't feel this was an A-1 operation he would not let it get near Tustin Meadows. He said when he first read staff's report he wasn't sure it was their project. Mr. John Harrison said he would like to bring out ~wo points: 1) the wall bordering the property was on the north side and the east side and to the south and west which are street fringes there are no walls and there is the residential use in the area and 2) while the idea of a family operation sounds great the Agency should keep in mind that many of the users will not be going as family but individuals who don't have parental supervision. A resident of Tustin stated his building was directly across the street on Sycamore and there was no protection. If the operation was to be as large as planned what kind of parking problems were they go- lng to have because he sees parking spilling over into his parking lot Mr. Mangano speaking in rebuttal said he feels the reactions were on the extreme side because the building was insulatod. They realize they will have to police the operation very closely because they are aware their use permit is conditional and subject to termination. The parking was all done according to code and the streets that the gen- tlemen was talking about are wide streets. There being no further testimony the public hearing was declared closed. Mr. Brotemarkle commented that the issue was not with the restaurant, beer,a large T.V. screen or Monday night football; the Code concerns the number of electronic games to be set up. Over five machines pla- ces that portion of the use in an arcade category and problems with such uses have been cropping up throughout the County. The issue is whether this is an appropriate location for an arcade. If the Plan- ning Agency determines this area is appropriate it would then be re- feted to the License and Permit Board (L&P) for a report to be made back to Agency as to conditions oil operation. Mrs. Kennedy said she felt the information presented by the applicants gives her a different picture of the operation than described by staff's report and it may have been lack of information which led staff to believe this was a poor site. She said the Home Owners Asso- ciation and the businesses across the street from the proposed opera- tion may have received the report from staff and she would like to see the matter continued and during that time the applicant could get in touch with people who spoke in opposition and help them understand the project in a more favorable light. She requested that the City staff, Police Department and Building Department gather any new information on what happens at these gaming centers. She said her son often goes to these places and because of the machines he has become interested in computers and she felt they were very modern and up-todate much like miniature golf was to her. Motion by Kennedy to continue the matter to a regular meeting of the PLanning Agency on Monday, December 21, 1981 at 3:00 p.m. in the Coun- cil Chambers. The motion was seconded by Edgar. Under discussion Mr. Edgar said he had a clear apprehension by staff for the large amount of game machines and the proposed operation has as many machines as the three other, businesses combined and 45 ma- chines in one place was an awful lot compared to anything else they have in the community. Mr. Edgar requested the Police Department to furnish the Agency with some kind of perspective on how severe vandal- ism has been with teenagers in this area and the Building Department to look at the parking on this site. 'lanning Agency Minutes November 16, 1981 Page 5 The question was called for and the motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Kennedy, Edgar, Hoesterey None Sharp and Saltarelli ADJOURNMENT · At 8:17 p.m. upon motion of Edgar the Agency adjourned to December 7, 1981 at 3:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The motion was seconded by Kennedy and carried unanimously. Chairman, James B. Sharp Maria Ivory Recording Secretary