PC 05/27/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Iserson described the terms of the settlement agreement as well as the previously modified conditions of approval and the new conditions of approval. He noted that since the settlement agreement modifies certain land-use regulations for the property, a PUD major modification is required to implement the provision of the agreement. Therefore, Planning Commission review and recommendation is necessary, followed by City Council review for a final decision. Mr. Iserson stated that staff feels the agreement is reasonable and that the neighbors and the owners of the shopping center aze in agreement. He acknowledged that it is a compromise and that nobody is 100% happy, but it was accepted as a workable agreement in order to address a number of concerns that have existed for many years. Staff, therefore, recommends approval, subject to the Conditions in Exhibit B. Commissioner Kumaran asked how the neighbors were noticed regarding this issue and how the information was shazed with them. Mr. Iserson stated that the neighbors were very involved with the neighborhood meetings, and they all had an opportunity to review the drafr settlement agreement. They were all sent notices in accordance with the PUD requirements, and staff attempted to contact all of them directly for input. Ms. Seto reported that in December, 1997, and January, 1998, the draft settlement agreement was sent to all neighbors, and the City Attorney's Office received no opposition to the agreement. Therefore, the settlement agreement was subsequently reviewed and tentative approved by the City Council, subject to input from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Dove commented that when the Planning Commission originally heard this application many years ago, the residents were very vocal and well represented. As a result, he would be very surprised if they weren't very active when this settlement was reached. PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED Kirsten Powell, 255 W. Julian Street, San Jose, represented the property owners, Goble Properties. She stated that all parties are happy to have this issues resolved. She noted that the property owner has been complying with the terms of the settlement agreement and, as far as she knows, there have been no problems. She further commented that Goble Properties is awaze of and is sensitive to the issues raised by the neighbors. If problems occur in the future, she stated that Goble will try to address and resolve them as soon as possible. William D. Stephens, 2793 Longspur Way, commented that this issue has been ongoing for a long time. He stated that the problems concern mostly the livability on the outside of his home. In addition, he reported that while he is still not completely satisfied with the terms of the agreement, the property owner is not either. In addition, Mr. Stephens stated that under the guidance of the City Attorney's office, the parties worked with a mediator and came up with awell-thought-out agreement that is acceptable to all parties. He asked the Planning Commission for approval of the recommendations made by staff. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 May 27, 1998