Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-24-1986 Planning Commission Minutes CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATE: September 24, 1986 - 7:30 P.M. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Roll Call: Present: Chairwoman Burger, Commissioners Harris, Siegfried, Guch, Pines, Tucker Absent: Commissioner Callans Approval of Minutes: Planning Commission Minutes of September 10, 1986; the following changes were requested: Commissioner Guch requested a change on page 2, paragraph 6, first sentence, delete the words, "The Commission" to add, "Chairwoman Burger asked..." Planning Director Hsia requested a change on page 11, paragraph 10, delete 0, to read, "Passed 4-2, Commissioners Guch, Pines opposed." HARRIS/PINES MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 10, 1986, AS AMENDED. Passed 5-0-1, Commissioner Siegfried abstaining. Additions and Deletions to the Agenda: None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR; 1. SM-6 Kennedy, request for extension to site modification and design review V-665 approval to allow construction of a garage, shop, pool and pool house and A-1009 relocation of a driveway. Also consider granting extension of variance aproval to allow construction of 17 and 22 ft. high accessory structures where 10 ft. is the maximum allowable height at 15480 Peach Hill Rd., in the HC-RD zoning district. 2. DR-86-031 J.Lohr Properties, request for design review approval of plans to construct a 3,615 sq. ft. two-story home that exceeds the allowable floor area standard by 115 sq. ft. at 18929 Cabernet Dr., in the R-10,000 zoning district. 3. C-206 Morrison & Fox, request for one-year extension of a conditional rezoning of a 2.2 acre parcel from RM-3,000 to RM-4,000 at 14234 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd. 4. V-86-003 Clarence Furuya, request for variance approval to allow an existing deck more than 4 ft. above the surface of the ground to encroach 11 ft. into the required rear yard area where a 4 ft. encroachment is permitted at 13550 Toni Ann PI., in the R-112,500 zoning district. Continued to October 8, 1986. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 2 SEPTEMBER 24, 1986 CONSENT CALENDAR Continued Chairwoman Burger noted that ITEM 4 has been Continued to October 8, 1986. Commissioner Pines requested that ITEM 2 be removed from Consent Calendar. Mr. Lester Sachs requested that ITEM 1 be removed from Consent Calendar. HARRIS/PINES MOVED TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH ITEM 1 AND ITEM 2 REMOVED. Passed 6-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. SM-6 Kennedy, request for extension to site modification and design review V-665 approval to allow construction of a garage, shop, pool and pool house and A- 1009 relocation of a driveway. Also consider granting extension of variance aproval to allow construction of 17 and 22 ft. high accessory structures where 10 ft. is the maximum allowable height at 15480 Peach Hill Rd., in the HC-RD zoning district. Planning Director Hsia read the "Report to Planning Commission", September 24, 1986. The Public Heating was opened at 7:40 P.M. Mr. Lester Sachs, 19941 Sunset Dr., Saratoga, stated that a variance is granted on the basis of hardship; the extension of a variance is not a matter of fight. The Commission may deny the application or grant the request subject to conditions. He had no objection to the Variance from the standpoint of the garage, shop, pool, or the relocation of the driveway; he objected to the location of the pool house. Concerns were as follows: Variance request for up to a 17 and 22 ft. height maximum, where 10 ft. is allowed; there is ample room to extend the house to accomodate that area. An antenna may be added to the pool house. The configuration of the pool house, built on a side of a hill. The speaker will be looking into and under this structure; he requested lattice work to be added to the pool house. PINES/HARRIS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:43 P.M. Passed 6-0. In response to a question from Commissioner Harris, the City Attorney affirmed that conditions of approval can be changed at this hearing. There is a restriction in state law with regard to the subdivision; but there is no such restriction in planning law. Chairwoman Burger noted that since this was a request for a one year extension, the entire history of the project was not available for the Commission's review; she stated her reluctance to make changes in conditions of approval without such information. Commissioner Siegfried stated that this project was a matter of controversy for many years; in fairness to applicant, the present owner of the property, a review of information was necessary before imposing any new conditions of approval on the Application. Commissioner Harris stated that having been on the Commission at the time of approval of the application, she will approve the request for a one year extension; Commissioner Siegfried concurred. HARRIS/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO APPROVE SM-6, V-665, A-1009 REQUEST FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION. Passed 6-0. 2. DR-86-031 J.Lohr Properties, request for design review approval of plans to construct a 3,615 sq. ft. two-story home that exceeds the allowable floor area standard by 115 sq. ft. at 18929 Cabernet Dr., in the R-10,000 zoning district. Planning Director Hsia read the "Report to the Planning Commission" of September 24, 1986, and stated that staff recommended approval of the application. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 3 SEPTEMBER 24, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS CONSENT CALENDAR Continued Commissioner Pines questioned in DR-86-031, Exhibit "A", 5, the requirement for staff review of colors and roof materials prior to sheet rock inspection; Planner Caldwall stated that staff requires that colors be presented with the application; in this case, the Applicant requested that staff review of color and roof materials be delayed until the sheet rock inspection so that prospective owners of the property can have a choice of colors. Chairwoman Burger questioned Exhibit "A", page 30, Existing Vegetation, and page 27, Exhibit "A", 4; she asked if the liquid amber trees are ordinance size. Planner Caldwell stated that she did not know if these trees were ordinance size; the Commission may amend Exhibit "A", condition 4 requiring a permit if more than the one liquid amber tree in the driveway is to be removed. HARRIS/GUCH MOVED FOR APPROVAL OF DR-86-031, EXHIBIT "A", CONDITION 4 TO ADD THE SENTENCE, "A PERMIT IS REQUIRED IF MORE THAN THE ONE LIQUID AMBER TREE MENTIONED IN STAFF ANALYSIS~ EXISTING VEGETATION, IS REMOVED. Passed 6-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 5. SDR-1629 Protiva, request for site and design review approvals, a lot line adjustment and DR-86-004 Negative Declaration to allow the construction of a two-story single family LL-86-001 home at 14458 Oak PI., in the R-l-10,000 zoning district. Continued from September 10, 1986. Planning Director Hsia read the "Report to Planning Commission" of September 24, 1986. Planner Caldwell stated that in Exhibit "B" lot 3 is not a legal lot of record; it is a parcel. She noted that a Condition 13 and a Condition 14 would be added to Specific Conditions, Engineering Division, if this application is approve& In regard to the public right of way the notation on exhibit "B ", "proposed area to be abandoned" is to be removed from the Exhibit. In response to Chairwoman Burger's question, the City Attorney stated that the City has historically taken the position that a legal lot of record allows the owner to develop the property. The parcel shown as lot 3 on the map is not a legal lot of record; it appears to be a remainder parcel left from prior subdivision or acreage from earlier owners. This subdivision goes back about 80 years. The ti~e report, as well, only shows that it has meets and bounds description as opposed to Lots 11, 12 and 13 which are described as Lot numbers shown on a recorded map. The significance is that lot 3 is not a legal lot of record; it is one of the few parcels in the City that qualify for a mandatory merger; the proposal submitted by the applicant does involve the merger of the parcel identified as lot 3 to Lot 12. The City wishes to assure that this merger takes place. If the application is approved by the Commission, the City would look for a sequence of: The recording of the parcel map to accomplish the lot line adjustment and the merger at one time Abandonment of the alleyway along the side of Lot 13. The two parcels of land 'involved are the alleyway and the northerly property line of Lots 12 and 13, the triangular area labeled, "proposed area to be abandoned." This area is part of the public right of way, and was dedicated and accepted; therefore this area is not to be abandoned. The alleyway, dedicated but not accepted, is the property to be abandoned. The applicant is entitled to have the dedication removed from the rifle; some form of encroachment permit is necessary to install the driveway. - Design Review of structures for the building permit. The City Attroney does not want the City in the position of abandoning the property in question before the merger of lots takes place. Thus, approval of this application will result in the above steps. The applicant has indicated a willingness to merge. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 4 SEPTEMBER 24, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Siegfried stated that the staff report and the site visit made did not correlate well with each other. One of his concerns is that it needs to be made clear that Lot 13 is a legal, existing lot of record; the owners of the Lot have a right to develop this lot. There is almost a suggestion to the contrary; this is not true. In response to Commissioner Pines' request, the City Attorney stated that the application would come before the Planning Commission for building site approval and lot line adjustment; in regard to presenting the design review to the Commission for consideration, the primary reason was the circumstances under which design review would be required is where a main structure is being constructed upon an infill lot, i.e., a lot surrounded by other developments. There is also a general provision allowing the Planning Director to present to the Commission any application which is controversial. Finally, the design review is before the Planning Commission rather than the Site Review Committee, which ordinarily reviews applications meeting standards, to promote the convenience of the Staff, Applicant and concerned citizens; the entire proposal will be dealt with at one time. Commissioner Pines requested that such information be stated in the Staff Report in the future. In response to Commissioner Harris' question regarding the comment of Councilmember Moyles, City Council Meeting, July 3, 1985, "Councilmember Moyles asked that the record show that the Council's decision made Lot 11 virtually useless," the City Attorney stated that this Application was an appeal for design review on Lot 10; the Council upheld the appeal. It was the opinion of the Councilmember that due to the bulk of the structures on Lots 10 and 12, any structure placed on Lot 11 was of concern to him; he would oppose any substantial structure on Lot 11; Lot 13 was not being addressed at the time. In response to Commissioner Harris' question, Planner Caldwell stated that Staff did not have a specific square footage for a one story house suggested in the Staff Report. Chairwoman noted and read into the record names of individuals who wrote to the Planning Commission. The following individuals wrote letters in opposition to the Application: - Ms. Jane Pinel - Mr. Alain Pinel - Chris Kinn - Dr. and Mrs. Hugh Lorshbaugh - Garth Garland - Mr. Joe Donahue The Planning Commission has received the following letters in support of the Application - Mr. and Mrs. William Craft - Veronica Nourse - Dr. Robert Rosen - Mrs. Byron Singletary Mr. and Mrs. John Saunders - Tom and Rosemary Tisch C. Farley Young Chairwoman Burger acknowledged a petition in favor of the Application, signed by 39 citizens. The Public Hearing was opened at 8:10 P.M. Mr. Norm Matteoni, 12601 Cambridge Dr., Saratoga, spoke on behalf of the Applicant, stressed that Lot 13 is a legal lot; in addition the application is within setback and size requirements of the zoning district. He addressed the following points of the Staff Report, ISsUes: On 3, the statement that the rural atmosphere of the existing neighborhood will be adversely affected by this application. The term "rural" is important to the City of Saratoga and is used even in political brochures; however, he questioned whether this is the proper use of the term and pointed out the rural character of the lots surrounding the Village. Rural, in this sense has an effect on 2, which deals with compatibility with the neighborhood in design, height, and bulk. The Village is an inner community within the City and brings together the commercial atmosphere with residents living near the Village. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 5 SEPTEMBER 24, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued This application is for a minor lot line adjustment; the applicant is not asking that the roles under which this subdivision were laid out, be changed. The issue is whether the proposal is compatible in terms of design. He stated that her proposal is compatible with the atmosphere of the Village. The request for a lot line adjustment allows the opportunity to legalize the situation. Ms. Linda Profiva, Applicant, stated that she has applied for site approval and design review for a single family dwelling. In April, the applicant meet with staff to discuss the best approach to the project, the lot line encroachment of Lots 12 and 13 and the landlocked parcel being referred to as lot 3; recommendations were made. Due to a change of staff, new recommendations were made in June and July; changes in the tentative map were necessary. The application was submitted due to a necessary lot line adjustment and to resolve the encroachment issue. The applicant stated that she was told by staff that she must merge Lot 12 and parcel 3; she has complied with reluctance. The proposed design of the house was an attempt to preserve as much vegetation as possible and allow for a large garden. The applicants will remove the cottage, the carport, and a three car garage. She noted that staffs statement that the cottage is vacant is incorrect; the cottage has been rented for the last eight years. Ms. Protiva agrees with the staff report in that she has a legal lot, has met code and ordinance requirements for impervious coverage, for setbacks, height and square footage. On Issues of the Staff Report: 1. Overbuilding of the site. Ms. Profiva stated that a permit to remodel was granted in March for a house three doors away; the lot was 10,125 sq. ft., the house and garage were increased to 3,242 sq. ft. and the impervious coverage increased to 45%; the remodeling permit allowed a second story to be added. This application is for a larger lot, less square footage and less impervious coverage. The Applicant asked to be treated in the same manner as other applicants. Of the 14 houses on Oak Place, 8 of them are two-story houses. The Applicant presented an Exhibit 1, to demonsu'ate the relationship of the site with other lots in the Village area. Of the 72 lots in this area, 14 of them are larger than the lot in question and 58 are smaller in size; this equals 80% of the lots in the area are smaller than the lot the applicant proposes to build on. The diversity of lot shape was presented. The applicant stated that she is not asking for anything neighbors do not already enjoy. 2. Landscaping. Exhibit 3, a collection of maps and Exhibit 2, a series of 12 photographs was presented, showing the mature landscape screening surrounding the proposed building site. Effort was made to reduce the impervious coverage on the property. The applicants are removing almost 1,000 sq. ft. of impervious coverage and replacing this area with landscaping; this results in only 24% impervious coverage. From the street, the house will barely be visible; there will be minimal change in the property from street view. 3. Compatibility. Exhibit 4 was presented showing the diversity of homes in the area; Ms. Protiva stated that variation is definitely part of the Village atmosphere. The applicants feel that the proposed design is imminently compatible with the Village. 4. Privacy. Exhibit 2, picture 8 and Exhibit 3 presented. The applicant stated that of the 4 windows on the second floor of the house, two are opaque. They value their privacy as well as the privacy of others. The southwest comer of the proposed house is 60 ft. from the Protiva house; the northwest comer is 38 ft. from their house. Proper screening along the driveway will provide the privacy necessary for both houses. There are three windows on the second story of the east side; one of the windows is opaque. Suggestions made by Commissioner Pines on rotation of the bedroom window and elimination of another second window were adopted. No other neighbors privacy will be affected. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 6 SEPTEMBER 24, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued In summary, the Applicant stated they are not asking for a variance; they have complied with everything the Planning Department has requested by lifting the lot line to merge and resolving the encroachment problem. Impervious coverage will be lessened; landscaping will be increased. The house was designed to fit in with the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant asked that their legal right to develop the property be respected. Ms. Billie Coughlan, 14474 Oak Place, Saratoga, stated that many facts presented were not correct; for example, the two-story houses, with the exception of the Coughlan house, are on larger lots than the one in question. The house on Lot 41, while built on a comer, is on a much larger lot. The neighborhood is a little, quiet place; this proposal will make congestion with so many two-story houses. The big house that the Protiva's live in is close to 3,500 sq. ft.; how can this house fit on a 50 ft. lot? Ms. Coughlan pointed out that the people who signed the petition she submitted are residents of Oak Place, LaPaloma Ave. and Orchard Rd. All but two of the individuals who wrote letters in favor of the proposal do not live anywhere near the area. She asked that the Commissioners go and look at the area. Chairwoman Burger stated that each Commissioner had made a site visit. Ms. Holly Daives, 14478 Oak Place, Saratoga, stated that her objections to the proposal before the Commission are: Approval of the proposal will radically alter the character of Oak Place, one of Saratoga's more charming streets. The old Pohle Mansion, 3,500 sq. ft., will be made to sit on a lot with only a 50 ft. front on Oak Place; houses on either side will closely flank the new house. The proposed house will be non-conforming in the following ways: - Placement on a triangle shaped lot, with little frontage on Oak Place Virtually identical with the house the Protiva's built last summer; this in a neighborhood where houses are highly individual. The Pohle house and the proposed new house will be separated by only a 16 ft. wide driveway; this will make the creation of natural landscaping for privacy screening impossible and will render both houses unlivable. Approval of this two-story structure will invade the privacy of one-story homes and will create a perception of excessive bulk from the street. Ms. D~ives urged the Commission to uphold the recommendation of the planning staff and deny the proposal. Mrs. Rosemary Tish, 14735 Aloha Ave., Saratoga, stated that she knows the applicant is concerned about Saratoga and has been active in activities in the area. Mrs. Protiva has carefully remodelled the house she lives in. Mrs. Tish supported the proposal and noted that the property is a legal lot and no variance is required; she asked that the Commission support this application. Ms. Betty Rohl, 20360 Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd., Saratoga, stated that restoring her house took a lot of time, effort and money; many of the other homes in the area are being preserved. She gave a brief history of her experiences with the Protivas. The two-story house built by the Protivas was without regard to immediate neighbors or to the impact on the Village. There are plans for additional two-story homes with removal of shrubbery and added pavement. The effect will be devestating to the historical nature of the neighborhood--overbuilt and over kill seems to be the model. She asked that the Commission deny the proposal. Ms. Dolores Piecemeal, 14560 Westcott Dr., Saratoga, stated that she was surprised to find that she has 39 neighbors who support this change. She has watched the development of this property. She asked that the Commission follow the historical, legal and logical process and not grant that the historical parcel 3 be changed. The applicant cites that the City wants to resolve the map issues; as part of the City, Ms. Piecemeal does not want any change in the map. A change in parcel 3 is of major concern to her; loss of this parcel will greatly affect the adjoining neighbors. Mrs. Virgil Campbell, 14482 Oak Place, Saratoga, stated that she directed a letter to the Commission; Chairwoman Burger assured Mrs. Campbell that her letter had already become a matter of record. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 7 SEPTEMBER 24, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Ms. Lisa Donahue, 14441 Oak Place, Saratoga, concurred with neighbors who are not in support of the Profiva application. Mrs. William H. Craft, 22000 Dorsey Way, Saratoga, stated that what is legal and fight for one property owner on Oak Place should be legal and fight for another property owner. It is that simple. The Protivas own a lot of record, zoned R-l-10,000 and the design for the house meets all the building code requirements for the area. Their request is being denied, citing overbuilding of property; in March a neighbor was granted a permit for 45% coverage while the Protivas will have 24% coverage. Is this fair? Is this fight? Is this democratic? Mrs. Craft urged the Commission to approve this application. SIEGFRIED/TUCKER MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:55 P.M. Passed 6-0. Commissioner Siegfried stated that he understood the histofic nature of the area; however, the suggestion has been made that the Profivas cannot build; the fact is that they have a legal lot of record and the application meets the requirements of the zoning area. The question is whether this is a reasonable home and a resonable design for the lot; a two-story home on a triangular shaped lot is reasonable construction and it has adequate landscape screening. This proposal will not have any impact or will change or modify the nature of the neighborhood. There is no special pfivilege being asked for. Commissioner Harris stated that she was concemed with the side elevations of the proposed house; from a design point of view these sides are very stark. She expressed her concern that the design of the house is incompatible with other homes she saw in the nieghborhood. She stated that she wished this concern to be addressed adequately. Commissioner Pines stated that he has spent considerable time at the site; he concurred with Commissioner Siegfried's opinion and stated that the applicant has worked to protect the privacy of the neighbors. It is a lot of record and meets the requirements. Letters received expressed valid issues of size of house in relation to size of lot; in this case the size of the lot is larger than required and the house smaller than allowed. The Commissioner will vote in favor of this application and stated that he could make the necessary findings. Commissioner Guch noted on a site visit that there was adequate screening from the east side and to the rear of the property. The property has mature landscaping and there are a number of oak trees on the property; the orange tree being removed is small. She stated that there would be minimal impact on the vegetation on the property. The lot in question is not being overbuilt; the proposed house meets all the requirements. Due to the mature vegetation, pfivacy will not be denied to neighbors. Essentially the applicant proposes to take this lot of record, remove two structures and replace it with a house. The Commissioner concurs with Commissioners Pines and Siegffied. Commissioner Tucker noted on a site visit that the area is lovely; she concurred with other Commissioners and stated that the proposed house will not overbuild the lot. Chairwoman Burger concurred with the above. The impact of the design proposed for this house will be relatively low due to the mature vegetation on the property. Planner Caldwell stated that in Specific Conditions - Engineering Division, Condition 13 to read, "The applicant shall remove the fence from the public right of way and obtain an encroachment permit for the new driveway. Condition 14, "Applicant to record joint driveway easement between Lots 11 and 12 and Lots 12 and 13. Commissioner Pines questioned Conditions of Approval, VI. Specific Conditions - Saratoga Fire District, 2 and 3; on 3, Planner Caldwell confirmed that this Condition will place a fire hydrant in the area. The City Attomey stated that in reference to Condition 2, the primary reason for the requirement is that the garage is a three car garage with a living area ajoining the garage; the Fire Chief expressed concern regarding an area used for vehicle storage and resident occupancy. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 8 SEPTEMBER 24, 1986 PUBLIC HEARINGS Continued Commissioner Harris questioned Condition 1 of the same section; Condition to read,' "Construct driveway (s) 14 feet width, plus one foot shoulders using ..." On Conditions of Approval, DR-86-004, 5 and 6, the word "screening" to be added to landscape to read in both Conditions, "landscape screening." PINES/SIEGFRIED MOVED TO GRANT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Passed 6-0. PINES/HARRIS MOVED TO APPROVE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND MERGER, LL-86-001. Passed 6-0. PINES/GUCH MOVED TO APPROVE SDR-1629 AND DR-86-001 MAKING THE FINDINGS THAT: A. THE PLACEMENT OF HOUSE ON THE SITE AND PLACEMENT OF WINDOWS ON THE SECOND STORY DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH VIEWS AND PRIVACY OF ADJACENT NEIGHBORS. B. THE NATURAL LANDSCAPE IS PRESERVED IN A MANNER THAT WILL REMOVE ONLY ONE ORANGE TREE ON SITE; ANY SCREEN LANDSCAPING TO BE REMOVED ON THE EAST PROPERTY LINE WILL BE REPLACED. C. HOUSE DESIGN MINIMIZES PERCEPTION OF EXCESSIVE BULK THROUGH USE OF TWO STORIES REDUCING THE SPREAD OF THE HOUSE ON AN IRREGULARLY SHAPED LOT AND THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE HOUSE IS BELOW ALLOWABLE AREA FOR A LOT OF THIS SIZE. D. COMPATIBLE BULK AND HEIGHT, AS STATED IN C. WITH THE ADDITION OF THE HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS BELOW THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FOR A TWO-STORY STRUCTURE. E. NOT APPLICABLE F. INFILLS, COMPATIBILITY VIEWS, PRIVACY AND NATURAL FEATURES AS STATED IN A. AND B. G. NOT APPLICABLE. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, S DR- 1629; LL-86-001, CONDITIONS 1 - 12; ADDITION OF CONDITION 13, TO READ, "THE APPLICANT SHALL REMOVE THE FENCE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AND OBTAIN AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR THE NEW DRIVEWAY." ADDITION OF CONDITION 14, TO READ, "APPLICANT TO RECORD JOINT DRIVEWAY EASEMENT BETWEEN LOTS 11 AND 12 AND LOTS 12 AND 13." ON CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, DR-1629, VI, 1, DELETE THE WORD "MINIMUM." ON CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DR-86-004, CONDITIONS 1-4; CONDITION 5, ADD THE WORD "SCREENING" TO READ "LANDSCAPE SCREENING;" CONDITION 6, ADD THE WORD "SCREENING" TO READ "LANDSCAPE SCREENING." Passed 5-1, Commissioner Harris opposed. Commissioned Harris opposed, stating that design was incompatible with the neighborhood. COMMUNICATIONS: Written: 1. Request for Proposal - Noise Element. Planning Director Hsia stated that the Planning Department is currently updating the General Plan of the City of Saratoga, Noise Element. A proposal will be submitted to the Planning Commission for review. A series of meetings will be held to review the proposal. The City Attorney requested that specific ordinance amendments be suggested for implementation of the Noise Element. PINES/GUCH MOVED TO DIRECT PLANNING STAFF TO PREPARE A LETFER FOR THE SIGNATURE OF THE CHAIRWOMAN TO BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL. Passed 6-0. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Page 9 SEPTEMBER 24, 1986 COMMUNICATIONS Continued 2. Memo Re: Joint meeting with City Council, September 7, 1986. Chairwoman Burger asked the Commissioners to notify Planning Staff of any items they wished to discuss at the Joint Meeting with the City Council. Oral by Commission: 1. City Council Report: None. ADJOURNMENT; The meeting of the Planning Commission was adjourned at 9:25 P.M. to October 8, 1986. Respectfully submitted, Carol A. Probst-Caughey Recording Secretary