Planning code requirements, and the proposed revision would be consistent with both. The only thing i would point out is that generally, if a project had already been noticed and comes back and proposes to raise the height by a couple of feet, it would trigger renotice. In this case, obviously, all of the people that have received notice and are engaged are verien gauged in this process. The rest of the revisions are just at the discretion of the board. Im available for any questions you may have. Mr. Teague, what was the what is the max height they can go in comparison to where were at now . So i think well, as was mentioned during the permit holders presentation, the height district here its a 40 foot height district, but because its rh1 dd, you take a 45 angle from either the front Property Line or the front set back line, and that can go up to 35 feet, and then, it basically follows grade from there. If its an uphill or if its a flat property, it just follows a Straight Line there.
Consistent with current planning code requirements, and the proposed revision would be consistent with both. The only thing i would point out is that generally, if a project had already been noticed and comes back and proposes to raise the height by a couple of feet, it would trigger renotice. In this case, obviously, all of the people that have received notice and are engaged are verien gauged in this process. The rest of the revisions are just at the discretion of the board. Im available for any questions you may have. Mr. Teague, what was the what is the max height they can go in comparison to where were at now . So i think well, as was mentioned during the permit holders presentation, the height district here its a 40 foot height district, but because its rh1 dd, you take a 45 angle from either the front Property Line or the front set back line, and that can go up to 35 feet, and then, it basically follows grade from there. If its an uphill or if its a flat property, it just follow
There . I can say theres no requirement in the planning code for lighting on decks. I would defer to mr. Duffy if there are any such requirements in the building code. No Lighting Except that mandated by the Building Department. And i dont know if theres any in the building code, so i would defer to mr. Duffy. Okay. Thanks. He looks very pained. Good evening, commissioners. Joe duffy, dba. That type of lighting wouldnt come into plan a singlefamily home, like emergency lighting like you see on a highrise building. But if they have a roof hatch up there to that, youre going to need lighting to get off of that, so its more of a common sense approach. We do see track lighting in the floorings of decks. Now, there would be a light requirement inside the stern in the lower area, so its really there isnt a code provision, i wouldnt think, as much as your common sense sense code. Well, theres some general comments in the code that talks about that. Yeah, but no emergency lighting. Theres no s
Consistent with current planning code requirements, and the proposed revision would be consistent with both. The only thing i would point out is that generally, if a project had already been noticed and comes back and proposes to raise the height by a couple of feet, it would trigger renotice. In this case, obviously, all of the people that have received notice and are engaged are verien gauged in this process. The rest of the revisions are just at the discretion of the board. Im available for any questions you may have. Mr. Teague, what was the what is the max height they can go in comparison to where were at now . So i think well, as was mentioned during the permit holders presentation, the height district here its a 40 foot height district, but because its rh1 dd, you take a 45 angle from either the front Property Line or the front set back line, and that can go up to 35 feet, and then, it basically follows grade from there. If its an uphill or if its a flat property, it just follow
See if they would be consistent with the ceqa analysis that was conducted for the site and consistent with current planning code requirements, and the proposed revision would be consistent with both. The only thing i would point out is that generally, if a project had already been noticed and comes back and proposes to raise the height by a couple of feet, it would trigger renotice. In this case, obviously, all of the people that have received notice and are engaged are verien gauged in this process. The rest of the revisions are just at the discretion of the board. Im available for any questions you may have. Mr. Teague, what was the what is the max height they can go in comparison to where were at now . So i think well, as was mentioned during the permit holders presentation, the height district here its a 40 foot height district, but because its rh1 dd, you take a 45 angle from either the front Property Line or the front set back line, and that can go up to 35 feet, and then, it bas