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 basically follows grade from there. If its an uphill or if its a flat property, it just follows a Straight Line there. So you know, towards the middle of the lot, the max height generally is 35 feet, so they have somely way there. The front corner is basically meeting as proposed now in front of you is meeting that kind of 45 angle thats required. In studying it, the permit holder had mentioned that the height of the building is still lower than their immediate neighbors. Mmhmm. Is that correct 1234. Id have to look at the plans to look at that. Im not positive. Do you have a cold . I caught it. No shaking hands you with or anything. Any comment, mr. Duffy . Any Public Comment . Seeing none, the matters submitted skbl madam secretary, do you have a record of what my motion was madam director. It clearly wasnt resolved, but can you read my motion . Sure. So i think thats the november 8th motion which was. Yeah. Lets see. To grant the appeal to grant the four appeals and issue the site permit on the condition that the penthouse and roof deck be removed on the basis that these features are out of context with the surrounding neighborhood. And on that motion of president honda, commissioner lazarus and commissioner wilson dissented, which is why it didnt pass. My my thoughts on this is that that there was a originally a glass enclosed penthouse that was that we it was described as a beam of light that would intrude on the neighbors and change the character of the neighborhood, and i think thats what we reacted to. Im going to put aside for the moment the new the new plans because we havent had a chance to really study them, but i lets stay focused on i want to say focus on what we what i had an issue with. Obviously, in my motion, i heard from all the commissioners who did, as well. So i i would be prepared to do the same motion, but a deck. Id like some help with the size of it, but with some special restrictions that relate to no, i guess, Combustible Materials example, a fire pit or a barbecue or cooking option, no storage unit or other permanent structure. No lighting of any kind unless required for emergency purposes by planning or the Building Department, and so thats thats kind of the direction i i would go. And i a rail around the the deck a glass rail around the deck, which is to at a minimum height, which is which would be according to the Building Department rules. Thats the direction i would like to go, and i think thats you know, thats fair. Give them the house that they want minus the top basically, but give them a deck with some special features. Well, i think the last time they were before us, the understanding which was a little confusing, because the thought process i thought Going Forward was they were just talking specifically in regards to the deck. And then, here we are, a couple weeks later, and its not just the deck, but theyve added some more bulk to the building. I dont necessarily have a problem with the floor plates increasing per se, and we originally had talked, i think it was 490 or 487 square feet. It was less than 500. But the lack of communication kind of concerns me, that if the permit holder had adequate time to draw these plans up and put them together but did not want to share them until the day before, to me, is a little concerning, you know . Well, i feel like opportunity was fully taken advantage of and was beyond what we expected to see back here. So i think im inclines in the direction that commissioner swig is headed. Im not sure if the nsr portion is needed. I mean, maybe mr. Teague and or mr. Duffy cann enlightn us, but i support a motion that essentially addresses the deck and not the rest of it. Lets break that down a little bit further, in terms of detail. When they limited it the penthouse, the previous scheme had the roof of the third floor depressed so that the height of that penthouse was not as great it was 4 feet or something. I cant remember. It was prointruditruding up it was protruding some amount, but it had been dropped, and the curb framing is dropped straight across. I have no issue with that. If you get rid of penthouse. The question then is where the the height was picked up, and whether theres an issue. Im sensing that a couple of the commissioners here have an issue with the increased height of the lower floors. Im not sure i shared that so much. The question, also, then, is roof decks. I didnt want to say too much, but you recall that two of the commissioners killed the first motion, which deleted any roof decks and required that it be put back into the motion and allowed it. So id like to get further clarification from the two who added it back, what is it about this that you dont like . I dont see much difference between this deck and many other decks that we have seen. I expected a basic roof top or roof deck with some railings around it, no accoutrementes. I dont know what this 14 foot storage bin is. To me, its having access to a roof if they intend to use it. I dont understand the argument about raising the ceiling on the lower floor i think had to do with access to rooms that there wouldnt be stairs, and i dont know why that wouldnt be addressed before. That has nothing to do with what went on on top, i dont believe. No, i think what occurred is in their efforts to try to procedu portray the overall bulk of the building, they reduced it. The inches out of the floor, they pressed the penthouse downward in order to show a product that was of lesser height. So basically because they sacrificed the penthouse, theyre getting some of that floor space back . Yeah. Which i reiterate, i dont have a problem with the added floor height, but as several of the parties from the public have mentioned, because there was a switch in plans and the lack of communication and evidently they have hired guns, i do think that a special deed of restrictions is probably going to be required on this so that we dont have to deal with things popping up in plans and having repermitting issues. So my issue is not with the building, my issue is with what happens on top of the building. So if the if the if the revised plan or the revised bulk im not going to fight on that, but i i really think that it we should mandate with clarity the size of the deck, which i would do not to exceed 500 feet. That we should also be very clear that as commissioner lazarus said, it is a plain deck and with but lets talk about the typical railings. About the specific items, then. Okay. You have a deck thats under 500 feet. Fine. Its transparent, so it doesnt necessarily block views, but it provides views of whoevers up there. The question is where is this storage unit . The second is the fire pit. And the light. The light, i think, is a very important issue that i heard the first time around was that beacon. I think the first word was beacon, so if we were allow it to be lit, we defeat that whole issue. We defeat that whole thing. Youre correct. It doesnt show what is proposed. You can condition it so that you provide the minimum illumination thats necessary for ingress and egress, all right . And also that would be similar to what would be a code requirement for the, say, onsite walkways and things. Okay. So would we address that in in just language or in the nsr . Can we ask mr. Teague, can you help us. No and then, also, like i said, i would like to make sure theres no permanent structures that are past the top floor. So if i understand it correctly, its just a little guidance on the potential nsr and how that would work. So i think a good way to think about it is obviously if you review the permit, you have the authority to basically amend the scope of work for this permit. You could youve already decided to do that by removing the fourth floor penthouse, but whatever you finalized in that decision would basically be the final scope of work thats approved for this permit. Any subsequent permit that would meet the planning code and the Building Code and all other requirements could be approved in the future. Nsr is a notice of special restrictions that would be reported on the property to document any specification conditions of approval put on, and i was thinking about what conditions kind of longterm do you want, not necessarily just limiting the scope of work for that permit, but what additional conditions you want to apply to that, whether that be no this or no that or no more than this or no more than that. If you wanted to apply those types of conditions of approval in perpetuity that just go beyond this permit, thats the kind of thing that would be used to report the conditions of approval. Thats what we do at the Planning Department. If you have an entitlement those conditions are recorded on the property as a condition of approval. The Zoning Administrator has the authority to put those kind of conditions on a Building Permit, as well as any kind of entitlement, and again, those conditions can run in perpetuity in addition to the permit. And barring that, and if they come back and want to get a permit to do something else, then, thats an option for them . Yes. It could end up being an over the counter type permit . It could be, depending on what theyre proposing to do, so thats something to take into consideration. Obviously, the plans show the fire pit and the storage, you know. This is not above the height limit, so our height exemptions dont really come into play, but a lot of times, they do for roof decks. Theres a lot of things that are generally permitted on roof decks, whether its furniture, tables and chairs, other types of Outdoor Furniture thatll be utilized to use the deck. Obviously, its not uncommon to see those types of features, and they dont require a Building Permit just to put up Outdoor Furniture. Anything that would be a structure or railing or things of that nature would generally require a Building Permit. So i think the im seeking your advice. So one of the concerns of neighbors was the light at night, creating a beacon effect on that square footage, which would be transparent to the neighborhood. So that, to me, would be anything that would create light, which would generally mean that if you if you a restriction on illumination. The other piece, i think, was the restriction of an activity such as cooking or or an activity that would require a Something Like a fire pit, and basically want to get back to a deck that if you have a chair up there, you can sit in the lovely fog of sea cliff in which i grew up. We have global warming, so theres more warm days, i guess. But thats where thats where i i see taking this. Yeah. Of and based on the neighbors comments and concerns. Sure. I mean, i think that the lighting issue is obviously two different contexts. The prior proposal was a complete glassed in room that was going to have a very different type of lighting that was enough to illuminate the entire room which would create a different lighting effect from afar. But another thing, it was the type of glazing. Drawback glazing and the kind of lighting that would be in there, where it would be mounted. Obviously, it has to be a very different context. My colleagues from dbi can speak to the absence of real lighting on a roof deck. Theres no real clear guidance to set it to. But if you feel there are certain requirements pertaining to the height of potential light fixtures or some other metric on limiting the light, thats within your purview. Similar ly, prohibiting fire pits or any other barbecues or facilities like that, that would be within your purview, as well. I mean, obviously, things whether it comes to furniture, that gets a little more challenging. A lot of Outdoor Furniture has a lot of storage components to it. It may not be different for storage cabinets themselves, but depend, we dont normally require permits for Outdoor Furniture. And im sorry, after the lighting, you were speaking about the cooking facilities. Okay. We addressed that. Pretty much. So we could actually limit it to no light. I dont think so. I dont think so. You have a stair there. Youre going to have to provide light. Yeah, i would prefer. Do you have xray vision 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 such thing as that in a singlefamily home. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your illumination. Oh, youre so im so okay. We have two issues. One deals with the height of the building, and the other, how far you want to strip the deck down. Im fine with the height. Ill live with that. Yep. Okay. They lost the pen how tthou. Im not fond of decks, as everybody here knows. No. But you have to allow normal usage. So do we allow a barbecue pit . Maybe a freestanding barbecue . Okay. I see the fire pits a no thing. What about the permanent structure in regards to the storage, the 15 feet by 36 inches . Is that a no . Im not supportive. Im not supportive. Okay. So thats a no. So what are lets go the other way. What are we actually going to allow on the deck . No lighting. Well, we have to have some lighting. We established that already. Minimal requirements as peregress perthe city and code. Yeah, thank you, youre welcome. So no gas service yutensils. Okay. So no permanently affixed gas to the property. How about heaters, because it gets cold . Then, that there you know, thats where we thats the thing. Well, he can use the temporary five gallon ones that he can just fill. Unless were going to be here all night. Anything thats portable. How do you want to phrase it . I dont know. Just think about enforcement, please. Mr. Teague, you look eager to jump up here. Joe, you, too. You guys can come together. I dont want to speak any more than i have to, but just wanted to say that in your discussions, which things about wanting to prohibit or permit when it comes to open flames or cooking facilities is just what are you trying to prevent . Is it light, which the fire pit would create a light source . Is it danger from fire and cooking . Is it gathering around cooking and serving food . And if its more of that, you maybe want to be more comprehensive in just no cooking facilities, be it in that area or not. Just whatever youre trying to prevent that would kind of help guide what you prohibit. So no cooking facilities, no permanent storage facilities, and no permanent Lighting Except that required by any safety provisions. And no four story, going future, perpetuity. Nsr . Yeah. Is that a motion . Yeah, i guess its my motion from before, with the modification that the that the new building height, with the exception of the how do we get the how do we get the new building proposal in there . Isnt a permit on revised well, we have the revised plans, which youre asking to be modified to eliminate this lighting, cooking, storage that you just discussed. So its the motion motion from before with the opportunity to move grant the permit based on the revised plans, with the exception with the restriction. With restrictions to a limit of no more than a 500 square foot deck and and restrictions with regard to no cooking, no permanent structures, and no permanent lighting with the exception of that required for safety purposes. We need to say no cooking . I just want to be clear. I im okay with that, but you know what if thats thats what mr. Teague suggested, so and and no fire pit, which would go along with lighting. And just to be specific, no additional fourth level. Okay. So the motion the motion from commissioner swig excuse me. Mr. Duffy would like to speak. Welcome back, joe. Sorry commissioners. Just when the word permanent structures, i think fixed would probably be better than permanent, because people do bring things up there that are movable, but fixed and permanent would be better if thats okay. I would accept mr. Duffys friendly well, i need some clarification because i dont understand, then, if that means someone can bring a fire pit a portable fire pit with a propane tank. That is not fixed. Its just plopped down and taken away or if they cant. So like i said, no fire pit, no cooking. And weber okay. So a heater, they can bring out if they want, thats not fixed. I am raising this because its going to become an issue with the neighbors. No, then no then no barbecue on the roof, really . Really, youre not going to let this is what were trying to protect. Yeah, i think no fixed is fine. No fixed. Okay. And that would include any gas utensil, i guess. Is that better terminology, including a fire pit or cooking. Or no permanent gas supply. Fixed. No permanent gas supply to fourth level. I think the propane tanks in the area was okay, then . Yeah. Okay. Okay. So the motion, then, from commissioner