Paul - Under that provision There are other provisions that have different limits for the impact. <br />Nate - How far down do you go? So this is an arguable point? <br />Nick - Yes. <br />Faris - But in this situation, how far out do we need to consider access as an important part of the <br />criteria? Do we consider access all the way down the hill (out of the immediate neighborhood)…for <br />th <br />instance, down to 19 and Agate? <br />Paul - Separate answers. Nick has been very helpful with sub(5) and sub(6) and other traffic related <br />things – they are one situation. Minimum negative off-site impacts are different criteria. That <br />doesn’t have a limit. If you can show there would be significant off-site impacts two miles out, that’s <br />another issue. But if its traffic access, that’s a different question. <br />On page 62 (of the written Application), Applicant only addresses “peak hour” trips of <br />proposed residences and considers them negligible. Is this a problem? <br />Eric - That’s what we consider. “Peak hour” trips; only the worst-case scenario. <br />What does “off-site impacts” entail? Particularly in relation to EC 9.8320 Criterion 11 – <br />“traffic” (page 61 of the written Application) and Criterion 6 “safety” and “impediment to <br />emergency response” (page 46 of the written Application). Does the Planning Department <br />consider road network that provides access/egress to/from PUD site and limitations/constraints <br />of this route? <br />(58:04) Nick - Yes we do. As a caveat to this, it’s going to be very important what the Fire <br />Department’s referral comments say. I’m not going to “sugar-coat” it. If they come back <br />and say “it’s totally hazardous; we can’t get up there; putting in this PUD is going to make <br />it worse; we can’t provide service” or something like that…(I don’t think they’ll end up <br />then we’re going to have <br />saying that…but if they end up saying something close to that…) <br />to look at this very hard and decide. Do we recommend approval or do we recommend <br />denial? We’re not at that stage yet. <br /> Typically you do these smaller projects and you know <br />going in…yes, everything is lining up; this is going to be an approval. I’m not saying that <br />this thing is still unknown <br />in this case; . <br />Paul - it’s worth pointing out that the burden of proof is on the Applicant; it is not on the <br />opponent (to the development). <br />Nick - Right. The (City’s) assessment involves looking at what they (the Applicant) <br />provided and looking at the referral comments that come in. <br />Meeting ended approximately at 10:10 AM. <br />Meeting minutes submitted by Cathy Johnson & Susan Hoffman, CHPUD Response Team. <br /> <br />