checked the box and that’s how they wrote their narrative. We’re not considering the needed <br />housing argument, but that might be a separate argument that comes up in appeal, if there is one. <br />Faris - So the South Hills Study only applies to a portion? <br />Nick - Yes. About half of it. <br />Faris- A significant portion. <br />Nick - Yes. <br />22. (49:10)Could you explain the City's thinking about (proposed) lot 33, which has three <br />rented dwelling units under 1 roof in a remodeled former garage? (The existing 3-unit apt. <br />building and an adjacent single-family house are currently on one tax lot. All 4 units are <br />rentals. The Application proposes to split the existing tax lot into two tax lots…Lot 20 with <br />the house and Lot 33 with the 3 unit apt. building.) Both proposedlots are within the <br />Fairmount Neighborhood, zoned R-1. Is there a requirement that an owner must reside on <br />the property? <br />Faris - There is an existing 3-unit apartment building (within the project boundaries) as our <br />question indicates. <br />Nick - Is that one in Fairmount? <br />Faris - Yes. It is in Fairmount according to their plan. <br />Nick - We’d have to research it and figure out, was it established legally and does it qualify? <br />Faris - It (the 3 unit apt. building) was built when the adjacent house was owner-occupied. Since <br />the Dreyer’s purchased that property (in approx. 2013), both the house and the 3-unit apt. building <br />have become rentals, with no owner living in either property The Fairmount Neighbors do not <br />allow rentals unless the owner also lives on the property. <br />Nick - We’d have to research it. I don’t know how it was established; how it was qualified. If <br />something is illegal, this is the time to bring it into conformance. It’s a good question. So you think <br />the issue is – when it was established, the owner had to live on the property? <br />Faris - Yes. <br />Faris - Massoud…do you have any additional questions? <br />(52:32) Massoud – In the Applicant’s Traffic Safety Analysis, they (Branch Engineering) have <br />pointed out why narrow streets are good and beneficial. But they have not said anything about the <br />dis-advantages of them…those should be brought up too. They are not using the correct trip <br />generation standard for traffic count. I don’t know of any jurisdiction that would accept a <br />situation like this. What they call a “traffic safety analysis” is lacking in many, many places. <br />That’s because it wasn’t done by a Traffic Engineer. <br />Faris - That affects 9.8670 (Traffic Impact Analysis Review – Applicability) <br />Massoud: At some point, I’d like to hear the comments and feedback of the City’s Traffic Engineer. <br />Three Additional Questions: <br />54:30) Regarding EC 9.8320 Criteria #11 – off-site impacts. On page 61 of 67 in the written <br />( <br />Application, Applicant does not seem to directly address any specifics beyond the internal <br />area of the PUD itself. Applicant asserts: “This criterion has consistently been interpreted <br />and is here interpreted to address offsite impacts of the proposed use.” <br />Nate - In EC <br />9.8320, # 11, Offsite Impacts - When it says no minimal off-site impacts, what is the distance <br />beyond the boundary of the PUD that is considered off-site? The access to get to this (property) <br />begins necessarily at the Fairmount/Spring intersection. <br />Nick - You’re talking from a traffic standpoint? <br /> <br />