standards for maximum cul-de-sac length, the PC resolves this conflict in favor of granting the <br />exception. <br />The PC finds that the constitutional findings in the Public Works referral comments are limited to <br />justification for a proportional right-of-way exaction along the frontage of the subject property that <br />would accommodate future public street improvements. The constitutional findings address a future <br />need for street improvements abutting the property, rather than any immediate need, based on safety <br />issues or otherwise, associated with the proposed PUD. The PC concludes that no additional right-of- <br />way dedication is necessary to meet the approval criteria. Based on these findings, the pedestrian, <br />bicycle and transit circulation requirements of EC 9.8320(5)(b) are met. <br />With regard to TIA requirements, the PC finds that the HO did not err in his conclusion that none of the <br />TIA applicability provisions required a TIA. Based on the previous findings that the Public Works referral <br />comments are limited in scope, the PC concludes that there is nothing in the record to require a TIA. <br />Based on these findings, PC finds that the HO was correct in determining compliance with EC <br />9.8320(5). The HO findings on page 18-29 are hereby incorporated by reference as further evidence of <br />compliance with the applicable criteria appealed under this assignment of error. To provide clarity on <br />the basis for the cul-de-sac length exception, the PC modifies the HO decision to include the additional <br />findings provided above. <br />Third Assignment of Error. The Decision erred by finding the application met EC 9.8320(6) <br />"The PUD will not be a significant risk to public health and safety, including but not limited to <br />soil erosion, slope failure, stormwater and flood hazard, or an impediment to emergency <br />response." <br />A. Sub-assignment of Error 3.A: the Decision erroneously found that the PUD would not be a <br />significant risk to public safety. <br />8. Sub-assignment of Error 3.8: the Hearings Official provided no evaluation of PWD's own <br />analysis that Oakleigh Lane would be an impediment to emergency response unless the <br />right-of-way was widened and the road improved. <br />Based on the previous determination under the second assignment of error about the limited scope of <br />the PW constitutional findings for right-of-way exaction, the PC finds no basis in the record to require <br />additional right-of-way dedication. The PC concludes that the HO's conditions for right-of-way <br />dedications and irrevocable petitions address a future need for street improvements, rather than any <br />immediate need associated with the proposed PUD. With regard to soil erosion, slope failure, and <br />flood hazard, the HO findings on page 29-31 are hereby incorporated by reference as further evidence <br />of compliance with the applicable criteria appealed under this assignment of error. <br />With regard to the provision of emergency vehicle response, the applicant asserts that the proposed <br />access on Oakleigh Lane and hammerhead turnaround within the development site is sufficient for the <br />proposed development. Referral comments from Public Works staff indicate that this on-site <br />turnaround must provide for emergency vehicle access by being within a temporary emergency access <br />easement. The proposed turnaround area meets the dimension requirements for a hammerhead. <br />Final Order: Oakleigh Meadows Co-Housing PUD (PDT 13-1) Page 5 <br />