Summary of Appellant's Argument: <br />The appellants assert that the Hearings Official erred by allowing the exception to EC 9.6820 <br />Cul-de-Sacs and Turnarounds by creating a situation where the final portion of Capital Drive <br />remains unimproved (Hearings Official Decision, page 43). The appellant argues that the <br />proposed installation of a barrier at the end of Capital Drive, will cause two existing homes to <br />lose their access to the road thereby creating an unsafe situation, with the lack of emergency <br />access to these homes. They also assert that the Hearings Official erred by allowing this section <br />of Capital Drive to remain unimproved while determining compliance with safe and adequate <br />transportation systems at EC 9.8320(5)(b). <br />Planning Commission's Determination: <br />The Planning Commission disagrees with the appellant's assertion that two existing homes on <br />the west side of Capital Drive will lose their driveway access with the installation of a required <br />traffic barrier. As noted in the staff report (page 27) during the Privately Engineered Public <br />Improvement (PEPI) permitting process, a street end barricade will be required north of any <br />Capital Drive access points and south of Hendricks Park. This means that the barricade would be <br />placed somewhere between the boundary of Hendricks Park and the last driveway access point <br />on Capital Drive. The intent is that vehicular access will be available for the two homes not part <br />of this development, as well as Lots 1 and 2 in the development. <br />Staff notes, "A later site plan revision (June 19, 2017) depicted a hammerhead style turnaround <br />between Lots 1 and 2 and the elimination of the private drive and several lots along the north <br />boundary of the site. The emergency turnaround required extensive grading into the hillside and <br />retaining walls due to the topography of the site. In a subsequent discussion with the Fire <br />Department, it was found that the elimination of the lots and private driveway along the north <br />boundary also eliminated the need for the emergency turnaround. With the resubmitted site <br />plans (August 22, 2017) the emergency turnaround was eliminated" (Staff Report, page 14). <br />Based on the available information in the record, the Planning Commission finds that the <br />Hearings Official did not err with respect to this appeal issue. <br />Appeal Issue #18: EC 9.8320(5)(b) The PUD provides safe and adequate transportation <br />systems. The Hearings Official erred in finding that the CHPUD will provide safe and <br />adequate transportation systems for pedestrians mile) and bikes (2 miles). <br />Final Order: Capital Hill PUD (PDT 17-1) Page 23 <br />