8 <br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />expressly allows an exception to the 400-foot cul-de-sac length restriction <br />where: <br />"Buildings or other existing development on the subject property <br />or adjacent lands, including subdivided but vacant lots or parcels, <br />physically preclude connection now or in the future, considering <br />the potential for redevelopment." <br />As the intervenor concedes, "any future connecting street is precluded due to <br />existing residential development." Brief, p. 8. See also Rec. 1262 ("any <br />connecting street between Oakleigh Lane and East Hilliard Lane or McClure <br />Lane is precluded due to existing residential development.") Accordingly, an <br />exception is warranted under EC 9.6820(5)(b). <br />Notwithstanding its own concession and public works findings, the <br />intervenor now argues that a connection to north is possible across property <br />that is not owned by OMC - based on the OMC's street connectivity plan. <br />Brief, p. 18. However, the connectivity plan depicts two residential lots - 5400 <br />and 2800 - lying north between Oakleigh Lane and E. Hilliard Lane; both of <br />which are developed with homes. Rec. 1443; 1196. This plan supports the <br />exception. <br />The intervenor also argues that this exception does not apply to EC <br />9.6820(1) and (4). However, the City did not grant an exception to either <br />requirement. Instead, it determined that "the cul-de-sac standards at EC <br />9.6820(1) and EC 9.6820(4) are met because the HO conditioned approval upon <br />right-of-way dedication for a future hammerhead turnaround and an access way <br />