ER-38 <br />1 c. CuI de Sac Standards <br />2 EC 9.6820(3) prohibits a cul de sac more than 400 feet long. An <br />3 exception to the 400-foot maximum length is available where "buildings or <br />4 other existing development on the subject property or adjacent lands, including <br />5 subdivided but vacant lots or parcels, physically preclude connection now or in <br />6 the future, considering the potential for redevelopment." EC 9.6820(5)(b). We <br />7 understand Conte to argue that there is not substantial evidence in the record to <br />8 support an exception to the cul de sac length standards when it fails to require <br />9 the possible future hammerhead turnaround to be built when the PUD develops. <br />10 According to Conte, Oakleigh Lane was not entitled to an exception, and in any <br />11 event, the cul de sac bulb should be constructed when the PUD is constructed. <br />12 Conte Petition for Review 18, 36-37. <br />13 Meadows responds that the city properly determined that an exception to <br />14 the cul de sac length was justified because the evidence in the record <br />15 demonstrates that future connecting streets are precluded due to existing <br />16 development to the north and south, between Hilliard Lane to the north and <br />17 McClure Lane to the south. We agree with Meadows that the exception was <br />18 justified. For the reasons explained above, we also agree with Meadows that <br />19 the city did not err in allowing future street improvements to be secured by an <br />20 irrevocable petition for improvements signed by Meadows. <br />21 d. Constitutionality of the Future Hammerhead <br />22 Turnaround <br />23 EC 9.8320(5)(a) requires compliance with EC 9.6815(2)(d), which <br />24 requires secondary access for fire and emergency vehicles "consistent with EC <br />25, 9.6870." However, EC 9.6815(2)(8)(1) allows an exception to the secondary <br />Page 38 <br />000087 <br />