43 <br />a matter of law (and therefore the application must be denied). But Conte does <br />2 argue that the City is required to impose conditions of approval to ensure that <br />3 Oakleigh Lane has sufficient right-of-way and improvements for adequate and <br />4 safe use prior to actual development, as required by PUD approval criteria. <br />5 Although the present case has a different focus than in Butte <br />6 Conservancy, LUBA's decision in Butte Conservancy nonetheless shows that <br />7 the City of Eugene was not prevented from adopting similar conditions of <br />8 approval (as the City of Gresham had adoptedg) in order to ensure the Oakleigh <br />9 PUD would conform to the criteria in EC 9.8320(5)(b), (6) and (11)(b). <br />10 In summary, the City erred by dismissing the PWD findings cited supra <br />11 as inapplicable to several approval criteria, and the City erred by assuming that <br />12 constitutional limits on exactions prohibited (or exempted) the City from <br />13 requiring adequate street right-of-way and/or improvements for portions of <br />14 Oakleigh Lane between the development site and River Road to be in place as <br />15 conditions of approval. The Decision must be remanded with instructions to <br />8 The City of Gresham had adopted conditions of approval "requiring that the <br />applicant submit as part of final plat documents: <br />(1) a 20-foot wide right of way or easement across the residential lot within <br />the Kingswood Heights subdivision, dedicated to the county, <br />(2) construction plans for the access, and <br />(3) a county street construction permit." <br />