14 <br />"There is a nexus between the requirement to dedicate 22.5 feet of <br />right-of-way west of the drive aisle and 13 feet east of the drive <br />aisle and the public interest at issue. The 22.5 feet of right-of-way <br />will result in one-half of the 45 feet of right-of-way which is <br />necessary to construct Oakleigh Lane to the City's minimum street <br />design standards which have been established for a low-volume <br />street. * * * Because 45 feet of right-of way is the minimum <br />amount of right-of-way necessary to construct Oakleigh Lane in <br />this manner as a low-volume street, * * * the public interest in safe <br />vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle travel and emergency response <br />and access will be at risk if the 22.5 and 13 foot strips of right-of- <br />way are not dedicated. <br /> <br />"Without the additional right-of-way, Oakleigh Lane cannot be <br />improved to the City's minimum street design standards and the <br />164 new vehicle trips per day generated by the proposed <br />development, along with the additional pedestrian and bicycle <br />traffic generated by the proposed development, will not be assured <br />of safe access via Oakleigh Lane. This is the last opportunity that <br />the City will have to require the dedication of the right-of-way <br />prior to the City needing the right-of-way for street construction." <br />Local Rec. 41-42. <br />Petitioners read this language as a requirement that Oakleigh Lane must be <br />"improved" to the minimum width prior to approval of the proposed PUD in <br />order to ensure a safe road system. <br />The Planning Commission made clear, however, that the findings support <br />no such requirement: <br />"The PC finds that the constitutional findings in the Public Works <br />referral comments are limited to justification for a proportional <br />right-of-way exaction along the frontage of the subject property <br />that would accommodate future public street improvements. The <br />constitutional findings address a future need for street <br />improvements abutting the property, rather than any immediate <br />need, based on safety issues or otherwise, associated with the <br />proposed PLM. The PC concludes that no additional right-of-way <br />