7-28-15 Trautman Public Comment (03)

dedications in place. The LUBA approach doesn't run afoul of Nolan/Dolan constitutional requirements because the conditions don't require any specific exaction from the owner of the development property. 7. With respect to EC 9.8320(12), the Hearings Official must take into consideration the findings discussed under section (6) and their implications. If the necessary condition of approval required Oakleigh Lane to be widened to the 45' right-of-way necessary to safely and efficiently handle the projected traffic, and that condition were subsequently met, then it is undeniable that the proposed development would cause huge off-site impacts by "takings" of current residents' property for the wider right- of-way. Thus, it is impossible for the proposed PUD to meet both the approval criteria related to safe and efficient handling of traffic and the criterion of "minimal off-site impacts." This argument is not some clever attempt at a "gotcha." It simply reflects reality in this particular case - the number of dwelling units proposed for this PUD will generate additional traffic that cannot safely and efficiently be handled with minimal off-site impacts to residents along a narrow, dead-end, substandard access lane.' Ultimately, this particular development site is in a location where only a limited number of dwellings (fewer than proposed) can be developed and meet the letter and intent of the City's PUD approval criteria. Submitted by, Paul Conte October 16, 2013 1 This sort of conflict doesn't arise in most PUD applications. As an example, consider that if the proposed PUD site were one lot in from River Road, instead of at the very end of Oakleigh Lane, there would not be the irresolvable conflictbetween the requirements of the traffic-related approval criteria and the "minimal off-site impacts" criterion. October 16, 2013 Conte supplemental testimony re PUD 13-1 9 1 Page 456