a. Deny the application. This would allow the applicant to resubmit an application with <br />additional analysis and argument addressing the true conditions on Oakleigh Lane. The <br />applicant might even be successful in purchasing additional easements that would <br />remove some or all of the concerns. <br />b. Alternately, the Planning Commission could require that Oakleigh Lane at the very <br />minimum meet conditions of unobstructed right-of-way and pavement width that the <br />Planning Commission believed were adequate. <br />The commissioners should realize that anything less than this would be legally indefensible and <br />almost certainly result in another remand. <br />(Commissioners should also not overlook the Hearings Official's error in not requiring a 45-foot <br />right-of-way adjacent to the subject property as I covered beginning on page 12 of mu July 27, <br />2015 testimony.) <br />APPLICABLE ADOPTED STREET STANDARDS <br />My July 27, 2015 testimony thoroughly addressed the direct legal requirements stated in <br />EC 9.8320(5) and (6) that Oakleigh Lane must meet the adopted City street standards for right- <br />of-way and pavement width. There is no dispute that Oakleigh Lane would fall within the <br />category of Low Volume Residential street if the proposed PUD were built. For this category of <br />street, EC Table 9.6870 requires a minimum of 45 feet of right-of-way and a 20 foot paving <br />width. <br />The City's "Arterial and Collector Street Plan" provides additional detail, showing that the 20- <br />foot minimum width is appropriate only for a Low Volume Residential street with no parking. <br />(Rec 864) Wider pavement is necessary for streets, such as Oakleigh Lane, on which there is <br />parking. <br />It is incontestable that Oakleigh Lane does not have the required right-of-way or pavement <br />width for its entire length. <br />Oakleigh Lane has more than 250 feet that has only a 20 foot right-of-way, which can be, has <br />been, and likely will be, legally obstructed by cars parked on the north side, outside the <br />pavement. <br />Oakleigh Lane has many numerous places where the pavement is less than 20 feet, and has at <br />least 250 feet on which the paving within the public right-of-way is only 13.7 feet to 15.7 feet <br />wide. Cars can legally park on the pavement that's on private property, thus obstructing its use. <br />It's worth noting that this 250-foot segment of Oakleigh Lane doesn't even meet the adopted <br />city standards for a two-way alley. <br />The applicant's attorney and the Deputy City Attorney have tried to circumvent the standards <br />adopted by City Council using two primary tactics: <br />• Contorting the meaning of EC 9.8320(5) and (6) in such a way that would allow the 800 <br />feet of Oakleigh Lane that is not adjacent to the development property to essentially <br />have no particular requirements for right-of-way or pavement. In their legal view, <br />Trautman Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 7 August 31, 2015 <br />32 <br />