"[Condition] 3. Prior to final PUD approval, the applicant shall revise the final site plan <br />to show the dedication of 22.5 feet of right-of-way along the northerly boundary of the <br />development, between the westerly boundary of the proposed development and a line <br />that is 50 feet east of the westerly boundary, and also to show the dedication of 13 feet of <br />right-of-way extending from the aforementioned line (the east end of the required 22.5 <br />feet of right-of-way dedication) to a line that is 117 feet beyond (east of) the existing the <br />existing [sic] right-of-way (for a total length of 199 feet). Additionally, the revised site <br />plan shall show the dedication of a 13-foot wide Public Accessway along the northerly <br />boundary, which extends from the east end of the aforementioned right-of-way to the <br />easterly property boundary (for a total distance of 24 lineal feet)." D-3 at 63. <br />Added to Oakleigh Lane's existing 20-foot right-of-way, the required 22.5 right-of-way <br />dedication would result in a 42.5 right-of-way. <br />Neither the applicant nor the City have provided any specific evidence or analysis that <br />the missing 2.5 feet is unnecessary or that an additional 2.5 feet of right-of-way can be, or ever <br />will be, obtained. Of course, it may be possible to obtain this additional right-of-way, either by a <br />wider dedication from the applicant10, a future private or public purchase or condemnation by <br />the City; and I don't argue that a 45-foot right-of-way isn't feasible. <br />But the law requires that conditions of approval must guarantee that a mandatory <br />approval criteria will be met before the development occurs or at the time of development. <br />Condition #3 does not ensure that Oakleigh Lane will ever have the 45-foot right-of-way <br />necessary - by the City's own analysis - to be consistent with the mandatory approval criteria <br />set forth in EC 9.8320(5) and EC 9.8320(5)(a). <br />"A local government may find compliance with approval criteria by finding that <br />the proposed means to achieve compliance is feasible, and imposing conditions of <br />approval to ensure that the criteria are met." Stockwell v. Benton County, 38 Or LUBA <br />621 (2000). (Emphasis added) <br />With respect to the Oakleigh Lane right-of-way along the 50-foot frontage of the subject <br />property, there's a simple and necessary way that the Planning Commission must address the <br />application's compliance with EC 9.8320(5). As a prerequisite to approving the application, the <br />Planning Commission must include the following in their decision: <br />a. A finding that it is feasible (e.g., by purchase or condemnation) to create a 45-foot right <br />away along the 50-foot frontage of the subject property; and <br />b. A condition that, prior to final PUD approval, the applicant must show on final plat <br />documents a 45-foot wide right-of-way along the 50-foot segment of Oakleigh Lane <br />adjacent to the subject property, dedicated to the City of Eugene or Lane County.11 <br />70 From the applicant's plans, it would seem quite feasible for them to dedicate a 25-foot right-of-way, but that would be entirely up <br />to the applicant and is not something I'm seeking or that the City can require. <br />11 On page 3 of Butte Conservancy v. City of Gresham, in Attachment C, you can read the virtually identical condition of approval that <br />LUBA approved when the City of Gresham dealt with a similar right-of-way situation. Note that this condition does not require <br />the applicant to dedicate anything. <br />1 0 <br />Trautman Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 13 July 27, 2015 <br />205 <br />