1. Right-of-way :13 <br />a. Adequate right-of-way to allow for the paving, parking (where allowed), <br />curb and sidewalk, as required in (2) through (5) below (i.e., at least 25 or 26 <br />feet wide). <br />2. Paving width, either: <br />a. 20 feet wide for two 10-foot travel lanes and no parking; or <br />b. 21 feet wide for a 14-foot travel lane and a 7-foot parking/pullout lane with <br />designated pullout spaces no further than 100 feet apart and adequate to <br />allow an emergency vehicle to pass by an oncoming vehicle. <br />3. Parking: <br />a. All areas with parking are striped, and all areas with parking restrictions are <br />signed and enforced. <br />b. Where the right-of-way is at least 33 feet, on-street parking may be allowed <br />provided there is a paved, striped and signed 7-foot parking lane between <br />the curb and a travel lane at least 20 feet wide. <br />c. Where the paving is configured as in 2.b., above, parking may be allowed in <br />the 7-foot parking/pullout lane, except for the designated pullout spaces, <br />driveways and around the fire hydrant or other obstructions. <br />d. Except as allowed in 3.b. and 3.c, on-street parking is prohibited. <br />4. Curb: <br />a. A continuous, "mountable" curb between the paving and sidewalk at least <br />one foot wide and approved by the Eugene Fire Marshal for allowing <br />emergency use by fire trucks. (See example in Exhibit H.) <br />5. Sidewalk: <br />a. A continuous sidewalk on one side at least 5 feet wide. <br />6. City Council approval of alternatives: <br />a. In a manner similar to the Council resolutions related to Crest Drive, the City <br />Council may adopt findings and specific exceptions to the above <br />requirements for Oakleigh Lane. <br />The City Attorney should provide appropriate language to ensure these conditions are met <br />prior to any development on the proposed PUD site. <br />IMPOSITION OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IS NOT A "TAKING" <br />As the City Attorney will (hopefully) clarify for the commissioners, approving the proposed <br />PUD with the necessary conditions described above is legal and does not require <br />"Nolan/Dolan" findings of necessity and proportionality. Imposing these conditions would not <br />represent a so-called "taking" in any way. <br />The conditions do not require the applicant to acquire right-of-way or pay for <br />improvements. The Planning Commission may not legally choose to treat such proposed <br />13 Note that the segment of Oakleigh Lane between River Road and the 250-foot, narrow segment has a <br />right-of-way that is at least 32 feet wide. <br />Conte Appeal Testimony PDT 13-1 Page 18 April 12, 2017 <br />