Planning commission approves 29-unit Oaktree Terrace PUD with required sight‑distance fixes

The Oregon City Planning Commission on the evening of the meeting approved preliminary planned unit development PD00‑01, a 29‑unit proposal at 16281 South Oaktree Terrace, with conditions requiring technical approvals for off‑site sight‑distance improvements before building permits are issued. Commissioner Bailey moved approval; the motion passed unanimously.

Staff planner Miss Collins told the commission the 8.35‑acre site spans two tax lots and that staff recommended approval contingent on 24 conditions, and proposed adding a condition (No. 24) requiring the applicant to submit evidence that schools, fire and police services have adequate capacity to serve the project. The staff report also amended a street‑design finding to state that planter strips are impracticable because of trees in the open‑space tracts.

Applicant engineer Brad Schleining (W.B. Wells & Associates), representing developer Lowell Whitkey, described design changes that pull development away from the steepest slopes, narrow the local street to 20 feet curb‑to‑curb with a sidewalk on one side, establish conservation easements over very steep terrain, and replace large stormwater swales with a mechanical filtration device (a so‑called storm "scepter") to treat runoff. Schleining described retaining walls built of interlocking concrete block up to about 15 feet high where necessary and said much of the site will remain in a natural condition.

Neighbors who live on or near Oaktree Terrace told the commission they opposed the project because of traffic and safety risks at the intersection of Oaktree Terrace and Holcomb Boulevard. Ralph Kiefer, chair of the Park Place Neighborhood Association Land Use Committee, said the neighborhood voted to oppose the application and presented photographs showing restricted sight lines at the Holcomb approach. "If we're gonna add maybe another 60 children down the end of this lane," Kiefer said, "…that's another whole consideration." Todd Erickson, who lives at 16261 South Oaktree Terrace, described near‑misses when pulling onto Holcomb, and Dan Rinders, another nearby resident, said the road has no sidewalks and that adding 29 homes would introduce dozens of additional vehicles and schoolchildren to the area.

Traffic consultant Brent Aaron (identified in the record also as Brent Ahern) told the commission that his sight‑distance analysis found vegetation and a vertical curve on Holcomb are the principal constraints and that, while five years of accident data showed no reported crashes at the intersection, the current alignment does not meet sight‑distance standards in places. Aaron said solutions could range from vegetation removal and signing to more extensive regrading; he recommended working with Clackamas County and city staff to define acceptable improvements.

Commissioners focused their deliberations on condition No. 16 in the staff report, which requires the applicant to obtain Oregon City and Clackamas County approval of proposed sight‑distance improvements at the Oaktree/ Holcomb intersection. City counsel and staff emphasized that the burden of proof for meeting applicable standards rests with the applicant and that the condition can be enforced so that building permits will not issue until technical approvals are in place. Commissioner Bailey said the revised proposal was "200% better" than an earlier plan but acknowledged the need to be sure sight distances can be met.

Commissioner Bailey moved approval of PD00‑01 with staff conditions as amended; a fellow commissioner seconded. The commission voted "aye" unanimously and approved the preliminary PUD. The chair announced an appeal period and provided a contact phone number for appeal information.

What happens next: the approval is preliminary and subject to the listed conditions; staff and the applicant must demonstrate and obtain the required technical approvals for sight‑distance improvements from Oregon City and Clackamas County before final permits or construction proceeds. An appeal period for the decision was announced at the meeting.