The Oregon City Planning Commission voted 4‑0 to approve TP0604 and VR0605, a proposal by ICON Construction and applicant representative SFA Design Group to subdivide 3.08 acres on the south side of Pease Road into 13 lots and to grant a variance allowing a cul‑de‑sac longer than the 350‑foot maximum in city code.

Staff recommended approval, saying the proposed cul‑de‑sac would be measured at about 380 feet—roughly 30 feet longer than the city standard—and that the length was necessitated by existing development patterns and topography. Staff noted the Clackamas County Fire District had given preliminary approval to the proposed cul‑de‑sac design. "The variance is the minimum that would alleviate the hardship," staff said, adding the applicant would provide a pedestrian access way (Tract A) from the cul‑de‑sac to Pease Road and would submit final design and construction plans for engineering review.

Why it matters: the variance allows infill development that otherwise would produce lots with constrained building envelopes and very narrow street frontages, while conditions attached to approval are intended to limit impacts on neighbors and trees.

Key details: the application retains three existing homes on the parcels and creates 10 new lots; the site is zoned R‑8 (single‑family) and is not within a water‑resource overlay. The applicant supplied a narrative, geotechnical report, traffic letter and stormwater report as exhibits. The staff report recommended conditions including: revision of a residual sentence in condition 17, an arborist‑prepared tree protection and alternate construction/landscaping plan to preserve trees within the Tract A pedestrian accessway (condition 18), allowance for a curb‑tight sidewalk to save Parkway trees (condition 12 as amended), and a new condition requiring a minimum 20‑foot nonvehicular access strip/easement for future development of Tax Lot 19056.

Public comment and applicant response: adjacent owner Don Bunyard (19056 S. Pease Road) supported the subdivision generally but said he was concerned about the pedestrian access path adjacent to his backyard, potential tree removal and the maintenance burden it could impose. He asked for a fence along his property line. Applicant Matt Sprague (SFA Design Group) and Mark Anderson (ICON Construction) said they would work with staff and the neighbor and that they would consider a fence or other measures if an arborist recommended tree removal for safety; they also said the proposed tract could be dedicated or conveyed by easement and managed as a nonvehicular access until future development of the abutting parcel.

Commission discussion focused on preserving tree health and on ensuring the long‑term ability to access the adjacent, rear tax lot. Commissioners and staff agreed to modified conditions that allow engineering flexibility to protect trees, add the 20‑foot access strip condition, and delete an erroneous sentence in the staff report.

Outcome and next steps: Motion to approve TP0604 and VR0605 as amended passed 4‑0. The approval is subject to the recorded conditions of approval (including the arborist tree protection plan and pedestrian accessway design), final engineering review and submittal of required plans.