HomeMy WebLinkAboutG-500 Krebs 07-10-2023 City of Lake Oswego Planning Department
380 A Avenue
Lake Oswego, OR 97034
503-635-0290
Written Comments to be submitted by email to planning coordinator at:
EDavis@lakeoswego.city or planning@lakeoswego.city
From: Carolyn Krebs, cmkrebsnw@msn.com
The following are comments submitted for LU 23-0002, after receiving a "Request for Comments on Land
Use Application" sent to Lake Forest NA from Cristina Siquina Calderon on June 23, 2023. These
comments are submitted before the deadline of noon July 10, 2023, per the notice.
The subject application is for a "Request for a RP District delineation, Unavoidable RP Crossing, and Serial
Lot Line Adjustments."
I have reviewed the RP District delineation and found it to be understandable.
I have also reviewed the engineering and planning notes provided at the City's preapplication
conference(s)that serve as an outline for the applicant to follow to achieve their objectives for the
application. Specifically, the engineering notes were for PA 21-0120, in a memo from Todd Knepper to
Ellen Davis dated Dec. 23, 2021 and first follow up preapplication conference notes dated Jun 27, 2022
prepared by Ellen Davis.
There are several issues that are important in the Lake Forest neighborhood - natural resources, in
particular trees and wetlands, pathway connections, and compatibility of new development with
neighborhood characteristics and features.
First, I'd like to address the "Unavoidable RP Crossing." As I understand it, City Engineer Todd Knepper
advised the applicant that:
"Any new homes shall be connected to the City's public sewer system. Following the City's wastewater
master plan, the nearest public sewer that is available is located within Waluga Park approximately 525'
east of Inverurie Road. A public sewer extension would be required through the park and along Baleine
Street and South along Kimball Street to the southern boundary of Tax lot 2902. The applicant submitted
a preliminary plan and profile with the annexation application showing a public sewer extension is
feasible and can be constructed to the upstream boundary of the Tax lot 2902 according to the city's
wastewater master plan. Staff notes that the preliminary plan also shows the sewer extension beyond tax
slot 2902 in order to demonstrate feasibility for further extension beyond the subject property;however
the public mainline extension will be required to be extended to the upstream boundary of each property
prior to connection of a home on each lot, or the development site if a future partition is approved."
The engineering notes did not address the fact that this sewer extension created the RP crossing. The
code requirements for that were provided to the applicant by Ellen Davis:
"Standards Applicable to RP Districts(LOC 50.05.010.6): Per LOC 50.05.010.6.c, public or private utilities
shall not be placed within an RP district unless tunneling under a resource will not cause any adverse
effect upon the resource and the functions and values of a resource will be maintained, or there is no
other practicable alternative. Per LOC 50.10.003 Definitions- practicable is defined as capable of being
done after considering and balancing cost, existing technology, and logistics, in light of overall project
purposes.
Step#1 Avoidance. Sanitary sewer,water, power, gas, cable, telecommunications, and storm drain lines
shall be maintained in public rights-of-way and are routed around significant resources rather than
through a resource whenever possible except after tunneling under resource shall be permitted where
tunneling will not cause any adverse effect on the resource or tree roots, and the functions and values of
resource will be maintained.This must be evaluated by a resource professional. If development within
the RP district cannot be avoided, impacts must be minimized, and mitigation is required pursuant to
LOC 50.05.010.4 g."
It is not clear that there isn't a reasonable, practicable alternative to this very long sewer extension
through the wetland resource, and that the crossing could be avoided.
The following was taken from LO Maps to show the existing sewer lines in the vicinity of the project area.
While it's not possible to know from this map if the elevations are compatible with sewer extension, I
would like to know that other routings were first considered before determining that crossing the RP
district was unavoidable in the manner proposed. Were routes from Tara Place or Allison Place within
public easements not possible? Also, it is hard to understand that a sewer line through a park resource
(West Waluga Park and open space from Windfield Estates) is practicable when compared to a public
right-of-way. It's fair to point out that a shorter alternative route would be expected to be considerably
less expensive, and hence more practicable, for the purposes of this project.
•{• .. I .• 1114. . f :..
47-01---!...-04447--:• l I
• 1 III•• 1 Ili:' I CO •
u
1 H t . . ` `I l +3 no s SM-10453#11
I.t11�«»_tee a n1..4539
`.Lip...l. ..11°14 7� •.1 �N,tot i �g
•4.IH00100 I T v
Fc
71 fr
�.I IH;"- Sh.f-I..a . ....
�' � tat1104 . °• S .. �-t
T ZOB41f `faltr� 11f ?
1 / I
FII
•
:,I. ■.-.,' 4FH{..1 . .1 •f nit•I
_.._. _.� `•f 1 111, . ZOB `-4.IUI..1
.•f IH•.1p 1-12 - - -
When considering the required mitigation proposed by the applicant, the development area is
substantially impacted. The following figure was clipped from the "Baleine Street Sewerline Installation
Resource Impacts and Mitigation" report (Shawn Eisner, Pacific Habitat Services, Inc.) submitted with the
application materials. The diagram shows substantial PRA and Wetland Mitigation on TL 03000 and to a
lesser extent on TL 02902. These are the lots subject to the serial partitions for 5 lots.
TL 01B00 --- -- ` I \ 1
—ems Wetland A Continues Beyond Study Area Wetland B Continues Beyond Study Area e
- SW BALELINE STREET(Unimprov-•) :. :00•00• 1"X•1M°1°� r' 'exeelexlx-•xeerlr •.. ..^"'
e: a T� __ Y Trull i a e Co
• 0
a°• • ° • tgf +elr l`11�
• e •, • no 3000,* ••y itiiYrir."(;:£::ti;'::r.::Si;r.';;g r::r+{.: Yr"/ 1
• • EJCA e
: ..•Q xI• • • ....1
Wetland B TL 02209
_s -- Wnra Continr esWBeyond Sutly Area Wetland A
N, 17: • •$ (25,095 sl/0.58 ae)wr TL 02901 TL 02901 - TL 0200------
i I • • • TL0300 ------ re
WI
• •
d'
1 • •• ♦ ♦ K r LEGEND
I I t
II • r --________
I I : d• •
• Ti_n n -- 2aIm Study Area Boundary
•
II • ` Wetland
• _-- ------ —--— Tax Lot Line
----_—, -- — — — Protected Riparian Area(PRA)
- PRA Mitgatron
(Indudrng PR Expansion on Lot 100)
(22,588 sf 0 52 ac)
® Wetland e1/078 Mitgabon
(34.102 act
Limns of Construction
Existing Contour
The following drawing was clipped from Exhibit 4, Site Plan from the applicant's submission. It is hard to
determine how development on the lots will be configured to comply with the required mitigation
(especially lots 3 and 4). How exactly will future development(i.e.,future residents) be required to
fulfill the code obligations with respect to mitigation?
„. (9 Ge®•-, —t--ems-”" !
Of
' Sjg
9ri-ffigi,>,A x.s_iiw.i.>.,_. 0
di(mi imp.
u «.
r5 1 ens 1—I a Lea ens r � r.ot+�n,o NMI/MU moon u` y ,i ,i
OM
1 J
u.24:- cT I - r u IN
LOT 2
4' •A ' r:VrE j 1,ti...u°c°I `�'sr rays' 11 I i I �-J/ �.nLOT.:7 '- n o' ''"- i.,
o in.. fi „a
4,172 . ,a-- r.r: y A tM
�� sa�� ® n. !,{�,.E�7t ,AAA
1E.a no Sri\ •„ 0- ♦`•:.�: :7.• !!::.! ,.,,•,. -1 ., .25' ® ,n r
-mil —- ._I -7 r 1-- lit --� �C
-A rira •, Qi i a 1 Las iD3* ---
v 'q1,,,I' N - .. ...... ::; ,.. oY.: '::�...,.. :. xn. Ill .�` �sik ��
l � a our.maw f' t,y.r,, 1 1 I
E.sT ,y'mass.u,un E.sEYO1i J "f'' .NM�.`N-e-?r--'` LI •
qi ne n=!OW&9QAMA \ .��CI——L11a'OYD.E Mel.M111n.O1 I::,. -- A
[nsrL.c Y uIOSGV[E.41pT 1 �J ` % �(�
I2 I I 0 LOT. �j C`
I 11J �1Lo.T
n,ns Si�rl I
______
4, l'. I I O
_,I I '� h _
, ,_
47
10 . _
I L'lsll•C n'sass•.uLUn uYLLdr
0.
'�� Q- _iTw.1�.. -
J
1---i 1
�^
'ma's. I 'ill
I >r 5
Q. I
l-if
` Q �„ ' ®04.44, I — -
rt
lb
fl (�
I e Yo ®n. I MO lf—
I 4 1 4
1 1 - - - I _- -- -----
Tree Impacts
The applicant states that 46 trees need to be removed for the sewer extension and for access (including
utilities)from Kimball. 47 trees will be provided as mitigation (7 deciduous and 40 conifer). I have
reviewed Exhibit 12,Tree Inventory Table, and there is no designation on this table for location of the
tagged trees. If I look very closely, I can determine a few of the tree tag numbers on Exhibit 4, however
Exhibit 12 map (tree protection plan) is completely illegible. The applicant needs to provide more
information on which trees are subject to Type II tree permitting—by amending their tree inventory
table to provide property location and by providing clearer maps showing the location of the trees.
There is currently no way to independently assess the impact of the tree removal planned for the sewer
extension east of Inverurie,through open space and in West Waluga Park. As the City has access to
other tools, I would ask the City to independently determine if the skyline will be impacted in West
Waluga Park or in the open space area that borders residents on Yorkshire Place. The applicant's
narrative is insufficient to make the case for Type II tree removal. Also, notification and signage required
for Type II tree removal needs to occur before the permit can be further assessed.
I take particular issue with applicant's comments (page 34-35 of their June 22, 2023 statement):
"...None of these trees are distinctive features in the neighborhood as they are common in the area. A
majority of the property and neighborhood has mature Oregon Ash and Oregon White Oaks. The
proposed trees for removal are not the last trees on the property.There are multiple large tree species
on the property.
The removal of the proposed trees will not alter distinctive features or neighborhood skyline. There are
multiple large tree species surrounding the trees proposed for removal.
...There are 344 trees in total on the site and in the project area in the neighboring park (Waluga Park—
West). There are 46 trees proposed for removal which means only 13%of the stand is proposed for
removal."
The applicant does not account for future tree removal on the 5 partitioned lots. It is misleading to
suggest that 13%is in any way a meaningful statistic due to subsequent tree removal for future
development of homes on the site—regardless of whether that is being addressed in this application.
The applicant's comments continue:
"The applicant is requesting an exception to removal of the 46 trees per exception b above.Alternatives
for the installation of the sanitary sewer main have been considered. Originally,the design was for
boring instead of open excavation. Unfortunately, with the lack of slope possible with the sewer main
and heavy concentration of rocks in the area, boring is not an option.The sewer extension alignment
was designed to have the least impact on trees.The alternative to removing all of the trees would be not
construct the sewer extension.This alternative is not possible as a sewer extension is being required by
the city."
Exception b states: "Alternatives to the tree removal have been considered and no reasonable
alternative exists to allow the property to be used as permitted in the zone. In making this
determination, the City may consider alternative site plans and placement of structures (development
purpose) or alternate landscaping designs (outgrown landscape area, landscape plan) that would lesson
the impact on the trees, so long as the alternative continue to comply with other provisions of the Lake
Oswego Code."
There is no evidence that alternatives were considered except that the applicant says they were. More
evidence should be required before accepting the applicant's argument here. As previously stated,the
applicant has not made the case for the Type II tree removal. Further,the applicant's comments warrant
assessment of alternatives to this particular sewer extension route as previously discussed in my
comments.
Request Neighborhood Meeting
I strongly request a neighborhood meeting be conducted to discuss this proposal prior to the application
being deemed "complete." This is consistent with the preapplication notes that say: "A neighborhood
meeting is not required, but it is strongly recommended that you speak to your neighbors about your
project."
Request Consideration for Baleine Pathway
The neighborhood makes extensive use of an unimproved pathway on Baleine from Inverurie Road to
Kimball Street. I wasn't able to find specific reference to a future pathway after the development
although the engineering report made the following reference:
"Baleine Street
As noted above, access to Baleine Street will not be allowed unless the street frontage is paved and
constructed per the City's public street standards. In this case,the public street would not be allowed to
be gravel. If any street improvements are constructed along Baliene Street the existing gravel road from
the West boundary of 5787 Baleine Street would need to be replaced with pavement, and stormwater
management would need to be provided for the replaced impervious area. If no additional lots are
created as a result of this development,then no right-of-way dedication or street improvements to
Baleine Street would be required as a condition of approval. In addition, staff would not recommend the
street be connected from Kimball St. to Inverurie Rd at this time; however, staff would support a
pedestrian connection if proposed. "
This pedestrian connection is very important to residents, and it is included in the Lake Forest
Neighborhood Plan (see Figure 5).This pathway provides an east-west connection between the
neighborhood and Waluga Park. Since additional lots are being created, what exactly is the expectation
for Baleine after the development? As this is a wetland, it seems reasonable that a boardwalk
connection between Kimball and Inverurie can be constructed as a condition of approval consistent
with the delineated wetland resource and the proposed off-street pathway present in the neighborhood
plan.
LAKE FOREST e�s..y`"'.'.,` r"'nw"►com.rncxt
n.Pafwnq d.a�rad-tact
NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN Pr000,.as.erw.lr l�u'�,r���a..rrn..a
EXISTING AND PLANNED l Arta To Wtdr
% PEDESTRIAN FAGUT>ES W.W. Palms, 1 Naghbothnod
arxav"ic �aJ CrS>rw Plan APP
lows
.rowiA-or FIGURE 5 '«"""" Pn'p, ••.,,a'W. •a•. D.•0..r...a
YfRIQS ' FEWUAAY 29Q2 11,` Py'lurn' ..w..4......,.led;ti rrr..s •laN
.'�tiM aY d.I t Ara'
‘r :L______XL--___, N ,E.a,
J?'
Wr M
. , , 1 t.. P-r-7""TT-r-r-*..._r.„--f--f-----....f.:, ...„
'N.. . ;
r
Sil**.'' \ .
l
. .../ i\fitc. El % UGA . 14
1--4j:. It. ...--
_/.. r
8 rrla o e a—
II wadj IN � VT