The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutG-621 Myers, LFNA Chair 12-18-2023 Current Planning Public Comments and Testimony °EOQ� Please fill out the form, below,to submit written comments on a pending land use application or an appeal of a tree removal request.All written comments and materials are due by the deadline listed on the Notice. Written submittals received by the deadline will be entered into the public record of file and will be considered by the decision body. Contact the staff coordinator listed on the Notice if you have questions. Case Number* Please see Notice for correct LU or tree appeal number. LU 23-0002/AP 23-04:A request for an RP District(wetland) Unavoidable Crossing to Install a Sewer Line and Serial Lot Line Adjustments. If you do not see your case here the comment period is not open. Please check back later. Case Number- LU 23-0002/AP 23-04:A request for an RP District(wetland) Unavoidable Crossing Verification* to Install a Sewer Line and Serial Lot Line Adjustments. Please re-select your case number to ensure it routes to the appropriate case. First Name* Kate Last Name* Myers, LFNA Chair Address Street Address 5750 Carman Dr Address Line 2 City State/Province/Region Lake Oswego OR Postal/Zip Code 97035 Email* katemyers2011@gmail.com Stance:* r Support Cr Opposition r Neither for nor against Please type your comments below,or you may upload a PDF of your comments. If you have other media types, please contact planning@lakeoswego.city to coordinate its addition to the public record. Comments Attached is the Lake Forest Neighborhood Association Written Testimony for Continued Hearing LU 23-0002. File Upload LNFA Written Testimony for Continued Hearing LU 6.61 MB 23-0002_Ap 23-04 with Attachments.pdf PDF format only Additional Written Testimony Submittal for Lake Forest Neighborhood Association for Continued Hearing on December 18, 2023 LU 23-0002/AP 23-04: A request for an RP District (wetland) Unavoidable Crossing to Install a Sewer Line and Serial Lot Line Adjustments Lake Forest NA enters the un-redacted memo into the record. (Attachment 13) At the conclusion of the November 20th Hearing, Lake Forest NA requested a continuance to pursue revealing the contents of a memo that had been fully redacted within a public records request. The memo was made available, and we are submitting it now into the record. Should this hearing be continued beyond December 18, Lake Forest NA may submit further written comments that address the contents of this memo as well as others that Lake Forest NA have submitted into the record (Attachments 1-12). In this memo, dated March 30, 2021, Evan Boone (City Attorney, Pro Tem) sent the following to Todd Knepper(Engineering Program Supervisor) and Jessica Numanoglu (Planning Manager): "Question Presented: May a property owner bifurcate a building permit application process on a lot that has a Sensitive Lands Overlay District, in order to avoid the applicability of the Utility Standard (LOC 50.06.008) to bring sewer to the site even though it is more than 300 feet away from the existing sewer main? Answer: Yes. An applicant can first obtain a delineation of the resource (minor development) and then submit a building permit application for construction of a dwelling located outside of the delineated resource. By doing so, review of the dwelling is not subject to the Utility Standard's requirement to bring sewer to the site regardless of distance, but is then only required to extend sewer if required by LOC 38.04.305." Lake Forest NA was unable to locate LOC 38.04.305 so we don't know what it says. Lake Forest NA Response to November 20th DRC Hearing 1 Applicant's Oral Rebuttal statement 2 Questions from Commissioners and the Answers provided by Engineering Director Erica Rooney Lake Forest NA thanks Commissioners for their detailed questions to staff at the end of the November 20th hearing. We are addressing specific answers and comments provided to the DRC by the Applicant and the Engineering Director Erica Rooney. We want to remind the DRC that they were informed that the City Engineering Director was unavailable for the continued hearing on December 18th. We believe that should not have precluded the City of Lake Oswego from providing an alternative staff member with specific engineering expertise from attending this hearing on December 18th to address ongoing questions or concerns. It's reasonable to suggest that the DRC may have additional technical questions. Perhaps the City has reconsidered and provided an alternative staff member to be present to address any additional questions from the DRC. If they do not,we urge you to delay deliberations until all your questions are fully addressed. 1. Applicant's Oral Rebuttal. The applicant says that the north access lane—shown in their application materials—is not part of the application. Further,the applicant says that only the south access lane has been designed for stormwater management and the rest is not part of this application. We maintain that the exhibits presented in the application are in fact part of the application and the DRC must consider our arguments without the assertion that the materials are present in the application for no reason at all. The applicant says that they have met the criteria because they are doing what staff has directed,following the master plan (specifically the Wastewater Master Plan). The Wastewater Master Plan is not listed as land use criteria, but the Sensitive Lands Overlay District is. It's unfortunate that the City has forced the applicant into this situation. However, it is the applicant's burden of proof—even if the City has created an unreasonable circumstance. Commission Chair Randy Arthur asked the applicant about the Covenant that restricts them from pursuing alternatives. The applicant had not read the document and couldn't answer. It is critical that alternatives be considered when addressing the Sensitive Lands Overlay District criteria for avoidance. While it's unfortunate that the City has forced the applicant into this situation, it is the applicant's burden of proof to consider alternatives. They need to be aware of how this covenant provided them with no choice in addressing possible alternatives because the City predetermined the outcome. This violates the Sensitive Lands Overlay District code. 2. Questions from Commissioners and the Answers provided by Engineering Director Erica Rooney. Commissioner Sangrey asked about whether the option to rebuild the existing Baleine sewer to flow downhill to Carman had been considered. The answer was: I don't believe anybody's looked at that. Rooney speculates as to the reason, but it's clear she doesn't know if this is an option. Scope creep, the possibility of impacts to other properties was suggested. But then she said: We have not looked into that. Commissioner Sangrey suggests that the reason is that it is presumed to be prohibitively expensive. Rooney says that is one piece of it, but also because of the master plan. Commissioner Sangrey continued "I was just wondering whether you looked at reversing that short distance of the stub, and you answered that question." Rooney says: No. It's going to be—it's very shallow.The last manhole on Baleine right now is extremely shallow already,so I don't know whether or not we'd be able to get it to reverse the other way. It's very hard to anticipate. Lake Forest is aware that the implementation of the Wastewater Master Plan is far from precise avoiding shallow lines. For example: At 6059 Seville,the owner proposed to do a land division. At the Preapplication Conference with the City, the Engineering notes stated: "A preliminary utility plan will be required to show how the parcels will connect to the public sewer.There is an existing 8" public sanitary sewer main located in Mellon Avenue that terminates approximately 325 feet south of the site. Following the City's Wastewater Master Plan, this development will be required to extend an 8- inch public sanitary sewer line along Mellon Avenue, and the new public main shall be constructed to the north boundary line of the site for a total length of approximately 600 feet. (Note:the depth of the sewer at the end of the line will need to be confirmed in order to see if the main can be extended further north of the site according to the Master Plan)." (Attachment 14, page 3) It is clear to us that sewer depth is not planned precisely or the City would have no need to confirm this. Logically asking the next question,what happens if the property owner at 6059 Seville were not able to confirm that the depth is sufficient to extend the sewer main to the north? This property owner is already expected to extend the sewer line a distance of 600 feet. Does this imply that the property owner will also need to deepen the sewer at the terminus so the further extension will work"according to the Master Plan" not only for 6059 Seville but to the north as well? This raises the question of why the existing main in Mellon is too shallow to allow extension to serve all of Mellon in the first place? (The existing manhole depth on Mellon is 7.6 feet*) *On Friday, December 15,we were able to view the existing sewer connections through the "Interactive Zoning Map." These maps were unavailable on Saturday, December 16th to Monday, December 18th to provide the manhole reference. For some reason,the City is removing the transparency of their maps from the public. Attempted access to LO Maps leads to the following screen. Lake Forest NA doesn't have an option to log into this at this time. This impedes Lake Forest NA from providing specific reference to support our factual rebuttal to the City's position. Geocortex Essentials wants to access your ArcGIS Enterprise account information Sign in to ArcGIS Enterprise with k ,esri ArcGIS login 8 IUsername n Password Sign In Cancel Forgot password? Commissioner Leek asked about what it would mean to future development on Kimball if they didn't approve this sewer extension. Rooney replied: If for some reason we were told we could never make this access through the park, ever,then we would, in our next master plan update, probably in the next three to five years, we would have to look at how would we get a different route to serve all of that Kimball area. I don't know what that would look like since there's no good cross connections. There's private property there, but we would have to look at that at that time. This answer suggests that an alternative to the proposed sewer extension, that avoids sensitive lands and Waluga Park, can be found. An alternative route, that serves Kimball, can be planned to meet future wastewater utilities for Kimball. When asked if there were additional comments for the DRC, Rooney said: There are a lot of sewers in this city that go through natural areas already. We've talked about the ones that are in Waluga park already. 99.9%of us don't even know where they are, right? You can't see them. You might come across a manhole now and then. All of those areas where they're in creeks where they're in wetlands already from the past work, they've all grown up and it's not visible. So I do think that one thing you have to remember is that things will grow back and it won't look like this clear cut corridor five years from now. None of our sewers are visible that way to most people that are in wetlands that are in stream corridors right now. So I think that the impact it has is temporary. Although we don't want trees close by,they do sneak in there, lust naturally they do happen that way. The ground cover, the brush, can all grow in up above it. And so it will have a temporary impact there's no doubt about that, but it will come back as it has done all over the city. Lake Forest NA disagrees. We ask that you consider this primer on the significance of wetland ecology provided by the Wetlands Conservancy (www.wetlandsconservancy.org/whats-a-wetland), "Wetlands are often misunderstood,seen as useless ponds and places for dumping, yet they are critical for so many things that define Oregon. Their reduction across the landscape, either by land use change,filling them in, or draining them out, has created significant negative impacts to humans and wildlife. Wetlands are defined by three variables:water,soil,plants. But there are hundreds of wetland plants, dozens of wetland soil types, and different water levels and drainage. All this variation means that wetlands rarely look the same, especially across the Oregon landscape." Virtual tour of the Wetland Conservancy's Cedar Mill Wetland(same source) "Wetlands hold water, it's what they do best! Wetlands fill up with water like both a bucket and a sponge, soaking it in their soil (sponge), being taken up by plants (sponge) and flooding on the surface (bucket). Then, wetlands slowly release this water through evaporation, gravity, and transpiration - that's plants breathing out water vapor. These processes provide cooler and cleaner water to streams even after the rain has stopped. By preserving wetlands,flood waters have a place to go, preventing flooding downstream and erosion from too much water moving too fast." "Connected natural areas create wildlife highways or corridors. Connectivity is very important for environmental health and to wildlife for food and shelter. It's like having a road from your house to the grocery store without any construction or detours. Connecting ecosystems or habitats, such as a forest connected to a wetland, makes this natural road possible." As nature's water filter, wetlands slow water down, allowing pollutants in runoff(from roads, roofs, or lawns) to settle into the soil allowing them to be taken up by plants, instead of going straight to streams or creeks. "Wetland plants include specific types of trees, shrubs, grasses,flowers and underwater plants. These plants can withstand the shifting conditions of wetlands: wet most of the year, sometimes dry, and living in soil that has very little oxygen. Wetland plants provide shade over the water, preventing it from warming. They emit oxygen and create cooler air through transpiration, the process of breathing water through their leaves. Wetland plants act like straws pulling water into their roots, storing it in their trunks, stems and leaves and then slowly releasing it into the air." Living trees, standing dead trees as well as fallen trees all benefit a wetland. "A living tree provides shade, drinks up lots of water, holds soil with its roots, and supplies food and shelter for animals. ... A standing dead tree, called a snag, makes a great perch for hunting birds, such as hawks and kingfishers. It also attracts insects, providing food for birds, especially woodpeckers. Other animals like bats and wood ducks will nest in snag holes or cavities, making use of a safe place to nest and shelter. ... When the tree eventually falls, it can then serve as material for amphibians to attach their egg masses, a sunbathing spot for turtles, and it will slowly break down and create healthy soil." "Nature:the messier, the better. While parks need sections of open lawns for games and picnics, wetlands and areas surrounding water need more variety and complexity.The more standing and fallen trees, thick shrubs and leaves on the ground,the healthier the wetland.All this vegetation means clean water because rain droplets have to pass through so much material before they find their way to the stream.The different types of plants provide lots of little places for frogs to hide, snakes to hunt, and deer to camouflage. A really nice layer of leaves and wood on the ground means healthy soil and nutrition for plants. And that's just what we see above ground! Underground are different plant root sizes at various depths, and soil organisms like worms and nematodes, who need the same variety and complexity under the surface to make healthy soil." "Wetlands are so good at what they do, humans have created smaller versions of them in our urban areas to recreate what they do best: hold water, clean water, and slowly release water. Rainwater that comes off of hardscapes like roofs and sidewalks moves fast. If piped straight into waterways, it causes erosion and overwhelms rivers. By creating smaller versions of wetlands like rain gardens, stormwater facilities, swales, and flow-through planters,we copy what wetlands do and give rainwater a place to go, preventing flooding and erosion, filtering out pollutants, and slowly releasing into the waterway.These human-made structures are a great way to protect wetlands and improve water quality." New Exhibit F-18, Engineering Memorandum dated December 15, 2023 From: Erica Rooney and Todd Knepper Lake Forest NA will provide comments on issues and Engineering Department positions as provided in this memo—not withstanding our assessment of relevance to this land use application. The memo states: "It is the intent of this memo for the City Engineering staff to comment on a few major points to ensure clarification." The memo provides "a summary of the issues and the Engineering Department's position." (page 1) Since Engineering has entered this exhibit into the record, we feel obligated to comment on these points as well. The memo states under Background, Urban Services Boundary: "...the City will ultimately be required to provide public wastewater service to this neighborhood." (page 1) Lake Forest NA clearly understands the City's role in providing wastewater service. The policy of the City of Lake Oswego is that 100%of costs associated with extending wastewater service are 100% responsibility of an affected property owner(developer or individual alike) within the Urban Services Boundary. The City expects individual property owners to bear the cost burden of extending sewer mains. To be clear, we aren't talking about the costs of decommissioning septic systems or hooking up to an existing main, we are talking about the punishing expense of extending hundreds of feet of sewer main so that the City can "provide service." The memo states under Wastewater Master Plan dated March 2013: "One of the purposes of the City's Wastewater Master Plan is to plan the infrastructure that will serve future development and is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan goals and policies pertaining to public facilities and services. ... This particular extension would be approximately 1,440 ft long, and when fully extended would serve over 60 properties as currently developed, with the potential to serve even more as redevelopment occurs, e.g. land divisions for additional single-family homes, and for ADUs and middle housing. (page 1 and 2) Lake Forest NA understands that the current Wastewater Master Plan (2013) was created long before Oregon House Bill 2001 (2019) brought the prospect of planning for middle housing into consideration. Engineering is suggesting that they have confidence that the current wastewater plan will serve the greater number of households that middle housing is designed to bring to this area. We'd like to see those projections before being reassured. We'd like to understand how the extraordinary costs of extending sewer mains are even permitted within the provisions of providing affordability of middle housing—also a responsibility of the City. Seems like the City would like to have more affordable housing on the one hand and make it harder to do so on the other due to the development cost of extending sewers. Lake Forest NA wishes to remind the DRC that for this development,this sewer extension will increase the costs of these proposed 5 homes. This 1440-ft long sewer extension will not help these homes be affordable. If the developer applies for and receives approval for a "zone of benefit," it will only apply to those houses that are adjacent to that sewer main and will not extend to all 60 of these properties to share the cost. The memo states under"Gravity Line or Pump Station with force main to the west of the Site:"that "the City entered into an agreement to provide service to a limited portion of the area delineated as Service Area A on the Clean Water Services (CWS) map. (see Attachment#4, Exhibit A—Service Boundary with CWS). CWS is responsible for the wastewater within Service Area A and will not accept wastewater generated outside of Service Area A. In establishing the IGA and service boundaries,the City of Lake Oswego and Clean Water Services considered the financial and operational capacities of each entity,the physical factors,the pipe flow capacities and the economic and engineering options for the provision of sanitary sewer services. The subject property and the properties along Kimball Street are located outside of Service Area A, and therefore cannot be transported into Service Area A for treatment by CWS." (page 4 and 5) Lake Forest NA examined Attachment#4 and contends that the subject property exists at the border of Service Area A. Allison Place is within Service Area A with City of Lake Oswego sewer lines and manholes also within Service Area A. The previously discussed property at 6059 Seville is also inside Service Area A,yet the City of Lake Oswego looked to connect it to an existing sewer main outside of Service Area A. This IGA appears not to be absolute—iust like the wastewater master plan—and alternatives exist. To avoid the wetland, and an excessively long sewer extension at the developer's expense,this alternative sewer extension should not be ruled out on the basis of the IGA. City Charter, Chapter X: Staff reference of LU 20-0027 (DR Permit for Improvements to the LO Tennis Center) as a precedent to apply to LU 23-0002 is arguable. Lake Forst NA asked for a continuance to have the opportunity to view all pages of Exhibit F-012- including those that were missing_prior to the deadline of our written testimony on November 20th 2023. LU 23-0002 is substantively different for many reasons: 1) LU 20-0027 was settled without deliberation by the DRC. Staff finding at that time "that Section 43 of the City Charter was not land use criteria" (page 10 of the staff report for LU 23-0002) was not decided by the DRC and exists as a legal opinion only. Further, staff write the findings—and it is our position that the DRC does not routinely modify the findings at the time they are adopted. Staff attempts to make the case that because the DRC adopted the findings in LU 20- 0027,that that alone means that it's established that the City Charter is not land use regulation criteria. (page 10-11 of the staff report for LU 23-0002) Lake Forest NA contends that adopted findings don't amount to a full-throated endorsement by the DRC of the staff opinion that the City Charter did not apply in this case. To make that case does not reflect what the public sees and understands about the process and operation of the DRC. However, even if the adoption of the findings of LU 20-0027 were understood by the DRC members to be rejecting the argument that the Charter applied to the application,per the staff's opinion, is that even relevant? A decision on the applicability of the Charter as land use criteria was decided for them—by the staff. To be clear,this is a staff legal opinion,and Lake Forest NA does not agree that the DRC adiudicated the applicability of City Charter.Chapter X to LU 20-0027. 2) City Charter, Chapter X changed in November 2021, after LU 20-0027. Lake Forest NA contends that the changes are substantive, and the staff's argument that their"Charter provisions arguments" at the time of LU 20-0027 are automatically applicable now neglects to account for language of the current charter. The staff report for LU 23-0002 says Exhibit G-516, pg. 1, states that"trenching to extend a public utility is inconsistent with protecting the Nature Preserve against loss, damage or injury." This is dismissed without a substantial opinion simply because it was "not the charter language". (page 10) What it was is using a simple definition of the word "insure" which is in fact in the Charter. To be clear, Chapter X says the City shall "insure"—and this means that they are required by the City Charter to protect specified Nature Preserves against loss,damage,or injury. That's what the voters decided. The voters didn't leave it to the City to decide—they demanded that the City provide this protection. The Lake Oswego City Council has accepted the will of the people with regard to Chapter X, but the staff have not. 3) Staff has made a contradictory statement about what it calls a "proprietary restriction" on the City's ability as owner of a nature preserve(Springbrook Park specifically). While we had hoped for a clearer understanding, after reviewing missing pages 16-18 of a staff report on LU 20-0027, that were entered into evidence minutes before the Nov. 20th initial evidentiary hearing,there was no real clarification for their argument against our position; in fact, staff's statement is supportive of our argument. The staff report says: "Staff notes that in this proceeding the application is not submitted by the City for development within West Waluga Park but is submitted by a separate entity, and that the development limitations in Section 43 restrict the City from doing indirectly by"allow(ing)any person to construct or develop"that which the city is not permitted by Section 43 from doing directly." (page 11) We say EXACTLY! The City is restricted indirectly and directly. The City has operated outside of its authority to the voters under City Charter Chapter X by imposing a covenant on the property requiring the extension of the sewer through West Waluga Park,thereby restricting the development of the properties subject to this land use project by an action that is not allowed under the City Charter. While we understand the City's insistence that Land Use Regulation is as it is defined in the new revealed exhibit under"Land Use Regulation," the City ignores the primacy of the Charter and insists that it is not the DRC permitting the violation that is of concern. Staff is suggesting that —the DRC can take the position "it's not our job"this is not "land use regulation", while ignoring the voters and their expressed requirements of the City as proprietors allowing them to violate the Charter in this action. Lake Forest NA askes the DRC not to endorse the City's dismissal of the City Charter,Chapter X and adiudicate it as applicable to insuring protection of Waluga Park West against loss,damage or iniurv. Sensitive Lands Ordinance: Lake Forest NA contends that prior to the Annexation Hearing—when the City Council was informed that the sewer extension would need to be reviewed through a land use process— the City had already decided the unavoidable RP crossing The following communication occurred between City of Lake Oswego staff prior to annexation. August 10, 2021,Todd Knepper(Engineering Program Supervisor) provided a memo to Paul Espe (Lake Oswego Associate Planner) (Attachment 1) stating: "Wastewater availability: 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" August 16. 2021. Letter from Paul Espe to Ed Brockman (land owner's representative) (Attachment 12) states: "...Previously the question was asked as to whether a new septic service for a lot that could be annexed into the city is permitted. City staff advised that City Code permits property to utilize a septic system for ministerial development under LOC 50.07.003.13, e.g., straight building permit on non-Sensitive lands, when the sewer system is not legally and physically available, such as more than 300 feet from the site. The tentative answer was that it might be possible. After careful consideration, staff has concluded that annexation of the three parcels is not consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies because these policies envision sewer connection on lots following annexation, similar to minor developments with the City under LOC 50.07.003.14. Further, staff concludes that annexation is not timely because future development served by septic system,as proposed, may preclude the future extension of urban services to other properties in the vicinity pursuant to the City's Wastewater Master Plan. Specifically, sewer service to properties north and south of the line proposed in the Wastewater Master Plan would be impeded if the subject properties were developed with septic systems and without extending sanitary sewer consistent with the Wastewater Master Plan. Planning and Engineering staff do not support annexation of the subject properties until the owner presents a development concept that includes extending sanitary sewer consistent with the adopted facility master plans. In conclusion, staff will not move the annexation application to the Council for consideration until it is accompanied by a development concept (or master plan)that demonstrates how the parcels can be served in conformance with City standards." Parks Director(Ivan Anderholm),Wastewater Superintendent (Phil Lawrence), and Todd Knepper discussed the sewer routing with Emerio Design Engineering Manager (Eric Evans) (Attachment 2) Wednesday, September 15, 2021 Email communication from Todd Knepper to Ivan Anderholm Hi Ivan,The three properties (TL 100, 3000 and 2902) shown on the attached sketch are currently going through an annexation and will likely be developing with new homes. As part of that,and according to our wastewater master plan,a new public sanitary sewer will need to be constructed through the park. When you have a moment, give me a call on my work cell 971-353-9489, and I can fill you in with all of the details that I know about so far on this request.Thanks, Todd Monday, October 11, 2021 Email from Todd Knepper to Ivan Anderholm referring to a conversation with Ed Brockman (Attachment 3) Ivan, I just spoke with Ed Brockman, and he will be contacting you regarding the mapping work they are going to need to do for the sewer alignment that will be constructed through Waluga Park and up Baleine Street,according to our wastewater master plan. Todd Monday, October 11, 2021 Todd's email from Ivan Anderholm was forwarded to Jeff Munro (Parks Deputy Director) and copied to Megan Big John (Parks Manager) (Attachment 3) I'll let you know when Ed contacts me. Ivan A. Anderholm Wednesday, October 13, 2021 Email communication from Eric Evans to Todd Knepper (Attachment 4) Todd, We met onsite this week to look at this sewer routing. Would the city be open to a —540' run of sewer line to avoid a manhole?This would avoid an access road through a wetland as well. Can I get your thoughts on this? Eric E .. . 5n im' mo' M CU"X,„P„R„ , , `...� somas '"F. gg SCALE:1"-100' � ./, d,... N I 'YjC n. P 3r., �ANIE� 7209 1 DAM I INi j SSMH 04 ' (EX.SMH 04547 287.90'of SSMH 03 ,SSMH 02) 26011'of • 287.90'of tr.ao ... 8•PVC O 8.50% ' PVC O 0.50R ti s+aa 8 PVC O O.SOR 8• W r........ 9.00 ).00 e.ep 5.00 �. 2,00 1i00 0+00 t }':::::::.:::....... SSMH Ol 4ii199D:•:Fi':C}:•:::::.:::i:::i(i•::: i: ii.:ii:i41ii.:ii.ri.r.:'i?i. Install-540'ofmain wit no A ,a manhole to avoid needi to 3t _ ::::::'i•:::::A.:SMIITA: ...;.RA[.'.�::: :':I'.::: :::.�::::::::. l;i•::•:Vd71ii:CL1EAH:Ok1X?i?iii : f.::'i::'i:i'::'::i::ii: a :•:::i(r.:4;i:•�1i}i: :.... ..... .... . 7' :::: .a provide access to Wilt e } ................................ .................... ......................... WES7 WALUGA deep in the wetland area.It K $ 200 - PARK also avoids some larger t e5. H Q `60 ES.15.007_- m Z c IPRIVATE EASEMENT i•:viiiiii:i(viii: >.<h 3. n 0 of W LL$ ap :' .P!N:4'. . Wv H , z2oa my to= ::.400 2212 a2to 3mo ceCL rn O 280t � r e,AORE PLAC E W LL $ }� 42.'lp YORK LL a. 3700 - 2700 401 ON 2205 2206 O 3 600 W 22a LL 2202 2203 2500 2800 500 2101 15+95 SSMH.87 O5� NOTES: 3500 600 — 2504 A PROPERTY LINES WERE EXTRACTED FROM CLACKAMAS -_ COUNTRY TAX MAPS. 2505 SANITARY SEWER LOCATIONS ARE BASED ON CITY OF MO BOO B. LAKE OS ESTATES.WEOMS AND AS-BUILTS S.S 450A, WIND2501 C EXISTING GRADE CONTOURS ARE BASED ARE BASED ON - o S 2300 - _ TOPOGRAPHY MAPS. O1 900 i w ALL INFORMATION NITHIN THIS PLAN ARE FOR REFERENCE SITE PLAN D. PURPOSES AND CREATED FOR FEASIBLY. o SCALE: 1"=100' u 0 0 V) This map is provided for clarification because it appears to apply to this conversation, but Lake Forest NA is unsure if this was part of the communication. (Attachment 10) Same day Todd Knepper forwarded the email to Phil Lawrence and Ivan Anderholm (Attachment 4) Phil:This is preliminary design. A question from the design engineer came up about allowing a run of approximately 540 feet in between manholes. Our design standards allow 500 feet. I am not sure I like the angle at Inverurie Road,so maybe it would be better to have a midpoint manhole within the park. Take a look and let me know what you think. Ivan: The three of us should probably take a look at this in the field, so we can start talking about access to the overall sewer system and manholes,and if there could be access pathways that would also serve as a maintenance access for Phil. Let me know your availability coming up and I can schedule an internal site meeting for us. Thanks,Todd Same day Ivan Anderholm replies by email to Todd Knepper (Attachment 5) Todd, I met with them on site yesterday morning. The issues we have from the park perspective is that the original alignment would have required significant tree removal and would have placed a manhole in the wetland. There is really no vehicular access to the manholes, wetland unless there was a road built,not ideal for the natural resource. We can meet on site to take a look. Ivan Same day Todd Knepper replies to Ivan Anderholm (Attachment 6) Thanks, Ivan. After I hear back from Phil, I will set something up.Todd Thursday, October 14, 2021 Email reply from Phil Lawrence to Todd Knepper (Attachment 7) I have gone out and conducted a site visit. The proposed distance I do not have a major problem with, however the alignment does not work. I double checked with manhole SMH06375 on Inverurie and can see that in connecting to that manhole our main line would be out of the ground. If we connect to manhole SMH04550 our main line distance would increase to over six hundred feet and the hydraulics would be adverse when we connect past ninety degrees to the existing flow. So I do not see another option but manhole SMH04547. I believe that for this to work well there will need to be a center manhole or we would need to acquire an easement over 15776.Without an easement the best option would be the line to the north( see map below)** or we could move the manhole somewhat to the south to avoid some of the trees. Whatever we build we will really need some sort of access. We will not need a road but will need a access walking path wide enough for our equipment to the manholes. I am available to meet all day Tuesday and Friday or my afternoons are free all week next week.Thank you Phil **This map referenced here is in the public records request. Below is from LO Maps showing manholes referred to here \.,5MHS5O a) East cMountain Park 5883 I'H;-55, _ __ `s" 5 4 0 6 St 75 SIv1HC i`." Ss4 $� s ,,,Iv1H04552 rf<C i ( s 7 •J...,.1 . M CSCS ,� C y `9� . b.t`e _, cS _C s c3'► cn car P—0 oV A 0 __ 1H04 54 01 CP 01 N9SWnGf \ .17 i .j 0,. i\ - s c3i N COUN Y \ >JJii-- \ nE. e N \ Same day Ivan Anderholm forwards Phil Lawrence email above to Jeff Munro and Megan Big John with no message. (Attachment 8) Friday, October 15, 2021 Email reply from Todd Knepper to Phil Lawrence (Attachment 9) Phil,Thanks for the good input. I will set something up for a site meeting.Todd The annexation hearing at the City Council occurred on November 2, 2021. After Annexation: Ivan Anderholm informs the Project Coordinator for Emerio (Bonnie Magdelain) that there are no issues with the sewer extension through Waluga Park. Monday, August 18, 2022 EMERIO Bonnie Magdelain I Project Coordinator 5445 SW Fallbroo:Place,Suite 100,Beaverton,OR 97008 mhl .`"""' •°' 503.746.8812-Main 1971.404.6285-Cell I www.emenodesogn.com From:Anderholm,Ivan cianderholm@ci.oswego.or.usn Sent:Monday,August 15,2022 9:46 AM To:Bonnie Magdelain cbonnie@emeriodesign.coms Cc:John Gliebe<john@new$ookdev.coms.;Knepper,Todd<tknepper@ci.oswego.oruss Subject:RE:Permission to run Sewer Extension Through Waluga Park [External Sender) Hi Bonnie, I've visited the site in the past and walked it and have no issues with the sewer extension through West Waluga Park. Our engineering department will need to approve the final design.I've copied Todd Knepper here. Regards, Ivan A.Anderholm,CPRE,Director He,Him,His City of Lake Oswego Parks and Recreation Department P.O.Box 369 Lake Oswego,OR 97034 (503)67S-2548 ianderholm@ci.oswego.or.0 s Lake Forest NA contends that the City of Lake Oswego has pressured the land owners/representatives to sign a covenant to extend the sewer through Waluga Park. The land owners/representatives presented options (below) that would have protected the wetland, meeting the avoidance criteria, but the City rejected these. Option 1: Donate remainder of property to Waluga Park and build three homes with septic systems (instead of five on sewer) Wednesday, Nov 3, 2021*: Email communication from Ed Brockman (Land Brokers NW)forwarded to Scot Siegal (Lake Oswego Community Development Director) (Attachment 11) *The day after the annexation hearing before City Council Dear Scot, This option makes sense to appease the concerns by the council and the public. We would develop 3 houses on septic instead of 5 on sewer.They wanted a minimum of 15,000 sq ft lots. With this plan we have 3 lots that exceed 15,000 sq ft. We could go ahead and record the covenant for any future development. This plan avoids the path down Baleine and protects the wetlands. We might even donate the remainder of the property to Waluga Park.Your previous email in June was prior to the closi ng on Kimball and we thought septic might be an option.This would be a much faster development an d avoid the expenses involved in the other plan and will be much less invasive. We theoretically could get 9 or 10 homes with density transfer from the wetlands with sewer. We also might be able to use HB 2 001 to develop middle housing which could allow for even more units. Although we would be very satis fled with 2 or 3 homes on septic. We are looking forward to the meeting in the near future to discuss o ur options. Thank you, Ed Brockman November 12, 2021 Letter communication from Scot Siegal emailed to John Gliebe (at New Look Dev.) and Ed Brockman (Attachment 11 cont.) Dear Mr. Gliebe and Mr. Brockman: I have reviewed the proposed alternative of"3 houses on septic" (attached) that you sent to me on Nov ember 3, 2021 with staff in Planning and Engineering.The proposal was in lieu of the concurrent sewer extension with development required by City Council. Instead, you propose the owner record a covenan t agreeing to extend sewer for future development after three houses are built with septic systems. Unfortunately,we cannot support the modified proposal because it conflicts with the City Council's ap proval of AN 210003, November 2,2021,which requires a covenant be recorded to ensure extension o f the sanitary sewer ahead of any new development, per the City's Wastewater Master Plan. The conc ept also conflicts with the City's Comprehensive Plan, specifically, Community Health and Public Safety Wastewater Collection and Treatment, Policy 2: "Require all new development within the City to conne ct to the City's wastewater collection system and pay a system development charge." We would also caution against assuming that a certain density can be achieved or number of new home s can be built, where you say, "theoretically [we] could get 9 or 10 homes with density transfer from the wetlands with sewer."There are several challenges to development in the subject area as discussed in the City Council staff report and per public testimony.These challenges include stormwater managem ent(in an area with high water table),wetland protection, development of private access drives,and other planning and engineering criteria. These criteria may become more challenging to meet with the densitytransfers/lot size reductions that might otherwise be allowed. You also reference a potential futu re allowance of multifamily housing under Oregon House Bill 2001, the "middle housing" bill; however, t he bill exempts Goal 5 (wetland) protected areas from its middle housing mandates. Finally, during the November 2 public hearing before the City Council, you spoke about additional legal I ots that might exist or be established through lot line adjustments or a replat. Any reconfiguration of ex isting lots that has the effect of increasing density in the city would be subject to Minor Development Review, per LOC 50.07.3.14.a.ii(6),which would likely trigger the City's public facility standards, includ ing the requirement to extend sewer under LOC 50.07.03.5.a.iii. Please continue to coordinate recordation of the sewer extension covenant with Paul Espe, Associate PI anner. If for some reason you are unable to fulfill that condition pursuant to the City Council's tentative approval of AN 21-0003 and wish to withdraw the application, please let Mr. Espe know. Sincerely, Scot Siegel, FAICP Community Development Director Option 2: Deeding 1.4 acres to the City and build two homes with septic systems Monday, November 22, 2021: Email communication from Ed Brockman to Jason Loos (Lake Oswego City Attorney) (Attachment 15) Jason, We spoke on Friday about a development agreement. You said you would talk to Scott this morning about it. I just spoke to Paul about getting a delay until February concerning a city council hearing.The deadline was tomorrow to sign the annexation agreement. My client is willing to deed the 1.4 acres bordering Baleine to the city in exchange for being able to build two homes on the .62 acre Kimball lot. We already have a septic approval and we just did some more test holes and appears we could get another approval there. We have other ideas as well. We need to annex into the city to be able to have enough space to do anything.The county encumbered the property recently with an overlay that is extremely restrictive that would go away if we were in the city. Ed Brockman Tuesday, Nov 23, 2021 Email reply from Jason Loos to Ed Brockman Mr. Brockman: I spoke to Scot this morning and we are in agreement that any proposal needs to have City Sewer connection pursuant to the City's Comprehensive Plan. I have attached Mr. Siegel's November 12, 2021 letter, which provides more detail. Jason Wednesday, November 24, 2021: Email communication from Paul Espe (Lake Oswego Associate Planner) to Ed Brockman Ed, We are available at the following times on the week of December 6-10. Tuesday, December 7 from 2:00-3:00 Tuesday, December 7 from 3:00-4:00 Wednesday, December 8 -from 9:00-10:00. Annexation of these properties will require connection to city sewer service. Since your client has not signed the "Covenant to Construct and Connect to the City Sewer Line"that was provided to you shortly after the first annexation hearing on November 2, I am unable to provide you with a firm council hearing date. Thank you, Paul Espe Attachment 1 ,'0` FO'f MEMORANDUM I tigriC V �— O , GREGG\\ TO: Paul Espe, Associate Planner FROM: Todd Knepper, P.E., Engineering Program Supervisor Engineering Department SUBJECT: AN 21-0003: Annexation of three lots off of Kimball and Baleine Street (Map 21E07CA, Tax Lot 02902) (Map 21E07CA, Tax Lot 03000) (Map 21E07CA, Tax Lot 00100) DATE: August 10, 2021 There is no stated intent for annexation. Utilities are available as follows: Water availability: The properties are served by the Lake Grove Water District. There is a Lake Grove Water District water main located in Kimball Street, Baleine Street and Inverurie Road along the site frontage. The nearest existing fire hydrants are located at the intersections of Kimball Street/Baleine Street and Inverurie Road/Baleine Street. Wastewater availability: 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. A new service lateral will be required to serve each lot. The service laterals shall have a two-way clean-out positioned at the right-of-way line. A Systems Development Charge (SDC) and plumbing permit for each new home will be due upon connection to the public sanitary sewer system. 503.675.3984 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 2 of 2 Transportation: Kimball Street is a two-lane local level county road within a 40' right-of way along the site frontage and is under the maintenance jurisdiction and permitting authority of the County. Baleine Street is unimproved 30' wide right-of-way along the site frontage and is under the jurisdiction of the City of Lake Oswego. Inverurie Road is a two-lane local level street within a 40' right-of-way along the site frontage and is under the jurisdiction of the City of Lake Oswego for this portion of Inverurie Road. Surface Water Management: After annexation, on-site surface water management will fall under various provisions of the Lake Oswego Code. All runoff from new impervious surface areas shall be managed on-site. Attachment 2 From: Knepper,Todd To: Anderholm,Ivan Subject: New Sewer through Waluga Park to Inverurie Road and Baleine Street Date: Wednesday,September 15,2021 9:00:07 AM Attachments: WALUGA SANITARY EXHIBIT.pdf Hi Ivan, The three properties (TL 100, 3000 and 2902) shown on the attached sketch are currently going through an annexation and will likely be developing with new homes. As part of that, and according to our wastewater master plan, a new public sanitary sewer will need to be constructed through the park. When you have a moment, give me a call on my work cell 971-353-9489, and I can fill you in with all of the details that I know about so far on this request. Thanks, Todd Todd Knepper, P.E. Engineering Program Supervisor City of Lake Oswego 380 A Avenue P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-675-2534-direct tknepper@ci.oswego.or.us Attachment 3 From: Anderholm,Ivan To: Munro.Jeff Cc: Big John,Megan Subject: FW:Waluga Park Sewer Date: Monday,October 11,2021 12:00:37 PM Attachments: image001.pnq I'll let you know when Ed contacts me. Ivan A. Anderholm, CPRE, Director He/Him/His Lake Oswego Parks & Recreation P 503.675.2548 17525 Stafford Road P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego OR 97034 From: Knepper, Todd Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 10:44 AM To:Anderholm, Ivan <ianderholm@ci.oswego.or.us>; 'Ed Brockman' <edbrockman846@gmail.com> Subject: Waluga Park Sewer Ivan, I just spoke with Ed Brockman, and he will be contacting you regarding the mapping work they are going to need to do for the sewer alignment that will be constructed through Waluga Park and up Baleine Street, according to our wastewater master plan. Todd Todd Knepper, P.E. Engineering Program Supervisor City of Lake Oswego 380 A Avenue P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-675-2534-direct tknepper@ci.oswego.or.us Attachment 4 From: Knepper,Todd To: Lawrence,Phil;Anderholm,Ivan Subject: FW: Baleine Sewer Date: Wednesday,October 13,2021 1:56:26 PM Attachments: Pages from WALUGA SANITARY EXHIBIT.pdf image003.pnq image004.pnq Phil:This is preliminary design. A question from the design engineer came up about allowing a run of approximately 540 feet in between manholes. Our design standards allow 500 feet. I am not sure I like the angle at Inverurie Road, so maybe it would be better to have a midpoint manhole within the park. Take a look and let me know what you think. Ivan: The three of us should probably take a look at this in the field, so we can start talking about access to the overall sewer system and manholes, and if there could be access pathways that would also serve as a maintenance access for Phil. Let me know your availability coming up and I can schedule an internal site meeting for us. Thanks, Todd Todd Knepper, P.E. Engineering Program Supervisor City of Lake Oswego 380 A Avenue P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-675-2534-direct tknepper@a ci.oswego.or.us From: Eric Evans<eric@emeriodesign.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 1:29 PM To: Knepper, Todd <tknepper@ci.oswego.or.us> Cc: Ed Brockman <edbrockman846@gmail.com> Subject: Baleine Sewer Todd, We met onsite this week to look at this sewer routing. Would the city be open to a —540' run of sewer line to avoid a manhole?This would avoid an access road through a wetland as well. Can I get your thoughts on this? Eric Eric D. Evans, PE I Engineering Manager • 8 6445 SW Fallbrook Place, Suite 100, Beaverton, OR 97008 503.746.8812-Main 1503.853.1910-Cell www.emeriodesign.com Attachment 5 From: Anderholm,Ivan To: Knepper,Todd Cc: Lawrence, Phil Subject: Re: Baleine Sewer Date: Wednesday,October 13,2021 2:11:06 PM Attachments: imaoe003.ono image004.onq Todd, I met with them on site yesterday morning. The issues we have from the park perspective is that the original alignment would have required significant tree removal and would have placed a manhole in the wetland. There is really no vehicular access to the manholes,wetland unless there was a road built, not ideal for the natural resource. We can meet on site to take a look. Ivan Sent from my iPhone On Oct 13, 2021, at 1:56 PM, Knepper, Todd<tknepper@ci.oswego.or.us> wrote: Phil:This is preliminary design. A question from the design engineer came up about allowing a run of approximately 540 feet in between manholes. Our design standards allow 500 feet. I am not sure I like the angle at Inverurie Road, so maybe it would be better to have a midpoint manhole within the park. Take a look and let me know what you think. Ivan: The three of us should probably take a look at this in the field, so we can start talking about access to the overall sewer system and manholes, and if there could be access pathways that would also serve as a maintenance access for Phil. Let me know your availability coming up and I can schedule an internal site meeting for us. Thanks, Todd Todd Knepper,P.E. Engineering Program Supervisor City of Lake Oswego 380 A Avenue P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego,OR 97034 503-675-2534-direct tkneooerPci.oswego.or.us From: Eric Evans<eric@emeriodesign.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 1:29 PM To: Knepper,Todd <tknepper@ci.oswego.or.us> Cc: Ed Brockman <edbrockman846@gmail.com> Subject: Baleine Sewer Todd, We met onsite this week to look at this sewer routing. Would the city be open to a —540' run of sewer line to avoid a manhole? This would avoid an access road through a wetland as well. Can I get your thoughts on this? Eric Eric D.Evans,PE I Engineering Manager 6 <image003.png> <image004.png> eav B SW Fallbrook Place,Suite 100, Beaverton,OR 97008 503.746.8812-Main 1503.853.1910-Cell www.emeriodesign.com <Pages from WALUGA SANITARY EXHIBIT.pdf> Attachment 6 From: Knepper,Todd To: Anderholm,Ivan Subject: RE: Baleine Sewer Date: Wednesday,October 13,2021 2:32:46 PM Thanks, Ivan. After I hear back from Phil, I will set something up. Todd From:Anderholm, Ivan Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 2:11 PM To: Knepper, Todd <tknepper@ci.oswego.or.us> Cc: Lawrence, Phil <plawrence@ci.oswego.or.us> Subject: Re: Baleine Sewer Todd, I met with them on site yesterday morning. The issues we have from the park perspective is that the original alignment would have required significant tree removal and would have placed a manhole in the wetland. There is really no vehicular access to the manholes, wetland unless there was a road built, not ideal for the natural resource. We can meet on site to take a look. Ivan Sent from my iPhone On Oct 13, 2021, at 1:56 PM, Knepper,Todd <tknepper@ci.oswego.or.us>wrote: Phil: This is preliminary design. A question from the design engineer came up about allowing a run of approximately 540 feet in between manholes. Our design standards allow 500 feet. Ivan: The three of us should probably take a look at this in the field, so we can start talking about access to the overall sewer system and manholes, and if there could be access pathways that would also serve as a maintenance access for Phil. Let me know your availability coming up and I can schedule an internal site meeting for us. Thanks, Todd Todd Knepper, P.E. Engineering Program Supervisor City of Lake Oswego 380 A Avenue P.O. Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 503-675-2534 -direct tknepper a@ci.oswego.or.us From: Eric Evans<eric@emeriodesign.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 1:29 PM To: Knepper,Todd <tknepper@ci.oswego.or.us> Cc: Ed Brockman <edbrockman846(Egmail.com> Subject: Baleine Sewer Todd, We met onsite this week to look at this sewer routing. Would the city be open to a —540' run of sewer line to avoid a manhole?This would avoid an access road through a wetland as well. Can I get your thoughts on this? Eric Eric D. Evans, PE I Engineering Manager <image003.png> <image004.png> 6445 SW Fallbrook Place, Suite 100, Beaverton, OR 97008 503.746.8812-Main I 503.853.1910-Cell www.emeriodesign.com <Pages from WALUGA SANITARY EXHIBIT.pdf> Attachment 7 From: I awrenre.Phil TO: Noeuter.Todd;Anderholm.Ivan Cc: Fllis.James Subject: RE:Baleine Sewer Date: Thursday,October 14,2021 11:01:32 AM Attachments: imaae001.onq ima0e002 one imaae003.onq I have gone out and conducted a site visit.The proposed distance I do not have a major problem with,however the alignment does not work.I double checked with manhole SMH06375 on Inverurie and can see that in connecting to that manhole our main line would be out of the ground.If we connect to manhole SMH04550 our main line distance would increase to over six hundred feet and the hydraulics would be adverse when we connect past ninety degrees to the existing flow.So I do not see another option but manhole SMH04547.I believe that for this to work well there will need to a center manhole or we would need to acquire an easement over 15776.Without an easement the best option would be the line to the north(see map below)or we could move the manhole somewhat to the south to avoid some of the trees.Whatever we build we will really need some sort of access.We will not need a road but will need a access walking path wide enough for our equipment to the manholes. I am available to meet all day Tuesday and Friday or my afternoons are free all week next week.Thank you Phil cid:image003.png@O1D7COE9.864D12F0 From:Knepper,Todd Sent:Wednesday,October 13,2021 1:56 PM To:Lawrence,Phil<plawrence@ci.oswego.or.us>;Anderholm,Ivan<inderholm@ci.oswego.or.us> Subject:FW:Baleine Sewer Phil:This is preliminary design.A question from the design engineer came up about allowing a run of approximately 540 feet in between manholes.Our design standards allow 500 feet.I am not sure I like the angle at Inverurie Road,so maybe it would be better to have a midpoint manhole within the park.Take a look and let me know what you think. Ivan:The three of us should probably take a look at this in the field,so we can start talking about access to the overall sewer system and manholes,and if there could be access pathways that would also serve as a maintenance access for Phil. Let me know your availability coming up and I can schedule an internal site meeting for us. Thanks, Todd Todd Knepper,P.E. Engineering Program Supervisor City of Lake Oswego 380 A Avenue P.O.Box 369 Lake Oswego,OR 97034 503-675-2534-direct ticjeoner@ei nswego or Iix From:Eric Evans<ericcemnriodesign.com> Sent:Wednesday,October 13,2021 1:29 PM To:Knepper,Todd<tkneooeritci.oswego.or.us> Cc:Ed Brockman<edhrockman846(rilgmail cow> Subject:Baleine Sewer Todd, We met onsite this week to look at this sewer routing.Would the city be open to a^'540'run of sewer line to avoid a manhole?This would avoid an access road through a wetland as well. Can I get your thoughts on this? Eric Eric D.Evans,PE Engineering Manager 6945 SW Fallbrook Place,Suite 100,Beaverton,OR 97008 El503.746.8812-Main 1503.853.1910-Cell www.emeriodesign.com Attachment 8 From: Anderholm,Ivan To: Munro.]eft;Big Sohn.Megan Subject: Fwd:Baleine Sewer Date: Thursday,October 14,2021 1:01:02 PM Attachments: imaae003.onq imaae001.onq dnuoe002 um' Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From:"Lawrence,Phil"<plawrence@ci.oswego.or.us> Date:October 14,2021 at 11:01:32 AM PDT To:"Knepper,Todd"<tlanepper@ci.oswego.or.us>,"Anderholm,Ivan"<ianderholm@ci.oswego.or.us> Cc:"Ellis,James"<jellis@ci,oswego.or.us> Subject:RE:Baleine Sewer I have gone out and conducted a site visit.The proposed distance I do not have a major problem with,however the alignment does not work. I double checked with manhole SMH06375 on Inverurie and can see that in connecting to that manhole our main line would be out of the ground. If we connect to manhole SMH04550 our main line distance would increase to over six hundred feet and the hydraulics would be adverse when we connect past ninety degrees to the existing flow.So I do not see another option but manhole SMH04547. I believe that for this to work well there will need to a center manhole or we would need to acquire an easement over 15776. Without an easement the best option would be the line to the north(see map below)or we could move the manhole somewhat to the south to avoid some of the trees. Whatever we build we will really need some sort of access.We will not need a road but will need a access walking path wide enough for our equipment to the manholes. I am available to meet all day Tuesday and Friday or my afternoons are free all week next week.Thank you Phil cid:image003.png@01D7C0E9.864D12F0 From:Knepper,Todd Sent:Wednesday,October 13,2021 1:56 PM To:Lawrence,Phil<pawrence@ci.oswego.or.us>;Anderholm,Ivan<ianderholm@ci.oswego.or.us> Subject:FW:Baleine Sewer Phil:This is preliminary design.A question from the design engineer came up about allowing a run of approximately 540 feet in between manholes.Our design standards allow 500 feet.I am not sure I like the angle at Inverurie Road,so maybe it would be better to have a midpoint manhole within the park.Take a look and let me know what you think. Ivan:The three of us should probably take a look at this in the field,so we can start talking about access to the overall sewer system and manholes,and if there could be access pathways that would also serve as a maintenance access for Phil. Let me know your availability coming up and I can schedule an internal site meeting for us. Thanks, Todd Todd Knepper,P.E. Engineering Program Supervisor City of Lake Oswego 380 A Avenue P.O.Box 369 Lake Oswego,OR 97034 503-675-2534-direct tkneooerratri nswegn.nr.us From:Eric Evans<prictalemeriodesign corn> Sent:Wednesday,October 13,2021 1:29 PM To:Knepper,Todd<tkneooerCnri oswegn.nr.iis> Cc:Ed Brockman<pdhrockman846(rngmail.corrt> Subject:Baleine Sewer Todd, We met onsite this week to look at this sewer routing.Would the city be open to a—540'run of sewer line to avoid a manhole?This would avoid an access road through a wetland as well. Can I get your thoughts on this? Eric Eric D.Evans,PE I Engineering Manager 0 0 6445 SW Fallbrook Place,Suite 100,Beaverton,OR 97008 503.746.8812-Main 1503.853.1910-Cell www emeriodesian yore Attachment 9 From: gpeooer.Todd To: I awrenre.Phil;Andemolm.Ivan Cc: fills.James Subject: RE:Baleine Sewer Date: Friday,October 15,2021 8:51:21 AM Attachments: imaae003.onq imaoe004 ens imaae005.onq Phil, Thanks for the good input.I will set something up for a site meeting. Todd Todd Knepper,P.E. Engineering Program Supervisor City of Lake Oswego 380 A Avenue P.O.Box 369 Lake Oswego,OR 97034 503-675-2534-direct tknemer@cLoswego.or.us From:Lawrence,Phil Sent:Thursday,October 14,2021 11:02 AM To:Knepper,Todd<tknepper@ci.oswego.or.us>;Anderholm,Ivan<ianderholm@ci.oswego.or.us> Cc:Ellis,James<jellis@ci.oswego.or.us> Subject:RE:Baleine Sewer I have gone out and conducted a site visit.The proposed distance I do not have a major problem with,however the alignment does not work.I double checked with manhole 5MH06375 on Inverurie and can see that in connecting to that manhole our main line would be out of the ground.If we connect to manhole SMH04550 our main line distance would increase to over six hundred feet and the hydraulics would be adverse when we connect past ninety degrees to the existing flow.So I do not see another option but manhole SMH04547.I believe that for this to work well there will need to a center manhole or we would need to acquire an easement over 15776.Without an easement the best option would be the line to the north(see map below)or we could move the manhole somewhat to the south to avoid some of the trees.Whatever we build we will really need some sort of access.We will not need a road but will need a access walking path wide enough for our equipment to the manholes. I am available to meet all day Tuesday and Friday or my afternoons are free all week next week.Thank you Phil cid:image003.png@O1D7C0E9.864D12F0 ❑® From:Knepper,Todd Sent:Wednesday,October 13,2021 1:56 PM To:Lawrence,Phil<plawrence(ntci.oswego.or.us>;Anderholm,Ivan<ianderholmcci.oswego.or.us> Subject:FW:Baleine Sewer Phil:This is preliminary design.A question from the design engineer came up about allowing a run of approximately 540 feet in between manholes.Our design standards allow 500 feet.I am not sure I like the angle at Inverurie Road,so maybe it would be better to have a midpoint manhole within the park.Take a look and let me know what you think. Ivan:The three of us should probably take a look at this in the field,so we can start talking about access to the overall sewer system and manholes,and if there could be access pathways that would also serve as a maintenance access for Phil. Let me know your availability coming up and I can schedule an internal site meeting for us. Thanks, Todd Todd Knepper,P.E. Engineering Program Supervisor City of Lake Oswego 380 A Avenue P.O.Box 369 Lake Oswego,OR 97034 503-675-2534-direct tloleoner@ci oswego or From:Eric Evans<ericWemeriodesign.com> Sent:Wednesday,October 13,2021 1:29 PM To:Knepper,Todd<tkneooer(Wci.oswego or us> Cc:Ed Brockman<pdhrockman846(Wgmail.com> Subject:Baleine Sewer Todd, We met onsite this week to look at this sewer routing.Would the city be open to a^'540'run of sewer line to avoid a manhole?This would avoid an access road through a wetland as well. Can I get your thoughts on this? Eric Eric D.Evans,PE I Engineering Manager ® ❑® 6445 SW Fallbrook Place,Suite 100,Beaverton,OR 97008 503.746.8812-Main I 503.853.1910-Cell yaww.emeriodesign.com Attachment 10 100' 0 50' 100' 200' c.rv..DPROF /E � W54665 -y • �" e W 28 NL OcuSigned by: � UQ ZO�� SCALE: 1" = 100' M--- Y <C.\1/4" „936474C69��4,. C� I p L-E 4 U(y 11,20 P� m-JX W c�ANIE�� LI 3 2209 ExPiREs: 12/31/2021 lia"D / 5500 (EX. SMH 04547 SSMH 04 287.90' of SSMH 02) e SSMH 03 287.90' of 260.11' of 8» PVC © 0.50% 287.19' of ® 0.50% I- 11+00 10+00 9+00 8" PVC © 0.50% g" PVC s+00 7+00 6+00 1+00 0+00 5+00 4+00 3+002+00 + � 0 100 BALEINE STREET p J1 Q SSMH 01 Q o 3000 .. . I. co 3100 Y [ 4" SANITARY LATERAL I E WITH CLEAN OUT. I D 2 I > WEST WALUG o— — 200 z H < PARK 34C o + EX. 15.00' m o - PRIVATE = Z o EASEMENT X Q 3500 2901 2902 300 W p NI o PARCEL 1 PARCEL 2 W + 2208 J o 400 2210m 0- - 3600 ( O 2801 II/11 RK pLACE L1J Cl- 066 � YD SHIRE 220LL fX 3700 401 '9. 2205 2206 0 2700 � 2204 U- 65 2500 F 2203 3800 2202 2500 2600 500 - 2201 15+95.87 .. SSMH o5� NOTES: 3900 2504 600 A PROPERTY LINES WERE EXTRACTED FROM CLACKAMAS COUNTRY TAX MAPS. 2505 SANITARY SEWER LOCATIONS ARE BASED ON CITY OF - B. LAKE OSWEGO MAPS AND AS-BUILTS S.S 480A, N 700 800 WINDFIELD ESTATES. .- o 9 CAD 2501 C. EXISTING GRADE CONTOURS ARE BASED ARE BASED ON on CNI o m o TOPOGRAPHY MAPS. °' o o N 2300 O • 900 ALL INFORMATION WITHIN THIS PLAN ARE FOR REFERENCE Cu m 6 D. PURPOSES AND CREATED FOR FEASIBLY, 0 o z w SITE PLAN • SCALE: 1"=100' a 0 0 U) Attachment 11 OF�'A ��,14_ PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES F flt n \ EGO) November 12, 2021 John Gliebe (via email: John@NewLookDev.com) Mr. Ed Brockman (via email: edbrockman846@gmail.com) New Look Development 7685 SW Cirrus Dr. Beaverton, OR 97008 Re: Annexation application AN 21-0003 Dear Mr. Gliebe and Mr. Brockman: I have reviewed the proposed alternative of"3 houses on septic" (attached) that you sent to me on November 3, 2021 with staff in Planning and Engineering. The proposal was in lieu of the concurrent sewer extension with development required by City Council. Instead, you propose the owner record a covenant agreeing to extend sewer for future development after three houses are built with septic systems. Unfortunately, we cannot support the modified proposal because it conflicts with the City Council's approval of AN 21-0003, November 2, 2021, which requires a covenant be recorded to ensure extension of the sanitary sewer ahead of any new development, per the City's Wastewater Master Plan. The concept also conflicts with the City's Comprehensive Plan, specifically, Community Health and Public Safety---Wastewater Collection and Treatment, Policy 2: "Require all new development within the City to connect to the City's wastewater collection system and pay a system development charge." We would also caution against assuming that a certain density can be achieved or number of new homes can be built, where you say, "theoretically [we] could get 9 or 10 homes with density transfer from the wetlands with sewer." There are several challenges to development in the subject area as discussed in the City Council staff report and per public testimony. These challenges include stormwater management (in an area with high water table), wetland protection, development of private access drives, and other planning and engineering criteria. These criteria may become more challenging to meet with the density-transfers/lot size reductions that might otherwise be allowed. You also reference a potential future allowance of multifamily housing under Oregon House Bill 2001, the "middle housing" bill; however, the bill exempts Goal 5 (wetland) protected areas from its middle housing mandates. 503-635-0290 380 A AVENUE PO Box 369 LAKE OSWEGO, OR 97034 WWW.LAKEOSWEGO.CITY Page 2 of 2 Finally, during the November 2 public hearing before the City Council, you spoke about additional legal lots that might exist or be established through lot line adjustments or a re-plat. Any reconfiguration of existing lots that has the effect of increasing density in the city would be subject to Minor Development Review, per LOC 50.07.3.14.a.ii(6), which would likely trigger the City's public facility standards, including the requirement to extend sewer under LOC 50.07.03.5.a.iii. Please continue to coordinate recordation of the sewer extension covenant with Paul Espe, Associate Planner. If for some reason you are unable to fulfill that condition pursuant to the City Council's tentative approval of AN 21-0003 and wish to withdraw the application, please let Mr. Espe know. Sincerely, Digitally signed by Scot Siegel DN:cn=Scot Siegel,o=City of Lake Scot Siegel Oswego,ou=Planning and Building Services, email=ssiegel@lakeoswego.city,c=US Date:2021.1 1.12 10:09:46-08'00' Scot Siegel, FAICP Community Development Director Cc: Paul Espe, Associate Planner Todd Knepper, PE, Engineering Supervisor Jessica Numanoglu, AICP, Planning Manager Erica Rooney, PE, Public Works Director/City Engineer Siegel, Scot From: Ed Brockman <edbrockman846@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 3, 2021 2:42 PM To: Siegel, Scot Cc: john@newlookdev.com Subject: Fwd: Plan with 3 Septics for three houses Attachments: Kimball-Baleine lot 1.pdf; Kimball-Baleine Lot 2.pdf; Kimball-Baleine lot 3.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Ed Brockman Land Brokers NW 16805 Gassner Lane Lake Oswego, OR. 97035 EdBrockman846@gmail.com 971-506-4148 Real Estate & Land Use Consulting Forwarded message From: Land Brokers NW<edbrockman846@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Nov 3, 2021, 3:01 AM Subject: Plan with 3 Septics for three houses To:john@newlookdev.com <john@newlookdev.com> Dear Scot, This option makes sense to appease the concerns by the council and the public. We would develop 3 houses on septic instead of 5 on sewer.They wanted a minimum of 15,000 sq ft lots. With this plan we have 3 lots that exceed 15,000 sq ft. We could go ahead and record the covenant for any future development.This plan avoids the path down Baleine and protects the wetlands. We might even donate the remainder of the property to Waluga Park. Your previous email in June was prior to the closing on Kimball and we thought septic might be an option.This would be a much faster development and avoid the expenses involved in the other plan and will be much less invasive. We theoretically could get 9 or 10 homes with density transfer from the wetlands with sewer. We also might be able to use HB 2001 to develop middle housing which could allow for even more units.Although we would be very satisfied with 2 or 3 homes on septic. We are looking forward to the meeting in the near future to discuss our options. Thank you, Ed Brockman Land Brokers NW 16805 Gassner Lane Lake Oswego, OR. 97035 1 971-506-4148 EdBrockman846@gmail.com Real Estate & Land Use Consulting 2 i 140.70 ft i _ LAKEC _ COUN TY o Area: 16036.02 ft= co Perimeter: 514.54 ft v--- ' 141 3°1f COUNTY L 15868 R-7 .5 1588 _I Imo dira% 100.0 0 50.00 100.0 Feet This product is for informational purposes only and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, I engineering,or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review, or consult, the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. This map represents the best data available at the time of publication. While reasonable effort has been made to insure the accuracy of the information shown on this 11/3/2021 page,the City of Lake Oswego assumes no responsibility,or liability,for any errors,omissions or use of this information. v � COUNTY COUNTY 1.139.82 ft LO R-7 .515883 Area: 17,170.81ft= 15868co Perimeter: 526.12 ft e- I r ,48zft 15891 100.0 0 50.00 100.0 Feet This product is for informational purposes only and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, engineering,or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review, or consult, the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. This map represents the best data available at the time of publication. While reasonable effort has been made to insure the accuracy of the information shown on this 11/3/2021 page,the City of Lake Oswego assumes no responsibility,or liability,for any errors,omissions or use of this information. LAKE 0.91 n COU N TY Area: 18.275.74 ft= Perimeter: 658.73 ft -1--.(70_89 ft [tcr),i tvi COUNTY 14076ft1� L 1588 1 5868 R-7 .5 Imm „ 100.0 0 50.00 100.0 Feet This product is for informational purposes only and may not have been prepared for or be suitable for legal, I engineering,or surveying purposes. abets of this informationrmatin. should erepre or consult, the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information. This map represents the best data available at the time of publication. While reasonable effort has been made to insure the accuracy of the information shown on this 11/3/2021 page,the City of Lake Oswego assumes no responsibility,or liability,for any errors,omissions or use of this information. Attachment 12 O� A F kr� PLANNING AND BUILDING SERVICES ' EG31N4 August 16, 2021 Mr. Ed Brockman, Land Brokers NW 16805 Gassner Ln. Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035 Re: AN 21-0003 (21E07CA02902, 21E07CA03000, and 21E07CA00100) Dear Ed: You represent Hail Capital, LLC, owner of the subject parcels, regarding annexation of the properties into the City. This letter follows up on your annexation application submitted on July 9, 2021. Previously the question was asked as to whether a new septic service for a lot that could be annexed into the City is permitted. City staff advised that City Code permits property to utilize a septic system for ministerial development under LOC 50.07.003.13, e.g., straight building permit on non-Sensitive Lands, when the sewer system is not legally and physically available, such as more than 300 ft. from the site. The tentative answer was that it might be possible. City Planning, Engineering and legal staff have reviewed your proposed annexation in relation to applicable Comprehensive Plan policies about the availability of public services, and connection of development on lands to be annexed to those public services: Community Health & Public Safety— Public Facilities and Services: Wastewater Collection and Treatment, Policy 2; Urbanization —Annexation, Policy C-1.a; Urbanization —Annexation, Policy C-5; and Urbanization —Annexation, Policy C-4. After careful consideration, staff has concluded that annexation of the three parcels is not consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies because these polices envision sewer connection on lots following annexation, similar to minor developments with the City under LOC 50.07.003.14. Further, staff concludes that annexation is not timely because future development served by septic system, as proposed, may preclude the future extension of urban services to other properties in the vicinity pursuant to the City's Wastewater Master Plan. Tel 503.635.0290 380 A Avenue PO Box 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 2 of 2 Specifically, sewer service to properties north and south of the line proposed in the Wastewater Master Plan would be impeded if the subject properties were developed with septic systems and without extending sanitary sewer consistent with the Wastewater Master Plan. Planning and Engineering staff do not support annexation of the subject properties until the owner presents a development concept that includes extending sanitary sewer consistent with the adopted facility master plans. In conclusion, staff will not move the annexation application to the Council for consideration until it is accompanied by a development concept (or master plan) that demonstrates how the parcels can be served in conformance with City standards. Sincerely, Paul Espe, Associate Planner cc: Scot Siegel, Planning and Building Services Director Erica Rooney, City Engineer Todd Knepper, Engineering Program Supervisor Evan Boone, Deputy City Attorney David Nelson Hail Capital LLC. John Gliebe New Look Development LLC. Scott Morrison Attachment 13 *5,4_ MEMORANDUM Hvwow 0 OREGOry TO: Todd Knepper, Engineering Program Supervisor Jessica Numanoglu, Planning Manager CC: Scot Siegel, Director of Planning and Building Services FROM: Evan Boone, City Attorney Pro Tern SUBJECT: Utility Standard (LOC 50.06.008) and Sensitive Lands DATE: March 30, 2021 Question Presented: May a property owner bifurcate a building permit application process on a lot that has a Sensitive Lands Overlay District, in order to avoid the applicability of the Utility Standard (LOC 50.06.008)to bring sewer to the site even though it is more than 300 ft. away from the existing sewer main? Answer: Yes. An applicant can first obtain a delineation of the resource (minor development), and then submit a building permit application for construction of a dwelling located outside of the delineated resource. By doing so, review of the dwelling is not subject to the Utility Standard's requirement to bring sewer to the site regardless of distance, but is then only required to extend sewer if required by LOC 38.04.305. Discussion: The answer to the question is based upon the classification of the application: ministerial development v. minor development. By prior memorandum opinion, Sewer Connection Requirement/ New Dwelling Construction, October 28, 2014 (copy attached), I noted that if construction of a new dwelling was a "minor development,"then it would be subject to the Utility Standard requirement that utilities be provided to the site regardless of the distance from existing mains: New Development/Single lot: limited to "Minor Development" homes; if so,then they must extend sewer regardless of distance or"extreme financial hardship" The applicability to install sewers regardless of the distance for minor development arises under LOC 50.07.003.13.e.ii, and LOC 50.06.008: 503.675.3984 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 2 of 4 LOC 50.06.008.3.a Utilities/Standards for Approval a. Utilities Required The following utilities,whether on or off site, shall be provided to all development in the City of Lake Oswego, in accordance with City Engineering Division's policies, design standards,technical specifications and standard details: i. Sanitary sewer systems; f. All development shall be served by service lines, main water lines and fire hydrants which are connected to City mains or the water mains of water districts which provide service within the City. The cost of the utility improvements is borne by the developer(LOC 50.60.008.6). However, if the new development is a ministerial development,then the Utility Standard does not apply because the Utility Standard, a development standard, is not specifically listed as applicable criteria for ministerial development; it would be included within the general applicability of development standards to minor development. COMPARISON OF REVIEW CRITERIA BASED ON TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT Ministerial Development Minor Development LOC 50.07.003.13.e.ii LOC 50.07.003.14.d.ii ii. Review Criteria for Ministerial ii. Review Criteria for Minor Developments Developments A minor development shall comply with: A ministerial development shall comply with the (1) The requirements of the zone in which it is requirements of the zone, including overlay located; zones, in which the subject lot or parcel is (2) The development standards applicable to located, the Stormwater Management Code (LOC minor developments; Article 38.25) and shall comply with the following (3) Any additional statutory, regulatory or Lake sections of the development standards: Oswego Code provisions which may be applicable (1) Parking, LOC 50.06.002. to the specific minor development application, as (2) Hillside Protection, LOC 50.06.006.2. provided for in this Community Development (3) On-Site Circulation—Driveways and Fire Code (LOC Chapter 50), Stormwater Management Access Roads, LOC 50.06.003.2. Code (LOC Article 38.25), streets and sidewalks (4) If the ministerial development involves chapter(LOC Chapter 42), and the tree cutting placement of a manufactured home, chapter(LOC Chapter 55); and Manufactured Homes, LOC 50.03.003.1.b. (4) Any applicable condition of approval (5) Building Design Standard, imposed pursuant to an approved ODPS or prior LOC 50.06.001.5.b.viii (mechanical equipment development permit affecting the subject screening). property. (6) Weak Foundation Soils, LOC 50.06.006.1,for construction of structures where the requirements of LOC 50.06.006.1 have not been previously addressed for the development site. (7) If located in the Flood Management Area, LOC 50.05.011. (8) Building Design Standard, LOC 50.06.001.2— 4, for construction or exterior modification of a Page 3 of 4 detached single-family dwelling, a single duplex on a lot, zero lot line dwelling, or a structure accessory to such structures. Ministerial Development, in terms of residential construction, is new dwelling construction that is not in one of the following categories, e.g., not within a delineated RP resource, RC protection area, or HBA protection area. LOC 50.07.003.13.a.ii (Ministerial Development Types). (2) Construction or exterior modification of a detached single-family dwelling, accessory dwelling unit, a single duplex on a lot, zero lot line dwelling or a structure accessory to such structures which: (a) Is not processed through the residential infill design review process pursuant to LOC 50.08.003.2.e; (b) Is not located within a delineated RP resource, RC protection area,or HBA protection area pursuant to LOC 50.05.010,Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts; (c) Does not impact a historic landmark designated pursuant to LOC 50.06.009; (d) Is not located within a Historic District; (e) Does not change the nature of the use or occupancy classification to a use that does not qualify as a permitted use in the zone or as an approved conditional use; (f) Does not require special design review by the zone, design district, prior development approval or Overall Development Plan and Schedule (ODPS)for the development in which the subject property is located; or (g) Is not located in the Greenway Management Overlay District, as identified in LOC 50.05.009. All construction is subject to the requirement to connect to sewer if within 300 ft per LOC 38.15.305(1): 38.18.305 Connection Required if Sewer Available; Exception. 1. All structures or buildings normally used or inhabited by persons located within 300 feet (measured by the length of the proposed sewer line from the subject property to its point of connection to an existing sewer line or main) of an accessible City sewer line shall connect to that line. 2. A person may apply in writing for an exemption from subsection (1) of this section. .... But when a new dwelling is proposed for construction on a site that contains designated RP, RC or HBA lands,then the sensitive lands delineation and the proposed construction is reviewed together as minor development,triggering the Utility standard for the dwelling construction and the obligation to bring sewer to the site regardless of the distance. The distinction between ministerial or minor development in this instance is to know if the proposed construction is to occur within a delineated sensitive lands district. An owner may obtain a resource delineation in the absence of a development application: Page 4 of 4 LOC 50.07.004.8.d.iv v. Delineation in the Absence of a Development Application An applicant may apply to delineate a resource in absence of an application for a specific development. A delineation is a minor development (LOC 50.07.003.14.a.ii(11, 14): (11) Determining an RC district protection area or HBA protection area pursuant to LOC 50.05.010.5.b, except as required under LOC 50.07.003.15, Major Development Decisions.' (19) Delineation of an RP district. but the Utility standard is not applied because, although part of the general review criteria per LOC 50.07.003.14.d.iv,the specific standard's applicability occurs when the development requires connection to utilities(LOC 50.06.008.1). A delineation does not require connection to utilities and thus LOC 50.06.008 is not applicable at that stage. Once having obtained the delineation,the applicant can then apply for a building permit for the construction of a dwelling that is "not located within a delineated RP resource, RC protection area, or HBA protection area pursuant to LOC 50.05.010,Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts," and thus is classified as ministerial development (LOC 50.07.003.13.a.ii(2)), and that ministerial development criteria is not subject to the Utility Standard, and the new dwelling construction on a site with, but not inside a delineated resource district is thus not subject to its requirement to bring sewer to the site even if over 300 ft. away. 1 A delineation must occur in order to determine a protection area. LOC 50.07.004.8.d.i; 50.05.010.5.b E0s� MEMORANDUM V r� O OREGON.‘ TO: Todd Knepper, Engineering Program Supervisor CC: Erica Rooney, City Engineer Scot Siegel, Director of Planning and Building Services Scott Lazenby, City Manager David Powell, City Attorney FROM: Evan P. Boone, Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT: Sewer Connection Requirement/ New Dwelling Construction DATE: October 23, 2014, revised October 28, 2014 Questions Presented and Answers: Is a new dwelling or a replacement dwelling required to connect to the city sewer system if it has a working septic system or could install a working septic system, and a. The sewer line is within 300 ft.? Is the dwelling located in the R-DD zone or other design district, in the Willamette Greenway, or require a RID or variance, or a conditional use permit? • If yes, it must connect to the sewer line1. • If no, then o New dwelling (no working septic): yes, it must connect to the sewer line. o Reconstruct dwelling (working septic):Although there is a code requirement that requires connection to a sewer extension, there is an "extreme financial hardship"exception that has been interpreted to exempt most dwellings with working septics from that requirement. 1 Unless the property owner qualifies for a hardship variance under LOC 50.08.003,which is not likely. See footnote 6. 503.675.3984 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 2 of 10 b. The sewer line is more than 300 ft.? Is the dwelling located in the R-DD zone or other design district, in the Willamette Greenway, or require a RID or variance, or conditional use permit? • If yes, it must connect to the sewer line2. • If no: No obligation to connect; new septic may be installed. Attached is a table which also summarizes this answer. Discussion: A. LOC 50.06.008 CDC/ UTILITIES DEVELOPMENT STANDARD A building permit for a new dwelling is either a ministerial development, under LOC 50.07.003.13.a.ii(2)3, or a minor development under LOC 50.07.003.14.a.ii(2)4. The requirement of the property owner to extend and connect development to the sewer line under the CDC's Utilities Development Standard differs depending on whether or not the development is a ministerial development or a minor development. 2 Unless the property owner qualifies for a hardship variance under LOC 50.08.003,which is not likely. See footnote 6. 3 Ministerial Development Classification (2) Construction or exterior modification of a detached single-family dwelling,duplex,zero lot line dwelling or a structure accessory to such structures which: (a) Is not processed through the residential infill design review process pursuant to LOC 50.08.007; (b) Is not located within a delineated RP resource or RC protection area pursuant to LOC 50.05.010,Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts; (c) Does not impact a historic landmark designated pursuant to LOC 50.06.009; (d) Does not change the nature of the use or occupancy classification to a use that does not qualify as a permitted use in the zone or as an approved conditional use; (e) Does not require special design review by the zone, design district, prior development approval or Overall Development Plan and Schedule(ODPS)for the development in which the subject property is located;or (f) Is not located in the Greenway Management Overlay District,as identified in LOC 50.05.009. Minor Development Classification ii. "Minor development" includes: (1) In the R-DD zone: (a) Construction of new single-family detached dwellings, duplexes, multi-family dwellings,zero lot line dwellings or exterior modification of a structure containing a nonconforming use that requires a building permit. **** (2) Construction or exterior modification of a detached single-family structure,duplex,zero lot line dwelling or a structure accessory to such structures which: (a) Does not qualify as a ministerial decision pursuant to LOC 50.07.003.13.a.ii(2)(a)through (h),or *** Page 3 of 10 1. Obligation to Connect to Sewer System a. Classification of Dwelling: Ministerial or Minor Development? Construction or exterior modification of a detached single-family dwelling, duplex, or zero lot line dwelling is a ministerial development if the dwelling: (1) Is not processed through the residential infill design review process pursuant to LOC 50.08.007; (2) Is not located within a delineated RP resource or RC protection area pursuant to LOC 50.05.010, Sensitive Lands Overlay Districts; (3) Does not impact a historic landmark designated pursuant to LOC 50.06.009; (4) Does not change the nature of the use or occupancy classification to a use that does not qualify as a permitted use in the zone or as an approved conditional use; (5) Does not require special design review by the zone, design district, prior development approval or Overall Development Plan and Schedule (ODPS) for the development in which the subject property is located; or (6) Is not located in the Greenway Management Overlay District, as identified in LOC 50.05.009. (7) Is in the R-DD zone: (a) Construction of new single-family detached dwellings, duplexes, multi- family dwellings, zero lot line dwellings, or a structure contains a nonconforming use that requires a building permit. (b) Expansion or reconstruction that results in a change of use (e.g., from single-family to duplex) or in an expansion of floor area of an existing structure by more than 50%. (c) Any exterior modification of a single-family detached dwelling that reduces setbacks pursuant to LOC 50.08.001.2.b, R-DD Administrative Modification. (8) Requires one or more variances. LOC 50.07.003.13.a.ii(1), (2)(a) through (f); LOC 50.07.003.14.a.ii(1), (2) It is a minor development if the dwelling does not qualify as a ministerial development listed above. LOC 50.07.003.14.a.ii(1), (2) b. Ministerial v. Minor Development—Review Criteria The CDC's "review criteria" provisions found in LOC 50.07.003.13 (ministerial development) and .14 (minor development) limits the seemingly broad applicability provision found in the Utility Development Standard, LOC 50.06.008.1 (see discussion in subsection c below), Page 4 of 10 LOC 50.07.003.13.e. Ministerial Development ii. Review Criteria for Ministerial Developments A ministerial development shall comply with the requirements of the zone, including overlay zones, in which the subject lot or parcel is located, and shall comply with the following sections of the development standards: (1) Parking, LOC 50.06.002. (2) Hillside Protection, LOC 50.06.006.2. (3) On-Site Circulation — Driveways and Fire Access Roads, LOC 50.06.003.2. (4) If the ministerial development involves placement of a manufactured home, Manufactured Homes, LOC 50.03.003.1.c. (5) Building Design Standard, LOC 50.06.001.5.b.viii (mechanical equipment screening). (6) Weak Foundation Soils, LOC 50.06.006.1, for construction of structures where the requirements of LOC 50.06.006.1 have not been previously addressed for the development site. (7) If located in the Flood Management Area, LOC 50.05.011. The Utility Development Standard (LOC 50.06.008) is not applicable to ministerial development. If the dwelling is classified as a minor development, it is subject to all development standards. LOC 50.07.003.14.d Minor Development ii. Review Criteria for Minor Developments A minor development shall comply with: (1) The requirements of the zone in which it is located; (2)The development standards applicable to minor developments; (3) Any additional statutory, regulatory or Lake Oswego Code provisions which may be applicable to the specific minor development application, as provided for in this Community Development Code (LOC Chapter 50), streets and sidewalks chapter (LOC Chapter 42), and the tree cutting chapter (LOC Chapter 55); and (4) Any applicable condition of approval imposed pursuant to an approved ODPS or prior development permit affecting the subject property. c. Utility Development Standard—Applicability More accurately stated, construction of a dwelling that is classified as a minor development is subject to the degree each development standard's applicability provision applies to the specific type of minor development. The Utility Development Standard, LOC 50.06.008, states that it is applicable when "development" requires connection to utilities. LOC 50.06.008.1. "Development" includes construction of new or replacement dwellings. (A replacement dwelling is actually a new Page 5 of 10 dwelling. As to the lot, it may be a replacement, but as to the construction of the building, it is a new building.) "Development: Any manmade change to improved or unimproved real property, including, but not limited to, construction, *** or alteration of a building ****" LOC 50.10.020(3), Definitions, "Development" LOC 50.06.008.3.a addresses when development is required to connect to a sanitary sewer system: 3. STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL a. Utilities Required The following utilities, whether on or off site, shall be provided to all development in the City of Lake Oswego, in accordance with City Engineering Division's policies, design standards, technical specifications and standard details: i. Sanitary sewer systems; **** The obligation is to connect to a sanitary sewer main, rather than a septic system or other form of alternative septic system: c. Sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve the development and to connect the development to existing mains. d. Design shall take into account the capacity and grade to allow for desirable future extension beyond the development, and where required by the City Manager, extended to the upstream property line to allow for such future extension. e. All sanitary sewers and appurtenant structures shall be designed and constructed in conformance with City Engineering Division's policies, design standards, technical specifications and standard details, and shall include, but not be limited to, such items as: i. Pipe size and materials; ii. Manholes; iii. Cleanouts; iv. Backfill requirements; v. Service laterals. f. All development shall be served by service lines, main water lines and fire hydrants which are connected to City mains or the water mains of water districts which provide service within the City. g. Service Laterals. One service lateral shall be provided to each lot in a development, or if the development does not include lots, to each occupied building in the development. LOC 50.06.008.3.b-g (Utilities, Standards for Approval). Page 6 of 10 Thus, as to construction that requires a minor developments permit under the CDC, the developer is required to extend and connect the new house to the sewer system. There is no maximum distance after which the developer is no longer required to connect, and there are no exemptions to the obligation to connect'. 2. Replacement Dwelling and Working Septic System— Nonconforming Use? Where a residence is connected to a working septic system and that residence is destroyed and a new one is built to take its place (reconstructed dwelling), one might argue that the new residence should be able to continue to use the existing septic system as a nonconforming use under LOC 50.01.006. That argument is not well-founded because the act of destruction / reconstruction by the property owner does not qualify as continuation of a nonconforming use. A nonconformity arises when there is a change in law, not a change in structure. (The reason an existing dwelling on a septic system is not required to connect to a sewer main under LOC 50.06.008 is that the continuation of occupancy of a dwelling is not "development" under the CDC; the CDC is not applicable until a "development" act occurs.) 3. Cost of Installation of Sewer Extension If the developer is required to extend the sewer main to connect the property to the sewer system, LOC 50.06.008.6 states that the developer bears the cost of constructing utilities, e.g., sewer extension. The Zone of Benefit (LOC Ch. 40.04) program provides a means for the developer to recover a pro rata share of the sewer main installation from those properties that later connect to the extended sewer main.' 5 The review criteria for major developments also includes all development standards. LOC 50.07.003.15.d.ii. Major developments consist of conditional uses,ODPS, and quasi-judicial rezone. LOC 50.07.003.15.a.ii. None of those major developments—which are uses, not structures, require connection to utilities. 6 Under the CDC,a person may seek a hardship variance to any requirement of the CDC. The criteria for a hardship variance is at LOC 50.08.003.3. The most problematic criterion to confront is likely whether the requirement to connect to a sewer would be an "unnecessary hardship."Typically this is based on site specific factors that are unique to the property. Distance alone from a sewer main is not likely an unnecessary hardship because the Council was well aware that a sewer main might be some distance from the development site(See LOC 38.18.305's 300 ft. requirement),and yet there neither an exception nor exemption similar to that found in LOC 38.18.305 existing in LOC 50.06.008.3. There is also the Sanitary Sewer Extension Program (LOC Ch.40.06), under which the City could elect to extend the sewer system and then the developer would pay the extension connection charge. Page 7 of 10 B. LOC 38.18.305 and LOC 38.20.310/ Utility Code In addition to the CDC provision, there is the general provision in the Utility Code that prohibits septic systems "unless otherwise provided by this Code": LOC 38.20.310 Cesspools and Septic Tanks Prohibited. No person shall permanently install or connect to a septic tank, cesspool or other means of sewage disposal within the City limits except as otherwise provided by this Code. 1. LOC 38.18.305 Utility Code/Connection to Sewer Required When Within 300 ft. LOC 38.18.305 applies when the structure is less than 300 ft. from the sewer system. LOC 38.18.305 Connection Required if Sewer Available; Exception. 1. All structures or buildings normally used or inhabited by persons located within 300 feet of an accessible city sewer line shall connect to that line. 2. A person may apply in writing for an exemption from subsection (1) of this section. The application shall contain such information as the City may require to determine compliance with this subsection. In order to obtain an exemption, the applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that: a. The structure is served by an alternative sewage disposal system; b. The alternative sewage disposal system is in good working order and is not creating or in danger of creating pollution or a health hazard; and c. Payment of the cost to connect to the system would cause extreme financial hardship. 3. The City may grant or refuse an application for an exemption from connection, may grant the application for a limited period of time, and/or may impose reasonable conditions on the grant of exemption. "Reasonable Conditions" may include, but area not limited to, conditioning approval of development, building or occupancy permits or business licenses on connection to the public system, and/or requiring a covenant or condition to be recorded against the property requiring connection at the time of property transfer. The applicant may appeal a decision of the City to the City Council. 4. A customer shall be required to hook up to the city sewer system if his or her septic system is failing and City sewer is available. The septic system shall be abandoned in a manner approved by the City Engineer. This section is not necessarily triggered by an act of the property owner; it is applicable when the sewer system is within 300 ft. of the structure to be connected. Of course if the property owner is located more than 300 ft. from a sewer line, there is no obligation to connect under LOC 38.18.305. Page 8 of 10 a. Subsection 1—Sewer is within 300 ft. Under LOC 38.18.305(1), the subject property need not necessarily have taken any action to find itself subject to the requirement to connect under LOC 38.18.305. A dwelling is required to connect to a sewer system when: (a) for a new dwelling, it is constructed on a lot that is within 300 ft. of a sewer main; (b) for an existing dwelling, the sewer is extended by a developer, either "upstream" from the site and the sewer main is extended past the site, or "downstream" but within 300 ft. of the site; If the obligation to connect arises solely from LOC 38.18.305(1), subsection 2 provides an exemption from that obligation for reconstructed and existing dwellings with working septic systems. A property owner within 300 ft. of a sewer main can avoid the obligation to connect if there is a working septic system on the site and the cost of connection would cause "extreme financial hardship."8 Note: This exception is only applicable to an obligation to connect under LOC 38.18.305(1); it is not applicable to an obligation to connect under the CDC's LOC 50.06.008. b. Subsection 4—Failing septic system/Sewer "Available" LOC 38.18.305(4) is applicable when there is an existing septic system serving the property that is failing and City sewer is available. In that instance, the property is required to connect; there are no exceptions or exemptions. However, note that the requirement to connect arises not just when a septic system is failing but the sewer system must also be "available." LOC 38.18.305 does not expressly define "available." In context I find "available" means the sewer line is within 300 ft. because: a. The title of the section uses the term "available."The maximum distance that subsection 1, which implements the "availability" threshold stated in the section title, is 300 ft. b. The DEQ regulations use the phrase "legally and physically available" in addressing when a septic permit may be issued. "Physically available" for a single family dwelling or other establishment generating less than 899 gallons of daily sewage flow is when a sewer line is within 300 ft. OAR 340-071-0160(4)(f)(A)(i)(I). 8 Engineering reports that presently"extreme financial hardship" is found by the mere cost of the connection and SDC fees,without considering property-/topographic-circumstances or personal circumstances of the property owner. It is beyond the scope of this memorandum opinion to determine whether the cost of the connection and SDC fees alone qualify as an "extreme financial hardship" in all circumstances. Page 9 of 10 2. LOC 38.20.310 Cesspools and Septic Tanks Prohibited / More than 300 ft. LOC 38.20.310 appears to be a general prohibition of septic tanks in the City. LOC 38.20.310 Cesspools and Septic Tanks Prohibited. No person shall permanently install or connect to a septic tank, cesspool or other means of sewage disposal within the City limits except as otherwise provided by this Code. But LOC 38.20.310 acknowledges that other sections of the Code may allow septic tanks by the phrase "unless otherwise provided by this Code". Such is the case expressly with LOC 38.18.305(1) [within 300 ft.], subsection 2 ["extreme financial hardship" exception] and subsection 4 ["and City sewer is available"]. LOC 38.18.305 does not state what must occur if a septic system is failing and the site is located more than 300 ft. from a sewer main ("not available"). Given that: a. LOC 38.20.310 allows installation of septic tanks when the code "otherwise provides"; b. LOC 38.18.305(1) requires connection when the sewer is within 300 ft. but is otherwise silent; and c. LOC 38.18.305(4)'s obligation to connect to sewer is not applicable if a sewer line is "not available" (which I conclude means the property is more than 300 ft. from the sewer), the 300 ft. distance applicability limitations in LOC 38.18.305's obligation to connect to sewer means conversely that where sewer is beyond 300 ft. area, there is no obligation to connect. LOC 38.18.305(1) and (4) have thus "otherwise provided" as to the obligation to connect beyond 300 ft. If the legislative intent had to been to require sewer connection for failing septic tanks beyond 300 ft., there would have been no necessity to add the phrase "City sewer is available" to LOC 38.18.305(4): "4. A customer shall be required to hook up to the city sewer system if his or her septic system is failing and City sewer is available. The septic system shall be abandoned in a manner approved by the City Engineer." In the most necessary of times—when a septic system is failing—the property owner is not required in all circumstances to connect to city sewer. The inclusion of "City sewer is available" (which means it is less than 300 ft. from the property) as a condition to sewer connection means that the property owner may use alternatives to city sewer when City sewer is more than 300 ft. from the property. . Page 10 of 10 D. Deferral of Obligation to Connect Under LOC 50.06.008? May extension of a sewer line for a dwelling that qualifies as a minor development be deferred? Although there are instances when delayed construction / implementation of CDC requirements are permitted, it is done to match construction with use. Examples: a. When the Lake Oswego High School was remodeled, the requirement to install bicycle racks was deferred to coincide with increased bicycle usage and demand for bicycle parking. b. Deferred construction of a street required as a condition of approval of a subdivision happens when there is construction occurring on the site or nearby, and deferral is permitted so there is not a need to patch the new street. The deferral lasts until the nearby construction is completed. Where deferral has been permitted, the applicant is not using an alternative means to address the demand / need, with the result being elimination of demand for the deferred item. In this instance, deferring sewer connection but allowing a septic system would be using an alternative means of meeting the demand, i.e., sewage would be handled by a septic system. There is no project timing reason for the deferral; the reason would be to defer installation in lieu of compliance, while management of sewage would still occur, albeit by different means. Sewer Connection Requirement/New Dwelling Construction Guidelines 10-28-14 38.18.305—Connection Required if Sewer 38.20.310—Cesspools and Septic New Development—50.06.008 Available(within 300 ft); exception Tanks Prohibited • New "Minor Development" House where one did not exist • Rebuild of"Minor Development" house where one did exist • Partitions and Subdivisions; other Minor Developments (1)Applies to all existing structures used or No person shall permanently install or Regardless of distance from existing system to the inhabited by persons located within 300 connect to a septic tank, cesspool or development, "sanitary sewers shall be installed to serve feet of an accessible city sewer line other means of sewage disposal within the development and to connect the development to the • Must connect, unless exceptions (1)-(3) the city limits, except as otherwise existing mains." provided in this Code Exceptions to connection (2): Alternative system is defined as a STEP Options for financing include • Served by alternate system, such as system • Zone of Benefit(ZOB) septic • Sewer Extension Program (if City is willing to take on) • Alternate system isn't a health/safety risk • Extreme financial hardship (undefined) (4) Must connect if septic is failing and sewer is available (within 300 ft.); no exception to connection. Results: Results: Results: Within 300 ft.: • Septic tanks allowed when house is • Single lot: limited to "Minor Development" homes; if • New homes on vacant lots (no working more than 300 ft. so,then they must extend sewer regardless of septic) required to connect. • For homes within 300 ft., see distance or"extreme financial hardship" • Reconstructed homes on vacant lots 38.18.305 column • Partitions and Subdivisions: they must extend sewer (working septic) can continue to use • STEP may be considered. regardless of distance or"extreme financial hardship" working septic based on "extreme financial hardship" exemption • Homes with failing septic must connect Beyond 300 ft.: • New homes—new septic permitted • Reconstructed home—use of existing septic or new septic permitted • Homes with failing septic—new septic permitted. Commentary: By itself, this appear very clear, and no 300 ft. limit and the "extreme financial new septic tanks allowed—for any Limited applicability for"single lot"new homes. hardship"exception results in continued reason, no matter distance, absent use of working septics and new septics another code provision that exempts allowed if"single lot"property is more than sewer connection. However, the 300 ft. to sewer limited applicability of the CDC Utility provision, the 300 ft. limit of LOC 38.18.305, and the "extreme financial hardship"exemption means existing septic tanks can continue to be used throughout city and new septics can be installed when the sewer is more than 300 ft. Attachment 14 p4 E�44 MEMORANDUM OREGO� TO: Johanna Hastay, AICP, Senior Planner FROM: Todd Knepper, P.E., Engineering Program Supervisor'V V Engineering Department SUBJECT: PA 22-0034 A request for approval of Annexation and a 3-Parcel Minor Partition Site address: 6059 Seville Avenue Owner: Ester Varadin Applicant: Ed Brockman, Land Brokers NW DATE: May 9, 2022 The following preliminary comments are based on pre-application materials dated April 28, 2022. The applicant is requesting approval of annexation and a 3-Parcel Minor Partition. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STANDARDS— [LOC 50.06.006.31 The Drainage Standard, LOC 50.06.006.3, and the Minor Development criteria, LOC 50.07.003.14.d.ii(3), require compliance with the Stormwater Management Code, LOC Ch. 38.25. This standard is applicable to all development [that occurs as a result of this development permit or within three years (LOC 38.25.120(1)(d)], where i.) >_ 1,000 square feet of impervious surface is created; or ii.) the sum of impervious surface created and/or replaced is > 3,000 square feet ("large project"). Accordingly, it is necessary for the applicant to ascertain: • The amount of new impervious surface created on the development site, if any; and • The amount of impervious surface that is being "replaced", if any. "Replaced" means "removal of an impervious surface that exposes soil followed by the placement of an impervious surface" (LOC 38.25.190.) The basis of the determination, and the amount, of created or replaced impervious surface should be stated in the application narrative. The applicant may also be required to obtain an Erosion and Sediment Control permit if development disturbs greater than 500 square feet or is within 50 feet of waters of the state. The applicant must demonstrate the capacity, type, location, feasibility and land area required of the proposed stormwater management system and stormwater disposal facilities as well as 503.675.3984 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369 Lake Oswego, OR 97034 www.ci.oswego.or.us Page 2of7 any connection to off-site facilities can be provided per LOC Article 38.25 Stormwater Management Code. What the applicant is required to demonstrate regarding stormwater management will depend whether the development is a "small project" [LOC 38.25.120.1.d.i] or "large project" [LOC 38.25.120.1.d.ii]. Stormwater management measures and requirements are detailed in LOC 38.25.001 through 38.25.190. Applicants are advised to review the current version of the Lake Oswego Stormwater Management Manual, which provides additional information including specifications and procedures for the proper implementation of the requirements of the Stormwater Management Code. A complete application shall include a comprehensive drainage report demonstrating the storm water management design will comply with the provisions of this standard. Note: For a partition, Engineering applies the "large project" standards under the Stormwater Management Code to the partition's created impervious surfaces, because it is assumed that the cumulative amount of the partition's new impervious surface and the new impervious surfaces from additional development on the site within three years will exceed 3,000 square feet. In order to determine the full project is feasible, the "large project" standards are applied. (The impervious surfaces created by new structures on parcels that are created by this partition are additionally reviewed at the time of the lot development, e.g., building permit application). WEAK FOUNDATION SOILS— [LOC 50.06.006.11 The site is not identified as having weak foundation soils on the City's soil inventory map. The applicant should contact the Building Division to determine whether the nature of this proposal warrants any special reports or engineering for the structure's pier blocks or footings. ACCESS— [LOC 50.06.003.11 This standard addresses site access (driveway) impact on the adjacent streets. Engineering staff's comments are limited to the adequacy and safety of the proposed point of access of the driveways. This site has access to Mellon Avenue and the existing home has access to Seville Avenue, both public local level streets. Please see planning and fire marshal comments for access requirements and also LOC Chapter 42 comments below. ON-SITE CIRCULATION, DRIVEWAYS AND FIRE ACCESS— [LOC 50.06.003.2] This standard contains the geometric design standards for proposed driveways that act as fire department access roads, and other design features such as maximum permissible slope and the width of driveway approaches. Please see fire marshal comments for requirements regarding driveway width, turn-around or residential sprinklers. Driveway approaches shall be designed per City standards and be located so that drivers entering or exiting the driveway can see approaching traffic for a sufficient distance to make a safe entrance and exit, and that American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards shall be used in determining compliance with this standard. A complete application shall include documentation demonstrating that driveway approaches or common access driveway will comply with AASHTO standards. Page 3of7 LIGHTING - [LOC 50.06.004.3] Mellon Avenue is classified as a local level street. Street lighting is required only at intersections along local level streets in this zone. Two additional parcels accessing Mellon Avenue from this development site would create increased traffic, bike and pedestrian trips to the intersection of Harrington Avenue/Mellon Avenue, thus requiring the need to mitigate for the impacts of the new development to the transportation system. A new street light will be required to be installed at this intersection, as a condition of approval for the development. A light could be installed on an existing utility pole located at the street intersection, if acceptable to the utility provider (i.e. PGE) that owns the pole. UTILITIES— [LOC 50.06.0081 The applicant shall show on the application drawings the location of any existing public utilities on or adjacent to the site and any proposed private utilities. Utilities are available or can be made available as follows: A. Sanitary Sewer: A preliminary utility plan will be required to show how the parcels will connect to the public sewer. There is an existing 8" public sanitary sewer main located in Mellon Avenue that terminates approximately 325 feet south of the site. Following the City's Wastewater Master Plan, this development will be required to extend an 8-inch public sanitary sewer line along Mellon Avenue, and the new public main shall be constructed to the north boundary line of the site for a total length of approximately 600 feet. (Note: the depth of the sewer at the end of the line will need to be confirmed in order to see if the main can be extended further north of the site according to the Master Plan.) The new parcel(s) and the existing home will all be required to be connected to the public sewer main. Each individual service lateral will require a two-way clean-out be positioned at the right-of-way line. The on-site work would involve decommissioning the existing septic tank (removal, or filling with sand or gravel). All work would be done by private contractors. Upon completion of the public sewer extension, the applicant will qualify for the formation of a Zone of Benefit per LOC 40.04, which will establish a means through which the applicant can recover a pro-rata share of the cost of construction when other properties directly connect to this sewer extension. B. Water and Hydrants: There is an existing 6" Lake Grove Water District water main located in Seville Avenue and Mellon Avenue along the site frontage. A complete application shall include a letter from the Lake Grove Water District indicating their ability to serve the development and outlining any requirements or conditions. The nearest existing fire hydrants are located near the northeast corner of the site along the east side of Mellon Avenue and approximately 100 feet west of the site along the south side of Seville Avenue. Individual private water services shall be provided to each parcel. See Fire Marshal comments regarding fire hydrant requirements. Page 4 of 7 C. Storm Drains and approved points of disposal: Runoff from the new roof areas and access driveways will be required to be managed on-site. Please see comments above regarding storm water management requirements. D. Streets: Mellon Avenue is a two-lane local level street within a 40-foot right-of way along the site frontage and is under the jurisdiction of the City of Lake Oswego. Seville Avenue is also a two-lane local level street within a 40-foot right-of way along the site frontage and is currently under the jurisdiction of the Clackamas County. See LOC Chapter 42 comments below for additional information. E. Sidewalks: There are no existing sidewalks or pathways located within the immediate vicinity of the site. See additional comments under LOC Chapter 42 below. F. Other utilities: It is the applicant's responsibility to ascertain the availability of electric, gas, telecommunications and cable TV. All new utilities shall be installed underground. SIGHT DISTANCE AT ROADWAY INTERSECTIONS, PRIVATE STREETS AND DRIVEWAYS— [LOC 42.03.1301 This standard requires that no vegetation, fence, or signage be located higher than 30 inches within a "clear sight triangle." The clear sight triangle is that area enclosed by the lines formed by the intersection approach legs of roadways, private streets and driveways and a straight line drawn diagonally across the corner, connecting those lines at the various distances per AASHTO guidelines. The applicant shall show on the site plan that driveway approaches will comply with this standard. SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT CHARGES— [LOC Chapter 391 All Systems Development Charges are calculated in the building permit review process and due upon issuance of a building permit. Using the current Master Fees & Charges, as approved by the City of Lake Oswego, effective January 1, 2022, the following is an estimate of the anticipated required fees and charges that will be required for a new building site. These fees and charges are adjusted at the beginning of each year. The Engineering staff notes the existing home on the site will be given the valuation for the existing use. Single Family Dwelling Water Meter Fee: contact Lake Grove Water District System Development Charge (SDC): Water contact Lake Grove Water District Sanitary Sewer $3,296 if 3/4" water meter is installed for the parcel $5,496 if 1" water meter is installed for the parcel Surface Water $180 Page 5 of 7 Parks & Recreation $15,672 Transportation $17,014 LOC CHAPTER 42—STREETS AND SIDEWALKS This Chapter authorizes the City Engineer to make specific street and sidewalk improvement recommendations after taking a variety of policy and site-specific factors into consideration. The City Engineer's comments are included for the review of the overall understanding of the project. The Engineering staff notes the applicant is proposing that the middle and northerly parcel will take access from Mellon Avenue, and the existing home will remain on the site and will continue to access Seville Avenue. Seville Avenue As noted above, Seville Avenue is currently under the jurisdiction of Clackamas County and is also identified on the City's Transportation System Plan (TSP) to have future 6' wide curb-tight concrete sidewalk, according to Map ID 051 on the Roadway Projects map, Figure 5B. The Engineering staff does not recommend installing a pathway or sidewalk along the site frontage of Seville Avenue at this time, because there are no other pathways or sidewalks located along the north side of Seville Avenue within the immediate vicinity of the site. To be properly done, such a project would require a more extensive design analysis that would include adjoining properties and drainage conveyance facilities. Instead, the applicant should be required to sign a non-remonstrance agreement for participating in a future Local Improvement District (LID) for street improvements. Although the City does not recommend a sidewalk be constructed along Seville Avenue at this time, the applicant shall contact Clackamas County and provide correspondence from the County for any street improvement requirements along Seville Avenue including right-of-way dedication requirements. Mellon Avenue Regarding street improvement requirements along Mellon Avenue, this development will be required to dedicate sufficient right-of-way along the entire site frontage in order to achieve 25' of half-street right-of-way width, corresponding to a 50' overall right-of-way width standard for a local level street. It appears that five feet of public right-of-way dedication along the entire site frontage Mellon Avenue will be required. In addition to the right-of-way dedication, this development will be required to construct half-street pavement improvements along the site frontage of Mellon Avenue from the north boundary line to a point near the middle of the site, so that the middle parcel and the northerly parcel can have a driveway approach constructed perpendicular to the public street. The pavement width shall be a minimum 20' wide and be constructed to public structural street standards for the full 20' of width. Additional pavement width may also be required in order to work with the existing pavement that is located in the right-of-way serving 16508 and 16532 Mellon Avenue. Stormwater management will also be required for the runoff from the street. An infiltration drainage swale may be required, which Page 6 of 7 may increase the need for a wider right-of-way along the site frontage and more than 5' of dedication may be necessary. It appears that approximately 155' of half street improvement length along the site frontage will be necessary. In addition, the City Engineering staff does not recommend that a sidewalk be constructed along the site frontage of Mellon Avenue at this time. To be properly done, such a project would require a more extensive design analysis that would include adjoining properties and drainage conveyance facilities. Instead, the applicant should be required to sign a non- remonstrance agreement for participating in a future Local Improvement District (LID) for street improvements. Even though the sidewalk will not be required at this time, the applicant will be required to provide sufficient right-of-way dedication for a future sidewalk along the entire site frontage. Due to the complexity of this site, it is recommended that the applicant's civil engineer meet with City engineering and planning staff before submitting the application in order to review the street, storm, sanitary and water design for the development. Undergrounding of Utilities: Per LOC 50.06.008.4.d, utilities shall be installed underground; this applies to both new on-site utilities and existing utilities along the frontage of the development, unless exempted by the City Manager for one of the reasons listed in subsections i-vi. The Engineering staff notes there are existing overhead utilities located across the street from the site along the south side of Seville Avenue and the east side of Mellon Avenue. These utilities will not be required to be installed underground with this proposal. Undergrounding of those utilities should be completed at a future time that would include adjoining properties along both streets. This development would still be required to contribute to its share of the undergrounding, but should be completed with a more extensive undergrounding that would include the properties along both sides of the street. Instead, the applicant should be required at this time to execute a covenant, approved by the City Attorney, and recorded in the official records of the county where the real property is located, binding upon the parcels created by the land division of the parent parcel, and any later land divisions of those parcels: (1) Waiving the right to remonstrate regarding the formation of a local improvement district to underground utilities; and (2) Obligating the owner(s) to underground existing utilities along the frontage of the parent parcel when the City Manager determines that it is practicable to underground the frontage utilities. MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION, DISCLAIMER These comments are intended to acquaint the applicant with applicable codes and standards. They should not be construed as the final word on any topic. Additional information that is discovered during the application review process, input from other sources, and changes in Page 7 of 7 policies and interpretations may lead to conclusions and recommendations that differ from those provided herein. For development proposals that will eventually require the Engineering Division's review and inspection of public infrastructure, a 9%fee (based on the engineer's estimate of public infrastructure costs) will be collected. All final engineering as-built plans submitted for the creation of public facilities (street, wastewater, water and surface water) shall be vertically controlled by the City Datum (NGVD'29) and horizontally controlled by the Oregon State Plane coordinate system (NAD 83/91). The City maintains an index of vertical and horizontal control monuments available at: http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/publicworks/surveying http://www.ci.oswego.or.us/publicworks/cad-standards-guidelines-manual Attachment 15 From: Fsne.Paul To: Fd Brockman Cc: Siegel Scot Subject: RE:annexation of property at Baleine and Kimball Date: Wednesday,November 24,2021 11:20:00 AM Attachments: jmaoe001 ono Imaae002 ono Ed We are available at the following times on the week of December 6-10. Tuesday,December 7 from 2:00-3:00 Tuesday,December 7 from 3:00-4:00 Wednesday,December 8-from 9:00-10:00 Annexation of these properties will require connection to city sewer service.Since your client has not signed the"Covenant to Construct and Connect to the City Sewer Line"that was provided to you shortly after the first annexation hearing on November 2,I am unable to provide you with a firm council hearing date. Thank you Paul Espe,Associate Planner 503-697-6577 www.LakeOswego.city 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369,Lake Oswego OR 97034 Jlearn about gender pronouns herel Today in Black History Stay Connected I Facehnok Twinet I Jnalaucam I e-vpdateo From:Siegel,Scot Sent:Tuesday,November 23,2021 5:15 PM To:Ed Brockman<edbrockman846@gmail.com>;Loos,Jason<jloos@ci.oswego.or.us> Cc:Espe,Paul<pespe@ci.oswego.or.us> Subject:RE:annexation of property at Baleine and Kimball Ed, I'd suggest a meeting with Paul and myself the next 1-2 weeks so that we can get on the same page.I will have Paul coordinate a time with you and your team after Thanksgiving. Thanks, Scot From:Ed Brockman<edhrnrkman846Cdemail.corrt> Sent:Tuesday,November 23,2021 4:17 PM To:Loos,Jason<jlooslaci oswego.ocus> Cc:Siegel,Scot<csieeelf@ri ncwaan or us>;Espe,Paul<gesoelari ncwaan or us> Subject:Re:annexation of property at Baleine and Kimball We would like to delay until a February council meeting to allow proper notice.Please allow us more time. Ed Brockman Land Brokers NW 16805 Gassner Lane Lake Oswego,OR.97035 FdRrorkman846lfgmail corn 971-506-4148 Real Estate&Land Use Consulting On Tue,Nov 23,2021,4:13 PM Loos,Jason<jloosCalri.ncwaan or us>wrote: Mr.Brockman. Any type of agreement has to precipitated on City water and sewer servicing the area.I am happy to help Scot and Paul if there are legal questions related to this proposed development. However,at this time the issues are all planning related. Jason Jason Loos,City Attorney 0:503-635-0225 D:503-635-0224 www LakeOswego city 380 A Avenue — PO BOX 369,Lake Oswego,OR 97034 From:Ed Brockman<ydhrnrkman84616gmail.corn> Sent:Tuesday,November 23,2021 9:58 AM To:Loos,Jason<jloosrari ncwaan nr.us> Subject:Re:annexation of property at Baleine and Kimball I left a voice mail concerning the subject of a development or annexation agreement. Ed Brockman Land Brokers NW 16805 Gassner Lane Lake Oswego,OR.97035 fd9rnckman846tgmail.com 971-506-4148 Real Estate&Land Use Consulting On Tue,Nov 23,2021,9:51 AM Loos,Jason<jloosr@ri nswagn.nr ns>wrote: Mr.Brockman: I spoke to Scot this morning and we are in agreement that any proposal needs to have City Sewer connection pursuant to the City's Comprehensive Plan.I have attached Mr.Siegel's November 12,2021 letter,which provides more detail. Jason Jason Loos,City Attorney 0:503-635-0225 D:503-635-0224 www.LakeOswego.city 380 A Avenue PO BOX 369,Lake Oswego,OR 97034 From:Land Brokers NW<pdhrnrkmanR46(Oemail corn> Sent:Monday,November 22,2021 3:22 PM To:Loos,Jason<jloos(Oci oswego or us> Cc:Siegel,Scot<ssiegelf@ri.nswegn.nr us> Subject:annexation of property at Baleine and Kimball Jason, We spoke of Friday about a development agreement.You said you would talk to Scott this morning about it.I just spoke to Paul about getting a delay until February concerning a city council hearing.The deadline was tomorrow to sign the annexation agreement.My client is willing to deed the 1.4 acres bordering Baleine to the city in exchange for being able to build two homes on the.62 acre Kimball lot.We already have a septic approval and we just did some more test holes and appears we could get another approval there.We have other ideas as well.We need to annex into the city to be able to have enough space to do anything.The county encumbered the property recently with an overlay that is extremely restrictive that would go away if we were in the city. Ed Brockman Land Brokers NW 16805 Gassner Lane Lake Oswego,OR.97035 971-506-4148 FdRrnrkmanR46(alemail corn Real Estate&Land Use Consulting PUBLIC RECORDS LAW DISCLOSURE This e-mail is a public record of the City of Lake Oswego and is subject to public disclosure unless exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law.This email is subject to the State Retention Schedule.