Dan, thanks for the heads up. If they build 30 homes or more, two access/egress points are required. The only way around this is to sprinkle ALL of the homes in this subdivision. The sprinklers would be a trade off for the second access point ONLY. All the rest of the requirements for hydrants, no parking areas, addressing, turn-a-rounds ect would still apply. Molalla Fire will not allow emergency access gates. They don’t work, no one maintains them and its just a way to skirt the requirement of the code. If they choose to install a second access point on to Vick, which I would strongly encourage, as Gerald stated they would have to get “Permission form the County” as this is a county maintained road. The other option is to build only 29 homes and not 30 or more.
Mike Penunuri
Lieutenant/Paramedic
Molalla Fire District
503-829-2200 Ext. 104
This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your system; you may not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone.
From: Dan Zinder <dzinder@cityofmolalla.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 9:59 AM
To: Mike Penunuri <penunuri@molallafire.org>
Cc: Gerald Fisher <gfisher@cityofmolalla.com>
Subject: Feedback From MFD requested - FW: Annexation Discussion Continued
Hi Mike,
The City received a second draft of a plan to subdivide the proposed “horn” property annexation, north of Rachel LN in Lexington Estates. Looking for your feedback.
The main comment from Public Works was that the northern-most lot (Lot 31) gains access from Vick RD. This would require gating at the southern access point to prevent through traffic to Vick RD. I’m particularly interested if this would meet fire code. If these two standards conflict they may have to abandon the configuration for Lot 31.
From the planning side, this design is still short some through accessways to meet block length requirements. Generally, their next submission needs dimensions.
Best,
Dan Zinder
503.759.0226
From: Dan Symons <dans@symonsengineering.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 9, 2020 4:37 PM
To: Dan Zinder <dzinder@cityofmolalla.com>; D. Carter <dahacar@gmail.com>
Cc: Julie Larson <jlarson@cityofmolalla.com>; Gerald Fisher <gfisher@cityofmolalla.com>
Subject: RE: Annexation Discussion Continued
Thanks Dan,
Sorry for the delay on this but I wanted to do some prelim pond sizing to make sure we had enough room allocated for it. An eyebrow is what I call a half cul-de-sac and it, combined with wedgies and flags, gives access to deeper portions of a parcel without creating the need for a dead end street. It also means less pavement and more generously sized lots in that area not only for this project but for when the parcel to the west gets developed sometime in the future.
Dave has decided to not propose common wall at this time even though we are not bumping up against max. density, primarily to maintain a certain product level and neighborhood feel but also to keep no more than 30 dwellings from taking access from Rachel. We are not able to get up to the max. number standard lots on this parcel anyway due to the Horn’s unique configuration so I hope you can see why the flags in this case are necessary. FYI, I didn’t need to split a flag pole anywhere and access for Lots 17 and 31 would not connect.
Getting some feedback on approvability of the layout will really help Dave with his next steps. We are open to tweaks that you may see as necessary to avoid a potential fatal flaw for us in the process but we’d be OK with “I love it!” too.
I will have the chosen traffic consultant go through Gerald.
Thanks again for your assistance.
Dan Symons
Symons Engineering Consultants, Inc.
phone: 503 760 1353
Integrity & Strength in Design
From: Dan Zinder <dzinder@cityofmolalla.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 12:45 PM
To: Dan Symons <dans@symonsengineering.com>; D. Carter <dahacar@gmail.com>
Cc: Julie Larson <jlarson@cityofmolalla.com>; Gerald Fisher <gfisher@cityofmolalla.com>
Subject: RE: Annexation Discussion Continued
Hi Dan,
Traffic analysis reviews will go through Gerald Fisher.
To answer your planning Qs:
- 1. Flag stems require 20’ for fire access.
- 2. For flag lots, orientation is to the flag stem. Only 20’ of street frontage is required.
- 3. I’m not sure what you mean by an eyebrow – a sketch would help. But, yes – you could request a modification to 40’ street frontage and if the lots widened out (pie shape?) it would be all the more grounds to grant that. We’ve done that with cul-de-sac lots before.
- 4. Two SFRs or Duplex is possible on one flag stem. For two SFRs it would split down the center (10’) of the stem with reciprocal access easements