RE: Annexation Discussion Continued

From: Mike Penunuri

Sent: Mon Aug 17 06:48:40 2020

To: Dan Zinder; Dan Symons; D. Carter

Cc: Julie Larson; Gerald Fisher; Sam Miller

Subject: RE: Annexation Discussion Continued

Importance: Normal

Attachments: image001.jpg; IMG_1159.jpg;

I have attached section D107 of the 2019 Oregon Fire Code so that we are all on the same page. Maybe Gerald and I could meet this week and chat.

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: Thursday, August 13, 2020 5:28 PM

To: Dan Symons <dans@symonsengineering.com>; D. Carter <dahacar@gmail.com>

Cc: Julie Larson <jlarson@cityofmolalla.com>; Gerald Fisher <gfisher@cityofmolalla.com>; Mike Penunuri <penunuri@molallafire.org>; Sam Miller <smiller@cityofmolalla.com>

Subject: RE: Annexation Discussion Continued

Hi Dan,

Sorry for the delay in returning volley on this one. We've had various persons out of the office recently and I wanted to make sure we had a full spectrum of feedback. Dave popped into the office today and I was able to provide some of what is included below to him. I’ve also attached record drawings for Lexington Estates Phase 5, which should have the utility information that you need.

Regarding your submitted layout:

* The northernmost properties present the biggest challenge. The Vick Road access piece is doable but problematic. Public works will require a gate between lots 17 and 31 to prevent through access as a workable public thoroughfare is not possible with the property dimensions at the tip of the horn. Molalla Fire does not want the gate but a gate activated by airhorn and maintained annually through an HOA may present a workable solution.

Preferably, we would move forward a different layout. One solution I mentioned to Dave in the office today was to curve the northern end of Rachel LN so it will align as a through block that would eventually cut through to the Mary Drive extension. This will eliminate the need for multiple flag accesses at the northern portion of the development and leave the Vick Road access to Public Works. It will also help access for future development phases.

* As mentioned in the pre-app, 30 lots is the cutoff for sprinkler requirement OR secondary egress (Mike P - can you clarify whether the cutoff is "30 lots and over" or "under 30"). Either way, the 31st lot would be considered as part of the same subdivision regardless of the access point.

* Generally including scaling on the next submission will be helpful for our ability to advise more precisely.

* The 200-600 ft block criteria from section 17-4.3.040 applies. Though the parcel does not meet sizing for large format development, the City will be considering the overall layout of northern sections of the City. Upon review, I believe what you submitted meets this standard. Minimum block length for local streets from the TSP is 150ft.

* I had mentioned to Dave in the office that pedestrian cut throughs would be required if additional blocks were not added but I now believe your block length does meet standards, scaling pending.

* However, the addition of pedestrian walk throughs or additional green space would add to the appeal of the project, internally and beyond. If you're cutting lots due to the above, please consider this possibility.

* The eyebrow section is ok :-)

Let me know if you have additional questions as you move forward.

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

www.symonsengineering.com

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

Generally, we’d prefer avoiding flag lots as well for new development. There is potential for common wall development on smaller lots, which may help you get to 30 lots without needing flags.

Let me know if you have additional Qs,

Dan Zinder

503.759.0226

From: Dan Symons <dans@symonsengineering.com>

Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 4:55 PM

To: D. Carter <dahacar@gmail.com>; Dan Zinder <dzinder@cityofmolalla.com>

Cc: Julie Larson <jlarson@cityofmolalla.com>

Subject: RE: Annexation Discussion Continued

Hi Dan Z.

Sorry to hear about Alice, always something to adjust to. We are tweaking a proposed plan now and would like to get it into your hands with our questions in advance of a phone call sometime next week. Stay tuned.

OFC says greater than 30 “dwelling units” requires multiple accesses so I think we have Dave’s question answered.

Who reviews the Traffic Impact Analysis for the City? Traffic engineers have their own vernacular so I find it best to have the traffic consultant contact the reviewer in advance to obtain the required report parameters.

I believe we need to get the proposed Site Plan flushed out a little further before scheduling a Neighborhood Meeting but we are driving forward to that goal and a phone call next week will help facilitate that a lot. Any days/times work best at your end?

Submittal schedule as Dave desires is understandably ASAP but we have some tasks to coordinate and complete before then that require the efforts of others so I’d like to get our arms around this a little better before I can commit on our end.

Thanks for your assistance, have a Happy 4^th of July!

Dan Symons

Symons Engineering Consultants, Inc.

phone: 503 760 1353

www.symonsengineering.com

Integrity & Strength in Design

From: D. Carter <dahacar@gmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 5:09 AM

To: Dan Zinder <dzinder@cityofmolalla.com>

Cc: Dan Symons <dans@symonsengineering.com>; Julie Larson <jlarson@cityofmolalla.com>

Subject: Re: Annexation Discussion Continued

OK.

Let's cancel today's meeting and re-group.

We have a plan we would like to submit to the city for review. pdf file.

Can we have 30 lots without triggering sprinkler requirements? Do it read "more than 30" or "less than 30"

Mr. Zinder: could you review our prelim plan and guide us going forward?

Mr. Zinder: I heard we need to prepare a traffic impact report. How do we start this process? who/where?

Is it too early to have a neighborhood meeting?

I'd like to file our application(s) before the end of the month, is that possible?

On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 4:58 PM Dan Zinder <dzinder@cityofmolalla.com> wrote:

Hi Dan and Dave,

Hope you both are well. I thought I had sent this on Monday but it had not gone out yet.

As of Tuesday last week Alice is no longer working with the City. Given this, it might make sense to call off our call tomorrow and for you to write a list of outstanding questions about the annexation process. I think you’ll get better answers that way as it will allow me time to pore over our most recent annexation in addition to code. It has been a whirlwind.

Best,

Dan Zinder

503.759.0226

Dave Carter

503 850 4256 desk

503 890 6458 cell

dahacar@gmail.com