From: Gerald Fisher
Sent: Wed Aug 18 12:44:06 2021
To: Mac Corthell; Dan Huff
Subject: RE: Puffer
Importance: Normal
Following the code requirements makes sense to me.
From: Mac Corthell <mcorthell@cityofmolalla.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2021 11:42 AM
To: Dan Huff <dhuff@cityofmolalla.com>; Gerald Fisher <gfisher@cityofmolalla.com>
Subject: Puffer
August 17th 2021
Re: 118 N Cole, Molalla, OR 97038
Mac Corthell
Dan Zinder
Julie Larson
Molalla City Council
Molalla Planning Commission
Dan Huff
Carrol & Scott Maloy
City Staff / Elected Officials and Property Owner,
Recent site development work has been witnessed by each of the adjacent neighbors (as well as neighbors in the general vicinity) of the 118 N Cole Street address pertaining to the development of a duplex project.
Previous written requests had asked for communication from City Staff regarding the Owner’s (Mr. & Mrs. Scott & Carol Maloy) intent to develop this site.
City staff is not privy to the intentions of property owners on their private land. Once an application is turned in it is noticed in accordance with state and local law. No notice is provided on Type I applications which is what duplexes and SFR’s are processed under. MMC 17-4.1.020 states: “Type I Procedure (Staff Review). The Planning Official, or designee, without public notice and without a public hearing, makes ministerial decisions through the Type I procedure. Ministerial decisions are those where City standards and criteria do not require the exercise of discretion (i.e., there are clear and objective standards).” Bear in mind that we use the model code, so this is the standard and best practice in the State of Oregon.
The previous applications for site development were not properly noticed to the surrounding property owners providing concern and additional merit to be notified of the future development applications.
This is not accurate. The prior application for a tri-plex was absolutely noticed correctly, that is the only way the neighbors became aware of the project. Type I applications do not get noticed as the code, not the community determines whether the project is compliant/allowed.
The work that is partially completed as of the date of this letter includes: 1) the sewer lateral extension from the East side of North Cole and stubbed out to the 118 N. Cole property. 2) the electrical conduit trench that is currently open that would deliver future electrical feed to the duplex from the nearest adjacent power pole. (The building pad has not been graded, nor has the building foundation perimeter been trenched.)
The adjacent neighbors to the 118 N. Cole site have provided requests for information pertaining to applications, plans and documents submitted for the development of this site including (but not limited to) the persons that this specific letter is addressed.
A public records request was submitted on 8/13/21 and staff is processing it through the appropriate channels and in compliance with state public records law.
Throughout previous contact with the City of Molalla a meeting was suggested with the property owner, Mr. & Mrs. Scott & Carol Maloy and the neighbors, however, to date no such meeting has been held that has involved the neighbors.
Staff suggested that the owners hold a neighborhood meeting, but there is nothing in our code that requires them to do so.
Simply stated, the Citizen Involvement protocol outlined in the Comprehensive Plan has not been adhered to. (Reference December 11th City Council Meeting Minutes / MMC Section 17-4.6.030 Item 5 / 5.1 to 5.6)
The citizen involvement provisions referenced are not relevant to a Type I application. All citizen involvement on such an application occurs during the legislative process for the development code.
It has been very surprising to the neighbors that the owner’s themselves have not been more forthcoming regarding the communication of their intended development plan. The Citizen Involvement protocol outlines communications that will be made by City Staff regarding a site’s potential development, however the fact that Mrs. Carol Maloy is a licensed realtor would provide an additional expectation, due care, and fiduciary responsibility to inform adjacent neighbors of future development at 118 N Cole that would affect the neighbors. These are items that would be disclosed in a real estate transaction and therefore bear a responsibility as a licensed individual to inform those directly adjacent who are affected regarding this development. Additionally, Mr. & Mrs. Maloy are known community members who have spent years on The Molalla River School Board and understand how an informative and diplomatic process should be undertaken. Where is that openness and diplomacy now when they want this development to move forward at their benefit? Each of the adjacent resident’s believe there is an opportunity to reaffirm that diplomacy and communication if it starts now.
There is no obligation for a land owner to inform neighbors of their intentions for a property or a given project that only requires a Type I application regardless of their profession. All notice requirements for a Type I application have been met.
Notwithstanding the documented history of the 118 N. Cole that has been documented in this letter, there is a possibility for a better outcome that would be a protection to the adjacent neighbors and also allow Mr. & Mrs. Carol Maloy to continue the development on their duplex project. The items below are expectations ofthis development that would ensure a balanced outcome. Anything short of the fulfilment of these items will likely continue in concern and liability for the actions taken by the named individuals on this letter.
It is important that this project be developed properly so that the impacts do not place additional burden on the surrounding property owners.
1. Shift the duplex setback on the West edge from 9.42’ to 17’. a. The previous setback along the West edge had been in excess of 10’
b. The Molalla Municipal Code requires a minimum 10’ setback
2. Planting of trees spaced about 10’ on center along the North, West and South property lines as a landscaped buffer between the existing properties to the new duplex at 118 N. Cole. a. Proposed tree species: Pine trees, Leland Cypress or similar evergreens (15 gallon size min)
3. Maintenance covenant to be recorded on the property indicating: a. That the existing home at 118 N. Cole will receive siding to cover the currently exposed Tyvek building wrap on the back on the residence.
b. That the new duplex will be routinely maintained by the owner to prevent build-up of unsightly materials, including weekly scheduled landscape maintenance and commercially reasonable interval for duplex exterior maintenance and painting.
4. Storm water run-off study to prevent cross lot drainage. a. The current plan on file reflects a drainage pattern that directs water to the Southwest which will impact neighbors.
b. A storm drain pump station may be under consideration currently, but may be impractical based on cost and maintenance. In the event that the aforementioned items are addressed, there may be a plan worked out that would prevent cross lot drainage and not require a storm water pump station.
State law requires “Clear & Objective” standards for residential construction. The desires of the community are considered during enactment of the development code which dictates setbacks and landscaping requirements. We cannot, by law, apply a discretionary standard to residential construction.
Storm drainage is accounted for by the PW department and must be directed to appropriate facilities to receive approval. Additionally, conditions of approval prohibit stormwater from being discharged to neighboring properties.
The other items are dealt with in the nuisance code and by the building official.
If these items can be reasonably fulfilled, there is the opportunity for a mutually acceptable outcome. In the event that these items are not fulfilled, specifically pertaining to the cross-lot drainage and impact to the adjacent properties, there will be open liability to the City and the proper owners (Scott & Carol Maloy) on the basis of this notification.
A mutually acceptable solution is our desire based on the items presented in this letter.
The neighbors do not have a legal basis to demand a “mutually acceptable solution” or anything else outside the development code. Private property owners are allowed, subject to zoning, and the development code, to build a SFR or Duplex on their property. There is no place for public comment, other than the obvious fact that the neighbors could talk to the property owner and ask them to make alterations to their plan. But even in that case, the property owner has zero obligation to succumb to the neighbors requests (or in this case demands).
Sincerely,
“The directly adjacent neighbors to 118 N. Cole”
Carma Puffer
Tim Morris
Lisa Haffey
Jeff Fizsimmons
Macahan “Mac” Corthell, J.D. | Planning Director
City of Molalla
117 N Molalla Ave. | PO Box 248 |Molalla, OR 97038
Phone - 503.829.6855
Fax – 503.829.3676
Email – mcorthell@cityofmolalla.com
Website – http://www.cityofmolalla.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this email message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this communication in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you.