From: Spencer Parsons
Sent: Fri Aug 14 11:52:23 2020
To: Dan Huff
Cc: Gerald Fisher; Dan Zinder; Kristen Ketchel-Bain
Subject: FW: My Clientâs Response to Development Agreement Proposal by City of Molalla
Importance: Normal
Dan,
Mike Robinson has requested a meeting with City staff to discuss the Scandia Development Agreement. See the email below responding to the City’s preliminary proposal.
I’m scheduled to be out of the office Monday-Wednesday next week but could do something on Thursday or Friday. We would probably want to have a call just amongst ourselves beforehand to go through Mike’s responses below.
Let me know if the end of next week will work. If it doesn’t, the following week is pretty open for me.
Spencer
Spencer Q. Parsons
Beery Elsner & Hammond, LLP
1750 SW Harbor Way, Suite 380
Portland, OR 97201
t (503) 226 7191 | d (503) 802 0014
P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Caution! This communication may contain a privileged attorney-client communication or attorney work product. Please do not distribute, forward or retransmit without prior approval. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please notify me by reply e-mail and delete all copies.
From: Robinson, Michael C. [mailto:MRobinson@SCHWABE.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 7:26 AM
To: Spencer Parsons
Subject: My Client’s Response to Development Agreement Proposal by City of Molalla
Dear Spencer,
Thank you for your proposal on behalf of the City of Molalla(the “City”). After reviewing your proposal with my client, this is my client’s response.
1. General Issues.
1. The Development Agreement(the “DA”) is a non-statutory DA not subject to the provisions in ORS Chapter 94. The DA will be processed concurrently with the SDR application.
2. The DA should apply to all entitlements necessary for my client to operate its intended business in the existing building, including all proposed business permits and licenses, building permits and land use permits, including the Business License that my client has applied for but not received.
3. The City will support and recommend approval of all such necessary licenses and permits as long as my client is in compliance with the proposed or approved DA.
4. The City will not require a land division in order for my client to comply with the DA but will support my client’s request for a property line adjustment(s)or lot consolidations in order to comply with applicable City land use regulations, if any, because the lots that are on my client’s leasehold are lots of record and subject to ORS 92.017.
5. In the event that my client proposes exterior alterations to the site implicating relevant City Code provisions, it agrees to comply with such applicable provisions as agreed upon between the City and my client.
6. The site and the improvements thereon are governed by the non-conforming development provisions in Molalla Development Code(“MDC”)17-1.4.030.
7. The City agrees to support adjustments and variances as necessary to implement the DA.
8. In the event that my client purchases the entire property now owned by its lessor(the “Owner“), my client agrees to make all necessary site improvements to bring the Property into compliance with such MDC requirements as specified in the DA within a time to be agreed upon between my client and the City.
2. Proposed Conditions of Approval.
A. Sewer and water connections brought up to current City standards and unpermitted connections removed and connection to City water system. The Owner’s position is that the City has or can approve the sewer connection to the property(May 29, 2020 email from Owner attorney to City Attorney). My understanding from the Owner is that the City has resolved all of the alleged violations on the property involving sewer and water connections, plumbing permits and connections and interior sprinkler systems.
B. Pre-treatment survey. What is the purpose of this form and what are the ramifications of submitting it to the City? My understanding is that the property has an approved stormwater system and since my client proposes no exterior alterations, the stormwater system is not implicated.
C. Compliance with Oregon Structural Specialty Code(“OSSC”), Oregon Fire Code(“OFC”) and Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Administration(“OSHA”)standards. In what ways are these Codes relevant and how do they apply to the existing building? What standards does the City believe are deficient? Does the City believe that a change in use of the building triggers certain standards within these Codes?
3. Potential Development Agreement Items.
A. Paved driveway and paved vehicle parking areas. These areas are presently paved and constitute non-conforming development. My client will agree to an inspection of the paved areas and will agree to make limited improvements as needed to provide for safe ingress and egress to the building and for the required number of off-street parking spaces and loading areas and will stripe such areas as necessary to conform to applicable MDC requirements.
B. Landscaping and outdoor screening. Because the site is a non-conforming development, new landscaping is not required, My client agrees that if exterior storage is established, that screening is required. My client will agree to develop a reasonable landscaping and exterior screening plan that goes beyond what is required because of the non-conforming development status but is not what would be required for new development. The City agrees to support an adjustment or variance if such approval is necessary to implement the agreed upon plan.
C. Upgrade stormwater systems. My client does not believe that an upgraded stormwater system is needed because it is not expanding the building footprint or otherwise triggering stormwater requirements through excavation and, in any event, the Owner believes that the property is now in conformance with applicable stormwater requirements.
D. Access and ODOT Driveway Approach. The Owner has been discussing the access requirements with ODOT. The Owner believes that the driveway connecting to the state highway is a “Grandfathered“ access right and my client’s proposed use generates such daily vehicle trips as not to require additional improvements under the requirements of OAR Chapter 734, Division 51(Highway Access Administrative Rules).
Spencer, we’d like to schedule a call with you and your client to discuss these comments. My client and I look forward to discussing the DA with you and the City staff.
Thanks. Mike
Sent from my iPhone
__________________________________________________________
NOTICE: This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.