►
From YouTube: 10/21/2020 HB 2001 Stakeholder Advisory Group
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
C
A
That
way,
we
don't
hear
any
background
noise
and
then,
if
you
want
to
ask
a
question
like
we
did
last
time,
feel
free
to
just
raise
your
hand
and
lynn's
going
to
help
me
keep
an
eye
on
the
hands
that
are
raised
and
raise
it
as
much
as
you
want
throughout
the
meeting.
If
you
have
questions
to
go
over
what
we're
talking
about,
so
we
don't
miss
the
opportunity
to
hear
what
you
might
have
to
say.
Probably
what
was
that
I'm.
A
A
So
today
the
the
goal
for
us
to
go
over
the
model
code.
So
last
time
we
went
over
the
draft
oars
that
the
state
has
put
out
and
again
they're
just
draft.
So
this
is
dlcd
and
angelo
planning
group
are
still
working
on
the
drafts.
So
it's
really
important
to
note
as
we
go
through
today's
discussion,
what
we
may
see
as
some
of
the
standards
in
the
draft
oars
or
model
codes
are
still
subject
to
change.
A
These
are
the
paths
to
compliance
for
the
city.
To
consider
and
again,
I
want
to
say
that
I
have
an
email
in
on
this
as
well
to
the
department,
land
conservation
and
development
dlcd,
making
sure
that
the
city
has
an
option
to
pick
and
choose
what
we
would
like
to
use
out
of
the
model
code
and
apply
the
organ
administrative
rules.
A
I
I
think,
as
you
see
in
the
model
code,
there
will
be
some
design
standards
that
we
would
be
supportive
of.
I
just
don't
have
a
real,
clear
understanding
yet
from
dlcd
that
we
get
to
pick
and
choose
what
we'd
like
to
use.
I
think
we
we're
really
close
to
being
able
to
do
that,
but
I
am
still
waiting
for
something
in
writing
to
verify
that
that's
the
option.
So,
with
that
understanding,
the
path
to
compliance
for
the
committee
to
consider,
is
we
the
the
ordinary,
revised
oregon
administrative
rules
that
we
reviewed
last
week?
A
But
if
you
deviate,
then
you
have
those
other
two
processes
that
we
would
have
to
go
through
is
proposing
alternative,
citing
and
design
standards
or
new
siting
and
design
standards.
So
my
hope
is
without
having
to
do
that.
We
can
come
to
an
agreement
on
applying
whatever
standards
we
choose
to
apply
out
of
the
model
code.
A
The
way
that
they're
drafted
so
first
with
duplexes
tonight,
city
council
is
scheduled
to
conduct
their
second
reading
on
the
ordinance
that
would
allow
duplexes
outright
permitted
in
the
low-density
residential
districts
and
then
reduce
their
lot
sizes
down
to
10
000
square
feet
in
the
low
density,
residential
and
4
000
square
feet
in
the
standard
density
residential
districts.
So
that
part
we've
gotten
taken
care
of
now,
there's
a
couple
things
that
we
have
to
amend
in
the
development
code,
and
these
would
apply
only
to
duplexes
and
basically
remember.
A
We
have
to
treat
them
the
same
as
single-family
dwelling
units,
so
we
already
currently,
fortunately
have
removed
density
maximums,
which
are
required
in
the
oars
and
the
model
codes.
So
when
you
see
the
abbreviation
on
my
screen
of
m
mc,
that
is
for
model
code,
so
the
top
one
is
the
oregon
administrative
rule
like
for
density,
and
then
the
mc
is
model
code.
A
So
we
fixed
the
densities
we're
already
in
compliance
there.
These
setbacks
there's
and
this
is
going
to
be
tedious
as
we
go
through
the
whole
point
of
this
is
really
just
to
show
you
the
different
options
for
almost
everything
that
apply
to
duplexes,
triplex's,
quads
town
homes
and
cottage
clusters,
so
for
duplexes.
A
Basically,
we
are
in
compliance
right
now
with
the
oars.
We
have
the
same
setbacks
for
duplexes
as
we
have
for
single-family
dwelling
units
and
then,
if
we
were
to
look
at
the
model
code,
you
could
look
in
a
minimum
front
sap.
You
cannot
allow
a
minimum
front
step
back
of
20
feet
or
more,
which
we
don't
and
then
a
minimum
setback
on
the
rear,
greater
than
15..
We
currently
are
at
five.
A
Now,
the
off
street
parking
we
will
have
to
decide
which
parking
requirement
to
go
through
and
when
I'm
done
with
this
presentation
and
when
the
lcd
comes
out
with
their
final
drafts,
I
plan
to
put
together
a
table
with
all
this
information
so
that
you
can
see
the
different
options
and
then
we
would
work
through
those.
As
we
start
drafting
again,
today
is
just
to
go
over
high
level
to
give
you
a
really
good
idea
of
what
we
have
some
decision
making
to
do
so
with
off
street
parking,
regardless
of
what's
in
the
code.
A
A
If
you
use
the
model
code,
you
cannot
require
any
off-street
parking,
so
that'll
be
a
discussion
and
then
we're
we'll
have
to
amend
our
development
code
to
be
in
compliance
with
the
design
standards.
Today
we
do
have
design
standards
for
duplexes
and
we
cannot
have
those
anymore.
We
have
to
treat
them
the
same
as
single
family,
drawing
units
and
that's
a
decision
that's
already
made
so
we'll
have
to
amend
the
code
for
that
and
then
we're
in
compliance.
A
A
The
dlcd
asking
for
some
clarity
on
this,
because
when
talking
to
the
consultants,
there's
some
different
ways
of
looking
at
this,
and
so
the
oar
says
that
we're
not
required
to
apply
a
lot
coverage
or
efflori
ratio
to
duplexes
today
in
the
development
code,
we
do
it
then
it
goes
on
to
say.
If
a
city
chooses
to
apply
lot
coverage
and
floor
ratio
standards,
it
can't
be
any
less
than
a
single
family
drawing
unit.
A
So
the
question
to
dlcd
is
since
we
sort
of
apply
it
to
single
family
drawing
units
in
certain
cases,
can
we
apply
it
to
duplexes
still
and
they
are
not
sure.
So
I
will
keep
you
posted
on
that
one
and
then
another
one
is
that
the
city
can
provide
clear
and
objective
exceptions
to
public
works
standards
that
apply
to
single
family.
So
this
is
sidewalk
requirements
as
an
example,
and
we
apply
the
same
requirement
to
single
family,
drawing
units
and
duplexes
for
sidewalks.
Basically,
you
I'm
sorry.
No,
we
don't
so
duplexes
yeah.
A
A
So,
moving
on
to
triflexes
and
quadplexes
same
discussion,
so
for
lot
coverage,
we
have
a
request
rule
in
the
organ
administrative
rules
and
then
there's
also
a
section
in
the
model
code.
So
this
is
the
one
where
we
would
go
through
and
decide,
hopefully,
which
one
we
would
like
to
use
and
basically
says.
The
city
is
not
required
to
use
lot
coverage
in
the
oers.
A
A
A
However,
if
we
do,
it
can't
be
less
restrictive
than
a
single
family
towing
unit,
that's
in
the
oars,
but
if
we
are
allowed
to
choose
what
we
would
like
to
in
the
model
code,
there
is
an
option
for
florida
ratio
and
it's
based
on
the
lot
size
of
a
single
family
dwelling
unit.
As
you
can
see
in
the
chart
on
the
right.
A
A
A
The
top
table
is
breaking
down
the
parking
for
in
compliance
with
the
oars.
So
you
can
see
the
zones
on
the
left.
Rl
is
the
low
density.
Rs
is
standard,
rm
is
medium,
rh
is
high,
and
it's
based
off
the
single
family
dwelling
lot
sizes
and
in
our
rh
we
don't
allow
single
family.
So
there
isn't
a
lot
size.
That's
why
it
says
n
a
for
not
applicable.
A
You
can
see
for
duplexes
according
to
the
oars.
We're
allowed
to
have
two
parking
spots,
total,
no
matter
what
the
zone
and
then,
if
you
look
at
the
triplexes
according
to
the
oars,
the
rl
would
allow
three
rs2
and
then
one
in
the
medium
and
high
density,
residentials
and
then
quads
breaks
down
to
four
in
the
low
density
residential
three
in
the
standard
density,
residential
and
one
in
the
medium
and
high.
A
A
A
I
don't
know
if
there'll
be
support
for
it
by
the
rest
of
the
commissioners,
but
to
look
at
maybe
requiring
and
keep
it
very
simple,
don't
base
it
on
lot
sizes,
but
require
one
parking
space
per
unit.
So
again,
regardless
of
lot
size,
the
triplex
would
require
three,
a
four
flex
will
require
or
a
quad
would
require
four
parking
spaces.
A
This
won't
affect
duplexes.
Duplexes
would
still
be
at
two
which,
according
to
oers,
is
one
space
per
unit,
so
it
would
be
consistent,
and
so
we
will
find
out
when
it
won't
be
in
the
revised
drafts
that
we
receive.
It
would
be
something
that
would
be
discussed
during
their
hearings.
I
believe
on
november
12th
and
13th.
So
stay
tuned
to
see
if
there's
any
changes
in
the
parking
requirements.
A
So
triflexes
and
quads
same
thing
as
duplexes.
No,
and
it's
the
same
in
the
oers
and
the
model
code,
we
basically
have
to
eliminate
maximum
densities
because
they're
going
to
be
allowed
on
such
small
lots
that
there's
no
way
they'll
meet
the
density,
maximums,
so
they'll
be
exempt
from
those,
and
then
the
setbacks
for
triplexes
and
quads
and
the
according
to
the
oars
can't
be
different
than
a
single
family,
drawing
unit
which
for
triplexes
today
we
do
treat
them
the
same
as
a
single-family
drawing
unit.
A
If
we
were
to
go
with
the
model
code,
then
it
set
some
different
setbacks
which
are
not
as
flexible
as
the
ones
we
have
today.
So
I
could
see
supporting
what
is
in
the
code
today.
It's
the
same
as
we
treat
single
family
drawing
units
we've
been
using
it
for
years
for
duplexes
and
triplexes,
and
we
could
apply
it
to
the
quads
as
well,
which
is
10
feet
in
the
front
yard,
for
the
livable
space
20
for
garages
and
then
five
for
side
and
rear
setbacks
in
the
standard
density
residential
zone.
A
And
then
height
according
to
the
oregon
oars,
it
can't
be
different
than
what
we
applied
to
single
family.
It
can't
be
less
than
25
feet.
We
are
okay
there,
because
even
in
the
rs,
we
allow
30
feet,
which
is
what
we
allow
for
a
single
family,
drawing
unit
duplexes
and
triplexes
today
and
then
in
the
model
code,
it's
actually
higher
than
what
we
would
allow
today
in
our
standard
density,
residential,
it's
a
maximum
height
of
less
than
35
feet
or
three
stories.
A
So
today,
in
the
standard
density,
residential
we've
always
done
30
feet.
If
we
went
with
the
model
code,
it
would
bump
up
triplexes
and
quads
to
30
discussion
for
this
group
on
which
height
requirement
we
would
like
to
use
and
again
that's
saying
that
dlcd
comes
back
and
says
we
get
to
pick
and
choose
which
requirements
we'd
like
to
use.
A
A
A
This
would
not
apply
to
duplexes
anymore,
but
we
could
still
continue
to
apply
it
to
triplexes
and
then
to
quad
plexus.
I
sent
an
email
off
to
this
angelo
planning
group.
There
are
consultants,
that's
drafting
this
and
we'll
be
sending
another
comment
out
because,
in
my
opinion,
the
term
not
separated
from
the
street
by
a
dwelling
unit
is
not
clear
and
objective.
A
You
could
have
one
dwelling
unit
behind
another
dwelling
unit
by
maybe
only
five
feet
of
the
front
edge
or
five
percent.
It's
not
clear
what
it
means
by
saying
it's
not
separated.
I
think
there
needs
to
be
a
numerical
standard
in
there,
so
that
the
planners
have
something
very
clear
to
decide
when
a
front
door
is
not
going
to
be
acquired
on
the
unit.
In
the
back,
when
it's
considered
not
separated.
A
This
is
one
that
we
have
not
used
in
any
of
our
design
standards,
so
we
could
decide
if
we'd
like
to
incorporate
this
or
continue
to
not
incorporate
it,
and
it's
basically
15
of
the
area
has
to
include
windows
or
entrance
doors.
So
up
for
discussion-
and
we
will
talk
about
this
more
when
we
go
through
drafting
the
code.
A
A
So
if
we
don't
want
to
go
through
that,
then
we
have
to
use
this
and
what
it
basically
says
is
if
you're
going
to
put
parking
in
between
the
dwelling
units
in
the
street,
the
combined
width
of
all
garages
and
outdoor
on-site
parking
and
maneuvering
areas
cannot
exceed
more
than
50
percent
of
the
street
frontage.
So
you
can
see
what
that
looked
like
in
the
on
the
right
and
then
the
total
width
of
all
driver
approaches
must
knock
seat
32
feet
per
frontage,
which
is
what
we
do
today.
A
Fortunately,
and
then
there
has
to
be.
You
are
allowed
to
pick
a
spacing
standard
between
the
driveway
approach.
City
of
bend
uses
seven
and
they're
letting
cities
actually
pick.
What
that
spacing
standard
is
so
we
would
stick
with
seven
and
then,
if
you
have
more
than
one
frontage
there's
these
other
standards
again.
These
are
pretty
much
from
the
city
of
bend.
So
we're
fortunate
that
if
we
decide
to
keep
using
these
we'll
be
pretty
much
in
compliance,
we
would
just
add
them
to
quads,
because
we
only
use
them
today
for
duplexes
and
triplexes.
A
Here
are
some
more
pictures
of
would
be
allowed.
You
can
see
the
picture
on
the
left
is
separated
driveways.
We
already
allow
that,
of
course,
we
would
support
access
off
the
alley
and
then
the
corner
lots.
We
would
support.
What's
in
the
diagram
there
as
well,
where
your
ones
on
a
local
street,
you
can
get
two
driveway
approaches
and
on
the
other
street
you
can
have
one
for
a
total
of
three.
A
So
any
questions
on
the
triplexes-
and
I
know
it's
a
lot
of
information
and
we
will
go
through
this
again
once
we
have
the
final
drafts
through
and
start
drafting,
I
just
again
want
to
give
some
high
level
ideas
of
what
it
is
we
will
be
looking
at
and
what
we
may
be
allowed
to
compare
between
and
use
between,
the
oars
and
the
model
code.
So
any
questions
on
duplexes
reflexes.
C
A
The
only
reason
that
we've
incorporated
it
into
our
recent
code
update
two
years
ago
was
to
allow
flexibility
of
the
design,
so
garages
aren't
always
next
to
each
other.
If
you
want
to
break
up
the
span
of
garages
and
in
order
to
do
that,
you
would
need
separated
driveways,
so
we've
added
it
in,
and
there
was
support
at
the
state
level
to
allow
other
cities
to
do
the
same.
B
A
So
now
on
to
townhouses,
I
have
sorry
it
sounds
so
bad,
but
I
have
another
email
into
the
state
because,
as
I
was
putting
this
powerpoint
together,
it's
very
clear
from
the
oregon
administrative
rules.
What
we're
allowed
to
do
it
says
if
this
for
density
for
townhouses.
If
a
city
applies
density,
maximums,
it
must
allow
four
times
the
maximum
density
allowed
for
single
family.
So
basically
in
the
rl
would
allow
16
units
per
acre
in
the
standard
density
residential.
A
A
A
A
If
you
went
to
the
model
code,
it's
a
little
bit
different.
It
basically
says
you
have
to
treat
them
like
a
single
family
dwelling
unit,
except
you
can't
have
front
setbacks
greater
than
10,
which
we
would
be
okay
there,
the
minimum
rear
setbacks
can't
be
greater
than
10,
which
we're
fine.
However,
it
goes
on
to
state
rear
setbacks,
with
lots
with
alley,
access
or
invalid.
A
When
we
have
an
alley
access
townhome,
we
still
require
five
feet:
rear
yard
setback
and,
if
there's
a
garage,
there's
an
even
greater
setback
to
provide
backing
distance,
so
I
don't
know
how
how
a
zero
rear
yard
setback
would
work
and
then
street
side
is
10,
we're
fine
there
and
then,
as
we
are
with
the
interior,
the
zero
is
where
the
townhomes
actually
attach
on
the
property
line.
And
then,
if
you
have
a
row
of
town
homes,
the
very
end
one
is
at
five
feet,
which
is
what
we
require
today
too.
A
A
The
height
is
a
little
bit
different,
it
says,
may
not
apply
lower
standards
and
the
oars
that
we
do
for
single
family
drawings
which
we're
fine
there.
We
treat
them
all
the
same
when
it
comes
to
height,
depending
on
the
zone,
and
then
we
don't
mandate
covered
or
structured
parking.
I
guess,
if
a
city
does,
then
you
have
to
allow
at
least
three
stories.
We
don't
define
story
either.
A
Really
so
just
having
a
height
is
much
more
clear
and
objective
and
then,
if
a
local
government
does
not
mandate
cover
to
structure
parking,
the
height
standards
must
allow
construction
of
at
least
two
stories.
Ours
does,
because
in
the
rs
again
we're
at
30
feet
and
rm
35
and
then
the
model
code,
it
does
increase
the
height
to
35
feet,
which
is
similar
to
what
it
was
proposing
for
triplexes
and
quads.
So
this
is
higher
than
what
we
would
normally
allow
in
our
standard
density
residential
districts.
A
So
parking
in
the
oers
is
one
space
per
unit
and
you
can
allow
on
street
parking
credits,
and
today
the
bend
development
code
allows
an
on-street
parking
credit
of
up
to
50
percent
of
the
required
parking.
So
I
guess
you'd
still
have
one
on
site
and
then
the
model
code
is
also
one
space
per
unit,
and
it
says
you
have
to
allow
spaces,
maybe
provided,
what's
it
say,
and
if
on
street
parking
spaces
meet
all
the
standards
below
you
have
to
allow
on-street
parking
parking
account
towards
your
required
parking.
A
So
basically
the
spots
have
to
be
abutting.
The
property
of
the
townhouse
has
to
be
a
minimum
of
22
feet,
long,
which
we
just
amended
our
code
with
a
package.
That's
going
tonight
that
reduced
our
minimum
from
24
to
22,
because
I
knew
this
part
was
coming
and
that
the
space
isn't
in
a
clear
vision
triangle.
So
when
it's
near
a
driveway,
it
has
to
be
set
back
a
certain
distance
so
that
there
is
a
clear
vision
area
on
each
side
of
the
driveway
that
isn't
blocked
by
a
car.
A
They
have
the
same
thing.
They
have
a
entry
orientation
for
the
townhouse.
I
don't
think
we
have
this
for
townhouses
today.
Basically
again,
it
requires
one
front
door
to
face
the
street
and
has
a
certain
requirements
of
what
that
means,
and
we
don't
have
this
either
for
townhouses
and
really
think
about
our
townhouse
code
without
what
is
here
for
unit
definition
and
the
front
door
orientation.
A
I
still
think
a
lot
of
our
townhouses
have
developed
quite
nicely,
but
if
we
wanted
to
use
this,
I
I
think
we
could.
What
it
means
is.
Basically
you
have
to
provide
one
of
these.
I
would
almost
call
them
architectural
designs
at
least
one
of
the
following
on
at
least
one
street
facing
facade,
so
a
roofed
armor
a
balcony,
a
bay
window,
an
offset
if
you.
If
the
entryway
faces
the
street,
it
has
to
be
recessed
covered
entry
or
the
porch
requirements.
A
Another
one
that
the
city
doesn't
have
is
the
window
requirement
to
be
on
each
of
the
facades,
which
is
in
this
case.
It
would
say,
15
of
the
area
of
the
street
facing
facade
would
have
to
include
windows
or
entrance
doors
goes
on
to
say,
half
of
the
window
area
in
the
door
of
an
attached
garage
may
also
count.
So
this
group
can
talk
about
whether
or
not
we
want
to
start
regulating
windows
on
townhouses
and
then
in
the
organ
administrative
rules.
A
It
does
say
that
a
city
may
but
is
not
required
to
apply
bulk
and
scale
to
townhouses
and
what
that
means.
If
we
want,
we
can
regulate
lot
coverage,
which
we
do
today
floor
ratio.
We
do
not
maximum
unit
size,
we
do
not,
and
if
you
do
it
can't
limit
the
vulcan
scale
that
is
greater
than
single
family
detached
dwellings.
A
E
Hey
there
how's
it
going
good.
I
I
I
just
wanted
to
have
a
quick
comment
on
the
the
window
percentage
area
requirement.
We
went
through
a
similar
instance
to
this
with
the
city
of
hillsborough
when
they
were
going
through
some
code
revisions,
a
few
years
back
and
when
you
get
on
the
smaller
product.
Facade
products
such
as
townhomes
and
whatnot,
they're
really
becomes,
or
what
really
comes
into
play
is
with
the
orientations
of
those
townhomes.
E
You
know
they're
on
different
sorts
of
lots.
They're
not
always
front-facing
lots,
there's
that
15
requirement
can
get
pretty
extreme
and
create
almost
a
feeling
of
sort
of
like
a
storefront
front
in
some
cases,
so
that
that's
something
that
I
would
caution
and
and
just
wanted
to
mention
is-
is
that
it
doesn't
seem
like
15
should
be
that
tough.
E
But
when
you're
dealing
with
a
a
plan,
that's
so
narrow,
typically
that
you
have
limitations
on
design
and
what's
in
the
front,
you
know
that
could
be
a
bathroom
wall
for
example,
and
so
you
know,
do
you
really
want
this
huge
window
in
your
bathroom
sort
of
thing?
So
that's
something
I
just
wanted
to
mention.
A
A
I
think
your
comments
matter
helpful
to
take
into
consideration
when
we
start
talking
about
whether
or
not
we
want
to
incorporate
this
into
our
proposed
amendments
so
again,
as
you're
driving
around
think
about.
When
you
see
some
townhouse
projects,
whether
or
not
you
really
think
we
need
to
regulate
the
percentage
of
the
window
area
on
those
on
those
projects.
E
Yeah-
and
I
would
say
too,
that
the
you
know
whether
or
not
the
garage
door
is
factored
in
if
it's
a
front
load
versus
a
rear
load.
You
know
some
some
items
like
that
have
a
pretty
big
effect
of
you
know
how
much
wall
you
have
in
actuality
to
place
windows
once
you
take
into
effect
in
account
stuff,
like
engineering
panels
and
stuff
for
structural,
that
you
need
as
well
so.
A
E
Exactly
and
and
with
the
you
know,
windows
and
doors
and
garage
doors,
and
that
sort
of
thing
I
mean
it's,
a
it's
a
really
a
moving
target
and
something
that
it's
pretty
hard
to
to
get
a
hold
of
from.
You
know
you
have
to
track
it
down
from
the
manufacturer,
and
you
know
what,
if
you,
what,
if
a
buyer,
wants
a
different
front
door-
and
you
know
so
those
definitely
add
levels
of
complexity,
just
in
processes
really.
A
Yeah,
that's
an
interesting
because
if
you
have
a
town
home
and
someone
moves
in,
I
don't
know
how
they're
regulated.
But
let's
say
you
put
windows
in
it
to
meet
this
requirement
and
someone
wants
more
privacy
and
they
take
the
door
out.
They
had
the
windows
and
all
of
a
sudden
I
mean
we're
not
going
to
go
back
and
say:
oh,
you
got
to
put
the
other
door
back
in.
They
wouldn't
even
know
that
they're,
possibly
not
meeting
a
15
window
area
on
the
front
of
their
town,
home.
B
F
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to
second
to
what
matt
was
saying
and
add
on
also
there
are
issues
of
solar
gain
and
lateral
and
wind
structural
needs,
and
you
know
I
I
think
this
is
going
overboard
to
try
and
do
it
and,
like
you
said
pauline,
you
haven't
noticed
that
it's
been
a
problem
and
it's
like.
If
it's
not
a
problem,
let's
not
try
to
fix
it,
so
I
just
would
just
second
everything
that
matt
was
saying.
So
that's
all
thanks.
B
A
So
the
only
thing
in
the
the
bend
development
code
today
that
would
regulate
maximum
size
is
the
height
and
the
setbacks.
So
whatever
you
can,
the
lot
coverage
whatever
you
can
build
within
those
three
would
dictate
how
big
your
unit
is
going
to
be
again.
If
you
have
a
townhome
with
an
accessory
drawing
unit,
then
you
would
be
subject
to
the
floor
area
ratio
requirements.
A
Basically,
a
townhouse,
you
can
have
a
garage
in
the
front.
Let's
see
garages
on
the
front
face
of
the
townhouse
parking
area.
Front
yard
are
prohibited
unless
you
meet
the
following.
So
again
you
can
have
a
garage
on
the
front
if
the
townhouse
lot
has
a
street
frontage
of
at
least
15
feet
on
a
local
street
that
you
get
only
one
driveway
approach
for
every
townhouse
and
here
maui
driveways
may
be
shared
outside
outdoor
on-site
parking.
Maneuvering
areas
do
not
exceed
12
feet
wide
on
any
lot.
A
A
So
this
is
an
interesting
one.
I'll
have
to
compare
it
to
the
exact
numerical
standards
that
we
have
in
the
band
development
code.
If
this
is
something
we're
still
interested
in,
we
would
have
to
my
understanding
is.
We
would
have
to
comply
with
these
standards,
which
are
very
very
similar
to
what
we
have
today.
Ours
basically
says
the
garage
door
can't
be
more
than
50
percent
of
the
width.
This
one
says
12
feet,
so
it
really
is
very
specific.
A
It
goes
on
to
say
that
if
you
can't
meet
those
standards,
this
is
your
alternatives.
Basically,
the
off-street
parking
areas
must
be
accessed
on
the
back
facade
and
located
in
the
rear
yard.
No
off-street
parking
is
allowed
in
the
front
or
side
yards
and
that
a
townhouse
project
that
includes
a
corner
lot
must
take
access
from
a
single
driveway
approach
on
the
side
of
the
corner.
Lot,
the.
B
E
Yeah,
the
the
driveway
or
the
garage
door
max
of
12
feet
in
the
front
would
would
be
a
pretty
big
negative.
I
think,
because
what
that's
discouraging
basically
is
two
car
garages
on
wider
town
homes,
which
is
you
know
if
we
go
down
to
the
12
foot.
Not
only
is
it
going
to
hurt
the
sellability
of
those
units,
but
it's
also
going
to
put
more
off
or
on
street
parking
and
parking
off
the
lots.
So
that's
something
that
I
think
bears
sharing.
E
A
Right-
and
it
really
sounds
like
you
would
not
have
that
option
with
this,
because
your
lot-
let's
see
each
townhouse
your
lot
frontage-
would
be
at
least
15
feet.
So
if
you
have
a
30
foot
wide
town
home,
you
would
comply
with
that
part.
You
could
have
one
driveway
approach,
but
your
driveway
can't
exceed
12
feet,
nor
can
the
garage
door.
F
D
A
Driveway
and
approach
are
not
allowed
in
the
area
directly
between
the
front,
facade
and
front
lock
line
of
a
townhouse,
so
that
picture
on
the
bottom
right
is
your
other
alternative.
The
unfortunate
part
about
this
design,
in
my
opinion,
and
the
design
right
above
it,
is
that
these
townhomes
all
lose
their
backyards,
because
they've
now
become
their
driveways.
A
If
there
is
alleys
that
would
be
preferable
for
a
townhouse
versus
that
development,
I
was
trying
to
see
if
there's
any
mention
of
ally,
so
I'm
not
saying
that
yet
okay,
so
this
is
the
cottage
clusters.
Was
there
any
more
questions
on
townhouses?
I
know
we're
going
through
this
kind
of
quick,
but
we
can
definitely
take
some
time.
B
A
It's
been
successful.
We
keep
changing
it
as
needed
to
make
sure
that
developers
are
able
to
use
it
and
my
intention
which
I've
talked
to
dlcd
about-
and
I
think
we
can
do.
This-
is
keep
that
in
the
bend
development
code
because
people
our
developers
are
using
it
and,
in
my
opinion,
I
think
it's
less
restrictive
than
what
the
model
code
is
proposing.
A
If
a
city
chooses
to
regulate
minimum
lot
size,
it's
tied
to
the
lot
size
of
a
single
family
drawing
unit,
so
if
the
minimum
lot
size
for
a
detached
single
family,
drawing
unit
is
7,
000
square
feet
or
less
the
minimum
lot
size
for
a
cottage
cluster
may
be
up
to
7
000..
So
this
would
apply
like
in
our
standard
density
residential
zone.
We
allow
a
single
family
joining
on
a
four
thousand
square
foot
lot.
So
they're
saying
that
you
can
allow
the
cottage
cluster
up
to
seven
thousand.
A
A
So
again,
the
7000
is
just
the
parent
parcel
that
would
be
allowed
according
to
the
oars
in
our
standard
density,
residential
district
and
then,
if
the
lot
size
is
greater
than
seven
thousand.
So
like
our
low
density
residential
single
families
allowed
on
a
ten
thousand
square
foot
watt,
then
the
minimum
lot
size
for
the
cottage
cluster
would
be
the
same
as
the
single
family.
So
ten
thousand
square
feet
and.
C
A
In
the
oars,
there's
no
requirement
for
minimum
lot
width,
if
you
do
it
just
has
to
be
basically
the
same
as
a
single
family,
drawing
unit
which
I
believe
is
30
in
the
bend
development
code
and
then
in
the
model
code.
It
says
cottage
cluster
show
me
the
minimum
lot
size
lot
size
and
width
and
depth
standards
that
apply
to
single
families
in
the
same
zone.
A
So
for
setbacks
on
the
cottage
clusters-
oer,
basically,
you
apply
your
single
family
dwelling
unit
setback,
so
the
perimeters
would
be
five
feet
cannot
be
greater
than
10
and
then
the
minimum
distance
may
not
be
greater
than
what's
required
by
the
building
code
or
10
feet.
I
believe
the
bend
development
code
allows
six
and
then,
if
we
went
with
the
model
code,
you
same
thing,
you
just
have
to
apply
the
same
setbacks
that
you
apply
to
a
single
family
detached
dwelling
unit.
The
fronts
would
be,
10
side
is
5
and
rear
is
10..
A
A
So
that's
kind
of
similar
to
what
we
allow
today.
This
is
different.
This
is
more
restrictive
when
you
talk
about
the
unit
sizes
that
are
allowed,
and
this
was
actually
in
house
bill
2001.
So
there's
not.
You
can't
change
this.
So,
basically,
in
the
oars,
it
mirrors
the
house
bill
which
talks
about
a
maximum
building
footprint
of
900
square
feet
that
you
know.
If
you
wanted
to
build
a
whole
bunch
of
single
stories
or
a
single
story,
it
basically
says
the
single
story
can
only
be
900
square
feet.
A
They
can
actually
have.
I
think
it's
each
cottage
cluster
is
permitted
one
community
building
which
shall
be
included
in
the
calculation
of
the
average
floor
area.
A
community
building
that
meets
the
development
codes.
Definition
of
a
dwelling
unit
must
meet
the
maximum
900
square
foot
footprint
limitation.
So
I
think,
if
part
of
it's
used
as
a
dwelling
that
900
square
foot
footprint
comes
into
play,
if
it's
not
used
as
a
drawing,
then
they
have
to
record
and
make
it
very
clear.
It's
not
used
as
a
drawing
unit.
G
B
C
A
A
A
A
C
A
We're
in
addition
going
to
create
this
new
section,
which
will
be
called
cottage
clusters
and
it
will
have
its
own
set
of
regulations
and
those
regulations
either
have
to
comply
with
the
oers
or
the
model
code.
But
the
house
bill
is
very
clear
that
the
building
footprint
for
this
type
of
development
cannot
exceed
900
square
feet,
so
it
looks
like
if
you
wanted
to
do.
Let's
say
we
start
drafting
this
cottage
cluster
type
of
development
and
we
went
with
a
model
code.
A
H
A
And
we'll
definitely
include
that,
because
again,
the
state
was
going
to
include
it.
It
just
gets
very
complicated
when
they
start
talking
about
partitioning
and
subdividing
and
making
every
different
city
comply
with
those
type
of
requirements.
So
they
fortunately
left
that
to
the
city
to
create
and
incorporate
into
your
cottage
cluster
chapter.
H
A
So
here's
the
parking
requirements
again-
hopefully
we
can
pick
and
choose
but
in
the
oars,
is
basically
saying
one
parking
space
per
unit
and
you
can't
require
more,
doesn't
mean
that
if
you
want
to
provide
more,
you
can,
but
the
city
couldn't
require
more
than
one
off
street
parking
space
per
unit,
and
then
you
may
allow
but
not
require
the
off
street
parking
to
be
provided
in
garages
or
carports.
So
if
you
have
a
single
car
garage,
you
would
comply
with
the
one
off
street
parking
space
and
then
did
someone
just
join.
A
A
A
It
was,
I
think,
so
because
there's
they're
smaller
units
and
the
thought
process
was
since
they're
smaller
than
we
did
one.
So
if
we
went
with
the
oars
to
be
similar
to
what
we
require
today,
the
model
code
would
just
be
different
because
it
would
be
regulated
based
on
the
size
of
the
so
again
something
for
the
the
stakeholder
group
to
start
thinking
about.
So
when
we
get
to
this
section
for
proposed
amendments,
we
can
talk
about
it
more.
A
So
the
cottage
cluster
does
have
an
orientation
section
similar
to
what
we
have
today,
and
so
it
says,
cottage
clusters
must
be
clustered
around
a
common
courtyard
and
must
meet
the
following.
A
minimum
of
50
of
the
cottages
must
be
oriented
to
the
courtyard.
So
if
you
have
12
units,
six
of
them
have
to
face
the
courtyard
and
they
must
have
a
main
entrance
that
faces
the
courtyard
and
be
within
10
feet
of
the
courtyard
and
be
connected
by
a
path.
I
A
A
I
A
So
then
it
goes
on
to
talk
about
the
design,
so
maybe
we'll
learn
something
here
bill,
but
it
says
the
common
courtyard
must
be
a
single
contiguous,
usable
piece.
Okay,
that
would
work.
Cottages
must
about
the
common
courtyard
on
at
least
two
sides
of
the
courtyard.
So
it
could
be
a
hundred
percent
lineal
two
sides,
so
maybe
an
l.
A
A
Common
courtyard
shall
be
developed
with
a
mix
of
landscaping
and
it
goes
on
about
pavers,
hard
surface
impervious
elements
of
the
common
courtyard
shall
not
exceed
75
percent
of
the
total
common
courtyard
area
and
then
pedestrian
paths
as
part
of
the
common
courtyard
are
allowed
parking
areas
required.
Setbacks
and
driveways
do
not
qualify
as
a
common
courtyard.
That's
very
typical
language
there
I
think.
Okay,
so
here's
a
picture.
This
one
shows
the
common
courtyard
having
cottages
on
three
sides
of
it.
A
A
A
A
A
A
I
imagine
we
won't
have
to
require
this
window
requirement,
similar
to
how
we've
talked
about
window
requirements
for
the
plexes
and
townhouses.
But
this
is
saying
that,
if
you
are
within
25,
feet
of
a
property
line
must
be
any
window
cover
requirements
that
apply
to
single
family.
Oh
well,
we
don't
have
any
so
we're
good
there.
Sorry
about
that.
E
Okay,
on
the
the
height
going
back
to
the
height
on
the
cottage
clusters,
there,
the
you
know
the
either
or
saying
or
two
story,
it's
pretty
vague.
In
my
opinion,
I
mean
you
know
the
fact
that
you
could
do
two
stories.
You
know
say
nine
foot
and
eight
foot
plates
on
your
stories.
I
mean
you're,
basically
saying
that
you
could
have
a
12
12
pitch
and
you
can
go
up
to
35
feet
or
something
you
know
with
your
peak.
E
I
mean
it's,
it's
very
vague
and
definitely
I
don't
think
meets
the
intent
if
they're
trying
to
keep
the
the
ridge
heights
and
stuff
lower
similar
to
the
25
feet,
I
mean
I,
I
would
say
that
you
know
just
using
what's
in
the
code
today,
you
know
kind
of
that.
30
foot,
you
know
limitation
or
whatever
you
know
for
single
family
per
the
zone
probably
makes
more
sense.
A
Yeah
and
I
I
would
hope
that
we
would
have
that
option
I'll
have
to
get
clarity
on
that.
One
comment
that
I
noticed
in
the
large
packet
that
went
to
the
the
rule
making
advisory
committee
and
the
technical
advisory
committee
in
it
was
october.
8Th
was
a
comment
about
using
just
like
you're
talking
about
two
stories
that
is
not
clear
and
objective,
so
staff.
A
Was
going
to
go
through
and
double
check
certain
things
quite
a
bit,
I
think,
throughout
of
areas
that
were
brought
to
their
attention,
that
people
felt
were
not
clear
and
objective.
So
it'll
be
interesting
to
see
when
the
next
draft
comes
out.
If
this
two
stories
gets
eliminated
and
if
they
provide
some
other
option.
E
D
F
F
You
know
I.
I
think
we
need
to
be
clear
on
what
it
is
we're
trying
to
accomplish,
and
you
know
maybe
it's
the
maybe
it's
the
ridge,
but
maybe
it's
the
eave
height.
That
is
more
of
concern.
I
actually
worked
in
a
community
where
they
they
took
the
midpoint
between
the
eave
and
the
ridge
and
limited
that
height,
so
it
it
would
allow
different
roof
pitches
and
you
could
still
make
it
work.
F
F
F
F
I
A
F
A
H
It's
my
understanding
that
we
do
do
the
midpoint.
You
know
in
the
building
that
we're
building
now
it's
a
shed
roof,
not
a
gabled
roof,
but
we
were
we
just.
It
was
the
midpoint
that
was
taken
to
because
we
were
really
close
to
the
30
feet.
So
I
thought
that's
how
we
did
it
in
the
bin
development
code.
There's.
H
Okay
and
then
the
other
comment
I
just
want
to
make
was
on
the
impervious
services
for
the
pedestrian
pathways,
depending
on
how
large
that
development
is
that's
a
humongous
cost.
I
know
that
these
are
you
know.
It
seems
like
we're
looking
at
it
as
just
these
small
lots
of
like
four
or
five
of
them,
but
if
you
try
to
do
a
larger
development
and
all
of
the
pathways
had
to
be
pavers
or
or
concrete
versus
gravel,
it's
a
huge
cost.
H
A
J
J
It's
they're
kind
of
dealing
with
the
same
thing,
and
that
is
just
the
feel
that
the
feeling
that
the
building
presents
itself
as
and
it
just
seems
really
clunky
the
way
that
we
the
way
that
we
use
those
measurements
right
now
and
how
we
regulate
them.
You
know
not
differentiating
between
a
gable
and
a
flat
roof
and
and-
and
I
think
something
with
setbacks
and
and
maybe
maybe
angles-
you
know
a
height
limit
at
the
edge
of
property.
J
J
J
D
J
A
No
that's
an
excellent
comment
and
for
those
of
you
that
have
worked
in
other
jurisdictions
and
have
found
a
great
example
of
how
to
measure
building
height,
I'd
love
to
see
an
example.
So
if
you
want
to
send
me
any
that
you've
worked
with
that
are
very
easy
to
understand.
That's
one
part
of
my
request
and
two
that
add
the
flexibility
that
you
all
have
mentioned.
That
would
be
helpful.
So
I
appreciate,
if
you
have
a
good
example,
just
email
it
to
me.
B
A
A
A
Oh
yes,
I
was
actually
that's
a
good
idea.
Thanks
mike,
I
will
send
this
powerpoint
out.
It
was
my
best
attempt
at
trying
to
compare
everything
and
then
take
into
account
again
that
these
are
may
change
the
oars
as
well
as
the
draft,
and
then
they
may
change
again
when
it
actually
goes
to
public
hearing,
but
I
will
definitely
send
out
the
powerpoint
and
then
always
feel
free
to
email
me
questions.
If
you
need
clarity
and
then
I
did
send
out
some
documents.
A
What
the
proposed
model
code
is
and
then
what
the
bend
development
code
is.
So,
as
we
start
working
through
we'll
just
kind
of
go
and
order
off
that
table
of
drafting
our
amendments
to
the
bend
development
code-
and
I
did
get
an
extension-
I
do
have
a
grant
to
help
with
this
process
and
I'm
supposed
to
have
it
done
in
december.
But
since
the
state
is
not
done,
I
am
not
going
to
be
done
or
we
aren't,
and
so
I
think
I
got
till
may
they're
still
working
on
the
amendments.
D
A
D
D
A
So
yeah,
you
know
even
parking
it'll
be
interesting
when
they
have
the
discussion
at
the
the
hearing.
If
anything
changes
with
that,
because
one
thing
I
was
looking
at
not
to
dive
too
deep
into
parking,
but
the
way
it's
written
right
now
parking
is
tied
to
the
lot
size
of
a
single
family
detached
dwelling
unit
and
if
a
city
wants
to
be
more
flexible
and
reduce
the
lot
size
of
the
single
family
detached
dwelling
unit,
let's
say
a
city
currently
is
at
six
thousand
square
feet
and
they're.
A
Like
you
know
what
four
thousand
square
feet
makes
more
sense.
Well,
the
way
the
code
is
drafted,
I
believe
it's
the
model
code
that
will
affect
your
parking
requirements
for
triplexes
and
quads,
so
a
city
may
not
feel
it
may
disincentivize
the
city
from
reducing
their
lot
size
for
a
single
family
dwelling
unit.
If
all
of
sana
means
it
affects
your
parking
requirements
for
triplexes
and
quads
right,
so.
D
B
A
sense
I
was
gonna
say
the
september
meetings
were
supposed
to
be
the
final
ones.
So
now
this
one's
the
final
one
I
don't
know-
and
yes,
my
understanding
is
the
public
hearing-
is
open
until
the
13th
lcdc
has
two
day
meetings,
and
so
that's
the
12th
and
13th.
But
what
we've
heard
is
that
this,
this
section
of
their
meeting
will
land
on
the
13th
granted.
If
you
intend
to
testify
in
any
way
shape
or
form.
B
A
Yes,
so
during
the
discussion
this
my
understanding
and
I
wasn't
able
to
listen
to
the
meeting.
The
commission
did
talk
about
parking
and
he
made
a
couple
comments,
and
so
they,
I
think,
asked
them
to
do
a
little
bit
more
research
and
bring
some
bring
something
different
back
if
if
he
found
something
to
bring
back,
it's
my
understanding.
So
I
talked
to
him
and
through
our
conversations
we
we
I
I
think
he
was
supportive
of
looking
at
one
space
per
dwelling
unit
versus
requiring
spaces
based
on
lot
size
again
using
the
example.
A
G
My
my
concern
is:
what's
more
efficient,
two
small
two,
two
small
duplexes
that
have
two
bedrooms:
each
or
one
larger,
four
bedroom
duplex.
You
get
the
same
number
of
bedrooms.
If
they're
young
adults,
you
can
house
both
it's
much
more
efficient
to
house
young
adults
in
the
larger
four
bedroom
duplexes,
but
then
you're
only
asking
them
to
provide
one
parking
space.
G
So
it
just
seems
like
when
I
listened
to
lcdc
meeting
having
the
one
size
fit.
All
scenarios
is
really
hard
and
it
seems
like.
Is
it
really
that
bad
to
tie
it
more
to
bedrooms
where,
then
you
get
a
sense
of
the
scale
of
the
unit
and
the
number
of
people
versus
one
per
unit?
You
could
have
a
one
bedroom
unit
or
you
could
have
a
six
bedroom
unit
and
the
need
is
totally
different.
A
A
Then
all
of
a
sudden,
you
have
to
look
at
the
parking
requirements.
Different
and
you'll
have
less
parking,
because
it's
now
a
lot
between
three
and
five
thousand
versus
over
five
thousand.
So
a
lot
between
three
and
five
only
allows
two
parking
spaces,
whereas
the
lot,
if
it
was
six
thousand,
would
have
allowed
three.
So
you
would
lose
parking
for
the
triplex
and
for
cities
who
have
concerns
about
parking.
They
may
not
reduce
their
lot
sizes
because
it
would
mean
they'd
have
to
reduce
their
parking
requirements.
A
C
A
F
Yeah,
just
a
quick
comment
to
address
mike's
concern:
I'm
I'm
thinking
that
in
a
sense
what's
being
proposed
in
relationship
to
lot
size,
given
the
fact
that
there's
fars
and
setbacks
and
so
forth
that
you
know
a
size
of
a
duplex
on
3
000
square
foot
lot
is
going
to
be
smaller
than
if
it
was
on
a
6
000
square
foot
lot.
So
the
number
of
bedrooms
would
be
reduced.
I
think
is
probably
what
their
goal
is
in
doing
this,
I
that
still
I
agree
with
pauline.
B
G
Since
we're
being
less
serious,
I
have
been
reading
the
portland
standards
for
their
project,
their
infill
project,
and
they
have
lots
of
of
units
that
are
infill
that
have
no
parking.
It's
just
that's
portland.
So
it's
unfortunate
that
there
were
a
lot
of
speakers
at
the
lcdc.
It
seemed
like.
We
were
concerned
that
it's
one
size
fits
all.
D
B
A
So
next
steps
I'll
send
out
the
powerpoint
again.
It
was
my
best
attempt
at
comparing
everything
and
then
once
we
get
the
updated
packet
from
dlcd.
I
will
definitely
forward
that
on
to
everybody
and
following
that
I
will
set
up
our
next
meeting
and
we
will,
at
that
point
have
a
table
that
I
will
prepare
that
will
compare
oer's
model
code
and
the
bend
development
code,
hopefully
with
the
clarity
that
we've
been
looking
for
from
dlcd
as
well,
so
it'll
be
a
clearer
meaning
for
sure.
So,
thank
you.