►
From YouTube: 9/16/2020 Phase 2 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
A
I
might
I
might
not
mute
everybody
in
the
beginning,
but
if
there's
a
lot
of
background
noise,
then
maybe
we'll
have
to
play
around
with
muting
everybody,
and
then
you
would
raise
your
hand
to
speak,
but
let's
just
try
it
for
now
I'll
go
through
the
presentation
we
can
answer.
Questions
have
an
open
discussion,
but
if
there's
a
lot
of
background
noise,
like
I
said
then
we'll
probably
go
to
muting
and
using
the
raising
the
hand
and
we
turned
off
our
video.
So
I
think
we
are
good.
A
B
You
guys
saw
me
yup,
okay,
kathy
austin.
Yes,
I'm
here,
sam.
A
Frigas,
I
don't
think
she
was
able
to
make
it
audrey
allen
here:
okay,.
D
A
Matt
gillette
here
hi
matt,
it's
been
a
while
mel
anybody.
B
Okay,
alex.
A
On
there,
okay,
so
he
I
think
he
is
going
to
be
attending
ryan
jennings.
A
Not
here
yet
bill
bernardi.
E
F
F
A
Okay,
thank
you
for
doing
that
for
me,
so
today
let
me
share
my
powerpoint.
H
F
A
A
Their
first
public
hearing
is
september
25th,
but
I
thought
to
just
get
us
all
started
and
become
familiar
with
the
the
draft
oers
and
the
model
code
would
be
helpful
before
we
start
looking
at
updating
our
band
development
code,
and
so
the
draft
oars
are
going
to
help
us
with
duplexes
triplexes
cottage
clusters,
town
homes
and
quad
plexus.
A
So
again,
these
are
all
draft
they're
subject
to
change
and
I'll
go
through
and
I'll
highlight
some
areas
where
I
think
there
might
be
some
tweaking
to
the
the
language
so
their
first
public
hearing
is
september
25th
and
then
they'll
hold
a
final
public
hearing
and
adopt
the
new
rules
during
their
november
12th
and
13th
meeting.
A
So
we
are
a
little
bit
ahead
of
the
game
but,
like
I
said,
I
think,
it'd
be
good
to
just
start
going
through
this
familiarize
ourselves
with
it,
and
then
it
will
help
us
as
we
jump
into
drafting
the
bend
development
code
amendments.
A
So
basically
the
oars
are
from
the
draft
oars
that
we're
reviewing
the
model
code
are
required
as
part
of
the
new
house
bill
2001
that
was
passed
in
2019
and
I
think
a
lot
of
us
are
familiar
with
that
bill.
But
for
those
of
us
that
aren't,
I
just
want
to
remind
people
that
the
bill
requires
duplexes
to
be
allowed
on
each
lot
or
parcel
that
zone
for
residential
use.
A
So
basically,
wherever
you
allow
a
single
family
dwelling
unit,
you
have
to
allow
a
duplex
and
then
the
second
part
of
the
city,
which
applies
also
to
our
city,
because
we're
considered
a
large
city
of
which
is
a
population
25,
000
people
or
more,
is
that
we
also
have
to
allow
triplexes,
quaplexes
cottage
clusters
and
townhomes
in
areas
zoned
for
residential
use.
So
it's
a
little
bit
different
in
the
bill.
A
Duplexes
have
to
be
allowed
on
a
lot
or
parcel,
whereas
triplexes
quads,
cottages
and
townhomes
have
to
be
allowed
in
areas
zoned
for
residential
use
and
the
state
worked
with
several
committees
and
has
come
up
with
a
way
to
define
what
in
areas
means
and
we'll
go
through
that.
Today,
these
draft
rules
and
model
code.
They
establish
standards
for
the
citing
and
design
of
these
types
of
housing
that
we
have
to
comply
with
within
the
city
of
bend,
and
they
have
to
be
clear
and
objective.
A
These
don't
apply
to
our
high-density
residential
zone
because
we
don't
allow
single-family
detached
dwellings
in
there.
But
on
a
separate
note,
our
high-density
residential
zone
already
allows
duplexes
triplex's
townhomes,
so
we'll
make
sure
whatever
we
do.
That
is
just
as
permissive
in
the
high-density
residential
district.
A
A
A
It
means
a
grouping
of
no
fewer
than
four
detached
dwelling
units
per
acre
and
they
actually
put
in
the
definition
the
size
restriction
which
is
odd,
but
it's
in
there.
So
we
have
to
comply
with.
It
basically
says
that
the
footprint
can
be
has
to
be
less
than
900
square
feet
and
that
the
units
may
be
located
on
a
single
law
or
parcel,
or
that
they
can
be
on
one
large
parcel
and
that
they
would
include
a
common
courtyard.
A
This
master
plan
community
definition
is
important
because
cities
and
counties
are
trying
to
figure
out
how
this
bill
affects
our
existing
master
plans
that
we
have
today,
as
well
as
master
plans
that
will
be
approved
after
january.
1St
of
2021
master
plants
in
our
city
today
are
typically
20,
acres
or
larger,
and
we
already
require
a
mix
of
housing
types.
A
So
we're
watching
this
one
closely
and
I'm
not
going
to
spend
a
lot
of
time
on
this,
because
I
think
this
definition,
as
well
as
the
requirements
for
master
plan,
is
going
to
be
amended
a
little
bit
so
that
it's
easier
to
understand
and
that
it
works
for
more
of
the
cities.
But
basically
it
defines
a
master
plan,
is
20
acres
in
size
or
greater,
which
is
how
the
city
of
bend
defines
it
as
well,
or
requires
a
master
plan
and
that
it
could
be
inside
city
limits
or
adjacent
to
your
urban
growth
boundary.
A
A
new
one
for
the
city
of
bend
will
be
quad
plexes,
which
is
four
attached
or
detached
dwelling
units
on
a
lot
and
then
townhouse
is
already
defined
in
our
code.
It's
two
units
could
be
more
than
two
units
and
they
share
at
least
one
common
wall,
triplex
very
similar
to
what's
in
our
code
today,
it's
three
units
on
a
lot
and
they
can
be
attached
or
detached,
and
I,
given
that
I
am
sharing
my
screen,
I
can't
tell
if
anybody
has
questions
on
the
definitions
again.
A
F
I'm
sorry
I
can't
say
I
can't
see
your
your
your
sharing
document,
where,
where
are
we
in
the.
A
A
I
A
And
I
think
it
comes
up
in
my
presentation
kathy.
But
okay,
don't
hold
me
to
this,
but
if
I
remember
correctly
so
a
city
is
supposed
to
have
clear
and
objective
standards
for
needed
housing,
which
is
basically
all
types
of
needed
housing.
A
city
can
also
have
a
different
path
for
approving
needed
housing.
That
is
discretionary,
but
the
developer
has
to
have
the
option
of
having
a
clear
and
objective
path.
I
E
Yeah
you've
mentioned
a
couple
of
times
that
these
are
rules
that
the
city
will
need
to
follow.
But
really
this
is
a
draft
and
the
state
is
still
in
the
process
of
soliciting
input.
Isn't
that
correct
so
shouldn't?
Today's
meeting
really
be
thought
of
as
an
opportunity
to
identify
feedback
that
we
want
to
provide
to
the
state.
A
So
I
have
already
worked
on
a
committee
that
what
provided
technical
assistance,
lynn,
mcconnell
who's
on
the
phone
call
to
now
right
now
is
on
the
rule
making
advisory
committee.
It's
called
the
rack
and
we've
been
meeting
for
over.
I
don't
know
six
to
nine
months
drafting
these
regulations.
E
F
A
A
A
What
they
went
ahead
and
did
for
the
large
cities,
which
is
25,
000
or
greater,
is
proposed
the
same
identical
adopted
standards
for
the
medium
I
these
are
subject
to
change,
because
the
large
cities
haven't
been
through
the
public
hearing
process,
but
for
now
they
are
proposing
identical
standards
that
were
adopted
for
the
medium
cities.
A
They
are
exempting
duplexes
from
density,
which
is
consistent
with
how
our
code
is
right.
Now
we
exempt
duplexes
and
triplexes
from
density,
because
the
lot
sizes
don't
match
the
dental
line
with
the
density
requirements.
A
These
setbacks
can
be
no
different
than
what
we
apply
to
our
single
family,
detached
dwelling.
So
basically,
I'm
going
to
keep
using
our
standard
density
residential
district.
A
A
This
would
be
a
change
here
is
the
parking
requirements.
Basically,
the
state
is
saying
no
more
than
a
total
of
two
off
street
parking
spaces
for
duplex.
I
believe
ours
today
is
based
off
bedrooms,
so
it
will
probably
amount
to
a
little
less
parking.
A
It
still
allows
the
city
to
provide
a
credit
for
on
street
parking,
which
the
city
today
allows
up
to
50
to
be
counted
on
site
and
then,
if
you're
going
to
apply
any
lot
coverage
or
floor
area
ratio
requirements,
it
has
to
be
what
we
apply
to
our
single
single-family
dwelling
units
and
this
one
we'll
have
to
look
at
a
little
bit.
We
do
have
a
floor
ratio
requirement
for
certain
single-family
detached
dwelling
units,
depending
on
where
they're
located
whether
or
not
we
continue
doing.
That
will
be
probably
a
question
for
this
group.
H
Doesn't
appear
to
be
so
just
a
reminder
for
everybody,
you
can
raise
your
hand
down
at
the
bottom
or
top
toolbar,
whatever
you're
saying
and
we'll
get
called
on.
A
Okay
and
link
cut
me
off.
If
you
see
someone
raise
their
hand,
I
don't
mind
okay,
so
we
today
worked
basically
two
years
ago
on
design
standards
for
duplexes
and
triplexes
and
they've
been
working
well,
the
state
has
actually
mirrored,
I
think,
some
of
our
design
standards
and
of
allowed
some
other
types
of
design
standards.
A
However,
for
a
duplex,
it's
my
understanding
that
if
you
don't
apply
design
standards
to
your
single
family,
detached
drawing
units,
you
cannot
require
design
standards
for
duplexes
and
today
in
bend.
We
don't
apply
any
design
standards
to
single
family
detached
dwelling
units.
So
it's
my
understanding,
then
that
we
cannot
apply
any
design
standards
to
duplexes.
So
what's
in
our
code
today,
that
has
been
working
fine
from
what
I
understand.
Anyways
will
probably
have
to
be
deleted
if
this
gets
adopted
and
there
won't
be
any
design
standards
for
duplexes.
F
A
So
that
that
basically
covers
duplexes
the
meeting
that
we're
going
to
have
on
september,
13th
30th
is
going
to
dive
into
the
draft
draft
model
code
requirements
which
does
include
some
design
standards
again
for
duplexes.
We
probably
can't
use
any
of
them,
but
as
we
move
through
talking
about
the
triplexes,
quads
townhomes
and
cottage
clusters,
you'll
notice,
what
we're
going
to
talk
about
is
basically
citing
standards.
A
A
I
don't
think
I
provided
that
definition,
but
it's
worth
mentioning
so
infrastructure
constrained
lands
means
lands
where
it's
not
feasible
to
provide
acceptable
water,
sewer,
storm
drainage
or
transportation
to
the
new
types
of
housing,
where
the
local
government
is
not
able
to
correct
the
infrastructure
limitations
by
utilizing
the
process
outlined
and
there's
two
or
oar
sections
due
to
cost
jurisdictional
or
other
limitations,
and
which
cannot
be
remedied
by
future
redevelopment
and
metal
housing
on
the
subject
block
or
parcel.
A
So
we
have
a
meeting.
I
believe
it's
at
the
end
of
next
week
with
staff
and
with
our
engineer
engineering
department
to
look
in
to
see
if
we
have
any
infrastructure
constrained
lands.
If
we
do,
then
we
might
be
able
to
look
at
limiting
this
type
of
middle
housing
in
those
particular
areas.
But
first
we
have
to
even
see
if
we
have
any
of
those
types
of
lands
and
then
the
other
one
is.
A
You
may
limit
it
in
areas
zone
that
have
a
master
plan
on
them
and,
like
I
said,
there's
definitely
still
some
discussions
going
on
about
this
language,
particularly
a
and
b
there's
some
conflicting
language
in
here.
It's
also
somewhat
difficult
to
understand
what
it
means,
because
it
says
you
can
provide
limitations.
A
However,
if
you
go
to
a
it
says
that
you
may
not
limit
so
there's
a
conflict
right
there,
so
staff
is
asking
for
clarity
on
this
particular
topic
from
the
state,
but
from
what
we
at
a
high
level
understand
this
to
mean
that
we
do
have
master
plan
communities
now
what
what
they
will
be
subject
to
if
they
were
approved
after
the
january
1st
2021
is
that
they
may
not
limit
the
development
of
mental
housing
on
any
lands,
but
what
they
could
limit
is
the
overall
net
residential
density
of
15
dwelling
units
per
acre.
A
So
we
just
we're
asking
for
clarity
on
that
and
we're
also
just
so
you're
aware
asking
why
they're
using
net
residential
net
residential
density,
where
a
lot
of
cities
and
it's
much
easier
to
calculate
use,
gross
density.
So
there
might
be
a
change
there,
but
we'll
see
and
then
the
second
one
is
b
again.
If
you
have
a
master
plan,
it
was
approved
before
january,
1st
2021,
you
may
limit
the
middle
housing
except
for
single-family
detached
and
duplexes,
and
you
have
to
provide
at
least
eight
dwelling
units
per
acre
in
those
areas.
A
I
think
the
city
is
probably
okay
with
complying
with
these.
The
way
our
master
plans
have
been
approved
because
we
do
require
a
mix
of
housing,
types
and
densities
with
our
master
plans,
but
we
just
need
some
clarity
on
it
and
we
are
going
to
ask
the
state
for
clarity,
as
are
other
cities
and
counties.
A
Any
questions
on
that,
okay,
we'll
move
on
then
so
this
the
the
section
of
the
oars
205,
is
the
applicability
of
middle
housing.
A
Basically,
you
can
allow
you
have
to
allow
triplex's,
quads
town
homes
and
cottage
clusters,
including
conversion
which
we'll
go
through
in
areas
zoned
for
residential
use,
which
we
realize
there
is
this
alternative,
where
you
can
apply
separate
minimum
lot
size
and
maximum
density
provisions
that
what
is
required
in
the
oars
that
we're
going
to
go
over
here
in
a
minute
and
in
the
model
code.
A
This
is
a
question
and
I'm
taking
three
topics
to
our.
I
believe
city
council.
I
think
it's
the
building
community
subcommittee
to
get
some
high-level
council
direction
on
and
one
is
going
to
be.
This
and
you'll
see
there's
two
ways
you
can
look
at
minimum
lot
sizes
one
is
in
this
section
and
one
is
just
very
straightforward,
which
it's
kind
of
odd:
how
they
organize
these
oars
that
this
came
first
and
the
other
one
came
second,
but
we'll
go
through
it.
A
So
one
option
for
the
cities
to
consider
is,
if
you
want
to
apply
a
different
lot
size
and
maximum
density
provisions
than
what
the
oars
require.
A
You
would
have
to
allow
triplexes
on
at
least
80
percent
of
the
lots
quadplexes
on
70
townhomes
on
60
and
cottage
clusters
on
50
and
then
you'd
have
to
meet
this
criteria,
which
basically
says
the
middle
housing
type
is
permitted
use
on
the
water
parcel
under
the
same
administrative
process
as
a
single
family
detached
dwelling
which
it
would
be
lauder
parcel,
has
sufficient
square
footage
to
allow
middle
housing
types
within
the
applicable
minimum
lot
size
requirements.
So
basically,
whatever
lot
size,
the
city
proposes.
A
So
you
have
to
show
the
state
where
you're
going
to
allow
the
triflex's,
quads
town
homes,
cottage
clusters
to
meet
those
percentages
and
you'd
have
to
show
the
state
how
you
are
complying
with
that
criteria
and
you
would
have
to
ensure
the
equitable
distribution
of
the
housing
by
at
least
one
middle
housing
type
other
than
duplexes
has
to
be
allowed
on
75
of
all
residential
lots
or
parcels
within
each
census.
Block
group
within
a
large
city.
A
A
I
do
feel
it's
a
good
idea
to
bring
it
to
the
council
subcommittee.
So
there's
aware
that
we
have
options,
my
guess
is:
we'll
probably
go
with
the
straightforward
lot
parcel
sizes,
similar
to
what
we
did
two
years
ago
for
duplexes
and
triplexes.
D
A
So
this
is
oddly
written,
but
it's
in
there,
so
I
thought
we'd
go
over
it.
Basically,
it's
saying
that
if
you,
when
you
when
a
city
updates
their
code
and
they
want
to-
and
they
have
to
provide,
duplexes
tries
quads,
townhomes
and
cottages
that
you
can
actually
allow
more
units
on
the
site.
If
you
want
to
so
basically
duplex
you
can
allow
more
than
two
units
on
a
lot
or
parcel,
including
any
adus
same
for,
tries
and
quads.
You
can
allow
more
than
four
townhomes.
A
This
seems
to
me
more
of
a
standard,
but
what
it
is
saying
is
you
have
to
require
at
least
two
attached
units,
which
makes
sense,
because
that
defines
a
townhome
which
is
two
attached
units,
and
you
must
allow
up
to
four
attached
townhouse
units.
I
guess
some
cities
maybe
say
you
can
only
have
three,
but
in
this
case
the
state's
saying
you
have
to
at
least
allow
up
to
four
attached.
Townhouse
units
and
a
city
can
allow
more
if
they
want
to
a
cottage
cluster.
A
This
one,
I
think
some
of
the
cities
and
the
that
were
part
of
the
rack,
are
going
to
ask
for
clarity
on
this,
because
the
definition,
as
you
may
recall,
is
a
cottage
cluster
is
at
least
four
units.
In
this
case,
it's
saying
it
has
to
allow
at
least
five.
A
So
I
think
there's
some
conflict
here,
I'm
not
quite
sure
what
a
and
b
mean
and
I've
been
working
with
the
planning
department
in
beaverton
and
some
other
cities
and
we're
trying
to
get
clarity
on
this
one
because
it
doesn't
align
with
the
definition
so
more
to
come
on
the
cottage.
A
Clusters?
Okay:
this
is
basically
just
saying
that
cities
may
regulate
sighting
and
design,
and
it
has
to
be
clear
and
objective
and
it
can't
discourage
the
development
of
middle
housing
through
unreasonable
cost
or
delays.
And
that's
the
nice
thing
about
the
draft
model
code
is
that
they
provide.
A
Citing
and
design
requirements
that
they
they
feel
are
clear
and
objective
which
they
are
and
that
they
also
agree
that
they
don't
discourage
the
development
of
mental
housing
through
unreasonable
cost
or
delays.
So
if
a
city
chooses
to
use,
what's
in
the
draft
design
guidelines,
you're
safe
to
say
that
you're
going
to
comply
with
these
two
requirements,
because
the
states,
if
the
state
adopts
everything
that's
in
there,
then
you
would
be
in
compliance.
A
One
of
the
sighting
and
design
standards
was
the
sighting
and
design
centers
that
do
not
individually
or
cumulatively
discourage
the
development
middle
housing
tournament.
H
Question
when
you're
ready?
Okay,
let's
do
the
question.
I
A
My
understanding
and
I
might
even
be
in
this
section
under
f,
alternative
sighting
or
design
standards.
No
that's
a
different
one,
but
there
is
a
section
kathy
that
is
referenced
where
we
can
do
like
a
type
2..
So
basically,
because
one
of
the
requirements
that
we're
going
to
review
is
that
we
have
to
treat
and
process,
let's
see,
triplexes
and
quads,
just
like
we
process
a
single
family,
drawing
unit,
which
is
what
we
call
a
type
one
minimum
development
standards
review
it's
very
clear
and
objective.
A
Today
we
do
the
type
1
minimum
development
standards,
review
for
single
family
dwelling
units
duplexes
and
townhouses
and
adus.
The
only
thing
we
didn't
do
currently
is
triplex's.
We
process
that
as
a
type
2
under
cycling
review
and
we
don't
have
quads.
If
we
had
quads
it
would
be
a
type
2..
What
this
is
going
to
require
is
that
any
of
those
type
2
processes
get
reviewed
just
like
a
single
family,
drawing
unit
so
be
a
type
1
process.
A
And
what
kathy's
asking
is
that's
great?
We
can
have
the
type
1
process,
it's
very
easy
for
a
developer,
to
know
what
they
need
to
do,
but
maybe
we
come
up
with
a
type
2
discretionary
process
which
adds
cost
and
time
to
the
application,
but
it
does
also
provide
them
with
some
flexibility
to
do
something.
Different
and
we'd
have
to
come
up
with
whatever
that
may
be,
but
it
is
within.
I
think
our
realm
to
do.
A
B
A
So
then,
okay,
I
think
this
is
it
kathy,
so
section
197
3074
gives
this
city
the
ability
to
have
an
approval
process.
That
is
discretionary
as
long
as
you
have
the
clearance
objective
process
and
that's
what
this
section
is
saying,
you
have
to
treat
them
just
like
single-family
drawing
units.
As
long
as
you
do
that,
then
you
can
also
adopt
a
alternative
approval
process.
So
it's
in
that
third
bullet
that
gives
the
city
the
ability
to
do
that.
A
That's
a
good
question,
because,
right
now
everything
we
have
is
clear
and
objective.
Give
me
I'm
trying
to
think
I
mean
height
setbacks,
lock
coverage,
that's
all
clear
and
objective
in
our
code
today
which
we're
not
going
to
keep,
but
there
are
some
design
standards
and
we've
changed
a
lot
of
them.
But
let's
say
you
had
some
design
standards
under
the
type
1
and
they're
easy
to
meet
very
clear
and
objective.
A
A
A
No,
it
would
be
an
alternative.
The
developer
would
have
two
options.
If
we
went
this
route
first
option
is
clear
and
objective.
You
know
a
size
lot,
you
know
the
setbacks,
you
know
the
height,
you
know
your
lock
coverage,
potentially
a
flurry
ratio
and
then
the
the
developer
may
want
to
do
something
different
and
then
they
would
have
the
discretionary
path,
and
I
don't
know
what
that
would
look
like,
but
it
would
be
something
doable.
I
Pauline,
let
me
just
volunteer
what
it
would
be
if
you
had
an
unusual
shaped
parcel
or
you
had
a
rock
up
rock
outcropping
or
heritage
trees
or
whatever
that
make
you
design
setbacks
in
a
different
way.
So
it
just
gives
you
flexibility
to
deal
with
some
of
these
odd
infill
parcels.
If
that
is
helpful
in
visualizing,
why
you
would
want
to
do
something
alternative.
A
Yeah,
unfortunately
kathy
we
do
have,
I
believe
it's
a
type.
We
have
a
b
and
c
variances.
I
believe
there
are
some
ways
to
deal
with
rock
out
croppings
and
trees,
but
we
could
that
that's
a
that's
a
similar
idea.
Yes,.
J
Hi
this
mike
walker,
I'm
looking
at
a
submittal
from
mike
reader
to
the
dlcd.
He
is
an
attorney,
and
his
answer
to
the
question
bill
had
asked
was:
I
argue
that
any
expense,
regardless
of
the
actual
dollar
amount
for
a
study
such
as
traffic
study
impact
study
and
such
that
serves
no
purpose,
is
a
problem.
So
if
that's
any
help
it's
there
in
the
record,
I
think
this
was
probably
meeting
seven.
J
The
question
that
bill
had
what
what
qualifies
as
clear
and
objective,
I'm
just
telling
you
there's
a
land
use
attorney.
He
actually
spoke
in
favor
of
the
evergreen
project
here
in
bend
was
a
year
and
a
half
ago.
So
this
guy,
so
this
memo
one-page
movie,
you
might
want
to
just
look
it
up
pauline,
I'm
just
pointing
it
out.
He
probably
knows
what
he's
talking
about
the
date
on
his
memo
is
april.
12Th,
it's
in
the
package
that
was
164
pages.
I
think.
A
This
I
I'm
just
not
following
mike.
Why
don't
you
send
it
to
me
and
then
I
can
take
a
look
to
see
how
that
pertains
to
duplexes
and
triplexes.
Give
me
some.
A
B
A
Okay,
so
we'll
go
on
to
this
is
the
clear
and
objective
path
for
lot
sizes
for
triplexes
and
quads
the
triplex.
A
What
we
allow
today,
our
single
family,
detached
dwelling
in
the
rs,
is
4
000
square
feet,
so
the
triplex,
then,
would
be
on
a
5
000
square
foot
in
the
rs.
The
rm
district
does
not
have
a
lot
size
for
triplex's
today,
so
I
assume
that
we
would
just
continue
with
that
for
the
medium
density.
A
As
for
our
low
density
residential
district,
because
the
lot
sizes
for
a
single
family
drilling
unit
are
greater
than
5
000
square
feet,
then
you
have
to
allow
a
triplex
on
the
same
size
lot
as
the
single
family
dwelling
unit,
which
is
10
000
square
feet,
so
in
short,
in
the
rs.
If
this
all
gets
adopted,
the
way
it's
proposed,
a
single
family
would
be
on
a
4
000
square
foot
lot
in
the
rs.
A
A
If
the
single
family
dwelling
unit
is
on
a
lot,
7
000
square
feet
or
less,
then
the
minimum
lot
size
for
four
plex
is
7
000..
So
again
in
the
rs,
because
the
single
family
is
allowed
on
a
four
thousand,
which
is
less
than
the
seven.
You
have
to
allow
a
quadplex
on
a
seven
thousand
square
foot
lot
and
then
in
the
rl.
It
would
be
the
ten
thousand
square
foot
lot.
A
A
Setbacks
have
to
be
the
same,
that
you
apply
to
a
single-family
dwelling
unit
and,
as
is
the
height,
what
it
does
say
is
a
large
city
may
not
apply
lower
maximum
height
standards
than
those
applicable
to
a
single-family
dwelling
with
except
maximum
height
may
not
be
less
than
25
feet
or
two
stories
we're
okay,
because
our
maximum
height
is
between
30
and
35.
So
they'll
just
supply
we'll
apply
the
same
height
requirements
that
we
apply
to
our
single
family
dwellings.
A
So
here's
parking
so
let's
see
the
triplexes.
H
E
A
A
A
Yeah
I
mean
we
still
can
that's
a
question
for
the
group.
I
mean
at
some
point.
You
just
aren't
looking
at
density
anymore
and
it's
rare
if
you're
just
doing
a
single
family
dwelling
unit,
development
on
4,
000
square
foot,
lots
in
the
rs
that
they
ever
get
close
to
meeting
their
maximums
city
wide
we're
a
lot
lower
than
our
maximum
densities.
A
But
you
know
yeah,
I
mean
it
seems
kind
of
odd
to
look
at
single
family
dwelling
units
when
you're
not
looking
at
week.
Today
we
don't
even
look
at
80,
adu's,
duplexes
or
triplexes.
A
E
I
I
think,
when
we
get
to,
I
think,
was
townhomes
later
or
something
they
have
a
formula
for
dealing
with
density
that
also
seemed
kind
of
odd
it.
It
just.
K
E
Yeah
I
mean
how
to
eliminate
the
whole
concept
or
something.
B
A
Basically,
you
know
to
to
get
the
middle
housing
that
the
state
wants
in
our
cities.
Density
does
have
to
go
away
and
you
almost
look
at
zoning
a
little
bit
differently,
because
you're
going
to
have
a
mix
of
housing
units
in
all
zones
is
the
goal.
D
Hi
pauline-
I
might
not
be
understanding
this
right,
but
in
the
cottage
cottage
cluster,
so
there's
no
there's
no
maximum
density.
The
jurisdiction,
pre-existing
density
maximums
do
not
apply.
How
does
that
work
in
conjunction
with
the
lot
size,
though,
because
there
now
is
a
minimum
lot
size.
D
A
A
You,
okay,
so
parking
so
basically
for
a
triplex.
If
the
lot
or
parcel
is
3000
square
feet
or
less,
you
can
require
one
space
total.
It's
not
one
space
per
unit.
It
is
one
space
total,
and
so
that
would
apply
probably
in
our
rm
districts,
and
I
have
a
chart
I'll
show
you
on
the
next
slide
for
lots
of
parcels
that
are
greater
than
3
000
square
feet,
but
less
than
5
000
or
equal
to
5
000
square
feet.
You
can
do
two
spaces
total
and
I
put
rm
there.
A
I
think
that's
really
just
rs
and
then
lots
of
parcels
greater
than
5000.
You
can
require
three
spaces,
so
that
would
be
our
low
density
residential
because
that's
on
ten
thousand
square
foot
lots
quadplexes
uses
somewhat
similar
numbers
if
you're
3,
000
square
feet
or
less
again
for
a
quad,
it's
one
space
total.
A
If
the
lot
is
between
three
and
five,
it's
two
spaces
total
five
thousand
to
seven
you're
at
three
and
then
over
seven
thousand
square
feet.
It's
four
spaces
you're
still
allowed
to
count
your
on
street
parking.
The
city
currently
allows
up
to
fifty
percent
to
count
on
street.
A
You
cannot
require
a
garage
or
carport.
If
you
do,
it
can't
count
towards
meeting
their
parking
requirements
as
long
as
it
meets
the
dimensions
you
have
to
treat
the
parking
requirements.
This
thing
is
same
as
a
single
family
home,
which
basically
means
that
the
drive
and
parking
has
to
be
paved,
and
you
may
not
apply
additional
minimum
parking
requirements
to
housing,
conversions
which
will
go
over
what
that
is.
A
So
on
the
left,
you'll
see
the
zones
rl
rs
and
rm
the
first
column,
the
ten
thousand
four
thousand
and
twenty
five
hundred
is
what's
required
for
a
single
family
home
today
in
those
zones
so
for
duplex
and
the
low
density
residential,
it
would
be
10,
000,
rs4
and
rm
would
be
none
and
then
the
parking
would
be
two
each
because
in
the
duplex
code
it
says
you
can
provide
two
parking
spots
and
then
in
the
triplex
lot
sizes,
the
10
000
in
the
rl
5000
and
the
standard
density
residential
and
then
no
lot
sizes
in
the
for
triplex
in
the
rm,
because
we
don't
today
and
then
based
on
those
numbers,
dictates
the
parking
requirements.
A
So
in
the
rl
for
a
triflex
you're
looking
at
three
parking
spots,
maximum
rs
is
two
and
then
in
the
rm.
It
would
be
one
this
are
and
when
I
say
maximum,
this
is
the
maximum
that
the
city
can
require.
If
a
developer
wants
to
put
in
more
parking,
they
definitely
can.
But
these
are
the
maximums
that
the
city
can
require
and
then
for
quads.
J
J
I
don't
see
consistency
between
all
the
people
on
the
committee
that
they're
all
in
favor
of
what
is
here
in
this
document.
So
the
question
I
have
for
you
as
a
city
representative,
do
you
feel
comfortable
to
tell
the
council
that
this
code
is
good,
that
we're
okay,
you're,
okay
with
it
and
they
should
not
submit
a
letter
saying
you
know
something's,
not
right
here?
How
do
you.
B
A
Duplexes
I
mean
basically,
two
one
per
unit
seems
fine,
even
for
triplex
one
per
unit,
it's
getting
a
little
on
the
low
side,
but
we
do
again.
These
are
just
maximums,
so
a
developer,
and
we
have
some
developers
on
the
phone
today.
That
would
say
that
these
might
be
what
we
can
require,
but
they're
definitely
going
to
provide
more
parking
than
what's
required
because
one
they
need
to
be
able
to
rent
or
sell
the
units.
J
H
On
that
one
yeah,
so
my
I
think
that
this
is
one
that
that
there
were
extensive
groups
collecting
to
discuss
outside
of
the
rack
and
tech
meetings.
Without
a
doubt,
cities
provided
very
strong
feedback
on
this
specific
issue,
and
you
know
ultimately,
I
think,
unless
dlcd
wants
something
different
out
of
the
bill
that
we
are,
it
is
what
it
is,
and
so
one
way
of
looking
at
it,
and
this
is
less
than
ideal,
but
sometimes
kind
of
how
we
have
to
get
there
is.
H
H
So
some
people
tell
us
that
that's
the
sign
of
a
good
compromise
right,
whether
or
not
that's
acceptable.
I
can't
answer
I
mean
you
know
to
some
degree,
there's
some
trial,
but
I
know
league
of
cities
and
counties
have
both
been
involved.
In
writing.
Testimony
parking
took
up
probably
three
full
meetings,
and
these
are
three
or
four
hour
meetings
with
endless
testimony,
commentary
back
and
forth.
So
my
sense
is
we're
never
going
to
get
to
the
place
where
people
are
all
happy.
H
My
feeling
is
that,
frankly,
we've
pushed
as
much
as
we
are
going
to
be
able
to
and
still
get
listened
to.
We
don't
want
to
lose
all
credibility
and
continuing
to
push
if
the
decisions
more
or
less
been
made,
but
what
we
can
do
is
evaluate
how
this
is
working
once
it's
gone
through
and
request
tweaks
in
a
future
bill,
if
that's
needed
to
make
it
really
a
little
bit
more
workable.
H
If
this
does
tru
truly
mean
you
know,
it's
not
gonna
work
for
city
so,
but
there
was
also
some
very
strong
testimony
from
folks
who
had
some
pretty
good
citations,
as
well
as
some
analyses
provided
through
consultants
that
showed
that
parking
beyond
a
very
minimal
level
is
a
barrier
to
development.
You
know
you
can
disagree
with
that
and
that's
appropriate,
but
I
think
that
there
are
a
couple
sides
to
this.
H
Initially,
they
were
telling
us
that
we
could
do
no
off-street
parking
zero,
and
so
it
took
a
lot
to
even
get
to
this
point.
So
I
don't
know
if
that
helps
at
all,
but
that's
that's
sort
of
how
I'm
looking
at
this.
No,
it's
not
perfect,
there's
other
sections
that
probably
bend
would
change
if
it
were
all
up
to
us,
but
I
think
the
state
frankly
intends
to
have
a
pretty
heavy
hand
in
this.
H
That
was
kind
of
the
point
of
this
bill,
and
so
we
need
to
do
the
best
we
can,
after
all,
the
testimony
we've
provided
to
try
to
make
this
work
and
then
go
back
in
a
future
session.
If
we
need
to.
A
When
I
think
there
was
definitely
some
compromise
because
some
of
the
parking
was
proposed
to
be
none
like
no
requirement,
then
cities
definitely
push
back
on
that
because
there
had
to
be
some
minimum
minimums
that
we
can
ask
for
and
after,
like
lynn
said,
several
meetings,
this
is
what
they
ended
up.
Proposing.
J
I
drive
by
a
duplex
on
9th
street
just
about
every
day
and
I
see
seven
to
nine
seven
to
eight
cars
right
next
to
this
duplex
and
I
have
taken
a
picture
and
that
picture
will
go
to
the
commission
because
it
makes
absolutely
no
sense
what
they're
saying
all
communities
are
not
the
same.
One
size
doesn't
fit
everybody's
needs
or
demographics.
I
You
know
I
don't
want
to
beat
a
dead
horse,
but
right
now,
single
family
homes
are
allowed
to
have
five
unrelated
people
living
in
them.
If
every
single
family
home
did
that
you'd
have
probably
five
cars,
it
is
what
is
it
exists
now
I
hear
bill,
but
I'm
sorry
I'm
going
to
be
one
of
those
people
who
thinks
that
this
is
the
correct
direction
to
go,
and
I
support
it.
H
A
So
we'll
keep
moving
on,
we
are
doing
good.
We
have
an
hour
still
to
go
and
I
we
probably
won't
take
the
full
hour,
but
so
we'll
just
keep
going
so
we're
still
on
triplexes
and
quads.
A
Large
cities
are
not
required
to
apply
a
lot
block
coverage
or
floor
area
ratio
to
triplexes
and
quad
plexus,
but
we
have
the
option
and
we'll
go
into
more
detail
with
that
when
we
meet
on
the
30th,
but
with
the
the
lot
coverage
we
currently
already
have
lot
coverage
in
the
bend
development
code.
A
We
may
look
at
whether
or
not
that's
working
and
tweak
what
we
have
as
long
as
what
we
are
applying
to
the
triplexes
and
quadplexes
is
also
consistent
with
how
we
treat
single-family
drawing
units
and
then
florida
ratio.
We
need
to
look
and
see
if
we're
even
a.
I
think
we
can
apply
for
area
ratio
regardless
if
we
apply
things
to
single
family,
so
it
is
a
little
bit
different
for
triplexes
and
quads.
A
If
the
large
city
chooses
to
apply
the
coverage
or
far
standards,
it
can't
be
that
less
than
established
for
a
single
family
zone
so
take
back
what
I
just
said
that
on
the
lot
coverage,
whatever
we
propose
for
triplexes
and
quads
will
have
to
be
similar
or
identical
to
what
we
are
proposing
for
single
family.
So
there
will
be
some
work
to
do
on
lot
coverage
and
we'll
have
to
talk
about
far.
If
that's
something
we're
even
interested.
B
A
A
All
right,
okay,
so
townhouses,
remember
two
lots.
Each
two
homes
on
their
own
lie
attached
by
one
common
wall,
and
you
have
to
allow
at
least
two
on
together.
So
this
is
the
lot
size
for
townhouses.
Basically,
you
don't
have
to
apply
any
lot
size
if
a
city
doesn't
want
to
which
you
know.
Once
you
get
this
small,
I
don't
know
if
it
matters.
If
you
even
have
a
lot
size,
more
flexibility,
if
you
don't
have
one
or
do
we
feel
there
should
at
least
be
a
minimum.
A
If
we
do
choose
to
do
a
lot
size
for
a
town
house,
it
cannot
be
greater
than
1500
square
feet.
You
can
have
a
little
flexibility
for
corner
lots
and
external
lots
and
internal
lots.
So
you
know
if
there's
four
town
houses
in
a
row
one's
on
a
corner.
One
is
internal
to
the
site.
You
might
play
around
with
the
lot
sizes,
but
they
still
have
to
average
1500
square
feet.
A
A
Now,
my
personal
thighs,
if
you're
as
small
as
20
feet,
why
even
have
a
lot
frontage,
but
maybe
we
still
think
there's
a
need
for
20
feet
and
we'll
talk
about
that
when
we
start
drafting
code-
and
they
are
also
are
saying
that
a
city
may
allow
frontage
on
public
and
private
streets
as
well
as
alleys
or
shared
or
common
drives.
So
if
you're
familiar
with
our
shared
court
development
alternative
in
the
development
code,
it
allows
townhouses
to
be
on
a
shared
court,
which
is
basically
a
private
access,
drive
and
a
track.
A
So
this
would
comply
with
that.
This
is
saying
a
city
does
not
have
to
allow
townhouses
on
a
flag
lot.
We
do
today,
so
we
can
talk
about
that,
but
I
don't
see
any
issues
with
allowing
it
on
a
flag
law.
If
a
developer
feels
that
that
would
be
appropriate
the
densities
this
was
brought
up
earlier.
So
if
a
city
wants
to
apply
density
maximums
in
a
zone,
it
has
to
allow
four
times
the
maximum
density
allowed
for
the
single
family,
detached
dwelling
in
that
zone
or
up
to
25
units
per
acre.
A
Whichever
is
less
so.
I
did
some
math
on
that
and
it
looks
like
in
our
rl
low
density,
residential
district.
You
would
have
to
allow
16
units
per
acre,
because
the
maximum
density
in
the
rl
is
four
units
per
acre
four
times
that
is
16..
It's
less
than
25
lots
of
math
but
looks
like
you
have
to
allow
16
units
per
acre
in
the
rl
and
then
in
the
rs,
because
the
maximum
7.3
it
actually
exceeds
25.
A
So
you
have
to
allow
at
least
25
units
per
acre
in
the
rs
district
setbacks,
similar
to
what
we
have
on
the
code
today.
Obviously,
when
they're
attached
there's
zero
setbacks,
and
then
you
just
have
to
apply
the
same
setbacks
that
you
do
to
single
family
for
all
the
walls
that
are
not
attached
to
a
townhouse
and
the
same
height
requirement
as
a
single
family
detached
it's
kind
of
funny
that
under
height
they're,
actually
tying
it
to
parking.
A
It
says
the
city
may
not
apply
lower
maximum
heights
to
that
of
a
single-family
home
and
if
a
city
requires
off-street
parking,
the
heights
must
allow
construction
of
at
least
three
stories.
This
is
where
I
was
talking
to
brad,
who
had
to
leave
the
phone
call
in
the
beginning
he's
with
our
building
department,
and
I
am
just
trying
to
figure
out
what
three
stories
is.
I
know
our
base
camp
townhomes
downtown
are
three
stories.
I
need
to
pull
the
height
on
those,
I
believe
they're,
probably
30,
35
feet.
A
I
Yeah
pauline
the
way
I
read
this
is
they're
thinking
there
might
be
parking
underneath
so
that
you
have
one
layer
of
parking
and
then
two
layers
of
housing
above.
Is
that
how
you
read
it
or.
A
That's
my
guess
on
why
they
tied
parking
to
the
height
so
base
camp.
If
you're
familiar
with
those
townhouses,
they.
B
A
Garage
on
the
first
floor,
plus
an
adu
and
then
two
stories
of
a
livable
space
above
that
for
a
total
of
three.
But
the
parking
is
located
on
under
the
upper
stories
in
a
garage.
I
H
Before
we
go
on
to
the
next
question,
is
that
one
of
the
developers,
the
I
think
architect
for
that
development
is
an
lcdc
commissioner?
Who
was
the
primary
liaison
to
this
house
bill
2001
rack,
so
she
she
knows
our
code.
A
little
is
my
guess:
oh
yeah,
but
then
it's
bill's
turn.
E
So
pauline,
how
does
this
relate
to
the
proposed
small
unit?
Small
dwelling
unit
developments
where
lot
sizes
could
be
as
small
as
1500
square
feet
and
and
how
is
a
townhouse
different
than
what
the
ben
code
refers
to
a
single
family
attached.
A
So
the
first
question,
which
is
a
good
question
and
the
tax
and
the
racks
at
the
state
level,
talked
about
it
because
bend
is
proposing
the
small
dwelling
unit
developments,
which
is
a
single
family,
detached
dwelling
on
a
1,
500
square
foot
lot.
A
We
were
concerned
because
they
were
going
to
say
that
triplexes
and
quads
have
to
be
allowed
on
the
same
size
lot
as
a
single
family
that
took
away
a
lot
of
flexibility
from
cities
to
do
something
different
like
the
small
lot
developments,
because
then
we
would
be
looking
at
a
1500
square
foot
lot
that
allows
a
single
family
would
also
have
to
allow
the
triplexes
and
quads.
So
that's
where
they
came
back,
as
their
original
proposal
was
to
include
the
scaled
lot
sizes
for
triplexes
and
quads.
A
You
could,
but
under
this
code
you
can
do
a
townhouse
as
well,
because
it's
a
1500
square
foot
lot.
E
A
They
are
yep,
so
we'll
have
to
make
sure
our
definition
is
basically
the
definition
that
the
state's
providing,
which
is
two
dwelling
units
attached
by
a
common
wall
on
a
property
line.
I
don't
have
it
memorized,
but
they're
saying
the
same
thing
just
differently.
A
All
right
so
parking,
so
we
can
require
one
parking
space
per
unit.
A
No
more
doesn't
mean
that
someone's
not
going
to
provide
a
garage
with
two
parking
spots
and
a
driveway
in
front
with
two,
but
we
can't
require
any
more
than
one
and
as
we
just
saw,
if
we
require
the
one,
then
we
have
to
allow
three
stories,
but
I
think
we're
okay
there.
I
will
definitely
double
check
the
base
camp
development,
but
I
think
we
can
get
three
stories
in
and
also
require
one
parking
spot,
which
I
assume
is
what
the
committee
and
I
could
be
wrong.
A
But
this
stakeholder
group
is
interested
in
parking
at
at
least
one
per
town
house,
then
we'll
double
check.
The
height
still
can
count
on
street
parking
up
to
50
and
same
improvement,
so
basically
paved
parking
just
like
a
single
family.
Drawing.
A
A
A
I
our
code
today
for
townhome
seems
to
work
really
well,
we
don't
have
an
open
space
requirement,
it's
hard
to
imagine-
and
this
is
my
personal
opinion,
but
you
have
townhomes
on
such
small
lots
that
if
you
start
saying
well,
percentage
of
that
lot
has
to
be
dedicated
towards
open
space
or
landscaping.
Then
you're
really
losing
the
buildable
area
of
that
lot.
L
A
The
city
is
going
there
right
and
then,
if
they
can't,
then
yeah
they'll
still
have
to
provide
it
on
site.
So
maybe
the
driveway
in
the
back
is
some
permeable
pavers
or
I
am
no
storm
water
expert.
But
if
it's
to
be
required
on
site,
that's
one
requirement,
but
it
should
be
separate
than
saying
that
we
require
open
space
and
landscaping
right.
L
A
A
town
home
development
by
polish
going
in
horrible-
it
might
be.
A
B
M
You
can
have
an
agreement
between
properties
that
allow
stormwater
to
be
treated.
Let's
say,
the
end
town
home
might
have
a
large
open
space
or
you
know
like
it.
Might
you
don't
have
to
you're
not
forced
to
treat
it
all
on
your
own
site
and
it's
it's
part
of
the
properties,
though
I
mean
you'll
have
to
have
that
you'll
have
to
have
that
agreement
written
in,
but
but
yeah.
There
are
ways
around
that.
N
Yeah,
that's
exactly
it,
you
can
do.
We've
done
shared
drainage,
easements
agreements
and
whatnot
in
the
past.
The
other
option
is
it's
not
saying
that
we
can't
treat
it
offset
you
just
have
to
off-site.
You
have
to
work
that
into
the
development
and
do
storm
laterals
pipe
it
to
attract
sort
of
like
karna
was
saying
or
something
of
that
sort.
B
A
All
right
so
now
we're
onto
cottage
clusters
so
jesse
again,
this
is
going
to
be
a
new
section
in
the
code.
The
way
I
see
it,
and
then
we
keep
our
cottage
housing
as
a
separate
development
alternative
that
a
developer
could
choose
to
do
if
they
wanted
to.
C
Hi
yeah
going
back
to
the
open
space
requirement
based
on
what
we're
we're
hearing
in
other
cities
about
how
the
heat
is
rising
in
these
really
populated
areas.
Wouldn't
we
want
to
consider
some
open
space
requirements.
A
That
will
be,
I
mean
the
stakeholder
group
can.
Definitely
we
can
talk
about
that
for
sure.
If
there's
interest
from
the
stakeholder
group
as
a
whole
to
propose
some
open
space
requirements,
we
don't
have
them
today,
so
any
townhome
project,
a
typical
townhome
project
that
you
see
today
and
you
drive
by
it-
wouldn't
have
an
open
space
requirement.
A
L
Is
karna
again,
I
would
be
against
that
just
because
we're
it
would
take
away
from
the
number
of
housing
units
you
could
actually
provide
and
that's
the
whole
goal
of
this
is
to
actually
provide
an
alternative.
Housing
housing
amount
and
I
think
ben-
does
a
really
good
job,
while
the
ben
parks
rec
has
a
lot
of
open
space.
So
that's
just
my
two
cents.
A
One
for
everybody,
you
know
keep
this
as
one
of
those
things
for
you
to
think
about
and
then,
as
we
start
drafting
code,
we'll
we'll
go
into
a
little
bit
more
detail
and
get
everyone's
opinions
on
this
topic,
as
we
will
with
all
the
areas
where
we
actually
have
a
say
in.
H
F
A
Okay,
so
cottage
clusters,
so
this
is
definitely
a
little
bit
different
than
our
cottage
housing
code.
We
are
not
required
to
apply
a
minimum
lot
or
parcel
size
to
a
new
cottage
cluster,
which
is
again
four
units
on
a
lot.
However,
if
a
large
city
chooses
to
regulate
minimum
lot
sizes,
the
following
applies.
So
if
the
minimum
lot
or
parcel
size
in
the
same
zone
for
detached
single
family
dwelling
is
7000
square
feet
or
less,
which,
in
our
rs
district
again
is
4
000..
A
A
Lot
or
parcel
in
the
same
zone
is
greater
than
7
000,
so
our
low
density
residential,
then
it
has
to
be
allowed
on
the
same
size
lot
as
a
single
family,
which
is
10
000
square
feet.
So
we'll
talk
about
it
as
a
group
whether
or
not
we
want
a
lot
size
for
cottage
clusters.
If
so,
then
we'll
look
at
the
seven
and
the
ten
thousand
square
foot
lot
sizes
very
flexible.
Large
city
is
not
required
to
apply
minimum
lot
parts
or
width
to
cottage
clusters.
A
If
we
do,
it
has
to
be
the
same
as
a
single
family
dwelling
unit
and
drawing
a
blank
on
the
width.
I
want
to
say
it's
50.
I
don't
I'll
have
to
double
check,
but
we
do
have
a
minimum
lot
width,
which
seems
to
work
fine
for
single
family
drawing
in
it.
So
we
could
pass
that
on
to
cottage
clusters
as
well.
A
Here's
another
that
we
cannot
apply
density
maximums
to
the
development
of
cottage
clusters.
I
mean
I
might
as
well
say
that,
because
it
doesn't
pencil
so
we'll
exempt
these
out
from
meeting
density
as
well.
They
just
have
to
meet
a
minimum
density
of
at
least
four
units
per
acre
and
then
setbacks
same
zone,
same
setbacks
as
your
zone.
A
I
know
one
city
is
asking
for
clarity
on
what
parameter
setbacks
is
so
I
sent
in
the
definition
the
city
of
bend
uses
to
help
them,
which
basically
says
the
perimeter
is
all
the
outside
setbacks
of
the
parent
parcel
so
for
bend.
It
would
be
10
along
the
side
and
rear.
A
I'm
sorry,
five
on
the
side
and
rears
ten
along
the
front.
Unless
there's
parking
to
be
twenty
and
then
the
height
is
a
minimum
of
one
story.
I
love
how
they
use
stories
because
we
just
don't
define
story.
So,
let's
figure
out
what
a
minimum
height
is
for
a
story
and
then
the
unit
size
we've
already
talked
about
because
it's
in
the
definition,
but
it
has
a
maximum
building
footprint
of
900
square
feet
per
unit.
A
This
was
a
little
unfortunate
and
we
commented
on
the
bill
too,
because
if
you
want
to
do
a
single
story,
that's
a
thousand
square
foot
unit.
You
can't
you
can
only
do
up
to
900
square
feet.
You
can
make
a
thousand
square
foot
two
story
unit,
because
the
footprint
would
still
be
nine,
but
you
couldn't
have
larger
single-story
structures
which
meets
a
need
in
our
community.
A
A
Parking,
no
more
than
one
off
street
parking
per
unit
and
that
the
parking
can
also
be
let's
see,
may
allow
but
may
not
require
off
street
parking.
Oh
again,
if
you
provide
garages,
it
can
count
in
there,
but
we
can't
require
garages
or
carports,
and
you
can
count
your
on-street
parking
up
to
50
percent
like
we
do
today.
H
Pauline
it
looks
like
jesse,
you
might
have
a
question
and
then
just
find
folks
who
just
jumped
on.
We
are
recording
the
meeting.
D
Yeah,
hey
pauline
is
it.
I
jeremy
from
the
city
had
told
me
that
the
appendix
q
is
no
longer
available
for
building
codes,
so
as
far
as
lofts
go
in
in
cottage
clusters,
I
know
in
the
micro
apartment
step
that
it
talks
about
allowing
for
lofts.
Is
there?
Is
there
any
discussion
of
lofts
in
any
of
this.
A
D
K
Jesse,
you
can
still
do
the
ladders
up
to
the
lofts
and
stuff
there's
a
new.
They
replace
that
appendix
with
the
the
small
home
code.
K
A
City
may
not
apply
a
lot
or
parcel
lock
coverage
or
floor
area
standards,
so
won't
even
have
to
think
about
that,
because
we
can't
and
nothing
in
this
provision
precludes
them
from
allowing
them
on
individual
lots.
So
the
ra,
the
attack
and
the
racks
a
lot
of
cities
are
like
why.
A
Why
are
we
saying
four
on
one
lot
and
for
a
model
code
to
be
drafted
in
a
way
that
works
for
every
single
city
that
would
allow
cottages
on
their
individual
lots,
got
too
cumbersome
because
then
you're
talking
about
different
setbacks
and
lot
sizes,
something
different
for
every
single
city.
So
what
they
did
is
basically
said
that
you
can
have
four
units
on
one
lot,
but
they
left
it
open.
So
if
a
city
wants
to
allow
these
on
individual
lots
like
we
do
under
our
cottage
housing
development,
you
can.
A
So
the
design
standards
again
not
to
be
too
repetitive
but
we'll
be
going
over
on
september
30th
and
I
sent
those
out
for
everyone
to
start
reviewing
you're
not
required
to
apply
the
design
standards.
A
So
this
is,
if
you
choose
not
to
even
adopt
the
design
standards
or
siding
standards
in
these
packets,
and
this
is
another
one
which
we'll
take
to
city
council
or
the
the
sub
committee
to
see
if
there's
interest,
but
I
feel
they're
probably
going
to
be
okay
with
the
the
design
standards
in
the
packet
and
the
requirements
that
we've
just
gone
over.
But
a
large
city
may
submit
to
the
department
of
land
conservation,
development
findings
and
analysis,
demonstrating
that
the
citing
and
design
standards
that
were
adopted
prior
to
these
rules.
A
So
let's
say
this
is
my
understanding
too.
But
let's
say
you
know:
we've
adopted
design
and
sighting
standards
for
duplexes
and
triplexes
almost
two
years
ago,
and
we
wanted
to
continue
to
use
those
we'd
have
to
show
that
the
city
has
applied
this
alternative
standard
and
that
our
standards
have
achieved
a
three
percent
or
greater
production
rate
of
the
applicable
money,
middle
housing
type,
so
duplex
triplex
over
the
time
frame
during
which
city
applied
the
standards
and
the
standard
or
standards.
A
And
then
it
goes
on.
The
time
frame
must
include
two
years
of
housing,
production
data
and
housing
production
data
from
the
full
time
frame
in
which
city
applied
the
standards.
I'm
not
going
to
go
into
this
in
detail.
We'll
ask
the
council,
if
they're
interested
in
keeping
the
design
standards
that
we've
already
done
in
citing
standards
or
to
move
forward
and
adopt
the
model
code
one
I
have
to
say
the
state
has
used
a
lot
of
our
standards
to
begin
with.
So
it's
not
a
drastic
change.
A
If
you
know
our
codes
are
similar
when
it
comes
to
the
design,
standards,
anyways
and
then
there's
that
other
finding
that
you'd
have
to
make
that
the
city
applied.
The
alternative
standards
have
sufficient
quantity
of
remaining
sites
where
we
can
accommodate
middle
housing
to
ensure
three
percent
production
rate
over
20
year
horizon.
This
just
seems
like
a
lot
to
come
up
with,
to
be
able
to
use
our
existing
design
standards,
which
are
very
similar
to
what's
in
the
model
code.
A
A
A
N
A
I
don't
think
so,
but
when
we
go
on
the
30th
I'll
make
sure
that
as
we
go
through
it
to
highlight
anything
that,
I
think
is
more
restrictive.
Just
like
in
the
townhome
discussion
we
had
earlier
requiring
open
space
is
more
restrictive
than
what
we
require
today.
N
A
So
this
is
the
middle
housing
conversion.
That's
been
mentioned
throughout
the
code.
Basically,
you
can
do
additions
or
conversion
of
an
existing
single
family
dwelling
into
middle
housing.
It
has
to
be
provided.
It
can't
increase
the
non-conformance.
So
basically,
if
there's
some
non-conforming
setbacks
whatever
they
do,
can't
increase
that
non-conforming
setback.
It
has
to
comply
with
the
code
or
what's
there
and
a
couple
of
other
requirements,
but
and
in
short,
if
you
want
to,
if
you
have
a
house-
and
you
want
to
convert
it,
this
basically
lets
you
convert
it.
A
And
that
is
it
for
this
presentation.
We
did
pretty
good.
The
next
meeting
is
september.
30Th.
I've
already
sent
out
the
design
guidelines,
but
if
you
have
any
questions
on
them
or
you
need
clarity
before
the
meeting
or
one
just
feel
free
to
email
me,
that's
fine
make
sure
that
you've
accepted
the
meeting,
so
you're
able
to
attend
on
the
30th
between
1
and
three.
And
then,
if
you
have
any
other
questions
for
now,
we
have
a
half
hour.
I
can
answer
anything.
E
A
Yes,
yes,
so
a
city
can
either
adopt
the
entire
model
code,
which
we're
not
going
to
do
because
we
already
have
a
lot
in
our
code.
A
What
we'll
do
is
go
through
and
review
what
is
allowed
as
clear
and
objective
standards,
and
if
some
of
them,
we
as
a
group,
don't
feel
are
necessary,
then
we
don't
have
to
adopt
those
whatever
we
adopt
just
has
to
be
in
compliance
with
what
is
in
there.
E
E
You
know
we
we
already
calculate
parking
based
on
the
number
of
bedrooms
in
some
cases
on
a
unit.
In
other
cases,
you
know
two
spaces
for
a
single
family,
one
space
for
something
else,
half
a
space
for
something
else
in
in
this.
These
rules
they're
adding
calculating
parking
based
on
lot
size
and-
and
yet
none
of
this
seems
to
me
to
have
some
sort
of
empirical
foundation
or
or
even
a
general
guiding
principle.
E
Yeah,
well
that
would
that
would
be
great
to
see,
but
I
guess
what
I'm
driving
at
is
all
all
of
these
various
methods
seem
arbitrary,
and
you
know
I
mean
I
don't
expect
that
after
the
work
that's
been
done
here
that
that
you
know
that
these
rules
are
suddenly
going
to
change,
but
it
would
make
more
sense
to
me
to
say
you
know:
every
unit
ought
to
have
one
off
street
parking
space
with
no
credit
at
the
curb
and
and
if
you
have
more
vehicles
than
that,
you
need
to.
E
You
know,
compete
in
the
marketplace
for
space
somewhere
out
there,
but
I
I
just
want
to
put
that
on
the
table.
It
seems
like
you
know.
There
are
all
these
arbitrary
formulas
that
have
no
grounding
in
any
sort
of
factual
or
empirical
basis,
and-
and
I
don't
know
what
the
process
would
be
for
pushing
back
on
that,
but
both
as
a
city
and
as
a
state,
it
seems
like
there
ought
to
be.
E
You
know
an
effort
to
come
up
with
an
approach.
That's
a
little
bit
fairer.
A
Well
I'll,
send
you
following
the
meeting
that
email
that
was
sent
out
from
dlcd
today,
that
gives
you
the
contact
information
and
how
to
submit
public
comments,
and
I
encourage
you
to
submit
a
public
comment
to
them.
A
Regarding
your
concerns
about
parking
and
we'll
send
out
that
memo
that
included
bend,
if
I
remember
correctly,
the
typical
household
size
and
parking
based
on
whether
your
renter
or
a
homeowner,
and
what
type
of
unit
you're,
renting
or
owning
for
you
to
take
a
look
at
that
and
then
again
back
to
what
lynn
and
I
were
saying,
it
is
hard
when
you
have
a
state
writing
a
parking
code
that
has
to
apply
to
every
city
that
is
25,
000
or
greater
in
population.
A
All
our
codes
are
probably
very
different
when
it
comes
to
how
you
calculate
parking
and
how
much
parking
is
required
for
duplexes
and
triplexes,
so
I
think
they
did
what
they
could,
but
it
is
going
to
be
probably
an
amendment
for
a
lot
of
cities
to
change
it
and
you're
right.
Since
now
we
are
going
to
be
looking
at
parking
based
on
lot
sizes.
A
Maybe
we
look
at
the
parking
requirements
for
some
of
our
other
residential
uses.
I
I
don't
like
using
parking
based
on
bedrooms
because
it's
harder
to
find
a
bedroom.
I
do
like
parking
based
on
units.
That
is
very
clear.
This
is
basing
parking
more
on
the
well
unit
and
lot
size,
but
it's
something
for
us
to
look
at
and
see.
If
there's
some
cleanup,
we
need
to
do
in
our
parking
table
for
residential
uses
so
that
it's
kind
of
using
the
same
standards.
J
We
are
working
with
the
nla
to
try
to
fulfill
the
council's
suggestion
that
we
educate
citizens
that
what
about
land
use,
that
there
is
a
process
and
here's
the
story
when
we
all
showed
up
at
the
evergreen
apartments
project
late
in
the
meeting,
an
architect
stood
up
and
said
guys,
you're
late.
J
If
you
have
a
problem
with
the
parking,
it
is
minimal,
they're
just
doing
it
by
code,
your
real
beef
should
have
been
with
the
council
when
they
approve
the
parking
rate
and
so
we're
getting
them
a
little
smarter
that
they
have
to
look
at
code
type,
four
applications
that
that's
where
they
might
have
a
chance
to,
as
the
statewide
goal
number
one
says,
have
an
influence
in
their
city's
planning.
J
Now
what
I'm
hearing?
Basically
guess
what
it's
now
being
taken
away?
They
really
can't
go
to
their
city
council
and
complain
about
this,
that
the
city
has
tied
your
hands.
So
the
question
I'm
going
to
hear.
So
I'm
just
looking
for
an
answer.
If
you
could,
what
do
I
tell
these
citizens?
What
kind
of
recourse
do
they
have?
J
A
I
would
encourage
them
to
submit
letters
and
comments
during
the
public
process
for
the
state's
code
that
they're
proposing
and
you
can
port
on
the
email
that
I'm
sending
you
with
the
contact
information
so
that
they
can
participate
in
that
public
process.
J
J
A
A
L
I
I
kind
of
somewhat
of
an
answer
on
the
parking
issue:
the
state
wants
to
reduce
vehicles
mile
vehicle
miles
traveled,
and
so
the
thought
I'm
not
saying
it's
right
or
wrong-
is
that
if
we
reduce
your
parking
that
maybe
you'll
get
rid
of
a
vehicle,
so
it's
a
statewide
policy.
It's
there's
not
a
lot
of
influence.
L
There
was
citizen
community
members
as
part
of
a
appointed
committee
that
came
up
with
this
information,
and
I
do
want
to
commend
pauline's
extremely
hard
work
in
participating
in
the
technical
advisory
committee
and
making
sure
that
ben's
already
present
code
could
be
incorporated
in
the
statewide
code
that
we
had
a
lot
of
influence
and
making
sure
that
we
didn't
have
to
make
a
lot
of
changes.
So
that
was
extremely
helpful.
L
A
One,
I
think
we
did
you
know
our
best
when
it
came
to
my
participation
in
lens
being
on
the
rack
when
it
came
to
parking,
because
one
of
their
proposals
was
just
requiring
no
parking
and
cities
definitely
push
back
on
the
no.
So
we
made
some
progress
in
getting
some
minimal
parking
requirements
may
not
be
ideal
compared
to
what
some
cities
may
think
they
need,
but
it's
better
than
saying
that
cities
can't
require
any
parking.
J
J
10
this
comes
from
a
letter
from
a
portland
company
who
are
very
strong
advocates,
for
you
know
little
parking.
They
did
the
survey
of
ben
and
several
others
10
of
our
people,
people
or
renters,
don't
have
cars.
50
have
more
than
one
car.
You
do
the
math.
Where
are
all
those
people
going
to
park
on
our
streets
that
are
very
narrow
now?
I
know
you've
told
me
what
to
do
and
we'll
put
it
in
the
letter
we're
going
to
copy
you,
but
to
me
I'm
cons
these
meetings.
J
I
went
through
all
those
notes,
my
gosh,
it's
a
cast
of
thousands,
it
seems
like,
but
my
concern
is:
there
were
comments
that
were
just
taken
and
ignored
or
not
checking
the
math
of
consultants
and
we'll
put
it
in
the
letter
and
let
you
take
a
look
but
there's
something
in
there
that
you
may
want
to
so
they
might
want
to
give
us
an
opinion.
Are
we
off
our
robbers?
H
Sorry
pauline
it
looks
like
sarah
just
got
a
hand
up
too.
Oh.
G
G
A
So
I
would
encourage
those
who
share
mike's
opinion
if
you
to
submit
your
comments
to
the
state
and
I'll,
send
you
the
notice
so
that
you
are
added
to
it
and
then
I
believe
you
get
on
a
list
too.
So
you'll
get
other
notifications
and
you
won't
have
to
rely
on
myself
to
send
them
to
you
and
participate
in
the
states
process
and
then,
as
we
move
forward,
you
know
we
can't
talk.
A
We
could
talk
a
little
bit
about
parking
about
whether
or
not
we
want
to
continue
to
allow
the
requirement
on
street
like
we
have
today,
which
is
50
or
not.
That
is
something
that
this
committee
can
address
with
parking.
What
we
can't
address,
as
we
know,
is
the
actual
parking
requirement
per
unit,
but
we'll
get
there.
We
will
have
several
meetings,
I'm
sure,
to
go
over
what
our
proposal
will
be
for
our
amendments
again.
A
Our
next
meeting
is
on
the
30th
and
we
will
just
go
through
like
we
did
today.
I'll
have
a
presentation
and
we'll
go
through
what
we're
allowed
to
do
for
clear
and
objective
design
guidelines,
and
following
that,
then
we
will
start
looking
at
the
draft.
But
I'd
like
to
see
the
states
process
make
sure
that
we're
not
jumping
the
gun
too
fast,
but
we'll
figure
out
our
our
schedule
quickly
and
again.
A
In
the
meantime,
if
you
have
questions
or
anything,
please
give
me
an
email
or
a
phone
call,
and
we
can
chat
and
thank
you
so
much
for
your
time
today
and
it
was
kind
of
a
dry
subject.
Although
I
really
enjoy
it,
some
of
you
might
find
it
a
little
bit
dry,
but
it
was
a
good.
A
G
G
Yeah-
and
I
was
looking
while
I
have
you-
do
we
have
notes
from
these
meetings.
A
So
we
did
record
it,
so
there
will
be
a
recording
available
if
you
want
to
listen
to
it
and
then
andrena
in
our
department
thought
maybe
a
transcript
could
be
put
together
based
on
the
recording.
So
if
that's
the
case,
those
will
be
available
too.
G
Oh
wow,
okay,
that's
probably
what
I
need
and
then
for
for
past
meetings.
Do
we
have
any
notes
from
those
from
the
like
one
in
january
and
february.
G
I
was
just
trying
to
remember
for
the
council
work
session
discussion
tonight
if
there
were
any
like
key
points
that
I
wanted
to
make
sure,
but
I
know
that
we
talked
you
know
at
length
about
parking
and-
and
I
was
trying
to
remember-
I
think
we
did
also
talk
about
kind
of
low
potential
location,
yeah,
a
loud
zoning
district.
That
was
the
first
thing
we
talked
about,
so
those
are
really
the
two
big
items.
A
Yeah
and
if
you
want
to
give
me
a
call
outside
of
this
sure,
just
give
me
a
call
I'm
available
now
until
the
council
meeting
so
just
give
me
a
call,
and
I
can
go
over
with
you,
the
the
meetings
we
had.
I
don't
have
notes
well,
if
I
do
they're
in
my
office,
but
we
can
brainstorm
together
and
I
can
help
you
out.
Okay
sounds.
H
You
pauline,
I
sent
the
feasibility
memo
from
eco
back
at
you.
I
found
that
while
we
were
just
so,
I
think,
but
I
was
looking
for
an
additional
parking
more
parking
info.
I
haven't
found
it
yet,
but
if
I
do
I'll
send
it
your
way,
if
you
happen
upon
it,
let
me
know
so
that
I
stopped
looking.