►
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
D
E
A
Since
it
is
101
and
we
have
an
awful
lot
to
get
through
today,
thank
you,
everybody
for
joining
us
today,
and
this
will
be
our
third
meeting
to
talk
about
house
bill
2001
and
amendments
in
compliance
with
house
bill
2001
for
the
bend
development
code.
I
have
the
agenda.
Hopefully
everyone
can
see
it
up
on
the
screen.
A
I
do
want
to
take
roll
call
today
and
then
we'll
go
through
some
meeting
protocols,
we're
fortunate
enough
to
have
ethan
with
the
lcd
here
to
give
a
presentation,
and
then
we
will
dive
into
the
beginning
of
our
discussions
for
the
code
updates
so
for
roll
call.
Just
bear
with
me
just
stop
sharing
my
screen
for
a
moment.
E
H
A
A
A
A
There's
gonna
be
items
where
it's
gonna
be
little
to
no
discussion,
I'm
sure
and
then
there's
gonna
be
items
where
there
will
definitely
be
more
discussion
and,
as
that
occurs
once
we
get
to
a
point
where,
if
there's
not
a
majority,
that's
clear
on
how
to
move
forward
on
a
particular
item,
we'll
ask
you
to
raise
your
hands
in
support
of
a
a
proposed
option
and
then
once
we
have
a
majority
raising
their
hands
and
we'll
move
on
and
again.
This
is
just
our
first
stab
at
drafting
the
code.
A
Moving
on
ethan
with
the
lcd
is
kind
of
enough
to
give
us
some
background
on
the
house
bill
2001
on
the
adopted
oars
and
model
code
and
processes
that
pertain
to
the
city
of
bend
and
he's
also
going
to
remain
with
us
for
the
whole
two
hours.
So
as
we
start
working
through
the
excel
chart,
we'll
be
fortunate
enough
that,
if
we
need
to,
we
can
ask
him
questions.
He
can
give
us
some
help
or
guide
us
on
anything
so
with
that
ethan.
B
H
L
All
right,
so
I'm
gonna,
hey
everyone
good
afternoon.
I
just
wanted
to
turn
the
camera
on
and
kind
of
wave
high
real,
quick,
introduce
myself.
My
name
is
ethan
stuckmeyer,
the
senior
housing
planner
at
the
department
of
land
conservation
and
development,
and
just
last
week,
coming
out
of
the
adoption
of
the
oregon
administrative
rules
related
to
large
cities
and
middle
housing
in
those
large
cities,
which
is
what
bend
is
in
this
in
the
realm
of
house
bill
2001..
L
It
sounds
like
this
group
is
fairly
familiar
with
the
requirements
of
that
bill,
but
I'm
just
going
to
go
a
little
tiny
refresher
so
that
we
all
have
the
same
understanding
house
bill.
2001
requires
cities
across
the
state
of
oregon
and
those
cities
are
broken
into
two
different
types
of
cities:
medium
cities,
those
are
cities
outside
of
the
portland
metro
boundary
with
population
between
10,
000
and
25
000.
L
Then
there's
the
other
group,
which
is
large
cities
and
that's
the
that's
the
cohort
that
ben
falls
within
those
cities
are
cities
outside
of
the
portland
metro,
boundary,
25,
000
population
and
over
cities
within
the
portland
metro,
boundary
of
1
000
population
are
over
and
then
metropolitan
county,
so
washington,
clackamas
and
multnomah
counties,
so
ben
falls
into
that
large
city's
cohort.
The
requirement
for
large
cities
is
that
they
have
that
same
allowance
for
duplexes
on
every
lot
and
parcel.
L
They
also
have
an
additional
requirement
that
requires
triplexes,
quadplexes,
townhomes
and
cottage
clusters
in
areas
that
are
zoned
residentially
and
allow
for
the
development
of
single-family
detached
homes.
So
those
are
different
requirements
and
there
may
or
may
not
be
overlap
in
the
areas
where
duplexes
are
allowed
and
these
higher
level
metal
housing
types
are
allowed.
L
The
bill
also
required
our
commission,
the
land
conservation
development
commission
to
adopt
a
model
ordinance
that
could
help
cities
in
their
adoption
or
becoming
compliant
with
the
requirements
of
haskell
2001,
and
so
that
is
part
of
what
the
commission
adopted
last
wednesday
when
they
met
in
a
special
meeting.
They
also
adopted
what
we
call
minimum
compliance
standards
and
the
two.
L
The
key
difference
between
the
model
code
and
the
minimum
compliance
standards
is
that
the
minimum
compliance
standards
are
the
umbrella
through
which
or
the
range
of
options
that
a
city
can
use
as
they're
thinking
about
how
they
want
to
regulate
higher
level,
metal,
housing,
the
siting
and
design
of
metal
housing.
Specifically,
the
minimum
compliance
standards
set
forth
the
reasonable
quote-unquote
reasonableness
of
standards
citing
and
design
standards
that
cities
can
apply
to
middle
housing.
L
The
model
code
is
more
specific.
It's
not
a
wide
range
of
options.
It's
one
specific
set
of
options
or
standards
to
regulate
the
siting
and
design
and
mental
housing.
So
I
like
to
use
the
example
of
building
height
standards
to
kind
of
illustrate
the
difference
between
the
model
code
and
the
minimum
compliance
standards.
L
So,
in
the
model
code
again
very
specific
set
of
standards,
the
maximum
building
height
for
a
middle
housing
type
within
the
model
code,
say
25
feet
very
prescriptive
and
exact,
there's
no
kind
of
wiggle
room
there
in
the
minimum
compliance
standards,
the
standards,
the
range
of
options
that
are
available
to
cities,
to
regulate
that
building,
height
of
middle
housing,
range
from
25
feet
or
greater
to
the
same
building
height.
That
applies
to
a
single
family
detached
home
in
that
same
zone.
L
So
there
is
kind
of
this
spectrum
of
options
available
to
cities
to
determine
how
they
wanted
to
regulate
the
building
height.
So
those
are
the
kind
of
key
differences
in
the
minimum
compliance
standards
and,
in
the
model
code,
the
and,
if
you're,
following
along
in
this
graphic
here,
we're
kind
of
in
the
upper
section
here
in
this
light,
blue
color
and
moving
into
these
greens.
L
So
one
thing
I
talked
about
is
the
difference
between
the
requirements
for
large
cities
and
how
they
are
in
the
where
they
allow
higher
level
metal
housing.
You
might
remember
that
I
mentioned
every
lot
and
parcel
for
a
duplex,
but
then
in
areas
for
higher
level,
metal,
housing
types
and
so
as
we're
thinking
about
how
we
define
in
areas
and
the
legislature
didn't
give
us
a
whole
lot
of
definition
and
what
that
means.
L
L
All
right
so,
like
I
was
saying,
the
castle
wide
net
allow
high
level
middle
housing
types
pretty
much
everywhere,
except
where
it
should
not
be
allowed.
Those
areas
where
it
should
not
be
allowed
are
typically
goal
protected,
lands,
things
like
flood,
plain
areas,
natural
hazard
areas
and
those
kind
of
statewide
protection
areas.
L
There's
also
another
nuance
to
this,
where
where
middle
housing
can
be
allowed
and
those
are
or
sorry
rather
where
it
should
not
be
allowed
and
those
are
in
areas
that
do
not
have
sufficient
infrastructure
to
accommodate
the
development
of
that
middle
housing.
So
that's
kind
of
what
you
see
this
presumptive
approach,
the
widow
away
approach
and
there's
a
you
know,
kind
of
moving
down
the
diagram
moving
to
the
right.
Moving
into
this
kind
of
greenish
blue
color,
there's
an
option:
there's
an
off-ramp
for
cities.
L
That
say
you
know
those
don't
really
work
for
us
and
there's
some
additional
nuance
in
in
our
city.
You
know
any
city
in
this
in
the
state
that
we
need
to
think
a
little
bit
more
critically
about
where
these
middle
housing
types
should
be
allowed
and
so
in
the
minimum
compliance
standards.
That's
really
dictated
by
is
the
particular
area
in
a
goal
protection
you
know,
zone
or
something
like
that.
Doesn't
have
the
infrastructure
and
then
is
it.
L
Us
is
the
lot
a
sufficient
size
to
accommodate
that
development
of
middle
housing,
and
that's
where,
on
this
kind
of
bottom
section
here
in
the
greenish
blue
color
you're,
seeing
minimum
compliance,
minimum
lot
sizes
and
maximum
density,
so
the
minimum
compliance
standards
set
forth
a
an
acceptable
minimum
lot
size
standard
where
cities
can
say.
If,
if
the
lot's
of
a
certain
size,
then
we're
going
to
allow
these
types
of
middle
housing,
the
off-ramp
for
cities
is
to
say
we
don't
really
like
those
a
whole
lot.
L
There's
some
unique
circumstances
in
certain
parts
of
our
city,
where
a
larger
size
of
a
lot
is
going
to
be
required
for
these
middle
housing
types.
And
that's
where
you
see
the
performance
metric
approach
and
just
above
this
in
the
pie
chart
up
above
in
the
blue,
green
color,
you'll
see
these
percentages.
L
Triplex
is
allowed
on.
Eighty
percent
of
lots.
Quadflex
is
allowed
on
seventy
percent
of
lots,
town
of
homes
on
sixty
percent
and
then
cottage
clusters.
Also
on
seventy
percent
of
lots,
so
this
is
a
mathematical
type
exercise.
A
mapping
exercise
that
a
city
would
do
to
say
we're
going
to
apply
a
different
minimum
lot
size
for
say
just
an
example.
L
Cottage
clusters,
the
minimum
compliance
standards,
say
that
the
a
city
should
allow
cottage
clusters
on
seven
thousand
square
foot:
lots
if
that's
too
low
or
there's
certain
instances
where
that
doesn't
make
a
whole
lot
of
sense.
They
can
apply
a
higher
minimum
lot
size
standard.
However,
they
need
to
show
that
at
least
the
city
is
allowing
cottage
clusters
on
at
least
70
percent
of
the
lots.
The
residentially
zoned
lots
that
allow
for
single-family
detached
homes
in
the
city.
L
So
that's
what
the
performance
metric
kind
of
realm
is
is
talking
about
it.
It
takes
a
more
nuanced
look
saying
we're
thinking
more
critically
about
the
where,
with
you
know,
some
strings
attached
to
allow
the
most
potential
for
middle
housing,
development
in
the
city
based
on
those
performance,
metrics,
okay
and
then
shifting
in
so
once
the
city,
the
city
kind
of
determines
which
path
they
want
to
choose,
whether
it's
minimum
compliance
with
the
minimum
lot
size
and
the
maximum
density.
Or
if
it's
the
performance,
metric
approach.
L
And
these
are
in
this
green,
yellow
color,
showing
that
the
minimum
compliance
standards
set
forth
again.
Those
range
of
options
we
already
talked
about:
building
height,
there's
other
ones
off
street
parking,
other
design,
standards
about
glazing
and
front
door,
entry
and
open
space
requirements
and
there's
a
whole
bunch
of
things
in
there.
L
If
the
city
finds
through
their
public
process,
there
are
other
standards
that
they
want
to
apply
that
do
not
comply
or
do
not
fit
within
that
minimum
compliance
standards.
There's
an
optional
path,
and
that's
indicated
in
this
dashed,
yellow
box
route,
saying
that
the
city
can
say
prove
up
that
a
standard
that
they
would
like
to
apply.
That's
not
fitting
within
the
minimum
compliance
standards
that
it
does
not
in
fact
cause
unreasonable
cost
and
delay
and
there's
a
full
test
that
is
required
as
part
of
the
administrative
rules
to
go
through
this
process.
L
The
city
needs
to
show
that
the
standard
will
is
not
causing
additional
cost
in
both
the
acquisition
of
land
in
the
time
and
cost
of
construction
and
so
forth.
So
on
and
so
forth,
and
really
kind
of.
The
key
piece
here
is
f
in
in
this
provision.
Provision
f
how
the
department
is
the
department
of
land
conservation
development
is
going
to
be
reviewing.
L
These
requests
for
alternative
siting
and
design
is
the
balancing
between
the
cost
the
delay
that's
imposed
by
this
new
standard.
This
alternative
standard
that
the
city
is
proposing
and
then
that
balancing
that
with
the
public
good
or
the
public
need
the
interest
that
is
that's
intended
to
fulfill.
So
it's
kind
of
a
discretionary
test,
but
there's
uncertainty
built
into
this
and
I
think
part
of
the
the
rationale
for
the
route
that
the
department
and
the
land
conservation
development
commission
chose,
or
that
was
woven
into
their
decision
to
go.
L
L
And
so
there
is
some
there's
some
debate
about
what
is
reasonable
and
what
is
unreasonable.
So
the
opportunity
is
available
to
cities
to
make
their
case,
but
really
the
more
alternative,
siding
and
design
standard.
The
city
would
like
to
propose
the
stronger.
The
case
needs
to
be
that
you're,
balancing
and
achieving
a
public
need
and
a
public
interest
by
going
that
route.
So
I
hope
that
was
clear
and
that
was
a
lot
of
information
distilling,
a
really
13
14
month
process
into
10
or
so
minutes.
L
A
L
That's
a
really
good
question,
so
it
varies
because,
there's
you
know
there's
kind
of
these
two
different
groups,
the
medium
cities
and
the
large
cities.
Medium
cities
only
have
to
require,
or
have
to
allow
duplexes
there's
a
lot
of
cities
that
already
do
that,
maybe
not
on
the
scale
of
what
house
bill.
2001
does
require,
but
they're
just
making
minor
tweaks.
You
know.
L
Obviously
the
city
of
portland
and
the
large
city
cohort
has
already
adopted
their
first
portion
of
what
they
call
the
residential
infield
project,
which
is
their
attempt
at
complying
with
house
bill
2001.
They
adopted
that
this
summer,
even
before
the
rules
were
adopted,
but
yeah,
the
city
of
bend,
is
definitely
kind
of
on
the
leading
edge
of
cities
implementing
and
adopting
compliant
hospital
201.
M
I'll
give
you
the
hint
our
code
allows
a
30
foot
height,
which
allows
three
stories
which
allows
us
to
create
enough
floor
area
to
achieve
the
same
or
higher
cash
and
chia
spacious
than
let's
say
a
code
that
only
has
25
foot
height
limit.
So
it's
not
the
total
test.
I
understand,
but
it
would
also
be
considered.
L
So
the
analysis
that
the
consultants
have
done
for
us
to
you
know
show
which
standards
are
reasonable
on
a
statewide
context
and
then
help
to
establish
the
you
know
the
floor
and
the
ceiling
of
these
range
of
options
is
an
analysis
that
we
relied
fairly
heavily
on.
So
the
analysis
that
cities
do
is
you
know
up
to
them?
How
they
want
to
approach
it
for
sure,
within
the
bounds
of
the
provision?
That's
on
the
screen
here,
but
the
consultant
analysis
would
be
a
great
place
to
start
them.
L
I
think
the
the
key
there
is
the
difference
between
what
the
consultant
has
done
and
what
we
expect
cities
to
do
is
that
provision
f,
that
balancing
between
the
cost
and
the
public
good,
and
we
had
we
that
wasn't
part
of
that
initial
test
that
the
consultant
has
done.
So
that
would
be
the
key
difference.
B
M
Follow-Up,
I
just
thank
you
ethan
that
answered
my
question.
Small
follow-up.
Can
we
see
the
three
illustrative
drawings
that
your
team
used
in
their
13-page
analysis?
Unfortunately,
the
13-page
analysis
did
not
include
those
three
illustrative
drawings
which,
frankly,
it's
always
the
key
starting
out
with
a
diagrammatic
site
plan
is
always
job
one
step.
One.
L
You're
talking
about
the
okay,
so
the
consultant
did
their
initial
analysis.
Then
we
brought
it
back
to
the
advisory
committee
and
the
advisory
committee
asked
for
some
additional
follow-up.
You
know
some
changes
to
the
methodology.
You
know
just
some
tweaks
and
part
of
that
request
was
also
those
illustration.
Those
those
site
plan
analyses,
so
we
can
certainly
provide
those
they
probably
buried
somewhere
in
a
in
a
rack
or
tack
packet.
J
Hi
thanks
yeah
ethan,
I'm
just
wondering
if
you
can
touch
on
at
the
end
of
this
process
what
you
know
with
defining
success
as
a
compliant
code.
I'm
curious
how
you
view
the
level
of
certainty
with
with
regard
to
the
older,
the
alternative,
sighting
or
design
standards
versus
following
the
minimum
compliance
standards
and
how
dlcd
will
be
reviewing
those
or
how
those
how
those
how
the
standards
will
be
reviewed.
L
Yeah,
that's
a
good
question,
so
all
development
code
amendments
that
take
place
in
the
state
of
oregon
go
through.
What's
called
the
post
acknowledgement
plan
amendment
process
and
that's
a
process
where
the
department
of
land
conservation
development
reviews,
the
proposal,
for
you
know
adequate
findings
related
to
the
statewide
planning
goals
that
the
proposed
standards
are
compliant
with
all
state
codes
and
laws,
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
L
So
the
the
process
through
which
we
will
review
the
these
specific,
citing
and
design
standards
that
are
proposed
by
any
city
will
be
as
a
kind
of
subset
or
just
an
additional
piece
of
that
review.
So
it'll
all
happen
at
the
same
time
that
we're
reviewing
you
know
the
approval
process
for
middle
housing
that
that's
part
of
the
rules,
and
you
know
it's
all
kind
of
built
into
into
one
piece.
L
L
We
feel
that
those
are
a
base
set
of
standards
that
are
compliant
with
the
intent
of
house
bill,
2001
that
they
do
not
cause
unreasonable
cost
and
delay
and
that
they
are
implementable
right
off
the
shelf
and
it
provides
sufficient
enough
options
for
cities
to
work
within
to
be
compliant
with
house
bill.
2001..
L
A
So
I
have
a
quick
follow-up
on
that
ethan.
Just
let's
say
the
city
wants
to
propose
an
alternative,
sighting
and
design
standard.
Is
there
a
way
to
get
the
green
light
on
that
before
we
go
through
the
the
process,
so
that
we
we
can
submit
a
code
for
dlc's
review?
That's
a
complete
package
versus
submitting
a
possible
alternative,
citing
and
design
standard
as
part
of
the
package
with
an
unknown
outcome.
J
L
Oh
yes,
absolutely
yeah,
the
you
know
you
can
think
of
the
minimum
compliance
standards
as
kind
of
the
safe
harbor
right.
If
you
fall
within
the
range
that
has
been
established
in
the
rules,
the
departments
you
know,
we
view
those
those
standards
as
fully
compliant
with
the
intent
and
scope
of
house
bill.
2001.
L
B
B
N
K
K
L
A
L
That's
right:
that's
right,
yep,
because
the
model
code
is
a
set
of
standards
that
fall
within
that
range.
You
know
the
various
ranges
within
each
of
the
standards
of
the
minimum
compliance
standards.
It's
a
subsection
of
that
you
know
city
can
plug
and
play
in
to
use
kind
of
a
buzzword
plug
and
play
the
model
code,
the
minimum
compliance
standards.
So
on
so
forth,.
B
You
know
with
one
number
one
being
sort
of
back
in
the
napkin
math
and
number
ten,
I'm
going
to
just
say
is
our
our
last
ugb
process,
which
was
over
60
dedicated
volunteers
over
two
years
worth
you
know.
Where
would
you
expect
these
analyses
to
land
on
on?
You
know
some
equivalent
scale?
How
much
work
would
go
into
that?
What
what
do
you
expect.
L
Yeah,
that's
a
really
good
question,
so
we
haven't
gotten.
We
haven't,
of
course
seen
any
of
these
analyses
quite
yet
the
rules
were
just
adopted
last
week.
So
it's
a
little
bit
of
a
hard
question
to
answer.
I
know
for
certain:
it's
not
a
10,
it's
probably
not
even
a
7
on
your
scale,
but
you
know
it's
more.
L
B
O
L
L
L
So
those
are
the
that's
the
type
of
analysis
that
that
really
shows,
and
so
I
think
there
was
some
analysis
about
mostly
floor.
Air
ratio,
parking
and
open
space
requirements
and
those
kind
of
all
work
in
to
think
about
the
overall
height
of
the
building.
But
I
don't
know
if
there
was
specifically.
I
can't
remember
if
there
was
specifically
an
analysis
of
what
happens
if
it
goes
to
four
stories.
A
A
B
A
So
two
discussion
items
the
first
one
I
think
is
important
to
address
up
front.
So
as
we
move
through
the
excel
chart,
I
have
some
direction
from
the
advisory
committee,
so
hospital
2001
applies
to
zoning
districts
that
allow
single
family
detached
dwelling
units,
so
our
standard
density,
residential,
low
density,
residential
and
medium
density
all
allow
single
family
detached
dwelling
units.
A
A
A
As
you
may
recall,
council
also
has
a
goal
to
look
at
alternative
housing
types.
We
already
looked
at
the
micro
units
and
the
small
lot
dwelling
unit
developments
which
were
recently
adopted.
Their
other
goal
included
looking
at
four
plexes,
which
we
put
on
hold
because
we
wanted
to
see
how
hospital
2001
eventually
got
adopted.
A
So
the
question
I
just
want
to
see
is
whether
or
not
there's
any
concerns
with
this
group.
If
we
decide
to
keep
the
excel
chart
as
I've
drafted
it
and
looking
at
amendments
to
the
high-density
residential
district
for
duplexes,
triplexes,
quads
townhomes
and
possibly
the
new
cottage
clusters
that
are
being
proposed,
even
though
house
bill
2001
doesn't
require
it,
it
doesn't
say
that
we
can't.
B
K
Yeah,
I
I
have
no
objection
to
the
idea
of
talking
about
how
all
this
might
apply
to
rh,
but
I
think
we
ought
to
do
them
one
step
at
a
time.
I
think
we
should
talk
about
how
hp
2001
you
know
affects
you
know
what
we
need
to
do
to
be
compliant
with
hb
2001
and
see
where
we
land
in
terms
of
the
standards
for
quad
plexus
and
then
look
at
what
implications
that
would
have
for
our
age.
K
That
just
makes
a
lot
more
sense
to
me
as
a
practical
matter.
I
don't
know
you
know
how
many,
how
many
property
owners
or
developers
would
be
interested
in
building
quads
in
rh.
It
seems
like
it's
not
the
highest
and
best
use
of
the
land
when
they
could
have
a
lot
more
density,
so
I
I
just
think
it's.
K
C
Yeah,
I
would
my
only
concern
would
be
that
it
would
reduce
the
density
in
that
zone
to
have
cottage
clusters
if
it
already
allows
all
the
other
forms,
the
duplexes
through
quadplexes,
townhomes
and
so
forth.
I
I
don't
see
any
good
reason
to
also
include
you
know
the
cottage
clusters
or
whatever,
but
I
do
have
a
question
in-
is
any
of
this
allowed
in
a
mixed
use
type
of
situation,
or
is
that
not
really
applicable.
A
I
understand
that,
because
of
one
it's
a
form
of
single
family
detached
regardless
of
the
uses.
You
know
duplex
triplex,
four
plaques,
all
out
in
the
rh
today
they
still
have
to
meet
the
minimum
density
requirements.
The
thought
was
if
we
included
them
with
this
excel
chart.
When
we
start
looking
at
oh,
the
driveway
approaches
the
parking
standards
the.
A
If
we
want
windows,
whatever
we're
going
to
require,
probably
for
triplex,
the
thought
was
going
to
be
will
probably
require
for
a
quadplex
in
the
standard
and
medium
density.
So
it
seems
to
make
sense
that
we
would
also
include
the
same
standards
in
the
high
density,
because
it's
all
the
same
use
just
maybe
a
different
zone.
A
But
if
there
is
hesitation
with
including
the
same
requirements
for
what
is
going
to
be
required-
and
let's
say
medium
density
for
a
quadplex
than
in
the
high
density
that
that
I
need
to
know,
because
then
we
can
remove
it
from
the
high
density
and
just
have
different
requirements.
I
guess
between
zones,
so.
A
I
guess
what
we
have
today
so
triplex
today
and
the
standard,
medium
and
high
is
all
regulated
the
same
except
for
densities,
but
they
all
have
the
same
driveway
approach
requirements,
the
same
fluorite
ratio
requirements
and
a
couple
other
standards.
So
it
was
for
consistency,
and
if
we're
going
to
look
at
changes,
then
it
would
make
sense.
But
if
there
are
concerns
we
can
do
the
load,
density,
standard
density
and
medium
first
and
then
revisit
high
at
a
later
date.
C
M
M
Well,
I
think
we
need
to
look
at
as
we
have
a
certain
limited
amount
of
high
density
property
if
we
allow
low,
lower
density,
our
densities
that
still
qualify
because
it
hits
the
low
range
on
those
few
high
density
zone
parcels
we're
removing
from
the
marketplace
opportunities
for
somebody
to
build
that
higher
density
project.
I'll
give
you
an
example
on
off
of
newport
avenue
and
eighth
there's
a
new
project
that
just
opened
up
just
got
occupied
it's
on
about
4
000
square
feet,
it's
an
rm,
but
it
is
a
six
unit
apartment
to
me.
M
It's
three
stories.
It
met
the
30
foot
highland.
That
is
a
great
use
of
that
property.
It's
close
to
the
bike,
the
bus
routes,
the
best
and
highest
use
of
that
problem.
So,
let's
try
to
hold
back
high
the
rh
zoning
for
the
types
of
projects
that
really
are
more
intended
to
create
the
highest
possible
density.
M
D
D
So
I
don't
see
any
reason
why
not
to
let
the
market
decide
what's
appropriate
for
those
parcels.
If
you're,
we
actually
have
a
developer
willing
to
build
that
kind
of
product
and
it's
allowed
now.
Why
would
we
change
it?
I
did
I
don't
understand.
I
mean
it
allows
a
whole
point
of
this
hospital.
25
2001
was
to
give
options
for
different
people
to
live
different,
different
style
of
living
in
different
locations.
D
C
Can
I
can
I
jump
back
in
and
explain
a
little
bit
more.
I
understand
what
karna's
saying
my
concern
is:
if
the
requirements
that
we're
developing
now
create
greater
setbacks,
more
restrictive
driveway
locations
than
is
now
allowed
in
the
rh
zone
that
it
would
inadvertently
reduce
the
density
and
maybe
make
it
harder
to
make
a
project
in
the
rh
zone.
C
I
don't
want
to
discourage
any
kind
of
development
in
the
rh
and
I'm
concerned
that
some
of
the
requirements
for
the
number
of
windows
and
and
all
of
the
specific
requirements
that
we're
putting
in
our
document
here
might
be
detrimental
to
getting
the
maximum
use
out
of
the
rh
that
that's
where
I'm
coming
from.
If
you
know
so,
hopefully,
that
makes
a
little
more
sense
and.
A
Kathy
for
clarity
as
we
go
through
the
chart,
if
rh
were
to
stay
in
it,
we
would
have
those
discussions,
but
today
the
way
the
setbacks
are
written
and
I'm
thinking
we're
probably
going
to
use
the
setbacks
that
we
use
today,
which
is
the
same
for
single-family,
duplexes,
triplexes
and
multi-family,
and
it's
the
same
in
every
single
residential
zone,
they're
actually
more
flexible.
I
think
than
some
of
the
standards
that
are
in
the
model
code.
So
we
wouldn't
want
to
go
more
restrictive
with
setbacks.
A
A
A
B
B
B
A
B
B
A
Okay
and
bear
with
me
as
we
go
through
this
there's
definitely
room
for
error,
so
I
apologize
if
I
misspeak
or
don't
have
something
quite
accurate.
This
is
just
our
first
go
at
it
and
it's
really
just
to
help
me
start
drafting
the
very
initial
draft
and
we
will
meet
several
times.
We
will
go
over
the
drafts
and
keep
working
on
them
to
make
sure
when
we're
definitely
in
compliance
with
the
oars
and
or
model
code
or
if
we
choose
to
go
down
the
alternative,
siding
and
design
path.
A
So
this
is
just
again
to
give
me
some
guidance
on
the
initial
draft
I
started
going
through
and
just
highlighting
areas
where
we
should
have
discussion
or,
if
it's
clear
kind
of
which
one
we
would
go
with,
but
we'll
just
go
line
by
line.
So
it's
gonna
be
tedious,
but
we're
gonna
hold
a
whole
bunch
of
meetings,
so
that'll
be
fun.
So,
let's
start
off
with
definitions
and
the
common
courtyard.
A
Some
of
these
are
very
specific
to
the
cottage
clusters
developments
which
we
went
through
at
the
last
meeting
and
the
meeting
before
that
in
the
draft
oars
and
the
model
code.
There
are
specific
definitions
for
the
common
clusters
that
I
think
we
will
need,
because
we
do
have
to
incorporate
comment
or
courtyard
clusters
into
the
development
code
and
to
incorporate
them
the
way
the
oers
and
the
model
code
are
drafted,
it'll
be
helpful
to
carry
over
their
definitions
for
consistency,
and
the
thought
is.
I
would
use
the
definitions
for
the
cottage
clusters.
A
You
know
and
again,
as
we
start
drafting
cottage
clusters,
we'll
see
which
ones
we
need
and
which
ones
we
don't
or
which
ones
we'd
like
to
improve
upon
or
add.
So
the
first
one
is
the
common
courtyard,
and
when
we
get
down
to
the
comment,
the
query
clusters,
they
use
the
term
common
courtyard.
It's
not
in
the
bend
development
code
today.
So
I
think
it
would
be
helpful
to
add
this
into
the
code.
A
L
Yeah,
that's
a
good
question.
So
really
what
were
the
the
nitty-gritty
technical
details
of
how
a
city
defines
the
courtyard
part
of
the
cottage
cluster
is
up
to
the
city
as
long
as
they
specifically
for
the
cottage
clusters,
because
the
definition
of
cottage
clusters
includes
this
kind
of
discussion
of
that
they're
each
around
a
common
courtyard.
They
have
the
building
footprint
of
no
of
less
than
900
square
feet,
but
then
we
do
have
some
standards
related
to
open
space
and
pedestrian
connection.
L
L
Yeah
no
this
this
is
so.
The
model
code
is
one
specific
set
of
standards
that
fit
within
the
oars,
and
so
there
is
I'm
sorry.
When
I
say
oars,
I
mean
minimum
compliance
standards.
Those
are
the
that's
the
term
that
we've
been
using.
So
there
is
some
wiggle
room
there
right
for
defining
it
and
the
way
that
the
city
defines
it
25
at
least
25
percent
of
the
length
is,
is
great.
Yeah,
that's
fine!.
A
So
again,
this
is
one
that
we've
done
a
couple
code,
amendments
on
for
this
advisor
group
for
your
background,
trying
to
define
when
a
townhouse's
townhouse
is
truly
considered
attached.
That's
where
we've
come
up
with
the
25.
We
do
have
a
figure
in
the
bend
development
code,
showing
what
the
25
looks
like
the
developers
are
familiar
with.
This
definition
is
there
interest
in
changing
it
to
be
more
like
the
model
code
definition
or
are
you?
Is
there
any
reason
not
to
keep
the
definition
that
we
currently
have
in
the
code
today
carmen.
D
K
I'd
like
to
suggest
as
a
general
principle
that
we
keep
in
mind
that
the
current
ben
code
was
properly
vetted
and
legally
adopted
by
our
elected.
You
know,
city,
council,
and
I
think
we
ought
to
look
at
it
as
the
baseline
and
wherever
what's
there
now
can
meet
the
compliance
requirements,
we
ought
to
stay
with
what
we
have.
K
C
Yeah,
I
want
to
agree
with
both
bill
and
karna,
and
you
know,
for
instance,
this
explains
what's
happening
with
garages
and
adus
it.
It
helps
to
answer
more
questions,
so
I
think,
unless
we
see
there's
a
conflict
from
what
we
have
versus
the
model
code,
or
you
know
that
we
just
keep
the
definitions
that
we
have
or
if
we
see
that
it's
causing
greater
cost.
C
B
M
M
I
think
what
we're
going
to
find
out
is
probably
at
least
90
percent
of
what
we're
going
to
be
looking
at
these
20
pages
probably
falls
in
outside
those
two
filters
and
we're
going
to
every
time
we
go
to
the
next
line
and
the
next
line
we're
going
to
be
scratching
our
heads
saying:
well,
it
doesn't
really
affect
costs
or
delay.
Do
we
have
to
change
it.
A
Detached
single
family
dwelling
is
pretty
similar
to
the
minimum
compliance
and
model
code.
So
I
think
we're
good
just
keeping
the
the
single
family
detached
dwelling,
which
is
consistent
with
everything
else
we
have
door
area,
is
one
that
we
may
need
depending
on,
if
we
choose
later
on
to
define
door
area
for
a
garage
door.
A
So
this
is
just
kind
of
a
placeholder,
depending
on
the
decisions
we
make
later
on
for
garage
doors,
we'll
dictate
whether
or
not
we
need
this
definition,
the
driveway
approaches
and
I'm
not
seeing
a
hand,
so
just
keep
going
just
for
a
second
time.
But
if
I
see
hands,
I
will
definitely
pause.
The
driveway
approach.
Standards
are
actually
more
flexible
in
the
bend
development
code
than
what
was
adopted
in
the
model
code,
and
I
would
support,
I
think,
just
keeping
since
it's
more
flexible
and
then
the
driveway
approach
definition
again.
A
P
C
B
There
are
some
differences
and
they're;
basically
it
becomes
a
commercial
loan.
I
believe
at
three
units
and
above
I
I
could
be
getting
that
unit
number
wrong,
but
unfortunately
not
something
we
really
don't
have
influence
over
at
this
point.
Building
code
also
has
sort
of
similar
differences.
I
guess
between
commercial
and
residential.
The
good
news
in
the
lending
side
is
the
number
of
our
local
lending
institutions
or
branches
here,
can
finance
the
purchase
of
a
household
buying
a
four-plex,
let's
say
so.
Even
you
know
under
more
or
less
their
residential
standards.
A
Which
floor
area
ratio
if
we
do
use
to
use
a
floor
ratio
definition
we
use
so
that's
a
placeholder
and
same
as
citing
standard
story.
We
do
have
a
definition
in
the
development
code.
There
is
one
in
the
model
code.
However,
I
did
a
word
search
in
the
model
code
and
a
lesson
changed
or
didn't
show
up.
I
didn't
see
that
term
actually
used
in
the
model
code,
so
I
think
we're
safe
to
use
ours
for
story
and
town
home.
I
highlighted
both
of
them,
but
they
basically
say
the
same
thing.
A
A
So
in
a
duplex,
the
the
draft
oar
says
it's
two
units
on
a
lot,
but
you
may
allow
more
than
two
units,
including
an
adu,
and
that
language
is
very
similar
for
triplexes
and
quadplexes.
So
at
the
next
meeting
I
want
to
talk
about
whether
or
not
we
want
to
permit
adus
with
the
plexus
so
to
be
an
additional
unit.
They
would
count
towards
minimum
density,
but
not
maximum
and
then
the
other
one.
A
A
This
is
in
here,
but
basically
we
need
to
make
a
revision
to
density
because
we
do
have
maximums
and
the
minimum
compliance
and
model
code
make
it
very
clear.
You
can't
have
a
maximum
density
in
the
zone
for
a
duplex,
so
we
would
go
with
the
oars
on
that.
One
now
setbacks.
This
is
one
kathy
was
talking
about
setbacks
and
bend
in
my
opinion,
are
a
little
bit
more
flexible
than
some
cities,
because
our
rear
yard
setback
is
only
five
feet.
A
lot
of
cities
you
see
10
or
greater.
A
The
only
one
that
has
a
little
or
a
larger
setback
would
be
your
low
density,
residential
district,
which
has
a
20-foot
front
setback,
and
then
the
sides
are
10.,
so
the
minimum
compliance-
and
this
is
for
the
group
is-
we
may
not
require
setbacks
to
be
greater
than
those
applicable
to
detach
single-family
dwelling
units,
and
then
the
model
code
is
a
minimum
front
setback
greater
than
20
feet
or
a
minimum
rear
setback
of
greater
than
15
feet
or
invalid.
So
we're
in
compliance
with
these,
our
setbacks
already
seem
fairly
flexible.
A
A
A
A
And
that
is
currently
in
the
bend
development
code.
It
wasn't,
I
don't
think,
a
definition
in
the
model
code
unless
I
missed
it.
If
it
was,
I
would
have
carried
it
over,
but
we
have
a
very
specific
way
of
measuring
height.
That's
one
of
those
ones.
That
seems
like
every
city
measures
it
a
little
bit
differently.
A
Okay,
one
thing
I'm
going
to
let
you
know
when
we
talk
about
well,
actually
I'll,
say
it
one
moment
because
we're
almost
there
so
parking.
This
is
for
duplex.
This
is
our
current
requirements
today
which
do
not
comply
with
the
minimum
compliance
standards
or
the
model
code.
We
regulate
parking
by
bedroom
units.
Today,
the
minimum
compliance
is
no
more
than
two
spaces
for
duplex,
so
basically
one
per
unit
and
that
a
city
can
include
on-street
parking
credits
which
we
do
today.
A
E
A
C
O
Hey,
thank
you.
I
am
absolutely
not
in
support
of
not
having
any
kind
of
minimum.
The
complaints
that
we
hear
in
many
many
neighborhoods,
especially
our
dense
neighborhoods,
is
that
there
is
not
enough
parking
and
that
people
are
trying
to
park
on
the
streets
and
they
can't,
because
there
are
so
many
other
people
parking
on
the
streets.
We
absolutely
need
to
include
some
parking
in
these
developments.
O
M
My
raise
the
hand
button's
gone.
Oh
there,
it
is
that's
okay,
mike
go
ahead.
Okay,
can
I
make
a
suggestion
because
you
know
pauline,
we
have
spent
a
lot
of
time
diving
into
the
details
of
the
house
bill.
The
division
46,
including
we've
done
our
own
site,
plan,
analysis
and
calculations
of
how
the
code
would
impact
this.
M
Frankly,
I
don't
see
how
we
can
make
a
decision
on
any
of
the
parking
requirements
for
any
of
the
housing
types
unless
we
can
share
that
work
with
the
18
folks
here
this
committee
and
we
we
also
need
to
understand-
and
we've
heard
it
today
from
ethan.
Thank
you
ethan,
the
the
test.
How
important
the
test
is
so
we're
not
we're
not
proposing
something.
That's
just
going
to
not
be
approved
by
this
state.
M
A
So
one
suggestion
mike
next
meeting
when
we're
going
to
talk
about
adus
and
then
lot
coverage
employee
ratio.
We
can
put
parking
on
that
agenda
as
well
and
it
would
be
for
all
the
uses.
One
discussion
regarding
parking-
I
I
I
don't
have
is-
is
the
data
that
you
want
them
to
see.
The
data
that
you
did.
M
Well,
I
think
that's
the
starting
point,
but
I
think
for
us
to
be
completely
transparent.
We
have
to
make
sure
we're
not
creating
a
monster
trying
to
get
it
approved
by
dlcd
so
that
it
just
can't
be
us
just
saying:
well,
let's
try
this.
Let's
make
sure
it's
realistic.
I
want
to
be
reasonable
here.
Well,.
M
Again,
I
got
one
project
that
I
that
just
is
my
heartburn
project.
I
drive
by
it
every
day.
It's
a
duplex.
It
has
a
total
of
eight
bedrooms.
There
are
almost
always
at
least
seven
cars
parked
out.
They
only
put
in
front.
They
only
have
four
paved
parking
spaces,
so
the
other
three
or
four
spaces
park
on
rock
park.
M
M
Yes,
and
especially
as
ethan,
said
today,
the
importance
of
f,
so
this
is
a
productive
meeting.
So
we
know
what
ethan
is
expecting
or
needs
to
have
to
have
information
to
provide
a
decision
so
like,
in
your
case,
you're
not
waiting
for
a
decision
forever
on
the
parking
while
you're
trying
to
finish
up
this
code.
Amendment.
A
So
for
the
group's
discussion,
then,
for
the
next
meeting,
because
mike
did
submit
some
information,
he
can
email
it
to
me.
I
will
route
it
to
the
stakeholder
advisor
group,
so
you
have
it
to
review
prior
to
the
next
meeting
and
for
the
stakeholder
advisory
group
to
definitely
give
some
thought
about
these
parking
requirements
so
for
duplexes,
triplex's,
quads,
think
about
the
parking
and
then
we'll
have
a
discussion,
and
one
of
the
discussion
points
is
whether
or
not
we
are
going
to
use
the
minimum
compliance
standards.
A
D
D
A
P
A
P
P
So
I
hope
other
people
will
consider
that,
and
I
know
that
it
is
tough-
and
I
think
I
know
which
duplex
mike
is
talking
about
and
that
one
when
I
saw
that
go
in,
I
was
like.
Oh
no.
This
is
going
to
set
the
standard
so
badly
for
infill
development,
but
but
yeah.
Well
I
mean,
hopefully
things
will
start
to
change
incrementally.
B
H
Obviously
I
can't
speak
for
all
of
the
incoming
counselors
and
the
continuing
counselors,
but
from
my
own
perspective,
I
agree
with
those
who
are
arguing
that
we
should
not
have
any
parking
minimums
and
I
believe,
given
the
focus
on
affordable
housing
and
affordability
in
general
housing
in
general,
during
the
campaign
for
the
incoming
counselors,
all
the
incoming
counselors
that
that
they
would
agree
on
that.
So
just
kind
of
food
for
thought
in
terms
of
how
we're
how
we're
moving
forward
as
a
group
in
terms
of
providing
recommendations
to
the
full
council.
G
Hi
yeah
I'll
I'll
keep
this
short.
I
just
thought
someone
to
speak
out
that
that
I'm
also
in
favor
of
not
having
parking
standards
for
this
every
time
parking.
Every
time
parking
discussion
comes
up.
I
always
think
it'd
be
interesting
to
see
a
map
of
bend
and
and
where
the
the
parking
problems
actually
are-
and
I
know
there's
examples
here
and
there
and
and
and
it's
it's
unfortunate-
that
some
projects
get
built
and
the
parking
isn't
adequate.
G
G
B
E
I
I
think
everyone
covered
the
cover,
the
high
points,
honestly,
I'm
just
agreeing
with
karna
and
mowiy
on
no
minimums
that
we
are
talking
about
a
housing
bill
and
not
a
parking
bill
here
and
the
increase
parking.
Yes,
it
could
be
an
issue
in
some
of
the
livability
areas,
but
we
do
need
to
reduce
those.
O
Okay,
lisa
thanks
for
calling
on
me
the
issue
that
we're
hearing
in
our
neighborhoods
is
that
we're
basically
kicking
the
can
down
the
road.
If
we
don't
have
parking
in
some
of
these
developments,
the
other
neighbors
suffer.
So
I
I
do
think
there
needs
to
be
some
kind
of
minimum.
People
are
not
moving
here
to
bend
to
not
have
a
car
they're
moving
here
because
of
all
of
our
outdoor
wonderfulness,
and
they
want
to
go
skiing.
They
want
to
go
hiking.
O
M
I'm
just
asking
that
we
make
an
informed
decision.
What
I'm
hearing
is
a
lot.
Unfortunately,
inaccurate
information,
the
cost
to
build
one
surface
parking
space
is
two
thousand
dollars.
When
you
look
at
the
cost
that
cost
share
of
a
total
project,
that's
less
than
0.5
percent
the
cost
of
a
typical
project
like
that
duplex
I
pointed
out
so
when
somebody
says
it's
going
to
be
an
cost
barrier.
M
I
think
that
is
probably
more
applicable
to
large
projects
retail
projects.
We
can
all
look
at
our
shopping,
centers
and
say:
look
at
all
those
extra
spaces,
but
these
small
projects-
they
don't
have
they're,
not
the
cost
barrier
that
I
think
people
believe.
The
second
part
is
when
you
talk
to
property
managers.
M
M
So
I
I
just
think
we
all
need
to
make
sure,
because
this
is
going
to
get
messy,
but
if
we
just
adopt
this
now
no
minimums
and
go
forward,
there's
going
to
be
a
lot
of
pushback.
So,
let's
make
sure
we've
done
our
homework.
Consider
all
the
facts
to
make
sure
is
it
truly
a
barrier
for
these
middle
housing
types?
G
Hi,
I
guess
I
cut
out
last
time
I
just
real
quick
about
the
cost.
It's
not
as
much
about
the
cost
of
putting
in
the
parking
spot.
It's
about
the
cost
of
not
being
able
to
build
on
that
that
space
and
and
get
rent
or
an
income
from
that
you
know,
normal
parking
spaces
is
nine
by
20
feet
and
then
the
drive
aisle
to
get
to
it.
So
it's
a
it's
a
pretty
substantial
amount,
so
I
just
I
just
wanted
to
chime
in
with
that.
P
The
city
now
has
a
parking
manager
and
has
developed
its
first
like
neighborhood
parking
zone
or
whatever
you
call
it,
and
when
I
lived
in
eugene
that
worked
really
well
parking
was
in
hot
demand
and
like
around
the
university,
I
lived
just
a
couple
blocks
from
the
university,
so
the
street
parking
you
had
to
have
a
permit
to
be
able
to
park
more
than
two
hours
in
the
neighborhood.
So
I
lived
in
that
neighborhood.
P
I
got
a
street
parking
permit
for
a
you
know
a
small
dollar
amount
per
year
and
then
for
people
who
didn't
have
a
permit
and
wanted
to
park
in
the
area
they
had
to
make
it
work.
They
had
to
either
park
for
less
than
two
hours
or
ride
their
bike
or
ride
their
butt
ride
the
bus
or
walk
a
further
distance.
So
I
think
you
know
there
are
ways
of
managing
the
impact
that
are
fair
and
also
like
make
the
best
use
of
the
space
we
have.
C
Yeah,
I'm
leaning
towards
a
straw
poll
today,
and
I
will
say
that
my
my
understanding
is
that
if
we
propose
some
minimums
when
it
gets
to
the
city,
council,
they'll
get
rid
of
it
and
because
I've
heard
from
all
of
the
new
incoming
council
and
we've
just
heard
from
one
of
the
existing
counselors,
that
they
don't
want
any
parking
minimums.
And
I
think
that
there's
a
lot
of
support
in
this
group
to
get
rid
of
the
minimums.
And
so
I
think
we
should
just
go
ahead
and
take
a
vote
on
it.
B
It
looks
like
bill
has
more.
Maybe
after
bill
speaks,
if
it's
okay
pauline
just
to
try
to
keep
things
going.
If
folks
have
new
perspectives
that
haven't
been
shared,
that's
probably
the
best
way
to
proceed.
Otherwise
I
could
see
us
getting
into
the
loop
of
kind
of
back
and
forth
for
the
remainder
of
the
day,
so
bill
go
ahead
and
say
what
you
say
and
then,
after
this
pauline,
with
your
permission,
maybe
we
can
just
say
new
information.
F
B
K
K
K
K
Now
that
could
be
zero,
but
it
could
also
be
one,
and
I
just
think
we
need
an
opportunity
to
consider
alternatives
and
to
talk
about
those.
And
while
I
appreciate
the
fact
that
the
incoming
city
council
has
already
been
polled
about
their
opinions,
I
would
propose
that
the
city
council
needs
to
listen
to
what
the
community
wants
and
take
that
into
consideration,
and
we
shouldn't
shut
down
discussion
about
some
of
these
controversial
issues,
because
we
think
we
know
how
the
council
will
already
vote.
K
So
I
I
just
think
we
need
an
opportunity
here
to
to
consider
some
proposals
that
might
be
more
than
all
or
nothing
and
allow
people
to
you
know
talk
about
those
and
and
and
perhaps
to
vote
on
those.
So
one
possibility
here
would
be
to
ask
you
know
people
to
submit
to
pauline
a
sort
of
written
brief
description
of
what
they
think
ought
to
be
done
and
asked
pauline
to
circulate
those
and
then
take
a
vote
on
them.
The
next
time.
K
L
The
minimum
compliance
standards
is
that's
what
you'll
see.
There
is
a
little
bit
of
a
nuance
there
in
the
plex
development
tries
and
quads
on
lots
smaller
than
right,
5000
or
7000
square
feet.
However,
if
you,
if
the
city
also
puts
a
minimum
lot
size
requirement
on,
say
triplex
of
5000
square
feet,
then
we've
structured
the
minimum
compliance
standards
so
that
the
one
parking
space
per
unit
still
applies
in
that
scenario,
so
you
wouldn't
have
to
consider
the
lower
amount
of
parking
for
those
small
small
units
or
small
small
lots.
Sorry,
so.
L
Answer
to
your
question
is
generally,
if
you,
you
know,
without
minimum
lot
sizes,
if
you
just
applied
one
parking
space
per
unit,
then
yeah
that
would
that
would
require
some
alternative,
signing
and
design
analysis.
However,
if
the
city
applies
a
particular
minimum
lot
size,
then
no,
I
hope
that
answered
the
question.
A
L
A
A
B
H
A
I
feel
like
we'll,
have
a
similar
discussion
for
the
rest
of
the
missing
middle,
but
we'll
keep
them
separate
for
now
on
the
lot
coverage
and
floor
area
ratio
I'll
give
you
a
little
bit
of
the
background
and
then,
like
I
said,
the
next
meeting,
I'm
going
to
try
and
provide
a
little
bit
more
information
unless
we,
you
know,
come
to
a
discussion
today
or
you
know
a
conclusion:
are
those
hands
raised
right
now?
Are
they
still
up
from
the
poll?
A
A
So
floor
area
ratio
today
or
let's
start
with
a
lot
coverage.
Sorry
about
that.
So
our
lot
coverage
we
amended
a
couple
years
ago
to
be
more
flexible
in
the
low-density
residential
district,
and
this
applies
to
single-family
dwelling
units
is
35
percent
and
then
in
the
standard
density,
residential
district,
it's
50
percent
for
the
uses
that
are
single
stories.
So
a
duplex,
a
triplex
single
family
detach
is
50
and
then
that's
for
single
story.
A
If
they
were
two-story
any
use
on
that
property
is
two-story,
then
the
lot
coverage
goes
down
to
45
and
then
in
the
medium
density,
residential
district.
It's
the
same
for
single-family
detached
so
it's
50
percent
for
single
family
detached
single
stories,
forty
five
percent
for
two
story,
single
family
detached,
but
for
duplexes,
triplexes
and
townhouses
in
the
medium
density
it
bumps
up
to
sixty
percent
and
then
in
our
high
density
residential
district.
There
is
no
lock
coverage
requirements.
A
The
minimum
compliance
in
the
oars.
A
city
is
not
required
to
apply
lot
coverage
and
if
a
city
wants
to
apply
lot
coverage,
it
can't
be
any
more
restrictive
than
your
single
family
detached
dwelling
which
we're
in
compliance.
We
are
we're
treating
our
single
family
detached
pretty
much
the
same
as
the
plexes
and
townhouses.
D
K
K
So
my
recollection
was,
you
know:
a
lot
of
this
discussion
about
middle
housing
started
with
a
presentation
at
the
tower
back
in
2016
by
dan
parolic
who's,
the
missing
middle
housing
guy,
and
his
main
point
was
that
you
can
integrate
this
stuff
all
over
the
place.
If
you
control
for
massing
that
that
it's
all
about
scale-
and
so
you
know,
the
question
is:
what's
the
minimum
needed
to
have
some
consistency
in
scale.
A
When
I
haven't
heard
from
the
planners
about
lot
coverage
being
an
issue,
we
did
increase
it.
I
think
two
years
ago,
maybe
when
we
did
the
duplex
triplex
code
update,
it's
been
a
while
is
there
room
to
you,
know,
bump
up
rs
to
50
percent
and
not
care
whether
or
not
it's
a
single
story
or
two
story
is
sixty
percent
seems
to
be
working
in
the
medium
density.
I
know,
I
believe,
not
to
put
on
spot
hayden
homes
and
polish
you
know
they've,
with
their
developments.
A
I
A
I
Yeah
yeah,
I
mean,
I
think
that
it
becomes
becomes
difficult.
You
know
more,
the
higher
the
percentage
has
become.
You
know
I
mean
our
average
square
footage
and
bend
is
somewhere
750
square
feet.
You
know
you
think
about
20
20
foot,
front
setbacks.
There's
there's
not
a
lot
of
room
left
over
at
the
end
of
the
day
so
and
I'm
I'm
in
support
of
keeping
them
the
way
they.
L
No
you're
you're,
I
was
trying
to
answer
bill's
question
actually
about
you
know
what
happens
without
the
standards,
and
we
tried
to
think
about
this
in
the
context
of
cottage
clusters.
You
know
we're
thinking
about.
You
know
what
what
is
the
appropriate
size
for
a
cottage
cluster,
there's
all
sorts
of
things
that
are
taking
place
on
a
cottage
cluster
lot.
You
have
all
the
buildings,
you
have
the
pedestrian
connections.
You
have
the
common
courtyard.
L
All
of
these
together
create
a
functional
cap
on
the
actual
build
out
of
that
lot.
So
without
a
lock
covered
standard,
you
still
won't
see
a
100
covered
lot
because
you
have
things
like
storm
water
mitigation.
You
have
you
know
driveways,
you
have
sidewalks,
you
have
all
of
these
other
aspects
of
the
development
site
plan
that
functionally
limit
the
actual
developable.
You
know
coverage
of
that
lot,
so
I
just
wanted
to
jump
in
with
that
anecdote.
Q
G
G
Of
you
know:
here's
here's
some
single-family
homes
that
use
this
ratio
or
here's
some
larger
mixed-use
development
that
uses
another
ratio,
because
I
mean
it.
It
is
a
little
difficult
to
try
and
understand
some
of
the
percentages
of
how
how
the
different
percentages
change,
how
it'll
affect
kind
of
the
built
environment
and-
and
you
know
just
to
reiterate
what
everyone
else
is
saying
in
terms
of
there's
a
lot
of
things
that
do
dictate
these
percentages.
For
us,
landscape
requirements,
parking
drive,
aisle
fire
access,
all
those
things
so
yeah.
G
P
I
was
just
gonna
say
I
I
really
liked
what
the
portland
residential
info
project
did
around
affordability
in
terms
of
like
reducing
or
incentivizing
homes
to
be
smaller,
basically-
and
I
can't
remember
exactly
if
that
was
with
far
or
a
lot
coverage
or
something
else,
but
I
would
be
interested
in
looking
into
that.
If
that's
within
the
scope.
A
I
can
look
at,
I
believe
it
was
f-a-r
and
so
this
well
it
was.
The
number
of
units
got
more
faa.
I
have
to
look
at
it,
but
I
I
know
it
I've
seen
what
you're
talking
about,
and
maybe,
if
I,
if
I
find
it,
I
can
email
it
out
to
the
group.
Okay,
thank
you
kathy,
and
then
we
have
about
eight
minutes
left,
there's
just
a
couple.
Things
left
in
duplexes
I'd
love
to
get
through
so
that
next
meeting
we
can
dive
into
the
far
lot
coverage
and
triplex
discussion.
A
Kathy
anybody
else
on
this
one.
I
think,
because
I
want
to
go
over
what
is
required
for
floor
ratio
and
a
little
bit
more
detail
at
the
next
meeting
for
sure.
So
we'll
just
bring
a
lot
coverage
along
with
that
discussion,
so
just
for
moving
forward
design
standards
for
duplexes
again,
we
have
to
treat
a
duplex
the
same
way.
We
treat
a
single
family
detached
dwelling
unit
and
we
do
not
have
design
standards
for
single-family
detached
dwelling
units.
A
A
A
This
is
one
of
those
ones.
I
suppose,
if
there's
interest
from
the
group
to
go
through
the
alternative,
citing
and
design
standards,
we
could
propose
to
have
design
standards,
but
there'd
not
be
a
good
argument.
I
think
a
through
f
on
why
we
would
have
design
standards
for
a
duplex
and
not
a
single
family.
Detached
dwelling
unit.
F
K
The
the
most
important
issue
here
is
probably
the
fire
safety
concern
about
the
distance
between
structures,
and
it
seems
that
even
for
single
family
is
there
a
rule
about
if
you
have
a
detached
garage
or
adu
how
far
apart
structures
need
to
be
so
wouldn't
that
apply
to
a
duplex.
If
there
are
separate
structures.
A
A
L
Yeah,
that's
that's
acceptable.
The
six
feet
is,
I
think,
probably
the
reason
why
you
chose
six
feet
is
just
exactly
what
brad
mentioned.
That
is
the
distance
at
which
you
do
not
need
a
firewall
which
becomes
obviously
less
expensive,
and
then
you
know
if
there's
there's,
there's
nothing
that
would
cause.
You
know
that
six
feet
doesn't
cause
unreasonable
costs
and
delay,
especially
considering
multiple
units
on
a
lot,
especially
within
the
context
of
the
building
code.
A
Okay,
moving
forward
okay,
so
that
was
it
driveway
approaches
we
worked
on
that
two
years
ago
and
our
standards
are
more
flexible,
so
I
would
propose
to
keep
those
for
the
driveway
approaches
and
the
minimum
compliance
and
oars
basically
say
one
driveway.
We
allow
two
in
certain
cases
for
the
duplexes,
and
so
the
next
meeting
got
two
minutes.