Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Redmond council approves development‑code updates but pulls townhouse setback, open‑space and wireless changes
Summary
After hearing builders and HAPO concerns, Redmond city council approved most amendments to Chapter 8 (Ordinance 2025‑22) but excluded proposed townhouse rear‑setbacks, new open‑space rules and a wireless facilities provision for further review; vote was unanimous.
The Redmond City Council on Feb. 10 approved most of a package of development‑code updates but removed three contested provisions for further review.
Planning Director Kyle Roberts asked the council to adopt a largely housekeeping set of changes to Chapter 8 but to pull the proposed townhouse rear‑setback increase and new open‑space requirements after the state Housing Accountability and Production Office (HAPO) identified potential housing‑law issues. Roberts told council: “80% of this code amendment package is pretty solid stuff … staff would really recommend that city council approve this code amendment package, but pull out the proposed changes to the townhouse setbacks and open space requirements that were identified as a potential housing law violation.”
Builders and development representatives urged the council to pause the specific changes to avoid harming housing production. Garrett Mosher of the Central Oregon Builders Association told council the rear‑setback proposal “threaten[s] to reduce the production of townhomes in Redmond and increase the average cost of those that do get built.” Luke Pickrell, a local builder, said his analysis shows the proposed 5‑to‑20‑foot change would reduce typical site yields and raise lot costs, warning it could be a “density killer.”
Hayden Homes’ government‑affairs manager Jen Kovetz presented slide illustrations showing how larger rear setbacks would compress building footprints and, she said, could force many small single‑story homes without garages or push developers to build upward. “By mandating large consolidated tracts of land based on unit count, we’re effectively shrinking the building envelope,” she said.
Councilors asked builders for underlying cost and feasibility studies; several members said they wanted the data on the public record. One councilor told a builder: “You said you’ve conducted some cost and feasibility analysis … I was wondering if you’d be willing to share those with us for public record.” Builders agreed to provide supporting numbers.
After discussion, a motion to approve Ordinance 2025‑22 as revised — excluding the townhouse‑setback change in Table A of 8.142, the proposed open‑space changes in sections 8.27 and 8.2715, and the wireless‑facilities item in 8.415 — passed on a roll‑call vote with all members voting in the affirmative.
The council and staff plan follow‑up work on the pulled items. Roberts said HAPO’s review had also flagged other code sections not currently in the amendment package; staff will address those in future code work and will return to council with recommendations.
The council’s action leaves in place the noncontroversial clarifications and housekeeping updates in the package while setting aside the provisions most likely to affect housing supply and affordability for deeper review.
