1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />II <br />erred in affirming its inclusion in the net-density calculation. The <br />acreage may be in `actual residential use,' in that a leasing office is <br />fairly characterized as a use of, relating to, or connected with <br />residence or residences. But it is not `reserved for the exclusive use <br />of the residents.' On the limited record that exists, the leasing <br />office will be used by some combination of residents and <br />nonresidents. Moreover, the nonresidents' use will be for their own <br />benefit-such as to inquire about available apartments-not at the <br />residents' invitation or for the residents' benefit. The leasing office <br />should not have been included in the net-density calculation." <br />Ilulme, 299 Or App at 86 (footnote omitted). <br />12 The court reversed and remanded our decision. Id. at 90. <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />Consistent with the court's decision, we remand the city's decision. On <br />remand, the city must recalculate maximum net density for the development in a <br />manner consistent with the court's decision. <br />The first assignment of error is sustained, in part. <br />The city's decision is remanded. <br />Page 6 <br />