►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
C
C
C
Okay
thing
102,
I
think
we'll
get
started.
Thank
you,
everybody
for
joining
our
team
meeting
again.
Today.
We
have
a
lot
to
get
through
and
hopefully
we'll
get
even
to
triflexes
and
fourplexes
if
we're
lucky.
But
our
meeting
today
we're
gonna,
do
roll
call
first
and
then
go
through
our
meeting
pro
calls
and
then
talk
about
lot
coverage.
First
then
floor
area
ratio
discuss
80
user
accessory
drawing
units
and
then
dive
into
the
excel
chart
that
we
left
off
on
at
the
last
meeting.
D
A
C
A
C
C
C
Please
be
respectful
about
other
people's
opinions
and
comments
and
if
there's
a
majority
of
support
for
any
of
the
items
that
we
talked
to
for
a
particular
change,
then
we'll
just
move
on.
If
it's
obvious,
if
there
is,
you
know
not
consensus,
then
we'll
do
what
we
did
last
time
with
some
voting
and
ask
you
to
raise
your
hands
so
that
we
can
see
if
there's
a
majority
again.
This
is
just
you
know
the
beginning
of
drafting
code.
C
All
right
next
slide,
all
right,
so
we're
going
to
jump
right
into
lot
coverage
and
bear
with
me
as
we
go
through
this.
It's
a
lot
of
information,
so
first
with
lot
coverage.
I
want
to
just
remind
the
group
what
the
revised
statute
or
minimum
compliance
standards
are
and
what
the
model
code
requirement
is
and
there's
always
that
alternative
siding
and
design
standard.
If
we
choose
to
do
that,
but
with
the
revised
our
minimum
standards
yup,
can
you
make.
C
F
C
C
C
Yes,
okay,
interesting,
okay!
Well,
we'll
just
stick
with
this:
okay,
so
back
to
lot
coverage.
So
the
minimum
compliance
standard
switches
in
the
oars
is
a
city
is
not
required
to
apply
lot
coverage
and
what
I'm
going
to
do
is
just
go
through
what
our
options
are.
What
the
city
requires
today
some
examples
of
what
lot
coverages
look
like
on
some
developments
here
in
bend
and
then
in
the
end,
we'll
go
through
our
the
options
and
have
a
discussion.
C
C
We
break
it
down
based
on
the
zoning
districts
today,
so
in
our
low
density
residential
zoning
district
lot
coverage
is
35
percent
in
our
standard
density,
residential
and
medium
density,
residential
for
single
story,
dwelling
units
or,
let's
start
with
just
standard
density,
residential
for
single
story,
dwelling
units
and
single-story
accessories
structures.
You
can
go
up
to
50
if
you
go
above
a
single
story
for
all
the
uses,
then
you're
at
45
percent
lock
coverage
in
the
medium
density
residential
zone.
C
If
you
have
a
two-story
single-family
detached
drawing
unit,
if
you
choose
to
develop
a
townhome
or
a
duplex
triplex
or
a
four-plex
in
the
medium
density
residential,
you
can
go
up
to
60
lot
coverage
and
that
was
done
in
a
recent
code
amendment
in
the
past,
like
probably
two
years
and
then
the
high
density
residential,
because
we're
trying
to
get
as
many
units
as
possible.
There
is
no
lock
coverage
requirements
so
now
I'm
going
to
go
through
some
examples
in
bend
and
then
in
the
end,
we'll
talk
about
our
options.
C
C
The
next
one,
this
is,
might
look
familiar
to
some
a
recently
constructed,
fourplex
and
fiveplex,
that
is
on
newport
avenue,
the
five
plex
I
believe
you
can
see.
My
cursor
here
is
in
the
front
and
that
lot
is
6150
square
feet
and,
if
you've,
driven
by
it,
this
will
give
you
a
sense
of
what
a
lock
coverage
would
feel
like
because
it's
only
at
32.8
percent.
So
it's
it's
definitely
in
compliance
with
the
bend
development
code.
C
C
This
is
a
single
story
drawing
unit
in
the
front,
and
I
believe
that
is
a
duplex
in
the
back,
which
creates
a
triplex
also
on
newport,
and
it
is
6840
square
foot
lot
size
and
its
lot
coverage
is
only
27
two
more
examples.
So
this
is
a
house
with
an
adu
and
it's
at
29
percent
and
one
more.
This
looks
and
it's
a
house
with
an
adu
but
also
looks
like
a
duplex.
It's
all
single
story
and
it's
at
41.
C
So
these
are
demonstrating
that
I
think
that,
with
our
lot
coverage
requirements
that
we
have
today,
they
seem
to
be
doable.
There
might
be
some
room
for
improvement,
but
I
I
still
support
lot
coverage.
This
is
an
example
that
thank
you,
matt.
I
just
saw
that
you
joined
us
that
he
created
for
me,
because
I
was
curious
if
you
wanted,
to
which
I
wouldn't
recommend,
but
if
the,
if
we
did
away
with
lot
coverage,
what
does
that
look
like
if
you
just
relied
on
setbacks?
C
And
so
matt
drew
this
up
for
us
and
it
shows
basically
five
foot
side
and
rear
yard
setbacks.
10
foot
front
set
back
for
the
livable
space
and
it
assumes
a
garage.
So
then
it
would
put
a
20
foot
step
back,
so
you
can
see
the
indents
here
would
be
where
the
garages
would
be.
So
that's
20
foot
step
back
and
if
you
simply
just
relied
on
setbacks
and
not
on
lock
coverage,
then
you
would
significantly
increase
the
lot
coverage
requirements.
C
So
on
a
4,
000
square
foot
lot,
you
would
go
up
to
over
58
on
a
sick,
5
000
square
foot
lot.
You
would
be
up
to
64
percent
and
on
a
7,
000
square
foot
lot,
you'd
be
up
to
70
lot
coverage
and
the
square
footages
on
the
bottom
are
basically
the
amount
of
land
that
could
be
covered
based
on
those
percentages.
C
C
F
C
F
F
Well,
yeah,
I
mean
I'm
just
putting
it
out
there
for
discussion
that
if
that
is
something
that
we
think
adds
attractiveness
and
what
we
want
to
see,
we
don't
want
to
necessarily
penalize
it.
So
maybe
it's
something
that
could
be
added,
but
I
don't
have
a
definitive
answer
or
way.
I'm
leaning,
but
it
just
seems
like
that,
might
be
something
that
we
would
consider
amending
slightly.
I'm
going
to
make
myself
suggestion.
H
H
G
G
My
initial
reaction
is,
oh
god
I
wouldn't
want
to
live
there,
because
I
like
having
a
little
bit
of
a
backyard
but-
and
then
I
kind
of
think
am
I
just
projecting
my
own
interests
and
and
how
other
people
should
be
able
to
build
their
properties.
So
I
guess
maybe,
if
there's
a
discussion
of
what
like,
what
exactly
does
the
lot
coverage?
What's
the
benefit
of
it
and
why
you
know,
why
do
we
have
it,
and
I
I
think
that's
before
we
maybe
talk
about
increasing
this
or
including
that
or
whatever?
C
Well,
from
my
experience,
I
think
lock
coverage
just
helps
control
the
scale
of
the
building
on
the
lot
so
that
it
doesn't
consume
the
entire
piece
of
property
and
in
bend.
You
know
we
do
only
have
five
foot
rear
yard
setbacks
in
other
communities.
I've
seen
in
a
lot
of
communities
actually
where
they
have
a
10
foot,
rear
yard
setback.
So
you're
already
guaranteed
that
there's
going
to
be
more
open
space
on
the
lot
and
less
massing,
but
in
bend
it's
a
little
bit
different
being
that
we
already
have
such
reduced
setbacks.
C
G
Yeah
yeah-
and
I
guess
my
my
comment
was
more
of
how
you
would
see
it
from
the
street,
because
I
mean,
I
think,
that's
a
lot
of
people
are
talking
about
massing
and
how
the
aesthetics
of
the
of
an
area,
a
lot
of
it
is,
is
not
necessarily
looking
into
someone's
backyard.
But
it's
it's
from
the
you
know,
from
the
public
street
and
from
the
neighborhood
and
looking
across
the
street,
your
neighbors,
you
know
in
a
lot
of
the
a
lot
of
the
houses.
G
C
That's
a
good
question
too,
and
I
don't
have
any
examples
to
show
what
a
neighborhood
would
look
like
if
all
the
lots
are
built
to
the
maximum,
because
we've
always
had
or
for
many
years
unless
calling
those
different
a
lot
coverage
requirements.
So
the
pictures
that
we
and
I
know
I
didn't
provide
a
whole
bunch
of
pictures,
but
the
these
all
have
comply
with
lot
coverage
and
if
there
wasn't
lot
coverage,
it
might
be
developed
slightly
differently
or
developed
more
intensely
too,
and
then
there
are
some
other
architects
or
people
on
this.
C
E
C
E
I
was
just
wondering
if
we
didn't
have
to
have
a
deviation
in
a
master
plan,
because
I
know
in
some
lancer
plans,
especially
in
the
valley.
They
just
set
aside
a
water
detention
pond
and
it
all
drains
there
all
the
water
drains
there
and
if
we
could
just
allow
outright
in
a
master
plan,
no
lock
coverages.
I
understand
with
infill
you're
trying
to
deal
with
compatibility
to
existing
neighborhoods,
and
I
like
the
balconies
and
the
ideas
that
the
austin
and
audrey
brought
up
so.
C
Maybe
we're
talking
about
two
different
types
of
master
plans,
so
in
the
city
of
bend,
a
master
kind
community
is
discovery
west,
for
example,
or
petrossa.
That
just
went
through
the
process
where
they
want
to
deviate
from
not
just
law
coverage,
but
a
number
of
development
standards,
and
so
there's
that
process
called
master
planning
where
they
can
propose
what
basically
any
deviation
they
want
and
go
through
that
for
properties
that
are
over
three
acres
and
required
for
properties
over
20
acres.
E
H
All
right,
just
to
kind
of
recap
what
what
I
thought
we
could
achieve
with
the
variation
for
covered,
carports
and
open
stairwells
is
what
it
achieved,
and
what
helps
with
the
feel
of
the
massing
is
that
it
was.
The
purpose
was
to
maintain
more
open
yard
space
in
between
the
buildings
or
on
the
side
of
the
buildings,
because
parking
takes
up
a
lot
of
space
and
there's
nothing
else.
H
You
can
do
with
it
so
to
be
able
to
stack
something
over
it,
while
not
counting
that
parking
area,
if
it
is
a
certain
percentage
open,
enables
you
to
keep
more
open
space
on
the
lot.
It's
not
going
to
zero
requirement
for
it.
It's
just
having
an
allowance
for
those
for,
if
you're,
using
over
parking
spaces
and
or
an
access
requirement,
that's
not
enclosed
below.
So
it
did
really
help
to
keep
the
lot
feel
more
open
and
to
maintain
some
more
landscaped
area.
Are
you.
C
H
F
The
other
question
that
I
have
is
I've
designed
projects
where
the
lot
was
considered
to
be
from
the
middle
of
the
street
back,
as
opposed
to
say
behind
the
sidewalk,
and
so
I'm
just
wondering
on
the
definition
of
lot.
When
we're
doing
this,
are
we
all
clear?
Has
everybody
got
the
same
definition
of
what
the
lot
size
is?
F
C
Good
good
clarification
kathy,
so
typically,
a
lot
is
back
a
sidewalk,
but
not
always
some
subdivisions
have
been
proposed
where
there
is
an
alley
and
it's
on
an
access
easement
in
the
back,
and
the
lot
actually
goes
to
the
middle
of
the
alley
and
in
those
cases
we
do
look
at
lot
coverage
as
the
lot.
So
if
it
goes
into
the
middle
alley,
you
still
get
to
count
that
towards
your
your
lot
and
your
lock
coverage.
C
So
it
just
depends.
You
know
what
subdivision
you're
in
and
if
your
lot
is
back
a
sidewalk
or
if
it
goes
to
perhaps
the
middle
of
the
alley-
and
I
guess
I
have
seen
it
where
it
does
go
the
middle
of
the
street
in
some
of
these
private
developments.
We
don't
really
encourage
that
too
much,
but
it
does
happen.
F
Yeah
well
so
that's
a
little
unclear
as
far
as
how
we
go
forward.
Could
you
just
clarify
the
difference
between
floor
area
ratio
and
lot
coverage,
because
I
know
we're
going
to
talk
about
floor
area
ratio,
but
I
noticed
on
the
slide
that
you
have
here
we're
talking
about
lot
coverage,
but
then
it
says
far
you
know
0.41
square
feet,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
I
am
understanding
clearly
that
they're
two
different
things
or
are
you
considering
them
the
same
thing.
F
C
So,
yes,
that
you
know
on
the
next
couple,
slides
we'll
look
at
floor
area
ratio.
Maybe
we
we
don't
make
a
decision
yet
and
we'll
talk
about
fluorite
ratio
and
then
decide.
Maybe
we
do
just
keep
block
coverage
and
do
away
with
fluorite
ratio.
Once
I
show
you
what
we
have
so
the
difference
is
you're
right.
Kathy
lot
coverage
covers
the
ground
of
your
lot
floor
area
ratio
takes
into
account
the
square
footage
on
the
ground,
plus
every
single
story.
So
the
true
massing
of
the
building
on
a
lot.
F
I
Yeah
hi
guys
I
I
would
agree
with
you
know
the
suggestions
that
have
come
out
so
far.
I
mean
I
like
the
idea
of
encouraging
even
additional
covered
outdoor
space.
You
know
porches
balconies,
you
know
that
sort
of
stuff.
It
definitely
does
help
with
the
aesthetics
of
the
home
and
having
you
know,
encouraging
that,
while
we
are
already
encouraging
it
with
that
five
percent
allotment,
you
know
obviously
bumping
that
up
to
10
would
encourage
it
even
more
and
and
larger
areas
of
those
which
would
be
a
homeowner
benefit.
I
Obviously
audrey.
The
the
the
point
that
you
had
brought
up
about
the
the
covered
parking
you
know
with
with
something
up
above
it
yeah
I
mean
that
is
something
obviously
that
would
count
towards
lot
coverage
at
this
point,
because
any
can
of
levered
or
areas
above
those
porches,
patios
carports.
Anything
like
that
is
counted
towards
that
lot.
Coverage
yeah.
That
might
be
something
that
is
considered
and
looked
at.
I
D
Yeah
this
is
bill
bernardi,
so
first
I'd.
Ask
that
you
just.
Would
you
clarify
whether
lot
coverage
and
floor
area
ratio
both
apply
in
the
same
circumstance,
because
that's
sort
of
not
how
I
read
the
code,
it
seems
to
me,
depending
on
situations
one
or
the
other
applies,
but
so,
if
you
could
clarify
that
I'd
appreciate
it.
The
other
point
I
wanted
to
make
was
that
there's
growing
momentum
for
revising
and
updating
the
city's
tree
preservation
code.
D
There's
been
a
lot
of
clear
cutting
of
lots
and
that's
been
accelerating
contributing
to
what
are
called
urban
heat
islands,
and
you
know
we
need
to
be
aware
that,
ultimately,
you
know,
what's
done
on
a
single
lot,
is
multiplied
hundreds
of
times
over
and
has
a
huge
impact
on
the
community
as
a
whole.
So
we
need
to
you
know,
keep
in
mind
that
that
there's
a
sort
of
a
community-wide
perspective
here
and
if
we
cut
down
all
the
trees,
that's
not
going
to
help
anybody.
D
C
Requirements
for
lock
coverage
and
floor
area
ratio
do
overlap
in
some
cases
and
I'll
give
you
one
example
right
now
and
then
you'll
see
the
other
examples.
Once
you
start
talking
about
flurry
ratio.
But
if
a
single
family
detached
dwelling
unit
wants
to
build
an
accessory
dwelling
unit,
they
would
have
to
comply
with
lot
coverage
and
they
would
have
to
comply
with
floor
area
ratio
of
0.6.
D
I
mean
when
the
examples
you
show
you
know
it
looks
like
you
know,
pretty
large,
pretty
large
structures
are
able
to
be
built.
I
mean
we
in
in
our
hoa.
We
we
just
processed,
you
know
a
a
design
review
application
for
a
house.
That's
that's.
Only
gonna
cover
38
of
a
lot
and
it's
a
6200
square
foot
house
with
a
1700
square
foot
garage.
D
C
C
C
So
at
some
point,
in
my
opinion,
when
it's
so
large,
it
really
doesn't
it's
just
not
needed
anymore,
because
it's
not
controlling
anything,
because
it's
so
high,
but
we'll
see
that
in
the
next
couple
slides.
So
I
think
I
feel
more
comfortable
if
we
don't
make
a
decision
on
lock
coverage.
Yet
we'll
keep
the
discussion
because
I
see
another
couple
hands
raised
and
then
I
want
to
go
through
floyd
ratio.
J
Hi
mike
hi,
just
a
simple
suggestion.
First,
all
good
comments
on
this
law
coverage.
I
think
it
would
be
helpful
if
there
was
one
exhibit
that
shows
by
definition,
what
qualifies
as
lot
coverage.
I
heard
what
I
thought
was
slightly
different
versions
from
aubry
and
matt,
so
it's
just
just
a
picture
to
help
us
to
understand
what
qualifies
what
needs
to
maybe
be
changed
a
little
bit
as
to
be
sympathetic
to
what
kathy
was
pointing
out.
That's
it
just
a
suggestion.
C
Thank
you
mike,
and
what
they're
talking
about
is
really
going
back
to
the
definition
that
we
have
on
the
code
today
for
lot
coverage,
increasing
the
porches,
patios
and
decks
possibly
to
10
percent,
and
my
notes
say:
look
at
carports
that
have
structures
above
it.
So,
for
example,
maybe
you
have
a
house
and
then
you
want
to
build
an
adu
with
it
being
above
a
carport.
Is
there
some
exception
that
we
could
do
because
it's
open
on
the
first
floor
that
would
necessarily
be
allowed
under
the
current
definition
today.
C
H
C
G
Yeah
because
it
just
seems
like
there's
a
different
there'd,
be
a
difference
between
you
know
a
house,
that's
a
900
or
a
thousand
square
feet.
That's
maximizing
their
lot
coverage
versus
something
like
this
that
you
know
a
four
plex
on
on
a
much
larger
lot.
Maxing
out
I
mean
I
don't
know
if
we'd
be
interested
in
having
a
kind
of
a
tiered
system
of
smaller
properties
would
allow
for
a
larger
lot
coverage
or
something
like
that
or
possibly
adu
is
not
counting
towards
lot
coverage
since
they're
already
restricted
in
size.
I
Yeah
scott,
to
kind
of
answer
your
question
as
far
as
how
common
is
it
to
max
out
that
lock
coverage
we
run
into
it
quite
a
quite
a
bit
on
you
know
more,
you
know:
community
driven
master
plan,
subdivision
type
watts
in
a
master
plan,
community
or
whatnot.
We
even
you
know,
request
an
increase
in
lot
coverage
in
many
stances
to
hit
desired
densities
because
we're
providing
you
know
open
space
requirements
or
amenities
or
or
whatnot,
but
yeah
I
mean
we'll
hit
those
those
max
coverages
pretty
regularly
on.
G
I
Yes,
that's
correct,
we're!
You
know
we're
designing
around
the
the
lot
sizes
that
we're
providing
to
hit
the
required
densities,
because
we
have
again
those
additional
park,
spaces
or
open
spaces.
You
know,
if
you're
doing
an
infill
type
lot,
you
don't
have
those
additional
spaces,
and
so
typically
you
would
pre,
you
know,
present
a
yard
or
some
sort
of
outdoor
space
covered
area.
Something
for
use.
C
C
F
I
just
want
to
point
that
out,
but
I
do
agree
with
I'm
not
sure
if
it
was
scott
or
someone
else
mentioning
that
you
know
we
really
want
to
try
to
encourage
accessory
dwelling
units
and
so
whether
there
can
be
as
audrey
has
recommended.
Even
though
I
understand
she
was
confusing
far
with
a
lot
coverage.
F
I
think
the
idea
of
encouraging
second
dwelling
units,
either
by
not
for
enforcing
the
far
or
being
more
flexible,
with
lot
coverage
if
it's
a
carport
underneath
or
something
to
that
effect,
I
think,
would
be
a
good
thing
to
do,
because
there's
probably
a
lot
of
obstacles
already
to
getting
these
accessory
dwelling
units.
So
you
know
I
would
be
supportive
of
of
looking
in
that
particular
case
of
being
more
flexible.
F
C
So
this
is
the
lot
from
a
bird's
eye
view
that
we
were
just
looking
at
and
again
it
was
on
the
lower
lot
coverage
requirements.
But
here
is
the.
I
think
this
was
the
duplex
in
the
back.
This
is
the
single
family
structure
in
the
front,
and
then
you
can
see
the
amount
of
the
lot
that
is
not
covered,
that
if
we
didn't
have
block
coverage
requirements
could
be
significantly
covered
compared
to
what
is
there
today
and
then
it
would
still
be
significantly
more
lock
coverage
if
we
didn't
have
lot
coverage
at
all.
C
So
I'm
going
to
switch
back
and
then
why
don't
we
maybe
go
on
to
flurry
ratio
and
just
kind
of
table
this
discussion
for
of
it
for
a
moment
and
then
once
we're
done
with
flurry
ratio,
then
we
will
talk
about
both
again
and
hopefully
that
will
help
us
get
to
at
least
a
draft
proposal
that
we
can
start
working
on
and
just
be.
Okay,
all
right,
you
should
be
seeing
my
screen
again.
C
C
These
are
what
the
minimum
compliance
allows
and
what
the
model
code
allows
so
similar
to
lot
coverage.
A
city
is
not
required
with
minimum
compliance
to
apply
for
area
ratio
standards
to
duplexes,
triplex
or
four
plexes.
If
we
don't
want
to,
if
we
want
to,
it
has
to
be
done,
the
same
that
we
do
or
less
than
a
single
family
detached
dwelling
and
in
a
moment
I'm
going
to
show
you
the
various
floor
area
ratio
requirements
that
the
city
event
currently
has,
and
there
will
be
some
required
changes.
C
The
model
code
is
set
up
different
than
what
we
have
today
and
it
would
only
apply
to
triplexes
and
quads.
It
would
not
apply
to
duplexes,
because
duplexes
have
to
be
treated
the
same
way
as
a
single
family.
Detached
dwelling
bear
with
me
because
this
could
get
confusing,
so
the
model
code
would
allow
us
to
look
at
floor
area
ratio
based
on
the
minimum
lot
size
for
a
detached
single
family
dwelling
in
the
same
zone.
C
C
If
you
have
a
lot
requirement
between
three
and
five
thousand
square
feet
as
we
do
in
our
standard
density,
residential
district
for
single
family
homes,
which
is
four
thousand
square
feet,
it
bumps
floor
area
ratio
to
1.1,
and
then,
if
you
have
a
lot,
that's
between
5
and
10,
which
is
our
low
density,
residential
district.
It
bumps
fluoride
ratio
to
0.7
and
again
this
would
pretty
much
only
apply.
My
understanding
would
be
triplexes
and
quads
if
we
went
with
a
model
code.
C
The
next
slide
shows
our
definition.
I
can
get
my
well
I'm
having
a
hard
time
getting
my
arrow.
Okay,
there
we
go.
This
is
the
definition
in
the
bend
code
for
floor
area
ratio.
It
basically
is
a
measurement
of
the
deck
space
which
is
floor.
Space
contained
within
a
building
on
every
single
floor
also
includes
garages.
C
C
C
We
just
added
this
other
amendment
to
floor
area,
because
warrior
really
is
to
help
control
the
massing
of
a
building
and
in
some
cases,
if
you
have
a
like
an
a-frame
roof
and
the
sides
of
the
roof
are
very
low,
so
inside
the
building
a
architect
might
design
that
area,
because
it's
less
than
five
feet,
but
it's
still
usable
for
like
a
closet.
Prior
to
this,
we
would
have
to
count
that
towards
their
floor
area
and
it
almost
penalized
them
because
it's
not
contributing
to
the
mass.
C
C
C
C
Areas
that
if
you
meet
any
of
these
a
single
family,
detached
dwelling,
would
be
subject
to
0.6
floor
area
ratio.
The
first
one
is
all
new
single
family
residential
construction.
So
if
you
want
to
build
a
new
house-
or
if
you
want
to
add
on
to
your
existing
house
and
you're
on
a
lot
that
is
6
000
square
feet
or
less
and
you're
located
in
a
subdivision
platter
prior
to
1998,
you
would
be
subject
to
0.6
0
floor
area
ratio.
C
C
The
planners
don't
see
this
happen
very
often
because,
sometimes
or
more
often
than
not.
If
you
have
an
existing
home,
you
usually
tend
to
partition
the
property
and
give
that
existing
home
a
little
bit
bigger
home
site
and
the
other
lots
a
little
bit
smaller
so
that
it
is
easier
to
meet
that
0.6
far
and
then
the
last
one
is.
C
C
We
could
keep
this
and
have
it
also
apply
to
duplexes.
That's
something
to
think
about.
It
could
also
apply
to
triplexes
because
they
can
be
possibly
on
a
lot.
That's
6
000
square
feet
or
less.
This
would
not
apply
if
we
require
a
minimum,
7
000
square
foot
lot
to
a
four
plex,
because
this
only
comes
into
play
on
lots,
six
thousand
square
feet
or
less.
So
you
would
never
have
a
in
the
standard
density,
residential
district,
for
example,
a
quadplex
on
a
lot
smaller
than
seven
000.
C
If
that's
what
we
come
up
with
for
the
lot
size
for
a
quadplex
so
again
kind
of
odd
that
we
would
treat
single
family,
duplexes
and
triplexes
with
an
far
in
compliance
with
this,
but
right
next
door.
Someone
could
build
a
four
plex
on
a
7
000
square
foot
lot
and
not
have
to
comply
with
this.
So
this
is
where
things
get
kind
of
tricky,
because
you
know
it's
probably
worked
just
fine
in
the
code,
but
now
that
we
have
to
treat
these
different
types
of
plexes
fairly,
similar
to
single
family.
C
C
C
It
gets
a
little
bit
more
complicated
because
a
lot
of
those
have
since
been
re-platted
and
when
they
re-plat
then
they're
no
longer
lots
from
1998,
and
then
this
wouldn't
apply.
So
you
take
out
all
these
hatched
areas
in
the
red
and
it's
hard
to
see,
and
I
can
send
these
maps
out
if
someone's
interested
in
them.
Those
areas
would
no
longer
be
considered.
The
1998
lots
because
they've
since
been
re-platted,
okay,
kathy.
F
F
It
really
is
doing
much
for
us
as
long
as
we
have
a
good
lot
coverage
requirement
and
if
there's
concerns
about
maybe
the
third
story
being
overwhelming,
we
could
look
at
that
as
something
else,
but
just
seems
like
what
you've
just
gone
through
is
ridiculously
complicated
and
I'd
hate
to
be
staff
trying
to
review
for
this
and
enforce
it.
It
just
seems
to
me
we
should
just
get
rid
of
it
and
look
at
lot
coverage
in
a
more
clear
and
concise
way.
That's
my
suggestion.
C
Not
a
bad
suggestion,
I
will
go
through
just
to
give
you
some
visuals,
and
this
is-
and
I
think
hold
on
trying
to
get
my
notes.
This
is
a
recently
constructed
triplex
right
outside
the
bend
central
district
on
fourth
street.
That
has
a
lot
coverage
at
60
percent
and
a
floor,
a
ratio
of
0.5.
So
this
is
in
compliance
with
both
lot
coverage
and
floor
area
ratio.
C
C
C
C
C
C
If
we
didn't
have
that,
we
could
go
with
a
model
code
recommendation
for
triplexes
and
quads
only
and
it
would
be
based
on
the
lot
sizes,
and
these
are,
in
my
opinion,
pretty
high
fars.
So
it
gets
to
a
point
where
I
don't
even
know
if
they're
truly
necessary
and
then
the
other
option
is
to
just
delete
floor
area
ratio
and
use
lock,
coverages
and
it
looks
like,
were
you
keeping
track
lineup,
I
see
carnosyn
karna.
Why
don't
you
go.
C
I
mean
this
one.
For
example,
I
mean
it's
definitely
complying
with
lot
coverage.
Could
they
have
maybe
proposed
a
bigger
accessory
dwelling
unit?
Maybe,
but
then
they
also
have
to
comply
with
the
the
size
limits
of
the
adu.
So
a
lot
of
different
things
come
into
play.
In
addition
to
just
lot
coverage
employer
ratio,
we
have
size
restrictions
on
adu.
C
G
C
C
C
D
You
know
at
the
very
least
if,
if
these
big
changes
are
going
to
be
made,
we
ought
to
back
up
and
apply
them
to
single
family
homes
as
well.
And
anyhow,
that's
that's
my
point
of
view.
I
think
if
it's
not
broken,
it
doesn't
need
to
be
fixed,
then,
and
when
we're
we're,
seeing
that
it's
possible,
for
you
know,
our
goal
here
should
not
be
to
to
build
the
largest
most
expensive
possible
structures.
The
whole
idea
of
hp
2001
was
to
provide
metal
housing.
D
C
C
C
So
this
number
one
wouldn't
have
any
effect
and
number
three
and
then
the
other
areas
would
be
an
accessory
dwelling
unit
at
0.6
if
it's
with
a
townhome
or
a
single
family
detached
dwelling
unit,
and
then
the
duplexes
in
the
rs
would
have
to
go
away
on
the
second
bullet,
because
we
don't
regulate
single
family,
drawing
units
that
way
and
we
have
to
regulate
duplex
same
as
single
family.
So
then
this
would
only
apply.
D
C
Okay,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I
understand
I
thought
you
were
hoping
we
could
keep
some
of
the
employer
ratio.
That's
in
the
code
today
and
what
I'm
trying
to
say
is
a
lot
of
it
isn't
in
compliance
with
the
minimum
compliance
or
model
code.
So
we
do
have
to
make
some
changes
and
it
probably
will
get
simpler.
D
F
But
just
I
just
think
this
whole
far
thing
is
is
making
it
much
more
confusing
and
I
would
agree
with
you
pauline
the.
What
you're
allowed
under
the
new
model
code
is,
is
so
large
that
it's
almost
worthless.
So
I
just
think
we
should
eliminate
far
and
go
back
to
lot
coverage
and
make
adjustments,
as
we
feel
are,
are
necessary.
So
it
is
more
simple
and
it
is
easy
and
we
have
fixed
what's
broken.
G
G
G
Isn't
just
apartments
and
duplexes
and
things
like
that?
Sometimes
it's
just
smaller
single
family
homes
and
if,
if
maybe
lot
coverage
was
a
higher
lot,
coverage
was
allowed
for
for
smaller
homes,
that'd
be
something
that
would
be
beneficial
yeah
anyways.
I
was
just
kind
of
wanted
to
put
the
put
the
feelers
out
there
for
maybe
a
tiered
lot
coverage
percentage
for
different
size.
Lots.
A
G
The
examples
of
maybe
this
is
what
we
don't
want.
A
lot
of
those
are
basically
large
huge
buildings
on
on
massive
lots
that
might
be
maxing
out
lot,
coverages
and,
having
you
know,
4
000
square
foot
house,
or
something
like
that.
But
yeah
I
mean,
if
you're,
looking
at
kind
of
a
section
that
might
have
you
know
some
of
these
lots
that
you
can
divide
up
and
have
smaller,
almost
adu
sized
houses
on
a
single
family
detached.
I
think
that
satisfies
kind
of
everyone's
concerns
and.
A
H
I
just
wanted
to
toss
in
that.
This
might
be
one
of
those
things
that
you
might
get
some
more
mcmansions
off,
of
allowing
more
coverage
or
more
far,
but
the
missing
middle
that
it
addresses
is
that
you
can
then
stuff.
You
know
two
or
three
residences
on
a
smaller
lot,
if
done
nicely,
so
it
does
help
address
that
issue.
H
So
I
don't
see
that
so
much
as
as
overreach
and
another
way
to
to
maybe
control
that
it,
depending
on
whether
you
want
to
put
the
more
complexity
to
it
is
if
it
was
tied
to
the
number
of
residences,
so
that
if
you
are
getting
more
density,
that
you
are
allowed
a
little
more
coverage,
maybe
that's,
but
then
you
need
more
open
space.
I
don't
know
that
that
helps
all
right.
That
was
it.
I
Yeah,
andre,
I'm
glad
you-
you
spoke
on
that
first,
because
that's
similar
to
what
I
was
going
to
say
in
in
you
know
counter
to
kind
of
scott's
suggestion
there
is
that
you
know
you're
you're,
already
controlling
the
massing
based
off
the
size
of
lot.
I
mean,
if
you're
smaller,
lot,
you're
automatically
going
to
have
a
smaller
unit,
but
the
the
option.
I
You
know
to
counter
that
to
hit
that
middle
missing
piece
would
be
to
offer
a
higher
coverage
based
on
the
number
of
units
rather
than
the
size
of
the
building
as
a
whole,
because
I
think
you'd
almost
get
more
mcmansions
on
smaller
lots.
If
the
single
family
option
were
allowed
with
that
higher
percentage.
F
K
C
And
anybody
else
I
just
want
to
make
sure
I'm
hearing
from
everybody-
okay,
so
I'm
not
hearing
as
much
support
for
floor
area
ratio.
This
is
just
my
capture
of
the
the
discussion
one
because
of
the
different
ways
we
regulate
floor
area
ratio
that
are
not
100
consistent
with
minimum
compliance
standards
and
definitely
too
low
to
comply
with
the
model
code
standard.
So
we
would
have
to
make
changes
to
our
floor
area
ratio
section
to
be
in
compliance
and
it
doesn't
simplify
things
because
a
four-plex,
for
example,
might
be
treated
different
than
a
triplex.
C
G
B
Hey
pauline,
I
have
a
potential
suggestion
now
that
we
did
have
a
bunch
of
raised
hands.
There
were
five
folks
who
raised,
but
what
I'm
not
sure
about
is
how
many
other
folks
are
participating
or
kind
of
ready
to
vote
either
way.
So
what
I'm
wondering
is
if
it
makes
sense
for
everybody
to
take
the
hands
down
and
then,
if
folks
are
not
happy
about
the
direction
raise
it
and
and
that'll
give
me
a
good
sense
of
who's
out
there.
B
Okay,
so
we
had
five
for
the
yes
we're
going
in
the
right
direction,
so
anyone
who
is
not
excited
about
this
direction,
how
about,
if
you
put
in
and
if
folks
are,
I
know
a
couple
chats
have
come
through
and
lisa
just
mentioned,
maybe
not
sure
yet
so
that's,
okay.
I
think
I
think
uncertainty
is
all
right.
We're
just
trying
to
get
a
sense
of
whether
kind
of
the
majority
is
is
in
support.
B
D
No,
I
I
find
it
hard
to
vote
on
these
multi-part
things,
because
I
agree
with
some
of
what
pauline
suggested,
but
I
disagree
with
the
notion
of
you
know
allowing
larger
duplexes
and
triplexes
in
infill
situations
where
they're
going
to
overwhelm.
I
mean
it's
the
same
thing
as
a
mcmansion
situation.
Nobody
wants
that.
You
know
we
ought
to
be
looking
for
some
kind
of
compatibility,
and
so
you
know
I
I'd
rather
just
say
you
know
eliminate
far,
but
I
I
don't
see
a
point
to
allowing
more
lot
coverage.
D
You
know
in
situations
where
you
know
say
a
triplex
is
you
know
between
two
single-family
homes
and
the
single-family
homes
are
restricted,
but
the
triplex.
Isn't
it
doesn't
make
any
sense
to
me.
I
I
would
say
I
I
want
a
second
kathy's
suggestion
about
creating
incentives
for
people
to
retain
trees.
I
like
the
idea
of
incentives,
and
you
know
I
think,
that's
something
that
ought
to
be
looked
at.
C
And
that
thank
you
bill
one
option
and
sorry
to
throw
another
one
out.
There
is
to
do
away
with
warrior
ratio,
still
look
at
lot
coverage
but
treat
units.
The
same
add
some
more
flexibility
in
there
that
we've
discussed
increasing
that
five
percent
to
ten
percent
and
then
throwing
in
incentives
for
tree
preservation.
C
So
if
you
are
a
single
family
or
a
duplex
or
a
triplex,
and
you
preserve
a
tree
of
course,
it
would
probably
you
know
what
we
define
as
a
significant
tree.
Then
you
would
get
a
bonus
lot
coverage
and
this
is
just
the
beginning
discussion.
You
know
I'm
going
to
draft
something
we're
going
to
talk
about
it
again.
I
just
need
a
starting
point.
G
C
J
J
B
F
Yeah,
I
just
would
agree
with
everything
that's
been
said
pauline
and
it's
helpful
to
know
that
what
you're
talking
about
is
you're,
going
to
do
a
little
research
you're
going
to
come
back
to
us
with
another
version
that
we
can
then
vote
on,
so
that
everybody
feels
comfortable
and
that
they're
not
voting
for
something
they
don't
mean
to
be
voting
for
so,
but
I
think
the
direction
that
you're
going
in
is
correct,
at
least
in
my
mind.
That's
what
I
would
support.
F
C
I
Yeah,
as
far
as
the
you
know,
the
the
different
proposals
or
increases
with
the
lot
coverage,
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
throw
out
their
starting
point.
Possibly
if
we
were
looking
at
adding
block
coverage
if
we're
doing
additional
units-
and
just
say
maybe
as
a
starting
point,
you
know
we
investigate
or
look
at
an
additional
five
percent
per
additional
unit.
C
C
C
Yeah
we
can
look
at
additional
units,
there's
still
need
for
obviously
single
family
detached
drilling
units
as
well.
So
I
will
look
at
improving
this
section.
That's
in
front
of
you
for
lot
coverages
and
see
what
I
can
propose
for
additional
units
is
another
option:
either
we're
just
gonna,
keep
it
real
simple
and
have
it
just
be
consistent
for
the
same
for
every
type
of
unit,
and
then
the
other
option
would
be
incentives
for
additional
units
and
then
mike,
I
think,
you're,
trying
to
say
something.
Maybe.
C
C
So
the
the
minimum
compliance
standards
are
a
little
open-ended
on
how
you
calculate
you
know
duplex,
triplex
and
quad,
where
it
gives
you
the
opportunity
to
also
allow
a
accessory
dwelling
unit
with
these
units.
So
basically,
for
example,
you
can
have
a
duplex,
which
is
two
units
and
possibly
have
an
adu
currently
accessory.
Drawing
units
in
the
development
code
are
only
allowed
with
single
family
detached
dwelling
units
and
townhomes.
C
C
C
So
I'd
be
interested
in
hearing
feedback
on
this
and
one
option
too.
I
do
want
to
consider,
because
it's
come
up
in
past
code
updates
and
discussions.
I
think
audrey
even
brought
it
up
in
the
bend
development
co.
We
do
have
cottage
developments,
cottage
housing
developments
and
we're
going
to
be
talking
about
cluster
developments
as
part
of
this
code
update
those
are
single
family
detached
dwelling
units
they're
just
in
a
cottage
cluster
development.
F
Yes,
thank
you.
I
guess
it
would
have
to
be
if
it's
very
clear
that
a
duplex,
a
triplex
or
quad
could
be
detached,
or
we
only
thinking
about
duplexes
as
being
detached,
because
I
think
I
could
see
an
example
where
there's
an
existing
home.
That's
rather
large
that
someone
subs
divides
and
makes
it
into
a
duplex
and
then
also
wants
to
have
an
accessory
dwelling
unit,
and
you
wouldn't
necessarily
call
that
a
triplex
so
and
also
when
you
have
an
adu,
it's
limited
to
a
specific
size.
F
B
E
E
E
E
F
E
B
G
C
So,
just
to
clarify
a
couple
things
with
this
process:
we'll
have
to
treat
and
process,
and
we
haven't
talked
about
this
much
and
still
diving
into
the
details,
but
we
have
to
process
a
duplex
the
same
as
a
single
family,
detached
dwelling
and
a
triplex
and
a
four-plex
as
well.
So
today,
a
triplex
and
a
four-plex
are
processed
as
a
type
two
and
sidewalks
do
get
kicked
in,
that's
not
going
to
be
allowed.
They
will
have
to
be
processed
as
a
type
one.
C
C
I
I
don't
want
this
to
get
too
confusing
when
we
have
to
administer
this
in
the
code
so
for
planners
there
would
be
process
adding
an
adu
there's
going
to
be
the
planning
techs
would
have
to
process
it.
Sccs
come
into
play.
It
does
get
a
little
confusing.
If
we
want
to
keep
things
simple,
then
we
just
allow
it
to
use
as
accessory
to
single
family
and
townhomes
like
we
do
today
we're
already
adding
a
lot
of
flexibility
into
the
code
for
additional
units
on
lots
for
duplexes,
triplexes
and
fourplexes.
E
C
J
I
I
think
I
agree
with
kathy
unless
you
can
show
us
some
financial
reason
or
how
it
operates
an
improvement
by
calling
it
an
adu.
Adding
adu
just
turns
a
deflex
to
a
triplex
or
a
triplex
to
a
quad.
I
don't
see,
there's
going
to
be
a
significant
advantage
to
to
call
it
an
adu.
So
that's
my
two
cents.
A
C
G
C
G
C
And
we're
already
providing
a
lot
of
flexibility
with
these
amendments,
as
required
by
house
bill
2001,
and
this
is
something
you
know.
Let's
say
we
just
keep
status
quo
with
a
to
use
right
now,
although
I
do
have
one
more
question
and
we
do
need
to
finish
this
up
in
22
minutes.
This
is
not
well
as
long
as
I'm
here
we're
going
to
keep
doing
code
updates.
C
So
if
we
get
everything
done
in
a
package
and
in
a
year
from
now
we're
starting
to
think
well,
maybe
it
would
be
nice
to
allow
an
adu
with
a
duplex.
We
can
always
come
back
and
talk
about
this
at
a
later
date,
but
with
such
significant
changes
that
we're
going
to
be
making
with
this
package
of
amendments,
it
might
be
good
to
start
off
with
these
amendments
required
by
house
bill
2001
and
then
at
a
later
date.
We
can
revisit
this
discussion.
F
Yeah
yeah,
I
I
hear
you
pauline,
and
that
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
I
just
wanted
to
ask
a
question:
did
we
get
rid
of
density?
I
mean
a
lot
of
adus,
don't
count
against
density,
and
so
that
would
be
the
only
other
question
I
would
have
is
is:
is
there
a
benefit
in
calling
it
an
adu
if
we're
bumping
up
against
certain
densities.
C
F
If
there's
no
real
benefit
in
calling
it
an
adu,
it
sounded
to
me
like
from
all
the
discussions
so
far,
that
it
doesn't
necessarily
help
us
to
call
it
an
adu.
But
when
it's
in
adu
you
are
limited
in
size
and
you
may
not
need
a
sidewalk,
but
if
you're
adding
it
to
a
duplex
or
a
triplex,
they
already
have
to
have
a
sidewalk.
C
600
feet:
yes,
the
benefit
for
somebody
today.
If
you
have
a
single
family
detached
dwelling
and
you
want
to
add
an
adu
which
is
basically
two
units
on
a
lot.
There
is
a
reduction
in
sdc
fees.
Instead
of
calling
it
a
duplex,
there
are
reduced
fees
for
an
adu,
but
that's
only
if
you're
going
to
be
on
a
lot
with
a
single
family,
detached
drilling
unit
or
a
townhome.
F
C
F
A
I
I
kind
of
had
the
same
question
that
you
know
just
again:
brainstorming
and
playing
devil's
advocates.
If
there
there
was
some
additional
benefits
to
what
carnot
was
talking
about,
I
mean
is
there
as
far
as
unit
size
for
that
additional
unit?
Obviously
there's
a
cap
for
adus.
Is
there
also
a
minimum,
though,
for
standard
dwelling
units
to
where
there
would
be
a
benefit
to
calling
it
an
adu
where
you
couldn't
call
it
a
dwelling
unit.
C
I
don't
think
so,
because
everything
has
to
comply
with
minimum
standards,
adus
or
any
of
the
duplex
triplex.
They
have
to
meet
minimum.
It's
the
maximums
that
are
going
away
and
I'll
keep
thinking.
I
mean
if
I
can
come
up
with
a
good
reason
to
do
this
and
maybe
ethan's
going
to
correct
me.
Maybe
I'm
not
even
going
down
the
right
path,
but
this
I'm
kind
of
curious
what
he
has
to
add.
C
L
L
Those
don't
typically
at
least
the
way
that
I
read.
It
wouldn't
be
meeting
that
definition
of
accessory
dwelling
unit
because
it
is
not
used
in
connection
with
or
that
is
accessory
to
a
single
family
dwelling.
So
I
just
wanted
to
raise
that
clarification
point,
and
I
don't
know
if
that
helps
or
makes
it
more
confusing,
but.
C
So
I
think
I
only
brought
it
up
ethan
and
maybe
we
could
chat
offline
about
this,
just
make
sure
I'm
not
missing
anything.
It's
in
the
the
minimum
compliance
standards
205
through
230,
where
it
talks
about
the
numerical
standards,
and
I
don't
know
if
you
guys
can
see
my
notes.
I
think
you
can
where
it
says,
duplexes
large
cities
may
allow
more
than
two
dwelling
units
on
a
lot,
including
any
adus
and
then
for
tries
and
quads.
It
says:
large
cities
may
allow
more
than
four
dwelling
units
on
a
lot,
including
any
adus.
C
So
that's
where
I
was
thinking
that
it
was
open-ended.
I
definitely
wanted
to
bring
the
question
to
this
group
because
it's
in
there
the
way
I
read
it
anyways
that
it's
an
option,
but
I
think
what
I'm
hearing
from
this
committee
so
far
is
that
we're
just
gonna
go
with
them
being
an
accessory,
as
defined
in
our
bend
development
code
to
a
single-family
dwelling
unit
or
a
townhome.
K
D
G
G
You
duplex
was
an
adu,
but
I
like
the
way
it
kind
of
creates
a
mechanism
for
future
code
developments
of
encouraging
that
smaller
adu
development,
where
maybe
we,
whether
it's
lot
coverage
whether
it's
parking,
whether
it's
something
that
you
can
attach
it
to
adu
developments,
which
are
limited
in
size
to
differentiate
from
just
adding
a
adding
another
plex
to
it.
So
that's
it.
C
And
one
thing
for
the
group
to
know,
as
ethan
mentioned,
for
house
bill
2001
and
we
are
already
in
compliance-
there's
no
parking
requirement
for
adus,
which
is
required
by
the
house
bill.
So
that's
already
done
so
I
think
from
what
I'm
hearing
we're
going
to
leave
a
tous
as
is
down
the
road.
Maybe
once
we
get
all
these
amendments
in
place
and
we
see
how
things
are
going,
maybe
there
will
be
another
opportunity
for
us
to
revisit
adus.
C
I
have
to
say,
with
all
the
amendments
we've
been
doing
in
the
past
couple
years.
This
last
year,
2020
we
exceeded
180
us,
which
is
the
highest
we've
ever
been,
and
every
year
it
seems
to
go
higher
and
higher,
because
we
keep
changing
the
code
to
make
it
more
flexible
to
encourage
the
development
of
adus.
C
Given
that
the
proposal
in
number
two
on
your
screen
there's
one
more
area
where
I
think
we
could
add
to
the
flexibility
of
accessory
drawing
units-
and
this
is
pretty
much
because
we
did
an
amendment
in
compliance
with
house
bill
2001
for
duplexes,
which
requires
a
duplex
to
be
allowed
on
the
same
size
supply
as
a
single
family.
So,
for
example,
in
the
standard
density
residential.
What
was
required
for
duplex
was
six
thousand
square
feet
and
we
had
to
reduce
that
to
four
000
square
feet
to
be
in
compliance
with
house
bill
2001.
C
Well,
we've
been
getting
some
inquiries
from
the
public
and
from
the
planners
on
the
requirements
for
adus
that
we
have
in
the
code
today,
which
really
just
in
my
opinion,
don't
make
as
much
sense
as
they
used
to
because
of
the
slot
size
of
4
000..
The
code
today
says:
if
you
have
a
y
up
to
6
000
square
feet,
the
maximum
size
of
your
accessory
drilling
unit
is
600
square
feet.
C
If
your
lot
is
over
600
square
feet,
then
the
maximum
size
of
your
accessory
dwelling
unit
can
be
800
square
feet
that
used
to
make
sense
with
the
6
000
square
foot
threshold,
when
duplexes
were
allowed
on
6
000
square
foot
lots.
It
doesn't
really
make
sense
anymore,
because
duplexes
are
now
four
thousand
square
foot
watts.
So
why
won't?
F
Yes,
I
would
agree
as
well
and
you
can
fit
a
two-bedroom
unit
and
800
square
feet,
whereas
in
the
600
square,
foot
you're
really
only
going
to
have
one
bedroom
typically,
and
so
you
can
accommodate
more
people
per
adu.
If
we
were
to
do
this,
which
I
think
is
the
goals
that
we're
we're
trying
to
reach,
so
I
would
be
supportive.
C
It's
pretty
straightforward
and
then
dive
into
the
cottage
clusters,
because
that's
a
new
type
of
development,
similar
to
what
we
have
today
for
cottage
developments,
but
that
might
take
a
meeting
so
I'd
love
to
get
through
that
excel
chart.
So
I
can
really
start
preparing
a
draft
so
that
we
can
set
up
another
meeting
and
start
going
through
the
draft.