►
From YouTube: Athens City Council Meeting 10-12-05
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
B
B
B
Received
written
comments
from
many
of
you,
personal
visits
phone
calls,
emails,
we've
talked
to
the
developers
several
times,
we've
sent
them
many
lists
of
questions
and
concerns
to
which
they've
responded.
We've
gathered
all
that
information
we
feel
now.
It
is
time
for
us
to
develop
an
ordinance
which
will
move
through
the
three
readings
of
Council
and
come
to
a
vote,
probably
sometime
in
November.
B
These
basic
proposed
ordinances
that
that
you
might
have
gotten
copies
of
are
our
starting
point.
We
might
amend
those,
we
will
certainly
add
conditions.
Many
of
your
concerns
have
suggested
to
us
conditions
that
need
to
be
added
to
these,
so
that
will
be
our
ongoing
discussion.
I'm
sure
we
will
have
some
questions
for
the
developers
since
they're
the
ones
intimately
involved
with
the
details,
so
we
may
be
asking
questions
of
them.
B
There
may
be
opportunities
later
on
for,
for
particular
questions
from
an
audience
member,
but
but
not
for
statements,
so
we
are
about
to
begin
this
work
session.
First
of
all,
just
as
we
came
on
the
air,
there
were
some
discussion
about
language
in
our
revised
ordinance
that
we
probably
want
to
go
back
to
original.
C
A
B
B
The
language
in
this
most
recent
copy
that
I've,
given
you
begins
with,
where,
as
on
April
7
to
the
eighth
and
City
Planning,
Commission
unanimously
recommended
approval
of
the
final
plat,
but
there
really
wasn't
a
final
plan
at
that
time.
So
the
the
previous
language,
Gaby
I,
threw
away
my
old
one.
The.
E
B
C
B
D
A
B
B
D
A
F
B
B
C
C
And
that
was
in
the
code
before
so,
it's
not
changed
at
all.
If
we
ever
changed,
the
final
plan
had
to
I
mean
that's
not
new.
What
was
new,
and
this
was
the
requirement
for
modifications
we
also
ratified
by
three-fourths
in
the
1,
so
I
think
that
it's
2
places
basically
so
20
of
them.
21:09
24,
is
not
new
and
we've
always
required
a
supermajority
for
a
modification
of
the
final,
but
there
was
another
place.
I
forget.
B
B
B
C
A
F
G
A
H
G
B
C
I'm
pretty
persuaded
if
it's
gonna
stay
in
this
use.
If
it
goes
forward
because
of
what
I've
heard
from
the
developers
about
the
average
age
of
the
person
entering,
they
know,
you
know,
and
they
stay
at
average
residence
time
two
years,
and
you
know
that
kind
of
thing
on,
and
so
it
doesn't
seem
to
me
it's
a
big
problem.
The
problem
would
come
up
for
the
neighbors
and
for
others
if
it
would
not.
If
would
go
from
this
use
to
another
use,
so
I.
B
G
A
E
One
of
the
reasons
that
I
am
comfortable
with
it
is
I'm
more
comfortable
with
the
idea
of
a
little
less
parking
for
a
facility
like
this
than
I,
am
using
more
of
the
green
space
to
cover
it
up
with
additional
parking,
which
obviously
there's
room.
They
could
pave
over
some
more
if,
if
that
was
what
was
required,
but
I
would
rather
see
more
green
in
there
than
less
and
I
think
it's
adequate
well.
F
I
have
problems
with
it.
I'm
start
to
finish:
I
don't
buy
into
what
they're
saying.
I
know:
I
spent
not
this
month
the
month
previous
as
a
design
board
with
two
variances
for
parking
on
households
so
therefore,
and
which
we're
not
granted
because
they're
saying
well
we're
renting
students
do
do
not
have
cars.
So
why
don't
you
give
me
a
variance
to
table
B
and
2311,
so
I
think
would
just
be
doing
a
great
example.
F
A
E
G
G
C
I
C
A
B
G
B
C
A
D
To
that
I
think
there's
been
some
disagreement
about,
what's
actually
required
to
be
filed
when
an
application
comes
through
the
planning
process,
and
it
seems
very
clear
to
me
reading
the
code
in
21:09
18
final
plan
application
requirements.
It
says
the
last
sentence
of
the
paragraph
is
at
a
minimum.
The
application
the
application
shall
contain
the
following
information
and
that's
followed
by
the
section
that
includes
the
engineering
feasibility
studies,
the
drainage,
any
the
nature
and
extent
of
earth
work
required
for
site,
preparation
and
development.
D
Not
only
for
this
project,
but
for
the
precedent
that
it
sets
that
allows
the
Planning
Commission
to
waive
the
requirements
of
Athens
city
code,
and
it
feels
it
just
feels
like
a
dangerous
precedent
to
me
and
I
have
a
copy
of
an
article
that
some
constituents
sent.
That
seems
relevant
about
a
project
that
NCR
worked
on
in
Canton
Michigan.
A
D
On
the
back
of
that,
I
highlighted
a
sentence:
it's
about
a
building
that
had
to
be
evacuated
because
it
was
structurally
unsound
and
at
the
end
of
the
article
Patrick
Higgins
was
quoted
as
saying.
This
is
extremely
strange.
This
past
all
municipal
and
state
inspections,
we're
wondering
how
it
got
through
the
approval
process
without
anyone
finding
out
about
the
problems,
and
that
worries
me
a
lot
when
we
are
being
instructed
to
approve
a
project
that
has
not
submitted
complete
information.
I.
B
B
B
E
B
B
B
D
I
B
C
B
D
B
C
B
B
In
this
case,
again,
as
I
explained
earlier,
we're
crafting
an
ordinance
which
we
will
bring
up
to
a
vote
and,
if
you're
uncomfortable
with
what's
happened,
then
cast
your
vote.
But
what
we?
What
I
want
to
do
now
is
add
a
list
of
conditions
that
we
think
are
going
to
compensate.
Maybe
for
what
we
see
is
an
oversight.
A
C
I
think
it
needs
to
be
stated
one
more
time.
The
president
is
very
troublesome
for
people
who
live
in
the
rest
of
the
city,
because
the
next
time
it
might
be
next
to
them,
and
the
neighbors
have
no
input
at
this
point
unless
we
bring
it
back
to
us
and
look
at
the
final
plan,
but
we've
already
been
down
that
road
and
there's
a
lot
of
work.
That
was
not
done.
Okay,
let's
add
some
things
to
the
list:
number
one,
no
moving
the
sewer
line,
any
way,
shape
or
form.
C
We
have
one
example
of
that
in
tone,
and
it
the
outcome
was
not
good
sewage
in
the
maritime
pond,
among
other
things,
okay,
okay-
and
that
has
to
be
part
of
this
absolute
and
we
could
all
sign
off,
and
you
could
take
a
vote
on
each
of
these
and
see
if
they
go
up
or
down
in
terms
of
additions.
I
mean
that
would
be
an
appropriate
way.
Probably
to
do
this,
where
you
would
go
through
and
work
on
each
of
them,
so
you
can
have
a
supermajority
okay,.
A
B
C
I
had
them
remember:
I,
took
the
money
and
gave
them
Scott
Dunphy
yeah
a
couple
of
hundreds
of
dollars
and
said:
do
a
GI,
yes,
because
I'm
tired
of
listening
about
16
acres
and
he
he
actually
came
up
with
and
in
the
core
area.
That's
available
for
development
is
about
1.3
acres.
In
the
process
of
doing
this,
I
looked
at
minutes
wires.
F
C
C
We
do
have,
we
do
have
quite
a
big
right
of
way.
We
don't
have
beyond
the
old
railroad
right-of-way.
We
have
virtually
none,
but
when
the
highway
Oh
dot
finished
up,
they
gave
that
and
with
the
Stimson
Avenue
bridge,
we
have
a
white
or
white
right-of-way
there,
and
so
I
would
not
want
to
see
any
intrusion
into
that.
C
Another
thing
I'd
like
to
add
is
that,
although
there's
been
ample
flood
studies
of
a
variety
in
with
them,
the
classical
reality
that's
associated
with
those
100-year
floodplain,
which
almost
no
one
understands,
but
I
would
like
to
make
sure
that
we
use
in
the
elevations
the
existing
nineteen
eighty,
which
is
part
of
the
law
numbers,
and
so
that
and
that's
already
on
the
books,
and
so
the
upgrades
have
not
been
adopted,
just
as
we
haven't
adopted
the
3/4
majority.
So
we'll
have
it
that
way.
On
this
one.
Okay,.
C
Well,
I
mean
it
doesn't
really
matter
what,
but
what
the
engineer
thinks
also
isa
bright
and
shiny
guy,
but
what
I
want
and
we
can
ask
him
to
but
I
mean
I,
do
think
the
law,
that's
on
the
books
says
we're
using
1980
race
and
the
law
director.
Remember
to
the
two
of
us
affirmed
that
didn't
he
when
we
were
sitting
here.
Yes,
he
said
that
was
I
mean
so
we're
not
about
to
change
it.
Just
for
this
are
we.
G
C
C
About
ready
to
stop
it,
I
had
that
I've
had
the
Red
Cross.
It
seems
that
I
know
that
the
plans
have
changed
and
I
have
no
one
firm
understanding
of
how
they've
changed.
C
E
E
But
this
displacement
thing
concerns
me
a
little.
Where
is
the
water
supposed
to
go
that
from
the
area
that
you
have
failed
to
build
the
facility?
Is
there
a
specific
answer
to
that?
And
you
know
in
terms
of
planning
to
have
that
water
displacement
taken
care
of
other
than
in
the
neighbor's
yard?
Just
could.
G
G
G
G
A
E
G
Whole
idea
is
that
the
water
displacement
event
is
minimized
because
I
assume,
if
there's
going
to
be
high
water
sand,
there's
not
going
to
be
high
water
at
that
block.
There's
gonna
be
high
water
over
a
broader
pier
over
a
broader
area,
and
that's
so
that
the
fill
needs
to
come
from
somewhere
else
and.
I
A
G
To
I
mean
that,
and
that
means
you
know
and
I
recognize
it.
That's
not
a
trivial
matter,
but
I
think
I
mean
the
spirit
of
it
is
to
try
to
minimize
displacement
water
which,
if
I,
could
characterize
the
feedback
that
I've
received.
That's
a
theme
so
I
think
it's
our
obligation
to
try
to
realistically
address
that
and
in
a
way
that
that
you
know,
allows
the
developer
to
help.
G
C
Isn't
the
spirit
of
this
that
we
would
not
be
doing
it
look
sort
of
I,
don't
want
to
put
a
person's
name
on
it,
but
the
sort
of
take
the
flood
zone
and
dump
it
on
the
fringe.
We
don't
want
that.
The
Komar
approach
at
all.
Do
we
I
mean
when
you
talk
about
the
strategy
you've
just
mentioned.
That
would
be
a
classical
way
of
doing
it.
So
you're
talking.
B
A
C
E
H
H
Other
issues
that
you
brought
up
certainly
no
problem,
I
think
that
it
would
still
be
our
desire
to
have
the
capacity,
and
we
understand
that
you
may
have
a
different
viewpoint-
that
to
have
the
capacity
to
have
nursing
beds
in
the
future,
given
your
other
stipulations
or
how
the
site
would
need
to
be
built
up
and
a
very
detailed
evacuation
plan.
I
guess
would
be
our
desire
that
we
still
have
the
capacity
to
do
that,
but
that's
I
think
obviously
girl
call
them
to
the.
C
And
we
could
add
an
addenda
and
say
that
many
of
the
neighbors
were
concerned
about
you
know.
Maybe
if
there's
three
policemen
on
any
given
time
and
what
happens
to
the
kids
at
East
versus
the
hospital,
and
you
know
how
many
buses
do.
We
have-
and
you
know
maybe
an
evacuation
plan
that
doesn't
strain
the
existing
resource
base.
It's
probably
already
committed.
C
I
Sir,
just
to
touch
on
the
matter
of
the
fill
location,
yeah,
the
location
as
to
where
the
fill
would
come
from
the
desire
would
be,
and
as
it
is
on
just
about
any
development
site
that
there
is
a
net
zero
of
soil
brought
in
or
taken
out
and
down
to
the
last
spoonful
of
dirt.
You
can
never
guarantee
that's
going
to
happen,
but
again
the
preferred
alternative
would
be
to
take
any
fill
needed
for
the
buildings
which
is
fairly
inconsequential,
wouldn't
looked
at
the
overall
floodplain
in
that
area.
I
B
E
F
A
plat
we're
not
proving
a
plan
how
we'd
be
approving
a
Planned
Unit
development.
We
don't
have
a
plan,
so
what
conditions
do
I
want
to
put
to
something
like
this
I'm
help
here,
because
the
University
Commons,
which
is
a
great
place?
If
you
want
to
murder
somebody,
we
still
have
an
unsolved
murder
there,
and
at
this
point
they
promised
everything
to
us.
That's
why
I'm
up
here?
F
That's
why
I
spent
ten
years
in
the
new
in
the
peanut
gallery,
because
and
I
don't
see
the
shell,
the
minimum
requirements
are
not
being
met
so
I,
don't
know
why
it
add
anything
because
it's
just
like,
when
does
movies
say
anything,
it's
a
say
anything.
What
was
that
quote?
I,
don't
know
how
it
got
past.
All
the
government
regulations
while
we're
watching
it
now
so
I'm.
B
F
B
B
D
Think
a
lot
of
folks
know
that,
as
the
representative
of
the
4th
ward,
many
of
the
citizens
who
are
have
concerns
about
this
project-
him
spoken
with
me
about
it
and
I
did
you
know,
get
together
with
a
group
of
Near
East
Side
residents
to
meet
and
talk
about
what
are
some
possible
compromises
that
would
make
this
project
more
acceptable
to
people
in
the
immediate
neighborhood.
A
lot
of
those
things
have
been
talked
about
already,
having
an
evacuation
plan.
D
D
So
we
don't
have
a
lot
of
sedimentation
in
the
river
during
the
construction
construction
process,
an
exact
fill
plan
on
any
proposed
retaining
walls
and
slopes.
We've
had
you
know
a
general
statement
about
what
the
level
of
fill
is
going
to
be
in
relation
to
the
floodplain,
but
a
more
detailed
plan
about
proposed
earthwork,
an
evacuation
plan
that
people
who
go
and
use
the
adjacent
open
space
for
soccer
and
frisbee
would
be
able
to
use
the
parking
lot.
D
D
Calming
if
there's
increased
traffic
in
the
neighborhood
insuring
red
cross
access
to
their
building,
leaving
the
existing
trees
in
place
along
the
railroads
berm,
a
possible
payment
in
lieu
of
taxes
for
city
services,
Public,
Safety
and
roads
using
some
kind
of
permeable
materials
such
as
green
bricks
for
parking
and
a
playground.
I
think
the
larger
one,
which
is
the
first
one
on
the
list,
is
the
question
of
leaving
everything
east
of
the
drainage
structure
as
open
space
as
a
kind
of
compromise.
D
Dedicate
that
part
of
the
land
between
the
drainage
structure
and
the
bike
paths
per
to
set
that
aside
as
a
dedicated
park
and
have
some
kind
of
playground
equipment
to
create
a
space
so
that,
if
the
green
space
that's
left
would
actually
feel
accessible
and
available
to
people
in
the
neighborhood,
because
there
was
a
really
strong
discussion
that
remaining
green
space
in
between
parking
areas
doesn't
really
feel
like
green
space,
where
people
can
go
play.
It
feels
like
it's
someone's
yard
and
it's
right
next
to
the
parking
lot.
D
So
it's
what,
when
we
hear
discussion
about
how
much
of
the
site
is
remaining
open?
It's
not
necessarily
usable
open
space.
So
that
really
was
one
of
the
the
biggest
parts
of
the
discussion
was
trying
to
find
some
kind
of
compromise
so
that
there's
less
fill
and
therefore
less
potential
displacement
of
water
and
more
usable
open
space
for
the
neighborhood.
B
C
Be
happy
to
defer
to
Carol
I
just
want
to
underline
that
Debbie
was
trying
to
do
something,
proactive
and
work
out
the
differences
that
exist
between
the
neighbors
who
aren't
here
because
we
told
them
they
weren't
going
to
be
talking
anyway
and
I
think
it
only
went
so
far.
It's
really
a
shame
that
we
didn't
get
a
chance
to
work
it
out
so
that
everybody
would
feel
good
about
it
and
I
think
that's
the
way
government
works
best,
and
so
it's
really
too
bad.
Maybe
we
can
still.
B
Actually
well,
I
also
have
a
copy
of
mr.
Higgins
response
and
much
of
what
he
says
is
that
these
conditions
are
fine,
just
as
I've
indicated
as
we
notate
them,
they
just
aren't
in
their
plans
to
do
them.
Until
we
give
some
indication
of
whether
we're
going
to
approve
the
project
or
not,
they
will
be
there
assuring
us
different,
don't
meet
the
condition
so.
B
E
It
does
seem
to
me
that
we
are
being
asked
to
vacate
a
piece
of
City
property,
which
is
the
Moors
have
no
right
of
way,
and
so
as
a
trade
it
isn't
exactly
even
but
to
trade
part
of
the
East
End
of
the
project,
for
that
Morris
have
no
right
of
way.
I
think
could
make
it
much
more
palatable
that
we're
giving
up
that
piece
of
right-of-way
I
think.
B
That
has
merit
is
an
argument.
Actually
part
of
the
Planning
Commission's
recommendation
did
involve
the
vacation
of
the
Morris
Avenue
right-of-way.
We
with
the
advice
of
the
law
director,
we've
taken
that
out
and
made
it
a
separate
ordinance
that
we'll
talk
about
shortly,
because
it's
going
to
require
it
has
some
other
requirements
involved
there
and
but
I
think
that
bringing
that
up
now
I
think
probably
clearly
want
to
talk
about
it.
During
that
discussion
and.
E
B
E
D
One
of
the
things
that
people
talked
about
is
that
area.
That's
between
the
library
and
the
river
is
more
appropriate
to
be
left
completely
open,
particularly
because
of
the
libraries
amphitheater
being
right
there
that
that
wouldn't
necessarily
be
a
good
location
for
a
playground
on
the
part
of
the
land
that
the
city
currently
owns.
Just
because
there
could
be
a
conflict
between
the
different
kinds
of
activities.
D
B
C
A
A
B
A
J
B
B
B
A
plan
for
stormwater
management,
both
during
construction
and
once
the
site
is
developed,
any
Morris
Avenue
entrance
shall
be
gated
for
emergency
use,
only
maintain
vegetative
buffers
on
the
edge
of
the
property.
More
information
about
the
soil
study,
a
complete
plan
of
complete
fill
plan
with
information
on
on
all
slopes
that
will
be
developed.
A
G
G
G
A
J
A
C
D
E
And
it
looks
to
me
like
everything
that
we've
talked
about
for
the
most
part
or
thinks
it
would
be.
Ordinarily
expected,
you
know
cost
of
doing
business
really
that
little
trade
is
the
only
thing
that
we've
suggested.
That
would
cost
them
appreciably
more
funding
whatever
and
what
it
does
is
it
takes
the
cost
off
of
us
of
giving
up
city
land
and
puts
it
on
them,
but
I
mean
just
in
looking
through
this
list.
There
are
not
a
lot
of
high
cost
things
that
we're
asking
them
to
do.
A
B
G
G
I
also
understand
that
the
cottages
are
there
for
a
reason
we
Rajas
were
there
because
of
a
plan
that
was
thoughtfully
put
together.
People
might
not
agree
on
the
outcome
of
the
plan,
but
the
plan
had
some
thoughtfulness
put
into
it.
So
I'm
thinking
if
you're
gonna
add
if
we
had
a
part,
let's
look:
let's
let
some
creativity
happen
and
see.
If
we
could
not
find
compatibility
instead
of
sort
of
looking
at
it
and
going
well
gee,
it
would
sit
in
the
middle
of
a
parking
lot.
G
G
F
C
B
D
B
B
As
recommended
by
the
Planning
Commission,
so
we'd
certainly
be
looking
at
a
supermajority
for
that
particular
item
which
might
throw
it
for
the
whole
thing.
I
don't
know
it's.
Definitely
it's
as
I
see
it.
It's
a
it's.
A
change
from
the
plans
as
submitted
Planning
Commission
is
saying
they're
recommending
that
we
approved
the
plans
as
submitted,
and
those
plans
include
those
cottages
again.
C
A
C
G
C
G
It
originally
to
just
say
to
suggest
that
a
park
is
provided
and
add
your
space.
You
know
whatever
you
want
to
add
to
the
the
thing
I
mean
Paul's
decided
that
one
ski
lift
is
enough,
so
you
probably
don't
want
to
add
one
of
those,
but
you
might
delineate
the
types
of
equipment
or
something
if
you
were
interested
in
the
park
with
a
certain
level
of
amenities
and
dictate
this.
C
C
B
G
A
C
C
B
K
We've
all
been
through
a
number
of
planning
and
zoning
issues
over
the
last
thirty
years,
and
the
one
thing
that
I
learned
along
the
way
is
that
planning
is
the
process
of
negotiations
and
I.
Think
that's
what
we're
talking
about
here.
I
didn't
hear
of
any
conditions
here
and
I.
You
know:
we've
talked
about
these
things
that
really
are
outside
of
anything.
We've
ever
agreed
to
before,
be
it
the
gating
whether
someone
believes
that
we're
gonna
actually
gate
it
or
not.
K
It's
in
the
record
we're
gonna
gates,
Morris
Avenue,
the
vacation,
which
is
the
latest
subject
of
the
East
End
of
the
property
I.
Don't
think
that
it
adds
a
tremendous
amount
of
value
to
us,
and
we
understand
your
discussion
at
this
point
and
I'm
not
quite
sure
that
I
want
to
do
anything
that
changes
the
whole
voting
structure
of
this
matter.
But
if
you
discuss
it
in
a
sense
of
the
last
bit
here
where
you
spoke
of
you
know
it's
a
trade
where
we
don't
have
to
go
back
for
a
whole
new
plan.
K
Approval,
then
I
think
we
would
be
amenable
to
that.
We
would
take
the
four
cottages
off
and
replace
it
with
a
park.
It's
a
sensible
consolidation
of
that
entire
piece
of
property.
I
have
a
little
problem
with
fences,
because
fences
are
nothing
more.
That
I
remember
as
a
kid
is
something
to
go
around,
but.
F
K
Wait,
but
there
is
a
safety
factor
involved
here,
especially
when
you
consider
number
one:
an
age
of
the
population
and
a
young
population.
If
you
talk
about
play
fields,
so
I
would
suggest
that
if
we
do
have
fences
we
do
put
fences,
maybe
48
inches
high
and
limited
at
that,
and
then,
together
with
some
plantings
around
the
area
of
the
ditch
or
whatever
we
want
to
call
it.
The
drainage
way
perhaps
is
a
better
term.
For
so
again
it's
a
process
of
negotiations
and
I.
Think
of
negotiation
and
I.
K
Think
really
that
all
the
things
that
we've
heard
here
tonight
are
things
that
we've
agreed
to
before
and
I
think
you're,
including
them
as
part
of
your
legislation.
I,
don't
see
a
negative
with
with
the
park.
It
almost
becomes
for
all
of
us.
Someone
asked
about
a
playground
on-site
at
one
point
as
an
intergenerational
event
space,
and
so
it
isn't
exactly
on
our
parking
lot.
It
isn't
exactly
on
what
we're
building
on
our
site,
it's
next
door
and
guess
what
some
people
are
gonna
be
looking
out
the
window
watching
kids
play.
K
So
there
isn't
anything
wrong
with
the
idea
of
a
park.
I
think
it's
a
wonderful
idea,
and
frankly
it
simplifies
things,
but
I
don't
want
to
change
it
to
me
to
the
extent
that
it
really
modifies
the
whole
voting
structure
to
where
it
takes
us
into
a
supermajority
and
probably
and
could
conceivably
jeopardize
where
we
end
up
going.
So
we
need
some
assurance
in
that
guy
and
that's
really
the
whole
negotiations
piece.
K
We
are
willing
to
do
this
if
we
are
willing,
if
something
else
happens,
there's
one
more
piece:
the
whole
nursing
piece,
we're
involved
in
a
few
nursing
homes
around
the
country
and
and
oftentimes
what
ends
up
happening
is
that
even
an
assisted-living,
certain
nursing
beds
are
brought
in
and
oftentimes.
We
actually
place
them
on
a
second
story.
We
actually
separate
them
from
our
more
ambulatory
population,
so
we
would
place
our
less
ambulatory
population
on
a
protected
upper
floor
in
effect
and
I.
K
Think
you
stated
quite
well
earlier
that
we've
gone
well
beyond
and
are
the
requirements
for
actual
treatment
of
our
of
our
building
relative
floodplain.
When
we've
actually
raised
that
even
a
little
bit
further
and
while
we're
on
that,
we
talked
about
maybe
reducing
some
of
the
fill
I
know.
You
got
me
going
we're
talking
by
reducing
some
of
the
fill
in
the
parking
lot.
That's
all
well
and
good,
except
there's
a
little
regulation
that
the
federal
government
published
it's
called
fair
housing
regulations
and
ata
I.
K
Think
most
of
you
know
exactly
what
I'm
talking
about,
and
it
stipulates
fairly
critically
what
we
do
with
cross
slopes
and
slopes
in
general,
especially
with
aged
population.
So
that's
something
we
really
need
to
consider,
but
but
that
that
item
really
has
been
addressed
by
you
know
what
we've
been
talking
about.
K
You
have
it
in
your
reports
and
at
this
point,
what
we're
saying
is,
first
of
all,
they're
going
back
and
they're
going
to
modify
the
plans
based
on
the
prescribed
dated
plans
that
are
codified
so
that
that
isn't
much
of
an
issue
at
all
and
we
don't
anticipate
any
increases
from
that.
But
it's
a
moot
point
from
the
standpoint
that
we're
taking
fills
from
from
first
really
prescribed
areas.
So
again,
the
whole
process
of
negotiation
is
the
vacation
of
the
land,
the
east
of
the
drainage
way
or
the
cottages
I
mean.
That's
that's
great.
K
As
long
as
we
can
agree
to
do
it
that
way
to
where
we
don't
really
have
to
modify
in
all
sorts
of
vehicles.
I
suppose
that
your
law
director
could
tell
you
how
to
structure
it.
So
we
can
bypass
that
and
not
create
a
voting
problem.
The
Red
Cross
access,
my
goodness
I,
mean
I,
said
it
three
or
four
times
in
the
past,
I
mean
we've
always
committed
to
that
and
and
I'm,
not
gonna,
repeat
the
other
ones,
because
I
think
we've
already
committed
to
all
of
those
previously
and
we.
A
K
No
disagreement
with
it's
good
planning,
I
suppose
the
only
one
thing
that
I'll
finish
up
with
is
the
whole
soils
issue.
We
have
four
test
pits.
The
soil
is
that
you
know
is
a
is
I
indicated
during
a
last
conversation.
The
soils
that
were
found
are
not
very
good.
There
are
ways
to
treat
soil
to
make
them
better.
Soils.
I
spent
three
hours
today
with
a
soils
engineer
in
my
office
there,
but
in
fact
the
same
engineer
who
did
this
evaluation
but
under
another
project?
K
So
there
are
ways
to
treat
soils
but
I'm
not
interested
as
much
in
the
soils
as
what
I
do
with
the
building
and
how
I
design
my
foundation
system
I
wouldn't
have
to
touch
those
soils
at
all.
If
I
provided
the
correct
foundation,
systems
and
I,
don't
know
you
know,
I
think
everyone
understands
that
I
could
have
deep
pilings
I
can
have
deep,
pilings
and
grazers
up
and
take
that
soil
out.
I
can
replace
that
swell
to
the
last
spoonful.
K
B
C
By
way
of
a
comment,
I
just
I
think
that
there
was
quite
a
bit
of
concern
because
the
approach
was
not
traditional.
In
terms
of
you
know
the
materials
that
we
got
and
I
think
that
there
was
concern
that
the
site
was
relatively
limited
and
we
want
to
make
sure
that
before
it
got
through
the
vote,
the
limitations
were
understood
or
at
least
begun
on
the
beginning
of
an
understanding
pathway
right.
That's
all
I
think
that's
what
we
were
at
that's
what
I
was
after,
because
I
know
till
is
still,
but
it's
not
here.
B
Parkland
on
east
of
the
ditch,
with
with
the
with
the
ordinance
regarding
the
vacation
of
Morris,
Avenue
right-of-way,
because
I
heard
some
discussion
from
council
members
that
they'd
like
to
handle
instead
of
vacating
the
right-of-way
they'd
like
to
handle
it.
As
we
did
the
land
that
we
allowed
the
invert
that
we
allowed
the
library
to
build
on,
which
was
what
we
call
the
permanent
easement
and
that
permanent
easement
had
restrictions
on
it.
That
it
was.
It
was
an
easement
in
perpetuity.
B
B
Would
be
in
in
the
name
of
of
this
Retirement
Center
as
long
as
it
existed
as
a
Retirement
Center
and
by
by
recording
our
ordinances
and
the
final
site
plan
that
would
link
that
to
any
future
legal
activity
with
regards
to
sale
or
use
of
the
of
the
site.
So
that
gives
us
some
about
the
only
hook
that
I
can
see
that
we
have
to
to
assure
us
of
that.
But
if
we
change
it
from
a
vacation
to
a
permanent
easement,
that
is
clearly
altering
the
recommendation
of
the
Planning
Commission.
B
C
Exploited
that
last
name
in
or
when
we
were
closing
and
I
thought
that
they
had
two
contingencies,
and
so
should
we
not
vacate
than
they
said.
We
should
grant
a
revocable
license
for
use
of
that,
and
you
know
and
I
don't
see
how
they
could
stipulate
that
we
should
do
that,
but
they
did
do
it
and
they
also
said
that
they
would
grant
a
variance
on
setback.
So
I
don't
see
that
as
a
supermajority
items,
but
I
could
be
wrong.
B
Commission's
language
they
recommended
vacation,
but
then
they
gave
to
alternative
to
to
fall
backs.
If
we
didn't
recommend,
if
we
didn't
do
that,
that's
very
unusual
for
them
to
do
that.
They
just
generally
a
recommendation,
is
a
recommendation,
and
so
I
tend
to
agree
with
you
that
that
language
has
is
given
a
different
aspect
to
this
vacation
versus
easement
question.
But
I.
Guess
that's
for
further
consideration
by
the
law
director,
but
with
regards
to
the
idea
of
vacation
versus
the
easement.
Are
your
thoughts.
D
Well,
I
guess
if
this
goes
on
the
list
of
questions
for
the
law
director,
the
recommendation
from
the
Planning
Commission
said
that
without
vacation
they
would
need
a
revocable
license
to
permit
private
parking
on
the
public
right-of-way.
But
in
looking
at
the
plans,
I
think
we've
all
seen
that
phase
2
has
a
building
on
the
right-of-way,
so
I
think
we
would
need
to
see
if
that
even
is
an
option.
B
G
A
C
C
We
were
all
just
warned
too
much
about
the
extent
of
consequence,
its
we're
all
suspicious
right,
amen.
B
B
C
B
I
nted
make
this
comment
before
this.
These
are
proposed
ordinances
that
we
hope
would
come
up
for
first
reading
next
week,
but
at
any
point
during
those
readings
they
can
be
amended.
So
if
the
citizen
is
offended
by
something
and
wanted
to
talk
to
one
of
us
and
convince
us,
we
can
bring,
we
can
try
to
change
that
during
the
process.
So
this
is
not
until
we
have
the
final
vote.
None
of
this
is
set
in
stone.
This
is
just
this
is
a
this
is
a
working
session,
but.
C
G
H
B
G
C
G
G
C
F
B
D
B
D
D
J
D
C
H
J
178
Longview
heights.
My
first
question
is
I
would
like
a
clarification
from
hopefully
Jerry
Korea
as
to
Debbie
statement
that
we
will
not
be
a
CCRC
I.
Think
the
state
interpretation
at
this
point
would
definitely
include
our
original
plans.
The
second
question
I
have
is
this
business
of
trading
land.
J
The
land
is
not
ours,
you're
negotiating
with
the
University,
because
that's
their
land
to
give
us
they
had
said
they
would
give
it
to
us,
but
we
are
not
in
position
to
negotiate
it.
I
do
not
believe
I
would
like
clarification
on
that.
I
also
would
like
Jerry
to
respond
to
the
nursing.
If
possible,
Carol
does
not
want
us
to
have
any
nursing.
That
makes
it
very
difficult,
as
you
know,
even
live
Lee
today.
J
E
B
B
I'll
get
it
emailed
to
the
people
around
my
list.
I
hoped
it
to
say
that
it
would
be
available
by
tomorrow
afternoon,
list
of
conditions
and
the
language
that
we've
come
up
with,
if
not
by
then
certainly
by
Friday.
So
anybody
who
needed
a
copy
could
contact
the
clerk
and
probably
get
it
emailed
to
them,
or
you
can
come
by.
G
B
B
And
so,
and
that's
mr.
camp
ease
statement
about
it's
unlikely
that
we'll
have
a
finished
product
ready
for
next
Monday's
meeting
is
probably
true.
That
was
the
that
was
the
that
was
a
timetable.
I
had
envisioned,
but
I,
don't
think
it'll
happen,
but
Lillian
for
that
anyway.
So
in
later
discussion,
the
very
next
discussion
will
have
clarifications
of
martyrs
and.