[0:02] ♪

[0:22] » Good evening, everyone. It

[0:23] » Good evening, everyone. It

[0:23] is 6.30, like the coldest July

[0:27] first 2026 meeting up letting

[0:28] work order

[0:31] >> Scanner Quinn here, Patrick

[0:32] John's present Ashley ploy

[0:34] President random President

[0:36] Kevin Cross president Senator

[0:38] Catherine Brian encounter

[0:39] excuse to have a quorum. Thank

[0:42] >> Thank you. We do have a

[0:43] short for tonight. So I'm

[0:43] gonna read through the process

[0:45] with that. When there's a

[0:47] short five-member board

[0:48] postpone offer to agreed to by

[0:49] the petitioner case, we move

[0:51] to the next regular meeting

[0:52] should occur within 30 days,

[0:54] which is not require. We

[0:55] noticing the case public

[0:56] hearing notices advertising if

[0:59] the petitioners willing to

[1:00] postpone but unable to attend

[1:01] the next available meeting

[1:03] within 30 days, the petitioner

[1:04] has a one time only option to

[1:04] choose the next 8. Certainly

[1:07] he she can attend at no extra

[1:11] fee at this time. anyone hears

[1:14] presenting a case, if want to

[1:15] come up to the podium and let

[1:16] us know if you'd like to

[1:16] proceed or not to be

[1:17] appreciated. if you could sit

[1:23] your name, your case. sircy

[1:27] turn your mic on, please.

[1:29] There's a little but yeah.

[1:31] >> I my Krasinski for the Port

[1:34] of Alaska Subdivision track.

[1:36] They wanted to. We have no

[1:39] objection. So you'd like to

[1:40] move forward over 40?

[1:55] » For Case S one to for we

[1:56] » For Case S one to for we

[1:56] would like to proceed. And

[2:01] start state. Your name my name

[2:02] is Jeremy Hurston, the

[2:03] petitioners representative.

[2:12] And Craig Bennett. As for the

[2:15] 3rd case, I would like to just

[2:15] postpone. Okay. Thank you. It

[2:21] will be August 5th. Severance

[2:26] order. Yeah. So if our anyone

[2:37] hears. So this meeting for the

[2:42] Case S 1, 2, 8, 8, 9, That's

[2:43] that has been postponed. So we

[2:46] will not be discussing that.

[2:46] It will be hearing in August

[2:47] 5th. Moving on to special

[2:55] order of business. We have

[2:58] disclosure Ys. seeing none. I

[3:06] got actually with that

[3:09] postponement, there's no

[3:09] disclosure. So. For

[3:15] information only we have a

[3:16] preview. Plan action summary

[3:17] stated 6, 1, 26, 6, 8. 26 6,

[3:20] 15. 26 6.20 To 26. Coming up,

[3:25] a motion to accept the

[3:25] abbreviated play action

[3:26] summaries. Moved by Mister

[3:29] Jones echoing this mills.

[3:36] there any objections? Seeing

[3:40] none the passes. May we have a

[3:43] motion to approve the consent

[3:43] agenda?

[4:07] Mr. Cross this ploy.

[4:09] Is there anyone wishing to

[4:09] pull an item for discussion?

[4:14] Are there any objections to

[4:15] the approval of the consent

[4:15] agenda? Hearing? None. The

[4:20] consent agenda is approved.

[4:24] Moving on to public hearings.

[4:25] They will read the process.

[4:28] The procedure which the public

[4:30] may speak to the planning

[4:30] board. That's meeting as one

[4:31] after the staff presentation

[4:33] is complete is completed on

[4:35] public hearing items. The

[4:36] chair will ask for public

[4:36] testimony last Republic

[4:37] testimony on the issue too

[4:40] persons who wish to testify

[4:41] will fall. The time winds U.S.

[4:42] tablets in the Commission

[4:43] commission rules of Procedure.

[4:46] A petitioners, including all

[4:47] has her representative in 10

[4:48] minutes. Part of time may be

[4:50] reserved for bowl be

[4:52] representatives groups

[4:52] Community Council's Pete, his

[4:53] accent or art and 5 minutes

[4:54] and individuals are given 3

[4:56] minutes 3 testimonies

[4:59] complete. You may be questions

[5:00] by the board. The only testify

[5:01] once on any issue unless

[5:02] question of the board for any

[5:05] part of interest wishing to

[5:06] appeal. So first filed with

[5:07] the plane director within 70's

[5:07] of the board's decision made

[5:10] on the record a written notice

[5:11] of intent to appeal in

[5:11] accordance with AMC. 21 Point

[5:16] 0, 3 point. 0, 5, 0, 8.4

[5:19] following approval to run 5

[5:20] findings of fact and decision

[5:22] any part interest may within

[5:23] 20 days file an appeal by

[5:25] filing a notice of appeal and

[5:27] paying the appeal fee in the

[5:28] pause in accordance with

[5:29] section. 21 point 0, 3 point

[5:31] '05, 0, the Notice of appeal

[5:33] must be filed. The plane

[5:34] director any for prescribed by

[5:35] the municipality that the

[5:36] appellant is out, the

[5:37] applicant, the pellets notice

[5:38] of appeal South with proof of

[5:39] service on the applicant.

[5:43] Moving on to new business.

[5:47] Public hearings may staff's

[5:48] presentation cases. 1, 2, 8,

[5:49] 7, 9, Thank March Air. So this

[5:53] is a plum replied to survive.

[5:56] One tracked into 2 tracks for

[5:56] proposed track J One and J to

[5:57] at the Port of Anchorage.

[6:00] >> The planetary is

[6:01] approximately 48 acres. One of

[6:04] the new these created tracks

[6:06] track J to has a pending

[6:07] planning and zoning to rezone

[6:09] to parks and recreation. And

[6:12] that's for a future park. Use

[6:13] the other newly created track

[6:15] from this plant would remain.

[6:15] I have industrial district.

[6:20] Private development notes that

[6:21] Bluff Drive. Looks to have

[6:22] complete construction and this

[6:23] will standards and requires no

[6:24] improves this time. Staff has

[6:26] placed a condition to dedicate

[6:27] 30 feet of right away. The

[6:30] preliminary plat appears to

[6:31] conform with the petition

[6:31] cites land use classification

[6:34] in the 2040 land use plan in

[6:36] Government Hill neighborhood

[6:37] plan which identifies the site

[6:38] is a potential park. This is

[6:41] the subdivision and will

[6:41] create 2 new track. one of

[6:44] which will be dedicated

[6:44] portion of the Parkland. And

[6:48] the development tends to keep

[6:48] the community character and

[6:49] provide for protection.

[6:51] Natural spaces as outlined in

[6:52] the comp plans. The the rezone

[6:57] is going next. I believe next

[6:59] Monday to to rezone too, to PR

[7:03] and with that being said, the

[7:05] staff recommends approval of

[7:07] the Platte subject to the

[7:08] conditions found on page for

[7:09] the staff report. Thank you

[7:13] that presentation. Do we have

[7:14] any questions of staff?

[7:21] Hearing? move on to the

[7:30] petitioners presentation. If

[7:30] you'd like to come up to the

[7:31] podium and

[7:31] >> states player in for the

[7:32] record.

[7:37] >> I my Krasinski we have no

[7:40] further comments. Sorry to cut

[7:47] you off else. We have no

[7:51] further comments and we agree

[7:52] with the but the statement

[7:53] said Emily provided created

[7:56] these conditions. Ok, thank

[8:00] you. You have 9 minutes and 47

[8:00] seconds of rebuttal time. Do

[8:04] we have any questions of the

[8:07] applicant? Hearing. None. We

[8:22] will open this up to public

[8:23] testimony. Is there anyone

[8:24] wishing to testify on this?

[8:25] Please come to the podium and

[8:28] states player named for the

[8:29] record and you have 3 minutes.

[8:33] >> Thank My name is Bob French

[8:35] and I'm a resident of

[8:38] Government Hill. I'm also on

[8:39] the Citizens Advisory

[8:40] Committee for the Out. My

[8:44] comments are strictly for

[8:46] myself.

[8:49] >> I would like to object to

[8:51] these final recommendation

[8:52] point on Page 4 for the

[8:55] floating right away easement

[8:56] for the Canuck on crossing. As

[8:59] a member of the aim at

[9:03] Citizens Advisory Committee. I

[9:04] cannot speak for them, but I

[9:07] do recall conversations that

[9:08] have taken place regarding

[9:10] whether or not that can a

[9:13] bridge and any of the

[9:14] easements or access points to

[9:16] that should be included in our

[9:20] current plans that out in the

[9:22] municipality and also in the

[9:24] state. I really call here and

[9:26] young Cullen who is the head

[9:27] of a actually saying that we

[9:31] could not really include any

[9:33] of the any. Projects or things

[9:38] like that that would be

[9:38] related to the Bridge because

[9:41] the bridge does not exist in

[9:45] any statewide plans. That

[9:46] doesn't it's not in the step

[9:47] statewide. Transportation

[9:49] improvement plan. It's not in

[9:52] Mats municipal planning

[9:54] documents and it's it's not.

[9:57] currently has no funding or

[9:58] any other available. There's

[10:03] nothing to say that this

[10:04] project is ever going to

[10:04] actually happen. I spent since

[10:09] 2003 as a member of Government

[10:12] Hill fighting against the

[10:13] Kindergarten Bridge. And I

[10:14] will say that I probably have

[10:14] read Moore more time reading

[10:19] their financial statements

[10:20] than anybody in dot. And I can

[10:22] tell you a lot of the the toll

[10:26] revenue plans that were

[10:28] produced by Wilbur Smith

[10:28] associates. Frankly,

[10:33] fraudulent as an engineer, I

[10:34] can tell you that it's what

[10:36] call reverse engineering.

[10:39] There were at least 3

[10:39] different financial plans that

[10:41] they produced that has allowed

[10:44] where the the numbers for

[10:47] traffic. We're clearly derived

[10:50] from the need for the toll

[10:51] revenues that they thought

[10:51] they were going to have.

[10:52] Frankly, you know, the project

[10:56] was shut down by Governor

[10:57] Walker. And it was shut down

[11:01] because really the state does

[11:02] not have to extra billion

[11:03] dollars. You know, say that,

[11:08] you know, that's that is the

[11:10] actual realistic cost of the

[11:10] bridge that we produced back

[11:12] in 2010. And I could say that

[11:17] they're through the tariffs

[11:18] and the cost of steel and

[11:20] everything else that those

[11:21] prices are only going to be

[11:22] going up. So frankly. I think

[11:28] the best thing to do would be

[11:30] to either add additional

[11:31] comments on too saying that

[11:36] the can a bridge project would

[11:37] need to be fully funded and

[11:40] developed in the municipal and

[11:44] state plans or it should be

[11:46] reduced, completely removed

[11:46] completely. think the

[11:50] testimony we have any

[11:50] questions. Hearing, none take

[12:02] a seat and is anyone else

[12:03] wishing to testify? Thank you.

[12:17] thank you for that insightful

[12:19] testimony, by the way. Mr.

[12:24] Jones actually has a question

[12:25] for the last speaker. If you'd

[12:29] like to come back actually

[12:30] directed towards staff

[12:30] everyone this time. But staff

[12:33] regards to the testimony that

[12:36] we just with the floating

[12:37] right away and think through

[12:38] that more mean is that?

[12:40] >> If something like this

[12:41] would be funded, would be

[12:43] taken via eminent domain or

[12:45] anything like that? I mean, is

[12:45] it was the purpose of the

[12:46] flooding right away that

[12:47] respect. Mr. Young and on here

[12:50] tonight to speak, speak to it.

[12:53] But I the you know, in

[12:55] conversation. The surveyor may

[12:56] know a little bit more

[12:57] information, but the

[12:58] >> Right away. Heads stated

[12:59] that. During the transfer the

[13:03] land that there was this

[13:04] floating right away easement

[13:04] it doesn't necessarily it's

[13:07] not a new plant note or

[13:08] anything. It's just an

[13:09] existing easement out there

[13:10] that if it ever does is

[13:13] constructed. They have this

[13:15] like agreement between the

[13:16] municipality in the state that

[13:19] bill, choose where that goes

[13:20] for that that portion of the

[13:21] easement. Let's see. What was

[13:25] your question specifically?

[13:26] Again, it was more. Yeah, I

[13:31] guess is more just like

[13:32] anything through something

[13:32] like that where it was it was

[13:33] it was so they wouldn't have

[13:34] to do like an eminent domain

[13:36] is just on the municipal land

[13:37] there. There's there's that it

[13:39] gives them the ability to

[13:40] place a right of way easement

[13:43] kind of as as they see that

[13:45] where works as an already

[13:47] agree upon? It's already.

[13:49] Yeah. Oh, yeah. The size of it

[13:49] where place? Where is right?

[13:54] And this is just stating there

[13:55] exist in the this easement

[13:56] through this ATS 14. 21, it

[14:00] does a state like you said

[14:01] where it just it's not like a

[14:03] new plateau. It's carried

[14:03] forth from the previous plats.

[14:04] Okay. Thank you. It smells

[14:08] question for staff.

[14:14] >> the Community Council

[14:15] agenda and the meeting Page.

[14:18] 23, the reference that PTS

[14:21] applied variants arguing that

[14:22] the place should address the

[14:24] kid, Casey, because online in

[14:26] the 2014 plan is not even

[14:28] close anything specific enough

[14:30] to be addressed. There's no

[14:32] platted liner Nothing that a

[14:32] survey can even show.

[14:36] >> Do you recall our did you

[14:37] look into whether or not the

[14:38] variance for this particular?

[14:41] >> issue was addressed in

[14:42] 2014.

[14:47] >> Threw the chair Ms Mills

[14:47] that believe that was I mean,

[14:48] that's a that's a kind of a

[14:49] community meeting that the

[14:51] surveyor had and the maybe the

[14:55] port director, they had the

[14:56] original talks with the pre it

[14:57] preliminary Platt meetings

[14:58] that we have. It was it was

[15:01] talked about as far as maybe

[15:03] easement being or dedicated

[15:04] right would be needed. But the

[15:06] state of Alaska had provided

[15:10] this to that plant, know that

[15:11] there's a floating easement

[15:12] that that's been granted

[15:13] during the transfer of the

[15:13] land way back when. thank you

[15:16] to we don't have access like.

[15:19] >> We've talked about before,

[15:20] like from historical documents

[15:23] with air decision-making.

[15:23] thank you.

[15:28] >> Thank Their questions.

[15:31] Okay. Is there anyone else in

[15:32] the public wishing to testify?

[15:37] But this just sit for a couple

[15:38] seconds to make sure that we

[15:39] want testify. If you do,

[15:40] please come to the podium. If

[15:51] the petitioner like to come

[15:52] back up and provide any

[15:53] rebuttal. You have 9 minutes

[15:53] and 47 seconds to do so.

[16:06] >> I just want to say have no

[16:06] objection to any update of any

[16:08] notes regarding the easement.

[16:13] I talked actually talk to Bob

[16:14] duty right away and he

[16:17] mentioned it. That is just.

[16:20] There is a place holder like

[16:21] Sean mentioned. In case the

[16:25] road is developed in the

[16:25] future. Yeah, that's really

[16:31] about.

[16:34] >> you have any questions of

[16:35] the petitioners

[16:35] representative. Mr. Cross, I

[16:43] guess it's a question for both

[16:46] petitioner and for staff the

[16:46] existence of the snow prevents

[16:48] eminent domain in the future.

[16:49] But is it problematic to the

[16:53] development? And I guess if

[16:54] it's unlikely to happen. I

[16:59] guess that's kind of the

[17:02] crystal ball we don't have I

[17:05] know it's not in the step. I

[17:05] know that it's not as if it's

[17:06] not even on a maths radar.

[17:09] It's been something that's

[17:11] been a talked about as long as

[17:13] I can remember, going door

[17:13] raised in Anchorage. But I

[17:19] guess it will. This action.

[17:23] Severely hamper any future

[17:24] opportunity. Just because of

[17:27] this particular time, there's

[17:28] no interest. I guess my

[17:32] hesitation is that if it's not

[17:34] a realistic project than the

[17:35] platinum doesn't matter. But

[17:37] if there is a remote chance,

[17:40] given our demographic

[17:42] challenges and God only knows

[17:44] what the future looks like.

[17:45] Having that in, there could be

[17:47] future benefit that can't be

[17:49] measured right now. So I guess

[17:50] for you is the plot know,

[17:54] yeah, says in consequential.

[17:54] And it's just something that

[17:56] into the far off distance

[17:57] future if it's needed, it's

[17:58] there but doesn't have

[17:59] immediate consequence to your

[18:00] development. No, there's no

[18:03] immediate consequence. Our

[18:04] development, it's more It S to

[18:07] the DOT. I mean, doesn't

[18:10] matter to me. Development of

[18:14] community council wants to

[18:15] develop the land. All right at

[18:17] this point. So thank you.

[18:25] >> Hi, my name is Nicole Ream

[18:28] Ari, a jam and I am on PTS the

[18:31] representatives for this port

[18:33] project. one thing I would ask

[18:39] is if that's a possibility

[18:40] that the note could be

[18:43] discussed with dot further to

[18:43] make sure that the note meets

[18:44] the. Mr. French was attempting

[18:49] to say, which is he wasn't

[18:51] happy with the notice. It was

[18:53] written right now. But if

[18:56] there was potential for that

[18:56] for a fully funded project

[18:57] because

[18:59] >> at that point the risk of

[19:04] having the DOT come in and

[19:05] potentially please right of

[19:09] way location in the middle of

[19:10] a park without funding for 100

[19:11] years might be problematic.

[19:16] >> I I as Mike said, we are

[19:18] not we're not here to

[19:19] represent government community

[19:20] Councilor the government Hill

[19:20] community, but we are

[19:22] >> close to the Government

[19:23] Hill Community Council is the

[19:24] ports representatives and want

[19:27] to make sure that the park,

[19:28] which is what it's intended to

[19:29] be reserved for. at least left

[19:32] to be viable for as long as

[19:35] possible. And so if that note

[19:38] can be something that maybe

[19:38] after the fact is work

[19:39] through.

[19:43] >> Appreciate question for

[19:44] staff because my experience

[19:45] with plant notes, they're

[19:48] pretty particular and I've

[19:48] never seen a plan note that

[19:50] had talked about funding. I

[19:53] mean, I've had requests on

[19:55] past projects wanting

[19:56] additional plant notes. The

[19:56] municipality is. Advised her

[19:59] not advise but ruled against

[20:00] that because there's just

[20:03] particular things that can be

[20:04] put notes and things that can.

[20:07] So is that even possibility

[20:08] that, well, that's your

[20:08] correct, Mr. Share so.

[20:11] >> And this does not placing

[20:13] anything new. It's basically

[20:14] just stating that there's a of

[20:16] an agreement that the state

[20:18] had entered for in the future.

[20:20] It's a separate document that

[20:22] that exists. If I'm not

[20:25] mistaken it's not. It's not a

[20:28] new plant. Know. It's just

[20:28] basically stating that there

[20:29] is disagreement out there.

[20:32] >> Yeah, go ahead and so.

[20:38] Threw the chair staff this.

[20:39] Are you talking about plant

[20:40] 2012, 19 because it is not on

[20:41] Platt 2012, 19, which is the

[20:43] current plan for track J.

[20:48] >> No, I believe it was all

[20:49] have to take a look. They

[20:51] didn't reference which plan

[20:52] that was placed on I believe

[20:52] was an older plat. That was on

[20:57] there.

[20:58] >> Potentially the DOT right

[20:59] away. Mapping platform 2017,

[20:59] more than likely. Just for the

[21:05] information that Platt is

[21:09] shows a what we engineers call

[21:09] upon line. It's a thick gray

[21:13] line shown. Coming into the

[21:18] property without any bearing

[21:19] distance in or the east.

[21:22] Radius is just a line on that

[21:22] map.

[21:30] >> I guess throw out I I'm I'm

[21:31] kind of concerned about adding

[21:33] a note having it reference

[21:35] funding because I guess in my

[21:37] mind and thinking through how

[21:37] that could be construed they

[21:38] could say, well, this is going

[21:40] to be a 10 phase project.

[21:41] Phase one is we're going to

[21:42] build the landing pad for this

[21:44] connect bridge. Now it's fully

[21:46] funded. And so we need the

[21:47] right away. You know, so

[21:51] there's some I think some

[21:51] technicalities of how that

[21:52] could be viewed as a well as a

[21:54] talking about the bridge and

[21:55] its year. We're talking

[21:55] about that portion project

[21:56] that I think. You know, if

[21:58] we're going to add notes like

[21:59] that, think the lawyers word

[22:00] hopefully have a pretty easy

[22:03] time picking apart they wanted

[22:03] to. And let's be really dove

[22:05] into the verge of it. Mr.

[22:11] Cross to the chair to staff.

[22:17] So my understanding based on

[22:18] what I just heard is that we

[22:20] have 2 opposing place. We have

[22:22] it in the way platinum. DOT

[22:23] plot. We're talking

[22:27] >> Ariel easement people

[22:28] excuse me, a floating right

[22:28] away easement that's only on

[22:29] the DOT plot but not in the in

[22:30] the way place in which case is

[22:32] there one that supersedes the

[22:33] other? Is there one or and if

[22:35] it's not an animal, a place

[22:36] that we can. Then why are we

[22:38] adding to it? I don't like

[22:42] notes that spreads are not

[22:43] there. And it's not required

[22:44] is to put it. I would prefer

[22:45] to get rid of it if we're not

[22:45] required. But at the same

[22:47] time, I don't want to

[22:49] intercede between some sort of

[22:50] formal or non from looking at

[22:51] between dot. Buy a Prius

[22:54] arrangement that we that

[22:54] cloudy morning unaware of.

[22:56] Does that make sense that

[22:57] that's correct share so it

[22:59] wouldn't be the agreements.

[23:00] Are you there? And so the

[23:03] planning board, if they wish

[23:03] they could remove plaque, know

[23:06] 3 C from that from from this.

[23:10] It's We talked the surveyor,

[23:13] he's basically just stating

[23:13] facts. It's not placing

[23:17] anything additional on the

[23:17] honor. This Platt. But you're

[23:18] correct with the they grew.

[23:21] But yeah, it's a planning

[23:22] board wishes they could strike

[23:23] that because that agreement

[23:26] still exists out there, but it

[23:27] may and it may not. It may

[23:28] lead to less confusion if

[23:29] somebody is reading the Platte

[23:32] because like you said, Klatt

[23:32] notes kind of forever and

[23:33] they're more pertaining to

[23:35] things such as access and

[23:37] drainage. So even removing it

[23:40] is in consequential because

[23:41] it's still exist on the state

[23:42] dot plot. That's correct. And

[23:45] so which greetings to seas are

[23:46] municipal I mean, so I hope

[23:47] the public understands that if

[23:49] it's on the state Platt and

[23:53] Moe is subject to the state,

[23:54] even if it's not on the

[23:55] municipal planet still exist.

[23:56] So then we're just we're

[23:59] providing, you know, in for me

[24:01] the emotional service, but not

[24:02] anything of substance. But

[24:05] that being a correct

[24:07] statement, that's no. That's

[24:07] an incorrect statement. Yeah,

[24:09] it's a new informational all

[24:11] right. Thank you very much.

[24:12] Appreciate that. And the final

[24:18] questions of representative.

[24:26] >> like to close the public

[24:26] hearing. Better rest of the

[24:29] board. We have a motion. Move

[24:39] on this ploy second, Mr. Cross

[24:40] Ploy Cusiter motion.

[24:44] >> I move in Case S 1, 2, 8,

[24:45] 7, 9, to approve the plan for

[24:47] 24 months. Subject to the

[24:47] conditions shown on Page 4 of

[24:48] the staff report.

[24:50] >> The Ploy would like to

[24:51] speak your motion.

[24:54] >> Nothing further than what

[24:55] save the clerical or

[24:56] questions.

[24:59] >> Mr. Cross, which looks

[24:59] Peter seconds. Yes, just I

[25:03] want to point out staff

[25:04] analysis on pages, 3, 4, that

[25:07] the plant appears to confirm

[25:10] with a petition cites land-use

[25:11] clarifications an increased.

[25:12] 24 you land use planning the

[25:12] government. Government Hill

[25:16] neighborhood plan. This also

[25:17] allow for additional park

[25:18] space to be developed in the

[25:19] area regards to the public

[25:24] testimony, removing section

[25:26] Unfortunately, I think even if

[25:27] we were to do that just to

[25:28] justify it would only be. For

[25:32] entertainment purposes because

[25:33] exist on the state plan, which

[25:37] supersedes says so

[25:37] unfortunately dealing with

[25:38] that issue is not something

[25:39] that we can handle even if we

[25:40] removed, it would still exist.

[25:42] Therefore, I'm moving forward

[25:43] with an unaltered. Thank you.

[25:45] Thank you, Mr. Cross Miss Mel

[25:46] says you want to speak to

[25:50] >> I was actually thinking

[25:50] about. Motion to remove the

[25:54] plant now just in case. But

[25:56] after hearing Okay. Yeah,

[26:00] agree. It's these plants are

[26:01] pain to remove. Pain to put

[26:06] on. kinda stuck between a rock

[26:07] and a hard place. Dot easy to

[26:11] work with you there. I mean,

[26:13] and then there's the whole

[26:14] issue or if the put in the

[26:16] landing pad, like you

[26:18] mentioned, well, then that

[26:19] floating easement is solid.

[26:22] All right. So then there's no

[26:24] not going to pick up a heli

[26:25] pattern, just move it. So I

[26:26] think that this would be

[26:28] fined. So I do intend to

[26:29] support the motion based on

[26:31] the existing part track being

[26:35] subdivided into 2 It still

[26:37] remains industrial. It's

[26:40] intended for future Parkland

[26:41] like to track to 2 no variance

[26:44] requested no public opposition

[26:46] except for what you just

[26:48] received. But we didn't at the

[26:51] time the community Council

[26:52] didn't have any objections.

[26:57] Neither did any of reviewing

[26:59] agencies and staff to do their

[27:00] research. And I agree with

[27:00] their findings.

[27:03] >> Thank you. Mills. Anyone

[27:04] else wishing findings. Seeing

[27:07] none pass the gavel over I

[27:11] agree with this bill is an Mr

[27:12] Cross. Honestly, I think that

[27:14] this weather, this planet

[27:16] stays honor It's remote. Is

[27:17] this kind of moot point

[27:18] because it's already on the

[27:19] state plot. agree with the

[27:23] logic of the presenter and I

[27:26] think that. I agree Mr. Cross

[27:31] from a lot of Platte notes are

[27:32] just not needed and muddy the

[27:33] waters more come more often

[27:34] than not. But I don't really

[27:35] see removing this. Making much

[27:39] of a difference of what enough

[27:39] don't support.

[27:54] Was that the

[27:54] motion passes? Moving on to

[28:07] tease us. Want to eat for. We

[28:10] have presentation.

[28:14] >> Thank March Air. So this is

[28:15] a request for a subdivision of

[28:17] one tract of land into one

[28:18] lot, 3 tracks and the request

[28:21] for a vacation of a 60 foot

[28:22] public use easement those

[28:23] record. But booking page. So

[28:25] this plan actual dedicate the

[28:26] required 60 feet or right away

[28:28] in the line with existing

[28:28] location, Highland Road. This

[28:33] is out in river of Highland

[28:33] Road and it's a it's 117 Acres

[28:39] Subdivision. So vacation

[28:41] request. The petitioners

[28:42] vacating 60 feet public use

[28:43] easement. We can see that on

[28:45] the second page of the Platte.

[28:48] It's basically just outside

[28:50] Highland Road. The road is in

[28:51] a different alignment. So

[28:55] we're and they're going to be

[28:56] dedicating 60 feet of public

[28:57] use, which is what we need

[28:59] more like, you know, centered

[29:00] on actual road that's out

[29:01] there. they were in support of

[29:06] that. And then in the matter

[29:07] of the vacation request, staff

[29:09] finds that conditions want to

[29:10] have been met the right away.

[29:14] The deputy that existing extra

[29:16] right of way is in excess to

[29:16] miss will need for any of for

[29:19] any future public needs. We

[29:20] won't need it. They're going

[29:23] to dedicate that 60 right away

[29:25] within the current alignment

[29:26] of Highland Road. Like I

[29:26] mentioned. He's not lying on

[29:30] the our quarter mile grid for

[29:33] conditions. 3, 4 staff finds

[29:35] conditions. 5 has been met and

[29:36] not going to have any impact

[29:37] on traffic circulation. The

[29:39] dedication of the right away.

[29:40] provide. We will be provided

[29:44] to replace this and in the

[29:46] actual alignment of that

[29:47] construction. Highland Road

[29:47] is, as I've said, there will

[29:49] be able to maintain access to

[29:50] all the remaining properties

[29:53] and staff finds in condition.

[29:53] 6 has been met. The vacation

[29:57] will result in a realignment

[29:58] of the proposed education

[29:59] right away and does not impact

[30:01] traffic circulation. Therefore

[30:02] staff does find that the right

[30:04] ways in excess us will need

[30:05] recommends approval to

[30:08] occasion, which is on the on

[30:09] the staff report we also

[30:12] recommend approval of the

[30:15] Platte. The plan to plant

[30:17] meets all the applicable

[30:19] zoning district in the river

[30:20] for total. 21 for the proposed

[30:21] lots and tracks the

[30:23] petitioners here to speak on

[30:24] any of it as well. Thank you.

[30:26] Thank you that presentation.

[30:27] We have any questions of

[30:28] staff.

[30:36] >> Seeing none. We'll move on

[30:37] to the petitioners

[30:39] presentation like to please

[30:40] come up to the podium and

[30:40] state inspired him for the

[30:41] record and you have 10

[30:42] minutes. But sorry can turn

[30:45] your mic on please. been down

[30:47] little. Attorney, grey area.

[30:54] >> name is Jeremy Hearst Time.

[30:54] The petitioners

[30:56] representative, I do have to

[30:57] point to one error, the

[31:01] vacation of the public use

[31:03] easement he's currently to

[31:04] public use easements on that

[31:06] income or the land of one of

[31:10] them follows existing Highland

[31:12] Road right away or what we

[31:14] found dedicating the other. A

[31:16] public use easement was

[31:19] intended to cover Highland

[31:21] Road. But it deviates from

[31:22] from these as the actual

[31:24] alignment. I believe that the

[31:25] Planning Department staff. Got

[31:30] those incorrect, which one was

[31:31] being vacated, which one was

[31:31] not. I don't know if we can

[31:34] make that change. Now. But

[31:38] it's the principle from what's

[31:39] being recommended that I don't

[31:40] think there's any change and

[31:43] that.

[31:44] >> Games of Mr. Jeremy, Mr.

[31:45] Hurst is on Page 5 of the

[31:47] staff report. Is that the

[31:49] correct booking page? That's

[31:50] what you're referring to

[31:51] cracked the book's 16. 59

[31:55] pages. A 16 17 is what you

[31:56] what is to be vacated.

[31:59] >> No, that that's incorrect,

[32:00] Okay, right. It's it's book a

[32:04] 1, 5, 7, 5 pages. 8.34 through

[32:05] Page 8.35 Okay. And I have I

[32:09] have paper copies of both with

[32:11] me today. Okay.

[32:15] >> Just so planning board

[32:18] knows Jeremy did come in,

[32:19] discussed picking this up for

[32:20] different planners. Not here.

[32:22] We were supposed to swap

[32:25] those. And Jeremy, we are

[32:25] vacating, though, the next a

[32:27] Highland Road, correct? again,

[32:31] that the portion that's being

[32:32] vacated, though, is that the

[32:34] pieces next to Highland Road

[32:35] that's outside of the real

[32:36] time. And it's that's the

[32:37] public use Museum outside of

[32:38] the existing road alignment.

[32:42] Okay. So in for the clerk,

[32:45] it'll be would just need a

[32:45] page. Book 15. 75 page 8.34 In

[32:49] a 35 in just staff. Feel

[32:50] comfortable with this or does

[32:52] it need? Yes, survey or come

[32:53] to the counter, remember this

[32:55] conversation with Mr. Hatcher.

[32:58] >> And we had transpose those

[32:58] in the staff reports.

[33:01] >> are you able to bring up a

[33:04] copy of of the plan on screen?

[33:05] I could. It's it's noted

[33:06] correctly on the plan itself.

[33:07] Okay.

[33:12] >> That was just said so did

[33:16] our a so So the staff, you

[33:19] know, about establishing yes,

[33:20] that that's the correct that

[33:21] will make it correct. Okay. I

[33:21] think we're good. So You

[33:27] continue on. Okay, great,

[33:29] great. I just agreement with

[33:30] the staff recommendations.

[33:32] Otherwise.

[33:32] >> I just wanted to add that

[33:35] this parcel is an original

[33:38] homestead created by the Genki

[33:39] family unfortunately Mr.

[33:43] Jenkins chunky have passed

[33:46] away and they've left to the

[33:49] property to their heirs. Their

[33:51] offspring and the purpose of

[33:53] the subdivision is so that the

[33:57] children can split remaining

[33:57] parcel.

[34:02] >> Is that the and your

[34:04] testimony that doesn't money

[34:05] here you have any questions.

[34:09] Great. You have 6 minutes and

[34:11] backup couple surprise doesn't

[34:12] matter. 6.48, scored. You'll

[34:20] have 6 months to 40 seconds of

[34:21] rebuttal needed. Do we have

[34:23] any questions? Of the

[34:25] petitioner? Mr. Cross? 48%

[34:36] grade. That must have been

[34:37] quite the accomplishment to

[34:39] survey that It has some very

[34:41] steep steep terrain in there

[34:43] for sure.

[34:44] >> Yeah, that's a that would

[34:45] something to behold. Thank

[34:51] Miss Mills has a question for

[34:52] staff.

[34:55] >> So that's our through the

[34:58] chair what happens because all

[35:02] of the reviewing agencies are

[35:04] actually is it the same event

[35:07] that's recorded in book 60 59

[35:08] at Page's 8, 17.

[35:10] >> To all the reviewing

[35:11] agencies review the wrong

[35:13] tracked. Well, they were

[35:13] looking at this packet.

[35:17] >> To the chairman, smells

[35:18] know the very image says we're

[35:20] looking at the Platte as

[35:21] Jeremy. It stated in the end

[35:23] and it says which the 60 foot

[35:27] that's to be vacated this

[35:28] place and it outlines its not

[35:29] shaded. But Rosen outlines it.

[35:31] So they're looking at the

[35:32] correct thing. It's just the

[35:35] pages off.

[35:37] >> Right? they can page 33 to

[35:40] will.

[35:40] >> And like all of these, all

[35:41] of the rating agencies or

[35:44] reference to.

[35:45] >> Yeah, that's just just kind

[35:47] of clerical where they're

[35:48] looking at the correct thing

[35:49] when they're reviewing the

[35:50] plat. I just want to make sure

[35:52] yeah.

[35:53] >> I know errors and actually

[35:55] in the 10's sometimes that

[35:56] leads Sybase as want to make

[35:57] sure. Thank you.

[36:00] >> Any other questions of the

[36:03] Seeing none. You take a seat

[36:07] open this up for public

[36:09] testimony is there are there

[36:09] any members of the public

[36:10] wishing testify? If so, please

[36:13] come up. And Steve inspiring

[36:13] for the record. Saying none.

[36:27] Do you want to use your

[36:28] rebuttal time? Yep. 6 minutes.

[36:29] I think 48 seconds left. If

[36:30] you'd like to add anything

[36:31] else. With the close, the

[36:40] public hearing the matter rest

[36:41] of the board. We have a motion

[36:42] for the vacation. First. We

[36:49] want this cross second. Mister

[36:50] Jones, Mr. Cross can use it.

[36:51] Your motion.

[36:54] >> I move to approve the

[36:55] request for vacation. Recorded

[36:56] 60 foot public easement

[36:57] recorded in book 15. 75 pages

[37:02] 8.34, through 8.35 Subject to

[37:04] conditions.

[37:12] >> Subject

[37:13] >> to subject to condition.

[37:13] One recording a single plot

[37:14] within 24 months. approval.

[37:18] And then as A B B is a

[37:19] separate motion. Okay. We'd

[37:22] like to speak your motion.

[37:26] Yeah. again, the review

[37:29] agencies and staff analysis on

[37:29] pages 3, 4,

[37:31] >> That the

[37:37] >> that there seeing the

[37:37] review agencies and met all

[37:38] the criteria. And also there

[37:39] was no negative public

[37:41] comments. The purpose of this

[37:43] land is still continue its

[37:44] existing use and just

[37:45] replatting for the purposes

[37:46] the estate. To either

[37:50] liquidate or build houses as

[37:50] they see fit and the and I see

[37:54] no significant change in the

[37:55] use the land. Thank

[37:58] >> Mr. Cross Pasar Jones looks

[37:58] Peter second.

[38:00] >> Yes, thank you. I I. And

[38:05] support the motion as well. I

[38:06] just see as the general

[38:06] cleanup, which I think is good

[38:07] to do. I will say that I do

[38:10] see the note on Page 40 to our

[38:12] staff report where shows the

[38:13] plot? It's little hard to see.

[38:14] Obviously, since we just have

[38:14] a fy 11, the one comment that

[38:17] I do want to make is that

[38:18] what's referenced here,

[38:19] though, is use easement book

[38:22] 15. 75 page 8.34 I don't see a

[38:24] 35 listed. So I did want to

[38:26] just bring that up to. They

[38:27] could about plot. So I don't

[38:29] know if that's something that

[38:33] clarification on his be added

[38:34] to the plot to Jones,

[38:36] generosity clarified booking

[38:37] page or if it's fine leave it

[38:37] as I do it in a sport. Staff

[38:42] have any comments on that. No,

[38:45] its You pull works 15 75 huge.

[38:50] Huge research by a 34 new

[38:51] poll. Both pages on that.

[38:52] >> So it would be one of the

[38:53] same. think the clarification

[38:57] forget that are thanks. Ms

[38:58] Mills. Are you wishing that

[38:59] findings?

[39:02] >> Yes, I intend to support

[39:03] this motion. I would like to

[39:06] they sit on the fact that the

[39:09] existing public use easement

[39:09] is no longer necessary because

[39:11] it does not correspond to the

[39:12] actual location of Highland

[39:15] Road. The public purpose

[39:17] formally served by these men

[39:18] will be better served through

[39:20] dedication of a replacement

[39:21] public right of way that

[39:22] aligns with the construction

[39:22] roadway and thereby preserving

[39:25] access. Well, eliminating an

[39:26] inaccurate encumbrance.

[39:29] >> Thank you, Miss Mills. Any

[39:29] other. Let's call vote.

[39:49] With

[39:50] that. The motion passes for

[39:50] the vacation. Now, do we have

[39:53] a motion for the planet? My

[40:06] best mills. Mister Jones. This

[40:11] Mills case it your motion.

[40:15] >> I'm moving Case S 1, 2, 8,

[40:16] 7, 9, 2, approved plat for 24

[40:18] months. Subject to the

[40:19] conditions shown on page for

[40:19] the staff report.

[40:21] >> The Miss Mills which looks

[40:24] Peter motion.

[40:25] >> I would just like to use

[40:26] the same approval criteria

[40:29] based our decision on for the

[40:33] vacation request as well.

[40:34] Staff did a good met all the

[40:35] criteria. It's and not in

[40:38] excess, but it is being

[40:41] replaced. Its works. It works

[40:42] good. And I think staff

[40:43] definitely agree staff's

[40:46] analysis.

[40:49] >> Thank you. Miss Mills, Mr.

[40:50] Jones a speech or Nothing

[40:53] additional add. Thank Thank

[40:54] you, Mr. Jones and the last

[40:56] findings they like to and

[40:57] seeing none. Let's call a

[40:58] vote. And with that, the

[41:05] motion passes. Since we had

[41:12] our postponement, can move on

[41:14] to board member comments. Any

[41:15] comments amongst board

[41:15] members. Seeing none. We have

[41:18] a motion adjourn Mr. Cross.

[41:23] Mills. We are adjourned.

[41:24] Sorry, Lori. no longer the.

[41:41] >> He said. Imports face. You.

[41:57] too. says.

Platting Board - July 1, 2026

Agenda

Transcript