♪
» Good evening, everyone. It
is 6.30, like the coldest July
first 2026 meeting up letting
work order
>> Scanner Quinn here, Patrick
John's present Ashley ploy
President random President
Kevin Cross president Senator
Catherine Brian encounter
excuse to have a quorum. Thank
>> Thank you. We do have a
short for tonight. So I'm
gonna read through the process
with that. When there's a
short five-member board
postpone offer to agreed to by
the petitioner case, we move
to the next regular meeting
should occur within 30 days,
which is not require. We
noticing the case public
hearing notices advertising if
the petitioners willing to
postpone but unable to attend
the next available meeting
within 30 days, the petitioner
has a one time only option to
choose the next 8. Certainly
he she can attend at no extra
fee at this time. anyone hears
presenting a case, if want to
come up to the podium and let
us know if you'd like to
proceed or not to be
appreciated. if you could sit
your name, your case. sircy
turn your mic on, please.
There's a little but yeah.
>> I my Krasinski for the Port
of Alaska Subdivision track.
They wanted to. We have no
objection. So you'd like to
move forward over 40?
» For Case S one to for we
would like to proceed. And
start state. Your name my name
is Jeremy Hurston, the
petitioners representative.
And Craig Bennett. As for the
3rd case, I would like to just
postpone. Okay. Thank you. It
will be August 5th. Severance
order. Yeah. So if our anyone
hears. So this meeting for the
Case S 1, 2, 8, 8, 9, That's
that has been postponed. So we
will not be discussing that.
It will be hearing in August
5th. Moving on to special
order of business. We have
disclosure Ys. seeing none. I
got actually with that
postponement, there's no
disclosure. So. For
information only we have a
preview. Plan action summary
stated 6, 1, 26, 6, 8. 26 6,
15. 26 6.20 To 26. Coming up,
a motion to accept the
abbreviated play action
summaries. Moved by Mister
Jones echoing this mills.
there any objections? Seeing
none the passes. May we have a
motion to approve the consent
agenda?
Mr. Cross this ploy.
Is there anyone wishing to
pull an item for discussion?
Are there any objections to
the approval of the consent
agenda? Hearing? None. The
consent agenda is approved.
Moving on to public hearings.
They will read the process.
The procedure which the public
may speak to the planning
board. That's meeting as one
after the staff presentation
is complete is completed on
public hearing items. The
chair will ask for public
testimony last Republic
testimony on the issue too
persons who wish to testify
will fall. The time winds U.S.
tablets in the Commission
commission rules of Procedure.
A petitioners, including all
has her representative in 10
minutes. Part of time may be
reserved for bowl be
representatives groups
Community Council's Pete, his
accent or art and 5 minutes
and individuals are given 3
minutes 3 testimonies
complete. You may be questions
by the board. The only testify
once on any issue unless
question of the board for any
part of interest wishing to
appeal. So first filed with
the plane director within 70's
of the board's decision made
on the record a written notice
of intent to appeal in
accordance with AMC. 21 Point
0, 3 point. 0, 5, 0, 8.4
following approval to run 5
findings of fact and decision
any part interest may within
20 days file an appeal by
filing a notice of appeal and
paying the appeal fee in the
pause in accordance with
section. 21 point 0, 3 point
'05, 0, the Notice of appeal
must be filed. The plane
director any for prescribed by
the municipality that the
appellant is out, the
applicant, the pellets notice
of appeal South with proof of
service on the applicant.
Moving on to new business.
Public hearings may staff's
presentation cases. 1, 2, 8,
7, 9, Thank March Air. So this
is a plum replied to survive.
One tracked into 2 tracks for
proposed track J One and J to
at the Port of Anchorage.
>> The planetary is
approximately 48 acres. One of
the new these created tracks
track J to has a pending
planning and zoning to rezone
to parks and recreation. And
that's for a future park. Use
the other newly created track
from this plant would remain.
I have industrial district.
Private development notes that
Bluff Drive. Looks to have
complete construction and this
will standards and requires no
improves this time. Staff has
placed a condition to dedicate
30 feet of right away. The
preliminary plat appears to
conform with the petition
cites land use classification
in the 2040 land use plan in
Government Hill neighborhood
plan which identifies the site
is a potential park. This is
the subdivision and will
create 2 new track. one of
which will be dedicated
portion of the Parkland. And
the development tends to keep
the community character and
provide for protection.
Natural spaces as outlined in
the comp plans. The the rezone
is going next. I believe next
Monday to to rezone too, to PR
and with that being said, the
staff recommends approval of
the Platte subject to the
conditions found on page for
the staff report. Thank you
that presentation. Do we have
any questions of staff?
Hearing? move on to the
petitioners presentation. If
you'd like to come up to the
podium and
>> states player in for the
record.
>> I my Krasinski we have no
further comments. Sorry to cut
you off else. We have no
further comments and we agree
with the but the statement
said Emily provided created
these conditions. Ok, thank
you. You have 9 minutes and 47
seconds of rebuttal time. Do
we have any questions of the
applicant? Hearing. None. We
will open this up to public
testimony. Is there anyone
wishing to testify on this?
Please come to the podium and
states player named for the
record and you have 3 minutes.
>> Thank My name is Bob French
and I'm a resident of
Government Hill. I'm also on
the Citizens Advisory
Committee for the Out. My
comments are strictly for
myself.
>> I would like to object to
these final recommendation
point on Page 4 for the
floating right away easement
for the Canuck on crossing. As
a member of the aim at
Citizens Advisory Committee. I
cannot speak for them, but I
do recall conversations that
have taken place regarding
whether or not that can a
bridge and any of the
easements or access points to
that should be included in our
current plans that out in the
municipality and also in the
state. I really call here and
young Cullen who is the head
of a actually saying that we
could not really include any
of the any. Projects or things
like that that would be
related to the Bridge because
the bridge does not exist in
any statewide plans. That
doesn't it's not in the step
statewide. Transportation
improvement plan. It's not in
Mats municipal planning
documents and it's it's not.
currently has no funding or
any other available. There's
nothing to say that this
project is ever going to
actually happen. I spent since
2003 as a member of Government
Hill fighting against the
Kindergarten Bridge. And I
will say that I probably have
read Moore more time reading
their financial statements
than anybody in dot. And I can
tell you a lot of the the toll
revenue plans that were
produced by Wilbur Smith
associates. Frankly,
fraudulent as an engineer, I
can tell you that it's what
call reverse engineering.
There were at least 3
different financial plans that
they produced that has allowed
where the the numbers for
traffic. We're clearly derived
from the need for the toll
revenues that they thought
they were going to have.
Frankly, you know, the project
was shut down by Governor
Walker. And it was shut down
because really the state does
not have to extra billion
dollars. You know, say that,
you know, that's that is the
actual realistic cost of the
bridge that we produced back
in 2010. And I could say that
they're through the tariffs
and the cost of steel and
everything else that those
prices are only going to be
going up. So frankly. I think
the best thing to do would be
to either add additional
comments on too saying that
the can a bridge project would
need to be fully funded and
developed in the municipal and
state plans or it should be
reduced, completely removed
completely. think the
testimony we have any
questions. Hearing, none take
a seat and is anyone else
wishing to testify? Thank you.
thank you for that insightful
testimony, by the way. Mr.
Jones actually has a question
for the last speaker. If you'd
like to come back actually
directed towards staff
everyone this time. But staff
regards to the testimony that
we just with the floating
right away and think through
that more mean is that?
>> If something like this
would be funded, would be
taken via eminent domain or
anything like that? I mean, is
it was the purpose of the
flooding right away that
respect. Mr. Young and on here
tonight to speak, speak to it.
But I the you know, in
conversation. The surveyor may
know a little bit more
information, but the
>> Right away. Heads stated
that. During the transfer the
land that there was this
floating right away easement
it doesn't necessarily it's
not a new plant note or
anything. It's just an
existing easement out there
that if it ever does is
constructed. They have this
like agreement between the
municipality in the state that
bill, choose where that goes
for that that portion of the
easement. Let's see. What was
your question specifically?
Again, it was more. Yeah, I
guess is more just like
anything through something
like that where it was it was
it was so they wouldn't have
to do like an eminent domain
is just on the municipal land
there. There's there's that it
gives them the ability to
place a right of way easement
kind of as as they see that
where works as an already
agree upon? It's already.
Yeah. Oh, yeah. The size of it
where place? Where is right?
And this is just stating there
exist in the this easement
through this ATS 14. 21, it
does a state like you said
where it just it's not like a
new plateau. It's carried
forth from the previous plats.
Okay. Thank you. It smells
question for staff.
>> the Community Council
agenda and the meeting Page.
23, the reference that PTS
applied variants arguing that
the place should address the
kid, Casey, because online in
the 2014 plan is not even
close anything specific enough
to be addressed. There's no
platted liner Nothing that a
survey can even show.
>> Do you recall our did you
look into whether or not the
variance for this particular?
>> issue was addressed in
2014.
>> Threw the chair Ms Mills
that believe that was I mean,
that's a that's a kind of a
community meeting that the
surveyor had and the maybe the
port director, they had the
original talks with the pre it
preliminary Platt meetings
that we have. It was it was
talked about as far as maybe
easement being or dedicated
right would be needed. But the
state of Alaska had provided
this to that plant, know that
there's a floating easement
that that's been granted
during the transfer of the
land way back when. thank you
to we don't have access like.
>> We've talked about before,
like from historical documents
with air decision-making.
thank you.
>> Thank Their questions.
Okay. Is there anyone else in
the public wishing to testify?
But this just sit for a couple
seconds to make sure that we
want testify. If you do,
please come to the podium. If
the petitioner like to come
back up and provide any
rebuttal. You have 9 minutes
and 47 seconds to do so.
>> I just want to say have no
objection to any update of any
notes regarding the easement.
I talked actually talk to Bob
duty right away and he
mentioned it. That is just.
There is a place holder like
Sean mentioned. In case the
road is developed in the
future. Yeah, that's really
about.
>> you have any questions of
the petitioners
representative. Mr. Cross, I
guess it's a question for both
petitioner and for staff the
existence of the snow prevents
eminent domain in the future.
But is it problematic to the
development? And I guess if
it's unlikely to happen. I
guess that's kind of the
crystal ball we don't have I
know it's not in the step. I
know that it's not as if it's
not even on a maths radar.
It's been something that's
been a talked about as long as
I can remember, going door
raised in Anchorage. But I
guess it will. This action.
Severely hamper any future
opportunity. Just because of
this particular time, there's
no interest. I guess my
hesitation is that if it's not
a realistic project than the
platinum doesn't matter. But
if there is a remote chance,
given our demographic
challenges and God only knows
what the future looks like.
Having that in, there could be
future benefit that can't be
measured right now. So I guess
for you is the plot know,
yeah, says in consequential.
And it's just something that
into the far off distance
future if it's needed, it's
there but doesn't have
immediate consequence to your
development. No, there's no
immediate consequence. Our
development, it's more It S to
the DOT. I mean, doesn't
matter to me. Development of
community council wants to
develop the land. All right at
this point. So thank you.
>> Hi, my name is Nicole Ream
Ari, a jam and I am on PTS the
representatives for this port
project. one thing I would ask
is if that's a possibility
that the note could be
discussed with dot further to
make sure that the note meets
the. Mr. French was attempting
to say, which is he wasn't
happy with the notice. It was
written right now. But if
there was potential for that
for a fully funded project
because
>> at that point the risk of
having the DOT come in and
potentially please right of
way location in the middle of
a park without funding for 100
years might be problematic.
>> I I as Mike said, we are
not we're not here to
represent government community
Councilor the government Hill
community, but we are
>> close to the Government
Hill Community Council is the
ports representatives and want
to make sure that the park,
which is what it's intended to
be reserved for. at least left
to be viable for as long as
possible. And so if that note
can be something that maybe
after the fact is work
through.
>> Appreciate question for
staff because my experience
with plant notes, they're
pretty particular and I've
never seen a plan note that
had talked about funding. I
mean, I've had requests on
past projects wanting
additional plant notes. The
municipality is. Advised her
not advise but ruled against
that because there's just
particular things that can be
put notes and things that can.
So is that even possibility
that, well, that's your
correct, Mr. Share so.
>> And this does not placing
anything new. It's basically
just stating that there's a of
an agreement that the state
had entered for in the future.
It's a separate document that
that exists. If I'm not
mistaken it's not. It's not a
new plant. Know. It's just
basically stating that there
is disagreement out there.
>> Yeah, go ahead and so.
Threw the chair staff this.
Are you talking about plant
2012, 19 because it is not on
Platt 2012, 19, which is the
current plan for track J.
>> No, I believe it was all
have to take a look. They
didn't reference which plan
that was placed on I believe
was an older plat. That was on
there.
>> Potentially the DOT right
away. Mapping platform 2017,
more than likely. Just for the
information that Platt is
shows a what we engineers call
upon line. It's a thick gray
line shown. Coming into the
property without any bearing
distance in or the east.
Radius is just a line on that
map.
>> I guess throw out I I'm I'm
kind of concerned about adding
a note having it reference
funding because I guess in my
mind and thinking through how
that could be construed they
could say, well, this is going
to be a 10 phase project.
Phase one is we're going to
build the landing pad for this
connect bridge. Now it's fully
funded. And so we need the
right away. You know, so
there's some I think some
technicalities of how that
could be viewed as a well as a
talking about the bridge and
its year. We're talking
about that portion project
that I think. You know, if
we're going to add notes like
that, think the lawyers word
hopefully have a pretty easy
time picking apart they wanted
to. And let's be really dove
into the verge of it. Mr.
Cross to the chair to staff.
So my understanding based on
what I just heard is that we
have 2 opposing place. We have
it in the way platinum. DOT
plot. We're talking
>> Ariel easement people
excuse me, a floating right
away easement that's only on
the DOT plot but not in the in
the way place in which case is
there one that supersedes the
other? Is there one or and if
it's not an animal, a place
that we can. Then why are we
adding to it? I don't like
notes that spreads are not
there. And it's not required
is to put it. I would prefer
to get rid of it if we're not
required. But at the same
time, I don't want to
intercede between some sort of
formal or non from looking at
between dot. Buy a Prius
arrangement that we that
cloudy morning unaware of.
Does that make sense that
that's correct share so it
wouldn't be the agreements.
Are you there? And so the
planning board, if they wish
they could remove plaque, know
3 C from that from from this.
It's We talked the surveyor,
he's basically just stating
facts. It's not placing
anything additional on the
honor. This Platt. But you're
correct with the they grew.
But yeah, it's a planning
board wishes they could strike
that because that agreement
still exists out there, but it
may and it may not. It may
lead to less confusion if
somebody is reading the Platte
because like you said, Klatt
notes kind of forever and
they're more pertaining to
things such as access and
drainage. So even removing it
is in consequential because
it's still exist on the state
dot plot. That's correct. And
so which greetings to seas are
municipal I mean, so I hope
the public understands that if
it's on the state Platt and
Moe is subject to the state,
even if it's not on the
municipal planet still exist.
So then we're just we're
providing, you know, in for me
the emotional service, but not
anything of substance. But
that being a correct
statement, that's no. That's
an incorrect statement. Yeah,
it's a new informational all
right. Thank you very much.
Appreciate that. And the final
questions of representative.
>> like to close the public
hearing. Better rest of the
board. We have a motion. Move
on this ploy second, Mr. Cross
Ploy Cusiter motion.
>> I move in Case S 1, 2, 8,
7, 9, to approve the plan for
24 months. Subject to the
conditions shown on Page 4 of
the staff report.
>> The Ploy would like to
speak your motion.
>> Nothing further than what
save the clerical or
questions.
>> Mr. Cross, which looks
Peter seconds. Yes, just I
want to point out staff
analysis on pages, 3, 4, that
the plant appears to confirm
with a petition cites land-use
clarifications an increased.
24 you land use planning the
government. Government Hill
neighborhood plan. This also
allow for additional park
space to be developed in the
area regards to the public
testimony, removing section
Unfortunately, I think even if
we were to do that just to
justify it would only be. For
entertainment purposes because
exist on the state plan, which
supersedes says so
unfortunately dealing with
that issue is not something
that we can handle even if we
removed, it would still exist.
Therefore, I'm moving forward
with an unaltered. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Cross Miss Mel
says you want to speak to
>> I was actually thinking
about. Motion to remove the
plant now just in case. But
after hearing Okay. Yeah,
agree. It's these plants are
pain to remove. Pain to put
on. kinda stuck between a rock
and a hard place. Dot easy to
work with you there. I mean,
and then there's the whole
issue or if the put in the
landing pad, like you
mentioned, well, then that
floating easement is solid.
All right. So then there's no
not going to pick up a heli
pattern, just move it. So I
think that this would be
fined. So I do intend to
support the motion based on
the existing part track being
subdivided into 2 It still
remains industrial. It's
intended for future Parkland
like to track to 2 no variance
requested no public opposition
except for what you just
received. But we didn't at the
time the community Council
didn't have any objections.
Neither did any of reviewing
agencies and staff to do their
research. And I agree with
their findings.
>> Thank you. Mills. Anyone
else wishing findings. Seeing
none pass the gavel over I
agree with this bill is an Mr
Cross. Honestly, I think that
this weather, this planet
stays honor It's remote. Is
this kind of moot point
because it's already on the
state plot. agree with the
logic of the presenter and I
think that. I agree Mr. Cross
from a lot of Platte notes are
just not needed and muddy the
waters more come more often
than not. But I don't really
see removing this. Making much
of a difference of what enough
don't support.
Was that the
motion passes? Moving on to
tease us. Want to eat for. We
have presentation.
>> Thank March Air. So this is
a request for a subdivision of
one tract of land into one
lot, 3 tracks and the request
for a vacation of a 60 foot
public use easement those
record. But booking page. So
this plan actual dedicate the
required 60 feet or right away
in the line with existing
location, Highland Road. This
is out in river of Highland
Road and it's a it's 117 Acres
Subdivision. So vacation
request. The petitioners
vacating 60 feet public use
easement. We can see that on
the second page of the Platte.
It's basically just outside
Highland Road. The road is in
a different alignment. So
we're and they're going to be
dedicating 60 feet of public
use, which is what we need
more like, you know, centered
on actual road that's out
there. they were in support of
that. And then in the matter
of the vacation request, staff
finds that conditions want to
have been met the right away.
The deputy that existing extra
right of way is in excess to
miss will need for any of for
any future public needs. We
won't need it. They're going
to dedicate that 60 right away
within the current alignment
of Highland Road. Like I
mentioned. He's not lying on
the our quarter mile grid for
conditions. 3, 4 staff finds
conditions. 5 has been met and
not going to have any impact
on traffic circulation. The
dedication of the right away.
provide. We will be provided
to replace this and in the
actual alignment of that
construction. Highland Road
is, as I've said, there will
be able to maintain access to
all the remaining properties
and staff finds in condition.
6 has been met. The vacation
will result in a realignment
of the proposed education
right away and does not impact
traffic circulation. Therefore
staff does find that the right
ways in excess us will need
recommends approval to
occasion, which is on the on
the staff report we also
recommend approval of the
Platte. The plan to plant
meets all the applicable
zoning district in the river
for total. 21 for the proposed
lots and tracks the
petitioners here to speak on
any of it as well. Thank you.
Thank you that presentation.
We have any questions of
staff.
>> Seeing none. We'll move on
to the petitioners
presentation like to please
come up to the podium and
state inspired him for the
record and you have 10
minutes. But sorry can turn
your mic on please. been down
little. Attorney, grey area.
>> name is Jeremy Hearst Time.
The petitioners
representative, I do have to
point to one error, the
vacation of the public use
easement he's currently to
public use easements on that
income or the land of one of
them follows existing Highland
Road right away or what we
found dedicating the other. A
public use easement was
intended to cover Highland
Road. But it deviates from
from these as the actual
alignment. I believe that the
Planning Department staff. Got
those incorrect, which one was
being vacated, which one was
not. I don't know if we can
make that change. Now. But
it's the principle from what's
being recommended that I don't
think there's any change and
that.
>> Games of Mr. Jeremy, Mr.
Hurst is on Page 5 of the
staff report. Is that the
correct booking page? That's
what you're referring to
cracked the book's 16. 59
pages. A 16 17 is what you
what is to be vacated.
>> No, that that's incorrect,
Okay, right. It's it's book a
1, 5, 7, 5 pages. 8.34 through
Page 8.35 Okay. And I have I
have paper copies of both with
me today. Okay.
>> Just so planning board
knows Jeremy did come in,
discussed picking this up for
different planners. Not here.
We were supposed to swap
those. And Jeremy, we are
vacating, though, the next a
Highland Road, correct? again,
that the portion that's being
vacated, though, is that the
pieces next to Highland Road
that's outside of the real
time. And it's that's the
public use Museum outside of
the existing road alignment.
Okay. So in for the clerk,
it'll be would just need a
page. Book 15. 75 page 8.34 In
a 35 in just staff. Feel
comfortable with this or does
it need? Yes, survey or come
to the counter, remember this
conversation with Mr. Hatcher.
>> And we had transpose those
in the staff reports.
>> are you able to bring up a
copy of of the plan on screen?
I could. It's it's noted
correctly on the plan itself.
Okay.
>> That was just said so did
our a so So the staff, you
know, about establishing yes,
that that's the correct that
will make it correct. Okay. I
think we're good. So You
continue on. Okay, great,
great. I just agreement with
the staff recommendations.
Otherwise.
>> I just wanted to add that
this parcel is an original
homestead created by the Genki
family unfortunately Mr.
Jenkins chunky have passed
away and they've left to the
property to their heirs. Their
offspring and the purpose of
the subdivision is so that the
children can split remaining
parcel.
>> Is that the and your
testimony that doesn't money
here you have any questions.
Great. You have 6 minutes and
backup couple surprise doesn't
matter. 6.48, scored. You'll
have 6 months to 40 seconds of
rebuttal needed. Do we have
any questions? Of the
petitioner? Mr. Cross? 48%
grade. That must have been
quite the accomplishment to
survey that It has some very
steep steep terrain in there
for sure.
>> Yeah, that's a that would
something to behold. Thank
Miss Mills has a question for
staff.
>> So that's our through the
chair what happens because all
of the reviewing agencies are
actually is it the same event
that's recorded in book 60 59
at Page's 8, 17.
>> To all the reviewing
agencies review the wrong
tracked. Well, they were
looking at this packet.
>> To the chairman, smells
know the very image says we're
looking at the Platte as
Jeremy. It stated in the end
and it says which the 60 foot
that's to be vacated this
place and it outlines its not
shaded. But Rosen outlines it.
So they're looking at the
correct thing. It's just the
pages off.
>> Right? they can page 33 to
will.
>> And like all of these, all
of the rating agencies or
reference to.
>> Yeah, that's just just kind
of clerical where they're
looking at the correct thing
when they're reviewing the
plat. I just want to make sure
yeah.
>> I know errors and actually
in the 10's sometimes that
leads Sybase as want to make
sure. Thank you.
>> Any other questions of the
Seeing none. You take a seat
open this up for public
testimony is there are there
any members of the public
wishing testify? If so, please
come up. And Steve inspiring
for the record. Saying none.
Do you want to use your
rebuttal time? Yep. 6 minutes.
I think 48 seconds left. If
you'd like to add anything
else. With the close, the
public hearing the matter rest
of the board. We have a motion
for the vacation. First. We
want this cross second. Mister
Jones, Mr. Cross can use it.
Your motion.
>> I move to approve the
request for vacation. Recorded
60 foot public easement
recorded in book 15. 75 pages
8.34, through 8.35 Subject to
conditions.
>> Subject
>> to subject to condition.
One recording a single plot
within 24 months. approval.
And then as A B B is a
separate motion. Okay. We'd
like to speak your motion.
Yeah. again, the review
agencies and staff analysis on
pages 3, 4,
>> That the
>> that there seeing the
review agencies and met all
the criteria. And also there
was no negative public
comments. The purpose of this
land is still continue its
existing use and just
replatting for the purposes
the estate. To either
liquidate or build houses as
they see fit and the and I see
no significant change in the
use the land. Thank
>> Mr. Cross Pasar Jones looks
Peter second.
>> Yes, thank you. I I. And
support the motion as well. I
just see as the general
cleanup, which I think is good
to do. I will say that I do
see the note on Page 40 to our
staff report where shows the
plot? It's little hard to see.
Obviously, since we just have
a fy 11, the one comment that
I do want to make is that
what's referenced here,
though, is use easement book
15. 75 page 8.34 I don't see a
35 listed. So I did want to
just bring that up to. They
could about plot. So I don't
know if that's something that
clarification on his be added
to the plot to Jones,
generosity clarified booking
page or if it's fine leave it
as I do it in a sport. Staff
have any comments on that. No,
its You pull works 15 75 huge.
Huge research by a 34 new
poll. Both pages on that.
>> So it would be one of the
same. think the clarification
forget that are thanks. Ms
Mills. Are you wishing that
findings?
>> Yes, I intend to support
this motion. I would like to
they sit on the fact that the
existing public use easement
is no longer necessary because
it does not correspond to the
actual location of Highland
Road. The public purpose
formally served by these men
will be better served through
dedication of a replacement
public right of way that
aligns with the construction
roadway and thereby preserving
access. Well, eliminating an
inaccurate encumbrance.
>> Thank you, Miss Mills. Any
other. Let's call vote.
With
that. The motion passes for
the vacation. Now, do we have
a motion for the planet? My
best mills. Mister Jones. This
Mills case it your motion.
>> I'm moving Case S 1, 2, 8,
7, 9, 2, approved plat for 24
months. Subject to the
conditions shown on page for
the staff report.
>> The Miss Mills which looks
Peter motion.
>> I would just like to use
the same approval criteria
based our decision on for the
vacation request as well.
Staff did a good met all the
criteria. It's and not in
excess, but it is being
replaced. Its works. It works
good. And I think staff
definitely agree staff's
analysis.
>> Thank you. Miss Mills, Mr.
Jones a speech or Nothing
additional add. Thank Thank
you, Mr. Jones and the last
findings they like to and
seeing none. Let's call a
vote. And with that, the
motion passes. Since we had
our postponement, can move on
to board member comments. Any
comments amongst board
members. Seeing none. We have
a motion adjourn Mr. Cross.
Mills. We are adjourned.
Sorry, Lori. no longer the.
>> He said. Imports face. You.
too. says.