[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.