[0:11] Thank you.

[0:13] Okay, we'll get the June 9th DRC

[0:18] meeting started and it's 10:00 a.m.

[0:22] Um rolling right into it. The first item

[0:24] on the agenda is review of the

[0:27] site plan for proposed Taco Bell

[0:29] restaurant. This is a second review of

[0:33] this application. Um it was tabled back

[0:36] in May um due to some comments they had

[0:39] to work through and do. So, this is

[0:40] their resubmittal on there.

[0:42] Um

[0:44] and as I said before, this is a

[0:48] uh site plan application. The DRC is the

[0:51] final approval body for this as a

[0:53] uh permitted use which within this zone.

[0:56] So, just a kind of

[1:00] little bit more background. It is

[1:01] located on the west side of the Macy's

[1:04] parking lot

[1:05] um directly north of the the Fizz

[1:08] building and

[1:10] um

[1:11] it's the vacant lot that a lot of people

[1:13] park in there. So,

[1:15] with that, um we'll

[1:18] again, kind of the main comments that

[1:20] they had to address was related to storm

[1:22] drain and parking from previously. Um

[1:26] so, we'll just go around and see if

[1:28] there's any other comments from the the

[1:30] DRC and we'll cover those things.

[1:32] We do have online via Zoom Brian Kemp

[1:36] who is representing the the applicant on

[1:38] this one. So,

[1:40] Randy, if you have any comments?

[1:42] >> Nope, I'm good.

[1:43] >> Okay.

[1:44] >> Great, thank you. Morgan?

[1:45] >> Yeah, there's a few things from the

[1:47] community development department. In

[1:48] analyzing the parking code, it looks

[1:50] like

[1:51] we're

[1:52] four spaces short of what's required. In

[1:55] the code, it speaks about the the

[1:57] requirement. It's one space per four

[2:00] seats including outdoor seating or one

[2:02] space per 125 sq ft of gross floor area,

[2:06] whichever is greater. So, the

[2:07] requirement is that we go off of

[2:09] whichever is greater. And when we take

[2:12] the square footage

[2:14] methodology, it translates to 18

[2:17] spaces. And so, we would need to try to

[2:19] pick up four more spaces. In a previous

[2:21] site plan,

[2:23] I believe is the initial submittal

[2:24] showed three spaces

[2:27] just

[2:29] Yeah,

[2:30] just just south of where the dumpster

[2:32] area is.

[2:33] And so, if you we were able to bring

[2:35] those back and find a way to add another

[2:37] space, then that would get us to the

[2:39] minimum requirement. And so, I would kind of recommend to

[2:44] the applicant, you know, looking at that

[2:47] dumpster area.

[2:48] If you're able to pull that up further

[2:52] into the site, and so, probably is going

[2:54] in like west.

[2:56] Then you might be able to pick up a

[2:57] couple spaces

[2:59] to the rear of the dumpster. And so, and

[3:01] maybe even just angling the dumpster

[3:04] itself would allow you to fit more

[3:05] spaces. But kind of looking in that

[3:06] area,

[3:08] you'd probably be able to be able to

[3:09] pick up those those four spaces.

[3:14] » Any question on that, Brian?

[3:15] >> No, thanks for the comment. And I know

[3:17] that

[3:18] my co-worker Nicole reached out to the

[3:20] planning staff and discussed this

[3:22] early on. I can't remember exactly what

[3:24] she

[3:25] talked with with someone about that.

[3:28] I'll revisit that conversation. Yeah,

[3:30] with the added island there to screen

[3:32] the trash dumpster, we had to get rid of

[3:34] one space. Um

[3:35] And I thought my calculation was right

[3:37] that we could get rid of those, but

[3:38] maybe I looked at that incorrectly. So,

[3:41] we'll revisit that.

[3:42] >> Yeah, so the code

[3:43] >> Let me know if I have any questions.

[3:45] >> No, I appreciate that. The code,

[3:47] if you look at it, it's it has the two

[3:49] options, but it's which which are

[3:51] >> or greater

[3:52] >> is greater. And so,

[3:54] >> Got you.

[3:54] >> Yeah, at this methodology was lower then

[3:56] we would go off the greater of the gross

[3:58] floor area and so that's that's what we

[4:00] did.

[4:01] The other was the

[4:03] kind of the dumpster landscaping you did

[4:05] provide back

[4:07] the the landscaping area just south of

[4:09] the dumpster

[4:11] but I believe that needs to be

[4:12] landscaped with shrubs. I don't think

[4:14] that was identified in the landscaping

[4:15] plan. So just just look at that make

[4:17] sure that that little area meets the

[4:20] minimum.

[4:21] >> Okay, perfect.

[4:24] >> Anything else Morgan?

[4:27] Jason?

[4:28] >> Just as we discussed the the pressurized

[4:30] irrigation meter last time it looked

[4:33] like

[4:34] when I when I was down there that Macy's

[4:37] has hooked up to that meter and is using

[4:39] it for their

[4:40] irrigation now

[4:42] and I noticed on the plans here that it

[4:44] doesn't really show an irrigation meter

[4:45] so I don't know if we're planning on

[4:47] hooking to the culinary to provide that

[4:49] outside watering

[4:51] and if we are

[4:53] you know, do we need to will we will

[4:54] have to provide some type of a backflow

[4:57] on it.

[4:59] >> Do you have a comment on that Brian on

[5:01] >> Yeah, it's on the landscaping plans.

[5:04] We show the

[5:05] irrigation and the meter.

[5:09] I think the last time we had a comment

[5:10] was to remove the RPZ from that cuz

[5:12] we're hooking to the culinary line.

[5:14] I'm sorry hooking to the irrigation

[5:16] line.

[5:17] So we took the RPZ off of that.

[5:21] Did I not include that in the submittal?

[5:24] irrigation plans

[5:25] >> landscaping

[5:32] » I was just looking on the other plan

[5:34] that showed the water meter and the

[5:35] sewer connection.

[5:38] >> Gotcha. Yeah, those are the private utilities. I must have

[5:41] forgotten to put the irrigation plan in

[5:42] that set when I submitted it to you. I'm

[5:44] so sorry.

[5:45] >> We do not have that so

[5:47] again, just making sure that we're if

[5:49] you're if you do have that included in

[5:51] the landscaping plan, that's that's

[5:52] fine.

[5:53] >> Yep.

[5:54] >> We just need to make sure

[5:56] we know when and where that's that meter

[5:59] is going to be set and where you're

[5:59] going to make that connection. So, I

[6:02] know there is that existing meter

[6:05] in what's are you planning on connecting

[6:08] after the Macy's meter or

[6:11] um

[6:12] >> Uh I think so and I think there was a

[6:14] comment last time that we needed to

[6:16] explore what was connected to that

[6:17] meter. Um that's something that we

[6:20] probably have a contractor do

[6:22] and deal with that in the field.

[6:24] Um cuz I don't know if we've got a way

[6:26] of figuring that out

[6:28] in advance.

[6:30] >> So, it

[6:31] says we should be able to do that. Don't

[6:34] have any major concern with doing that,

[6:35] so.

[6:36] >> No, that that would work.

[6:38] >> Okay.

[6:39] >> And then chair

[6:40] >> Thank you.

[6:41] >> J- just yeah, while we're on like

[6:42] irrigation,

[6:44] um there is a requirement that the turf

[6:46] area cannot be more than 35% of the

[6:49] total landscaped area. And so, we'll

[6:51] need to have that clarified in the

[6:53] landscaping plans, the the the

[6:55] calculation for that and it kind of kind

[6:57] of broken out. It appears that

[6:59] um

[7:00] it it's it's quite a bit more, um but it

[7:02] was hard to to kind of tell um what was

[7:05] turf and what what's not.

[7:07] So, it's at the 35% cap on the landscape

[7:10] area.

[7:12] >> Okay.

[7:14] >> I apologize I didn't hear that very

[7:15] well. I'm assuming you guys will mark up

[7:17] these comments like you did last time

[7:18] and we can address them.

[7:19] >> Yeah, the the comment was that the

[7:22] overall turf area exceeds what our code

[7:25] will allow.

[7:26] Um our code currently limits the amount

[7:29] of turf to 35%.

[7:31] And um so, that would just have to be

[7:34] adjusted and make sure we're

[7:36] in compliance with that.

[7:37] >> So, John, to clarify, we can't tell

[7:39] whether it exceeds. It's hard to to know

[7:41] what the

[7:42] what's being turf and which isn't. So,

[7:44] we we just need that to include that in

[7:46] a either in a table or a note or

[7:48] something that says this is how much is

[7:50] turf, this is how much is cobble or

[7:52] whatever else is planned there, right?

[7:53] So, it it it appears that it may exceed, but we

[7:56] don't know that.

[7:57] >> Yeah, and and we did include include a

[7:59] note on the sheet the legend sheet.

[8:02] >> Okay.

[8:04] Otherwise, you want if it's not turf,

[8:06] you want it to be cobble or something

[8:08] similar.

[8:09] >> You just can't exceed 35% of turf. We

[8:11] don't we don't have an interpretation or

[8:13] a preference of what we want. You just

[8:15] can't the code is you can't have more

[8:17] than 35% turf of the landscaped area.

[8:20] >> Okay.

[8:21] >> Sounds good.

[8:24] >> Okay, Mike.

[8:25] Police.

[8:27] >> Nothing. They moved the trees back and I

[8:29] believe they're set back far enough it

[8:30] won't be a

[8:32] issue anymore.

[8:33] >> Okay.

[8:35] Alan, fire.

[8:36] >> Uh we had nothing with the fire

[8:39] department.

[8:40] >> Okay.

[8:41] Norm, administration.

[8:42] >> Yeah, so just having driven recently

[8:45] through a development that's not this

[8:47] development but in another town,

[8:49] um

[8:50] I wonder if it would be prudent to have

[8:52] not only the trees but the but some

[8:54] sight triangles added on there for the

[8:56] where the dumpster is.

[8:57] I'm concerned that that dumpster is

[8:59] going to be way high up in the air and potentially be a visible uh uh uh um

[9:04] obscurity to

[9:06] a sight distance on that.

[9:08] >> He's

[9:08] >> On that corner going in right there.

[9:10] >> These trying to

[9:11] >> got it already on there.

[9:12] >> Yep.

[9:13] >> Okay. All right. All right, I didn't see

[9:15] that, but thank you for for

[9:18] Okay, that's great.

[9:20] Thank you.

[9:21] >> Yep.

[9:22] >> Sir.

[9:23] >> Listen here.

[9:25] >> I don't have anything else, Joe.

[9:26] >> Okay.

[9:29] >> Sounds like the the plans were short

[9:31] landscaping. Is that what I'm

[9:32] understanding? We didn't get receive the

[9:33] landscaping plans.

[9:34] >> The irrigation plans.

[9:35] >> Irrigation plans. Okay.

[9:37] >> Yeah, I'm so sorry. I must have just

[9:38] forgotten to put that in the set of

[9:39] plans. We get them All that stuff is

[9:41] designed separately and I must have just

[9:43] forgotten to grab it and and attach it

[9:45] to this.

[9:46] It was included last time.

[9:47] And I had the uh

[9:49] landscape architect that we hired for

[9:51] this remove the RPZ off of the sprinkler

[9:54] line

[9:55] since it was connected to the sprinkler

[9:57] uh

[9:57] irrigation line that the city provides.

[10:03] So, that was that was my mistake. I

[10:04] apologize.

[10:05] >> Same.

[10:06] Um

[10:08] one other just note that

[10:11] um

[10:11] the uh it's not included in this plan

[10:14] set, but previously, but it's a

[10:15] continuing comment that um ARC still

[10:19] needs to review the architectural plans

[10:21] for the site.

[10:23] >> Correct.

[10:23] >> Um and just whenever you're

[10:25] um ready to have those submitted to

[10:27] review, we can get that scheduled.

[10:30] >> Perfect. Thank you so much.

[10:32] >> Um I'm just double-checking here. Make

[10:34] sure we covered all the redline

[10:36] comments. Yep, parking.

[10:43] And irrigation.

[10:45] I believe that.

[10:52] » Then we'll add some shrubs to that

[10:53] little island there.

[10:54] >> Yep.

[10:55] Okay.

[10:56] >> Easy enough.

[11:00] » Um coming at the lawn, I believe that's

[11:03] it. So,

[11:05] Okay.

[11:06] Um with that

[11:08] >> I have a I have a question or a thought.

[11:11] This site plan does not approve any

[11:12] signage, right? Signage is done on a

[11:14] separate permit.

[11:16] So, please be aware that that that is

[11:18] separate to and including if you exceed

[11:20] the number of signs on different sides

[11:22] of buildings. That's that's similar to

[11:24] the ARC with the with the elevations and

[11:27] stuff. That is a separate process. So,

[11:29] make sure that you recognize that this

[11:31] site plan does not approve any signage

[11:33] on the building or otherwise.

[11:36] >> Correct. Yeah, and Aspen's been great

[11:38] helping me get through some of those

[11:39] requirements there, too. So, I

[11:41] appreciate that.

[11:45] » Okay, there's not any other comments or

[11:48] questions?

[11:49] I would look for a motion. Again, DRC is

[11:52] the uh final approval body for this

[11:55] uh application.

[11:56] >> So, I have a question on not having the

[11:58] full plan set. How do we How do we

[12:00] approve that

[12:02] without having the irrigation plans? How does that

[12:05] >> So, we do

[12:08] That's a

[12:08] >> going to say I I'd get that to you

[12:09] today. I'm so sorry.

[12:11] Doesn't help. I'm I'm I'm guessing we'll

[12:13] probably have to come back since I

[12:15] forgot a sheet.

[12:16] >> Well, wait. We do need the parking

[12:17] added, the the four spaces. I don't know

[12:19] if we can do that as a conditional

[12:21] approval or if we would rather have that

[12:23] come back as a

[12:24] >> I To I guess the question would be is

[12:28] who is specifically applies to.

[12:31] So, if there's Again, if there's one

[12:33] department that is respon- that would be

[12:36] responsible following through on that,

[12:38] then potentially could be

[12:40] uh

[12:41] >> [snorts]

[12:41] >> conditionally approved. Um

[12:44] with working through that. Otherwise, it

[12:46] would need to come back to the full body

[12:47] to review.

[12:48] >> So, Morgan, I have a question on that.

[12:50] They could [snorts] also try to seek a

[12:52] shared parking agreement, right? With the Macy's or Is that a

[12:57] possibility, but that goes to planning

[12:59] commission, right?

[13:00] >> That is a possibility we could do.

[13:01] >> So, so there are a couple of avenues

[13:02] that they could take that we're unsure

[13:04] of at this point in time. If they can't

[13:05] come up with the other four stalls, then we still have to to

[13:10] um have it go to planning commission if

[13:12] they try to do a a shared parking

[13:13] agreement.

[13:14] >> Yeah, that's correct.

[13:15] >> So, with that, I would make a motion to

[13:17] table.

[13:19] >> Okay, we have motion to table.

[13:21] >> Second the motion.

[13:23] >> Second by Morgan.

[13:24] >> Any conversation on motion?

[13:28] Seeing none, we'll to vote. All in favor

[13:30] of tabling, please say aye.

[13:31] >> Aye.

[13:32] >> Any opposed? Okay, motion's tabled.

[13:35] Uh we'll get these comments back to you,

[13:37] Brian.

[13:38] Um

[13:39] and you work with with Morgan and Aspen

[13:41] on uh some of the parking items related

[13:44] to that. So.

[13:45] >> Perfect. Thank you all very much. I

[13:47] appreciate your time.

[13:48] >> Yep, thank you.

[13:49] >> Have a great day.

[13:50] >> You too.

[13:53] Okay.

[13:54] Um

[13:55] with that, because we're

[13:58] no longer need to be on Zoom, I think

[14:01] we'll

[14:03] close that down, just so I don't have to

[14:05] babysit that.

[14:10] Okay, the next item on the agenda,

[14:13] this is an old traffic control request

[14:16] um from last year.

[14:19] Uh

[14:21] there was there's a resident um here

[14:24] that indicated there was some concern

[14:26] with uh speeding and vehicles going up

[14:31] Canyon Road, and they're requesting some

[14:33] sort of traffic control device such as a

[14:35] speed bump or uh something along those

[14:37] lines to help slow people down.

[14:40] Um we did do a an traffic analysis last

[14:44] fall, early fall, late uh late summer

[14:48] um to try to catch that. There were some

[14:51] elements there that may

[14:53] that they were concerned with um that

[14:56] were expressed on uh

[14:59] the timing of that traffic study that

[15:01] was done.

[15:02] And so, to help capture a weekend uh

[15:08] you know, trip, catch in weekend holiday

[15:10] traffic going up San Joaquin Canyon

[15:13] there to see what, you know, the

[15:15] [clears throat]

[15:16] traffic impact is was in on there. We

[15:19] postponed

[15:21] uh

[15:22] doing any action on this one until we

[15:23] could get that traffic study completed.

[15:26] We did place out traffic counters over

[15:29] the

[15:30] Memorial Day weekend.

[15:32] And as as a part of the study and found

[15:35] that we're

[15:38] roughly about 1,700 cars total for the

[15:42] week that the study was being completed.

[15:45] Um, that traffic study I'll pull up here

[15:48] real quick. So you can kind of see

[15:51] um, some of the numbers.

[15:54] Um,

[15:56] to [snorts] point out the average

[15:59] uh,

[16:00] annual daily trip count for this, so the

[16:02] daily trip count was 235 over that week.

[16:07] Um, again, there were 1,600

[16:09] vehicles

[16:11] over that week that went up to it.

[16:14] Um,

[16:15] and one thing that was found out with

[16:19] this with this traffic study is that

[16:22] most vehicles are exceeding the 25 mph

[16:25] speed limit up through there.

[16:28] Um,

[16:30] however, with that said,

[16:32] um,

[16:34] per the MUTCD, the Manual on Uniform Traffic

[16:38] Control Devices,

[16:40] the volume of vehicles doesn't warrant

[16:43] any

[16:44] traffic control devices.

[16:46] Just because of the the volume of

[16:48] traffic is is relatively low.

[16:51] It's actually low and doesn't require

[16:53] any of those devices installed.

[16:58] Uh, with that said,

[16:59] based on this, it does appear that

[17:01] people are speeding on that road.

[17:04] Um, just so you're aware, to try to help

[17:08] take out any

[17:09] driveway traffic or

[17:12] and to eliminate potential any vehicle

[17:15] traffic from the intersection and the

[17:17] subdivision here to the north.

[17:20] We did place the traffic counters

[17:23] in this area, just to the north and west

[17:26] of the um the this is our booster pump

[17:30] station, and then the end of the curve

[17:32] ends right here. And so, this was to to

[17:35] help capture specifically

[17:38] canyon traffic um related to that. So,

[17:41] we are seeing that

[17:43] um we did see that people are speeding

[17:45] up through here. Um

[17:47] but the the amount of vehicles is not

[17:52] uh is pretty low.

[17:54] >> [snorts]

[17:54] >> So, um

[17:57] with that, um I'll go around the DRC. If

[18:00] there's any comments, thoughts, or

[18:02] questions on this, again, this was the

[18:04] original request was for speed bumps up

[18:07] through there. Um

[18:08] which, based on this study, I don't

[18:11] speed bumps are speed bumps aren't

[18:12] warranted, and I don't think it'd be a

[18:14] wise decision to place speed bumps up in

[18:16] this area. But with that said, we'll

[18:19] open it up to the DRC for any thoughts

[18:20] or comments.

[18:24] » John, most of the vehicles, if I'm

[18:26] reading this chart right, are below the

[18:28] 10 over

[18:30] speed limit, correct?

[18:31] >> Yes.

[18:32] >> And

[18:34] uh correct me if I'm wrong, you guys

[18:35] might know, but I believe that's a

[18:36] actually on a grade downhill right

[18:39] there.

[18:39] >> Yes, it

[18:40] >> So, people are typically, especially if

[18:42] they're pulling trailers up to camp or

[18:43] whatever, going to pick up speed and try

[18:45] to be slowing down about that point.

[18:47] >> Mhm.

[18:47] >> Um I'm I I agree with you that I don't

[18:50] think speed bumps would be the answer

[18:52] there.

[18:54] Um

[18:54] I know that we have a flashing stop sign

[18:56] right there at that next intersection,

[18:58] so people are stopping.

[19:00] Um I just I get people are speeding, but

[19:03] I don't think that it's like an

[19:04] egregious speed.

[19:06] Um

[19:07] and that that's just my opinion on it.

[19:10] >> Mhm.

[19:12] Okay.

[19:12] >> Are there other maybe like smaller

[19:14] measures that the city can do? Like one

[19:16] of those electronic signs that could

[19:18] flash cuz if it's more of just a

[19:20] speeding issue is there something I

[19:22] guess

[19:23] just like on a lighter end that that the

[19:25] city could could do for seeing like a I don't I don't I don't know what the

[19:28] percentile was but if you're seeing like

[19:31] the majority of people are speeding

[19:33] you know, 10 miles plus

[19:36] you know, it is striping is or some sort

[19:39] of sign in the future that that we could

[19:41] add that could kind of just help to to

[19:43] bring that that number down a little

[19:44] bit. I say that just cuz this isn't a

[19:46] recreation area. I could see there be

[19:48] mountain bikers, hikers.

[19:49] >> Mhm.

[19:50] >> If you don't have sidewalks that you

[19:51] know, could could be using the the

[19:53] [clears throat] roadway as well.

[19:55] >> Um well, additional signage um

[19:58] you you can and say a lot of times you

[20:00] can put up additional signage. The only

[20:02] concern with that that comes up with is

[20:04] sign fatigue.

[20:06] Um you start putting up too many signs

[20:09] people just stop paying attention to

[20:11] signs. And so, um

[20:14] again, there's the a possibility. I

[20:16] think there's already speed limit sign

[20:19] up in this area. If I remember

[20:21] correctly, as you're heading up the

[20:22] canyon, there's a speed limit sign

[20:24] already there to help

[20:27] notify the traveling public what the

[20:29] speed limit is.

[20:30] If you

[20:31] go and you do put in a flashing speed

[20:34] limit sign, something similar to what we

[20:36] have down

[20:38] uh

[20:39] just off of 500 South and 200 West, 300

[20:42] West that intersection

[20:44] um down through there, um we do have a flashing speed limit sign.

[20:49] >> Has that made a difference?

[20:52] >> It I think it does but in

[20:55] my opinion is those flashing speed limit

[20:57] signs are more for when you have a speed

[20:59] limit change.

[21:00] You know, to notify people, "Hey, the

[21:02] speed limit actually drops down." But in

[21:04] this section, it doesn't change. It's

[21:05] the same.

[21:08] It

[21:08] So, I think a speed limit sign

[21:11] serves the same purpose as a flashing

[21:13] speed limit sign. That's just

[21:15] kind of based on police departments

[21:18] I don't know, experiences those will

[21:20] help when it changes to say, "Hey, just

[21:23] remember the speed limit lowers here."

[21:25] But, it's not going to keep them from

[21:27] speeding or not speeding.

[21:29] >> Correct. Yeah. And someone I say I think

[21:31] the biggest element Mike hit on there

[21:33] earlier is the the fact that it is a

[21:35] downhill incline at that point. Um and

[21:41] uh there

[21:43] I say it's not excessive speeding as

[21:44] Mike said. Um

[21:47] but for the purposes of this of the the

[21:50] DRC

[21:51] um

[21:52] uh

[21:53] enforcement and that kind of stuff,

[21:54] that's a whole another element, whole

[21:56] other thing that can be taken care of uh

[21:59] aside from this. But, again, this is

[22:00] specifically for some sort of traffic

[22:03] control.

[22:04] Um I I

[22:06] agree with Mike. I think the flashing

[22:08] signs um

[22:12] serve a purpose, which I don't think

[22:14] this specific area would would fit that

[22:17] purpose.

[22:17] >> Yeah.

[22:18] and I I I guess and that that's

[22:19] totally fine. Um I was thinking more of

[22:22] um

[22:23] so, this might sit outside of that. This

[22:25] could just be an area to look at as um

[22:28] get more of your foot traffic or your

[22:30] cycle traffic. I I've driven up there a

[22:32] bunch of times. I always see runners

[22:34] or or uh bikers on the road. And so,

[22:36] that that may be an area as we start to

[22:38] see that like that more pedestrian

[22:41] cyclists increase where they're they're

[22:43] sharing the the roadway. There's not a

[22:44] sidewalk. Where um

[22:46] you know, just watching the speeds and

[22:48] if if we are seeing that problem

[22:50] increasing, like doing something up there could could be wise.

[22:53] >> Yep. I'd say we can

[22:55] uh we we will pay attention to that and keep an eye on it. But, for For for

[23:00] this purpose um

[23:02] and It is an action item by the DRC.

[23:06] And so, um if we don't feel it is

[23:08] needed, I'd look for a motion on that.

[23:12] >> You all know I make a motion that we

[23:13] deny the traffic control request.

[23:16] >> Okay.

[23:16] >> I'll second it. Second.

[23:19] >> Any discussion on the motion?

[23:21] See none. All in favor, please say I.

[23:24] >> I.

[23:24] >> Any opposed? Okay, motion passes.

[23:28] Uh the last item on the agenda was a

[23:30] review of the meeting minutes from May

[23:33] 12th.

[23:34] Um there's no comments on those minutes.

[23:37] I'd look for a motion.

[23:39] >> I'll make a motion to approve the

[23:40] minutes

[23:41] >> [snorts]

[23:41] >> Okay.

[23:41] >> of the May 12th meeting.

[23:43] >> Got a motion to approve. Is there a

[23:44] second?

[23:44] >> I'll second it.

[23:45] >> Second by Alan.

[23:47] Any comments?

[23:49] See none. All in favor, please say I.

[23:51] >> I.

[23:52] >> Any opposed?

[23:54] Okay.

[23:55] There's anything else needed by the DRC,

[23:57] I'd look for a motion to adjourn.

[23:59] >> So moved.

[24:00] >> Sounds good. We are adjourned at 10:24.

[24:03] Thank you, everybody.

[24:14] » That's good.

Santaquin City Development Review Committee Meeting - June 9, 2026

Transcript