[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.