[2:19] Good evening, everyone. I'd like to call
the Planning Commission meeting of
[2:22] August 26, 2026 to order at 6:01 p.m. If
we could please have roll call.
[2:28] » Yes, Commissioner Santos.
>> Present.
[2:31] » Vice Chairperson Ortiz.
>> Here.
[2:33] » Commissioner France.
>> Present.
[2:36] » And just for the record, Commissioners
Slater and Scarboro-Aguilar absent.
[2:40] » Thank you very much.
Commissioner Santos, can you lead us in
[2:44] the pledge?
>> Yes, ma'am.
[2:45] » Thank you.
[3:09] Thank you.
Um, okay, we'll have a minute for
[3:14] information from staff, Brian.
>> Yes, thank you, Chairwoman and to the
[3:17] Commission. I just wanted to advise the
Commission this evening that the item
[3:22] 6.3, that's the Lincoln Apartments
project, we are going to remove that
[3:28] from the agenda tonight. We're going to
bring that back on September 9th, 2026.
[3:33] So, that is the very next meeting. Staff
is working with the applicant to go over
[3:39] some sequel review, and we will bring it
right back. But, as far as tonight, we
[3:44] won't come to item 6.3. We will not open
up the hearing. It's been formally
[3:50] withdrawn from the or asking you to
formally withdraw from the agenda
[3:54] tonight. If someone wants to speak, they
could do it during the the public
[3:58] comment for items not on the agenda. And
that would be my recommendation to you.
[4:03] » Thank you. Do we need a motion to
withdraw it from the agenda?
[4:05] » No.
Um may I just add also to ensure that um
[4:11] if anyone has public comments on this
item, um
[4:15] they can
make them during um general public
[4:19] comment like Brian said, um but to
ensure that their comments are
[4:23] considered as part of the administrative
record pertaining to item
[4:28] uh 6.3,
um we ask that those public comments are
[4:32] provided again
um when the item returns to the
[4:35] commission.
Or they or they can submit it in
[4:38] writing.
>> Thank you.
[4:40] Okay.
Um with that little housekeeping item
[4:43] done, let's move on to public comment.
I'll go ahead and open the public
[4:46] comment. Is there anyone here who would
like to speak on items that are not on
[4:50] the agenda?
Anyone online?
[4:53] » I have no requests.
>> Nope. Okay, seeing none, we'll go ahead
[4:56] and close the public comment.
And we'll move on to item 4.1 uh the
[5:01] minutes. Do I have corrections or a
motion?
[5:04] » I believe we may need to continue the
minutes um
[5:07] since
>> [snorts]
[5:08] » cuz not everybody's here.
>> Okay, we will continue the item to our
[5:12] next meeting.
And we'll go ahead and move on to item
[5:16] number five, a staff presentation from
our internship intern. Thank you.
[5:23] » Hello everyone. Um good evening.
Chairperson Franz and commissioners, my
[5:28] name is Jennifer Escobar and I want to
share a little bit about my experience
[5:32] as a housing intern here at the
Community Development Department for our
[5:35] City of Indio.
[5:44] So, a little bit about my background. I
am a student Arizona State University.
[5:49] I'm earning my bachelor's and master's
in urban planning. It is a concurrent
[5:54] program. So this spring I'll be earning
my bachelor's and the year after will be
[5:59] my master's.
A little bit of what my internship
[6:02] focused on was housing policy,
developmental review, planning research,
[6:07] and earning municipal experience. A
little bit about myself as well is that
[6:13] I also work at Starbucks and I did that
throughout the duration of this
[6:17] internship as well. I'm earning the
tuition benefit there. So that's been
[6:22] really great. I also commute from Moreno
Valley. So that's what that little
[6:26] picture is at the end. That's our M
mountain. And so that's about an hour
[6:30] and I've been managing that for the
summer as well.
[6:37] So I worked in the housing and
neighborhood services division. One of
[6:42] the biggest things that I took away from
that was that I learned that it's not
[6:47] just about producing as many units as
possible, but it's also about looking
[6:51] for funding sources, understanding state
requirements, and local policies,
[6:56] as well as developmental regulations,
community needs, and how that all comes
[7:01] together so that we can benefit our
community.
[7:04] Seeing those different pieces come
together gave me a much better
[7:08] understanding of the role a city plays
in housing needs.
[7:16] So a little bit about the projects that
I was working on during my time here was
[7:21] focusing on ADU program research. I also
looked into creating a density bonus
[7:28] application.
Um along all side of that, I also
[7:32] reviewed planning policy and development
review.
[7:36] For the ADU program, I researched how
the other jurisdictions might have their
[7:42] approaches to pre-approved plans and how
Indio could potentially involve those as
[7:47] well and create our own program.
I also helped create the density bonus
[7:53] application. So, that meant that I was
researching state requirements and
[7:57] helping organize information into a
format that could be more accessible to
[8:02] the public and to our staff.
Alongside those larger projects, I had
[8:07] opportunities to participate in
development and planning research.
[8:12] These experiences helped me understand
how planning concepts and regulations
[8:17] move from research and policy, but how
we can implement those programs into
[8:22] Indio as well.
[8:25] So, one of the most important aspects of
the internship was understanding how the
[8:30] work that I did supported the city's
broader strategic priorities. My work
[8:35] mostly directly connected with economic
opportunity and organizational
[8:41] excellence through
housing initiatives and funding
[8:45] research, I was able to see how planning
can support economic opportunity by
[8:50] helping expand housing options and
identifying resources that can support
[8:55] development. My work also contributed to
organizational excellence through
[9:02] ordinances and policy research and
collaboration across different
[9:07] departments in our community
development.
[9:10] What stood out to me was that even
though the research may seem small
[9:14] behind the scenes or
um
[9:18] that it can ultimately support larger
city goals when it comes to helping make
[9:23] policies clearer and easier to
implement.
[9:29] So, what I learned from the internship
was when
[9:33] housing policy is connected to most
aspects of what the community needs. I
[9:41] also learned that planning requires a
lot of collaboration. Housing decisions
[9:46] involve planners, building inspectors,
management applicants, and developers.
[9:52] Most importantly, I learned about the
process of research to policy and to
[9:58] implementation. It's one thing to
understand a planning concept when I was
[10:03] in the classroom, but seeing how that
concept becomes an ordinance or an
[10:07] application,
a or a developmental project, it gave me
[10:12] a clear understanding of municipal
planning. Overall, I think this
[10:17] experience gave me a much clearer path
towards understanding the type of
[10:21] planner that I would like to
be alike.
[10:27] And so, I do have a moment for
questions, um but real quick, I did also
[10:33] want to take a moment to express
gratitude, especially towards David, for
[10:37] taking me under his wing, and for trying
to instill as much as his knowledge into
[10:41] me as possible, and to the rest of the
team as well. Um I had a really good
[10:46] experience. Everything was very
positive, and I appreciated having a
[10:50] really educated team. So, thank you.
>> Thank you. Do we have any questions?
[10:57] » No, I I I just want to say thank you and
congrats on your um
[11:02] going to ASU for your uh degree, your
bachelor's and master's, and thank you
[11:05] for choosing NDO for your internship.
So, I really I thank you for that.
[11:13] » I just want to say thank you for all
your work, and then I also went to ASU,
[11:16] so let's go Sun Devils.
>> So, thank you so much. Um I hope I'm
[11:21] glad you had a good experience, and we
hope that when you're done with your
[11:24] degree, that you'll come back. We always
need new new fresh ideas and new people
[11:28] to to take on the challenges that are
coming. So, good luck.
[11:32] » I appreciate that. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[11:35] Okay, we'll go ahead and move on to
public hearing item, item 6.1.
[11:41] We're going to discuss discretionary and
conditional use permit for a 7 Brew. We
[11:47] can please have a staff report.
>> Yes, you can. Good afternoon, good
[11:52] evening commissioners. I will be doing a
quick presentation over the 7 Brew
[11:57] project. It's case file number plan PRD
26
[12:03] 0027 and plan CUP 26
0011.
[12:09] This project is located off of Highway
111. Um
[12:14] uh
Oh my goodness.
[12:17] Um near Jefferson. Yes, thank you. Um
right near the city border with the city
[12:23] of La Quinta.
Um the project includes the development
[12:26] of one drive-thru restaurant totaling
910 square feet with walk-up pedestrian
[12:31] takeout. Um this project includes the
review of architecture, pedestrian
[12:36] circulation, landscaping, and signage,
as well as a conditional use permit to
[12:40] allow
a drive-thru as a limited land use.
[12:43] Um in the Highway 111 specific plan a
conditional use permit is required for
[12:47] all drive-thrus and it is considered a
limited land use which
[12:52] for drive-thrus it is does require city
council approval rather than planning
[12:57] commission. So, your decision will be a
recommendation to the city council
[13:01] should you
move [clears throat] forward with the
[13:04] project.
I've also included a project elevations
[13:08] on the dais. You have a color materials
board
[13:12] near the
bottom of the building. That's the black
[13:18] black onyx black concrete tile. Above
that is the hardy plank. It's a light
[13:23] gray color.
There's going to be blue metal coping um
[13:28] along the top of the building um as well
as some um accents on the um
[13:34] trash enclosure roof. Uh and then the
light gray coping is near the windows.
[13:41] Um, I also included the site plan
um
[13:46] Uh it includes two drive-thru lanes and
a circulation lane for access to
[13:50] parking. Um the trash enclosure is on
the southeast portion of the site. Um
[13:55] there is pedestrian connectivity from
Highway 111 to the walk-up window as
[13:59] well.
I also included the landscape plan. Um
[14:04] I do want to also add that we added two
conditions of approval specifically
[14:09] conditions number 24 and 25 um for the
installation of palm trees fronting
[14:14] Highway 111 as well as a condition of
approval number 25 for the installation
[14:20] of shade trees along pedestrian
pathways.
[14:23] Um so um well
there is more landscaping included as
[14:29] part of the conditions of approval.
The application also in includes a
[14:35] request to deviate from the Highway 111
specific plan for signage. Specifically,
[14:40] it increased in
it includes a request to increase the
[14:43] maximum height of signs from 30 in to 6
ft for graphical wall signs and then
[14:49] increasing the number of signs for one
per street frontage to one per building
[14:53] facade.
Um the proposed project is consistent
[14:59] with the um Indian
General Plan 2040, the Highway 111
[15:03] Corridor Specific Plan, and the Unified
Development Codes um subject to Planning
[15:07] Commission recommendation of approval
and conditions of approval. Um
[15:12] the project is categorically exempt from
CEQA pursuant to section 15332 for
[15:17] infill development of the California
Environmental Quality Act. Um with the
[15:22] application of conditions of approval,
the project is recommended for approval,
[15:27] um, and the conditions are binding and
must be adhered to. Um, so, the staff
[15:31] recommendation tonight is to approve,
uh, resolution number 2147 and 2148 for
[15:37] the Seven Brew drive-thru, um, and
recommend the city council approve the
[15:41] planning review discretionary
application and the conditional use
[15:44] permit, um, and find the project exempt
from CEQA, um, pursuant to section 15332
[15:51] for infill development.
Um, and I'm open to questions and the
[15:55] applicant is here as well, or the
applicant's representative is here as
[15:57] well for any questions as well.
>> Thank you, Luke. Any questions of Luke
[16:00] at this time?
So, I have a couple. Um,
[16:05] I know that we have to, you know,
approve all drive-thrus. Can you pull up
[16:08] the image of like the like what is
around that area? I think there's a lot
[16:12] of open space still, right?
>> Yes.
[16:19] Yeah, uh, I don't have a more zoomed-in
version, um, but north of the project
[16:25] site there's, um,
big box retail stores including Home
[16:29] Depot. Um, to the south of the project
site, it's, um, similar. It's an EOS
[16:34] Fitness. Um,
and then to the west of the project
[16:39] site, it's another drive-thru
restaurant, but that's in the city of La
[16:41] Quinta. To the east of the project site,
it is a, um, a vacant parcel.
[16:47] » Okay. So, there's not another drive-thru
restaurant close by, right? It's not
[16:52] like we're not getting a whole bunch of
drive-thru spots in one area. This seems
[16:55] to be very open still.
>> Yes, so in the city of Indio there are
[16:58] no other drive-thrus in this planning
area. It's, uh, considered to be
[17:02] planning area one of the Highway 111
specific plan and there have been no
[17:06] other limited land uses approved since
the adoption.
[17:09] » Okay. That was my my biggest concern.
The other question I had was about the
[17:13] signage.
>> Mhm.
[17:14] » It seems like going from 6 in
or what was it? 30-in to 6-ft. It's more
[17:21] than double and we've kind of been real
careful with our signage
[17:25] on purpose, right? We're trying to keep
a certain feel and look for the city.
[17:28] So,
is there anything in the area that is
[17:32] even close to this size of signage or is
this really going to stand out compared
[17:37] to everything that's around that area?
>> Um I don't have the size of the signage
[17:43] um for the existing Eos Fitness, um but
that was approved before the adoption of
[17:48] the Highway 111 Specific Plan under the
MUSP 300 um and it is rather large
[17:53] signage. I just don't have the number of
the height.
[17:57] » Okay. So, maybe Brian, is this anything
that we should be super I mean, it's a
[18:02] small building first of all. It's only
910
[18:05] sq ft. It's literally just going to be
drive-thru, which drive-thru coffee is
[18:09] great. Don't get me wrong, but um
I want to make sure that the the size of
[18:15] the signs isn't going to be
really large and not
[18:20] not fit the look that we're trying to do
with the Highway 111 Specific Plan.
[18:24] » Yeah, that's a good question, Chair. So,
[clears throat] we have been working
[18:27] with the applicant including the
assistant planner.
[18:30] Um at one point the monument sign that
they were proposing was way too large
[18:34] and we told them because of your
proximity to Highway 111
[18:39] being so close that a a monument of that
size um is usually not built and would
[18:44] not be appropriate for this location.
So, it's a little bit of a balancing
[18:48] act. Um they significantly reduced the
size of the monument, but what they do
[18:53] have is a larger um
wall sign.
[18:57] Um I agree, it is a little large, so
that's why it's before the Planning
[19:00] Commission tonight. If you would like to
reduce that, you can make that
[19:04] recommendation and that'll go to the
City Council. They'll have the final
[19:07] decision on that size. Um
I agree, It wall sign is quite large uh
[19:13] for the size of the building.
I'm leak looking at EOS Fitness right
[19:18] now and it's a very large sign, but
that's a very large building as well.
[19:21] So, it's up to you um
on how you'd like to proceed and if you
[19:26] want to make a recommendation, I'm sure
the applicant who's here tonight can
[19:30] give you a little more background on why
that sign that wall sign is so large. Um
[19:35] that might help to give some more
context to what they're proposing.
[19:38] » Would you be able to tell me this I mean
I don't know if if Dutch Bros is about
[19:41] the same size their building, you know,
the one that we put on Jefferson.
[19:46] Um how big are their signs? Cuz that's
also a smaller building. Can And maybe
[19:49] you can maybe
get that information when we have the
[19:52] applicant speak cuz I'd like to be able
to compare it to something comparable,
[19:57] right? It's hard to imagine
30 in 6 ft.
[20:01] » I'll go ahead and pull it up on the
Google Maps, but I'm probably not going
[20:05] to be able to find the square footage,
but um in the meantime we can hear what
[20:08] the applicant wants to
>> And we have the Dutch Bros on 111.
[20:11] That's the one I actually meant, not the
one on Jefferson.
[20:14] » [laughter]
>> So, all right. We'll go ahead then. Any
[20:17] questions of staff? Okay, go ahead.
>> I do have a question for staff. Um
[20:21] Thank you, Luke, for you know, for your
work and for presenting this item. Um I
[20:24] do have a question about traffic. Um I
know exactly where that specific
[20:28] location is going to be cuz I go to EOS
every day at 6:00 a.m.
[20:32] Um and then I feel that have you have we
looked into the traffic flow? Because to
[20:37] go into that specific location, you
either have to make if you're going on
[20:41] Highway 111 going to towards La Quinta,
you either you're going to make a U at
[20:45] Costco Drive or make a left on uh
on Jefferson and then go cut through the
[20:52] gas station. So, have we have we looked
into like is the traffic the cars going
[20:56] to overflow into 111 or how is the going
to
[20:59] traffic situation is going to work out?
>> That's a good question. So, um
[21:03] the city's traffic engineer did review
um this site plan and and this is not
[21:09] the first iteration of the plan. There
was a alternate version
[21:13] during the pre-application conference
that had the drive-through lane a little
[21:18] bit longer,
but the drive-through was between the
[21:21] property line and the building.
So this is kind of an updated version to
[21:28] more closely align with the goal of
Highway 111.
[21:31] There hasn't been any conditions of
approval for traffic mitigation beyond
[21:36] that from the
from the city engineer the traffic
[21:40] engineer
and
[21:42] the previous development when EOS went
in,
[21:46] it was a much larger building. It was
I can't remember if it was more retail
[21:50] or offices, but it was a bigger
building. So that was also analyzed when
[21:54] the previous development went in.
>> Thank you.
[22:00] And just for clarification, the entrance
will be on the south side, not the north
[22:06] side where 111 is correct?
>> Correct. Yes.
[22:09] » So hypothetically speaking, the traffic
flow will flow into the park the
[22:14] commercial parking lot.
>> Correct. Yes.
[22:16] » Thank you.
And I am looking at the Dutch Bros.
[22:21] » [clears throat]
>> wall sign
[22:23] on Highway 111.
It is pretty small.
[22:27] I would say I'm going to estimate that
to be
[22:32] maybe anywhere from 24 to 36 inches
high.
[22:36] So it's substantially smaller. So again,
maybe the applicant can explain
[22:43] if this is a similar format that they
use on other stores or is it something
[22:48] that
is different for for Indio?
[22:52] » Okay. Thank you.
All right, we'll go ahead and open the
[22:55] public hearing and we invite the
applicant to come up and present.
[22:59] Thank you.
[23:05] » Good evening. Um Madam Chairperson,
members of the commission, my name is
[23:10] Cayman Wong. I'm here on behalf of the
applicant. Um
[23:14] my address is 4340 East Indian School
Road in Phoenix.
[23:18] Um
we've been working with staff um for the
[23:22] last, I want to say, 6 months on this,
and it's been
[23:26] it's been very fruitful, and we've
really enjoyed doing it um and getting
[23:30] this project, and we're excited to be
part of the community. So, I'm here to
[23:33] answer any questions that you may have.
>> Thank you.
[23:38] Um I guess the big question is the sign,
right? It's It's bigger than
[23:42] » Yeah, it's not used to it. It's a little
different to you.
[23:44] » little bigger.
>> It's a little bigger, and I think the
[23:46] reason being it is part of the brand. Um
this brand is part of out of Arkansas,
[23:51] and
um this will be one of the first in
[23:55] California.
Um and it is not specific to Indio. This
[23:59] is their brand.
Um the reason why it is a little bit
[24:03] bigger is they have something at the
rooftop there, so it is 20 ft tall, this
[24:08] building, um approximately, give or take
a few inches. Um
[24:12] but you can see that top curve piece
there. They call that the muffin top.
[24:17] Um don't know why they call that. It
kind of
[24:20] um but the front of the building is um
not this elevation, but the one actually
[24:26] facing
um it'll actually be facing east um is
[24:33] where that big muffin top is, and it is
proportionate to that side of the
[24:39] building. So, that's kind of why it is
given that. Now, the building signage
[24:44] on, which will be north, which will be
facing Highway 111, is substantially
[24:49] smaller.
Um and that'll be the one that um you
[24:53] can kind of see the outline there.
Um so, the big one that you're you're
[24:57] referring to is actually facing north,
which is facing the gas station.
[25:02] Yeah.
[25:05] » And that's your standard size of the
sign
[25:08] » for the corporation itself.
>> Correct. And initially um, they are
[25:13] internally lit, but uh, Highway 111 has
um,
[25:17] the corridor plan has um, restrictions
on that and so we're going to comply
[25:20] with that and
um,
[25:23] and make it I think externally lit.
[25:27] » Okay.
>> I am looking at also a few other signs
[25:32] along Highway [clears throat] 111. I'm
looking at Burger King just because it
[25:36] came up and it's round just like this
proposed sign.
[25:40] Um,
it's smaller. I don't know the exact
[25:43] dimensions, but it's definitely smaller.
So um,
[25:47] you know, it's something to take into
consideration.
[25:51] » Okay.
Any other questions?
[25:58] » In regards to the size,
I understand the the
[26:03] proximity to what the rest of the
franchise the corporation or the
[26:07] corporate stores are prox- about the
same size.
[26:11] This being close to I understand that we
have the 111 corridor specific
[26:17] plans on how what developers should
abide by.
[26:22] Do we have any indication because it is
border La Quinta of what their
[26:28] potential
signage sizing are as well?
[26:34] » No, I we did not review the city of La
Quinta's signage standards as part of
[26:38] the review
um,
[26:42] to kind of compare it to this.
[26:49] » Okay. I'll I'll I'll reserve my uh,
my opinion regarding the the signage
[26:54] during uh deliberation.
>> Okay. So So, this is your first um
[26:59] California?
>> Yeah.
[27:00] » of Googled you guys and it feels like
you're in Arizona, Tucson, something
[27:04] like that.
>> Uh Tucson, not not in Phoenix yet. We're
[27:07] um
but uh yeah, we are working on another
[27:11] one in the city of Coachella. And uh we
have approval on that one already in
[27:16] permits right now. So,
hopefully this one gets done quicker and
[27:21] opens sooner. But um yeah, those are the
two that we're working on right now in
[27:24] this area.
>> All right, perfect.
[27:26] I think it'll be a nice addition. I
think we just need to kind of talk about
[27:29] the sign cuz we work really hard on what
we want Highway 111 to look like. So,
[27:33] » understand. Yeah. If you have any other
questions, let me know.
[27:36] » Perfect. Thank you.
>> You're welcome.
[27:38] » Do we have um anyone else wanting to
speak on this item?
[27:41] » I have no requests.
>> Should I leave it open in case we want
[27:44] to ask him another question?
Or not?
[27:50] Madam Attorney, can we leave the public
um just open?
[27:54] » Can we leave it open in case we have
another question for him?
[27:57] » Um
>> Or just close it and then reopen it if I
[27:59] want to.
>> Um I apologize. Um you were asking
[28:03] whether to close the public hearing now
and
[28:07] continue to and deliberate.
>> Right.
[28:09] » Um
>> Or can we leave it open? That way if we
[28:12] have a question for him, we can just
have him come up.
[28:14] » Let's do that.
>> Okay. So, we're going to leave it open
[28:16] in case there's questions um of the
applicant. All right. Um
[28:22] Does staff have any other info on the
signage for us that you'd like to share?
[28:25] » We're reviewing the city of La Quinta's
signage standards right now.
[28:29] » Cool. All right. We'll wait a minute
then.
[28:32] » Yeah, I thought I could measure what the
Burger King sign was because it's round
[28:36] and
>> [clears throat]
[28:36] » faces uh Highway 111, but uh looks like
the Google Map isn't allowed me to do
[28:41] that.
>> want to make sure I clear Is Is it the
[28:43] round sign that we're talking about or
the longer sign that we're talking
[28:47] about? Cuz I'm I'm starting to get
confused as to which which sign is the
[28:50] bigger one.
>> It appears that based off of the
[28:53] illustration that's on our screen right
now that the seven
[28:57] Brew
shows 3 ft in height and
[29:04] I'll look about 10 ft in length,
roughly.
[29:08] » Is it the
>> Well, it's just the circular
[29:11] other one
I think it's it's on the screen. I can't
[29:16] see the exact height of it.
But I think it was closer to compliance.
[29:24] » Okay, so it's so it's the circle. It's
the seal.
[29:26] » circle, yes.
>> are on the two sides, the east and the
[29:28] west.
>> Okay, are we good?
[29:30] » Uh just for clarification, sorry. I got
a little confused. So, which is the size
[29:35] for the monument that they asked that is
going to be on which one is it? Is it
[29:39] the seal or is it the other one?
>> So, it for the size specifically it's
[29:43] for the
um for the seal on the building mounted
[29:47] signs. In the staff report there was a
mention to a 8 by 17 monument sign, but
[29:53] last minute we had a revised set of um
um of monument signs that were submitted
[29:59] which are I have on the screen. They
they comply with the Highway 111
[30:03] specific plan.
>> Got it.
[30:04] » So, the only question is those two on
the east and west side of the building.
[30:08] Then the seal, the circle. Okay. All
right.
[30:12] Okay, do we have any other questions or
[30:17] » No questions, but
I'll wait for the uh city's uh review of
[30:21] the La Quinta.
[30:26] » Okay.
[30:30] » It it may take a minute. It's a 151 page
document. Um so
[30:36] » Do you want to take Do you want to take
a Do you want to take a 5-minute break
[30:37] and then we'll just see if that's enough
time?
[30:40] » Let me just ask a quick question. So, um
obviously it's like in La Quinta's code
[30:45] and not India's code. Are you trying to
>> [clears throat]
[30:49] » match cuz uh directly across the street
is a Starbucks.
[30:53] » Right.
>> Which is kind of interesting.
[30:55] So, are [clears throat] you trying to
match maybe what Starbucks does or what
[30:59] is your intent? Cuz our codes are going
to be very different.
[31:02] » want it to be super bigger than anything
else in the surrounding area. Do you see
[31:07] what I mean? So, if if start I don't
know how big Starbucks sign is normally.
[31:12] But
>> So, we we could look um
[31:16] on the map we could look at Starbucks as
well. Their round one.
[31:20] Um unfortunately, we cannot uh do
measuring on this type of map that I'm
[31:25] at right now. But um we'll take a look
at that.
[31:29] » Okay.
All right, let's let's take a 5-minute.
[31:32] Do you want to do that?
All right, let's take 5 minutes and let
[31:35] staff do a little reconnaissance. Okay,
we'll be back.
[34:34] » Mhm.
[35:36] » All right, we'll go ahead and call the
Planning Commission back in session and
[35:40] staff.
>> Okay,
[35:43] even though we continue to look at the
city of La Quinta's code, we we
[35:46] typically want to be our own kind of
guiding um
[35:51] we we guide the direction as opposed to
another city. Not that that's bad
[35:55] because I think that they're doing great
things in in La Quinta. So, um after
[36:00] talking to the applicant,
um if we could put that slide up again
[36:04] of the the sign that's the large one um
on the muffin top as they call it.
[36:12] I think we can make a compromise and a
kind of balance this little better and
[36:16] then the applicant can come up and and
and talk about it as soon as we get that
[36:21] up.
[36:24] Okay.
[36:28] So, essentially we'll just use the very
top right-hand corner, so that's the
[36:33] large one.
>> [snorts]
[36:34] » So, when you [clears throat] look at
that sign, even though I'm not a
[36:37] designer, I have been reviewing signs
for a very long time. So, if you look at
[36:40] the right and the left of that sign, you
have uh big spaces, big gaps. But, the
[36:45] top of the sign and the bottom sign,
there really isn't an equalized balance
[36:50] there. So, um what the applicant uh
discussed this afternoon in the break is
[36:55] if you could um
uh allow a gap of about 12 in on the top
[37:00] and 12 in on the bottom, so a total of
24 in. What that sign's going to do is
[37:05] it is going to shrink. They'll redesign
it um so that it will be um
[37:11] pursuant to those reduced dimensions,
allowing um a gap at at the top of 12 in
[37:17] and a gap on the bottom of 12 in. Um um
and maybe we can kind of introduce that
[37:22] and see if the applicant would like to
speak about that uh adjustment. If if
[37:26] the commission would like to consider
that.
[37:28] » Thank you. I I do like that. Are you
guys good with the that recommendation?
[37:32] » Yeah, I'm good with that. And just going
based off of the illustrations that are
[37:35] on our screen, it looks like the top uh
without including the roof portion, 7 ft
[37:39] 6 in.
So, that would equate to 90 in. So,
[37:43] looking at 5 and 1/2 ft signage, so.
>> Okay.
[37:48] All right. Um does the applicant have
any comments on that or are you
[37:57] » Yeah, it it probably would be a little
bit less than that because of that just
[38:01] we have to make it symmetrical.
>> Yeah.
[38:03] » Um but yeah, we we're okay with that
compromise and and we can work with
[38:06] staff on amending the
the exhibits.
[38:10] » Perfect.
>> Yeah.
[38:11] » Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else
that would like to speak in the public?
[38:16] No. We'll go ahead and close the public
hearing.
[38:19] And do we Do we any more deliberation or
do we have a motion?
[38:26] » I'll make a motion to approve.
>> With the motion back on the screen.
[38:30] » [laughter]
[38:36] » All right, I'll make a motion to approve
um the resolution number 2147 and 2148
[38:42] with the
modification of the signage to be 12 in
[38:47] uh gap from the top and bottom and for
the applicant to work with staff for the
[38:51] appropriate sizing.
[38:56] » I'll second that motion.
[39:01] » Did we have any other modifications
that we needed?
[39:11] Okay, thank you. We have a first and a
second. If we can have a roll call vote,
[39:15] please.
[39:17] Okay.
[39:24] Me, sorry.
[39:27] All right, thank you very much. Looking
forward to having you in our city.
[39:30] Thank you.
[39:33] Okay, we'll go ahead and move on to item
6.2,
[39:37] review and recommendations
regarding amendments to the Indian
[39:41] Municipal Code.
If we could have a presentation from
[39:44] staff, please.
[39:49] » Good evening, Chairperson Franz,
Commissioners.
[39:52] This David Razo, senior analyst with the
Community Development Department.
[39:57] This evening, we are requesting the
Planning Commission review and
[40:00] recommendations to the City Council
regarding amendments to the Indian
[40:04] Municipal Code repealing the existing
density bonus regulations.
[40:09] Uh
updating current regulations with the
[40:12] Unified Development Code and adding
chapter 3.07.
[40:16] Uh
updating to local density bonus law
[40:20] while allowing or
my apologies uh
[40:24] staying current with the state density
bonus and is including an ordinance um
[40:31] tied to our pro-housing designation.
[40:39] I'd also like to acknowledge we have our
consultant uh on via Zoom.
[40:45] Erica Cash with Dudek
uh a little bit of background on Erica.
[40:50] She was the
uh
[40:54] forefront for our sixth cycle housing
element. Uh she also drafted our
[40:58] pro-housing designation
and more recently uh is drafting the
[41:04] current ordinance. She will provide a
presentation for
[41:07] Planning Commission.
[41:18] » And I can't see the screen. So do Am I
sharing my presentation?
[41:24] » Yes.
>> Perfect. Thank you. All right, we'll get
[41:27] started. Good evening, Chair and
Commissioners. So as David said, my
[41:31] name's Erica Cash. I'm a senior project
manager with the consulting firm Dudek.
[41:36] Um tonight I'll be presenting the
proposed updates to the city's density
[41:38] bonus ordinance and the incentive
program that's being proposed within
[41:42] that ordinance. Uh and we've been
working really closely with city staff
[41:46] on all these updates.
So just as a quick uh
[41:50] kind of overview of state law
requirements. So under the state density
[41:54] bonus law, cities are required to adopt
a local density bonus ordinance, which
[41:57] we have today.
The ordinance covers the requirements
[42:00] dictated in state law, and so we we
pretty much follow the letter of the
[42:04] law. They include establishing
eligibility criteria for density bonus
[42:07] projects consistent with government
code. Um this includes for very low,
[42:12] low, moderate income senior housing, and
student housing projects.
[42:16] Um, as well as specifying the density
bonus amounts available based on the
[42:20] percentage of affordability level and
the qualifying units. Um, identifying
[42:25] the incentives and concessions available
to, of course, only eligible projects,
[42:30] and the process for requesting and
approving those.
[42:33] Providing a procedure for granting
waivers or reductions, and um, just to
[42:37] specify those are reductions of
development standards.
[42:40] And they only apply when standards would
physically preclude construction of the
[42:44] project at the permitted densities. Um,
so, qualifying density bonus projects.
[42:50] Also, we had to establish parking
reduction standards, and to elaborate,
[42:54] those are also just consistent with
state law.
[42:57] Um, we didn't go above and beyond uh,
for the parking reduction standards.
[43:00] It's just what's in state law. And then
I'll
[43:03] finally including application
procedures, submittal requirements, and
[43:07] review timelines for the density bonus
requests, and again, those were
[43:10] consistent with state law.
So, I've said it a few times, but just
[43:13] to reiterate, these are all consistent
with state law and what the city has
[43:16] already been doing for density bonus
projects by implementing what's current
[43:21] in density bonus law.
So, uh, quick overview of the proposed
[43:25] amendments. So, the proposed amendments,
apart from incorporating the
[43:28] requirements of state law, will relocate
the city's density bonus regulations
[43:32] from title 15 to title 17. They'll
encourage mixed-use housing
[43:36] developments, and lastly, will support
the city's pro-housing designation
[43:40] goals.
Um, this will include the incentive
[43:42] program, which I'll go over shortly. And
just as a recap of how we got here, the
[43:47] city was awarded the official
pro-housing designation last year in
[43:50] 2025. The proposed amendments today add
an incentive program into the density
[43:55] bonus ordinance, which provides
additional density bonus opportunities.
[44:00] The incentive program is required as
part of the city's approved pro-housing
[44:03] designation application. As a recap,
this was authorized by City Council when
[44:08] they approved a resolution authorizing
city staff to submit the pro-housing
[44:12] application, which included the pro pro
Sorry, which included the proposed
[44:17] density bonus incentive program.
[44:21] So, under current state density bonus
law, housing developments are eligible
[44:25] for a density bonus when they meet or
exceed the eligibility requirements,
[44:29] which are now included in your updated
ordinance.
[44:33] And they're just consistent with state
law.
[44:35] So, what this table is showing is a
summarized version of something you may
[44:39] have seen many times before. It's just
the minimum and maximum percentages of
[44:43] affordable units and the corresponding
minimum and maximum density bonus
[44:47] granted to a project under existing
state bonus law.
[44:51] So, just looking at this table as a
quick example, if a project sets aside
[44:55] 15% of units, so 15% of units right
here, to be very low-income units, then
[45:02] it would qualify for the maximum 50% 50%
density bonus, assuming it meets all the
[45:07] eligibility requirements.
Um there are also bonuses I quickly
[45:11] mentioned before that are not shown on
the table. Uh one is for affordable
[45:15] housing developments which provide 100%
of units set aside for lower income.
[45:20] They are eligible for an 80% density
bonus as well as bonuses provided for
[45:25] lower-income student housing or senior
housing, which I'm sure we're all
[45:29] familiar with.
[45:32] So, sticking to current state density
bonus though, in addition to the state
[45:36] density bonus that I showed on the table
on the last slide, current state law
[45:40] also already provides for opportunities
for an additional bonus.
[45:45] So, that would be in addition to what
was shown on the last slide.
[45:48] Um this is specifically just for very
low and moderate-income units. So, in
[45:53] other words, once a project exceeds the
max percent of affordable units shown in
[45:57] the table on the previous slide,
then the housing projects are eligible
[46:02] for an additional density bonus as shown
on this screen. So, the percent of units
[46:07] you see in the first column here,
percent of units,
[46:10] um
they would be in addition to the percent
[46:13] of units provided on the last slide, and
likewise in columns number two and
[46:19] three,
these would be the density additional
[46:22] density bonuses that they would be
entitled to receive, and these would be
[46:26] added to those in the last slide.
So, the base density bonus from the last
[46:31] slide, I'm going to call them base
density bonuses just to sim-
[46:35] differentiate, but the base density
bonus from the last slide are just added
[46:40] to these additional density bonuses
shown on this slide. Um but I'll show
[46:44] you an example in a few slides. Just I'm
very visual, so I color-coded it so we
[46:49] can all be on the same page.
But right now, I want to show you how
[46:53] the incentive the local incentive I've
mentioned plays into this.
[46:57] So, this is the same exact table shown
on the last slide except for some added
[47:01] blank rows and columns. When we looked
at the state's current additional
[47:05] density bonus with the city, we saw that
there were some missing opportunities.
[47:09] Primarily, the state does not offer any
opportunities where you see the blank
[47:13] rows or this blank column.
[47:21] So, here you see the blank row and
columns filled in for 1 to 4% of
[47:27] additional units provided for additional
So, 1 to 4% of additional units provided
[47:33] as affordable units or low-income
density bonuses, which are not currently
[47:39] provided under state law,
which are shown within the red boxes.
[47:44] And then just to reiterate, everything
in the table outside of the red row or a
[47:49] red boxes in the rows and columns are
still covered under the state's current
[47:53] additional density bonus regulations.
So, the local incentive program is just
[47:58] proposing to add what's in the new rows
and columns in red. Everything else is
[48:02] already in state law.
[48:06] So, here is an example. So, we can think
of a project with 100 units. Right? So,
[48:13] here let's say they propose to restrict
34% of the housing development units as
[48:18] low-income units. So, in other words, 34
units.
[48:22] This project could qualify them for a
65% density bonus.
[48:27] So, 100 + 65 = 165 units.
So, below I broke it down to kind of
[48:34] show how we got there. So, in this
example, I've shown what I mentioned as
[48:39] the base affordable units before and the
base density bonus is red. So, you'll
[48:43] see the base is 24% of low-income units.
And the that corresponds to the 50%
[48:49] density bonus.
And then in the blue, I've shown the
[48:52] additional density bonus and the
additional units.
[48:56] So, that's how we got the 24 plus the
10, the 34% low-income units that this
[49:01] project example
would provide. And that's why they got
[49:06] the 65 total density bonus granted. In
this case, it's because they maxed out
[49:11] the base density bonus, which would give
them the 50% density bonus.
[49:15] However, under the local incentive
program that we're proposing, they
[49:19] theoretically added an additional 15%.
Or sorry, they had the additional 10%,
[49:25] which granted them the 15% additional
bonus.
[49:30] So, here is the same example just shown
in a slightly different way.
[49:34] So, here again we see where the 24% of
affordable units come in this example.
[49:39] Right? So, this is just the base under
current law.
[49:42] This qualifies them they max out the
base percentage. So, they get, you know,
[49:48] if they're of course eligible, let's
say, they get the 50% density bonus
[49:52] granted.
And then here we see where the
[49:56] additional 10% of affordable units
comes. So, let's say again, the same
[50:00] examples before, they provide the
additional 10% of affordable units as
[50:04] low-income, they would then qualify for
the additional 15% density bonus. So, 50
[50:10] + 15, that's where how they're getting
to that 65% density bonus for a total of
[50:16] 165 units.
Um just to put it into perspective as
[50:20] another quick example, if they were to
restrict just 25% of same project, 100
[50:27] units, say let's say they restrict just
25% of the units
[50:33] to very low-income, so they max out at
the 15 Oops, sorry. The 15% right here.
[50:40] They would also get 50%. However, under
existing state law,
[50:46] if they then provided the extra 10%,
they'd get an extra 38.75.
[50:51] Meaning that same project, if they
instead restrict 25% as very low-income,
[50:57] they qualify for 88.75%
density bonus. So, more than 23% more
[51:03] than what the local incentive program
would provide. So,
[51:09] we're definitely not exceeding the
density bonuses already provided under
[51:12] state law today with the local program.
We're just covering a small gap that we
[51:16] identified that's existing in state law
in order to promote really the goal
[51:20] would be to promote low-income housing.
[51:25] So, just as a quick summary, benefits
and compliance associated with the
[51:28] proposed amendments, of course, ensuring
compliance with California state density
[51:31] bonus law requirements, which is a
requirement, expanding opportunities for
[51:35] affordable housing throughout the
community,
[51:38] providing development incentives that
are directly tied to the production of
[51:42] affordable housing units,
supporting future residential
[51:45] developments and helping increase the
local housing supply and implementing
[51:50] the city's required pro-housing
incentive program commitment.
[51:55] So, next step, today is of course the
first step in which you're reviewing the
[51:58] proposed ordinance updates and providing
your recommendations. And then steps two
[52:02] and three would be to go to city council
for consideration on November 4th and
[52:07] lastly approval and adoption of the
updated density bonus ordinance.
[52:15] And I'm sure there's questions. So,
that's it for my presentation. David, if
[52:18] you want to I'll stop sharing my screen
and I'll stay on for to answer any
[52:23] questions that the
that there may be today.
[52:28] » Okay, thank you very much. Do we have
questions of staff at this time?
[52:32] » Uh just a quick is there any other city
in the state of California that has a
[52:36] similar ordinance already in place?
>> Yeah, so there are in the Coachella
[52:41] Valley. So, just for some context, the
pro-housing
[52:45] does it the I and I assume you mean the
incentive specifically. Uh
[52:49] India was the only city in the Coachella
was the only city to receive the
[52:52] pro-housing designation. I think it was
the third in Riverside. So, it's not
[52:56] super abundant in your region.
But in the state, there are there's the
[53:00] city of San Diego, city of San Jose,
Sacramento. So, some of the larger
[53:04] cities do have they've had for quite
some time incentive programs tied to
[53:08] their density bonus that go above and
beyond state law.
[53:15] » Perfect, thank you.
[53:18] » Okay, I do have a couple of questions.
Um
[53:21] when we can take a project from 100
units to 188 units based on one of the
[53:28] examples that you did, that that's a
significant um increase, right? In the
[53:32] number of people, in the number of cars,
in the number of everything.
[53:36] As we're going through and evaluating
these projects because we're not going
[53:39] to be able to say no, right? This is
part of this that we're going to be able
[53:43] to say this is what we want built cuz we
need the housing. So, great. How are we
[53:46] going to handle impacts on traffic,
water, sewer, school, police, fire, and
[53:51] other public services
in the area? Because to have a project
[53:56] go from 100 units to 188 is going to be
a significant a bigger impact. So, is
[54:02] there going to be a moment in time when
these projects come before us where all
[54:05] of that will still be taken into
consideration, or is it just going to be
[54:09] allowed to be built without looking any
further?
[54:14] » So, let me go ahead and just respond
real quickly and then our consultant can
[54:17] kind of add to the to the response. So,
um there still is CEQA review of these
[54:23] projects. So, some of them may be
exempt, so I definitely don't want to
[54:27] say that some of these projects wouldn't
be exempt, but they are still subject to
[54:32] uh to CEQA. So, uh those are some of the
things that we look at. We look at, you
[54:36] know, parking, we look at traffic, we
look at a variety of topics that CEQA
[54:41] requires us to do.
But, that being said, um some of these
[54:45] projects that come in, especially if
they're low-income affordable housing
[54:48] projects, they are going to ask for
incentives incentives or waivers, and
[54:52] some of that might be, for example, for
parking.
[54:56] And they're entitled to do that. Um
so, we don't want to uh
[55:01] paint a false narrative that some of
these projects are going to come in with
[55:06] some of those development standards that
they're going to request a waiver or
[55:11] um um other things to reduce those
development standards. So, um maybe our
[55:15] consultant Erica can expand on that,
but, you know, we're still going to be
[55:19] looking at all those those areas of the
project. And some of the things we may
[55:24] not be able to address because they're
part of concessions or um
[55:28] things like that, waivers.
>> Brian, thank you. I think you you
[55:33] covered it. Um
you know, that example I gave, that of
[55:38] the 188, that's already offered under
existing state law.
[55:42] Um, I think that one was established I
don't know. It's been a while since I
[55:46] looked at when every It keeps changing
so rapidly. Um, but to ease your mind a
[55:50] bit,
[55:53] you
density bonus projects aren't exempt
[55:55] from CEQA automatically.
Of course, there are exceptions
[55:59] exceptions to that. You know, there's
infill projects, etc.
[56:02] But all the projects that you've seen
coming through the city, nothing it
[56:06] wouldn't the CEQA process wouldn't look
different than it does today.
[56:12] » Plus, it seems like everything we're
doing is following the state guidelines
[56:16] except for that extra bonus that we
talked about, right? And then I also if
[56:20] want to make sure I read properly that
we are
[56:23] matching the state requirements for
parking. We are not making those any um
[56:29] lighter, I guess, for lack of a better
word cuz I do worry about parking. So,
[56:33] we are just following state guidelines
on that, correct?
[56:37] » That's correct. We are using the exact
parking ratios from state law. We are
[56:40] not exceeding or expanding on those at
all.
[56:44] And we are the local incentive program
does not exceed density bonuses provided
[56:49] under state law currently.
>> Okay. Thank you.
[56:53] Any other questions?
>> Yes, I just have a question. Um,
[56:57] if we were to approve today, uh, what
would you guys would bring it to city
[57:00] council on November 4th cuz uh, there's
like a timeline that you guys have to
[57:04] follow. I'm just curious.
>> Yeah, I can real quickly and I know um,
[57:08] David Razo has been working with us on
this uh, particular timeline. So, we're
[57:14] trying to bring back an ADU ordinance to
as well.
[57:18] So, we're hoping to [clears throat]
bring that back next month. So, we have
[57:21] the density bonus tonight.
Uh, next month we're going to bring the
[57:25] updated ADU ordinance which is also one
of those items we need to address as
[57:30] part of the pro-housing designation that
we received. So, if you bundle those two
[57:34] together, we want to bring both of those
to the city council. By that time, based
[57:39] on deadlines for staff reports and
postings and things like that,
[57:42] publications, now we're into November.
So, that's the goal is to
[57:47] bring both ordinances and our consultant
has been helping us to to get these two
[57:52] fruition to the council in in November.
I think the first meeting, Erica, is
[57:56] what you mentioned.
>> Yes.
[58:01] » [snorts]
>> Thank you.
[58:14] » Um so, we'll go ahead and open the
public hearing. I'm at this time seeing
[58:18] no one in the audience. Is there anyone
online that would like to speak on this
[58:21] item?
>> I have no requests.
[58:23] » Okay, seeing none, we'll go ahead and
close the public hearing.
[58:26] And do I have a motion or any more
questions or deliberation?
[58:30] » If nobody has any other questions, I'll
make a motion to accept the
[58:34] recommendation and push it on to the
city council.
[58:38] » I'll second that motion.
>> Okay, we have a first and a second to
[58:42] recommend approval to city council.
You can vote on your screens.
[58:51] Okay, motion carries.
Thank you.
[58:54] Okay, um
since item 6.3 has been pulled, we'll go
[58:59] ahead and move on to item number seven,
commissioner comments. Does anybody have
[59:02] anything?
I have one.
[59:06] I'm ready for fall.
Um if this heat would just back up a
[59:10] little bit, I would be a little bit
happier. Um other than that, I'm really
[59:13] excited to see all these changes and all
these ordinances coming through to the
[59:16] city. I think it will help us with
future development. And I hope to
[59:20] continue to see the growth that we've
seen for the last few years. And thank
[59:24] you to staff.
[59:27] Nothing else?
Director's reports.
[59:33] » I wanted to have three items of one of
involves David Razo because David Razo,
[59:38] our management analyst, was working with
our intern and I think she did an
[59:42] excellent job tonight. We're very happy
to work with her, very proud of all the
[59:47] efforts that she made in the department.
Um, so I was asking HR a little bit
[59:52] about our internship program because it
was very successful. We had a total of
[59:57] 23 interns.
It's the highest that we've had. Last
[1:00:01] year was 17 and
uh, the year before four and then two.
[1:00:05] So we've really ramped up um, those
students coming in and getting the
[1:00:10] experience
uh, for this round of internships, over
[1:00:14] 5,500 hours of mentoring, teaching and
delegating tasks and caring for our
[1:00:19] interns. I personally, because his
office is across the street from across
[1:00:24] the street, across the way uh, from me,
David Razo spent countless meetings and
[1:00:29] countless hours working with the intern
and that's really kind of one of those
[1:00:33] things where it's a pay it forward. You
see them go on and and get a job one day
[1:00:38] and maybe like we mentioned, you
mentioned that they might come back and
[1:00:41] be a city employee one day. So we're
very happy um, that that has worked out
[1:00:46] really well. We work with other um,
institutions like College of the Desert,
[1:00:51] etc. So we're very happy um, then I
asked about how many are coming back and
[1:00:57] becoming city employees. Our HR director
said in the past four years we've had
[1:01:01] seven interns that have been hired as
city of Indio employees. So I thought
[1:01:06] that was really encouraging and um,
I love to see that cuz I think at one
[1:01:11] point a lot of us were interns. I know I
was, two times.
[1:01:15] So the [clears throat] other uh, couple
items is the highway one 111 corridor
[1:01:19] specific plan.
About a week ago I gave a presentation
[1:01:23] to the Community Services Commission
because the council wanted um to bring
[1:01:28] that plan back to both the Community
Services Commission and the Planning
[1:01:31] Commission. So, next month, I'll do a
similar, but slightly different because
[1:01:35] the Planning Commission looks at um
different topics and different areas of
[1:01:39] the plan than the Community Services
Commission. So, the goal would be to to
[1:01:43] do that presentation, get your input,
bring it to the council, and then we'll
[1:01:48] be looking for um a consultant to help
us make amendments to that plan. It it
[1:01:53] it's about time. It's been about 5 years
since the adoption.
[1:01:56] And so, um there's definitely some
tweaks and some things that we want to
[1:02:00] do.
And then lastly, some upcoming items the
[1:02:03] council brought up last week some items
that they would also like us to come and
[1:02:07] do presentations in front of the
Planning Commission.
[1:02:09] So, it'll be a a team effort. Uh some of
the items that were discussed were
[1:02:14] cannabis.
You know, there were some I guess you
[1:02:17] could say complaints about fees and also
some of the
[1:02:22] allowed regulations on cannabis. So,
we'll we'll bring back uh a presentation
[1:02:26] to you as well on cannabis and get your
input before bring it to council and
[1:02:30] then they'll direct us if they um I see
some code amendments coming up. Um and
[1:02:37] then also um
a hot topic was massage and tattoo in
[1:02:42] our UDC, which serves as our zoning
code, there are additional restrictions
[1:02:46] for those types of uses. Some of them
can't be very close to residential uses.
[1:02:50] Some of them can't be close to uh
businesses that serve alcohol. So,
[1:02:54] there's a host of things. So, we're
going to kind of summarize and do a
[1:02:59] presentation on um massage and some of
the other areas of the zoning code that
[1:03:05] have additional restrictions that are
layered on to the existing um
[1:03:09] requirements and development
regulations.
[1:03:12] So, other than that, let this conclude
the director's report.
[1:03:17] » Thank you very much.
Um then we'll go ahead and adjourn to
[1:03:21] our next planning commissioner meeting
scheduled for September 9th, 2021.