Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZOA 06-82 SIGNS 1982 ORDINANCE NO: 310 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.68. CASE NO. ZOA 06-82 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 24th, day of June, 1982, hold a duly noticed public hearing, to consider amendments to Section 25.68. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, by Resolution No. 805, has recommended approval; and, WHEREAS, said application has complied with requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-8911, in that the Director of Environmental Services has determined the project is a Class 5 categorical exemption; and, WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to approve the amendments to Section 25.68. 1. That the zoning ordinance amendment is consistent with the objectives of the zoning ordinance. 2. That the zoning ordinance amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan and affected Specific Plans. 3. That the zoning ordinance amendment would better serve the public health, safety, and general welfare, than the current regulations. r � NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the considerations of the Council in this case. 2. That the City Council does hereby approve a zoning ordinance amendment to rescind Sections 26.68.640 through 25.68. 60 and replace same with those provisions contained in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. 3. The City Clerk is directed to publish this ordinance once in the Palm Desert Post, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, and shall certify to the passage of adoption of this ordinance, and the same shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this 15 day of J111 v , 1 gR? , by the following vote to wit: AYES: McPherson , Newbrander, Puluqi , Snyder I-Tilson NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None R02(m Vfi ON, Mayor ATTEST: � SHEILA R. G1LL1 AN, City C1erW City of Palm Desert, Califordi e' spa r � i ORDINANCE NO. 310 EXHIBIT "A" ON PREMISES SIGNS Section 25.68.640 - Lawful nonconforming signs. A. Lawful existing on premises signs at the time of the adoption of the sign ordinance on February 24, 1977, which do not - comply with the requirements of Municipal Code Section 25.68, "Signs", as amended, shall be deemed lawful nonconforming uses and shall be made to comply, be removed or demolished upon the transfer of ownership of the business or upon the altering of sign, copy, size, color or the addition of new signage to the site or structure upon which the nonconforming sign is located. B. Nonconforming signs may not be expanded, extended, rebuilt, altered or reconstructed in any way, except for normal maintenance or to protect public safety. C. It shall be the express responsibility of the vendor to advise the vendee of the provisions of this section relating to the removal of nonconforming signs upon the transfer of ownership of a business. Section 25.68.650 - Lawful nonconforming signs to be removed. Any nonconforming signs shall be demolished, removed or made to conform within thirty days of the issuance of a valid sign permit. Prior to the issuance of a sign permit for a property on which a nonconforming sign (s) exists, said applicant or owner shall file with the city an irrevocable bond in the amount to twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) to guarantee that said nonconforming sign(s) shall be demolished, removed or made to conform within the specified time. Section 25.68.660 - Lawful nonconforming status shall not apply to offsite signs, i.e. billboards. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to imply or confer a lawful nonconforming use status to any offsite sign or advertising device, designed or used for periodically changing advertising copy (i.e. billboard). /pa r - MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUNE 1, 1982 Chairman Kryder closed the public hearing. Commissioner Richards expressed his favorable opinion on the matter. Moved by Commissioner Wood, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 804, recommending ZOA 04-82. Carried unanimously 4-0. Case No. ZOA 06-82 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Consideration of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment relating to Nonconforming Signs. Mr. Diaz reviewed the proposed Ordinance Amendment explaining that this would allow present business owners to operate with their nonconforming signs until the transfer of ownership or alteration of the sign. Staff recommended approval. Chairman Kryder opened the public hearing and asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Richards indicated that this would be a step in the right direction but also felt that it was unfair to those business owners who had complied to the Sign Ordinance prior to this proposed amendment. Moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Wood, to waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 805, recommending ZOA 06-82. Carried 3-0-1 (Commissioner Richards Abstained). VHL DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ITEMS: Preliminary plan approvals by the Design Review Board at its meeting of May 25, 1982, requiring Planning Commission confirmation. A. Case No. 236 MF - SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES - Preliminary design approval for revisions to existing entry to Ironwood Country Club at Mariposa Drive and Portola Avenue. B. Case No. 237 MF - McLAIN DEVELOPMENT CO. - Preliminary and final approval of new building elevations for two unit types within Silver Sand Racquet Club, at the southeast corner of Country Club Drive and Portola Avenue. Staff recommended approval by Minute Motion. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Wood, to confirm Design Review Board's approvals by minute motion. Carried unanimously 4-0. IX. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS - NONE X. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE XI. COMMENTS Commissioner Miller stated he would not be attending the next Planning Commission meeting due to family illness out of state. -5- l F PALM DESERT ..%: IIJMITTAL LETTER TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council REQUEST: Consideration of a zoning ordinance amendment relating to nonconforming signs. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert CASE NO: ZOA 06-82 DATE: June 24, 1982 CONTENTS: A. Staff recommendation. B. Discussion. C. Draft Ordinance No. D. Planning Commission minutes involving Case No. ZOA 06-82. E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 805. F. Planning Commission staff report dated June 1, 1982. G. Related maps and/or exhibits. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. , to second reading. B. DISCUSSION: The proposed ordinance amendment was initiated by City Council at its March 25, 1982, study session. The proposed amendment if adopted, would permit existing nonconforming signs which were erected with benefit of permit to remain. The nonconforming signs would have to be brought into conformity upon transfer of ownership of the business, or upon altering of the sign or addition of any new sign to the site. The ordinance requires the seller of a business possessing a nonconforming sign, to advise the purchaser that the sign must be brought into conformity upon transfer of ownership. While a new sign is being installed, the nonconforming sign(s) may remain provided a bond is filed with the city to guarantee its removal when the new sign has been installed. Finally, the ordinance states its specific intent that this ordinance in no way confers lawful nonconforming use status to any billboard. At the Planning Commission hearing, no one spoke in favor or in opposition to the amendment. Commissioner Richards felt it was long overdue. However, he felt it was unfair to those businesses which had complied earlier. Planning Commission adopted its Resolution No. 805, recommending approval of the zoning ordinance amendment on a 3-0-1 vote, with Commissioner Richards abstaining and Commissioner Crites absent. /pa June 4, 1982 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 06-82 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider an amendment to the city's Sign Ordinance as it relates to nonconforming signs. SAID Public Hearing will be held on June 24, 1982, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall, 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California PUBLISH: Palm Desert Post June 10, 1982 /pa City of Palm Desert Staff Report TO: Planning Commission DATE: June 1, 1982 CASE NO: ZOA 06-82 PROPOSED AMENDMENT:Consideration of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment relating to nonconforming signs. INITIATED BY: City of Palm Desert L BACKGROUND: At its study session of March 25, 1982, City Council instructed staff to prepare a study of nonconforming signs. At the study session of April 22, 1982, council was advised that there were approximately 30 nonconforming signs in the city. The nonconformities relate to size, number, height or locations (i.e. roof signs). The possibility of resolving the nonconforming sign issue by attrition was discussed and a proposed ordinance circulated and commented upon. Il. DISCUSSION: The comments received at the study session were incorporated into a revised ordinance (see copy of body of proposed ordinance attached). The proposed Sign Ordinance amendment will apply to "on premise signs" only (i.e. a sign which carries only advertisements strictly incidental to a lawful use of the premises on which it is located, including signs or sign devices indicating the business transacted at, services rendered, goods sold or produced on the premises, name of business, name of person, firm or corporation occupying the premises. This ordinance will not apply in any way whatsoever to billboards). The proposed ordinance will apply only to lawful existing nonconforming signs G.e. those signs which were installed with the benefit of a sign permit but which are nonconforming with the current City Ordinance). These lawful nonconforming signs will be permitted to continue to exist with the condition that no alteration be permitted to the sign. The only work permitted would be normal maintenance and work necessary to protect public safety. Lawful nonconforming signs must be removed or brought into conformity upon the transfer of ownership of the business. The ordinance requires the vendor of any business having a lawful nonconforming sign to advise the vendee that the sign must be removed or brought into conformity upon transfer of ownership of the business. All nonconforming signs whether lawful nonconforming or just nonconforming must be removed before a sign permit may be issued. The ordinance allows the nonconforming signs to be retained for up to 30 days during the construction of the new sign if the applicant or owner deposits a bond with the city to guarantee the removal of the sign(s). Finally the ordinance states the city's express purpose of not confering any lawful nonconforming status to any billboard in the city. Such an ordinance would replace Sections 25.68.640 through and including 25.68.760. - 1 - 4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 06-82 JUNE 1, 1982 III. RECOMMENDATION: That Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of Case No. ZOA 06-82, an amendment to the Sign Ordinance to permit lawful nonconforming signs to remain until the ownership of the business changes or until a new sign program is proposed for the site. IV. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Resolution and Exhibit "A". Prepared by: Q J Reviewed and approved by• l . /pa - 2 - PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNIONG COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.68. CASE NO. ZOA 06-82 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 1st day of June, 1982, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider amendments to Section 25.68. WHEREAS, said amendment complies with the requirements of the City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the Director of Environmental Services has determined the project to be a Class 11 Categorical Exemption; WHEREAS, at said public hearing upon hearing and considering the testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts to justify their recommendations as described below: 1. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan and affected Specific Plans. 3. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment would better serve the public health, safety, and general welfare than the current regulations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council approval of a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to rescind Sections 25.68.640 through 25.68.760 inclusive and replace same with those provisions contained in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 1st day of June, 1982, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: GEORGE D. KRYDER CHAIRMAN ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /pa PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "A" ON PREMISES SIGNS Section 25.68.640 - Lawful Nonconforming Signs. A. Lawful existing on premises signs at the time of the adoption of the Sign Ordinance on February 24, 1977, which do not comply with the requirements of Municipal Code Section 25.68, "Signs", as amended, shall be deemed lawful nonconforming uses and shall be made to comply, be removed or demolished upon the transfer of ownership of the business or upon the altering of sign, copy, size, color or the addition of new signage to the site or structure upon which the nonconforming sign is located. B. Nonconforming signs may not be expanded, extended, rebuilt, altered or reconstructed in any way, except for normal maintenance or to protect public safety. C. It shall be the express responsibility of the vendor to advise the vendee of the provisions of this section relating to the removal of nonconforming signs upon the transfer of ownership of a business. Section 25.68.650 - Lawful Nonconforming Signs to be Removed. Any nonconforming signs shall be demolished, removed or made to conform within thirty days of the issuance of a valid sign permit. Prior of the issuance of a sign permit for a property on which a nonconforming sign (s) exists, said applicant or owner shall file with the city an irrevocable bond in the amount to twenty-five thousand dollars (25,000.00) to guarantee that said nonconforming sign(s) shall be demolished, removed or made to conform within the specified time. Section 25.68.660 - Lawful Nonconforming Status Shall Not Apply to Billboards. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to imply or confer a lawful nonconforming use status to any offsite sign or advertising device, designed or used for periodically changing advertising copy (i.e. billboard). PROOF OF PUBLICATION ( 2010 , 2015. 5 CCP) OF PUBLICATION OF L NOTICE 06- 82 A a citizen of the United tes and a resident of the 'ity aforesaid ; I am over the of eighteen years, and not arty to or interested in the ve entitled matter. I am the ncipal clerk of the printer - _ yamy _ -- THE DESERT POST, CITY O;ALM DESERT lewspaper of general circular LEyG�AL NOTICE ln, printed and published weekly CASE.XriOA 0684 the city of Riverside , County NOTICEISHEREBvciv- be than a fore-t a Pal m will be held before-the Palm De- Riverside, and which newspaper sert Planning Commission to 'consider an amendment to the . been adjudged a newspaper of citV's Sign ordinance as it re- wtes to nonconforming signs: neral circulation by the held SAID Junk lHearig�lII be: perior Court of the County of p.m., in the Council Chomber8 In the Palm Desert City Hall, Nerside, State of California, 45-275 PrIckIV Pear Lane Palm Desert, California, of Eder date of October 51 1964, which time and place oil inter- ested persons are invited to at- se number 83658; that the ; tend and beheard. RAMON p, DI AZ, Secretflry Lice, of which the annexed is - Palm Desert Planning Corn-' printed copy, has been published mission PDP-5/2a each regular and entire issue - said newspaper and not in any lipplement thereof on the following 3tes, to-wit : 120 , 1982 Certify (or, declare) under, ienalty of perjury that the oregoing is true and correct. ated May 201 1982 t Riverside , California ITY OF PALM DESERT I/// G�l� INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: CITY MANAGER AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SUBJECT: NONCONFORMING SIGNS DATE: APRIL 15, 1982 At its study session of March 25, 1982, the City Council instructed staff to prepare a study of nonconforming signs. Based on information received from the Zoning Enforcement Division and visual observation there appears to be approximately 30 number of nonconforming signs in the City. The nonconformity relate either to size, number, height, or roof signs. During the study session, mention was made of the possibility of resolving the nonconforming sign issue by attrition. Should this be the desire of the Council, it could be accomplished by adopting an Ordinance which states: "(a) Nonconforming signs may not be expanded, extended, rebuilt, altered or reconstructed in any way, except for normal main- tenance or to protect public safety. All nonconforming signs shall be demolished, removed or made to conform upon the altering of sign copy, size, color or the addition of any new signage to the site or structure upon which the nonconforming sign is located. (b) Any nonconforming signs shall be corrected within thirty days of the issuance of a valid sign permit. Failure to make the corrections shall make the permit null and void and any signs erected shall be removed at the permittees expense pursuant to the provisions of the Palm Desert Municipal Code." Such an Ordinance would replace Sections 25.68.640 through and including 25.68.760. If it is the Council's wish to enact such a legislation it should instruct staff to prepare and schedule it for hearing. L RA rN A. DIAZ /lr tl V NONCONFORMING SIGNS Nonconformity 1. Billboards - Frontage Road 2. Biltmore Motor Hotel height 3. Alkobar Liquors Roof Sign 4. Delgagnon Realty 73612 Hwy III height do area 5. Hertz Rent-a-car 73220 Hwy Ill height ? 6. Hoams Pools 72381 Hwy III height 7. Houston Lumber 74124 Hwy II I Roof Sign 8. Market Basket 73601 Hwy 111 height do area 9. Mobile Gas 73611 Hwy Ill height 10. Mobile Gas 73230 Hwy II I height 11. Palm Desert Electric 73330 Hwy Ill number, roof sign 12. Palm Desert Florist 74115 Hwy I I I height 13. Palm Desert Liquor 74121 Hwy Ill height 14. Palm Desert Lodge 74527 Hwy Ill height 15. Palm Desert One Hour Cleaners 73583 Hwy I I I roof sign 16. Palm Villa Motel 73796 Hwy I I I height 17. Palms to Pines Plaza 72745 Hwy III now conforms 18. Red Kettle 73759 Hwy 111 height 19. Romeo's Steak House 73340 Hwy I I I height 20. Safeway 72815 Hwy Ill height 21. Sambo's 73075 Hwy I I I height 22. Sandy's 72950 Hwy 111 Roof Sign, height 23. Sprouse Reitz 72815 Hwy Ill Roof Sign 24. Texaco 74180 Hwy Ill height 25. The Adobe Inn 45406 Hwy 74 height 26. Thrifty Drugs 72875 Hwy III Roof Sign 27. Union 76 73801 Hwy I I I height 28. Cinemart 74465 Hwy II I Roof 29. Standard Station 72801 Hwy Ill height 30. Village Market 73468 Hwy I I I Roof Sign May 10, 1982 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 0&82 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider an amendment to the city's Sign Ordinance as it relates to nonconforming signs. SAID Public Hearing will be held on June 1, 1982, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall, 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission PUBLISH: Palm Desert Post May 20, 1982 /pa INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM CITY OF PALM DESERT TO: CITY MANAGER & CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF ENVIROMMENTAL SERVICES SUBJECT: NONCONFORMING SIGNS DATE: April 23, 1982 BACKGROUND: At its study session of March 25, 1982, City Council instructed staff to prepare a study of nonconforming signs. At the study session of April 22, 1982, council was advised that there were approximately 30 nonconforming signs in the city. The nonconformities relate to size, number, height or locations (i.e. roof signs). The possibility of resolving the nonconforming sign issue by attrition was discussed and a proposed ordinance circulated and commented upon. DISCUSSION: The comments received have been incorporated into a revised ordinance (see copy of body of proposed ordinance attached). The proposed sign ordinance amendment will apply to "on premise signs" only (i.e. a sign which carries only advertisements strictly incidental to a lawful use of the premises on which it is located, including signs or sign devices indicating the business transacted at, services rendered, goods sold or produced on the premises, name of business, name of person, firm or corporation occupying the premises. This ordinance will not apply in any way whatsoever to billboards). The proposed ordinance will apply only to lawful existing nonconforming signs (i.e. those signs which were installed with the benefit of a sign permit but which are nonconforming with the current city ordinance). These lawful nonconforming signs will be permitted to continue to exist with the condition that no alteration be permitted to the sign. The only work permitted would be normal maintenance and work necessary to protect public safety. Lawful nonconforming signs must be removed or brought into conformity upon the transfer of ownership of the business. The ordinance requires the vendor of any business having a lawful nonconforming sign to advise the vendee that the sign must be removed or brought into conformity upon transfer of ownership of the business. All nonconforming signs whether lawful nonconforming or just nonconforming must be removed before a sign permit may be issued. The ordinance allows the nonconforming signs to be retained for up to 30 days during the construction of the new sign if the applicant or owner deposits a bond with the city to guarantee the removal of the sign(s). - 1 - NONCONFORMING SIGNS (CONTINUED) Finally the ordinance states the city's express purpose of not confering any lawful nonconforming status to any billboard in the city. Such an ordinance would replace Sections 25.68.640 through and including 25.68.760. If it is council's wish to enact such legislation 'it should instruct staff to schedule it for hearing. RAMON A. DIAZ Director of Environmental Services RAD/pa attachment - 2 - EXHIBIT "A" ONTREMISES SIGN: A. Lawful existing signs at the time of the adoption of this ordinance on February 24, 1977, which do not comply with the requirements of Municipal Code Section 25.68, "Signs", as amended, shall be deemed lawful nonconforming uses and shall be made to comply, be removed or demolished upon the transfer of ownership of the business or upon the altering of sign, copy, size, color or the addition of new signage to the site or structure upon which the nonconforming sign is located. X4 Nonconforming signs may not be expanded , extended , rebuilt, altered or reconstructed in any way, except for normal maintenance or to protect public safety. It shall be the express responsibility of the vendor to advise the vendee of the provisions of this ,section relating to the removal of nonconforming signs upon the transfer of ownership of a business. B. Any nonconforming signs shall be demolished, removed or made to conform within thirty days of the issuance of a valid sign permit. Prior to the issuance of a sign permit for a property on which a nonconforming sign(s) exists, said applicant or owner shall file with the city an irrevocable bond in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) to guarantee that said nonconforming sign(s) shall be demolished, removed or made to conform within the specific time. C. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to imply or confer a lawful nonconforming use status to any offsite sign or advertising device, designed or used for periodically changing advertising copy (i.e. billboard).