HomeMy WebLinkAboutZOA 13-224Bagato, Tony
From: Andrew Painter [apainter@cityofplacerville.org]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 10:09 AM
To: Bagato, Tony
Subject: Re: HCED Listserve - Window / Neon Signs
Hello from Placerville!
Tony, we exempt signs painted or placed upon windows for non-residential use, provided no more
than twenty-five percent of the window area is covered.
The following is the City's definition of a "window sign":
Window Sign: Any sign, picture, symbol or combination thereof designed to communicate
information about an activity, business commodity, event, sale or service that is placed inside
a window or upon the window panes or glass and is visible from the exterior of the window
I am curious if similar exemptions are permitted within other jurisdictions.
Andrew Painter, City Planner
City of Placerville
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:27 AM,<tbagato(7a@cityofpalmdesert.ora> wrote:
Good morning! The City of Palm Desert is study issues related to window signs and visual clutter. The current
code allows permanent (vinyl lettering) window signs, as well as temporary signs. Staff has been looking into
the possibility of allowing neon signs based on community input from local businesses. In looking at allowing
neon signs, one area of concern is that too much window signs can lead to visual clutter and presents a safety
issue for police responding to calls of services if they cannot see into the store through the window or door.
In an attempt to allow neon signs, I am looking for any sign ordinances that restricts the overall window signage
area no matter if the signs are permanent, temporary or neon?
Also, I am interested in any feedback from communities that have had good or bad experiences with allowing
neon signs? Thank you for your time.
Tony Bagato, Principal Planner
City of Palm Desert, Community Development/Planning
73-510 Fred Waring Drive, CA 92260
www.cityofi)almdesert.com
(760) 346-0611 ext 480
ABe Green! Please don't print
this email unless you really need to.
HCED mailing list
HCE DR,l i sts. caciti es. org
ht!p:Hlists.cacities.org/mailman/listinfo/hced
This is a Public ListServe. This message was sent to you as a subscriber to the League of California Cities'
Housing, Community and Economic Development (HCED) ListServe. If you have any questions, please
contact:
Meghan McKelvey<a href="mailto:mMcKelveyacacities.org">mMcKelvey(&,cacities.org</a>
916.658.8253
The League is not responsible for the content posted to this listserve and encourages users to conduct their own
evaluations. Access to this listserve may be denied at the League's sole discretion.
Bagato, Tony
From: Cynthia McCormick [cmccormick@saratoga.ca.us]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 9:55 AM
To: Bagato, Tony
Subject: RE: HCED Listserve -Window/ Neon Signs
Hi Tony —
We just updated our sign ordinance and had a LOT of discussion on neon signs.
Here are the relevant code excerpts:
Definitions:
Electronic Sign means a sign which uses electrified or luminous materials to display a fixed graphic or message to
the public.
Window Sign means a sign that is displayed on a window, or within five (5) feet of a window, and is visible from a
street, walkway, parking lot, or other place that is accessible to the public.
....Sign District
In addition to other signs allowed pursuant to this Article, the following signs are allowed on lots with non-
residential uses in the ....sign district with a sign permit. Signs on lots located in the ... area shall also be consistent
with the .... Design Guidelines.
- Electronic Sign. One electronic sign (e.g., neon or L.E.D.), not exceeding two (2) square feet in area, provided
that: (1) The entire sign shall be comprised of one or a maximum of two solid colors.
(1) The sign shall not flash or be composed of a changeable message.
(2)'The sign shall not be illuminated when the use is closed.
(3) If the sign is located on a building, it shall count towards the maximum building sign allowance.
(4) If the sign is located in a window, it shall count towards the maximum window coverage.
Signs Allowed in Any Zoning District Without a Sign Permit:
The following signs are allowed without a sign permit in any zoning district in the City.
- Window Signs, provided that the signs do not comprise more than 25% of the area of any individual
window.
Let me know if you have any questions. Feel free to call or email...
Cynthia McCormick, Planner, AICP
City Of Saratoga Planning & Community Development Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 9SO70
Phone: 408 - 868-1230 Fax: 408 - 867-8555
From: hced-bounces( llists.cacities.org (mailto:hced-bouncesnlists,cacities.org] On Behalf Of
tbagatoCacit�ofpalmdesert.org
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 11:28 AM
To: hced(dlists.cacities.oro
Subject: HCED Listserve - Window / Neon Signs
Good morning! The City of Palm Desert is study issues related to window signs and visual clutter. The current code
allows permanent (vinyl lettering) window signs, as well as temporary signs. Staff has been looking into the possibility of
allowing neon signs based on community input from local businesses. In looking at allowing neon signs, one area of
concern is that too much window signs can lead to visual clutter and presents a safety issue for police responding to calls
of services if they cannot see into the store through the window or door.
In an attempt to allow neon signs, I am looking for any sign ordinances that restricts the overall window signage area no
matter if the signs are permanent, temporary or neon?
Also, I am interested in any feedback from communities that have had good or bad experiences with allowing neon
signs? Thank you for your time.
Tony Bagato, Principal Planner
City of Palm Desert, Community Development/Planning
73-510 Fred Waring Drive, CA 92260
www.citvofr)almdesert.com
(760) 346-0611 ext 480
`'� Be Green! Please don't print
this e-mail unless you really need to.
Bagato, Tony
From: Katherine Hess [KHess@cityofdavis.org]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 9:46 AM
To: Bagato, Tony
Cc: Bob Wolcott
Subject: RE: HCED Listserve - Window / Neon Signs
Our zoning code does provide an aggregate for all signs
http://ocode.us/codes/davis/view.i)hp?topic=40-40 26-40 26 020&frames=off
We don't differentiate between window and other signs. Our regulations technically would include neon "open" signs,
but I don't think we have any desire to go down that path..
Katherine Hess
Community Development Administrator
(530)757-5652
From: hced-bouncesCoblists.cacities.org [mailto:hced-bounces(alists.cacities.orol On Behalf Of
tbagato(&cityofpalmdesert.org
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 11:28 AM
To: hced( lists.cacities.org
Subject: HCED Listserve - Window / Neon Signs
Good morning! The City of Palm Desert is study issues related to window signs and visual clutter. The current code
allows permanent (vinyl lettering) window signs, as well as temporary signs. Staff has been looking into the possibility of
allowing neon signs based on community input from local businesses. In looking at allowing neon signs, one area of
concern is that too much window signs can lead to visual clutter and presents a safety issue for police responding to calls
of services if they cannot see into the store through the window or door.
In an attempt to allow neon signs, I am looking for any sign ordinances that restricts the overall window signage area no
matter if the signs are permanent, temporary or neon?
Also, I am interested in any feedback from communities that have had good or bad experiences with allowing neon
signs? Thank you for your time.
Tony Bagato, Principal Planner
City of Palm Desert, Community Development/Planning
73-510 Fred Waring Drive, CA 92260
www.citvofi)almdesert.com
(760) 346-0611 ext 480
ABe Green! Please don't print
this e-mail unless you really need to.
Bagato, Tony
From: Foy, Tim [TFoy@ci.glendale.ca.us]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 9:46 AM
To: Bagato, Tony; hced@lists.cacities.org
Subject: [SPAM] - RE: HCED Listserve - Window / Neon Signs
Glendale limits window signs to 25% of the area.
From: hced-bounces( lists.cacities.org rmailto:hced-bounces@lists.cacities.org] On Behalf Of
tbagato(a)cityQpa I mdesert. org
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 11:28 AM
To: hceciftlists.cacities.org
Subject: HCED Listserve - Window / Neon Signs
Good morning! The City of Palm Desert is study issues related to window signs and visual clutter. The current code
allows permanent (vinyl lettering) window signs, as well as temporary signs. Staff has been looking into the possibility of
allowing neon signs based on community input from local businesses. In looking at allowing neon signs, one area of
concern is that too much window signs can lead to visual clutter and presents a safety issue for police responding to calls
of services if they cannot see into the store through the window or door.
In an attempt to allow neon signs, I am looking for any sign ordinances that restricts the overall window signage area no
matter if the signs are permanent, temporary or neon?
Also, I am interested in any feedback from communities that have had good or bad experiences with allowing neon
signs? Thank you for your time.
Tony Bagato, Principal Planner
City of Palm Desert, Community Development/Planning
73-510 Fred Waring Drive, CA 92260
www.citVofpalmdesert.com
(760) 346-0611 ext 480
ABe Green! Please don't print
this e-mail unless you really need to.
Bagato, Tony
From: Chris Veirs [cveirs@ci.claremont.ca.us]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 9:44 AM
To: Bagato, Tony
Subject: RE: HCED Listserve - Window / Neon Signs
The City of Claremont allows up to 25% of total window area to be covered with window signage. "Open" signs are
allowed to be neon. Other types of window signs cannot be neon unless they are the primary identification sign for the
business.
Christopher Veirs
Senior Planner
City of Claremont 1 207 Harvard Avenue I Claremont, CA 91711
Ph. (909) 399-5486 1 cveirsPci.claremont.ca.us
From: hced-bouncesCdlists.cacities.org [mailto:hced-bouncesCallists.cacities.org] On Behalf Of
tbagato(&cityofpalmdesert.org
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 11:28 AM
To: hced(c lists.cacities.org
Subject: HCED Listserve - Window / Neon Signs
Good morning! The City of Palm Desert is study issues related to window signs and visual clutter. The current code
allows permanent (vinyl lettering) window signs, as well as temporary signs. Staff has been looking into the possibility of
allowing neon signs based on community input from local businesses. In looking at allowing neon signs, one area of
concern is that too much window signs can lead to visual clutter and presents a safety issue for police responding to calls
of services if they cannot see into the store through the window or door.
In an attempt to allow neon signs, I am looking for any sign ordinances that restricts the overall window signage area no
matter if the signs are permanent, temporary or neon?
Also, I am interested in any feedback from communities that have had good or bad experiences with allowing neon
signs? Thank you for your time.
Tony Bagato, Principal Planner
City of Palm Desert, Community Development/Planning
73-510 Fred Waring Drive, CA 92260
www.citvofpalmdesert.com
(760) 346-0611 ext 480
`" Be Green! Please don't print
this e-mail unless you really need to.
i
Bagato, Tony
From: Roger Cantrell [rc@rogercantrell.coml
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 9:41 AM
To: Bagato, Tony
Subject: Re: HCED Listserve - Window / Neon Signs
A sign ordinace I wrote for La Canada Flintridge in the 1990s dealt with neon as a potential source of closely -
viewed glare by requiring such signs to be placed at least 7 feet above floor elevation. This would also address
your concern about views into the stores. This regulation accompanied conventional limits on sign numbers
and area.
- Roger Cantrell, AIA, AICP
On Sep 7, 2012, at 11:27 AM, <tba ato cityofpalmdesert.org> wrote:
Good morning! The City of Palm Desert is study issues related to window signs and visual clutter. The
current code allows permanent (vinyl lettering) window signs, as well as temporary signs. Staff has been
looking into the possibility of allowing neon signs based on community input from local businesses. In
looking at allowing neon signs, one area of concern is that too much window signs can lead to visual
clutter and presents a safety issue for police responding to calls of services if they cannot see into the
store through the window or door.
In an attempt to allow neon signs, I am looking for any sign ordinances that restricts the overall window
signage area no matter if the signs are permanent, temporary or neon?
Also, I am interested in any feedback from communities that have had good or bad experiences with
allowing neon signs? Thank you for your time.
Tony Bagato, Principal Planner
City of Palm Desert, Community Development/Planning
73-510 Fred Waring Drive, CA 92260
www.citvofl)almdesert.com
(760) 346-0611 ext 480
ABe Green! Please don't print
this e-mail unless you really need to.
HCED mailing list
HCED60ists. cacities.org
htip:Hlists.cacities.org/mailman/listinfo/hced
This is a Public ListServe. This message was sent to you as a subscriber to the League
of California Cities' Housing, Community and Economic Development (HCED)
ListServe. If you have any questions, please contact:
Meghan McKelvey<a
href--"mai lto:mMcKelveyykcacities. org">mMcKelvey@cacities.org</a>
916.658.8253
The League is not responsible for the content posted to this listserve and encourages
users to conduct their own evaluations. Access to this listserve may be denied at the
League's sole discretion.
Bagato, Tony
From: Debbie Whitmore [DWhitmore@turlock.ca.us]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 9:30 AM
To: Bagato, Tony
Subject: Re: HCED Listserve - Window / Neon Signs
Turlock does not, but there have been discussions in the community about regulating window signs. I would be
interested in the results of your survey if you summarize them.
>>> <tbagato cityofpalmdesert.org> 9/7/2012 11:27 AM >>>
Good morning! The City of Palm Desert is study issues related to window signs and visual clutter. The current
code allows permanent (vinyl lettering) window signs, as well as temporary signs. Staff has been looking into
the possibility of allowing neon signs based on community input from local businesses. In looking at allowing
neon signs, one area of concern is that too much window signs can lead to visual clutter and presents a safety
issue for police responding to calls of services if they cannot see into the store through the window or door.
In an attempt to allow neon signs, I am looking for any sign ordinances that restricts the overall window
signage area no matter if the signs are permanent, temporary or neon?
Also, I am interested in any feedback from communities that have had good or bad experiences with allowing
neon signs? Thank you for your time.
Tony Bagato, Principal Planner
City of Palm Desert, Community Development/Planning
73-510 Fred Waring Drive, CA 92260
www.cityofpalmdesert.com
(760) 346-0611 ext 480
ABe Green! Please don't print
this e-mail unless you really need to.
Bagato, Tony
From: Nancy Blum [nblum@lemoore.coml
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 10:41 AM
To: Bagato, Tony
Subject: RE: HCED Listserve - Window / Neon Signs
8. Window Sign: a. Window signs shall not take up more than twenty five percent (25%) of the
total window area of the establishment. b. Window signs shall count toward the overall
allowed permanent signage allowed for an establishment but the message may be changed out on a regular basis
similar to a temporary sign. (Ord. 2012-01, 4-17-2012)
We do not allow flashing neon signs. Are signage code can be viewed at
http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/index.pho?book id=544
Nancy Blum
City of Lemoore
Code Enforcement Officer
nblum a.l-emoore.com
559-924-6709
559-924-9003 Fax
From: hced-bounces(a)lists.cacities.org [mailto•hced-bounces(@Iists.cacities.org] On Behalf Of
tbagato(lo cityofpalmdesert.org
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 11:28 AM
To: hced(dlists.cacities.org
Subject: HCED Listserve - Window / Neon Signs
Good morning! The City of Palm Desert is study issues related to window signs and visual clutter. The current code
allows permanent (vinyl lettering) window signs, as well as temporary signs. Staff has been looking into the possibility of
allowing neon signs based on community input from local businesses. In looking at allowing neon signs, one area of
concern is that too much window signs can lead to visual clutter and presents a safety issue for police responding to calls
of services if they cannot see into the store through the window or door.
In an attempt to allow neon signs,-1 am looking for any sign ordinances that restricts the overall window signage area no
matter if the signs are permanent, temporary or neon?
Also, I am interested in any feedback from communities that have had good or bad experiences with allowing neon
signs? Thank you for your time.
Tony Bagato, Principal Planner
City of Palm Desert, Community Development/Planning
73-510 Fred Waring Drive, CA 92260
www.citvofpalmdesert.com
(760) 346-0611 ext 480
ABe Green! Please don't print
this e-mail unless you really need to.
Bagato, Tony
From: Rob Mullane [mullane@ci.ojai.ca.us]
Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 3:34 PM
To: Bagato, Tony
Subject: FW: HCED Listserve - Window / Neon Signs
Tony,
The City of Ojai has signage standards that you may find useful. We prohibit most neon signs (except small "open" signs). We also
allow a certain amount of window signage as either exempt from or as part of a sign permit, with a cap at the lesser of 40 sq ft or
10% of the main building facade area. The pertinent excerpts from our Zoning Code are below.
With regard to enforcing our neon sign regulations... our experience is that when staff contacts a business that has installed a neon
sign that doesn't meet our requirements without checking with City staff, the business is typically very responsive and will take the
sign down.
Best of luck.
Sec. 10-2.1607. - Prohibited signs.
(h) Neon signs, except as specified in Section 10-2.1609(k), or as approved through a
comprehensive sign program;
Sec. 10-2.1609 (k)Neon signs. "Neon sign" shall mean a sign composed of one (1) or more discharge
lamps in which the gas contains a large proportion of neon or other similar inert gas. No neon
signs or architectural elements are allowed in the City with the exception of a two (2) square
foot "OPEN" neon sign allowed for commercial businesses. This exception shall follow the following
requirements:
Sec. 10-2.1609. - Standards for specific types of signs.
(2) The combined area of all business signs on a site shall not exceed forty (40) square feet or
ten (10%) percent of the main building face area, whichever is less. However, if the building on
the site in which the business is located is set back at least fifty (50') feet from the public
right-of-way, the combined area for all business signs on the site shall not exceed fifty (50)
square feet or thirteen (13%) percent of the main building face, whichever is less.
Sec. 10-2.1608. - Exemptions from sign permits.
(15) Small window signs, limited to a maximum of twenty (20%) percent of the window or opening
area of a business, less area devoted to window signs (as defined in Section 10-2.1609(r)). They
shall be limited to advertising products and services, or temporary sales, and may not be used to
display the business's name or logo.
Rob Mullane, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Ojai
P.O. Box 1570
401 S. Ventura St.
1
Ojai, CA 93024
(805) 646-5581 ext. 113
From: Shari Herbruck
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 12:38 PM
To: Rob Mullane
Subject: RE: HCED Listserve - Window / Neon Signs
From: hced-bounces(dlists.cacities.ore [hced-bounces@lists.cacities.org] on behalf of
tbaeato(@cityofpalmdesert.ore [tbagato@cityofpalmdesert.org]
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 11:27 AM
To: hced(&lists.cacities.ore
Subject: HCED Listserve - Window / Neon Signs
Good morning! The City of Palm Desert is study issues related to window signs and visual
clutter. The current code allows permanent (vinyl lettering) window signs, as well as
temporary signs. Staff has been looking into the possibility of allowing neon signs based on
community input from local businesses. In looking at allowing neon signs, one area of concern
is that too much window signs can lead to visual clutter and presents a safety issue for
police responding to calls of services if they cannot see into the store through the window
or door.
In an attempt to allow neon signs, I am looking for any sign ordinances that restricts the
overall window signage area no matter if the signs are permanent, temporary or neon?
Also, I am interested in any feedback from communities that have had good or bad experiences
with allowing neon signs? Thank you for your time.
Tony Bagato, Principal Planner
City of Palm Desert, Community Development/Planning
73-510 Fred Waring Drive, CA 92260
www.cityofpalmdesert.com<http://www.cityofpalmdesert.com/>
(760) 346-0611 ext 480
P Be Green! Please don't print
this e-mail unless you really need to.
2
Bagato, Tony
From: Martin Reeder [mreeder@nationalcityca.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2012 7:39 AM
To: Bagato, Tony
Subject: RE: HCED Listserve - Window I Neon Signs
This is how our Code references window signs:
18.47.090 - Small permanent signs in commercial, industrial, institutional, mixed -use, and multi -family zones.
A. Permanent Signs Less than Twenty -Five Square Feet. Any permanent sign measuring less than 25
square feet and not described elsewhere in this chapter shall be considered a small permanent sign that
shall only be permitted in commercial, industrial, and institutional zones and commercial uses in a
mixed -use zone as follows:
1. Small permanent signs shall be permitted only in windows or along the face of a building.
2. The total area of all small permanent signs and any allowable small temporary signs combined
shall not exceed ten percent of the wall or elevation on which the sign is placed.
The only neon signs we see are usually check cashing places that have one for each service they offer. It can look a bit
gaudy, but the limitation takes care of that mostly. We also have a limit on these businesses, so proliferation is not an
issue either. We do have conditions on our alcohol permits that prohibit alcohol signage being visible from outside an
establishment. However, non -conforming bars and liquor stores have some neon signs showing. We have not had a
definite issue with neon signs though.
From: hced-bouncesC&lists.cacities.or(i rmailto:hced-bouncesCd)lists.cacities.o[g] On Behalf Of
tbaoato(o)cityofpa Imdesert, ora
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 11:28 AM
To: hcedCoblists.cacities.org
Subject: HCED Listserve - Window / Neon Signs
Good morning! The City of Palm Desert is study issues related to window signs and visual clutter. The current code
allows permanent (vinyl lettering) window signs, as well as temporary signs. Staff has been looking into the possibility of
allowing neon signs based on community input from local businesses. In looking at allowing neon signs, one area of
concern is that too much window signs can lead to visual clutter and presents a safety issue for police responding to calls
of services if they cannot see into the store through the window or door.
In an attempt to allow neon signs, I am looking for any sign ordinances that restricts the overall window signage area no
matter if the signs are permanent, temporary or neon?
Also, I am interested in any feedback from communities that have had good or bad experiences with allowing neon
signs? Thank you for your time.
Tony Bagato, Principal Planner
City of Palm Desert, Community Development/Planning
73-510 Fred Waring Drive, CA 92260
www.citvofpalmdesert.com
(760) 346-0611 ext 480
ABe Green! Please don't print
this e-mail unless you really need to.
Bagato, Tony
From: Toy, Lily [Itoy@ci.redding.ca.us]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 4:33 PM
To: Bagato, Tony
Subject: RE: HCED Listserve - Window / Neon Signs
Hello Tony -
Here is an excerpt from our Zoning Ordinance regarding limitations on temporary window sign area.
It's the last row on the table below:
Schedule 18.42.030-B: Maximum Sign Area and
Illumination for Each Type of Sign by Zoning District
"GC
SignType
"RU
"RE"
'RS"
"RM"
"LO"
"GO"
"NC"
"SC"
"RC"
"HC"
"CBD"
"UBD-SP"
.'SGD-SP"
"GI"
"HI"
P/ASP
P/ASP
P/ASP
P/ASP
P/ASP
P/ASP
P/ASP
P/ASP
Detached
Monument
—/32'
32/—
20/—
32/—
35/901
35/150`
35/90'
3519W
Public and
semipublic signs
35/90'
35/90'
35/90'
35/90
35/90
35/90
35/90
—
Pole
—
—
—
—
60/90
90/150
90/150
90/125
Shopping center
identifier
—
—
—
—
—
—/200
—/200
—
Accessory sign
—
—
6/—
6/—
6/20
6/20
6/20
6/—
Signs on Buildings or Canopies
Mural
(nonadvertising)
—
—
—
—
—
300/301 or
greater
300/301 or
greater
—
Supergraphic
—
—
—
—
—
200/400
200/400
—
Canopy, attached or
freestanding
(including gas
station canopies)
—
—
20/—
30/—
30/—
35/—
35/—
35/—
Wall signs
12/24'
20/40
20/40
25/50
75/—
200/2501
150/200"-
150/2001
Projecting
—
—
—
—
20/—
30/—
30/—
—
Roof- or mansard-
mounted
—
—
—
—
60/—
60/90
60/90
—
Marquee
—
—
—
—
—
60/125
60/125
—
Public and
semipublic signs
12/24'
12/24
12/24
12/30
60/75
60/90
60/90
60/90—
Off -Site Signs
See
Section 18.42.080(H)
Animated Signs
Time and
—
—
—
20/—
20/—
30/60
30/60
—
temperature
Rotating
I—
—/90
1—/90
—
Alternating flashers
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Temporary Promotional Signs
Banners (vinyl or
—
—
—
12/—
12/—
24/50
24/50
24/50
canvas)
Off -site signs and
12/32
12/32
12/32
12/32
12/32
displays for public
service promotions
Off -site real estate
—/32
—/32
—
signs
On -site real estate
See
See
32/—
32/—
32/—
32/—
32/—
32/—
signs and
Section
Section
construction signs
18.42.040
18.42.040
(0)
(0)
Balloons and
—
—
—
—
See
See
—
dirigibles
Section
Section
18.42.040
18.42.040
(B)
(B)
Beacons and
—
—
—
—
—
P
P
—
searchlights
Political signs
12/—
12/—
12/—
32/—
32/—
32/—
32/—
32/—
Window-painted
—
—
—
100 up to
75 up to
100 up to
100 up to
100 up to
signs
10% of total
10% of total
10% of total
10% of total
10% of total
sign
sign
sign
sign
sign
area/200 or
area/200 or
area/200 or
area/200 or
area/200 or
30%
30%
30%
30%
30%
Regards-
9 r5rr �11
Lilly Toy, CFM
Associate Planner
e-mail: ItovCDDci.redd ino.ca.us
phone: (530) 245-7231
fax: (530) 225-4495
City of Redding
Development Services Department
Planning Division
777 Cypress Avenue
Redding, CA 96001
From: hced-bounces@lists.cacities.org [mailto:hced-bounces@lists.cacities.org) On Behalf Of
tbagato@cityofpalmdesert.org
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 11:28 AM
To: hced@lists.cacities.org
Subject: HCED Listserve - Window / Neon Signs
Good morning! The City of Palm Desert is study issues related to window signs and visual clutter. The current
code allows permanent (vinyl lettering) window signs, as well as temporary signs. Staff has been looking into
the possibility of allowing neon signs based on community input from local businesses. In looking at allowing
neon signs, one area of concern is that too much window signs can lead to visual clutter and presents a safety
issue for police responding to calls of services if they cannot see into the store through the window or door.
In an attempt to allow neon signs, I am looking for any sign ordinances that restricts the overall window signage
area no matter if the signs are permanent, temporary or neon?
Also, I am interested in any feedback from communities that have had good or bad experiences with allowing
neon signs? Thank you for your time.
Tony Bagato, Principal Planner
City of Palm Desert, Community Development/Planning
73-510 Fred Waring Drive, CA 92260
www.citvofoalmdesert.com
(760) 346-0611 ext 480
`'� Be Green! Please don't print
this e-mail unless you really need to.
Bagato, Tony
From: Dave Saldana [DSaldana@SanMarinoCA.gov]
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 11:53 AM
To: Bagato, Tony
Subject: RE: HCED Listserve - Window / Neon Signs
Tony,
Our City has prohibited neon signs for many years. Specifically, the ones that consists solely of exposed neon tubing. Our
sign ordinance restrict temporary window signs to no more than 25%of the window area. Hope this helps.
David A. Saldana, AICP
Planning and Building Director
City of San Marino
(626)300-0710
From: hced-bouncesCollists.cacities.org [mailto:hced-bouncesalists.cacities.org] On Behalf Of
tbagatoC&cityofpalmdesert.org
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 11:28 AM
To: hcedCla lists.cacities.org
Subject: HCED Listserve - Window / Neon Signs
Good morning! The City of Palm Desert is study issues related to window signs and visual clutter. The current code
allows permanent (vinyl lettering) window signs, as well as temporary signs. Staff has been looking into the possibility of
allowing neon signs based on community input from local businesses. In looking at allowing neon signs, one area of
concern is that too much window signs can lead to visual clutter and presents a safety issue for police responding to calls
of services if they cannot see into the store through the window or door.
In an attempt to allow neon signs, I am looking for any sign ordinances that restricts the overall window signage area no
matter if the signs are permanent, temporary or neon?
Also, I am interested in any feedback from communities that have had good or bad experiences with allowing neon
signs? Thank you for your time.
Tony Bagato, Principal Planner
City of Palm Desert, Community Development/Planning
73-510 Fred Waring Drive, CA 92260
www.citvofoalmdesert.com
(760) 346-0611 ext 480
ABe Green! Please don't print
this e-mail unless you really need to.
Bagato, Tony
From:
Jennifer Savage (jsavage@losgatosca.gov]
Sent:
Monday, September 17, 2012 11:40 AM
To:
Bagato, Tony
Cc:
heed@lists.cacities.org
Subject:
[SPAM] - RE: HCED Listserve - Window / Neon Signs
We allow window signs up to 25% of the window area. We do not allow flashing signs.
Our sign regulations begin with section 29.10.100 and can be accessed here:
http://librarymunicode com/index aspx?clientld=11760&stateld=5&stateName=California
Jennifer L. Savage, AICP
Associate Planner
Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department
phone:408.399.5702
website: www.losgatosca.gov/planning
AMNL
Public Counter Hours: Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 1:00 pm
Town offices will be closed on the following holidays and furloughs: December 23, 2011 to January 2, 2012; January 16; February 20; May 28; July
4; September 3; November 22 and November 23, 2012.
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 11:27:49 -0700
From: <tbagatoAacityofpalmdesert.org>
To: <hcedAlists.cacities.org>
Subject: HCED Listserve - Window / Neon Signs
Message -ID:
<A2CFB81 EB40968459BAF64A03 EAB64D5032 D607CAD @srv-exch07.cpd.com>
Content -Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Good morning! The City of Palm Desert is study issues related to window signs and visual clutter. The current code
allows permanent (vinyl lettering) window signs, as well as temporary signs. Staff has been looking into the possibility of
allowing neon signs based on community input from local businesses. In looking at allowing neon signs, one area of
concern is that too much window signs can lead to visual clutter and presents a safety issue for police responding to calls
of services if they cannot see into the store through the window or door.
In an attempt to allow neon signs, I am looking for any sign ordinances that restricts the overall window signage area no
matter if the signs are permanent, temporary or neon?
Also, I am interested in any feedback from communities that have had good or bad experiences with allowing neon
signs? Thank you for your time.
Tony Bagato, Principal Planner
City of Palm Desert, Community Development/Planning
73-510 Fred Waring Drive, CA 92260
www.citvofoalmdesert.com<http://www.citvofoalmdesert.com/>
(760) 346-0611 ext 480
= iifJ C e 1(- , c
G C c c,c) 1
�1
U6al
G
Acti �
vL� vJ
r �
Gi{z J�vP✓ (;1�% %b Cc'Cc�c Fix /cl�
--L
c
:J L — 1
�--ram.---eve �..-..:-�.•--� —
C �
9
dd �9
C.Atzf,v
7
��r
M � i �
�'t h
y �/ . t 1
J y,�(
tJr�F � F.�FN"�' "t F
n �j t� Y 1g
�. 4 t .Y. iiF t �
0
0
City of Palm Desert
4111
Sian /nventory
Code Section
Legend
SECTION 1
- SECTION 2
- SECTION 3
- SECTION 4
36800 block of Cook street, University Village
36-800 block of Cook Street
36-800 block of Cook Street
36-891 Cook Street
36-800 block of Cook Street
Coffee Bean, 36-891 Cook Street, Window signs
36-800 block of Cook Street
73091-73131 block of Country Club, Plaza Monterey, Bristol Farms Shopping Center
I
L t r
-j C. y.
ALL NATURAL I
PETTREAT
& FOODS
la
E B N
* No WVF�
::. e � � ULIf9xNl�y�LNiL L, M�Wyq�r
�Lp�F W'uLpu1; ENE I/GGt'
Y GOEO $A xxM.nrod
�NERD; R OLf
,fl( i,Me N
NESE
111111111�40
.Ye.
f
� (jx GREY 9E'
�:J� QITERdT�ONS Cx r"
NdtionNi:. L..,
a
I �
USINESS LIFE C5
674-6705
.0
vna
E5
ACRYLIC NAILS rZi.4 'r
SILK WRAP NEW SPA
TWO TONES NSSSo2A01101my
MANICURE
SPA
GEL NASICURE (W773.0350
PINK &WH1•ITE
�a�'ri:74d:n�u
73121
J
Country• goods
E6
ALRMSIC NAILS
NTONES _ rwio
..1 ¢e-..
MpSimlAE
LELNAILS S s�
RNK6WHITE +.+;
.LIVI DIVORCO—j
TTT _- CLIENTS
TR otcmw1011
r LESS
IAENS APPAREL
E4
74900 Block of Country Club, Ralphs Shopping Center
74924 Country Club, window signs
74900 Block of Country Club St.
74958 Country Club
14:08
74900 block of Country Club, Ralphs Shopping center
13
74990 Country Club, Neon, signs in windows
74930 Country Club Street
74-800 block of Gerald Ford
I
74-636 Gerald Ford
36-500 block Cook Street
72000 block of Dinah Shore
72000 block of Dinah Shore
72-630 Dinah Shore
72000 block of Dinah Shore
72000 block of Dinah Shore
72-700 Dinah Shore, Window signs
72000 block of Dinah Shore
(1
Taco bell, 72-810 Dinah Shore, window signs
72000 block of Dinah Shore
72000 block of Dinah Shore
/fir flffl�,0
Power fitness, 72-700 Dinah Shore, window signs
Ln
Appliance place, 72-700 Dinah Shore
72000 block of Dinah Shore
As
America's Tire, 72-700 Dinah Shore, banner
73-700 block of Dinah Shore
73-700 block of Dinah Shore
73-750 Dinah Shore
34-000 Monterey Avenue
34-300 Block of Monterey
34-500 Block of Monterey
34-300 Block of Monterey
34-300 Block of Monterey
41700-41801 block of Corporate Way
WIDE
\11
48801 Corporate Way, banner, displays
ml
yam'_-_'...�,,.� •,
.�aa[apl Uvr
SL I:VICK
. r.n conYlloYrnc
•rovavflavlm _
• BMtF6'
• PSDN • nX n•
•CXNLI\43151FY .
•LLtltOCll .4111NYn f
•CLLI(X(f :SFLIStl NS •�
L bmLm n �iirmuan a ..
( ONII'I FTF DIA1�NOb Jc.S
E-2
W
74725 block of Joni Drive
74874 Joni Drive
74990 Joni Drive
MOMS f
solar
•sa.0.6^ 6 �NUIY6m
,ennns6aoom , <A,a
(760) 56eJ613
r.w.a.rw.rn n
Ikw
Sola �`
P
n9 : SGlohal .
U
11•artmn • Water Features
k.Pool Se, • Plaster
•!.,Mira
•Pebhle Finish
'•Mod,
• Tile
Sys
Deck
•a"•
Re -Surfacing
•4aon.
conermr
•Pool Suh nS
Sir
Hea.a ting®
42005 Cook Street
14'�'
qTF
151k
0
RICIBI CM
City of Palm Desert
Sign Inventory
Code Section 1
Legend
SECTION 1
— SECTION 2� S
- SECTION 3 / w+t
`N VV„
SECTION 4 s
42155 block of Washington, Albertson's Shopping Center
42245 Washinqton St. window siqns
42245 Washington St
42245 Washington St
42245 Washington St
40205 block of Washington, Goody's cafe
i
40205 Washington St. Goody's Cafe, painted windows.
VVM kAft
40205 Washington, goods Services.
40205 Washington St, window signs
78010 block of Country Club
41905-995 block of Boardwalk Drive
09 .08.2009
41-905 Boardwalk Drive
41-865 Boardwalk Drive, window signs
r
01.9P.2009 09:55
41-905 Boardwalk Drive, covered windows
41-905 Boardwalk Drive
maRmIIIIIIIII ..
'-' - 01.06.2009 00:55
75-150 St. Charles Place, banner
75-141 Mediterranean, neon sign
41905-995 block of Boardwalk Drive
42-210 Cook Street, window sales
74-900 block of Gerald Ford
75-000 block Gerald Ford
Mobil station, 75-000 Gerald Ford, window signs
City of Palm Desert
Sign Inventory
Code Section 3
Legend 01
SECTION 1
- SECTION 2 /An
- SECTION 3 wr/ E
- SECTION a s
Mervyns Shopping Center, 72210-270 Hwy 111
5
72210 Hwy 111, banner window signs
72210 Hwy 111, window signs
11D
Mervyns Shopping Center, 72210-270 Hwy 111
� 11 sir+•
71:7�
72270 Hwy 111, window signs
72210 Hwy 111, window signs
72950-72300 block of Hwy 111
72840 Hwy 111 (Mall) vacated business canopy
73200 Block of Hwy 111
TAU
EWMS-4-4
p
73168 Hwy 111
73140 Hwy 111, goods/services
Block of 73360 Hwy 111
73360 Hwy 111, Goods/services
73360 Hwy 111, window signs
73430 Block of Hwy 111
73446 Hwy 111, Awning
73640 -73510 Block of Hwy 111
01.06.2009 09:45
73540 Hwy 111
73640 -73510 Block of Hwy 111
01.09 009 09:42 1
f` iY M
73640 Hwy 111
73800-73660 Block of Hwy 111
OASIS MASSAGE
T
10105 .20015:32
73753 Hwy 111, repetitive wording
01.05.300Y-15:40
73712 Hwy 111, repetitive wording
73800-73660 Block of Hwy 111
OASIS MASSAGE
1
OLsalon Salon
Ot .05.2008 75:82 -
73753 Hwy 111, repetitive wording 73700 Hwy 111, repetitive wording
NP1TEW ,NcCHwEOSeC
S
O
MINUTE,; coP
73660 Hwy 111, goods & services. 73660 Hwy ill, goods & services
MIOADEs 'AT6YAfP.lIMOII6Alf➢ —�
PAYMENT
doll I
r
73910 Hwy 111 Building
dance center
73910 Hwy 111, vacated business sign.
NOW LEASING
1-S40-2932
73910 Hwy 111, Now leasing signs
It,, CARPET.
73910 Hwy 111, goods & services
73910 Hwy 111 Building
NOW LEASING
340— 2932
73910 Hwy 111, now leasing signs
C()MpUTER
73910 Hwy 111, goods, services.
74040 Hwy 111 Center
jX
ol.oas000 1o:ae
01.05,200
74040 Hwy 111, Shingle signs
74040 Hwy 111, Shingle signs
74050-74170 block of Hwy 111
01:05. 10.
74104 Hwy 111, Window signs.
i
74124 Hwy 111,(April 30`h Permitted)
Block of 74200 Hwy 111
- X ME PIG
74220 Hwv 111, window sins. disolays
74200 Hwy 111
74390-74420 Block of Hwv 111
m
74410 Hwy 111
wo. wrj*irvc
SIGM ��,p5
74390 Hw 111, Window signs, neon
FOR LEASE
71," .. -
9-6J 29 n Bdri.i �b0 ]9
74420 Hwy 111, "For Lease Banner"
Short Stop, 74478 Hwy 111
�s,k
i7i/
r
r
74478 hwy 111, A -frame sign
74478 Hwy 111, Menu items.
74478 Hwy 111, menu items
Albertson's Shopping Center at Deep Canyon/ Hwy 111
4�490010
74600 Hwy 111
—M/Mmbilhr
74600 Hwy 111 74600 Hwy 111
74520-74600 Hwy 111, Albertson's Deepcanyon
74600 Hwy 111, window signs
74520 Hwy 111
74520 Hwy 111, window signs
74460-74330 block of Alessandro Drive
74350 Alessandro
w
&a 01 .oe.zoOQ OB:ae
74350 Alessandro
- 01.0e.20o
x%,
74350 Alessandro, deteriorated monument sign
RFF...'
ot.os.
74330 Alessandro
74280-74050 block of Alessandro
44775-855 block of San Pablo Avenue
,
44-795 San Pablo Avenue, neon signs
44-795 San Pablo Avenue, services
�TKRI�F�
L NTtiJN�
s a':
i4Yy'
01.07.
44-855 San Pablo Avenue, goods
44-855 San Pablo Avenue, goods
44775-855 block of San Pablo Avenue
.l
i,
MUTO
,
b
of
'
A
44-720 San Pablo Avenue
44-820 San Pablo Avenue, menu items
iP
'=;
PALM DESERT
tommunih School
�
~
� •
�
11
.l'�� lil
11
44-775 San Pablo Avenue, window signs
44-790 San Pablo Avenue, signs
I `
07.07.2009 75:54
y
44-840 San Pablo Avenue, window sign
44-850 San Pablo Avenue, goods and services
44100-250 block of Town Center Way -(Trader Joes shopping center)
44-250 Town Center Way, signs
44419-495 block of Town Center Way -(Best Buy shopping center)
AML®
�
44-419 Town Center Way
44-445 Town Center Way, window signs
Me;mc
- 7.off
2009 11:03
- 11:07.2009 11:07
44-435 Town Center Way
44-459 Town Center Way
44419-495 block of Town Center Way -(Best Buy shopping center)
The UPS Store
0
r -' 01.07.2
k;.
44-489 Town Center Way, window signs
44-489 Town Center Way, banner
a
44-489 Town Center Way, window signs
44-489 Town Center Way
44419-495 block of Town Center Way -(Best Buy shopping center)
44-491 Town Center Way
City of Palm Desert
Sign Inventory
Code Section 4
Legend •
SECTION 1
- SECTION 2
- SECTION 7 W e
- SECTION 4 %
Las Sombras Center 72261 Hwy 111
72333 Hwy 111, Desert Crossing
72333 Hwy 111, window signs
72339 Block of Hwy 111, Desert Crossing
72345 Hwy 111
i1
72399 Hwy 111
72399 Hwy 111
72399 block of Hwy 111, Desert Crossing
72363 Hwy 111, window signs
72363 Hwy 111, set back 2'.
RICHARD J. GILL, DDS
DENTISTRY
General, Cosmetic & Implant Dentistry
MENERIENUM
'�1Re
F
0
ti •
OPEN
ALTERNATIVE
FITNESS
VOLE DANCE ` `-
PILAILS
!,zoPOf
BA
I r
Cf�oDY 1AoVINGBgDY
/1�VING g�DY M4VIN
,10, !emu .
I
rA
. paupressure _ ' '
OMeap 9sue
• Pain Reiiel
•Slres5fle,4 ton _ tr
• Poot Rellerolog� i
LADIES ELIAEN WELCOME
WELCOME
S
0 i .
72695-73403 block of Hwy 111
73120 block of Hwy 111
� '92.20.2008
73125 Hwy 111, window signs
73155 Hwy 111
73185 Hwv 111
WA
73547-603 block of Hwy 111, Jensen's Shopping Center
aut
tlg5hack
1 \ �
PSYCHIC
N7[-
o-
c •.
- -7 /
iq 941
74041 Block of Hwy 111
74057 Hwy 1:1, permitted banner
74051 Hwy 111, window signs
74059 Hwy 111
74121 Hwy 111, A -frame sign
r
74115 Hwy 111, displays
74125 Hwy 111, repetitive signs
jjuseic1, Mill ee �L
01 07
74-465 1
lib '�e
mm Itaint
i
p;�nt
E
rm
HEALING
"~
ARTS'
I�1l Y1�4
CENTER
W»v_
jl
I
COrvGIGNMEM
CENTER
it ° �- ��•�
0�
w1I , 'I
' IL
r
II r
R�
y
q
-1
74140-73470 block of El Paseo
74140 El Paseo, repetitive, reference to "sale"
lIpALCRUISE
sERV.� CENTER
73950 El Paseo, goods & services
(ram FRASCA )6WCLERS
I,
aj
sz t�t�t�
1LI
s
1
r
4
73160 El Paseo, awning not approved
73130 El Paseo, repetitive signs
72225-73827 Block of El Paseo
73255 El Paseo, window signs
73655 El Paseo, repetitive wording
uO�IS�M� NEyEK In �,.,_
�AC
WH
1�1n�'PoE�
3-5p02
_ --.WNW
Ray Jaci*§'! 1
.y
11111111m;
NNI
Y:
'yam r�ir
6
73-850
ISO
so��s �aaa rx-�
President's Plaza East, 73990 block of El Paseo
President's Plaza East, 73900 block of Hwy 111
President's Plaza East, 73925 block of Hwy 111
73925 Hwy 111
01.15.2000 10:47
73899 Hwy 111, neon repetitive
R
//// m ,
SHOE REPAIR:
(78o) 346-6665 k,rip
-gk..ft sm".
I . : �,, "m Liihh, -
t
HOURS
MOHO>Y Ni ,
ppM np��
pIUPOf"
� IfM>
SUNDRY Cf
r
•-11.11 loop'
FEFENCE
SE MEMCME!
1 �p51116 •T
-:nM:nec s
uswly
naa�IRKTwE
r.
AMC
so na-sza
d
73-863
President's Plaza West, 73640 Block of El Paseo
73640 El Paseo, window signs
73680 El Paseo, window signs
President's Plaza West, 73722 block of El Paseo
73722 El Paseo
73760 El Paseo, screen graphics
President's Plaza West, 73801 block of Hwy 111
moo
on Lr
f ; NSSOII�f�
nkN�ANTa'':._ y
ALW & LOCK
9.00 ME
ELEGANT. EDGE FAx:IALS
WAXING
AcrYl PEELS
Fberyass'GNA
Hawaiian Manw,6re PIOICIMB
U SIFy 'penexal"yMa Art Re.elary
on,
4 6E8-0602
PLAZA HAIRDRESSERS
W+IUI(5 WELaME � 1
V xaa-2850
IF —
A
'JY/p 0
llty m
US Sl*S
r
'_
Q
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: APPOINT TWO (2) CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO A SUBCOMMITTEE
THAT WILL WORK WITH STAFF AND THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY TO
DEVELOP NEW STANDARDS FOR ILLUMINATED WINDOW SIGNS
("NEON SIGNS-).
SUBMITTED BY: Tony Bagato
Principal Planner
APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
DATE: February 24, 2011
CONTENTS: City Council Minutes, dates November 18, 2010
Recommendation:
By Minute Motion, appoint two (2) City Council members to a
subcommittee dealing with illuminated window signage.
Discussion:
On July 27, 2010, the City Council directed staff to prepare a Zoning Ordinance
Amendment removing the neon sign prohibition and to develop standards that would
allow neon signs with approval by the Architectural Review Commission. After the
meeting, staff researched ordinances from other cities to develop new standards for
illuminated window signs. On September 28, 2010, the Architectural Review
Commission discussed the proposed standards and recommended approval with some
modifications. Staff made the modifications and presented the ordinance to the
Planning Commission on October 19, 2010. After discussion by the Planning
Commission, a recommendation of denial was approved on a 3-2 vote.
Staff presented the proposed ordinance to the City Council on November 18, 2010..
After the presentation, discussion, and public hearing, the case was referred back to
staff with a request that a subcommittee be formed. The subcommittee will consist of
two (2) City Council members, representatives of the business community and staff to
develop new standards for allowing illuminated window signs. Staff anticipates that the
subcommittee will meet several times over the course of one to two months.
Staff Report
February 24, 2011
Page 2 of 2
Fiscal Analysis
The formation of this subcommittee will have no fiscal impact on the City.
Submitted by: Department Head:
Tony Bagato Lauri Aylaian
Principal Planner Director of Community Development
Approval:
Wohlmuth
CITYCOUNCTLA✓✓ WN
APPROVED DENTTD�
RrCFIVED OTHER
11FF,T G A
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
VERIFIED BY:
Original on File with City Jerk% Ofrwo
G;WIWMnplTwy Bepato\Wo d FIIWFomlats\Stafl Repro %ZOAUOA 10-31118&= I it a Stets Repw.aao
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2010
Mayor Finerty declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony
FAVORING or OPPOSING the Ordinance. With no public testimony offered, she
declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No.1217.
Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Ferguson ABSENT.
C. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT,
PROVIDING SIGNAGE STANDARDS FOR ILLUMINATED WINDOW
SIGNAGE IN SECTION 25.68 OF THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE
Case No. ZOA 10-311 (City of Palm Desert, Applicant).
Principal Planner Tony Bagato stated on July 27, 2010, the City Council
directed staff to adopt an ordinance to allow illuminated window signage after
the City began enforcing the prohibition adopted last year when business
owners came to speak to the City Council about their existing signs. He said
the proposed Ordinance allows all new signs to be reviewed with new
requirements and any existing signswill be grandfathered. The requirements
for illuminated window signs will only be allowed in non-residential areas;
signs cannot be combined with any reflective material such as glazed tiles,
which causes more reflection off the window; signs will not occupy more than
25 percent of the store front window area; and no more than one window per
frontage. The designing criteria meant they should be created or improve the
store front design and cannot advertise products such as Budweiser. He
said if the location of the business is next to a residential area, the
Architectural Review Commission (ARC) recommended illuminated signs to
be turned off when the business is closed. He said the approval process
would require ARC approval and the City Council can call up any of the
cases up for review. The standards will be added to the Palm Desert
Municipal Code Section 25.68, Section M; the ARC approved the proposed
Ordinance on a 6-1 vote, with Commissioner Vuksic absent. When staff
presented this matterto the Planning Commission, they recommended denial
on a 3-2 vote. He said three commissioners were concerned illuminated
signs would create a negative impact to the City, particularly on Highway 111
and El Paseo. He said staff was still recommending approval based on the
direction of the City Council and the adopted restrictions proposed, because
staff believed it can create a balance with businesses and also limit the visual
impact. He offered to answer questions.
Councilman Kroonen stated that in reviewing the minutes of July 27, 2010,
which he did not participate in, it appeared quite clear the Council had in
mind the revision of the Ordinance to permit neon or illuminated signs. From
his perspective, he believed staff did a good job of returning to the Council
with it, but the question was not "shall we or shall we not have," the question
22
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2010
was how could the City adjust its Ordinance in order to permit them. He
asked staff if he was correct in his assumption.
Mr. Bagato answered yes, stating that was the direction by the City Council.
Councilman Kroonen stated it appeared to him that perhaps the Planning
Commission was not answering the right question. The question wasn't yes
or no, but rather how to.
Mr. Bagato agreed, stating some of the commissioners recommended staff
enforce the existing prohibition to not allow neon signs, which was the
position of the majority of the commissioners. The Planning Commission
had one recommendation, but staff believed neon signs can be controlled
well enough to not become a negative impact.
Councilman Kroonen asked if "illuminated window signs" equaled neon signs
and neon equaled illuminated.
Mr. Bagato answered yes. He said when staff was enforcing prohibition of
neon signs, staff found out there was also LED and flourescent signs, so staff
wanted to encompass all or any type of potential sources that could be used.
Councilman Kroonen noted paragraph M of Section 3 with reference to
"Current signs will be allowed to remain with approval from the Planning
Department." He asked what would happen if the Planning Commission did
not grant approval, would the signs have to be removed.
Mr. Bagato stated the direction was to grandfather all existing signs. Staff
worked with Code Enforcement in taking photographs of all existing ones and
requiring businesses to get them documented so that if they tried to change
signs in the future, the City will have a record of what was previously there.
Further responding, he confirmed the language in the first paragraph should
read, "illuminated window signs shall not be allowed in residential zones."
Councilman Kroonen stated he was also concerned about the 25% of the
frontage window area. He said in some larger windows it may allow for a
large illuminated sign that might detract from the goal.
Mr. Bagato agreed, but one of the ARC caveat's is that it enhance the
storefront, so signs are subject to the design and individual store front. He
said the ARC will review cases, and the City Council will receive a copy of
those cases in their City Council packet, and if there are concerns,
Councilmembers can call those cases up within fifteen days and request for
it to be discussed before the City Council.
23
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2010
Councilman Kroonen stated in the event the ARC determines there is a
negative impact and denies the case, could those cases be called up as well.
Mr. Bagato answered yes, stating it could also be appealed by the Applicant.
Councilman Spiegel stated he thought this matter was already approved on
a six-month period.
Mr. Bagato answered no, stating they had a six -months prohibition of
enforcing outside signage.
Councilmember Benson stated she was not against illuminated window
signs, but she didn't want to see one on every window and thought
something in the language should be included that limited three or four in a
block, and if somebody else wanted to add one, they would have to wait until
one went out. She didn't know if language could be inserted or if this needed
to go back to the Planning Commission to answer the question, which was
to help the Council figure out a way to help the merchants and certainly those
grandfathered. She said in the thirty years she's been on the Council, she's
never had a complaint about neon signs, but she didn't want to see Highway
111 or El Paseo become glitzy.
Mr. Erwin responded he wasn't sure how that could be accomplished, but will
certainly look to see if there was a possibility.
Councilmember Benson stated she didn't want every store on El Paseo to
have a neon sign.
Responding to question, Mr. Bagato said existing illuminated/neon signs will
be grandfathered, and new businesses will have to go through the ARC.
Mayor Finerty asked if the photograph in the previous staff report, where
there is a "Tecate" beer sign, a business that was grandfathered.
Mr. Bagato answered yes, stating since the Ordinance wasn't previously
being enforced, staff couldn't pick and choose what could get grandfathered,
which was his understanding. He said staff had to allow all of them to remain
with existing businesses, and overtime as businesses changed, hopefullythe
signage will be eliminated down to one. He said the subject business
mentioned had seven neon signs.
Councilmember Benson stated she thought the signs went with the business
and not the property.
24
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2010
Mr. Bagato stated someone had bought the business and maintained it as a
liquor store and didn't change the window signs. He said it was still
maintained with the property and the business, but if they wanted to start
changing them with new liquor signs, staff could enforce the new code.
Mayor Finerty asked why the City had allowed and not taken action on the
Taqueria place that had several signs on the window, because it certainly
didn't enhance the neighborhood.
Mr. Bagato stated when staff tried to enforce the Ordinance that prohibited
all the neon signs and started notifying the businesses, there was a public
outcry that the City was enforcing the Ordinance in poor economic times.
Therefore, staff recommended a temporary prohibition on the enforcement
for two years, and staff was directed to come up with a Zoning Ordinance
amendment and to grandfather all existing businesses. It was his hope to
grandfather only one neon sign, but City Attorney said it wasn't possible to
limit the number of signs it could grandfather on each business, but agreed
to revisit that possibility.
Mayor Finerty declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony
FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter.
MS. MARI SCHMIDT stated she was a City of Palm Desert Planning
Commissioner. She said the question that baffled the Commission when this
matter was presented was on whether the City could or couldn't grandfather
existing businesses, because the City had allowed the signs to be installed
without any kind of action. She noted City Attorney Dave Ervin was not at
the meeting when this was discussed, but Mr. Hargreaves was present. She
said Mr. Hargreaves said there was some grey area that could be enforced
and have the neon signs removed, but that he needed to speak to Mr. Erwin
about it, which was the last time the Commission heard anything on that
point. She hoped to convince the Council to take another close and studied
look at what it may endorse. She said the object of the subject ordinance
revisions was to allow illuminated/neon signage in all windows except in
residential zoning and/or facing residential areas, and to allow businesses
which are presently not in compliance and thereby breaking the law, to be
grandfathered. The background on this matter was due to a few business
complaints, and staff was instructed to prepare a revision to the Ordinance
allowing illuminated/neon signage in non-residential windows. She believed
the original intent was to put in place a temporary allowance of two years to
help businesses cope with the economic downturn. She said the following
issues were wrong with the proposed ordinance: 1) There was little or no
survey of all the existing businesses to gather any consensus on whether or
not to favor this change; she believed El Paseo merchants were among
them; 2) Approving the proposed ordinance would open a "pandora's box,"
25
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2010
which can never be undone, because the ordinance had not been enforced
nor did the City have the manpower to control the City's Ordinance; 3) The
Ordinance will change the character of the City. She said people came to
Palm Desert from all over the world because of the nature and character of
this City and allowing this "Coney Island" approach to lighting up the City will
cause irreparable harm to the City's image; the cost and residual effects of
this about face action will be immeasurable; 4) The proposed Ordinance
modifications were vague as the use of the term "storefront window"
indicated just that. However, the Ordinance did not pertain to retail; it
encompasses everything that is not residential, office, second story
businesses, banks, service stations, and massage establishments; 5) A
number of businesses have recently installed these signs in order to be
grandfathered into the proposed Ordinance requirements before taking
effect; 6) The concept that the economy is bad, the need to attract business,
and the need for illuminated signs was sheer fantasy. She asked where was
the research that proved lighting up a window with an "open" sign will bring
more business than ordinarily would come to shop, particularly in Palm
Desert, She pleaded with the Council to instruct staff to take a closer look at
what all this meant and to canvass the existing businesses, commercial, and
non-residential participants for the real impact of this incredible change in the
character of the neighborhood. She said existing perpetrators, some 50
businesses, as told by staff, should be fined and made to remove the signage
until this issue was properly studied and resolved. She said the proposed
Ordinance changes should be carefully studied if the City chose to continue
to pursue this nonsense; she said at least compare apples to apples. She
shared that one evening when she was having dinner on El Paseo, her seat
faced 14 stores in her direct view and thought it was truly a beautiful sight,
which was one of the reasons she chose to live in Palm Desert. However,
she became sadden with the thought of how awful it would be to have neon
signs on all those windows. She said there was no hurry to approve the
subject Ordinance and asked the Council to take a much longer look at the
proposed Ordinance before it let the horse out of the barn. She offered to
answer questions.
Councilman Spiegel asked which businesses recently installed neon signs.
MS. SCHMIDT answered The Gas Light.
Councilman Spiegel stated he thought their signage had gone through ARC.
MS. SCHMIDT said she had no idea, and only knew the signs had appeared
in the last couple of weeks.
Councilman Spiegel stated the name had changed because it was a new
business. He said in order to install a new sign it had to go through ARC.
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2010
Mr. Bagato answered the sign on the building would have, but he didn't know
about the window signs.
MS. SCHMIDT noted there were three window signs.
Councilmember Benson inquired about The Gaslight signage itself, on
whether it was lit or not. MS. SCHMIDT answered no.
Councilman Spiegel stated he didn't disagree that a closer look needed to be
taken; however, he questioned whether this was the time to do it. He said
anything that hurt the merchants, hurt the City of Palm Desert. He said until
this evening he never had a complaint from anyone visiting or living here
about too many neon signs and tonight wasn't an end-all.
Councilman Kroonen stated people are always looking for opportunities to
compromise and hoped there would be one for the position taken by a
majority of the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Commission.
It seemed to him this issue could be compromised and respectfully asked the
Planning Commission to look again to see if there was a way for additional
illuminated signs to be incorporated. He believed well-meaning people can
discuss these matters and come up with original solutions that perhaps
haven't been thought of, because he was not encouraged to vote yea or nay
at this time and believed this issue can be resolved in a way that might be
satisfactory to all parties. His recommendation would be to refer this matter
back to the Planning Commission and ask for an additional look, because he
didn't think the Planning Commission was answering what he considered to
be the right question. The question as he read the minutes of the meeting
of July 27, 2010, was not yea or nay on eliminating signs. The question was
how could it be accomplished.
MS. SCHMIDT responded that in all faimess, it was not the way she
interpreted whatwas presented to the Commission at the meeting. She said
the Commission was normally a reactive body and its been her experience
when they attempt to be proactive, as this might indicate, which was her
opinion and the majority of the Commission, that it's a mistake. She did not
hear at that meeting that the Commission was instructed to draft some sort
of ordinance and that it was a done deal.
Councilman Kroonen stated he didn't mean to be argumentative, but he was
basing his comments on the minutes of the July 27 meeting, "Mr. Erwin
suggested a motion that would direct the City Attorney and City Staff to
prepare amendment to the Sign Ordinance that would delete the prohibition
of neon signs and require that all signs go through the normal Architectural
Review Commission process." If that wasn't shared, he could understand
why Ms. Schmidt took her position.
27
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2010
MS. SCHMIDT stated the Commission was told by staff that they had
received instruction for the Commission to work at it.
Councilmember Benson asked if there was a committee that made the
proposed recommendations before it went to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Bagato stated the Architectural Review Commission reviewed the
proposed Ordinance, but he was the one that researched local and other
resort cities that had an existing ordinance. He said other resort cities with
district areas like El Paseo, didn't allow neon signs in walking districts, but
allowed them in areas like Highway 111 where there was more driving traffic,
which was another possibility or compromise that could be reviewed. He
proposed the Ordinance to the ARC and minor modifications were made and
then forwarded to the Planning Commission. He expressed to the Planning
Commission that staff was directed to do this, but that they could have their
own separate recommendation. Further responding, he said the ARC voted
in favor of the proposed Ordinance.
Councilmember Benson suggested having a committee with representation
from El Paseo to weigh in, similarly to what the City's done on other projects
relating to signage, before it's presented to the Planning Commission once
again. She agreed there was no hurry, because she certainly didn't want to
do anything that would hurt business.
Mayor Pro Tem Ferguson stated he was just alerted to a family situation he
needed to attend to but wanted to say good bye, because this was his last
City Council meeting. However, with regard to this issue, he said there were
some very artistic neon signs like About Face on San Pablo, and Kate
Spade, and others who went above and beyond to make some artistic
statement on their window, but placing a complementary Budweiser sign
from a beer manufacturer was not what the Council had in mind for art in
Palm Desert. He wished there was a way to provide a discretionary panel
and was disappointed with the ARC, because they are charged with the task
to review these matters on a case by case basis like they did with the Palm
Desert Motor Lodge. It had historical significance, artistic merit, Art -deco
feel, and it had a place in the City, but to grandfather everything from a
Budweiser, Pacifico or Corona sign, which was doing nothing but selling beer
was unacceptable. He was sensitive to the retail business, but it wasn't the
life blood of the City, and if it detracted from people who want to spend more
money in Palm Desert, he agreed a committee might be the way to go. He
will no longer be serving as a Councilmember, so this was his two -cents
worth. He hated to leave on this kind of a note, but he had to leave. He
thanked everyone for his time on the Council and said good night and left the
Council Chamber.
M
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2010
NOTE: Mayor Pro Tern Ferguson left the meeting at 5:23 p.m.
MS. SCHMIDT stated her concern was that unless all businesses were
spoken to, the assumption couldn't be made everyone wanted the proposed
Ordinance, and the merchants of the City brought in the tax dollars, which
was her point. She said she didn't want to argue, but she just wanted to
make it clear that those who didn't like the proposed Ordinance were not
being arbitrary. The Ordinance as drafted was not right and thoroughly
vague and needed more work.
MS. BARBARA DEBOOM stated that after hearing a couple of issues this
evening, but having not been involved, as the business voice of the
community she would offer some of the City businesses to get together to
form a committee. Additionally, she was concerned about the issue with
lights being off on El Paseo or throughout the City, because many
restaurants are the livelihoods to the community that keeping the lights on
was a perfect way to shop at night, because people are enticed to return to
shop. She said to have the streets dark at night would be a deterrent. She
suggested having a curfew for lights to be turned off at 10 o'clock may be
another option, but agreed this issue needed more study.
With no further testimony offered, Mayor Finerty declared the public hearing closed.
Councilmember Benson reiterated the City needed a committee of business
people and others to look at this before a decision was made, because it was
too important as mentioned by Ms. Schmidt. She said the Council never did
anything that was detrimental to the City, and the Council always tried to be
business friendly. Although some have said the Council was not, it's not true,
because the Council did everything the business community had asked them
to do. She said this was another issue that needed the full attention of a
committee before it returned to the Planning Commission. Councilman
Kroonen and Mayor Finerty concurred.
Councilmember Benson moved to refer the matter back to staff for establishment
of a subcommittee, working with the Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce and the City's
Business Community, to provide further study regarding illuminated window signage, and
said recommendation to be brought back through the Zoning Ordinance Amendment
process. Motion was seconded by Spiegel.
Ms. Klassen asked if the public hearing needed to be reopened if this item
was being continued or will it return as a newly noticed item.
Mr. Erwin responded this item will have to be renoticed and returned as a
public hearing.
29
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2010
Ms. Klassen announced the motion carried by a 4-0 vote, with Ferguson ABSENT.
D. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN AMENDED ASSESSMENT FOR A
PARCEL OF LAND IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT SECTION 29
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (NO. 2004-02).
Mr. Greenwood stated the Monterey Ridge Development formerly known as
Falling Waters is located in the Section 29 Assessment District, more
formerly known as Assessment District 2004-02. The project is located
directly east of Ashley Furniture Store and the adjacent Walmart Store on the
comer of Gateway Drive and 35'" Avenue. He said the project had been
subdivided into condominium lots and the action before the Council was to
approve reapportionment of the assessments from the larger parent lot to the
smaller condominium lots.
Mayor Finerty declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony
FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. With no public testimony offered, she
declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2010
- 84, confirming an Amended Assessment for a parcel of land in the Section 29
Assessment District (No. 2004-02) and fix the amount of the fees and costs for such
amendment. Motion was seconded by Kroonen and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Ferguson
ABSENT.
XVIII. REPORTS AND REMARKS
A. CITY MANAGER
Report on New Burrtec Dedicated Routes and Service Days for all
Regular Municipal Waste Collection (Residential and Commercial).
Mr. Wohlmuth.called attention to the informational report regarding
routes for solid waste and recycling collection contained in the agenda
packets. Since preparation of the report, City staff approached
Burrtec about delaying the change until mid -June 2011 instead of on
November 29, 2010. He noted that the request is a requirement of the
City's Franchise Agreement but will be waived for six months, allowing
Burrtec to develop their new routes by mid -June and provide
adequate notice to all residents. Notification will also be given on the
City's website. He said it was hoped that enough people will still be
in town as of mid -June so that they get accustomed to the new
collection. He offered to take any Council members' comments on the
proposed route maps to Burrtec, noting that the change was being
made for reasons of efficiency and according to the Franchise
30
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2010
Mayor Finerty declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony
FAVORING or OPPOSING the Ordinance. With no public testimony offered, she
declared the public hearing closed.
Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1217.
Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Ferguson ABSENT.
C. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT,
PROVIDING SIGNAGE STANDARDS FOR ILLUMINATED WINDOW
SIGNAGE IN SECTION 25.68 OF THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE
Case No. ZOA 10-311 (City of Palm Desert, Applicant).
Principal Planner Tony Bagato stated on July 27, 2010, the City Council
directed staff to adopt an ordinance to allow illuminated window signage after
the City began enforcing the prohibition adopted last year when business
owners came to speak to the City Council about their existing signs. He said
the proposed Ordinance allows all new signs to be reviewed with new
requirements and any existing signs will be grandfathered. The requirements
for illuminated window signs will only be allowed in non-residential areas;
signs cannot be combined with any reflective material such as glazed tiles,
which causes more reflection off the window; signs will not occupy more than
25 percent of the store front window area; and no more than one window per
frontage. The designing criteria meant they should be created or improve the
store front design and cannot advertise products such as Budweiser. He
said if the location of the business is next to a residential area, the
Architectural Review Commission (ARC) recommended illuminated signs to
be turned off when the business is closed. He said the approval process
would require ARC approval and the City Council can call up any of the
cases up for review. The standards will be added to the Palm Desert
Municipal Code Section 25.68, Section M; the ARC approved the proposed
Ordinance on a 6-1 vote, with Commissioner Vuksic absent. When staff
presented this matterto the Planning Commission, they recommended denial
on a 3-2 vote. He said three commissioners were concerned illuminated
signs would create a negative impact to the City, particularly on Highway 111
and El Paseo. He said staff was still recommending approval based on the
direction of the City Council and the adopted restrictions proposed, because
staff believed it can create a balance with businesses and also limit the visual
impact. He offered to answer questions.
Councilman Kroonen stated that in reviewing the minutes of July 27, 2010,
which he did not participate in, it appeared quite clear the Council had in
mind the revision of the Ordinance to permit neon or illuminated signs. From
his perspective, he believed staff did a good job of returning to the Council
with it, but the question was not "shall we or shall we not have," the question
22
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2010
was how could the City adjust its Ordinance in order to permit them. He
asked staff if he was correct in his assumption.
Mr. Bagato answered yes, stating that was the direction by the City Council.
Councilman Kroonen stated it appeared to him that perhaps the Planning
Commission was not answering the right question. The question wasn't yes
or no, but rather how to.
Mr. Bagato agreed, stating some of the commissioners recommended staff
enforce the existing prohibition to not allow neon signs, which was the
position of the majority of the commissioners. The Planning Commission
had one recommendation, but staff believed neon signs can be controlled
well enough to not become a negative impact.
Councilman Kroonen asked if "illuminated window signs" equaled neon signs
and neon equaled illuminated.
Mr. Bagato answered yes. He said when staff was enforcing prohibition of
neon signs, staff found out there was also LED and flourescent signs, so staff
wanted to encompass all or any type of potential sources that could be used.
Councilman Kroonen noted paragraph M of Section 3 with reference to
"Current signs will be allowed to remain with approval from the Planning
Department." He asked what would happen if the Planning Commission did
not grant approval, would the signs have to be removed.
Mr. Bagato stated the direction was to grandfather all existing signs. Staff
worked with Code Enforcement in taking photographs of all existing ones and
requiring businesses to get them documented so that if they tried to change
signs in the future, the City will have a record of what was previously there.
Further responding, he confirmed the language in the first paragraph should
read, "illuminated window signs shall not be allowed in residential zones."
Councilman Kroonen stated he was also concerned about the 25% of the
frontage window area. He said in some larger windows it may allow for a
large illuminated sign that might detract from the goal.
Mr. Bagato agreed, but one of the ARC caveat's is that it enhance the
storefront, so signs are subject to the design and individual store front. He
said the ARC will review cases, and the City Council will receive a copy of
those cases in their City Council packet, and if there are concerns,
Councilmembers can call those cases up within fifteen days and request for
it to be discussed before the City Council.
23
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2010
Councilman Kroonen stated in the event the ARC determines there is a
negative impact and denies the case, could those cases be called up as well.
Mr. Bagato answered yes, stating it could also be appealed by the Applicant.
Councilman Spiegel stated he thought this matter was already approved on
a six-month period.
Mr. Bagato answered no, stating they had a six -months prohibition of
enforcing outside signage.
Councilmember Benson stated she was not against illuminated window
signs, but she didn't want to see one on every window and thought
something in the language should be included that limited three or four in a
block, and if somebody else wanted to add one, they would have to wait until
one went out. She didn't know if language could be inserted or if this needed
to go back to the Planning Commission to answer the question, which was
to help the Council figure out a way to help the merchants and certainly those
grandfathered. She said in the thirty years she's been on the Council, she's
never had a complaint about neon signs, but she didn't want to see Highway
111 or El Paseo become glitzy.
Mr. Erwin responded he wasn't sure how that could be accomplished, but will
certainly look to see if there was a possibility.
Councilmember Benson stated she didn't want every store on El Paseo to
have a neon sign.
Responding to question, Mr. Bagato said existing illuminated/neon signs will
be grandfathered, and new businesses will have to go through the ARC.
Mayor Finerty asked if the photograph in the previous staff report, where
there is a "Tecate" beer sign, a business that was grandfathered.
Mr. Bagato answered yes, stating since the Ordinance wasn't previously
being enforced, staff couldn't pick and choose what could get grandfathered,
which was his understanding. He said staff had to allow all of them to remain
with existing businesses, and overtime as businesses changed, hopefully the
signage will be eliminated down to one. He said the subject business
mentioned had seven neon signs.
Councilmember Benson stated she thought the signs went with the business
and not the property.
24
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2010
Mr. Bagato stated someone had bought the business and maintained it as a
liquor store and didn't change the window signs. He said it was still
maintained with the property and the business, but if they wanted to start
changing them with new liquor signs, staff could enforce the new code.
Mayor Finerty asked why the City had allowed and not taken action on the
Taqueria place that had several signs on the window, because it certainly
didn't enhance the neighborhood.
Mr. Bagato stated when staff tried to enforce the Ordinance that prohibited
all the neon signs and started notifying the businesses, there was a public
outcry that the City was enforcing the Ordinance in poor economic times.
Therefore, staff recommended a temporary prohibition on the enforcement
for two years, and staff was directed to come up with a Zoning Ordinance
amendment and to grandfather all existing businesses. It was his hope to
grandfather only one neon sign, but City Attorney said it wasn't possible to
limit the number of signs it could grandfather on each business, but agreed
to revisit that possibility.
Mayor Finerty declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony
FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter.
MS. MARI SCHMIDT stated she was a City of Palm Desert Planning
Commissioner. She said the question that baffled the Commission when this
matter was presented was on whether the City could or couldn't grandfather
existing businesses, because the City had allowed the signs to be installed
without any kind of action. She noted City Attorney Dave Erwin was not at
the meeting when this was discussed, but Mr. Hargreaves was present. She
said Mr. Hargreaves said there was some grey area that could be enforced
and have the neon signs removed, but that he needed to speak to Mr. Erwin
about it, which was the last time the Commission heard anything on that
point. She hoped to convince the Council to take another close and studied
look at what it may endorse. She said the object of the subject ordinance
revisions was to allow illuminated/neon signage in all windows except in
residential zoning and/or facing residential areas, and to allow businesses
which are presently not in compliance and thereby breaking the law, to be
grandfathered. The background on this matter was due to a few business
complaints, and staff was instructed to prepare a revision to the Ordinance
allowing illuminated/neon signage in non-residential windows. She believed
the original intent was to put in place a temporary allowance of two years to
help businesses cope with the economic downturn. She said the following
issues were wrong with the proposed ordinance: 1) There was little or no
survey of all the existing businesses to gather any consensus on whether or
not to favor this change; she believed El Paseo merchants were among
them; 2) Approving the proposed ordinance would open a "pandora's box,"
25
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2010
which can never be undone, because the ordinance had not been enforced
nor did the City have the manpower to control the City's Ordinance; 3) The
Ordinance will change the character of the City. She said people came to
Palm Desert from all over the world because of the nature and character of
this City and allowing this "Coney Island" approach to lighting up the City will
cause irreparable harm to the City's image; the cost and residual effects of
this about face action will be immeasurable; 4) The proposed Ordinance
modifications were vague as the use of the term "storefront window"
indicated just that. However, the Ordinance did not pertain to retail; it
encompasses everything that is not residential, office, second story
businesses, banks, service stations, and massage establishments; 5) A
number of businesses have recently installed these signs in order to be
grandfathered into the proposed Ordinance requirements before taking
effect; 6) The concept that the economy is bad, the need to attract business,
and the need for illuminated signs was sheer fantasy. She asked where was
the research that proved lighting up a window with an "open" sign will bring
more business than ordinarily would come to shop, particularly in Palm
Desert. She pleaded with the Council to instruct staff to take a closer look at
what all this meant and to canvass the existing businesses, commercial, and
non-residential participants for the real impact of this incredible change in the
character of the neighborhood. She said existing perpetrators, some 50
businesses, as told by staff, should be fined and made to remove the signage
until this issue was properly studied and resolved. She said the proposed
Ordinance changes should be carefully studied if the City chose to continue
to pursue this nonsense; she said at least compare apples to apples. She
shared that one evening when she was having dinner on El Paseo, her seat
faced 14 stores in her direct view and thought it was truly a beautiful sight,
which was one of the reasons she chose to live in Palm Desert. However,
she became sadden with the thought of how awful it would be to have neon
signs on all those windows. She said there was no hurry to approve the
subject Ordinance and asked the Council to take a much longer look at the
proposed Ordinance before it let the horse out of the barn. She offered to
answer questions.
Councilman Spiegel asked which businesses recently installed neon signs.
MS. SCHMIDT answered The Gas Light.
Councilman Spiegel stated he thought their signage had gone through ARC.
MS. SCHMIDT said she had no idea, and only knew the signs had appeared
in the last couple of weeks.
Councilman Spiegel stated the name had changed because it was a new
business. He said in order to install a new sign it had to go through ARC.
0
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2010
Mr. Bagato answered the sign on the building would have, but he didn't know
about the window signs.
MS. SCHMIDT noted there were three window signs.
Councilmember Benson inquired about The Gaslight signage itself, on
whether it was lit or not. MS. SCHMIDT answered no.
Councilman Spiegel stated he didn't disagree that a closer look needed to be
taken; however, he questioned whether this was the time to do it. He said
anything that hurt the merchants, hurt the City of Palm Desert. He said until
this evening he never had a complaint from anyone visiting or living here
about too many neon signs and tonight wasn't an end-all.
Councilman Kroonen stated people are always looking for opportunities to
compromise and hoped there would be one for the position taken by a
majority of the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Commission.
It seemed to him this issue could be compromised and respectfully asked the
Planning Commission to look again to see if there was a way for additional
illuminated signs to be incorporated. He believed well-meaning people can
discuss these matters and come up with original solutions that perhaps
haven't been thought of, because he was not encouraged to vote yea or nay
at this time and believed this issue can be resolved in a way that might be
satisfactory to all parties. His recommendation would be to refer this matter
back to the Planning Commission and ask for an additional look, because he
didn't think the Planning Commission was answering what he considered to
be the right question. The question as he read the minutes of the meeting
of July 27, 2010, was not yea or nay on eliminating signs. The question was
how could it be accomplished.
MS. SCHMIDT responded that in all fairness, it was not the way she
interpreted what was presented to the Commission at the meeting. She said
the Commission was normally a reactive body and its been her experience
when they attempt to be proactive, as this might indicate, which was her
opinion and the majority of the Commission, that it's a mistake. She did not
hear at that meeting that the Commission was instructed to draft some sort
of ordinance and that it was a done deal.
Councilman Kroonen stated he didn't mean to be argumentative, but he was
basing his comments on the minutes of the July 27 meeting, "Mr. Erwin
suggested a motion that would direct the City Attorney and City Staff to
prepare amendment to the Sign Ordinance that would delete the prohibition
of neon signs and require that all signs go through the normal Architectural
Review Commission process." If that wasn't shared, he could understand
why Ms. Schmidt took her position.
27
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2010
MS. SCHMIDT stated the Commission was told by staff that they had
received instruction for the Commission to work at it.
Councilmember Benson asked if there was a committee that made the
proposed recommendations before it went to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Bagato stated the Architectural Review Commission reviewed the
proposed Ordinance, but he was the one that researched local and other
resort cities that had an existing ordinance. He said other resort cities with
district areas like El Paseo, didn't allow neon signs in walking districts, but
allowed them in areas like Highway 111 where there was more driving traffic,
which was another possibility or compromise that could be reviewed. He
proposed the Ordinance to the ARC and minor modifications were made and
then forwarded to the Planning Commission. He expressed to the Planning
Commission that staff was directed to do this, but that they could have their
own separate recommendation. Further responding, he said the ARC voted
in favor of the proposed Ordinance.
Councilmember Benson suggested having a committee with representation
from El Paseo to weigh in, similarly to what the City's done on other projects
relating to signage, before it's presented to the Planning Commission once
again. She agreed there was no hurry, because she certainly didn't want to
do anything that would hurt business.
Mayor Pro Tern Ferguson stated he was just alerted to a family situation he
needed to attend to but wanted to say good bye, because this was his last
City Council meeting. However, with regard to this issue, he said there were
some very artistic neon signs like About Face on San Pablo, and Kate
Spade, and others who went above and beyond to make some artistic
statement on their window, but placing a complementary Budweiser sign
from a beer manufacturer was not what the Council had in mind for art in
Palm Desert. He wished there was a way to provide a discretionary panel
and was disappointed with the ARC, because they are charged with the task
to review these matters on a case by case basis like they did with the Palm
Desert Motor Lodge. It had historical significance, artistic merit, Art -deco
feel, and it had a place in the City, but to grandfather everything from a
Budweiser, Pacifico or Corona sign, which was doing nothing but selling beer
was unacceptable. He was sensitive to the retail business, but it wasn't the
life blood of the City, and if it detracted from people who want to spend more
money in Palm Desert, he agreed a committee might be the way to go. He
will no longer be serving as a Councilmember, so this was his two -cents
worth. He hated to leave on this kind of a note, but he had to leave. He
thanked everyone for his time on the Council and said good night and left the
Council Chamber.
M.
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2010
NOTE: Mayor Pro Tern Ferguson left the meeting at 5:23 p.m.
MS. SCHMIDT stated her concern was that unless all businesses were
spoken to, the assumption couldn't be made everyone wanted the proposed
Ordinance, and the merchants of the City brought in the tax dollars, which
was her point. She said she didn't want to argue, but she just wanted to
make it clear that those who didn't like the proposed Ordinance were not
being arbitrary. The Ordinance as drafted was not right and thoroughly
vague and needed more work.
MS. BARBARA DEBOOM stated that after hearing a couple of issues this
evening, but having not been involved, as the business voice of the
community she would offer some of the City businesses to get together to
form a committee. Additionally, she was concerned about the issue with
lights being off on El Paseo or throughout the City, because many
restaurants are, the livelihoods to the community that keeping the lights on
was a perfect way to shop at night, because people are enticed to return to
shop. She said to have the streets dark at night would be a deterrent. She
suggested having a curfew for lights to be turned off at 10 o'clock may be
another option, but agreed this issue needed more study.
With no further testimony offered, Mayor Finerty declared the public hearing closed.
Councilmember Benson reiterated the City needed a committee of business
people and others to look at this before a decision was made, because it was
too important as mentioned by Ms. Schmidt. She said the Council never did
anything that was detrimental to the City, and the Council always tried to be
business friendly. Although some have said the Council was not, it's not true,
because the Council did everything the business community had asked them
to do. She said this was another issue that needed the full attention of a
committee before it returned to the Planning Commission. Councilman
Kroonen and Mayor Finerty concurred.
Councilmember Benson moved to refer the matter back to staff for establishment
of a subcommittee, working with the Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce and the City's
Business Community, to provide further study regarding illuminated window signage, and
said recommendation to be brought back through the Zoning Ordinance Amendment
process. Motion was seconded by Spiegel.
Ms. Klassen asked if the public hearing needed to be reopened if this item
was being continued or will it return as a newly noticed item.
Mr. Erwin responded this item will have to be renoticed and returned as a
public hearing.
29
Aty of Pohn D65&n
Community Development
CITY OF PALM DESERT NOY 84 2u,,,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: APPROVAL FOR A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
PROVIDING SIGNAGE STANDARDS FOR ILLUMINATED
WINDOW SIGNAGE IN SECTION 25.68 OF THE PALM DESERT
MUNICIPAL CODE.
SUBMITTED BY:
APPLICANT:
CASE NO:
DATE:
Tony Bagato
Principal Planner
City of Palm Desert
ZOA 10-311
October 19, 2010
CONTENTS: Draft Ordinance
Exhibit A, Signage Ordinance Modifications
Legal Notice
Architectural Review Commission Minutes
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated October 19, 2010
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated October 19, 2010.
Photos & Redlined Changes of Previous Ordinance
Recommendation:
That the City Council pass to second reading Ordinance No. 1218
providing new signage standards for illuminated window signs in Section
25.68 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
Commission Recommendation
On September 28, 2010, the Architectural Review Commission discussed the proposed
standards and recommended approval with some modifications. Staff made the
modifications and presented the ordinance to the Planning Commission on October 19,
2010. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposed ordinance on a
3-2 vote. Commissioners Schmidt, Limont, and De Luna voted in favor of denying the
ordinance because they believe that illuminated window signs are not appropriate for
Palm Desert. Commissioners Tanner and Campbell voted against the denial, stating
Staff Report
ZOA 10-311
November 18, 2010
Page 2 of 4
that they supported the proposed ordinance, because they believed that the signs could
be well designed and controlled through the Architectural Review Commission.
Executive Summary:
On July 27, 2010, the City Council directed staff to prepare a Zoning Ordinance
Amendment removing the neon sign prohibition and to develop standards that would
allow neon signs with approval by the Architectural Review Commission. After the
meeting, staff researched ordinances from other cities to develop new standards for
illuminated window signs. Staff's goal in developing new standards was to provide
limited use of illuminated window signs to provide greater visibility for the business
community without negatively impacting the overall aesthetic quality of the city or any
individual storefront.
On September 28, 2010, the Architectural Review Commission discussed the proposed
standards and recommended approval with some modifications. Staff made the
modifications and presented the ordinance to the Planning Commission on October 19,
2010. After discussion by the Planning Commission, a recommendation of denial was
approved on a 3-2 vote.
Protect Description:
Staff is proposing a Zoning Ordinance Amendment that will provide signage standards
for illuminated window signage in Section 25.68 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. On
July 27, 2010, the City Council directed staff to prepare a Zoning Ordinance
Amendment removing the neon sign prohibition and to develop standards that would
allow neon signs with approval by the Architectural Review Commission. After reviewing
other ordinances allowing neon widow signs and listening to the comments given by the
Architectural Review Commission, staff is proposing the following standards for
illuminated window signs:
25.68.80— Standards for Specific Types of Permanent Signs
M. Illuminated Window Signs. All existing illuminated window signs for businesses
installed before October 31, 2010, shall be considered legal, non -conforming
signs and allowed to remain with approval from the Planning Department. The
following standards shall be required for approval of all new illuminated window
signs:
Illuminated window signs shall be allowed in non-residential zones.
2. Illuminated window signs shall not be combined with any reflective
materials (e.g. highly glazed tiles, mirrors, polished metal, or other similar
materials).
G:WlannjnglTony BagatolWord FIIesTonnals\Stafl RepoRe40A1Signaga OrdlneneeWaon SgnsIZOA 10-311 Headng%Clly Council Staff RoportAoc
Staff Report
ZOA 10-311
November 18, 2010
Page 3 of 4
3. Illuminated window signs placed within five feet of a storefront window
shall not occupy more than 25 percent of the store front window area. This
is the total amount of window signage allowed for all permanent window
signage, including but not limited to those permanently painted, etched, or
mounted on the inside of windows and illuminated signs.
4. No more than one (1) illuminated window sign is allowed per frontage to
minimize clutter and visual pollution.
5. In order to minimize visual clutter and to preserve the aesthetic quality of
the city, illuminated window signage shall be used to identify the name of
the business, to add artistic details, or to provide aesthetic interest. It shall
not be used to advertise products sold within a business and shall not
include prices or telephone numbers.
6. Businesses across the street or adjacent to residential properties shall
turn off all illuminated window signage during the hours that the business
is closed, unless the window signage is the primary identification of the
business.
7. All illuminated window signage shall be reviewed by the Architectural
Review Commission (ARC). The ARC will consider and/or approve and/or
take action on any proposed illuminated window signage. In considering
the design of any proposed illuminated window sign, the ARC shall
determine whether the sign will have any negative impact on the aesthetic
quality of the storefront. In the event that the Commission determines that
there is a negative impact, they will deny the proposed signage. No
illuminated window signage shall be permitted or installed without first
gaining approval from the ARC.
In addition to the proposed standards, other sections of the Signage Ordinance were
modified for consistency with removing the prohibition and adding the new standards.
All sections being modified are described in Exhibit A of the attached draft resolution.
Conclusion:
In consideration of concerns expressed by the business community, the City Council
directed staff to remove the prohibition of neon window signs and provide standards to
allow them. Staff believes that these standards will provide for limited use of illuminated
window signs, allowing business owners to be more creative and providing additional
visibility without negatively impacting the overall aesthetic quality of the storefront. If the
policy direction of the City Council is to allow neon signage in Palm Desert, then staff
GARAnning\Tony Sagalo\Word Files\Famats\Staff Aepno\20A Signage Ord'mance%l on Slgns\ZOA 10311 Headog\City Council Staff Nepon.Eoc
Staff Report
ZOA 10-311
November 18, 2010
Page 4 of 4
believes that adoption of this ordinance would do so in a style and manner consistent
with the aesthetic quality of Palm Desert.
Fiscal Analysis
There is no direct financial impact to the City for adopting Ordinance No.1218 . Any
nominal increase in sales tax generated by businesses displaying illuminated signs
would likely be offset by a decrease in sales tax from businesses without illuminated
signs.
Submitted by:
�1
Tony Bagato
Principal Planner
Department Head:
Lauri Aylaian
Director of Community Development
CIIW COUNCMACf7ON
APPROVED DAD
RE ,fIxEDOTHER
NOES:..Z
ABSENTS
VERIFIED BY QKZ.6ffi
Original on Fite with City lerk'a Office
* Referred the matter back to staff for establishment
of a subcommittee, working with the Palm Desert Chamber
of Commerce and the City's Business Community, to
provide further study regarding illuminated window
signage, said recommendation to be brought back through
the Zoning Ordinance Amendment process.
4-0 (Ferguson ABSENT)
GAR nigNTWy 6agadWO ReslRo WSUR Repo \ZOXSignage OMwmWew SignslZOA 10-311 Reaing\Ciy Ca SUfl ReW.dO
ORDINANCE NO.1218
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ZONING ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT PROVIDING SIGNAGE STANDARDS FOR ILLUMINATED
WINDOW SIGNAGE IN SECTION 25.68 OF THE PALM DESERT
MUNICIPAL CODE.
CASE NO: ZOA 10-311
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. , on November 18, 2010,
revising Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.65, Signs; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act",
Resolution No. 10-26, the Director of Community Development has determined that the
project will not have a negative impact on the environment and is exempt from CEQA,
and
WHEREAS, at. said public hearings, said City Council heard and considered all
testimony and arguments of all interested persons; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDINANDED by the City Council of the City of Palm
Desert, California, that the following section of the Palm Desert Municipal Code is hereby
amended, as follows:
SECTION 1: That Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.68 is herby amended
and revised as described in Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION 2: That the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby
directed to publish this ordinance in the Desert Sun, a newspaper of
general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm
Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days
after its adoption.
ORDINANCE NO. 1218
PASSED, APPROVED AND
Planning Commission, held on this
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
18th day of November 2010, by the following vote, to
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
CINDY FINERTY, Mayor
2
ORDINANCE NO. 1218
EXHIBIT A
Section 1. 25.68.030 — Sign Permit Application and Design Review Required
D. Sign review criteria.
9. That any neon tubing used is incorporated as an integral part of the
sign design with careful attention to color, intensity of light, and the
use of colors that are not overly bright ; and
Section 2. 25.68.050 — Prohibited Signs
G. Off -site outdoor advertising signs (billboards);
H. Pole signs;
I. Roof signs;
J. Signs that rotate, move, flash, blink, or appear to do any of the
foregoing with the exception of approved time and temperature
displays;
K. Signs on public property, in the public right-of-way, or on public
utility poles unless otherwise authorized by this Chapter. Signs
shall include, but not be limited to, realtor, open house, and garage
sale signs. This prohibition shall include all portable signs including
those placed on vehicles with the exception of vehicle identification
signs, and permitted signs on taxicabs;
L. Signs that do not identify a current use on the premises, name of
the owner or user, or that do not promote a product, an interest,
service, or entertainment available on the premise. Signs shall not
advertise a business, accommodation, service, or activity not
provided on the premises on which the sign is located;
M. Signs located in a manner that the sign or a portion of the sign or
sign supports interfere with the free use of a fire escape, exit or
standpipe, or obstruct a required door, stairway, ventilator, window,
or public way or are otherwise hazardous;
N. Signs that imitate an official traffic sign or signal, or contain the
words "stop," "go," "slow," "caution," "danger," "warning," or similar
words, excepting construction signs and barricades, and except
when the words are incorporated in the permanent name of a
business;
3
ORDINANCE NO. 1218
O. Temporary or portable freestanding signs, including A -frame and
similar types of portable signs, except as otherwise provided in this
Chapter; and
P. Vehicle signs.
Section 3. 25.68.80— Standards for Specific Types of Permanent Signs
M. Illuminated Window Signs. All illuminated window signs for
businesses before October 31, 2010, shall be considered legal non-
conforming signs and allowed to remain with approval from the
Planning Department. The following standards shall be required for
approval of all new illuminated window signs.
Illuminated window signs shall be allowed in non-residential
zones.
2. Illuminated window signs shall not be combined with any
reflective materials (e.g. highly glazed tiles, mirrors, polished
metal, or other similar materials).
3. Illuminated window signs placed within five feet of a storefront
window shall not occupy more than 25 percent of the store front
window area. The total amount of window signage allowed for
permanent window signage including but not limited to
permanently painted, etched, or mounted on the inside of
windows and illuminated signs.
4. No more than one (1) illuminated window sign is allowed per
frontage to minimize clutter and visual pollution.
5. In order to minimize visual clutter and to preserve the aesthetic
quality of the City, illuminated window signage shall be used to
identify the name or the business, to add artistic details, or to
provide aesthetic interest. It shall not be used to advertise
products sold within a business and shall not include prices or
telephone numbers.
6. Businesses across the street or adjacent to residential
properties shall turn off all illuminated window signage after the
business is closed, unless the window signage is the primary
identification of the business.
7. All illuminated window signage shall be reviewed by the
Architectural Review Commission (ARC). The ARC will
consider and/or approve and/or take action any proposed
illuminated window signage. In considering the design of any
proposed illuminated window sign, the ARC shall determine
4
ORDINANCE NO. 1218
whether the sign will have any negative impact on the aesthetic
quality of the storefront. In the event that the Commission
determines that there is a negative impact, they will deny the
proposed signage. No illuminated window signage shall be
permitted or installed without first gaining approval from the
ARC.
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. ZOA 10-311
PROVISIONS FOR ILLUMINATED WINDOW SIGNS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The City of Palm Desert Community Development Department is proposing a Zoning
Ordinance Amendment to modify the Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.56,
adding provisions for illuminated window signs.
PROJECT LOCATION:
City of Palm Desert
PUBLIC HEARING:
SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, November 18, 2010 at 4:00 p.m. in the
Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm
Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and
be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice
shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed
project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of
Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning
Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk
November 11, 2010 City of Palm Desert, California
C I I y OI ll>I[M � ( i [ I I
73-5co FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346-o6zi
i nro(c'ci tyorpalmdesc rt.orR
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOTICE OF ACTION
Date: October 22, 2010
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Dr
Palm Desert, California 92260
Re: Case No. ZOA 10-311
The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert considered your request and took
the following action at its regular meeting of October 19, 2010:
THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIED CASE NO. ZOA 10-311.
MOTION TO DENY REQUEST WAS APPROVED 3-2.
Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk, City of Palm
Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision.
Lauri Aylaian, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
rR
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FOR A ZONING ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT PROVIDING SIGNAGE STANDARDS FOR
ILLUMINATED WINDOW SIGNAGE IN SECTION 25.68 OF THE
PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE.
SUBMITTED BY: Tony Bagato
Principal Planner
APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
CASE NO: ZOA 10-311
DATE: October 19, 2010
CONTENTS: Draft Resolution
Exhibit A, Signage Ordinance Modifications
Legal Notice
Architectural Review Commission Minutes
Photos & Redlined Changes of Previous Ordinance
Recommendation:
That the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed Zoning
Ordinance Amendment providing new sgnage standards for illuminated
window signs in Section 25.68 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
Executive Summary:
On July 27, 2010, the City Council directed staff to prepare a Zoning Ordinance
Amendment removing the neon sign prohibition and develop standards that would allow
neon signs with approval by the Architectural Review Commission. On September 28, 2010,
the Architectural Review Commission discussed the proposed standards and recommended
approval with some modifications. Staff believes that these standards will provide for limited
use of illuminated window signs that allow business owners to be more creative and provide
for additional visibility without negatively impacting the overall aesthetic quality of the
storefront.
Staff Report
ZOA 10-311
October 19, 2010
Page 2 of 4
Background:
Neon signs have been prohibited since 1978. At that time, Section 25.38-9 Permitted Signs
— Purpose stated:
No sign shall be erected or maintained in any zone as established by the
Zoning Ordinance except those signs specifically enumerated in this Article.
The number and area of signs outlined in this Article are intended to be
maximum standards which do not necessarily ensure architectural
compatibility. Therefore, in addition to the enumerated standards,
consideration shall be given to a sign's relationship to the overall appearance
of the subject property, as well as the surrounding community. Compatible
design, simplicity, and sign effectiveness are to be used in establishing
guidelines for sign approval.
Neon signs were never listed as an approved sign in the Zoning Ordinance; therefore, they
were prohibited based on this section. On September 28, 1989, the City Council approved a
Zoning Ordinance Amendment that amended many sections of the Zoning Ordinance,
including the signage standards. As part of that amendment, the following wording was
added to the Permitted Signs section after the words "surrounding community":
...with the goal of being to minimize visual pollution, the use of lighting and
excessive contrasting colors. Compatible design, simplicity, and sign
effectiveness are to be used in establishing guidelines for sign approval.
Again, neon signs were never mentioned as a permitted sign type and were considered
prohibited because this section states that no sign shall be erected unless it is allowed in
the Zoning Ordinance. Although neon signs have never been allowed in the Zoning
Ordinance, enforcement of these signs was handled on a complaint basis.
On October 11, 2007, the City Council formed a Signage Subcommittee to address the
needs of the business community for commercial real estate signs, businesses facing the
freeway and monument signs for large commercial centers. On December 11, 2008, staff
began working on a comprehensive update to the signage ordinance to address the signage
issues raised in 2007. While addressing the issues raised by the business community, staff
presented to the Signage Subcommittee several other signage issues within the city. Neon
signs were one of the other sign types discussed. Staff explained to the Subcommittee that,
although neon signs have never been allowed per the Zoning Ordinance, many businesses
had them and there had been little to no enforcement of their prohibition. Staff also
explained that neon signs could be allowed or could be specifically prohibited. The
Subcommittee recommended that they be prohibited, except for small "open" neon signs.
On August 27, 2009, the City Council approved the new signage ordinance and staff began
working to inform the business community of the new signage standards. This past
summer, Code Compliance began enforcing the prohibition and contacted many business
owners by letter, asking them to remove the neon window signs. At the July 8, 2010 City
G?Planning\Tarry Bagato\Wmo FlleslFm MASlatl Repwta¢OA\Signage OroinencVeon SlgnatPlalming Oommf im Stall Repmt.oa
Staff Report
ZOA 10-311
October 19, 2010
Page 3 of 4
Council meeting, the business owner of Skitzo Kitty spoke to the City Council under Oral
Communications about the letter he received from Code Compliance informing him that all
neon signs in the storefront window needed to be removed by the end of August. He, as
well as other business owners, thought that the enforcement action was ill-timed because of
the downturn in the economy.
On July 27, 2010, the City Council reviewed a staff report explaining that neon signs have
been prohibited since 1978, but rarely enforced. Staff presented three options:
1. Suspend Enforcement of Neon Signs,
2. Temporary Approval of Neon Signs, or
3. Zoning Ordinance Amendment allowing Neon Signs.
Staff recommended that the City Council approve standards for temporary approval.
However, the City Council directed staff to prepare a Zoning Ordinance Amendment
removing the neon sign prohibition, and develop standards that would allow them with
approval by the Architectural Review Commission. On September 28, 2010, the
Architectural Review Commission discussed the proposed standards and recommended
approval with some modifications. The proposed ordinance amendment is a result of staff's
research of other cities and the comments discussed at the ARC meeting.
Protect Description:
Staff recommends approval for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment providing signage
standards for illuminated window signage in Section 25.68 of the Palm Desert Municipal
Code. After reviewing other ordinances allowing neon widow signs and listening to the
comments given by the Architectural Review Commission, staff is proposing the following
standards for illuminated window signs:
25.68.80- Standards for Specific Types of Permanent Signs
M. Illuminated Window Signs. All existing illuminated window signs for businesses
installed before October 31, 2010, shall be considered legal, non -conforming signs
and allowed to remain with approval from the Planning Department. The following
standards shall be required for approval of all new illuminated window signs:
Illuminated window signs shall be allowed in non-residential zones.
2. Illuminated window signs shall not be combined with any reflective materials
(e.g. highly glazed tiles, mirrors, polished metal, or other similar materials).
3. Illuminated window signs placed within five feet of a storefront window shall
not occupy more than 25 percent of the store front window area. This is the
total amount of window signage allowed for all permanent window signage,
including but not limited to those permanently painted, etched, or mounted on
the inside of windows and illuminated signs.
GAPIWn Q\Tmy Bagato Word FikslFonnels�SJW Fedods�OAlSignags OrdMMWINW S19MV42nning Go sslon Slats Faporl doo
Staff Report
ZOA 10-311
October 19, 2010
Page 4 of 4
4. No more than one (1) illuminated window sign is allowed per frontage to
minimize clutter and visual pollution.
5. In order to minimize visual clutter and to preserve the aesthetic quality of the
city, illuminated window signage shall be used to identify the name of the
business, to add artistic details, or to provide aesthetic interest. It shall not be
used to advertise products sold within a business and shall not include prices
or telephone numbers.
6. Businesses across the street or adjacent to residential properties shall turn of
all illuminated window signage during the hours that the business is closed,
unless the window signage is the primary identification of the business.
All illuminated window signage shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review
Commission (ARC). The ARC will consider and/or approve and/or take action
on any proposed illuminated window signage. In considering the design of
any proposed illuminated window sign, the ARC shall determine whether the
sign will have any negative impact on the aesthetic quality of the storefront. In
the event that the Commission determines that there is a negative impact,
they will deny the proposed signage. No illuminated window signage shall be
permitted or installed without first gaining approval from the ARC.
In addition to the proposed standards, other sections of the Signage Ordinance were
modified for consistency with removing the prohibition and adding the new standards. All
sections being modified are described in Exhibit A of the attached draft resolution.
Conclusion:
In consideration of concerns expressed by the business community, the City Council
directed staff to remove the prohibition of neon window signs and provide standards to allow
them. Staff believes that these standards will provide for limited use of illuminated window
signs allowing business owners to be more creative and providing additional visibility without
negatively impacting the overall aesthetic quality of the storefront.
Submitted By:
Tony Bagato
Principal Planner
Department Head:
J
Laurl Aylaian
Director Community Development
GAPIannlnMTWy Sa9alaMad Flles%FanrelslSlaX ReWs\ZOAISlgnage Ordlna wWe SignsTlennmg Canvrdsssbn Stafl Remd.d
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT PROVIDING
SIGNAGE STANDARDS FOR ILLUMINATED WINDOW SIGNAGE IN
SECTION 25.68 OF THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE.
CASE NO: ZOA 10-311
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did
on the 190' day of October 2010, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the
request by the City of Palm Desert for approval of the above noted; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act",
Resolution No. 10-26, the Director of Community Development has determined that the
project will not have a negative impact on the environment and is exempt from CEQA,
and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning
Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the
recommendation to the City Council of said request:
That the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the
Palm Desert General Plan Community Design Element.
That the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment will provide the
illuminated window signage standards, guidelines and regulations that are
consistent with the Palm Desert General Plan Community Design Element
and purpose of the Signage Ordinance.
3. That the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety or general welfare, or be materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the City of Palm Desert.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Palm Desert, California, as follows:
That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Planning Commission in this case.
That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of ZOA
10-311.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 19th day of October 2010, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
CONNOR LIMONT, Chairperson
ATTEST:
LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT A
Section 1. 25.68.030 — Sign Permit Application and Design Review Required
D. Sign review criteria.
9. That any neon tubing used is incorporated as an integral part of the
sign design with careful attention to color, intensity of light, and the
use of colors that are not overly bright ; and
Section 2. 25.68.050 — Prohibited Signs
G. Off -site outdoor advertising signs (billboards);
H. Pole signs;
Roof signs;
J. Signs that rotate, move, flash, blink, or appear to do any of the
foregoing with the exception of approved time and temperature
displays;
K. Signs on public property, in the public right-of-way, or on public
utility poles unless otherwise authorized by this Chapter. Signs
shall include, but not be limited to, realtor, open house, and garage
sale signs. This prohibition shall include all portable signs including
those placed on vehicles with the exception of vehicle identification
signs, and permitted signs on taxicabs;
L. Signs that do not identify a current use on the premises, name of
the owner or user, or that do not promote a product, an interest,
service, or entertainment available on the premise. Signs shall not
advertise a business, accommodation, service, or activity not
provided on the premises on which the sign is located;
M. Signs located in a manner that the sign or a portion of the sign or
sign supports interfere with the free use of a fire escape, exit or
standpipe, or obstruct a required door, stairway, ventilator, window,
or public way or are otherwise hazardous;
N. Signs that imitate an official traffic sign or signal, or contain the
words "stop," "go," "slow," "caution," "danger," "warning," or similar
words, excepting construction signs and barricades, and except
when the words are incorporated in the permanent name of a
business;
3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
O. Temporary or portable freestanding signs, including A -frame and
similar types of portable signs, except as otherwise provided in this
Chapter; and
P. Vehicle signs.
Section 3. 25.68.80— Standards for Specific Types of Permanent Signs
M. Illuminated Window Signs. All illuminated window signs for
businesses before October 31, 2010, shall be considered legal non-
conforming signs and allowed to remain with approval from the
Planning Department. The following standards shall be required for
approval of all new illuminated window signs.
Illuminated window signs shall be allowed in non-residential
zones.
2. Illuminated window signs shall not be combined with any
reflective materials (e.g. highly glazed tiles, mirrors, polished
metal, or other similar materials).
Illuminated window signs placed within five feet of a storefront
window shall not occupy more than 25 percent of the store front
window area. The total amount of window signage allowed for
permanent window signage including but not limited to
permanently painted, etched, or mounted on the inside of
windows and illuminated signs.
4. No more than one (1) illuminated window sign is allowed per
frontage to minimize clutter and visual pollution.
5. In order to minimize visual clutter and to preserve the aesthetic
quality of the City, illuminated window signage shall be used to
identify the name or the business, to add artistic details, or to
provide aesthetic interest. It shall not be used to advertise
products sold within a business and shall not include prices or
telephone numbers.
6. Businesses across the street or adjacent to residential
properties shall turn of all illuminated window signage after the
business is closed, unless the window signage is the primary
identification of the business.
7. All illuminated window signage shall be reviewed by the
Architectural Review Commission (ARC). The ARC will
consider and/or approve and/or take action any proposed
illuminated window signage. In considering the design of any
proposed illuminated window sign, the ARC shall determine
4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
whether the sign will have any negative impact on the aesthetic
quality of the storefront. In the event that the Commission
determines that there is a negative impact, they will deny the
proposed signage. No illuminated window signage shall be
permitted or installed without first gaining approval from the
ARC.
it 1 G1 1 \_ \ 1. • u 11 • \. • • : 1 1
VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Request for consideration of the October 5, 2010, meeting minutes.
Action:
Commissioner Campbell moved and Commissioner De Luna seconded the
approval of the October 5, 2010 meeting minute otion carried unanimously
5-0.
VI1. CONSENT CALENDAR
NONE
Vill. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chair Limont stated that any=_ wh Ilenges any h6aring matter in
court may be limited to raising on r e issues he, she or someone else
raised at the publi g descriti erein, or in written correspondence
delivered to the Plan- ission " r prior to, the public hearing.
A. Case, No. ZOA i 11, _ IMWIrffOsert, Applicant
:ion proval fora Zoning Ordinance Amendment
cage dards for illuminated window signage in
of the Desert Municipal Code.
NoIrgdinsanMc
rTonyBagato orally presented his staff report and power
atothe Planning Commission regarding neon window
otiiie y xamples of signs that fall under this proposed new
a stand that the previous ordinance was established in 1978
and at th" time, neon signs weren't specifically mentioned in the
finance . - virtue of not being explicitly permitted, they were prohibited.
e s appeared, the enforcement was strictly on a complaint driven
ba ;_ 009, staff was instructed to update the ordinance. Direction was
given"�a at all neon signs were now to be explicitly prohibited and that the
Code Enforcement Division should work with businesses to bring them into
compliance. Upon receiving numerous complaints from businesses about
being asked to remove their signs, staff was instructed by the City Council
to suspend enforcement and inform the public that any NEW neon signs
had to go through the Architectural Review Commission process.
Mr. Bagato outlined the new regulations that would be added to the
ordinance. They state that: No signs can be added after the fact (for
2
IllikUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNINGCOMMISSION-- • •:
grandfathering purposes); the signs cannot be in residential areas; they
cannot be combined with reflective materials; they can only cover up to
25% of the window (not including glass doors); and, there must be only one
neon sign per frontage. When a business is across from a residential area,
then the neon sign must be .turned off at night. Signs must identify the
business or have aesthetic merit; those signs that advertise products sold
or that list prices or phone numbers will not be permitted at all. Staff
recommends approval and with that, Mr. Bagiook questions.
Commissioner De Luna began by askin
theory, every shop on El Paseo and op�i
a neon sign in their window as Ion �" it met
said that was correct. CommissiDe Luna
called in upon hearing about.tli.
would hinder their ability tFillpV
stated that that did transpire' �Nx
neon sign and their other sign i
wanted to be able t eep his net
wooden one would een in
Commissioner
will still be�al
sign on
the new ordinance and if, in
111 could potentially have
air, criteria. Mr. Bagato
m ' ned that a business
i,in
an omplaining that it
bad ec . y. Mr. Bagato
iy, on H 1, who has a
rminated wooden sign. The owner
lit until closing at 9 p.m. since the
k when he was still open.
ising of products and if those
some businesses would be
I reef- with r8s�ldto thoftAhat already have `Corona' and
r' sign ut now product signs and none displaying a phone
or anVthi.' related-- products that are sold inside the business
would per 5be asmT about what percentage of the window the
A ple st u B g1t ed that the Apple sign isn't a window sign,
t„ wale=s.' ' located ab a the store. And that sign has gone through
A mee II of the requirements for illuminated wall signage.
Commis er a r asked for clarification about the ordinance stating
that existi igns in business windows, even if there are more than two,
ill be all " d to stay. Mr. Bagato stated that was true and it is for that
son th a City wants them inventoried and documented now, so when
th orcement, those businesses can't change them or add more at
the1 econd.
Following this question, Chair Limont asked to clarify what they are being
asked to do and stated that, as she understands it, the Commission is
being asked to grandfather those signs that are in existence today because
of lack of enforcement from years past. Mr. Bagato responded that he
talked with the City Attorney, Dave Erwin, who believes that yes, we do
need to allow existing signs to continue to exist. Chair Limont asked if we
were able to enforce the current prohibition legally, or is the City walking
3
I1 I R - j N_\ \ \t 115,10 11. 11 •\ • • 1 1
too fine of a line? Commissioner Tanner followed up with asking what
happens if we CAN'T enforce this, what would businesses do. Mr. Bagato
stated that, under the proposed ordinance, all new signs of either existing
or new businesses must go through the ARC for review.
Mr. Bob Hargreaves, Deputy City Attorney spoke on behalf of City Attorney
Dave Erwin to Commissioner Limont's question about legality. He stated
that he hadn't had a chance to talk in dept ith Mr. Erwin about this
matter, but if the ordinance forbids neon, t '' egally the City can enforce
the prohibition. However, the longer th waits to enforce something
from the start of a violation, then the m', d shed the ability to enforce
becomes. �. `' '"t,,
Commissioner Schmidt aske
under this new ordinance. Ify111.1. i
existing signs, she wanted to u
know off hand, but Ms. Aylaia .
keeping inventory o w many tii
that number is n althot
numerous signs Coin, is S
none of the stores on' Pas
that som s on El
eo
existin that a
req ne un the gr dfath
or _ , ce read part] t all
many signs wouiNing,
andfathered in
y is goi g to give anche to allow
wh t numbe. Bagatodidn't
fit_ whet
Enforcement has been
ii ses have neon signs currently and
3' me of these businesses have
hmi' _ ated that she understood that
any rious Commissioners stated
v6 neon signs. She asked if any
rren have a neon sign could now
;r clause. Mr. Bagato stated that the
new neon signs for ALL businesses,
through ARC from this point forward.
isSI Schmidt OfflKed to ask about existing scrolling marquis
Sig d i are included in this ordinance. Mr. Bagato stated that
those " ' on i d 'moving signs' and those certainly are prohibited. She
the ask f the r of illuminated signs is controlled by the code or the
Architectu Committee. Mr. Bagato stated that the City doesn't regulate
olor up to, ee colors; after three colors there are requirements to reduce
size a sign for each additional color used The bottom line is that
n that comes up, either from.a new business or an existing
bus will have to go before the Architectural Review Commission.
Mr. Bagato stated that if the Planning Commission wanted to move for
denial, then their recommendation would be forwarded to the City Council
for direction. A recommendation can be made for denial and enforcement
of prohibition of all neon signs, if that is what the Planning Commission
requests.
0
Commissioner Schmidt asked if any attempt has been made to reach out to
those businesses that DO NOT have neon signs and how they felt about it.
Mr. Sagato stated that no real attempt was made to contact non -signed
businesses. Commissioner Schmidt asked if this applied to the El Paseo
Gardens. Mr. Bagato stated that it does.
Chair Limont opened the public hearing for comments. Hearing none, she
closed the public hearing and asked for comner comments.
Commissioner Schmidt commented o impact of signs and the
grandfathering of signs. She doesn't er and it's opening up a
can of worms for those that oppose signs. i ,
Commissioner De Luna state¢'
looking like Las Vegas. She
the "Venice Beach look ShINA
signs, then every business c
business stand out?. a stated
business stand ou ver
out. She thinks that' a
prohibit all neon ns.
theoretically eo could end up
mind a -1 po ch look" but not
on to that if the allows neon
k%she
and then how would that
r.of neon signs was to make a
, then nothing would stand
irdoesn't wash and wants to
i moved for denial.
Commi Fidt511n
d the►dtion for denial, but then added
furth cussid; eonould be a distraction. She read an article
that` id one -in- . e tr1-10 is so unsafe that they need to be
pulled; of th hat that is meant to get your attention, as
are neb_ '41 are attention grabbers, she would hate to
na nt becaun distracted a motorist while they were
Commiss er Tahr offered his thoughts on the matter stating that he is
not in fa of neon signs, but understands that businesses need
�omething `. re than just regular signs to attract business. As the proposal
t�ee sented today, and that the City Council has voted in favor of
c g. is now in favor of having all new signs go for review with the
ARO•d art of the permitting process. He indicated that he would not vote
for the denial of staff request to change the zoning ordinance.
Commissioner Campbell agreed with Commissioner Tanner in that staff
and City Council have worked to have the ordinance read in favor of all
new signs going through ARC so they can be monitored appropriately. So
she is in favor of grandfathering existing signs.
Chair Limont talked about Palm Desert and its sense of being. She went on
MINUTES
P-ALI i 1 \ \ \ • 11 11 • \ • • i 1 1�
to say that the city isn't flashy, it's not Las Vegas, and that El Paseo is the
feather in the cap. The City and the Commissioners have worked hard to
get it to where it is today and to maintain that look and feel and sense of
what is Palm Desert. She stated that she is not in favor of this ordinance
and with that, reiterated the current motion and second and called for the
vote in favor of denying the Zoning Amendment.
Action:
Commissioner De Luna moved and
motion to deny ZOA 10-311. -
(Commissioners Tanner and Campl
IX. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Villa Portofino
Discussion
Agreement
the develor
:r Schmidt seconded the
carried for denial 3-2
a Senior Housing Development
nt") with Royce International for
Le to default by the developer.
the Council Chamber.
Assi Plan Kevin wartz presented his staff report to the
Co ssion. Ro Intern al entered into an agreement with the City
of F ese lop a.: rcel with senior assisted living facilities, a
club h s in 1999. Royce International submitted a
pmi ap to the a without City approval thus breaching one of
the s o it Development Agreement (DA). With the subdivision in
place the d portions of the project without approval of the transfer
by the C hic '<_ Iso required by the Development Agreement. Royce
Internatio o longer owns the project or any of the sub -divided parcels.
taff reco nds terminating the current Development Agreement for the
efit o City and future developers. This will cause each new property
o title their own property for their projects. Mr. Swartz entertained
que from the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Schmidt asked specifically if what was being asked of the
Commission was to give direction to staff regarding the Development
Agreement. Mr. Swartz said that was so.
Commissioner Tanner wanted to clarify the situation for his own benefit and
asked staff specifically what they wanted the Planning Commission to act
upon. Mr. Swartz stated that every change of ownership to the land
0
The Desert Sun Certificate of Publication
750 IN Gene Autry Trail Y F L E I '! E D
Palm Springs, CA 92262 :.:If .( CLERK'S OFFICE
760.77"5781 Fax 760.7784731 PAL;1 DESERT, CA
2010 OCT 13 AM IOt 48
State Of California ss:
County of Riverside
Advertiser:
CITY OF PALM DESERT
73510 FRED WARING OR
PALM DESERT CA 922602
2000227929
I am over the age of 18 years old, a citizen of the United
States and not a parry to, or have Interest In this matter. 1
hereby certify that the attached advertisement appeared
in said newspaper (set in type not smaller than non pariel)
in each and enthe issue of said newspaper and not In any
supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit:
Newspaper. .The Desert Sun
10/9/2010
I acknowledge that I am a principal clerk of the printer of
The Desert Sun, printed and published weekly in the City
of Palm Springs, County of Riverside, State of California.
The Desert Sun was adjudicated a newspaper of general
circulation on March 24. 1988 by the Superior Court of the
County of Riverside, State of California Case No.
191236.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct. Executed on INS 9111 day of October, 2010 in
Palm Springs, California.
Declarant
City of Patin Desert
CetnmunKy DavelopnaM
OCT 13 201U
No � OF PALM
DIESEW I�Ne I �GB
=dA1W11 I
PROA 1 TION:
City Ip rt
or
to,
Pub: Ia'9h0
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. ZOA 10-311
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The City of Palm Desert Community Development Department is proposing a Zoning
Ordinance Amendment to modify the Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.56,
adding provisions for illuminated window signs.
PROJECT LOCATION:
City of Palm Desert
PUBLIC HEARING:
SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 19, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. in the
Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm
Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and
be heard, Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice
shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed
project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of
Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice, .or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning
Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun Lauri Aylaian, Secretary
October 9, 2010 Palm Desert Planning Commission
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
MINUTES September 28, 2010
Mr. Bagato presented the project and stated that this came before
the Commission at a previous meeting and one of the conditions
was to have no grout lines, however the construction plans shows
them.
Mr. Bagato presented the construction plans for review and
discussion. Commissioner Lambell suggested approving the grout
lines not to exceed 1/8" and with eased edges on all outside
corners.
ACTION:
Commissioner Lambell moved and Commissioner Touschner seconded to
approve subject to: grout joint shall not exceed 1/8" as submitted; and 2)
eased edges on the outside comers. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with
Commissioner Stendell abstaining and Commissioner Vuksic absent.
B. Preliminary Plans:
None
C. Miscellaneous Items:
1. CASE NO: ZOA 10-311
amendment providing signage
signage.
Zoning ordinance
iminated window
Mr. Bagato summarized the staff report for illuminated signage. He
stated that this is an amendment that was requested by City
Council. They have directed staff to come back with standards for
illuminated signage. He stated Palm Desert is still walking the line
as being a resort community, as well as a regular business
community. There is a concern to allow window signage on a
permanent basis. He researched other communities as well as
resort communities that have them. He stated that Cathedral City
permits them in store windows and posted on the walls on sign
boards, Coachella is not mentioned as allowed or prohibited in the
code, Desert Hot Springs allows them with a permit, Indian Wells
prohibit them, Indio is not mentioned as allowed or prohibited in the
code, La Quinta is prohibited unless specifically approved as an
major part of their identification sign, Palm Springs allows them in
conjunction with food and restaurants, Rancho Mirage allows them
in commercial districts, but not adjacent to residential areas. The
GAPI nlngVeMneJwykWONPNMUMIn01W;201MR10aVW1N,d% Page 8 of 9
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
MINUTES September 28, 2010
standards that he has proposed are the ones he found in local and
resort communities.
The Commission reviewed and discussed the standards. One of
the first modifications would be to allow illuminated signs, but they
have to be turned off when the business is closed and when
adjacent to residents. The Commission asked about exceptions
and Mr. Bagato stated that in the sign ordinance people can asked
for modifications.
Commissioner Touschner was relatively okay with the proposal but
had a concern with the term 'retroactive" and thought old signs
should also be considered. The Commission discussed
"retroactive" signs.
Mr. Pedro Rodriguez, Code Compliance Officer stated they have a
program that identifies window signage and Code Officers go out
into the community to educate store owners regarding their signs.
He informs them that from a law enforcement perspective the
clutter in the windows can create a safety hazard if an officer on
patrol cannot see inside the store. He also made a
recommendation to Planning to set up a permit process for any new
signs in order to regulate them. Having these control measures in
place will benefit the City and help with what staff is trying to
accomplish.
The Commission discussed the number of signs allowed and
grandfathering of signage.
ACTION:
Commissioner Stendell moved and Commissioner Touschner seconded, to
approve. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Vuksic absent.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Touschner moved and Commissioner) Stendell seconded to
adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Vuksic absent.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m.
TONY BAGATO
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
G:WInnnhgVanine JutlyMord FRO" Mlnutn=1MAR I WNWINAW Page 9 of 9
PHOTOS &
REDLINES
CHANGES TO THE
PREVIOUS
APPROVED
ORDINANCE
' ANIMAL
KRACKERS' -�
GROOMING • �
i1,0FVrEu r�
J=
EL
1 �1
e
..•_.r 1
�i'��t. ..te r'. t•_i
_Kt� S
M CU7.5
r-- .,.._ -
I
(LINE( it SKIM 11tF TAX SERVIt
-_ --
CLUBHQU
QU R 02�
ai
as
DO WATCH BA TO
ORDINANCE NO. 1190(')
O
surrounding area so as not to detract from or cause depreciation of the
value of adjacent developed properties;
8. That the location and design of a proposed sign in close proximity to a
residential district does not adversely affect the value or character of the
adjacent residential uses;
9. That any neon tubing used '
is incorporated as an integral part of the sign design with careful attention
to color, intensity of light, and the use of colors that are not overly bright
and
10. That the quantity of information displayed in the sign does not cause
visual clutter.
25.68.040 - Exempt Signs
The following signs, if not illuminated, shall be allowed in residential, commercial, and
industrial zoning districts without a sign permit application subject to any specific
limitations provided below:
A. Non-residential only; one identification sign not exceeding one square foot in
area displaying only the name and address of the owner or occupant and/or
hours of business operation;
B. Temporary signs in compliance with Section 25.68.090 (Temporary Signs)
except special event banners and new business establishment identification
signs in compliance with Section 25.68.090;
C. Signs inside a building set back five feet or more from a window and not readily
visible from public right of way;
D. Directional or safety signs provided that signs do not exceed three square feet
perface;
E. Official emblems or flags of nonprofit organizations;
F. Religious, charitable, educational, or cultural posters not exceeding 16 square
feet in area and not displayed for a period greater than 30 days;
G. A no -trespassing or no -dumping sign not exceeding three square feet shall be
permitted for each property in addition to other authorized signs;
H. Governmental or other legally required posters, notices, or signs;
I. Political signs in compliance with the provisions of Subsection 25.68.090 C;
4
O
ORDINANCE NO. 1190
0
Directional and public convenience signs for public and quasi public uses. The
total number of signs allowed shall be based on the minimum number necessary
for adequate public identification as determined by the" Director of Community
Development; i
K. Utility or telephone pay station signs;
L. Bingo signs, provided that said signs shall not exceed aimaximum three square
foot in area; not installed more than 48 hours before the event; and removed
immediately following the event;
M. Lottery signs for a business licensed to sell California State Lottery tickets shall
be entitled to one window or door mounted lottery decal five and one-half inches
by five and one-half inches and no more than one specific identification poster
not to exceed 7 square feet; and
N. "Open" signs, either mounted on the inside of a window or on a pedestal near the
main entrance if a window sign is not used. Maximum sign area shall be three
square feet. Signs may be double sided. Pedestal signs shall be located on
private property and shall not interfere with pedestrian movement. Signs shall not
flash, move, blink, rotate, or appear to downy of the foregoing.
2548.050 = Prohibited Signs
The following signs, displays, and devices, as defined in Section 25.68.150, are
prohibited in the city:
A. Advertising devices;
B. Awnings that are back -lit (internally illuminated) so that the -awning radiates light;
4
C. Business and identification signs that mention more than two goods or services
sold or available on the premises;
D. Cabinet or can signs that are internally illuminated with translucent panels that
allow the entire sign background to be illuminated. Signs with internal illumination
are permitted only if the sign background is opaque and the only portion of the
sign that appears illuminated is the lettering and/or a registered trademark or
logo; ,
E. Electronic changeable. copy signs;
F. Commercial mascots;
5
ORDINANCE NO. 11900 0
MG. Off -site outdoor advertising signs (billboards);
!if. Pole signs;
dl. Roof signs;
K4. Signs that rotate, move, flash, blink, or appear to do any of the foregoing with the
exception of approved time and temperature displays;
kK. Signs on public property, in the public right-of-way, or on public utility poles
unless otherwise authorized by this Chapter. Signs shall include, but not be
limited to, realtor, open house, and garage sale signs. This prohibition shall
include all portable signs including those placed on vehicles with the exception of
vehicle identification signs, and permitted signs on taxicabs;
ML. Signs that do not identify a current use on the premises, name of the owner or
user, or that do not promote a product, an interest, service, or entertainment
available on the premise. Signs shall not advertise a business, accommodation,
service, or activity not provided on the premises on which the sign is located;
NM. Signs located in a manner that the sign or a portion of the sign or sign supports
interfere with the free use of a fire escape, exit or standpipe, or obstruct a
required door, stairway, ventilator, window, or public way or are otherwise
hazardous;
ON. Signs that imitate an official traffic sign or signal, or contain the words "stop,"
"go;. "slow," "caution," "danger," "warning," or similar words, excepting
construction signs and barricades, and except when the words are incorporated
in the permanent name of a business;
Pg. Temporary or portable freestanding signs, including A -frame and similar types of
portable signs, except as otherwise provided in this Chapter; and
QE- Vehicle signs.
25.68.060 - General Provisions for all Signs
A. Compliance required. No person shall erect, re -erect, construct, enlarge, alter,
change copy, repair, move, improve, remove, convert, or equip any sign or sign
structure in the city, or cause or permit the same to be done, contrary to or in
violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter.
B. Uncertainty of Chapter provisions. The Architectural Review Commission shall
have the authority to interpret the provisions of this Chapter at the request of the
0
ORDINACNE NO. 11900 01
2. One 10 square foot maximum wall sign advertising the company name
and/or operator; and
3. One wall or ground sign, not exceeding eight square feet in area and eight
feet in height for a ground sign, advertising the actual lowest price per
gallon including all taxes at which gasoline are currently being offered.
Any special conditions required for sale at the lowest price shall also be
indicated. I
not nnni inv mnro than 4r, narnant of tha etnra frnnf Wnrinw reran Tha tntal
amount of window signage allowed for permanent window
signage including
but not limited to permanently painted, etched, or mounted
on the inside of
windows and illuminated signs.
4. No more than one (1) illuminated window sign is allowed
per frontage to
minimize clutter and visual pollution. 1
5. In order to minimize visual. clutter and to preserve the{aesthetic
quality of the
City, illuminated window signage shall be used to identify
the name or the
business to add artistic details, or to provide aesthetid
Interest. It shall not be
used to advertise products sold within a business and
shall not include prices
or telephone numbers.
6, Businesses across the street or adjacent to residential
properties shall turn of
all illuminated window signage after the business
its closed. unless the
window signage is the primary identification of the business.
f
Architectural Review
7. All illuminated window si na a shall be reviewed bv the
Commission (ARC). The ARC will consider and/or apa
ove and/or take action
1
`i
3.
4.
5.
C
x�m ?.FrrCouncil Agenda Request
Meeting of November i •
To be considered under:
Consent Calendar ❑ Resolutions ❑ Ordinances ❑ New Business ❑
Old Business ❑ Informational Items ❑ Public Hearings ® Other ❑
Item Title: (Please provide the wording that should appear as the item's title on the agenda).
Financial: (NIA)
(a) Account/Project #_
(c) In the Current Budget?_
Submitted by: Tony Baga
Approvals: Department He
(b) Amount Requested
(d) Appropriation Required?
City Manager: Finance Director:
John M. Wohlmuth Paul Gibson
PHOTOS &
REDLINES
CHANGES TO THE
PREVIOUS
APPROVED
ORDINANCE
Ura ckers CreeminQ
z -
ANIMAL `
KRAC KERS
GROOMING
341-6855
TS CLINICAL SKI CARE
HAIRCUT
PRIME CUT
/ r
�31
LINGER
RIK
GIFTS
CLUBHOUSE
LIQUOR ?AJa DELI
ORDINANCE N0.1190
surrounding area so as not to detract from or cause depreciation of the
value of adjacent developed properties;
8. That the location and design of a proposed sign in close proximity to a
residential district does not adversely affect the value or character of the
adjacent residential uses;
9. That any neon tubing used'
is incorporated as an integral part of the sign design with careful attention
to color, intensity of light, and the use of colors that are not overly bright ;
and
10. That the quantity of information displayed in the sign does not cause
visual clutter.
25.68.040 - Exempt Signs
The following signs, if not illuminated, shall be allowed in residential, commercial, and
industrial zoning districts without a sign permit application subject to any specific
limitations provided below:
A. Non-residential only; one identification sign not exceeding one square foot in
area displaying only the name and address of the owner or occupant and/or
hours of business operation;
B. Temporary signs in compliance with Section 25.68.090 (Temporary Signs)
except special event banners and new business establishment identification
signs in compliance with Section 25.68.090;
C. Signs inside a building set back five feet or more from a window and not readily
visible from public right of way;
D. Directional or safety signs provided that signs do not exceed three square feet
perface;
E. Official emblems or flags of nonprofit organizations;
F. Religious, charitable, educational, or cultural posters not exceeding. 16 square
feet in area and not displayed for a period greater than 30 days;
G. A no -trespassing or no -dumping sign not exceeding three square feet shall be
permitted for each property in addition to other authorized signs;
H. Governmental or other legally required posters, notices, or signs;
Political signs in compliance with the provisions of Subsection 25.68.090 C;
4
ORDINANCE NO. 1190
J. Directional and public convenience signs for public and quasi public uses. The
total number of signs allowed shall be based on the minimum number necessary
for adequate public identification as determined by the Director of Community
Development;
K. Utility or telephone pay station signs;
L. Bingo signs, provided that said signs shall not exceed a maximum three square
foot in area; not installed more than 48 hours before the event; and removed
immediately following the event;
M. Lottery signs for a business licensed to sell California State Lottery tickets shall
be entitled to one window or door mounted lottery decal five and one-half inches
by five and one-half inches and no more than one specific identification poster
not to exceed 7 square feet; and
N. "Open" signs, either mounted on the inside of a window or on a pedestal near the
main entrance if a window sign is not used. Maximum sign area shall be three
square feet. Signs may be double sided. Pedestal signs shall be located on
private property and shall not interfere with pedestrian movement. Signs shall not
flash, move, blink, rotate, or appear to do any of the foregoing.
25.68.050 — Prohibited Signs
The following signs, displays, and devices, as defined in Section 25.68.150, are
prohibited in the city:
A. Advertising devices;
B. Awnings that are back -lit (internally illuminated) so that the awning radiates light;
C. Business and identification signs that mention more than two goods or services
sold or available on the premises;
D. Cabinet or can signs that are internally illuminated with translucent panels that
allow the entire sign background to be illuminated. Signs with internal illumination
are permitted only if the sign background is opaque and the only portion of the
sign that appears illuminated is the lettering and/or a registered trademark or
logo;
E. Electronic changeable copy signs;
F. Commercial mascots;
G. Neen 6igns, e)(Gapt "open" signs plaaed in windows and neen tubing use
ORDINANCE NO. 1190
MG. Off -site outdoor advertising signs (billboards);
HI. Pole signs;
dl. Roof signs;
444. Signs that rotate, move, flash, blink, or appear to do any of the foregoing with the
exception of approved time and temperature displays;
1;�K. Signs on public property,. in the public right-of-way, or on public utility poles
unless otherwise authorized by this Chapter. Signs shall include, but not be
limited to, realtor, open house, and garage sale signs. This prohibition shall
include all portable signs including those placed on vehicles with the exception of
vehicle identification signs, and permitted signs on taxicabs;
AAL. Signs that do not identify a current use on the premises, name of the owner or
user, or that do not promote a product, an interest, service, or entertainment
available on the premise. Signs shall not advertise a business, accommodation,
service, or activity not provided on the premises on which the sign is located;
AIM. Signs located in a manner that the sign or a portion of the sign or sign supports
interfere with the free use of a fire escape, exit or standpipe, or obstruct a
required door, stairway, ventilator, window, or public way or are otherwise
hazardous;
QN. Signs that imitate an official traffic sign or signal, or contain the words "stop,"
"go," "slow," "caution," "danger," "warning," or similar words, excepting
construction signs and barricades, and except when the words are incorporated
in the permanent name of a business;
RO. Temporary or portable freestanding signs, including A -frame and similar types of
portable signs, except as otherwise provided in this Chapter; and
QP. Vehicle signs.
25.68.060 — General Provisions for all Signs
A. Compliance required. No person shall erect, re -erect, construct, enlarge, alter,
change copy, repair, move, improve, remove, convert, or equip any sign or sign
structure in the city, or cause or permit the same to be done, contrary to or in
violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter.
B. Uncertainty of Chapter provisions. The Architectural Review Commission shall
have the authority to interpret the provisions of this Chapter at the request of the
2
ORDINACNE NO. 1190
2. One 10 square foot maximum wall sign advertising the company name
and/or operator; and
3. One wall or ground sign, not exceeding eight square feet in area and eight
feet in height for a ground sign, advertising the actual lowest price per
gallon including all taxes at which gasoline are currently being offered.
Any special conditions required for sale at the lowest price shall also be
indicated.
be required for approval of all new illuminated window signs.
1. Illuminated window sions shall be allowed in non-residential zones.
2. Illuminated window signs shall not be combined with any reflective materials
(e.q highly glazed tiles, mirrors, polished metal, or other'similar materials).
windows and illuminated signs.
4. No more than one (1) illuminated window sign is allowed per frontage to
minimize clutter and visual pollution.
used to advertise products sold within a business and shall not include prices
or telephone numbers.
any proposed illuminated window signage. In considering the design of any
29
CITY Of [ I [ M DESERT
73-5io FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346—o6EL
info@cityofpalmdesert.org
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOTICE OF ACTION
Date: October 22, 2010
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Dr
Palm Desert, California 92260
Re: Case No. ZOA 10-311
The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert considered your request and took
the following action at its regular meeting of October 19, 2010:
THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIED CASE NO. ZOA 10-311.
MOTION TO DENY REQUEST WAS APPROVED 3-2.
Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk, City of Palm
Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision.
Lauri Aylaian, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
Ab
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FOR A ZONING ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT PROVIDING SIGNAGE STANDARDS FOR
ILLUMINATED WINDOW SIGNAGE IN SECTION 25.68 OF THE
PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE.
SUBMITTED BY: Tony Bagato
Principal Planner
APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
CASE NO: ZOA 10-311
DATE: October 19, 2010
CONTENTS: Draft Resolution
Exhibit A, Signage Ordinance Modifications
Legal Notice
Architectural Review Commission Minutes
Photos & Redlined Changes of Previous Ordinance
Recommendation:
That the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed Zoning
Ordinance Amendment providing new signage standards for illuminated
window signs in Section 25.68 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
Executive Summary:
On July 27, 2010, the City Council directed staff to prepare a Zoning Ordinance
Amendment removing the neon sign prohibition and develop standards that would allow
neon signs with approval by the Architectural Review Commission. On September 28, 2010,
the Architectural Review Commission discussed the proposed standards and recommended
approval with some modifications. Staff believes that these standards will provide for limited
use of illuminated window signs that allow business owners to be more creative and provide
for additional visibility without negatively impacting the overall aesthetic quality of the
storefront.
Staff Report
ZOA 10-311
October 19, 2010
Page 2 of 4
Background:
Neon signs have been prohibited since 1978. At that time, Section 25.38-9 Permitted Signs
— Purpose stated:
No sign shall be erected or maintained in any zone as established by the
Zoning Ordinance except those signs specifically enumerated in this Article.
The number and area of signs outlined in this Article are intended to be
maximum standards which do not necessarily ensure architectural
compatibility. Therefore, in addition to the enumerated standards,
consideration shall be given to a sign's relationship to the overall appearance
of the subject property, as well as the surrounding community. Compatible
design, simplicity, and sign effectiveness are to be used in establishing
guidelines for sign approval.
Neon signs were never listed as an approved sign in the Zoning Ordinance; therefore, they
were prohibited based on this section. On September 28, 1989, the City Council approved a
Zoning Ordinance Amendment that amended many sections of the Zoning Ordinance,
including the signage standards. As part of that amendment, the following wording was
added to the Permitted Signs section after the words "surrounding community":
...with the goal of being to minimize visual pollution, the use of lighting and
excessive contrasting colors. Compatible design, simplicity, and sign
effectiveness are to be used in establishing guidelines for sign approval.
Again, neon signs were never mentioned as a permitted sign type and were considered
prohibited because this section states that no sign shall be erected unless it is allowed in
the Zoning Ordinance. Although neon signs have never been allowed in the Zoning
Ordinance, enforcement of these signs was handled on a complaint basis.
On October 11, 2007, the City Council formed a Signage Subcommittee to address the
needs of the business community for commercial real estate signs, businesses facing the
freeway and monument signs for large commercial centers. On December 11, 2008, staff
began working on a comprehensive update to the signage ordinance to address the signage
issues raised in 2007. While addressing the issues raised by the business community, staff
presented to the Signage Subcommittee several other signage issues within the city. Neon
signs were one of the other sign types discussed. Staff explained to the Subcommittee that,
although neon signs have never been allowed per the Zoning Ordinance, many businesses
had them and there had been little to no enforcement of their prohibition. Staff also
explained that neon signs could be allowed or could be specifically prohibited. The
Subcommittee recommended that they be prohibited, except for small "open" neon signs.
On August 27, 2009, the City Council approved the new signage ordinance and staff began
working to inform the business community of the new signage standards. This past
summer, Code Compliance began enforcing the prohibition and contacted many business
owners by letter, asking them to remove the neon window signs. At the July 8, 2010 City
G9Rlanning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Slafl RepodsVOXSignage OrdinancMeon Signs\Rlanning Commission Staff Repod.doc
Staff Report
ZOA 10-311
October 19, 2010
Page 3 of 4
Council meeting, the business owner of Skitzo Kitty spoke to the City Council under Oral
Communications about the letter he received from Code Compliance informing him that all
neon signs in the storefront window needed to be removed by the end of August. He, as
well as other business owners, thought that the enforcement action was ill-timed because of
the downturn in the economy.
On July 27, 2010, the City Council reviewed a staff report explaining that neon signs have
been prohibited since 1978, but rarely enforced. Staff presented three options:
1. Suspend Enforcement of Neon Signs,
2. Temporary Approval of Neon Signs, or
3. Zoning Ordinance Amendment allowing Neon Signs.
Staff recommended that the City Council approve standards for temporary approval.
However, the City Council directed staff to prepare a Zoning Ordinance Amendment
removing the neon sign prohibition, and develop standards that would allow them with
approval by the Architectural Review Commission. On September 28, 2010, the
Architectural Review Commission discussed the proposed standards and recommended
approval with some modifications. The proposed ordinance amendment is a result of staff's
research of other cities and the comments discussed at the ARC meeting.
Project Description:
Staff recommends approval for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment providing signage
standards for illuminated window signage in Section 25.68 of the Palm Desert Municipal
Code. After reviewing other ordinances allowing neon widow signs and listening to the
comments given by the Architectural Review Commission, staff is proposing the following
standards for illuminated window signs:
25.68.80— Standards for Specific Types of Permanent Signs
M. Illuminated Window Signs. All existing illuminated window signs for businesses
installed before October 31, 2010, shall be considered legal, non -conforming signs
and allowed to remain with approval from the Planning Department. The following
standards shall be required for approval of all new illuminated window signs:
1. Illuminated window signs shall be allowed in non-residential zones.
2. Illuminated window signs shall not be combined with any reflective materials
(e.g. highly glazed tiles, mirrors, polished metal, or other similar materials).
3. Illuminated window signs placed within five feet of a storefront window shall
not occupy more than 25 percent of the store front window area. This is the
total amount of window signage allowed for all permanent window signage,
including but not limited to those permanently painted, etched, or mounted on
the inside of windows and illuminated signs.
GAPlanning\Tony BagatoMord Fileffa mals\Stalf ReporlsMAASignage OrdinanweW Signs\Planning Go isslon Staff Repon.dw
Staff Report
ZOA 10-311
October 19, 2010
Page 4 of 4
4. No more than one (1) illuminated window sign is allowed per frontage to
minimize clutter and visual pollution.
5. In order to minimize visual clutter and to preserve the aesthetic quality of the
city, illuminated window signage shall be used to identify the name of the
business, to add artistic details, or to provide aesthetic interest. It shall not be
used to advertise products sold within a business and shall not include prices
or telephone numbers.
6. Businesses across the street or adjacent to residential properties shall turn of
all illuminated window signage during the hours that the business is closed,
unless the window signage is the primary identification of the business.
7. All illuminated window signage shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review
Commission (ARC). The ARC will consider and/or approve and/or take action
on any proposed illuminated window signage. In considering the design of
any proposed illuminated window sign, the ARC shall determine whether the
sign will have any negative impact on the aesthetic quality of the storefront. In
the event that the Commission determines that there is a negative impact,
they will deny the proposed signage. No illuminated window signage shall be
permitted or installed without first gaining approval from the ARC.
In addition to the proposed standards, other sections of the Signage Ordinance were
modified for consistency with removing the prohibition and adding the new standards. All
sections being modified are described in Exhibit A of the attached draft resolution.
Conclusion:
In consideration of concerns expressed by' the business community, the City Council
directed staff to remove the prohibition of neon window signs and provide standards to allow
them. Staff believes that these standards will provide for limited use of illuminated window
signs allowing business owners to be more creative and providing additional visibility without
negatively impacting the overall aesthetic quality of the storefront.
Submitted By:
Tony Bagato
Principal Planner
Department Head:
Lauri Aylaian
Director Community Development
G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Waro FIIe Tonnats\Staff ReponsNZOA\Signage Oroinanw%W SignslPlanning Commission SW RepWAoa
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT PROVIDING
SIGNAGE STANDARDS FOR ILLUMINATED WINDOW SIGNAGE IN
SECTION 25.68 OF THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE.
CASE NO: ZOA 10-311
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did
on the 19th day of October 2010, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the
request by the City of Palm Desert for approval of the above noted; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act",
Resolution No. 10-26, the Director of Community Development has determined that the
project will not have a negative impact on the environment and is exempt from CEQA,
and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning
Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the
recommendation to the City Council of said request:
1. That the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the
Palm Desert General Plan Community Design Element.
2. That the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment will provide the
illuminated window signage standards, guidelines and regulations that are
consistent with the Palm Desert General Plan Community Design Element
and purpose of the Signage Ordinance.
3. That the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety or general welfare, or be materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the City of Palm Desert.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Palm Desert, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Planning Commission in this case.
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of ZOA
10-311.
PLANNING COMMIS',,.JN RESOLUTION NO.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 19th day of October 2010, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
CONNOR LIMONT, Chairperson
0E
PLANNING COMMMS .jN RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT A
Section 1. 25.68.030 — Sign Permit Application and Design Review Required
D. Sign review criteria.
9. That any neon tubing used is incorporated as an integral part of the
sign design with careful attention to color, intensity of light, and the
use of colors that are not overly bright ; and
Section 2. 25.68.050 — Prohibited Signs
G. Off -site outdoor advertising signs (billboards);
H. Pole signs;
Roof signs;
J. Signs that rotate, move, flash, blink, or appear to do any of the
foregoing with the exception of approved time and temperature
displays;
K. Signs on public property, in the public right-of-way, or on public
utility poles unless otherwise authorized by this Chapter. Signs
shall include, but not be limited to, realtor, open house, and garage
sale signs. This prohibition shall include all portable signs including
those placed on vehicles with the exception of vehicle identification
signs, and permitted signs on taxicabs;
L. Signs that do not identify a current use on the premises, name of
the owner or user, or that do not promote a product, an interest,
service, or entertainment available on the premise. Signs shall not
advertise a business, accommodation, service, or activity not
provided on the premises on which the sign is located;
M. Signs located in a manner that the sign or a portion of the sign or
sign supports interfere with the free use of a fire escape, exit or
standpipe, or obstruct a required door, stairway, ventilator, window,
or public way or are otherwise hazardous;
N. Signs that imitate an official traffic sign or signal, or contain the
words "stop," "go," "slow," "caution," "danger," "warning," or similar
words, excepting construction signs and barricades, and except
when the words are incorporated in the permanent name of a
business;
3
PLANNING COMMIS__JN RESOLUTION NO.
O. Temporary or portable freestanding signs, including A -frame and
similar types of portable signs, except as otherwise provided in this
Chapter; and
P. Vehicle signs.
Section 3. 25.68.80— Standards for Specific Types of Permanent Signs
M. Illuminated Window Signs. All illuminated window signs for
businesses before October 31, 2010, shall be considered legal non-
conforming signs and allowed to remain with approval from the
Planning Department. The following standards shall be required for
approval of all new illuminated window signs.
1. Illuminated window signs shall be allowed in non-residential
zones.
2. Illuminated window signs shall not be combined with any
reflective materials (e.g. highly glazed tiles, mirrors, polished
metal, or other similar materials).
3. Illuminated window signs placed within five feet of a storefront
window shall not occupy more than 25 percent of the store front
window area. The total amount of window signage allowed for
permanent window signage including but not limited to
permanently painted, etched, or mounted on the inside of
windows and illuminated signs.
4. No more than one (1) illuminated window sign is allowed per
frontage to minimize clutter and visual pollution.
5. In order to minimize visual clutter and to preserve the aesthetic
quality of the City, illuminated window signage shall be used to
identify the name or the business, to add artistic details, or to
provide aesthetic interest. It shall not be used to advertise
products sold within a business and shall not include prices or
telephone numbers.
6. Businesses across the street or adjacent to residential
properties shall turn of all illuminated window signage after the
business is closed, unless the window signage is the primary
identification of the business.
7. All illuminated window signage shall be reviewed by the
Architectural Review Commission (ARC). The ARC will
consider and/or approve and/or take action any proposed
illuminated window signage. In considering the design of any
proposed illuminated window sign, the ARC shall determine
H
PLANNING COMMIS, M RESOLUTION NO.
whether the sign will have any negative impact on the aesthetic
quality of the storefront. In the event that the Commission
determines that there is a negative impact, they will deny the
proposed signage. No illuminated window signage shall be
permitted or installed without first gaining approval from the
ARC.
5
The Desert Sun RECi1YED L„-r'tificate of Publication
750 N Gene Autry Trail
Palm Springs, CA92262 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
760-778-4578 / Fax 760-778-4731 P A L H DESERT, CA
2010 OCT 13 AM 10: 48
State Of California ss: City of Patin Desert
County of Riverside Community Development
Advertiser: OCT 13 201U
CITY OF PALM DESERT
73510 FRED WARING DR
PALM DESERT CA 922602
2000227929 N0 CITY OF PALM
DESERT -
LEGALNOTICE
CASE NO.
ZOA 1Da11
I am over the age of 18 years old, a citizen of the United M —1
States and not a party to, or have interest in this matter. I SECTIONS
PALM DES
hereby certify that the attached advertisement appeared NICIPAL C(
in said newspaper (set in type not smaller than non pariel) TION 25.5
ADDING PR
in each and entire Issue of said newspaper and not in any FOR ILU
supplement thereof on the following dates, to writ: WINDOW SI
PROJECT
T10N:
Newspaper: .The Desert Sun The Clty of
10/9/2010
PCRY at Pe m Dessert
I acknowledge that I am a principal clerk of the printer of
The Desert Sun, printed and published weekly in the City
of Palm Springs, County of Riverside, State of California.
The Desert Sun was adjudicated a newspaper of general
circulation on March 24, 1988 by the Superior Court of the
County of Riverside, State of California Case No.
191236.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
tke shall De aww—
up to the date of the
and correct. Executed on this 9th day of October, 2010 in
hearing. Information
oonoeming. the P� !
California.
posed protect andror
declersrwn is
Palm Springs.
nag".w
available for review in 1
the Deppathnent of
Communm/ Develop
-
mom al the, above ad-
the
dress between
of8:00 erM
.hours a.m. '
5:00 p.m. . Monday
through Friday II you
challenge tha proposed
Declarant
m obe IlmXe trlrto rats-
ingyonty those issues
someone else i
you or
_ IM1a rWaIC
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. ZOA 10-311
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A ZONING ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT UPDATING SECTIONS OF THE PALM DESERT
MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.56 SIGNS ADDING
PROVISIONS FOR ILLUMINATED WINDOW SIGNS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The City of Palm Desert Community Development Department is proposing a Zoning
Ordinance Amendment to modify the Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.56,
adding provisions for illuminated window signs.
PROJECT LOCATION:
City of Palm Desert
PUBLIC HEARING:
SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 19, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. in the
Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm
Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and
be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice
shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed
project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of
Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning
Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun Lauri Aylaian, Secretary
October 9, 2010 Palm Desert Planning Commission
ARCHITECTURAL R6- _ SEW COMMISSION
MINUTES September 28, 2010
Mr. Bagato presented the project and stated that this came before
the Commission at a previous meeting and one of the conditions
was to have no grout lines, however the construction plans shows
them.
Mr. Bagato presented the construction plans for review and
discussion. Commissioner Lambell suggested approving the grout
lines not to exceed 1/8" and with eased edges on all outside
corners.
ACTION:
Commissioner Lambell moved and Commissioner Touschner seconded to
approve subject to: grout joint shall not exceed 1/8" as submitted; and 2)
eased edges on the outside corners. Motion carried 5-0-1-1, with
Commissioner Stendell abstaining and Commissioner Vuksic absent.
B. Preliminary Plans:
None
C. Miscellaneous Items:
1. CASE NO: ZOA 10-311
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Zoning ordinance
amendment providing signage standards for illuminated window
signage.
Mr. Bagato summarized the staff report for illuminated signage. He
stated that this is an amendment that was requested by City
Council. They have directed staff to come back with standards for
illuminated signage. He stated Palm Desert is still walking the line
as being a resort community, as well as a regular business
community. There is a concern to allow window signage on a
permanent basis. He researched other communities as well as
resort communities that have them. He stated that Cathedral City
permits them in store windows and posted on the walls on sign
boards, Coachella is not mentioned as allowed or prohibited in the
code, Desert Hot Springs allows them with a permit, Indian Wells
prohibit them, Indio is not mentioned as allowed or prohibited in the
code, La Quinta is prohibited unless specifically approved as an
major part of their identification sign, Palm Springs allows them in
conjunction with food and restaurants, Rancho Mirage allows them
in commercial districts, but not adjacent to residential areas. The
G:1PlanningNJ nine Judy\WordFiles\.Minutes12010WR100928MINdoc Page 8 of 9
ARCHITECTURAL R. _ iEW COMMISSION
MINUTES
September 28, 2010
standards that he has proposed are the ones he found in local and
resort communities.
The Commission reviewed and discussed the standards. One of
the first modifications would be to allow illuminated signs, but they
have to be turned off when the business is closed and when
adjacent to residents. The Commission asked about exceptions
and Mr. Bagato stated that in the sign ordinance people can asked
for modifications.
Commissioner Touschner was relatively okay with the proposal but
had a concern with the term "retroactive" and thought old signs
should also be considered. The Commission discussed
"retroactive" signs.
Mr. Pedro Rodriguez, Code Compliance Officer stated they have a
program that identifies window signage and Code Officers go out
into the community to educate store owners regarding their signs.
He informs them that from a law enforcement perspective the
clutter in the windows can create a safety hazard if an officer on
patrol cannot see inside the store. He also made a
recommendation to Planning to set up a permit process for any new
signs in order to regulate them. Having these control measures in
place will benefit the City and help with what staff is trying to
accomplish.
The Commission discussed the number of signs allowed and
grandfathering of signage.
ACTION:
Commissioner Stendell moved and Commissioner Touschner seconded, to
approve. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Vuksic absent.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Touschner moved and Commissioner Stendell seconded to
adjourn the meeting. Motion carried 6-0-0-1, with Commissioner Vuksic absent.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m.
TONY BAGATO
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
G:WlanningVanine JueyrWore FlesU Wnutes12010WR100928MIN. o Page 9 of 9
The Desert Sun Certificate of Publication
750 N Gene Autry Trail g RECEIVED «
Palm Springs, CA92262 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
760-778.4578 1 Fax 760-778-4731 PALM DESERT, CA
2010 OCT 13 AM 10: 48
State Of California as: Gb of Palm Desert
County of Riverside Community Development
Advertiser: OCT 13 2010
CITY OF PALM DESERT
73510 FRED WARING DR
PALM DESERT CA 922602
2000227929 No 4327
CITY OF PALM
DESERT
LEGALNOTICE
CASE NO.
7AA 10311
I am over the age of 18 years old, a citizen of the United MENT
- L
States and not a parry to, or have interest in this matter. I SECTIONS
hereby certify that the attached advertisement appeared PNICIPAL CC
ALM DES
in said newspaper (set in type not smaller than non panel) TION 25.5
ADDING PR
in each and entire Issue of said newspaper and not in any FOR ILLI
supplement thereof on the following dates, to wit: WINDOW SI
PROJECT
TION:
Newspaper. .The Desert Sun The Gry of
10/9/2010
city of Palm DesertON:
I acknowledge that I am a principal clerk of the printer of be r
octo
The Desert Sun, printed and published weekly in the City 6::00
of Palm Springs, County of Riverside, State of California. Des,
The Desert Sun was adjudicated a newspaper of general 510
circulation on March 24, 1988 by the Superior Court of the arw
County of Riverside. State of California Case No. all
are
191236. and
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and correct. Executed on this 9th day of October, 2010 in
Palm Springs, California.
Declarant
to,
Pub: 10i I
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT PROVIDING SIGNAGE
STANDARDS FOR ILLUMINATED WINDOW SIGNAGE IN
SECTION 25.68 OF THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE.
SUBMITTED BY:
APPLICANT:
CASE NO:
DATE:
Recommendation
Tony Bagato
Principal Planner
City of Palm Desert
ZOA 10-311
September 28, 2010
Approve the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment providing new
signage standards for illuminated window signs in Section 25.68 of the
Palm Desert Municipal Code.
Background
On July 27, 2010, the City Council directed staff prepare a sign ordinance amendment
to delete the prohibition of neon signs and instead require that all new neon signs go
through the Architectural Review process, which is subject to City Council request for
consideration; and abate all enforcement actions against existing owners of neon signs.
Based on the direction by City Council, staff is proposing a Zoning Ordinance
Amendment that will provide new signage standards for illuminated window signs in
Section 25.68. The goal of the new standards is to provide for illuminated window
signage without too much clutter or excessive advertising. Staff has researched other
local cities neon sign regulations and found the following standards:
• Cathedral City: Permitted in store windows, mounted on exterior walls or on a
sign board
• Coachella: Not mentioned as allowed or prohibited
0 Desert Hot Springs: Allowed with a permit
Staff Report
L Neon Signs 10-311
September 28, 2010
Page 2 of 3
• Indian Wells: Prohibited
• Indio: Not mentioned as allowed or prohibited
• La Quinta: Prohibited, "unless specifically approved as an activity's major
identification sign"
• Palm Springs: Allowed in conjunction with food and entertainment uses, with size
limits based on the size of the building
• Rancho Mirage: Allowed with a sign permit in commercial districts not adjacent to
residential areas
Zoning Ordinance Amendment:
After reviewing other ordinances allowing neon widow signs and listening to the
comments given by the Architectural Review Commission, staff is proposing the
following standards for illuminated window signs:
Illuminated Window Signs. The following standards shall be required for approval of
all new illuminated window signs for businesses established after October 31, 2010. All
illuminated window signs for businesses established before October 31, 2010, shall be
considered legal non -conforming signs and need not be removed or revised to meet the
requirements of new illuminated signs, which as follows:
1. Illuminated window signs shall be allowed in non-residential zones.
2. No illuminated window signs are permitted adjacent to, or across the street from
residential properties.
3. Neon tubing shall not be combined with any reflective materials (e.g. highly
glazed tiles, mirrors, polished metal, or other similar materials.
4. Neon signs placed within 5 feet of a storefront window shall not occupy more
than 25 percent of the store front window area.
5. No more than one (1) illuminated window sign is allowed per frontage . to
minimize clutter and visual pollution.
6. In order to minimize visual clutter and to preserve the aesthetic
quality
of the
City, illuminated
window signage shall be used to identify the
name
or the
business, to add
artistic details, or to provide aesthetic interest.
It shall
not be
G1P1anning\Tony aagatolSignage OrdinancMeon SigWARC Staff Repod.doc
Staff Report
' Neon Signs 10-311
September 28, 2010
Page 3 of 3
used to advertise products sold within a business and shall not include prices or
telephone numbers.
7. Approval of any illuminated window sign shall be reviewed by the Architectural
Review Commission, and the commission shall determine that the sign will not
negative impact the aesthetic quality of the storefront.
Staff believes that these standards will provide for limited use of illuminated window
signs that allows business owners to be more creative and provide for additional
advertising without negatively impacting the overall aesthetic quality of the storefront.
Submitted By:
ez
Tony B gato
Principal Planner
G:�Ianning�Tony BagatolSignage ONinancMeon SlgnsWRC Staff RepWAM
F,
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ALLOW NEON WINDOW SIGNS IN
STOREFRONTS ON A TEMPORARY BASIS FROM AUGUST 2010
TO OCTOBER 2012, SUBJECT TO THE CRITERIA DESCRIBED
IN EXHIBIT A.
SUBMITTED BY:
APPILANT:
DATE:
ATTACHMENTS:
Recommendation
Tony Bagato
Principal Planner
City of Palm Desert
July 27, 2010
Draft Resolution
Exhibit A
Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. approving neon
window signs on a temporary basis with issuance of a permit until October
2012, subject to the criteria described in Exhibit A, attached.
Executive Summary:
Neon signs have been prohibited in Palm Desert since 1978; however, as with other
Code Compliance matters, enforcement is complaint driven and the prohibition was
rarely enforced. Recently staff received a complaint about a business sign on Highway
111. When staff contacted the business manager, she stated that there were many
businesses with neon window signs and she felt that she was being treated unfairly. In
response to her complaint, Code Enforcement personnel began contacting and
informing business owners with neon window signs, that the signs are prohibited and
need to be removed by the end of August.
The City Council requested that this matter be added to the agenda for discussion.
After considering the various options described below, Staff is recommending that the
City Council allow neon window signs for a period of two years upon meeting certain
requirements as identified in this staff report. This will allow businesses to provide
additional advertising during this difficult economic time, while providing regulations to
limit potential negative impacts of visual pollution.
4
Staff Report
Neon Signs
July 27, 2010
Page 2 of 9
Background
Neon signs have been prohibited since 1978. At that time, Section 25.38-9 Permitted
Signs — Purpose stated:
"No sign shall be erected or maintained in any zone as established by the
Zoning Ordinance except those signs specifically enumerated in this
Article. The number and area of signs outlined in this Article are intended
to be maximum standards which do not necessarily ensure architectural
compatibility. Therefore, in addition to the enumerated standards,
consideration shall be given to a sign's relationship to the overall
appearance of the subject property, as well as the surrounding
community. Compatible design, simplicity, and sign effectiveness are to
be used in establishing guidelines for sign approval."
Neon signs were never listed as an approved sign in the Zoning Ordinance; therefore,
they were prohibited based on this section. On September 28, 1989, the City Council
approved a Zoning Ordinance Amendment that amended many sections of the Zoning
Ordinance, including the signage standards. As part of that amendment, the following
wording was added to the Permitted Signs section after the words "surrounding
community":
"with the goal of being to minimize visual pollution, the use of lighting and
excessive contrasting colors. Compatible design, simplicity, and sign
effectiveness are to be used in establishing guidelines for sign approval."
Again, neon signs were never mentioned as a permitted sign type and were considered
prohibited because this section states that no sign shall be erected unless it is allowed
in the Zoning Ordinance. Although neon signs have never been allowed in the Zoning
Ordinance, enforcement of these signs was handled on a complaint basis. Most of the
businesses that have these signs had not received complaints. In addition, if these
signs were located more than 3 feet behind a window, it was not considered a sign.
On October 11, 2007, the City Council formed a Signage Subcommittee to address the
needs of the business community for commercial real estate signs, businesses facing
the freeway and monument signs for large commercial centers. On December 11,
2008, staff began working on a comprehensive update to the signage ordinance to
address the signage issues raised in 2007. While addressing the issues raised by the
business community, staff presented several other signage issues within the City. Neon
signs were one of the other sign types discussed. Staff explained to the subcommittee
that although neon signs have never been allowed per the Zoning Ordinance, many
businesses had them and there had been little to no enforcement of their prohibition.
Staff also explained that neon signs could be allowed or could be specifically prohibited.
The subcommittee recommended that they be prohibited, except for small "open" neon
G:Tlanning\Tony Bagato\Signage Orolnance\Won Signs\City Council Staff Repotl.00c
I0
Staff Report
Neon Signs
July 27, 2010
Page 3 of 9
signs. Staff believed that the `open" neon signs should be allowed since many
storefronts have tinted or dark window covers to protect the stores from the glare of the
desert sun, leading business owners to report that motorists cannot tell if the business
is open as they pass by.
On August 27, 2009, the City Council approved the new signage ordinance and staff
has been working to inform the business community of the new signage standards. In
addition, staff received a complaint from a local business owner about a large neon
window sign in a competing business storefront. The business owner stated that
everyone should have to follow the same rules. Staff agreed and sent a Notice of
Violation to the competing business owner. When staff contacted the non -complying
business, the manager stated that there were a lot of other businesses with neon
window signs, and that she believed that she was being unfairly targeted by the
competing business owner. Staff explained to her that everyone is subject to the same
signage standards and that the other business owners would be contacted. In June,
staff began notifying other business owners with neon window signs. The notice
explained to them that the neon window signs are prohibited and that the signs needed
to be removed before the end of August. Photos of typical neon signs are below:
GdPlanning\Tony BagatolSignage Ordinance\Neon Signs\City Council Stag Report.doc
Staff Report
Neon Signs
July 27, 2010
Page 4of9
aunncc 46
F9 .
'^" a 9akygahh r I
ate
GAPlanning\Tony Bagato\Signage Ordinance\Neon Signs\City Council Staff Repon.doc
r
Staff Report
Neon Signs
July 27, 2010
Page 5 of 9
G\Planning\Tony Bagaio\Signage OMinance\Neon Signs\City Council Stall aepod.doc
Staff Report
Neon Signs
July 27, 2010
Page 6 of 9
G?Planning\Tony Bagato'Signage OrdinancelNeon Signs\City Council Staff Regod.doc
y Staff Report
Neon Signs
July 27, 2010
Page 7 of 9
�
43
ANIMAL;
F
'
KRAC KERS -'
e3,4V' V85 Y
v
�4t
y
G:\Planning\Tony Bagalo\Signage OrdinanceVNeon Signs\City Council Slaff Repod.doc
Staff Report
Neon Signs
July 27, 2010
Page 8 of 9
Discussion
At the July 8, 2010 City Council meeting, the business owner of Skitzo Kitty spoke
under Oral Communications about the letter he received from Code Enforcement
informing him that all neon signs in the storefront window needed to be removed by the
end of August. He, as well as other business owners, thought that the enforcement
action was ill-timed because of the downturn in the economy.
There are three clear options available to the City Council. They can: direct staff to
suspend enforcement of the current prohibition; allow the signs on a temporary basis
through issuance of a permit; or initiate a Zoning Ordinance Amendment and direct staff
to develop possible regulations that would allow neon signs on a permanent basis. The
implication of each of these options is discussed below.
Suspend Enforcement:
The City Council can direct staff to not enforce the prohibition on neon signs for a
certain period of time. Staff does not recommend this option because it could
encourage new neon window signs to be installed throughout the city. In addition, these
signs can be a costly investment, which would be non -productive as soon as
enforcement activity resumes.
Temporary Approval:
If the City Council wants to allow the neon window signs on a temporary basis, staff is
recommending that they be allowed for two years with the following criteria:
1. The neon sign identifies the business name and there is no other illuminated
sign for the business;
2. The neon signs are creative and do not negatively impact the aesthetics of the
storefront;
3. No more than one (1) neon sign is allowed per frontage to minimize clutter and
visual pollution;
4. No neon signs are permitted adjacent to or across the street from residential
property.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment:
If the City Council wants to allow all businesses to have neon window signs in addition
to the already permitted signs, they can direct staff to initiate a Zoning Ordinance
Amendment, and return with requirements for neon window signs. Staff will research
GAPlanning\Tony Bagalc�Signage Oulinance`Neon SignsZity Council Staff ReOod.doc
Ir
Staff Report
Neon Signs
July 27, 2010
Page 9 of 9
other local and non -local cities' signage ordinances, develop the regulations and
present the new standards to the Architectural Review Commission, Planning
Commission and City Council for review and approval.
Staff advises against permanently allowing neon window signs. The intent of the
Signage Ordinance is to implement the goals and policies of the General Plan,
particularly with regard to developing a city that is visually attractive and preserving and
enhancing the visual aspects of the city's streets, highways, vistas, and view sheds.
Staff believes that allowing neon window signs for all businesses will lead to clutter and
visual pollution that is incompatible with a destination resort community.
Fiscal Analysis:
There is no fiscal impact to the City by allowing or prohibiting neon window signs.
Submitted By:
Tony Bagato
Principal Planner
Approval:
John M. Wohlmuth, City Manager
Department Head:
Lauri Aylaian
Director Community Development
G Tlanning\Tony Ragato\Signage Ordinance\Neon Signs\City Council Slag Repon.doc
tg.3e-0 s11FE : W
' The city Council %he "adopt, by Oyrrdinance. a set Ales and regulations to
Miitnbe aide avail pie totee that all signs rthe public. the Builds gThese
0fficial shaland l that
all signs within the ttty meet the safety requirnxnts promulgated in the rules
and regulations.
t5.3B-t PERMITTED SIGNS - PURPOSE
No signs stall be erected or maintained in any tone as established by the
Zoning Ordinance except those signs specifically enumerated in this Article.
The nuber and area of signs as outlined in this Article are intended to be
aexfmaw standards which do not necessarily ensure architectural compatibility.
Therefore, in addition to the enumerated standards, consideration shall be
given to a silgq1nn's relationship to the overall appearance of the subject pro-
and�lgnseffeetiveness are U be used nfeitebltshtngbguldeltnei forQslynty,
approvel .
215.38-10 SIGNS 1N SINGLE FAMiLY ZONES
25.39-10.01 Realty Sipes
Dung a period of time when realty is offered for sale or rent, a sign
so indicating, but not exceeding three (3) square feet In area or four
(4) feet in height, may be located an the property. No real estate signs
shall be looted on a roof, project from a building face, or hove in any
sinner. Any such signs shall be removed upon the rental of the property,
or upon the completion of escrow. After the effective date of this Sec-
tion, no person engaged in the real estate business as a broker, sales-
man. or otherwise, shall use or place signs on property being offered
for sale or lease unless said sign program has first received approval
from the Director of Environmental Services. Prior to requestin approv-
al of any real estate signs, evidence of a valid City business license
sbalt be provided. In addition, one (1) rider, not to exceed five (5)
inches by sixteen (16) inches, may be installed at the bottom of any ap-
proved real "tote sign.
25.WtO.02 Name Plate$
Each dwalling Is permitted an nameplate indicating any one (1) or more of
the followings the mama of the occupant, the occupation or the street ad -
dross of the residence. Sold sign shall not exceed onm t1) square foot to
area and if located an a pale, no part of the sign or pole should be more
Van four (4) feet above ground level.
26.16-10.03 Open House slant
During the period under which real estate Is offered for sale or lase and
while a sal"psrsma is physically preient on the premises, a signindicating
ow hom uare
feet 1 ahall be l plsnot
etspnthree
((or Palo)%ha anaand If located as a polep nopart ofth ll ex-
eood fear (4) fast .hove grand level. ON (1 off -site directional sign may
be fneitted for ancheueeubjaet to the fallowing provisions
) shall not eNcaed thres �3) square fasts
as flags or banners the l be useds
to be located an ivate property only$
limited to one (1) sign only,
11.21 (9)
Bagato, Tony
From:
Klassen, Rachelle
Sent:
Friday, July 16, 2010 2:22 PM
To:
Bagato, Tony
Subject:
RE: Neon Signs
Yes — it was David Goldman. Following is my transcription of his comments in the July 8 Minutes.
Rachelle
MR. DAVID GOLDMAN, Highway 111, Palm Desert, referred to a letter he'd received from the City last
week. The letter was dated June 23 and advised small business owners with neon signs that they had
until August 23 to remove them. He pointed out that many of the businesses had displayed those signs
for a long time, and they'd been done at that time in a fashion to accommodate the sign ordinance
regulations. He said business was slow in the third quarter of the year; many business owners were
struggling and coming out of pocket just to pay their taxes, payroll, utilities that were doubled, while
income was cut in half. Small businesses were trying to keep their doors open and then having to
endure a very large expense to change their signage at this time —during one of the most severe
economic downturns experienced by the country in nearly 80 years —and he questioned the necessity
of this enforcement. He understood this matter would be on the next meeting agenda, but that wasn't
until August 26, and businesses were supposed to be in compliance by August 23. He could not afford
this expenditure right now, with his sign being done over seven years ago; his neighboring businesses,
Don The Dog Groomer - sign done 13 years ago, and Prime Cuts (in attendance also) - sign done 17
years ago, were in the same position.
Mayor Pro Tern Ferguson asked to see Mr. Goldman's letter, saying it was the first he'd heard of this
issue.
MR. GOLDMAN went on to say for many small businesses, signage was their first line of advertising to
bring people in who will spend money, allowing the business owners to pay their taxes, utilities, rent,
keep the doors open, and promote good business in the beautiful City of Palm Desert.
Mayor Finerty suggested referring the matter to the City Manager for follow-up.
Mayor Pro Tern Ferguson asked if the City Attorney had reviewed the letter, and Mr. Erwin said he
didn't think he had. Mayor Pro Tem Ferguson said the letter requested the small business owner's
cooperation, sounding to him like the City was asking for voluntary compliance with its ordinance that
it couldn't otherwise require. With the Mayor's permission, he asked to provide this to the City
Attorney for review, and he thanked Mr. Goldman for calling it to the Council's attention.
From: Bagato, Tony
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2010 2:08 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: Neon Signs
Rachelle,
Can you provide me with the name of the business owner for Skitzo Kitty, he spoke about the neon sign issue under Non
Agenda Items?
Tony Bogota, Principal Planner
City of Palm Desert, Community Development/Planning
73-510 Fred Waring Drive, CA 92260
wvVW.cityofpolmdesert.com
(760) 346-061 1 ext 480
ABe Green! Please don't print
this e-mail unless you really need to.
7/13/2010
www.mydesert.com I Printer -friendly arti...
LE.iL. �i�:.tlf ec.�ln Iam�.FA`,9FFAf €l flt SA.. .�$+.l.f i°gRR3;iExd
July 13, 2010
Warning to remove neon signs frustrates merchants
City ordinance prohibits businesses to have signage in windows
Blake Herzog
The Desert Sun
Some Palm Desert store owners have received letters from the city warning them that their neon window
signs violate an ordinance.
Letters were sent to about 50 shops, including Animal Krackers Grooming at 73-368 Highway 111.
Owner Daniel Dapper said the pink -and -green neon sign with the business name has been up since it
moved to its present location in 1993. He said the sign had approval from the city.
Dapper said the sign attracts many first-time customers and he doesn't understand why officials would
consider it a visual blight.
"Would they rather have a bunch of empty buildings all over the place or have a bunch of signs like ours,
which are signs of prosperity and progress?" he asked.
The letter asks him to comply with a city ordinance, which prohibits all neon signs — except those that
say "OPEN" — by Sept. 1. It does not specify what enforcement steps might be taken after that date.
Besides his frustration about his established sign being a target, Dapper said "I don't get why 'OPEN'
signs that are neon are OK."
He said the notice has fueled his already growing frustration with government regulations coming from all
levels, and he's not interested in taking anything out of his window.
"There's this attitude that you can't fight city hall, but I think maybe you can. I've been to two tea
parties," he said.
Community Development Director Lauri Aylaian said one of the things that came out of a sign -code
overhaul, which was approved by the City Council last fall, was the realization of how much could be
found in store windows.
At that time the code didn't specifically allow these signs, which meant they were prohibited.
These included "OPEN" signs, which were incorporated into the new code "because we thought it was a
reasonable way for business owners to let the public know they're open," she said.
To protect from the glare of the desert sun, she added, "a lot of them have tinted windows or sunscreens
which make it difficult to identify whether they're open or not."
She said she hadn't been able to research whether the city approved the Animal Krackers sign in 1993.
Another business owner, Dave Goldman of Skitzo Kitty Lingerie, spoke about the notices at last week's
City Council meeting.
He said they couldn't have come at a worse time for many small businesses involved.
7/13/2010
www.mydesert.com I Printer -friendly arti...
"We're trying to keep our doors o. , and that's a significant expense to c ge our signage," he said.
None of the four council members present knew anything about the letter.
Councilman Jim Ferguson, an attorney, said he didn't see anything in the letter that was more than a
request and said he didn't think the businesses had anything to worry about.
Councilwoman Jean Benson said Monday she was waiting for a staff report about the signage code, but
'We're always concerned when we hear about a deadline that we don't know anything about."
Aylaian said code compliance officers don't typically notify the council when notices are sent out, as
they can have upwards of 5,000 cases a year. In 2009, this included 890 cases involving violations of the
city sign ordinance.
She said the city hasn't decided yet what will happen to store owners who don't get rid of their neon
signs by the deadline, and it could well be handled case by case.
Signs which simply repeat business names already seen on other signs probably wouldn't be accepted,
along with beer company logo signs at liquor stores.
On the other hand, "there are other signs that are done very artfully and have some important
information, or some kind of artistic or graphic element that is tastefully done, and it may be we can
issue a permit for those on a case -by -case basis," she said.
She said anti -neon efforts by the department won't take priority over other code issues that have a more
direct effect on public health and safety.
"We want to help businesses get what they need without promoting too much unnecessary clutter from
signs that aren't bringing forth the image of a high -end resort community," she said.
Additional Facts
Neon sign regulations in the Coachella Valley
Cathedral City: Permitted in store windows, mounted on exterior walls or on a sign board.
Coachella: Not mentioned in municipal code
Desert Hot Springs: Allowed with permit
Indian Wells: Prohibited
Indio: Not mentioned in municipal code
La Quinta: Prohibited "unless specifically approved as an activity's major identification sign"
Palm Springs: Allowed in conjunction with food and entertainment uses, with size limits based on the
size of the building.
Rancho Mirage: Allowed with sign permit in commercial districts not adjacent to residential areas
Source: Municipal and legal websites
2010
RIOUWD Wl PALM DESERT SUN I
Animal Knackers Grooming's Dan Dapper and manger Donna Ahlefeld pose next to neon sign at their storefront. in Palm
Desert. The city has sent them a letter saying the neon sign is forbidden.
SIGNS: Business owners warned
C0611W from i
He said the notice has fueled his
already growing frustration with gov-
emment regulations coming from all
levels, and he's not interested in taking
anything out of his window.
Ihere's this attitude that you can't
fight city }tall, but I think maybeyou can.
Pve been to two tea parties,' he said.
Community Development Director
Lauri Aylaian said one of the things
that came out of a sign -code overhaul,
which was approved by the City Coun-
d last fall, was the realization of how
much could, be found in store win-
dows.
At that time the code didn't specif-
ically allow these signs, which meant
they were prohibited.
These included "OPEN" signs, which
were incorporated into the new code
"because we thought it was a reasonable
way, for business owners to let the
public know they're open," she said.
To protect from the glare of the
desert sun, she added, "a lot of them
have tinted windows or sun screens
which make it difficult to identify
whether they're open or not"
She said she hadn't been able to
research whether the city approved the
Animal Knackers sign in 1993.
Another business owner, Dave Gold-
man of Skitw Kitty TSngerie, spoke
about the notices at last week's City
Council meeting.
He said they couldn't have come at a
worse time for many small businesses
irrvohrod.
"We're trying to keep our doors
open, and that's a significant expense
to change our signage," he said.
None of the four council members
present knew anything about the letter
Councilman Jim Ferguson, an at-
torney, said he didn't see anything in
the letter that was more than a request
and said he didn't think the businesses
had anything to worry about
Councilwoman Jean Benson said
Monday she was waiting for a staff
report about the signage code, but
"we're always concerned when we hear
about a deadline that we don't know
anything about"
Aylaian said code compliance of-
ficers don't typically notify the council
when notices are sent out, as they can
have upwards of 5,000 cases a year. In
2009, this included 890 cases imrohing
violations of the city sign ordinance.
She said the city hasn't decided yet
what will happen to store owners who
don't get rid of their neon signs by the
deadline, and it could well be handled
care by case.
Signs which simply repeat business
names already seen on other signs
probably wouldn't be accepted, along
with beer compariylogo signs at liquor
stores.
On the other hand, "there are other
signs that are done very artfully and
have some important information, or
some kind of artistic or graphic el-
ement that is tastefully done, and it
may be we can issue a permit for those
on a case -by -case basis," she said
She said anti -neon efforts by the
department won't take priority over
other code issues that have a more
direct effect on public health and
safety,
want to help businesses get
what they need without promoting
too much unnecessary clutter from
signs that aren't bringing forth the
image of a high -end resort com-
mtmity;" she said.
r�
0
AUTHOR SHIPPING OUTLET 10 SHIPPING OUTLET
F60)
NA1'7-7S-
,()rued )I Ized Sliiil('i,,
I
® ` , B/cyf ies Since 1899
lNS
OPE\`v1t
=E ER-22
��
r.
.imp �•
05.12.2010 nn 5n
It
Lo r
- t 44#
s
4
`'t
AIL
I
-7-
WMI(4m Alelcom
t V6o p
FOR
LEASE
ri
44
13
*11t7pow",
, HAI �T5
N!E CUTS
- .:
0
J
-I
40
WE BUY GO,D
WE DO WATCH BATTERY
MONDAY-F
10-5
/SAT 10-3
SUNDAY C
O
Hair Studio
__U 1p
1. #A I F
Hair Studio
n
c� J
7 Davgs
MASSAGE 5� - 8:
760.587.9o88 _ hol"
K
Ulu t , He
P {
IAtAIM•
J
FVF411
Wi
Alp
0
D:LL�o L I N G'E R I E
GIFTS
i
A t�
1,
t.
,animal Urackers C --, r nlnt
J
ANIMAL
KRAC KERS
GROOMING
341-c85J
B v�O WEISE�
=87 CASH
ATM
i
W E11,
60 DO FOR InI
Y,,I: S6000 I-vQ1��..�
`Y I'�11�1-YIRn
.. gPIN[Y ...,.
,,,,,,,,Ton Julio Ab,,
T
CERVE2A
T
RIM
l.�
ALWAYS OPEN SAFE & LOLK i
GOCKIM(TH
µgg
i I I -I
SrH 0
r _ REP
4&4io'd
SHOE REPAIR IN
(760) 346-6665
..Q, w�„
T
rA
r
CD
U
ca
I
M
In
FREE
1160
G ACC