Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZOA 95-3 SIGNS 1996 ORDINANCE N0794 v � AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO SIGNS. CASE NO. ZOA 95-3 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 14th day of March, 1996, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider amendment of zoning ordinance amendment to Section 25.68 relating to signs; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has unanimously recommended approval of the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, said amendment has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 95-105, " in that the Director of Community Development/Planning has determined the amendment to be a Class 5 categorical exemption; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said city council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to approve a zoning ordinance text amendment: 1. The proposed amendment relating to signs is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and protects the community health, safety and general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, as follows : 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the consideration of the council in this case. 2 .. That it does hereby approve ZOA 95-3 as provided in the attached exhibit labeled Exhibit "A" . 3 . The City Clerk shall certify as to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published once in the Palm Desert Post, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated within the City of Palm Desert, and the same shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. �• A ORDINANCE NO. 794 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Palm Desert City Council this 28 day of March , 1996, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BENSON, CRITES, KELLY, SPIEGEL, SNYDER NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE WALTER H. SNYDER", Mapr E T: SHEILA R. ILLIG"W-, City Clerk City of Palm Des , California 2 ORDINANCE NO. 794 EXHIBIT "A" Section 1 . The following paragraph is hereby added to the end of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25 .68 .440: - "The foregoing criteria shall not be construed or applied in such a manner as to violate any legal rights bestowed by state or federal law. " Section 2 . That Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25 .68.480 is amended to read as follows: "25.68.480 Sign colors . To the extent not prohibited by law, the number and type of sign colors shall be as approved by the architectural review commission. The City Council finds and determines that the maximum sign sizes allowed by this chapter are premised aesthetically on the use of no more than three colors that will minimize excessive contrast. Accordingly, sign programs for commercial complexes, shopping centers, other commercial/ industrial development, and individual businesses shall gsevkde . t if ma=p_ then three eg-leEs be limited to a maximum of three colors. When a registered federally regulated trademark sign which has more than 3 colors or if said federally regulated trademark sign is being installed in a center with an approved sign program extends the number of colors beyond three (3) colors, then the maximum size allowed for that sign shall be reduced by 20% fox each such additional color. For purposes of calculating reductions in size where more than three (3) colors are involved, the maximum sign size resulting from the first 20% reduction shall form the basis for the second 20% reduction, and so on for each subsequent 20% reduction. For example, if the maximum size allowed for a given three-color sign were 10 square feet, then the maximum size allowed for a five-color sign would be 6 .4 square feet: 80% x ( 10 x 80%) . The architectural review commission may waive the above noted required size reduction or part thereof if it specifically finds that the proposed sign is desirable due to its quality, uniqueness, design or other features as determined by the architectural review commission. " 3 ORDINANCE NO. 794 Section 3. That Section 25 . 68 .281 be added .to regulate goods, services and secondary business signage: 1125 .68.281 Goods, services and/or secondary business signs . Pursuant to the limits contained in Section 25. 68.090 I businesses may have up to two (2) goods, services and/or secondary business signs to identify goods, services and other businesses available or conducting business on the premises. Said signs shall be clearly ancillary to the main business sign and in no .event shall the aggregate sign area exceed the maximum permitted under Municipal Code Section 25 .68 et. seq. Design of said sign(s) shall be architecturally consistent with the main business identification sign to the . satisfaction of the architectural review commission. Where a secondary business sign is a registered federally regulated trademark sign, said sign shall only be permitted if the maximum of two (2) goods, services and/or secondary business signs is not exceeded and the maximum aggregate sign area is not exceeded. Size of said federally regulated trademark signs shall be subject to size reduction pursuant to Section 25.68.480, as amended. " 4 r CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT I . TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Consideration of amendments to the sign ordinance as it relates to mini-bank branches located in supermarkets and other non-branch locations, and as it relates to signs having more than three ( 3) colors. III. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert IV. CASE NO: ZOA 95-3 V. DATE: March 14, 1996 VI. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation B. Discussion C. Draft Ordinance No. 794 D. Planning Commission Minutes involving Case No. ZOA 95-3 E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1720 F. Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 6 , 1996 G. Related maps and/or exhibits ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 794 to second reading. B. DISCUSSION: As directed by city council December 14, 1995, staff processed the above noted matters through the planning commission. The amendments were presented to planning commission February 6, 1996 at which time the amendments were unanimously recommended for approval to the city council . Planning commission discussed at length the various issues involved and sought clarification where needed. Briefly, the amendments are as follows : i) That a separate category of permitted signs be created for signs identifying goods, services and/or secondary businesses available on the premises . Said signs must be clearly ancillary �to the main business sign, comply with the maximum area limit of the ordinance, not exceed the code limit of two STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 95-3 MARCH 14 , 1996 such signs, and must be consistent in design with the main business sign. These signs were previously regulated through the prohibited sign section 25 . 68 . 090 I. ii) Signs which have more than three colors or which extend the number of colors in an approved center sign program beyond three shall be reduced in size by 20% of the maximum allowable sign area for each color in excess of three (.3) unless the ARC makes a specific finding that the proposed sign is desirable due to its quality, uniqueness, design or other feature. If ARC makes such a finding, the required reduction in size may be waived by ARC.* iii) Where a ` secondary business sign is a registered federally regulated trademark said sign shall only be permitted if the maximum of two (2) goods, services and/or secondary business . signs is not exceeded and the maximum aggregate sign area is not exceeded. Where registered federally regulated trademark. signs result in the number of colors in the sign or center sign program exceeding three (3) , said registered federally regulated trademark sign(s) shall be subject to size reduction pursuant to Section 25.68.480, as amended. *The amount of any required reduction will be calculated on the descending product of the previous maximum permitted size (i.e. a 5 color sign which had an original size maximum of 20 square feet would be reduced as follows: the fourth color reduces the sign from 20 square feet to 16 square feet. The fifth color reduces the maximum permitted size by 20% of the 16 square feet or 3 .2 square feet for a maximum sign size of 12 .8 square feet. This was a clarification by the planning commission because if we just took 20% of the maximum permitted area then an eight color sign would be reduced to zero, which was not the intent. We want a reduction in sign size not , the elimination of the sign. Prepared: by: ,1 "lam Cam,' "`' COUNCIL ,ACTION: Steve Smi-tif P0A4v� �/ DENIED 3_J OTHER Reviewed and Approved by: -2 -. —` Phil Drella— tm �- PAIN° IAEETIN8.0ATE /1 � i�.EFIED HV- : Uiiginal Ori File With City '::dL3C'e mix=. a ❑ CONTINUED TO 2 RIPASSED TO 2ND READING a47. %�V• 2 ��� b I CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT I . TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Consideration of amendments to the sign ordinance as it relates to mini-bank branches located in supermarkets and other non-branch locations, and as it relates to signs having more than three (3) colors . III. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert IV. CASE NO: ZOA 95-3 V. DATE: March 14, 1996 VI . CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation B. Discussion C. Draft Ordinance No. 794 D. Planning Commission Minutes involving Case No. ZOA 95-3 E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1720 F. Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 6, 1996 G. Related maps and/or exhibits ----------------------------------------------------------------------- A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 794 to second reading. B. DISCUSSION: As directed by city council December 14, 1995, staff processed the above noted matters through the planning commission. The amendments were presented to planning commission February 6, 1996 at which time the amendments were unanimously recommended for approval to the city council . Planning commission discussed at length the various issues involved and sought clarification where needed. Briefly, the amendments are as follows : i) That a separate category of permitted signs be created for signs identifying goods, services and/or secondary businesses available on the premises. Said signs must be clearly ancillary to the main business sign, comply with the maximum area limit of the ordinance, not exceed the code limit of two l r STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 95-3 MARCH 14 , 1996 such signs, and must be consistent in design with the main business sign. These signs were previously regulated through the prohibited sign section 25 . 68 .090 I . ii) Signs which have more than three colors or which extend the number of colors in an approved center sign program beyond three shall be reduced in size by 20% of the maximum allowable sign area for each color in excess of three (3) unless the ARC makes a specific finding that the proposed sign is desirable due to its quality, uniqueness, design or other feature. If ARC makes such a finding, the required reduction in size may be waived by ARC. * ili) Where a ' secondary business sign is a registered federally regulated trademark said sign shall only be permitted if the maximum of two (2) goods, services and/or secondary business signs is not exceeded and the maximum aggregate sign area is not exceeded. Where registered federally regulated trademark. signs result in the number of colors in the sign or center sign program exceeding three (3) , said registered federally regulated trademark sign(s) shall be subject to size reduction pursuant to Section 25.68.480, as amended. *The amount of any required reduction will be calculated on the descending product of the previous maximum permitted size (i.e. a 5 color sign which had an original size maximum of 20 square feet would be reduced as follows: the fourth color reduces the sign from 20 square feet to 16 square feet. The fifth color reduces the maximum permitted size by 20% of the 16 square feet or 3.2 square feet for a maximum sign size of 12 . 8 square feet. This was a clarification by the planning commission because if we just took 20% of the maximum permitted area then an eight color sign would be reduced to zero, which was not the intent. We want a reduction in sign size not the elimination of the sign. /I r� Prepared: by: Steve SmitlfT Reviewed and Approved Phil Drell tm MEETWG.DATE { � ❑ CONTINUED TO 2 ErPASSED TO 2ND READING CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT I . TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II . REQUEST: Consideration of amendments to the sign ordinance as it relates to mini-bank branches located in supermarkets and other non-branch locations, and as it relates to signs having more than three (3) colors. III . APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert IV. CASE NO: ZOA 95-3 V. DATE: March 14, 1996 VI. CONTENTS : A. Staff Recommendation B. Discussion C. Draft Ordinance No. D. Planning Commission Minutes involving Case No. ZOA 95-3 E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1720 F. Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 6, 1996 G. Related maps and/or exhibits ---------------------------------------------------------------------- A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. to second reading. B. DISCUSSION: As directed by city council December 14 , 1995, staff processed the above noted matters through the planning commission. The amendments were presented to planning commission February 6 , 1996 at which time the amendments were unanimously recommended for approval to the city council. Planning commission discussed at length the various issues involved and sought clarification where needed. Briefly, the amendments are as follows : i) That a separate category of permitted signs be created for signs identifying goods, services and/or secondary businesses available on the premises. Said signs must be clearly ancillary to the main business sign, comply with the maximum area limit of the ordinance, not exceed the code limit of two I � - STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 95-3 MARCH 14, 1996 such signs, and must be consistent in design with the main business sign. These signs were previously regulated through the prohibited sign section 25 . 68.090 I . ii) Signs which have more than three colors or which extend the number of colors in an approved center sign program beyond three shall be reduced in size by 20% of the maximum allowable sign area for each color in excess of three (3) unless the ARC makes a specific finding that the proposed sign is desirable due to its quality, uniqueness, design or other feature. If ARC makes such a finding, the required reduction in size may be waived by ARC.* iii) Where a secondary business sign is a registered federally regulated trademark said sign shall only be permitted if the maximum of two (2) goods, services and/or secondary business signs is not exceeded and the maximum aggregate sign area is not exceeded. Where registered federally regulated trademark signs result in the number of colors in the sign or center sign program exceeding three (3) , said registered federally regulated trademark sign(s) shall be subject to size reduction pursuant to Section 25.68.480, as amended. *The amount of any required reduction will be calculated on the descending product of the previous maximum permitted size (i.e. a 5 color sign which had an original size maximum of 20 square feet would be reduced as follows: the fourth color reduces the sign from 20 square feet to 16 square feet. The fifth color reduces the maximum permitted size by 20% of the 16 square feet or 3.2 square feet for a maximum sign size of 12 . 8 square feet. This was a clarification by the planning commission because if we just took 20% of the maximum permitted area then an eight color sign would be reduced to zero, which was not the intent. We want a reduction in sign size not the elimination of the sign. Prepared by: , St ve S Reviewed and Approved by- Phil Drell /tm 2 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO SIGNS. CASE NO. ZOA 95-3 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 14th day of March, 1996 , hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider amendment of zoning ordinance amendment to Section 25 . 68 relating to signs; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has unanimously recommended approval of the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, said amendment has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 95-105, " in that the Director of Community Development/Planning has determined the amendment to be a Class 5 categorical exemption; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said city council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to approve a zoning ordinance text amendment: 1 . The proposed amendment relating to signs is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and protects the community health, safety and general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the consideration of the council in this case. 2 . That it does hereby approve ZOA 95-3 as provided in the attached exhibit labeled Exhibit "A" . 3 . The City Clerk shall certify as to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published once in the Palm Desert Post, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated within the City of Palm Desert, and the same shall be in full force and effect thirty ( 30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Palm Desert City Council this day of 1996 , by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES : ABSENT: ABSTAIN: WALTER H. SNYDER, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California ,ORDINANCE NO. EXHIBIT "A" Section 1 . The following paragraph is hereby added to the end of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.68 . 440 : "The foregoing criteria shall not be construed or applied in such a manner as to violate any legal rights bestowed by state or federal law. " Section 2 . That Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25 .68 .480 is amended to read as follows: 1125 .68 .480 Sign colors. To the extent not prohibited by law, the number and type of sign colors shall be as approved by the architectural review commission. The City Council finds and determines that the maximum sign sizes allowed by this chapter are premised aesthetically on the use of no more than three colors that will minimize excessive contrast. Accordingly, sign programs for commercial complexes, shopping centers, other commercial/ industrial development, and individual businesses shall provide that if more than three colors are used in a sign or if a sign being installed in a center with an approved sign program extends the number of colors beyond three (3) colors, then the maximum size allowed for that sign shall be reduced by 20% for each such additional color. For purposes of calculating reductions in size where more than three (3) colors are involved, the maximum sign size resulting from the first 20% reduction shall form the basis for the second 20% reduction, and so on for each subsequent 20% reduction. For example, if the maximum size allowed for a given three-color sign were 10 square feet, then the maximum size allowed for a five-color sign would be 6 .4 square feet: 80% x ( 10 x 80%) . The architectural review commission may waive the above noted required size reduction or part thereof if it specifically finds that the proposed sign is desirable due to its quality, uniqueness, design or other features as determined by the architectural review commission. " Section 3. That Section 25 . 68 .281 be added to regulate goods, services and secondary business signage: 1125 .68.281 Goods, services and/or secondary business signs. Pursuant to the limits contained in Section 25 .68.090 I businesses may have up to two (2) goods, services and/or secondary business signs to identify goods, services and other businesses available or conducting business on the premises . Said signs shall be clearly ancillary to the main business sign and in no event shall the aggregate sign area exceed the maximum permitted 2 ORDINANCE NO. under Municipal Code Section 25 . 68 et. seq. Design of said sign(s) shall be architecturally consistent with the main business identification sign to the satisfaction of the architectural review commission. Where a secondary business sign is a registered federally regulated trademark sign, said sign shall only be permitted if the maximum of two (2) goods, services and/or secondary business signs is not exceeded and the maximum aggregate sign area is not exceeded. Size of said federally regulated trademark signs shall be subject to size reduction pursuant to Section 25 .68.480, as amended. " 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 1996 Chairperson Beaty concurred and asked for a motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1719 , approving PP 96-1 and TT 28320, subject to conditions . Carried 5-0 . C. Case No. ZOA 95-3 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of amendments to the sign ordinance to regulate signs at mini bank branches and attempt to establish size criteria for signs having more than three colors. Mr. Smith stated that this matter started out as what staff thought was a fairly straight forward attempt at regulating the additional signage that was being seen at supermarkets where they were bringing in mini-bank branches and whether they should have to have people there to serve the public like at Union Bank where they have five or six employees. He visited the site several times and there were always people there. Bank of America at Lucky' s at Country Club and Monterey had three people there most of the time and had a long line of customers . Visiting the Von' s on Highway 111 where the initial request for signage came from, he visited it four or five times and saw one person one time and that person was putting cash in the ATM, but didn't look like he was prepared to act like a teller. Notwithstanding where they originally started going with this, staff came back to the existing situation where the city allows businesses to have, in addition to their main sign identification, they were allowed to identify two products or services if they had sign area available to support that. That came about three or four years ago when the business was Sports Fever and they wanted to identify most of the products in the store and city council had staff prepare an ordinance amendment at that time where they limited the items to two. Effectively, that was what staff was saying for mini-bank branches . That if there was available signage under that portion of the ordinance (i .e. goods and services available onsite) , then they would be able to put up mini-bank branch signs provided that the signs are: a) clearly ancillary of the main business signage, b) that the overall aggregate sign area limit is not exceeded, and 3) that the design of the signs is consistent with the existing program to the satisfaction of the 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 1996 architectural review commission. - This then got staff to a problem that had recently arisen with trademark registered signs where certain laws have passed that entitled those people to the colors in their signs, regardless of what the city' s sign program might say. The federal law that gives them this right did not necessarily give them the right to have a size that they might otherwise want. The city attorney's office worked on this and came up with language as shown in the staff report which effectively said that if an applicant was going to use colors that were outside of the approved sign program or if there was a sign with more than three colors in it and they were getting it because it was a registered trademark sign, then the city was at liberty to reduce the size of that sign. Staff was suggesting a reduction of 20% for every color beyond three. That matter reflected back into the first mini-bank branch because a couple of the banks have signs that were registered trademarks. What was before the commission in the end result was shown in Exhibit A of the draft resolution and that was what staff was recommending to commission. If commission felt the reduced size for extra colors was excessive, staff was open to other percentages . Mr. Drell noted that staff brought the mini-bank issue to the city council for their initiation and consideration. Council itself initiated the amendment relative to the provision for trademark signs, which came up in reference to a lawsuit that was about to be filed at that time. They gave staff and the city attorney specific instruction to come up with an ordinance to give them special consideration. Commissioner Fernandez stated that due to a conflict of interest, being a store manager for Von' s, he would be abstaining from this matter. Commissioner Ferguson said that as he understood it the resolution the commission would be adopting didn't change the existing ordinance with respect to ancillary signs for listing goods and services ' on existing properties. Basically, a business was allotted what they were allotted and if the business chose to let a mini-bank branch use part of the existing allowable signage, that was their decision. Mr. Smith concurred, as long as it did not exceed the two goods and services and/or other businesses . Commissioner Ferguson felt this was similar to a previous case regarding the situation in the Palms to Pines center on their monument signs and whether the commission was going to grant an exception. At that time he felt it was between TGI Friday's and Von' s whether they would let them have a piece of their one monument sign or not. This seemed similar. He wanted to clarify that basically they were not changing the ordinance 12 I MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6 , 1996 with respect to what they get, and if they wanted to reach an agreement to put signage up, that was when the new resolution would apply. The new resolution said that having reached that conclusion, there should be size and color restrictions. Federal law prohibits the city from modifying federal trademarks. Commissioner Ferguson asked where the 20% number came from; staff indicated they discussed at length what the appropriate number was and at this time was recommending 20%, but staff could be comfortable with the 15%. Commissioner Ferguson asked if staff had consulted with any potentially effected parties to see if the 20% was at all reasonable. Mr. Smith replied no, not with respect to the trademark signs . He indicated that they put in a provision that where architectural review specifically finds that the proposed sign is desirable due to its quality, uniqueness, design or other features, that they could waive the reduction requirement. Mr. Drell clarified that they weren't allowed a reduction to 20%, they were allowed 80% of what they would have. The goal was to provide some diminution without it being excessive. Commissioner Ferguson said that he was wondering from a legal point of view on a municipality's ability to restrict commercial advertising based on colors and relating it to size. Under the resolution, basically the city would preclude signs based on the number of colors only, absent architectural review commission's giving approval. He had some problem with that. Mr. .Rudolph stated that they could have as 'many colors as they wanted, it was just that if they were going to do that, the idea was that a certain size allowed in the ordinance was premised on the understanding that there would be a maximum of a certain number of colors in the sign. They would be allowed to add as many colors as they wanted to that--the resulting visual "clutter" was not what that size was premised on and required some diminution in size to offset the visual impact. Staff 's suggestion of 20% seemed appropriate and that would be a policy decision and that was for the commission and council to decide. Commissioner Ferguson said that the legal question was if someone had more than five additional colors, they were .down to zero percent because it was reduced five times by 20%,- leaving nothing. Mr. Drell said that was right if the city. decided the colors were objectionable. In the past the council has exercised reason in granting or denying exceptions, even before trademarks became an issue. One example was the Elephant Bar for pictorial displays where having appropriate colors was essential to actually depict what they wanted to depict. Council approved it. They also once approved a very elaborate sign that had an old fisherman with a sea gull on his shoulder and it probably had 20 different colors because it was a painted sculpture. They have shown in the past that they were not arbitrary in making these judgements . The architectural review board is 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 1996 comprised of professional design people to make the determination. If the determination is that it is contrary to the intent of the sign ordinance, they could have it, but it would be at a diminished size. Mr. Rudolph said that prior to this issue of trademarks there was just a cutoff for the number of colors and that was defensible, but in allowing more colors, the rules had to be across the board for everyone. He said that the city could do a lower percentage. Commissioner Ferguson used as an example a federally registered trademark with seven or eight colors. Under the ordinance they would not be allowed to use it. Mr. Drell explained that it was 20%, then 20% of the balance, and then 20% of that. It would never go to zero, it would always be 20% of something. Commissioner Ferguson said that he thought staff meant that the 20% was of the baseline. Mr. Drell said that was the way they had to determine it, otherwise Commissioner Ferguson would be correct and they would end up with zero signage. it would be a reverse compounding interest. Mr. Rudolph said that there was no intent to have that effect. Commissioner Ferguson stated that he just wanted to make that clear. Chairperson Beaty also indicated that there was an avenue for appeal, so this was a good starting point. Commissioner Ferguson stated that he was prepared to support the proposal with that clarification. Commissioner Campbell noted that most bank logos only had two colors . Commissioner Ferguson said that the problem was that they were talking about all federally registered trademarks and all ancillary services and goods. Banks was the vehicle that brought it to the city' s attention, but per Mr. Smith this was a blanket resolution (to be ordinance) that would effect everyone. Mr. Drell said that it would also effect a sign that was only two colors, if they were two colors that were not included in the sign program. It applied both to colors in one sign and colors in excess of the approved colors within a sign program. Commissioner Jonathan asked if someone had three colors or less, they could still face a diminution if they were not within the prescribed color scheme. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan said that the formula they would end with was basically a multiplication by 80% each time of numbers exceeded, rather than a flat out 20% reduction. Mr. Drell concurred that it would be a 20% reduction of the previous product. Commissioner Ferguson said that if he had a one color violation, the size went from 20 feet to 16 feet. If he had another offense, then he would go to 80% of 16 feet; the next offense would be 80% of 80% of 16 feet. Chairperson Beaty 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 1996 asked if that was what the ordinance said. Mr. Drell said that it should be amended to clarify that. Commissioner Ferguson said that since this was a recommendation to city council, he was not sure 20% made sense. It seemed to be the type of thing that they should get comments on. He was leery to grab a number out of the air and enforce it against all businesses, goods and services . Mr. Rudolph stated that it was a policy decision, but was also an aesthetic decision. Mr. Drell said that theoretically a decision of the architectural commission could be to make it only 10% . Commissioner Ferguson said that it would make sense if architects were saying to him that based on aesthetics, this made sense as opposed to just picking 20% and using it. Mr. Smith stated that 20% was the maximum. If someone went to ARC with a four color sign, commission could require only a 10% reduction if the contrast was not excessive. The premise of the ordinance was that they wanted to limit contrast. Commissioner Jonathan noted that this was a vehicle to mitigate excessive contrast. Mr. Smith concurred and said that if it was going to have a lot of contrast, they would diminish the size of the sign more, unless it was aesthetically desirable. Mr. Drell clarified that 20% was the maximum reduction per sign color in excess of three. Commissioner Campbell asked if the sign would still have to be approved by the architectural commission. Mr. Drell said that theoretically if it was a trademark sign, and the architectural commission felt it was unacceptable and saw no redeeming value in the sign, they had no choice but to approve it if it was a federally registered trademark sign. If it was not a federally registered trademark, they could simply deny it or apply the maximum 20% . If it was a federally registered trademark, the commission had no discretion on whether or not to approve it. Mr. Smith indicated that the ordinance formerly said that the sign should not exceed three colors. It was almost that black and white. Now they have removed the three color limit, but for additional colors they would get less size. Commissioner Ferguson asked if there was ongoing litigation or if it had been resolved. Mr. Drell indicated that it was. settled. Chairperson Beaty opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to ZOA 95-3 . There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Chairperson Beaty asked for further comments or a motion. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he reviewed the staff report quite carefully because he thought this was going to be a controversial issue and he was impressed on how it was handled by staff. He also liked staff ' s solution. It was an 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 1996 attempt to mitigate the impact of excessive contrast, which has been an issue that needed to be dealt with from time to time. This was an effective way to do that. He liked the 20% number and felt it made sense. He stated that he was prepared to move for approval. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Fernandez abstained) . Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1720, recommending to city council approval of ZOA 95-3 as amended. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Fernandez abstained) . IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Request for a determination of use to allow a bank in the service industrial zone. Mr. Drell noted that the applicant was present. The commission had a letter requesting a determination by the commission to give him the ability to apply for a conditional use permit for a bank in the service industrial zone, which currently did not list banks as a use. It did list ancillary services to the benefit of the surrounding area, so there was some legal room. On the basis of that statement restaurants, sandwich shops and convenience stores have been approved which were designed to provide services to the industrial employees in that area. The commission was not approving the use tonight. Staff would still have to go through an analysis to make sure it had the right amount of parking, etc . , but the determination would allow him to apply for a conditional use permit. Mr. Smith read the verbiage for that section as follows (Section 25.34 .020 L) : "The planning commission may, by resolution, permit other uses which are similar and no more objectionable than those enumerated in this section. " Mr.. Drell said that the section under accessory uses also applied (Section 25.34 . 040 B) , "Incidental services for employees on a site occupied by a permitted or conditional use. " Previous determinations had been made that a use would primarily serve employees or customers already in a specific area. Chairperson Beaty asked if the applicant would like to address the commission. Commissioner Jonathan noted that there wasn't really an applicant and the commission was not addressing a specific location or proposal . 16 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1720 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO SIGNS. CASE NO. ZOA 95-3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 16th day of January, 1996, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to February 6, 1996, to consider the amendment of the zoning ordinance section 25.68 relating to 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. 80-89, " in that the director of community development has determined the amendment to be a class 5 categorical exemption; 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 recommend approval of the zoning ordinance text amendment: 1 . The proposed amendments relating to signs are consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance and protect the community health, safety and general welfare. WHEREAS, the planning commission finds and determines that the presence of an excessive number of colors in a business sign causes visual clutter whose negative aesthetic effect tends to reduce surrounding property values and make the city a less desirable place to shop, visit, and reside; and WHEREAS, the planning commission finds and determines that such visual clutter may be offset or mitigated by an appropriate reduction in the total size of a sign. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby recommend approval to the city council of ZOA 95-3 as provided in the attached exhibit labeled Exhibit "Any PLANNING COMMISSION ;SOLUTION NO. 1720 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 6th day of February, 1996, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CAMPBELL, FERGUSON, JONATHAN, BEATY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: FERNANDEZ PAUL BEATY, Chairperson 7ST: PHILIP DRELL, Acting-Secretary Palm Desert P anning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION I �SOLUTION NO. 1720 EXHIBIT "A" Section 1. The following paragraph is hereby added to the end of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.68.440: "The foregoing criteria shall not be construed or. applied in such a manner as to violate any legal rights bestowed by state or federal law. " Section 2. That Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25 .68.480 is amended to read as follows: "25.68.480 Sign colors. To the extent not prohibited by law, the number and type of sign colors shall be as approved by the architectural review commission. The City Council finds and determines that the maximum sign sizes allowed by this chapter are premised aesthetically on the use of no more than three colors that will minimize excessive contrast. Accordingly, sign programs for commercial complexes , shopping centers , other commercial/industrial development, and individual businesses shall provide that if more than three colors are used in a sign or if a sign being installed in a center with an approved sign program extends the number of colors beyond three (3) colors, then the maximum size allowed for that sign shall be reduced by 20% for each such additional color. For purposes of calculating reductions in size where more re than the (3) colors are involved, the maximum sign size resulting from the first 20% reduction shall form the basis for the second 20% reduction, and so on for each subsequent 20% reduction. For example, if the maximum size allowed for a given three-color sign were 10 square feet, then the maximum size allowed for a five-color sign would be 6.4 square feet: 80% x ( 10 x 80%) . The architectural review commission may waive the above noted required size reduction or part thereof if it specifically finds that the proposed sign is desirable due to its quality, uniqueness, design or other features as determined by the architectural review commission." Section 3. That Section 25.68.281 be added to regulate goods, services--and business signage: "25 .68.281 Goods, services and/or secondary business signs. Pursuant to the limits contained in Section 25.68. 090 I businesses may have up to two (2) goods, services and/or secondary business signs to identify goods, services and other businesses available or conducting business on the premises. Said signs 3 q PLANNING COMMISSIO! iSOLUTION NO. 1720 shall be clearly ancillary to the main business sign and in no event shall the aggregate sign area exceed the maximum permitted under Municipal Code Section 25. 68 et. seq. Design of said sign(s) shall be architecturally consistent with the main business identification sign to the satisfaction of the architectural review commission. Where a secondary business sign is a registered federally regulated trademark sign, said sign shall only be permitted if the maximum of two (2) goods, services and/or secondary business signs is not exceeded and the maximum aggregate sign area is not exceeded. Size of said federally regulated trademark signs shall be subject to size reduction pursuant to Section 25.68.480, as amended. " 4 JCITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: February 6, 1996 CASE NO: ZOA 95-3 REQUEST: Approval of amendments to sign ordinance. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I . BACKGROUND: December 14, 1995 the city council, at staff request, directed staff to process amendments to the ' sign ordinance to regulate signs " at mini bank branches . As well, we will attempt to establish size criteria for signs having more than three colors. II. ANALYSIS: A. MINI BANK BRANCHES The recent past has seen a movement by banks to open mini branch locations in supermarkets. With this activity Comes requests for signs . At Union Bank in.Ralphs they have six (6) bank employees and staff approved a minor sign addition "Union Bank" in 8 inch letters . At Vons in Palms to Pines we had a request at architectural review commission on November 28th from Wells Fargo Bank for a 27 square foot, 18 inch letters, sign. This mini branch has no employees and essentially offers an ATM with a rack of brochures. Bank of America has a mini branch in Luckys at Country Club Drive and Monterey Avenue and has spoken with staff regarding signage. Issues to be considered include: i) Should these minor uses be entitled to signage at all; ii) Should these uses be entitled to signage if they offer only an ATM at the site; iii) Should the signage relate to the size of the "mini branch" and/or what formula should be used to determine the size of such signs. STAFF REPORT ZOA 95-3 FEBRUARY 6, 1996 Site visits to the above locations showed that at each location the mini branch had "directional" signage at the store entrance mounted on the glass on both sides of the door. These signs were in the range of 1-2 square feet each. The branches varied from just an ATM with brochures and a telephone to a service counter with as many as six employees. Some locations had easel signs located near the entrance inside the store. We .contacted other cities: Rancho Mirage and Palm Springs. Both consider these signs as we would call "goods, services and/or secondary business" signs. The permitted size ranges from 6 to 20 square feet. Mui►icipar`_-- ode'Sectibrn" 25.68.090 I currently _ limits businesses -to a-maximum- of two (2) signs (goods and services availabl4i 6h-the- premises) beyond the name of the business. Our first inclination was to permit new signage only if the _ mini bank branch had regular employees available during regular bank hours. Supermarkets like all businesses in the city; are entitled to--two "goods and services" signs (i.e. signs identifying goods-and- serVices -available on the premises) . These signs at supermarkets usually take the form of pharmacy, deli, bakery, liquor and other identified goods and- services. If a supermarket wishes to use one of its two goods and services signs to identify a bank branch, then it should be able to do so. i£ the 2 item limit is not exceeded. Typically, these signs are limited to fairly small signs because, for instance, a business with 20 feet of frontage wishes to identify itself with a good size sign and then whatever is left is used for the goods and services signs . A reasonable example would be a 16 square foot identification sign and then 2 two square foot goods and services signs. In the case of goods and services signs at supermarkets they typically are larger because there is more signage available (i.e. due to their large frontage they are entitled to more total signage) . When the ordinance was amended to permit two goods and services signs it was on the basis that these signs would be clearly ancillary to the main signage. The proposal from Wells Fargo at the Vons Center is for 18 inch high letters with a total of 27 square feet of area. To us this seems excessive to identify an ATM location. 2 STAFF REPORT ZOA 95-3 FEBRUARY 6, 1996 Therefore; while we are not going to recommend a specific size limit for these signs we are going to recommend that they'beF identified as permitted signs within a new code section 25.68.281 (!-.e:- a maximum of two goods, services and/br secondary business signs) provided that these signs are: 1) clearly ancillary to the main business signage; 2) that the overall aggregate sign area limit is not exceeded; and 3) that the design of these signs is consistent with the existing sign program to the satisfaction of the ARC. As will be discussed later some of the secondary business signs may be registered federally regulated trademark signs. In this instance these signs may not be architecturally consistent with the main business sign. However, the following section will seek to at least mitigate the lack of consistency through appropriate size reduction. B. SIZE CRITERIA FOR SIGNS HAVING MORE THAN THREE COLORS Municipal-' Code- Section - 25.68.480 in part states "sign programs for commercial complexes, shopping centers, other commercial/industrial developments and individual business signs shall be limited to not more than three colors which will minimize contrast" . This code provision has worked well in limiting the number of colors in a sign. However, federal law prohibits cities from requiring change to the color, copy or design of registered federally regulated trademark signs. The city is obliged to grant a permit even though its ordinance may say otherwise. The city attorney has looked into this matter and determined that the maximum sign sizes allowed under the ordinance is premised aesthetically on the use of no more than three_ colors that will minimize excessive contrast. Signs which use more than three colors or which extend the number of colors in an approved center sign program beyond three colors have the potential to be aesthetically offensive. In order to reduce the impact created by excessive use of color, the size of the proposed sign or signs should be reduced by 20% for each color in excess of three (3) colors. For example a sign which has a maximum code size limit of 20 square feet but which wishes to use five (5) colors would have its maximum size reduced by 40% (i.e. two extra colors x 20% _ 40%) to a maximum size of 12 square feet. We have had instances where the sign, be it in a center with an approved program or an individual sign with more than 3 STAFF REPORT ZOA 95-3 FEBRUARY 6, 1996 three (3) colors, has been found by the ARC and city council to be consistent or even an enhancement of the sign program. Where a sign is found to be desirable due to its quality, uniqueness or design or other desirable feature staff is recommending that the architectural review commission may waive the size reduction otherwise required by this amendment. If the proposed 20% reduction seems excessive to commission, staff could look at a lesser amount of reduction, for instance 10% per color in excess of three colors. C. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that signs which have more than 3 colors or which add colors to an approved sign program beyond three (3) colors should be reduced in size by 20% of the maximum allowed sign size for each color in excess of three (3) unless the ARC makes appropriate findings relating to quality, uniqueness, design or other desirable features, in which case it may waive the size reduction or part thereof. III . SUMMARY: Staff is recommending two separate amendments to the .sign ordinance as follows: i) That a separate category of permitted signs be created for signs identifying goods, services and/or secondary businesses available on the premises. Said signs must be clearly ancillary to the main business sign, comply with the maximum area limit of the ordinance, not exceed the code limit of two such signs, and must be consistent in design with the main business sign. ii) Signs which have more than three colors or which extend the number of colors in an approved center sign program beyond three shall be reduced in size by 20% of the maximum allowable sign area for each color in excess of three (3) unless the ARC makes a specific finding that the proposed sign is desirable due to its quality, uniqueness, design or other feature. If ARC makes such a finding, the required reduction in size may be waived by ARC. iii) Where a secondary business sign is a registered federally regulated trademark said sign shall only be permitted if the maximum of two (2) goods, services and/or secondary business signs is not exceeded and the maximum aggregate sign area is 4 STAFF REPORT ZOA 95-3 FEBRUARY 6, 1996 not exceeded. Where registered federally regulated trademark signs result in the number of colors in the sign or center sign program exceeding three (3) , said registered federally regulated trademark sign(s) shall be subject . to size reduction pursuant to Section 25.68.486, as amended. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That planning commission recommend to city council approval of an amendment to the sign ordinance. V. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice Prepared by eve Smith Reviewed and Approved Phil Drell SRS/tm 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE . CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO SIGNS. CASE NO. ZOA 95-3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 16th day of January, 1996, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to February 6, 1996, to consider the amendment of the zoning ordinance section 25.68 relating to 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. 80-89," in that the director of community development has determined the amendment to be a class 5 categorical exemption; 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 recommend approval of the zoning ordinance text amendment: 1. The proposed amendments relating to signs are consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance and protect the community health, safety and general welfare. WHEREAS, the planning commission finds and determines that the presence of an excessive number of colors in a business sign causes visual clutter whose negative aesthetic effect tends to reduce surrounding property values and make the city a less desirable place to shop, visit, and reside; and WHEREAS, the planning commission finds and determines that such visual clutter may be offset or mitigated by an appropriate reduction in the total size of a sign. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the. Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2 . That it does hereby recommend approval to the city council of ZOA 95-3 as provided in the attached exhibit labeled Exhibit PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 6th day of February, 1996, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: AUL BEATY, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Acting Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "A" Section 1. The following paragraph is hereby added to the end of Palm Deserts Municipal Code Section 25.68.440: "The foregoing criteria shall not be construed or applied in such a manner as to violate any legal rights bestowed by state or federal law." Section 2. That Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.68.480 is amended to read as follows: 1125.68.480 Sign colors. To the extent not prohibited by law, the number and type of sign colors shall be as approved by the architectural review commission. The City Council finds and determines that the maximum sign sizes allowed by this chapter are premised aesthetically on the use of no more than three colors that will minimize excessive contrast. Accordingly, sign programs for commercial complexes , shopping centers , other commercial/industrial development, and individual businesses shall provide that if more than three colors are used in a sign or if a sign being installed in a center with an approved sign program extends the number of colors beyond three (3) colors, then the maximum size allowed for that sign shall be reduced by 20% for each such additional color. The architectural review commission may waive the above noted required size reduction or part thereof if it specifically finds that the proposed sign is desirable due to its quality, uniqueness, design or other features as determined by the architectural review commission." Section 3. That Section 25.68.281 be added to regulate goods, services and secondary business signage: 1125.68.281 Goods, services and/or secondary business signs. Pursuant to the limits contained in Section 25 .68.090 I businesses may have up to two (2) goods, services and/or secondary business signs to identify goods, services and other businesses available or conducting business on the premises. Said signs shall be clearly ancillary to the main business sign and in no event shall the aggregate sign area exceed the maximum permitted under Municipal Code Section 25.68 et. seq. Design of said sign(s) shall be architecturally consistent with the main business identification sign to the satisfaction of the architectural review commission. 3 F PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. Where a secondary business sign is a registered federally regulated trademark sign, said sign shall only be permitted if the maximum of two (2) goods, services and/or secondary business signs is not exceeded and the maximum aggregate sign area is not exceeded. Size of said federally regulated trademark signs shall be subject to size reduction pursuant to Section 25.68.480, as amended. " 4 a t � r City of Palm Desert 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 FAX(619)341-7098 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: February 12 , 1996 City of Palm Desert Re: ZOA 95-3 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of February 6, 1996 . PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF ZOA 95-3 TO CITY COUNCIL BY ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 1720, SUBJECT TO AMENDMENT. CARRIED 4-0-1 (COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ ABSTAINED) . Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Director of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen ( 15) days of the date of the decision. PHILIP DRELL, ACT-I3VG-SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION PD/tm cc : Coachella Valley Water District Public Works Department Building & Safety Department Fire Marshal Q ROC/CkE Pq w 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1720 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO SIGNS. CASE NO. ZOA 95-3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, ' California, did on the 16th day of January, 1996, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to February 6, 1996, to consider the amendment of the zoning ordinance section 25.68 relating to 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. 80-89, " in that the director of community development has determined the amendment to be a class 5 categorical exemption; 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 recommend approval of the zoning ordinance text amendment: 1. The proposed amendments relating to signs are consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance and protect the community health, safety and general welfare. WHEREAS, the planning commission finds and determines that the presence of an excessive number of colors in a business sign causes visual clutter whose negative aesthetic effect tends to reduce surrounding property values and make the city a less desirable place to shop, visit, and reside; and WHEREAS, the planning commission finds and determines that such visual clutter may be offset or mitigated by an appropriate reduction in the total size of a sign. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby recommend approval to the city council of ZOA 95-3 as provided in the attached exhibit labeled Exhibit "A". PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1720 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 6th day of February, 1996, by the following vote, to wit; AYES : CAMPBELL, FERGUSON, JONATHAN, BEATY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: FERNANDEZ PAUL BEATY, Chairperson ST: PHILIP DRELL, Acting-.Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1720 EXHIBIT "A" Section 1. The following paragraph is hereby added to the end of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.68.440: "The foregoing criteria shall not be construed or applied in such a manner as to violate any legal rights bestowed by state or federal law. " Section 2. That Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.68.480 is amended to read as follows: "25.68.480 Sign colors. To the extent not prohibited by law, the number and type of sign colors shall be as approved by the architectural review commission. The City Council finds and determines that the maximum sign sizes allowed by this chapter are premised aesthetically on the use of no more than three colors that will minimize excessive contrast. Accordingly, sign programs for commercial complexes , shopping centers , other commercial/industrial development, and individual businesses shall provide that if more than three colors are used in a ,sign or if a sign being installed in a center with an approved sign program extends the number of colors beyond three (3) colors, then the maximum size allowed for that sign shall be reduced by 20% for each such additional color. For purposes of calculating reductions in size where more than three (3) colors are involved, the maximum sign size resulting from the first 20% reduction shall form the basis for the second 20% reduction, and so on for each subsequent 20% reduction. For example, if the maximum size allowed for a given three-color sign were 10 square feet, then the maximum size allowed for a five-color sign would be 6 .4 square feet: 80% x ( 10 x 80%) . The architectural review commission may waive the above noted required size reduction or part thereof if it specifically finds that the proposed sign is desirable due to its quality, uniqueness, design or other features as determined by the architectural review commission. " Section 3. That Section 25.68.281 be added to regulate goods, services and secondary business signage: "25.68.281 Goods, services and/or secondary business signs. Pursuant to the limits contained in Section 25 .68 . 090 I businesses may have up to two (2) goods, services and/or secondary business signs to identify goods, services and other businesses available or conducting business on the premises. Said signs 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1720 shall be clearly ancillary .to the main business sign and in no event shall the aggregate sign area exceed the maximum permitted under Municipal Code Section 25 . 68 et. seq. Design of said sign(s) shall be architecturally consistent with the main business identification sign to the satisfaction of the architectural review commission. Where a secondary business sign is a registered federally regulated trademark sign, said sign shall only be permitted if the maximum of two (2) goods, services and/or secondary business signs is not exceeded and the maximum aggregate sign area is not exceeded. Size of said federally regulated trademark signs shall be subject to size reduction pursuant to Section 25.68.480, as amended. " 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1720 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO SIGNS. CASE NO. ZOA 95-3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 16th day of January, 1996, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to February 6, 1996 , to consider the amendment of the zoning ordinance section 25.68 relating to 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. 80-89 , " in that the director of community development has determined the amendment to be a class 5 categorical exemption; 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 recommend approval of the zoning ordinance text amendment: 1 . The proposed amendments relating to signs are consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance and protect the community health, safety and general welfare. WHEREAS, the planning commission finds and determines that the presence of an excessive number of colors in a business sign causes visual clutter whose negative aesthetic effect tends to reduce surrounding property values and make the city a less desirable place to shop, visit, and reside; and WHEREAS, the planning commission finds and determines that such visual clutter may be offset or mitigated by an appropriate reduction in the total size of a sign. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2 . That it does hereby recommend approval to the city council of ZOA 95-3 as provided in the attached exhibit labeled Exhibit PLANNING COMMISSION JOLUTION NO. 1720 G PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 6th day of February, 1996, by r the following vote, to wit: AYES : CAMPBELL, FERGUSON, JONATHAN, BEATY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: FERNANDEZ PAUL BEATY, Chairpe son 41JEST: PHILIP DRELL, Acting-Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1720 EXHIBIT "A" Section 1 . The following paragraph is hereby added to the end of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25. 68 .440: "The foregoing criteria shall not be construed or applied in such a manner as to violate any legal rights bestowed by state or federal law. " Section 2 . That Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25 . 68 .480 is amended to read as follows: "25 .68 .480 Sign colors. To the extent not prohibited by law, the number and type of sign colors shall be as approved by the architectural review commission. The City Council finds and determines that the maximum sign sizes allowed by this chapter are premised aesthetically on the use of no more than three colors that will minimize excessive contrast. Accordingly, sign programs for commercial complexes , shopping centers , other commercial/industrial development, and individual businesses shall provide that if more than three colors are used in a sign or if a sign being installed in a center with an approved sign program extends the number of colors beyond three ( 3) colors, then the maximum size allowed for that sign shall be reduced by 20% for each such additional color. For purposes of calculating reductions in size where more than three (3) colors are involved, the maximum sign size resulting from the first 20% reduction shall form the basis for the second 20% reduction, and so on for each subsequent 20% reduction. For example, if the maximum size allowed for a given three-color sign were 10 square feet, then the maximum size allowed for a five-color sign would be 6 .4 square feet: 80% x ( 10 x 80%) . The architectural review commission may waive the above noted required size reduction or part thereof if it specifically finds that the proposed sign is desirable due to its quality, uniqueness, design or other features as determined by the architectural .review commission. " Section 3 . That Section 25.68 .281 be added to regulate goods, services and secondary business signage: 1125 .68.281 Goods, services and/or secondary business signs . Pursuant to the limits contained in Section 25 . 68 . 090 I businesses may have up to two (2) goods, services and/or secondary business signs to identify goods, services and other businesses available or conducting business on the premises. Said signs I 3 PLANNING COMMISSION . SOLUTION NO. 1720 shall be clearly ancillary to the main business sign and in no 4 event shall the aggregate sign area exceed the maximum permitted under Municipal Code Section 25 . 68 et. seq. Design of said sign(s) shall be architecturally consistent with the main business identification sign to the satisfaction of the architectural review commission. Where a secondary business sign is a registered federally regulated trademark sign, said sign shall only be permitted if the maximum of two (2) goods, services and/or secondary business signs is not exceeded and the maximum aggregate sign area is not exceeded. Size of said federally regulated trademark signs shall be subject to size reduction pursuant to Section 25.68 .480, as amended. " 4 II PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1720 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO f THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO SIGNS. CASE NO. ZOA 95-3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 16th day of January, 1996, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to February 6, 1996, to consider the amendment of the zoning ordinance section 25 . 68 relating to 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. 80-89," in that the director of community development has determined the amendment to be a class 5 categorical exemption; and WHEREAS, at said public hearring, 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 recommend approval of the zoning ordinance text amendment: 1 . The proposed amendments relating to signs are consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance and protect the community health, safety and general welfare. WHEREAS, the planning commission finds and determines that the presence of an excessive number of colors in a business sign causes visual clutter whose negative aesthetic effect tends to reduce surrounding property values and make the city a less desirable place to shop, visit, and reside; and WHEREAS, the planning commission finds and determines that such visual clutter may be offset or mitigated by an appropriate reduction in the total size of a sign. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows : 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2 . That it does hereby recommend approval to the city council of ZOA 95-3 as provided in the attached exhibit labeled Exhibit "All t a PLANNING COMMISSION RtSOLUTION NO. 1720 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 6th day of February, 1996, by ?: the following vote, to wit: AYES: CAMPBELL, FERGUSON, JONATHAN, BEATY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: FERNANDEZ PAUL BEATY, Chairpe son EST: PHILIP DRELL, Acting- Secretary Palm Desert P anning Commission 2 I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1720 EXHIBIT "A" Section 1. The following paragraph is hereby added to the end of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.68 .440: "The foregoing criteria shall not be construed or applied in such a manner as to violate any legal rights bestowed by state or federal law. " Section 2 . That Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25 .68 .480 is amended to read as follows: 1125. 68 .480 Sign colors. To the extent not prohibited by law, the number and type of sign colors shall be as approved by the architectural review commission. The City Council finds and determines that the maximum sign sizes allowed by this chapter are premised aesthetically on the use of no more than three colors that will minimize excessive contrast. Accordingly, sign programs for commercial complexes , shopping centers , other commercial/industrial development, and individual businesses shall provide that if more than three colors are used in a sign or if a sign being installed in a center with an approved sign program extends the number of colors beyond three ( 3) colors, then the maximum size allowed for that sign shall be reduced by 20% for each such additional color. For purposes of calculating reductions in size where more than three ( 3) colors are involved, the maximum sign size resulting from the first 20% reduction shall form the basis for the second 20% reduction, and so on for each subsequent 20% reduction. For example, if the maximum size allowed for a given three-color sign were 10 square feet, then the maximum size allowed for a five-color sign would be 6 .4 square feet: 80% x ( 10 x 80%) . The architectural review commission may waive the above noted required size reduction or part thereof if it specifically finds that the proposed sign is desirable due to its quality, uniqueness, design or other features as determined by the architectural review commission. " Section 3 . That Section 25 .68 .281 be added to regulate goods, services and secondary business signage: 1125.68.281 Goods, services and/or secondary business signs . Pursuant to the limits contained in Section 25. 68 . 090 I businesses may have up to two (2) goods, services and/or secondary business signs to identify goods, services and other businesses available or conducting business on the premises. Said signs 3 PLANNING COMMISSION kaSOLUTION NO. 1720 shall be clearly ancillary to the main business sign and in no event shall the aggregate sign area exceed the maximum permitted under Municipal Code Section 25 . 68 et. seq. Design of said k sign(s) shall be architecturally consistent with the main business identification sign to the satisfaction of the architectural review commission. Where a secondary business sign is a registered federally regulated trademark sign, said sign shall only be permitted if the maximum of two (2) goods, services and/or secondary business signs is not exceeded and the maximum aggregate sign area is not exceeded. Size of said federally regulated trademark signs shall be subject to size reduction pursuant to Section 25.68.480, as amended. " 4 M'1NUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 1996 Chairperson Beaty concurred and asked for a motion. Action: Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Ferguson, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1719, approving PP 96-1 and TT 28320, subject to conditions . Carried 5-0 . C� Case No. ZOA 95-3 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of amendments to the sign ordinance to regulate signs at mini bank branches and attempt to establish size criteria for signs having more than three colors . Mr. Smith stated that this matter started out as what staff thought was a fairly straight forward attempt at regulating the additional signage that was being seen at supermarkets where they were bringing in mini-bank branches and whether they should have to have people there to serve the public like at Union Bank where they have five or six employees . He visited the site several times and there were always people there. Bank of America at Lucky's at Country Club and Monterey had three people there most of the time and had a long line of customers . Visiting the Von' s on Highway 111 where the initial request for signage came from, he visited it four or five times and saw one person one time and that person was putting cash in the ATM, but didn't look like he was prepared to act like a teller. Notwithstanding where they originally started going with this, staff came back to the existing situation where the city allows businesses to have, in addition to their main sign identification, they were allowed to identify two products or services if they had sign area available to support that. That came about three or four years ago when the business was Sports Fever and they wanted to identify most of the products in the store and city council had staff prepare an ordinance amendment at that time where they limited the items to two. Effectively, that was what staff was saying for mini-bank branches. That if there was available signage under that portion of the ordinance ( i .e. goods and services available onsite) , then they would be able to put up mini-bank branch signs provided that the signs are: a) clearly ancillary of the main business signage, b) that the overall aggregate sign area limit is not exceeded, and 3) that the design of the signs is consistent with the existing program to the satisfaction of the 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 1996 architectural review commission. This then got staff to a problem that had recently arisen with trademark registered signs where certain laws have passed that entitled those people to the colors in their signs, regardless of what the city' s sign program might say. The federal law that gives them this right did not necessarily give them the right to have a size that they might otherwise want. The city attorney' s office worked on this and came up with language as shown in the staff report which effectively said that if an applicant was going to use colors that were outside of the approved sign program or if there was a sign with more than three colors in it and they were getting it because it was a registered trademark sign, then the city was at liberty to reduce the size of that sign. Staff was suggesting a reduction of 20% for every color beyond three. That matter reflected back into the first mini-bank branch because a couple of the banks have signs that were registered trademarks. What was before the commission in the end result was shown in Exhibit A of the draft resolution and that was what staff was recommending to commission. If commission felt the reduced size for extra colors was excessive, staff was open to other percentages . Mr. Drell noted that staff brought the mini-bank issue to the city council for their initiation and consideration. Council itself initiated the amendment relative to the provision for trademark signs, which came up in reference to a lawsuit that was about to be filed at that time. They gave staff and the city attorney specific instruction to come up with an ordinance to give them special consideration. Commissioner Fernandez stated that due to a conflict of interest, being a store manager for Von' s, he would be abstaining from this matter. Commissioner Ferguson said that as he understood it the resolution the commission would be adopting didn't change the existing ordinance with respect to ancillary signs for listing goods and services on existing properties . Basically, a business was allotted what they were allotted and if the business chose to let a mini-bank branch use part of the existing allowable signage, that was their decision. Mr. Smith concurred, as long as it did not exceed the two goods and services and/or other businesses . Commissioner Ferguson felt this was similar to a previous case regarding the situation in the Palms to Pines center on their monument signs and whether the commission was going to grant an exception. At that time he felt it was between TGI Friday' s and Von' s whether they would let them have a piece of their one monument sign or not. This seemed similar. He wanted to clarify that basically they were not changing the ordinance 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 1996 with respect to what they get, and if they wanted to reach an agreement to put signage up, that was when the new resolution would apply. The new resolution said that having reached that conclusion, there should be size and color restrictions . Federal law prohibits the city from modifying federal trademarks . Commissioner Ferguson asked where the 20% number came from; staff indicated they discussed at length what the appropriate number was and at this time was recommending 20%, but staff could be comfortable with the 15% . Commissioner Ferguson asked if staff had consulted with any potentially effected parties to see if the 20% was at all reasonable. Mr. Smith replied no, not with respect to the trademark signs . He indicated that they put in a provision that where architectural review specifically finds that the proposed sign is desirable due to its quality, uniqueness, design or other features, that they could waive the reduction requirement. Mr. Drell clarified that they weren' t allowed a reduction to 20%, they were allowed 80% of what they would have. The goal was to provide some diminution without it being excessive. Commissioner Ferguson said that he was wondering from a legal point of view on a municipality' s ability to restrict commercial advertising based on colors and relating it to size. Under the resolution, basically the city would preclude signs based on the number of colors only, absent architectural review commission' s giving approval . He had some problem with that. Mr. Rudolph stated that they could have as many colors as they wanted, it was just that if they were going to do that, the idea was that a certain size allowed in the ordinance was premised on the understanding that there would be a maximum of a certain number of colors in the sign. They would be allowed to add as many colors as they wanted to that--the resulting visual "clutter" was not what that size was premised on and required some diminution in size to offset the visual impact. Staff ' s suggestion of , 20% seemed appropriate and that would be a policy decision and .that was for the commission and council to decide. Commissioner Ferguson said that the legal question was if someone had more than five additional colors, they were down to zero percent because it was reduced five times by 20%, leaving nothing. Mr. Drell said that was right if the city decided the colors were objectionable. In the past the council has exercised reason in granting or denying exceptions, even before trademarks became an issue. One example was the Elephant Bar for pictorial displays where having appropriate colors was essential to actually depict what they wanted to depict. Council approved it. They also once approved a very elaborate sign that had an old fisherman with a sea gull on his shoulder and it probably had 20 different colors because it was a painted sculpture. They have shown in the past that they were not arbitrary in making these judgements. The architectural review board is 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 1996 comprised of professional design people to make the determination. If the determination is that it is contrary to the intent of the sign ordinance, they could have it, but it would be at a diminished size. Mr. Rudolph said that prior to this issue of trademarks there was just a cutoff for the number of colors and that was defensible, but in allowing more colors, the rules had to be across the board for everyone. He said that the city could do a lower percentage. Commissioner Ferguson used as an example a federally registered trademark with seven or eight colors . Under the ordinance they would not be allowed to use it. Mr. Drell explained that it was 20%, then 20% of the balance, and then 20% of that. It would never go to zero, it would always be 20% of something. Commissioner Ferguson said that he thought staff meant that the 20% was of the baseline. Mr. Drell said that was the way they had to determine it, otherwise Commissioner Ferguson would be correct and they would end up with zero signage. It would be a reverse compounding interest. Mr. Rudolph said that there was no intent to have that effect. Commissioner Ferguson stated that he just wanted to make that clear. Chairperson Beaty also indicated that there was an avenue for appeal, so this was a good starting point. Commissioner Ferguson stated that he was prepared to support the proposal with that clarification. Commissioner Campbell noted that most bank logos only had two colors . Commissioner Ferguson said that the problem was that they were talking about all federally registered trademarks and all ancillary services and goods. Banks was the vehicle that brought it to the city's attention, but per Mr. Smith this was a blanket resolution (to be ordinance) that would effect everyone. Mr. Drell said that it would also effect a sign that was only two colors, if they were two colors that were not included in the sign program. It applied both to colors in one sign and colors in excess of the approved colors within a sign program. Commissioner Jonathan asked if someone had three colors or less, they could still face a diminution if they were not within the prescribed color scheme. Mr. Drell concurred. Commissioner Jonathan said that the formula they would end with was basically a multiplication by 80% each time of numbers exceeded, rather than a flat out 20% reduction. Mr. Drell concurred that it would be a 20% reduction of the previous product. Commissioner Ferguson said that if he had a one color violation, the size went from 20 feet to 16 feet. If he had another offense, then he would go to 80% of 16 feet; the next offense would be 80% of 80% of 16 feet. Chairperson Beaty 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6 , 1996 asked if that was what the ordinance said. Mr. Drell said that it should be amended to clarify that. Commissioner Ferguson said that since this was a recommendation to city council, he was not sure 20% made sense. It seemed to be the type of thing that they should get comments on. He was leery to grab a number out of the air and enforce it against all businesses, goods and services . Mr. Rudolph stated that it was a policy decision, but was also an aesthetic decision. Mr. Drell said that theoretically a decision of the architectural commission could be to make it only 10% . Commissioner Ferguson said that it would make sense if architects were saying to him that based on aesthetics, this made sense as opposed to just picking 20% and using it . Mr. Smith stated that 20% was the maximum. If someone went to ARC with a four color sign, commission could require only a 10% reduction if the contrast was not excessive. The premise of the ordinance was that they wanted to limit contrast. Commissioner Jonathan noted that this was a vehicle to mitigate excessive contrast. Mr. Smith concurred and said that if it was going to have a lot of contrast, they would diminish the size of the sign more, unless it was aesthetically desirable. Mr. Drell clarified that 20% was the maximum reduction per sign color in excess of three. Commissioner Campbell asked if the sign would still have to be approved by the architectural commission. Mr. Drell said that theoretically if it was a trademark sign, and the architectural commission felt it was unacceptable and saw no redeeming value in the sign, they had no choice but to approve it if it was a federally registered trademark sign. If it was not a federally registered trademark, they could simply deny it or apply the maximum 20% . If it was a federally registered trademark, the commission had no discretion on whether or not to approve it. Mr. Smith indicated that the ordinance formerly said that the sign should not exceed three colors . It was almost that black and white. Now they have removed the three color limit, but for additional colors they would get less size. Commissioner Ferguson asked if there was ongoing litigation or if it had been resolved. Mr. Drell indicated that it was settled. Chairperson Beaty opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to ZOA 95-3 . There was no one and the public testimony was closed. Chairperson Beaty asked for further comments or a motion. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he reviewed the staff report quite carefully because he thought this was going to be a controversial issue and he was impressed on how it was handled by staff. He also liked staff ' s solution. It was an 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 1996 attempt to mitigate the impact of excessive contrast, which has been an issue that needed to be dealt with from time to time. This was an effective way to do that. He liked the 20% number and felt it made sense. He stated that he was prepared to move for approval. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Fernandez abstained) . Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Campbell, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1720 , recommending to city council approval of ZOA 95-3 as amended. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner Fernandez abstained) . IX. MISCELLANEOUS A. Request for a determination of use to allow a bank in the service industrial zone. Mr. Drell noted that the applicant was present. The commission had a letter requesting a determination by the commission to give him the ability to apply for a conditional use permit for a bank in the service industrial zone, which currently did not list banks as a use. It did list ancillary services to the benefit of the surrounding area, so there was some legal room. On the basis of that statement restaurants, sandwich shops and convenience stores have been approved which were designed to provide services to the industrial employees in that area. The commission was not approving the use tonight. Staff would still have to go through an analysis to make sure it had the right amount of parking, etc. , but the determination would allow him to apply for a conditional use permit. Mr. Smith read the verbiage for that section as follows (Section 25 . 34 .020 L) : "The planning commission may, by resolution, permit other uses which are similar and no more objectionable than those enumerated in this section. " Mr. Drell said that the section under accessory uses also applied (Section 25 . 34 . 040 B) , "Incidental services for employees on a site occupied by a permitted or conditional use. " Previous determinations had been made that a use would primarily serve employees or customers already in a specific area. Chairperson Beaty asked if the applicant would like to address the commission. Commissioner Jonathan noted that there wasn't really an applicant and the commission was not addressing. a specific location or proposal . 16 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: February 6, 1996 CASE NO: ZOA 95-3 REQUEST: Approval of amendments to sign ordinance. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I . BACKGROUND: December 14 , 1995 the city council, at staff request, directed staff to process amendments to the sign ordinance to regulate signs at mini bank branches . As well, we will attempt to establish size criteria for signs having more than three colors . II . ANALYSIS : A. MINI BANK BRANCHES The recent past has seen a movement by banks to open mini branch locations in supermarkets . With this activity comes requests for signs. At Union Bank in Ralphs they have six (6) bank employees and staff approved a minor sign addition "Union Bank" in 8 inch letters . At Vons in Palms to Pines we had a request at architectural' review commission on November 28th from Wells Fargo Bank for a 27 square foot, 18 inch letters, sign. This mini branch has no employees and essentially offers an ATM with a rack of brochures . Bank of America has a mini branch in Luckys at Country Club Drive and Monterey Avenue and has spoken with staff regarding signage. Issues to be considered include: i ) Should these minor uses be entitled to signage at all; ii) Should these uses be entitled to signage if they offer only an ATM at the site; iii) Should the signage relate to the size of the "mini branch" and/or what formula should be used to determine the size of such signs . i STAFF REPORT ZOA 95-3 FEBRUARY 6, 1996 Site visits to the above locations showed that at each location the mini branch had "directional" signage at the store entrance mounted on the glass on both sides of the door. These signs were in the range of 1-2 square feet each. The branches varied from just an ATM with brochures and a telephone to a service counter with as many as six employees. Some locations had easel signs located near the entrance inside the store. We ' contacted other cities: Rancho Mirage and Palm Springs . Both consider these signs as we would call "goods, services and/or secondary business" signs . The permitted size ranges from 6 to 20 square feet. Municipal Code Section 25 . 68 . 090 I currently limits businesses to a maximum of two (2) signs (goods and services available on the premises) beyond the name of the business . Our first inclination was to permit new signage only if the mini bank branch had regular employees available during regular bank hours . Supermarkets, like all businesses in the city, are entitled to two "goods and services" signs ( i .e. signs identifying goods and services available on the premises) . These signs at supermarkets usually take the form of pharmacy, deli, bakery, liquor and other identified goods and services . If a supermarket wishes to use one of its two goods and services signs to identify a bank branch, then it should be able to do so if the 2 item limit is not exceeded. Typically, these signs are limited to fairly small signs because, for instance, a business with 20 feet of frontage wishes to identify itself with a good size sign and then whatever is left is used for the goods and services signs . A reasonable example would be a 16 square foot identification sign and then 2 two square foot goods and services signs . In the case of goods and services signs at supermarkets they typically are larger because there is more signage available ( i .e. due to their large frontage they are entitled to more total signage) . When the ordinance was amended to permit two goods and services signs it was on the basis that these signs would be clearly ancillary to the main signage. The proposal from Wells Fargo at the Vons Center is for 18 inch high letters with a total of 27 square feet of area. To us this seems excessive to identify an ATM location. 2 STAFF REPORT ZOA 95-3 FEBRUARY 6, 1996 Therefore, while we are not going to recommend a specific size limit for these signs we are going to recommend that they be identified as permitted signs within a new code section 25 . 68 . 281 ( i .e. a maximum of two goods , services and/or secondary business signs) provided that these signs are: 1) clearly ancillary to the main business signage; 2) that the overall aggregate sign area limit is not exceeded; and 3) that the design of these signs is consistent with the existing sign program to the satisfaction of the ARC. As will be discussed later some of the secondary business signs may be registered federally regulated trademark signs . In this instance these signs may not be architecturally consistent with the main business sign. However, the following section will seek to at least mitigate the lack of consistency through appropriate size reduction. B. SIZE CRITERIA FOR SIGNS HAVING MORE THAN THREE COLORS Municipal Code Section 25 . 68 .480 in part states "sign programs for commercial complexes, shopping centers, other commercial/industrial developments and individual business signs shall be limited to not more than three colors which will minimize contrast" . This code provision has worked well in limiting the number of colors in a sign. However, federal law prohibits cities from requiring change to the color, copy or design of registered federally regulated trademark signs . The city is obliged to grant a permit even though its ordinance may say otherwise. The city attorney has looked into this matter and determined that the maximum sign sizes allowed under the ordinance is premised aesthetically on the use of no more than three colors that will minimize excessive contrast. Signs which use more than three colors or which extend the number of colors in an approved center sign program beyond three colors have the potential to be aesthetically offensive. In order to reduce the impact created by excessive use of color, the size of the proposed sign or signs should be reduced by 20% for each color in excess of three ( 3) colors . For example a sign which has a maximum code size limit of 20 square feet but which wishes to use five (5) colors would have its maximum size reduced by 40% ( i.e. two extra colors x 20% _ 40%) to a maximum size of 12 square feet. We have had instances where the sign, be it in a center with an approved program or an individual sign with more than 3 I STAFF REPORT ZOA 95-3 FEBRUARY 6, 1996 three (3) colors, has been found by the ARC and city council to be consistent or even an enhancement of the sign program. Where a sign is found to be desirable due to its quality, uniqueness or design or other desirable feature staff is recommending that the architectural review commission may waive the size reduction otherwise required by this amendment. If the proposed 20% reduction seems excessive to commission, staff could look at a lesser amount of reduction, for instance 10% per color in excess of three colors . C. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that signs which have more than 3 colors or which add colors to an approved sign program beyond three ( 3) colors should be reduced in size by 20% of the maximum allowed sign size for each color in excess of three (3) unless the ARC makes appropriate findings relating to quality, uniqueness, design or other desirable features, in which case it may waive the size reduction or part thereof . III . SUMMARY: Staff is recommending two separate amendments to the sign ordinance as follows : i) That a separate category of permitted signs be created for signs identifying goods, services and/or secondary businesses available on the premises. Said signs must be clearly ancillary to the main business sign, comply with the maximum area limit of the ordinance, not exceed the code limit of two such signs, and must be consistent in design with the main business sign. ii) Signs which have more than three colors or which extend the number of colors in an approved center sign program beyond three shall be reduced in size by 20% of the maximum allowable sign area for each color in excess' of three ( 3) unless the ARC makes a specific finding that the proposed sign is desirable due to its quality, uniqueness, design or other feature. If ARC makes such a finding, the required reduction in size may be waived by ARC. iii) Where a secondary business sign is a registered federally regulated trademark said sign shall only be permitted if the maximum of two (2) goods, services and/or secondary business signs is not exceeded and the maximum aggregate sign area is 4 STAFF REPORT ZOA 95-3 FEBRUARY 6 , 1996 not exceeded. Where registered federally regulated trademark signs result in the number of colors in the sign or center sign program exceeding three (3) , said registered federally regulated trademark sign(s) shall be subject to size reduction pursuant to Section 25 . 68 .480, as amended. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That planning commission recommend to city council approval of an amendment to the sign ordinance. V. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice Prepared by eve Smith Reviewed and Approved by7: � Phil Drell SRS/tm 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO SIGNS . CASE NO. ZOA 95-3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 16th day of January, 1996, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to February 6, 1996 , to consider the amendment of the zoning ordinance section 25 . 68 relating to 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. 80-89, " in that the director of community development has determined the amendment to be a class 5 categorical exemption; 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 recommend approval of the zoning ordinance text amendment: 1 . The proposed amendments relating to signs are consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance and protect the community health, safety and general welfare. WHEREAS, the planning commission finds and determines that the presence of an excessive number of colors in a business sign causes visual clutter whose negative aesthetic effect tends to reduce surrounding property values and make the city a less desirable place to shop, visit, and reside; and WHEREAS, the planning commission finds and determines that such visual clutter may be offset or mitigated by an appropriate reduction in the total size of a sign. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows : 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2 . That it does hereby recommend approval to the city council of ZOA 95-3 as provided in the attached exhibit labeled Exhibit "A" PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 6th day of February, 1996, by the following vote, to wit: AYES : NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PAUL BEATY, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Acting Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT "A" Section 1 . The following paragraph is hereby added to the end of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25 .68. 440: "The foregoing criteria shall not be construed or applied in such a manner as to violate any legal rights bestowed by state or federal law. " Section 2 . That Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25 .68 .480 is amended to read as follows : "25 .68.480 Sign colors . To the extent not prohibited by law, the number and type of sign colors shall be as approved by the architectural review commission. The City Council finds and determines that the maximum sign sizes allowed by this chapter are premised aesthetically on the use of no more than three colors that will minimize excessive contrast. Accordingly, sign programs for commercial complexes , shopping centers , other commercial/industrial development, and individual businesses shall provide that if more than three colors are used, in a sign or if a sign being installed in a center with an approved sign program extends the number of colors beyond three ( 3) colors, then the maximum size allowed for that sign shall be reduced by 20% for each such additional color. The architectural review commission may waive the above noted required size reduction or part thereof if it specifically finds that the proposed sign is desirable due to its quality, uniqueness, design or other features as determined by the architectural review commission. " Section 3 . That Section 25 . 68 .281 be added to regulate goods, services and secondary business signage: 1125. 68.281 Goods, services and/or secondary business signs . Pursuant to the limits contained in Section 25 . 68. 090 I businesses may have up to two (2 ) goods, services and/or secondary business signs to identify goods, services and other businesses available or conducting business on the premises . Said signs shall be clearly ancillary to the main business sign and in no event shall the aggregate sign area exceed the maximum permitted under Municipal Code Section 25 . 68 et. seq. Design of said sign(s ) shall be architecturally consistent with the main business identification sign to the satisfaction of the architectural review commission. 3 r PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. Where a secondary business sign is a registered federally regulated trademark sign, said sign shall only be permitted if the maximum of two (2) goods, services and/or secondary business signs is not exceeded and the maximum aggregate sign area is not exceeded. Size of said federally regulated trademark signs shall be subject to size reduction pursuant to Section 25 . 68 . 480, as amended. " 4 K City of Palm Desert 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TELEPHONE (619)346-0611 FAX(619)341-7098 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: January 18, 1996 City of*�Palm Desert Re: ✓ZOA 95-3 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of January 16, 1996 . PLANNING COMMISSION CONTINUED ZOA 95-3 TO FEBRUARY 6, 1996 BY MINUTE MOTION. MOTION CARRIED 4-0 (COMMISSIONER FERNANDEZ WAS ABSENT) . Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the Director of Community Development, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen ( 15) days of the date of the decision. PHILIP DRELL, ACTING SECRETARY PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION PD/tm-� 9�_ cc: Coachella Valley Water District Public Works Department Building & Safety Department Fire Marshal Pepar MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 16, 1996 Commissioner Ferguson agreed. one thing that made it difficult for him was not having the errant ball study. He was not an errant ball expert, but he could read and call on other experts and could do some independent research to see if the methodology was sound and the conclusions were within the standards within the profession. Not having the study made it difficult to evaluate its reasonableness, absent of the testimony of Mr. McGuyen. Commissioner Jonathan stated that he would make the motion for approval . Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 4-0 . Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1717 , approving TT 27710 Amendment #1, subject to conditions as amended. Carried 4-0. Case No. ZOA 95-3 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Request for approval of amendments to the sign ordinance to regulate signs at mini bank branches and attempt to establish size criteria for signs having more than three colors. Mr. Drell explained that staff in re-examining some of the issues and the structure of how the ordinance should be written and placed in the text was requesting a two week continuance. Chairperson Beaty opened the public testimony to see if anyone wished to address the commission. There was no one and he requested a motion to continue ZOA 95-3 . Action: Moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Ferguson, continuing ZOA 95-3 to February 6, 1996 by minute motion. Carried 4-0 . IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B None. 18 14 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT I . TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II . REQUEST: Direction to conduct hearings on proposed sign ordinance amendments relating to mini bank branches III. DATE: December 14, 1995 ----------------------------------------------------------------- BACKGROUND: The recent past has seen a movement by banks to open mini branch locations in supermarkets . With this activity comes requests for signs . At Union Bank in Ralphs they have six (6) bank employees and staff approved a minor sign addition "Union Bank" in 8 inch letters . At Vons in Palms to Pinestwe had a request at Architectural Review Commission on November 28th from Wells Fargo Bank for a 27 square foot, 18 inch letters, sign. This mini branch has no employees and essentially offers an ATM with a rack of brochures . Bank of America has a mini branch in Luckys at Country Club Drive and Monterey Avenue and has spoken with staff regarding signage. DISCUSSION: It is requested that city council direct staff to prepare and process appropriate amendments to regulate these signs . If council has any suggestions as to how the city should regulate these signs please feel free to forward such information to staff . , Issues we will be considering will include: i) Should these minor uses be entitled to signage at all; ii) Should these uses be entitled to signage if they offer only an ATM at the site; iii) Should the signage relate to the size of the "mini branch" and/or what formula should be used to determine the size of such signs. r zo9 9�3 STAFF REPORT RECEIVED PROPOSED SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS DECEMBER 14, 1995 DEC 19 1995 COMMN ITY DEVELOPMERI DEPARTMEMI COY Of PALM DESERT RECOMMENDATION• That the city council direct staff to prepare and process appropriate amendments to regulate signage at "mini bank branches" . Prepared by: SS/db CITY CO UNCIL CIL aCTION: APPROVED RECEIVED DENTI ED K 'DES: wux& VERIFIED Ey: Ori final 9 on File �i ----__ --- "' city Clerk 's ceicei 2 PROOF OF PUBLICATION County Clerk 's Filing Stamp (2015.5 C.C.P) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of Riverside, --------------------------------------- I am a citizen of the United States Proof of Publication of and a resident of the County afore- said; I am over the age of eighteen PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE years , and not a. party to or inter- ested in the above-entitled matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the DESERT POST Offy ALM 0 a newspaper of general circulation, LEGn NOTI unity printed and published weekly in the CASE NC.ZCA g53tea Ing will be City of Palm Desert, Cathedral City, NOTICE IS HERESY GIVEN thm a publicmlesanmcon held batons the Palm Desert planning Sign co mason to c of RiversideRancho andawhich,news newspaper has hee Municipal Code°annandments to d8»I1 realllates to mini ochi locatnch"ions, been adjudged a newspaper ofgeneral CA1edins'°e`elates ����anthroe(3)`�;s- as I circulation by the Superior Court of SAID rpublic hearing will be had on Chamber at thep palm 19%.at 7:9g p.m-in the Coundl nK Dr at pa Palen Dtr the County of Riverside, State of ,art CWlc Cent«.73.51d Fred Warirq DAve,Palm Desert,. California, under the date of cawtomla,atwikhorneandpl ��IMteresmontscted «+°� Invited to attend end be heard.Clrittoncwnit hearing nodoe be. October 5, 1964, Case Number 83658, antems cov«adwml°p n• for Palm Desert ; August 12, 1982, accepted Upl°�dateo`da,°dBB« ne dvadec Is Case Number 35952, for Cathedral City; nWIbPtor a,, p intheawr` utCOf""nVw available I« review above eddrese between d>a September 2, 1982, Case Number 35951 , dwes tpmentp 8,00 m e�gat"nd 6`00 MarWaythrough Friday.lt for Rancho Mirage;that the notice, of �cl t�ayapop ��eeyouorsome"may which the annexed is a printed copy limited 10 raising only described In this noyce,«N (set in type not smaller than nonpareil ) , Were ublic�ca`iir"PrIpro " publ�`eariing- has been published in each regular and den («city coundl) aI AI�DREiL, ring Director entire issue of said newspaper and not in Palm Desert Planning Commission any supplement thereof on the following (Pub'D.P. December 27 1995) dates, to-wit: DECEMBER 27 1995, I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Palm Desert, California this 27TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1995 --- - - ---2SCg n a r t- o- ------ � S CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT I . TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II. REQUEST: Consideration of amendments to the sign ordinance as it relates to mini-bank branches located in supermarkets and other non-branch locations, and as it relates to signs having more than three (3) colors. III. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert IV. CASE NO: ZOA 95-3 V. DATE: March 14 , 1996 VI. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation B. Discussion C. Draft Ordinance No. D. Planning Commission Minutes involving Case No. ZOA 95-3 E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1720 F. Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 6, 1996 G. Related maps and/or exhibits ------------------------------------------------------------------- A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. to second reading. B. DISCUSSION: As directed by city council December 14 , 1995, staff processed the above noted matters through the planning commission. The amendments were presented to planning commission February 6 , 1996 at which time the amendments were unanimously recommended for approval to the city council. Planning commission discussed at length the various issues involved and sought clarification where needed. Briefly, the amendments are as follows: i) That a separate category of permitted signs be created for signs identifying goods, services and/or secondary businesses . available on the premises. Said signs must be _clearly ancillary to the main business sign, comply with the maximum area limit of the ordinance, not exceed the code limit Of two i STAFF REPORT CASE NO. ZOA 95-3 MARCH 14, 1996 such signs, and must be consistent in design with the main business sign. These signs were previously regulated through the prohibited sign section 25.68 . 090 I . ii) Signs which have more than three colors or which extend the number of colors in an approved center sign program beyond three shall be reduced in size by 20% of the maximum allowable sign area for each color in excess of three (3) unless the ARC makes a specific finding that the proposed sign is desirable due to its quality, uniqueness, design or other feature. If ARC makes such a finding, the required reduction in size may be waived by ARC. * iii) Where a secondary business sign is a registered federally regulated trademark said sign shall only be permitted if the maximum of two (2) goods, services and/or secondary business signs is not exceeded and the maximum aggregate sign area is not exceeded. Where registered federally regulated trademark signs result in the number of colors in the sign or center sign program exceeding three (3) , said registered federally regulated trademark sign(s) shall be subject to size reduction pursuant to Section 25 .68.480, as amended. *The amount of any required reduction will be calculated on the descending product of the previous maximum permitted size (i .e. a 5 color sign which had an original size maximum of 20 square feet would be reduced as follows: the fourth color reduces the sign from 20 square feet to 16 square feet. The fifth color reduces the maximum permitted size by 20% of the 16 square feet or 3 .2 square feet for a maximum sign size of 12.8 square feet. This was a clarification by the planning commission because if we just took 20% of the maximum permitted area then an eight color sign would be reduced to zero, which was not the intent. We want a reduction in sign size not the elimination of the sign. Prepared by: Steve S " Reviewed and Approved by: Phil Drell /tm 2 l ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO SIGNS. CASE NO. ZOA 95-3 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 14th day of March, 1996, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider amendment of zoning ordinance amendment to Section 25.68 relating to signs; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has unanimously recommended approval of the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, said amendment has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 95-105, " in that the Director of Community Development/Planning has determined the amendment to be a Class 5 categorical exemption; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said city council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to approve a zoning ordinance text amendment: 1. The proposed amendment relating to signs is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and protects the community health, safety and general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the consideration of the council in this case. 2 . That it does hereby approve ZOA 95-3 as provided in the attached exhibit labeled Exhibit "A" . 3 . The City Clerk shall certify as to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published once in the Palm Desert Post, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated within the City of Palm Desert, and the same shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Palm Desert City Council this day of , 1996, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: WALTER H. SNYDER, Mayor ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California ORDINANCE NO. EXHIBIT "A" Section 1 . The following paragraph is hereby added to the end of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25 .68.440: "The foregoing criteria shall not be construed or applied in such a manner as to violate any legal rights bestowed by state or federal law. " Section 2 . That Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.68 .480 is amended to read as follows: 1125. 68.480 Sign colors. To the extent not prohibited by law, the number and type of sign colors shall be as approved by the architectural review commission. The City Council finds and determines that the maximum sign sizes allowed by this chapter are premised aesthetically on the use of no more than three colors that will minimize excessive contrast. Accordingly, sign programs for commercial complexes, shopping centers, other commercial/ industrial development, and individual businesses shall provide that if more than three colors are used in a sign or if a sign being installed in a center with an approved sign program extends the number of colors beyond three (3) colors, then the maximum size allowed for that sign shall be reduced by 20% for each such additional color. For purposes of calculating reductions in size where more than three (3) colors are involved, the maximum sign size resulting from the first 20% reduction shall form the basis for the second 20% reduction, and so on for each subsequent 20% reduction. For example, if the maximum size allowed for a given three-color sign were 10 square feet, then the maximum size allowed for a five-color sign would be 6 .4 square feet: 80% x ( 10 x 80%) . The architectural review commission may waive the above noted required size reduction or part thereof if it specifically finds that the proposed sign is desirable due to its quality, uniqueness, design or other features as determined by the architectural review commission. " Section 3 . That Section 25.68.281 be added to regulate goods, services and secondary business signage: 1125 . 68 .281 Goods, services and/or secondary business signs. Pursuant to the limits contained in Section 25.68.090 I businesses may have up to two (2) goods, services and/or secondary business signs to identify goods, services and other businesses available or conducting business on the premises . Said signs shall be clearly ancillary to the main business sign and in no event shall the aggregate sign area exceed the maximum permitted 2 ORDINANCE NO. under Municipal Code Section 25 .68 et. seq. Design of said sign(s) shall be architecturally consistent with the main business identification sign to the satisfaction of the architectural review commission. Where a secondary business sign is a registered federally regulated trademark sign, said sign shall only be permitted if the maximum of two (2) goods, services and/or secondary business signs is not exceeded and the maximum aggregate sign area is not exceeded. Size of said federally regulated trademark signs shall be subject to size reduction pursuant to Section 25 .68 .480, as amended. " 3 r . ti, A p Bank of America page Survey �- L PALM DESERT 2 Prepared by CJern MaO&and Aaeodataa 73101 COUNTRY CLUB OR . PALM DESERT,CA (9MMO-0000 wwwvwr , som�� wwrow•wwwr�er �wrr�.ar -- — ELEVATION 6•-0• Le4rN(z G ODD C FEH7C H w ITI SIGN 05 18' White Channel Letters TYPE M2 i Plot: 8/15/95 Bank of Arnericr "gnage Survey Lw- LUCWS PALL(DEBERr 2 Prepared by Gem Mcc4--id Amodatee - 7MM CUUM CLUB DR - PALM D69EFrr.CA (9=000-0000 �pOSG 'O 803 -------- L---------- - BLL —J L 05 N7F-L EXi St i vc, oils x � 6' C. 03 03) t rx COUMAY CLUB DR i Plot: 8/15/95 1 Illuminated Ch, iel Letter Signs Front M Type Signs(BOA White Channel Letters) Side Sign Type Size Description M1 25'high symbol, 24" letters/ Illuminated Channel Letters- M2 19" high symbol, 18" letters/ translucent white acrylic face attached M3 15" high symbol, 15' letters/ to aluminum returns painted BOA Blue. MI4 12" high symbol, 12' letters Concealled Neon tubes within each MS character, with self contained 9" high symbol, 9°letters! transformers for 15" letters and above .f S. ank of America Front e Si Q Type Signs BOA p g ( Blue-Day/White-Night Channel Letters) Side Sign Type Size Description Q1 25" high symbol, 24" letters/ Illuminated Channel Letters- Q2 19" high symbol, 18" letters/ translucent white acrylic face attached to aluminum returns painted BOA Blue. 03 15" high symbol, 15" letters/ Blue face achieved with BOA Blue vinyl 04 12" high symbol, 12" letters ' strips applied to translucent white 9"high symbol, 9" letters/ acrylic face 6" high symbol, 6" letters i Concealled Neon tubes within each character, with self contained transformers for 15" letters and above 5 3/4" TRIMCAP RETAINER #8 SCREW (4 MIN.) .063 ALUMINUM 51DE ELECTRODIT5 SPLICE CONNECTOR IN BOX TO NEXT LETTER NEON NEON SUPPORT (TYP) 1/2" CONDUIT TO BOX ELECTROBIT5 ENCAP 1/8" ACRYLIC FACE Lu 090 ALUMINUM BACK _w ELECTROBIT5 PA55THRU G.TO WIRE TRAN51FORMER METAL TRANSFORMER BOX FASTENER (5EE 5CHEDULE) FASTENER (5EE 5CHEDULE) GTO IN ELECTR061T5 5LEEVING 1/2" CONDUIT TO PRIMARY SOURCE EXI5TING WALL U.L. APPROVED ELECTROBIT5 CHANNEL LETTER 5ECTION DETAIL 5CALE: 1 1/2" = 1'-0" FASTENER 5CHEDULE MA50NPY OR WOOD OR CONCRETE METAL FRAME. #10 X 1" SCREW IN #10 X 1" PLA5TIC 5HIELD SCREW I 73.510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346.0611 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 95-3 NOTICE;; IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to consider amendments to the Sign Ordinance, Section, 25 . 68 of the Municipal Code as it relates to mini bank branches = located in supermarkets and other non-branch locations, and as it "<.rehatei to signs having more than three ( 3) colors . s SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, March 14, 1996 , at 7 : 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/ planning 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 (or city council) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk February 21, 1996 City of Palm Desert, California SENT BY: 2- 8-96 ; 11 :45 ;BEST. BEST,& KRIEGER, 34170984 1/ 1 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP .GrrOnw4lY.eC W,sNr..RRRSR,r Near R.w.Reiw Rnle.al.�N1Y, L^WYERa R WEReIRc Sop.:aRe Im"OR,rc O G ite MARIO local sea-1456 asv aeeMa ROx leas (OOIN 009-0404 R RN RANCHO WRAO[,CALWOU 02270 — MLN WRIN4a TLLLRNONe<010)sec.zan a"aaee laesl 0ea•9sae T[L[Cal, mie)340.0"s tam)0sa•1700 TACSIIIILE TRANBNI88ION COV= BB'EET FAX if (519) 340-6698 DATE: February 8, 1996 TO: Steve Smith, Planning Dept. City of Palm Desert PAX NUMBER: PD BLDG FROM: Marshall Rudolph, Asst. City Attorney DOCUXUT DESCRIPTION: Blurb for sign reduction formula NO. OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SKEET) : 1 COI{MZWs How's this (added to the and of the first paragraph in section 25.480) ; .3 "For purposes calculating reductions in size where more than a colors are involved, the maximum sign size resulting from the first 20% reduction shall form the basis for the second 20% reduction, and so on for each subsequent 20% reduction. For example, if the maximum size allowed for a given three-color sign were 10 square feet, then the maximum size allowed for a five-color sign would be 6.4 square feet: 804 x (10 x 80t) .0 THESE FAXED DGCWMNTS ARE 1NTBNDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICn IT is ADDRESSED, AND MAY CONTAIN INYOXMATLON THAT 18 PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF YOU ARE NOT TOE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOXXX OR AGENT RBsPONSISLE FOR DELIVERING THB MBSsAGE To Tng INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE Z=HT NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DTRTRIBDTION OR COPYING OF THIS I'ORMNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IP YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS CQMMTrATTnp iN "AM, aLEASE NOTIFY Us IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO as AT THB ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.B. POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU. if there are any problems receiving thia rAa transmittal, please Call Marshall 9. Rudolph, at 1619) 568-2611. ', N5RSb514 f �. CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: February 6 , 1996 CASE NO: ZOA 95-3 REQUEST: Approval of amendments to sign ordinance. APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I. BACKGROUND: December 14, 1995 the city council, at staff request, dire tc ed .€sta-ff-to-process�,a"G- men-ame`nts-to the -sipgn ordinances to regulate signs at'=mini;bank branches. As well, we will attempt to establishCsize�criteria for signs having more than three colors. II . ANALYSIS: A. MINI BANK BRANCHES The recent past has seen a movement by banks to open mini branch locations in supermarkets. With this activity comes requests for signs . At Union Bank in Ralphs they have six (6) bank employees and staff approved a minor sign addition "Union Bank" in 8 inch letters . At Vons in Palms to Pines we had a request at architectural review commission on November 28th from Wells Fargo Bank for a 27 square foot, 18 inch letters, sign. This mini branch has no employees and essentially offers an ATM with a rack of brochures . Bank of America has a mini branch in Luckys at Country Club Drive and Monterey Avenue and has spoken with staff regarding signage. Issues to be considered include: i) Should these minor uses be entitled to signage at all; ii ) Should these uses be entitled to signage if they offer only an ATM at the site; iii) Should the signage relate to the size of the "mini branch" and/or what formula should be used to determine the size of such signs . STAFF REPORT L ZOA 95-3 FEBRUARY 6, 1996 Site visits to the above locations showed that at each location the mini branch had "directional" signage at the store entrance mounted on the glass on both sides of the door. These signs were in the range of 1-2 square feet each. The branches varied from just an ATM with brochures and a telephone to a service counter with as many as six employees. Some locations had easel signs located near the entrance inside the store. We contacted other cities: Rancho Mirage and Palm Springs. Both consider these signs as we would call "goods, services and/or secondary business" signs. The permitted size ranges from 6 to 20 square feet. `Municipal Code Section 25 .68.090f Z currently limits` businesses to a maximum of two (2 ) signs (goods .and services 'available on the premises) beyond the name of the business. Our first inclination was to permit new signage only if the mini bank branch had regular employees available during -regular bank hours. 'Supermarkets --like all businesses in" the city, are entitled to-two "goods and services" signs (i.e. signs identifying goods and services available on the premises) . These signs at supermarkets usually take the form of pharmacy, deli, bakery, liquor and other identified goods and- services. if a supermarket wishes to use one of its two goods and services signs to identify a bank branch, then it should be able to do so. if the 2 item limit is not exceeded. Typically, these signs are limited to fairly small signs because, for instance, a business with 20 feet of frontage wishes to identify itself with a good size sign and then whatever is left is used for the goods and services signs . A reasonable example would be a 16 square foot identification sign and then 2 two square foot goods and services signs. In the case of goods and services signs at supermarkets they typically are larger because there is more signage available (i.e. due to their large frontage they are entitled to more total signage) . When the ordinance was amended to permit two goods and services signs it was on the basis that these signs would be clearly ancillary to the main signage. The proposal from Wells Fargo at the Vons Center is for 18 inch high letters with a total of 27 square feet of area. To us this seems excessive to identify an ATM location. 2 r i a� STAFF REPORT ZOA 95-3 FEBRUARY 6, 1996 Phesefore, whilewwe­are-not-going-to-recommend a specific size limit fo -the—se-signs-we.. are--goirig-to recommend that they be i3d ntified--as-permitted-signs within-a- new code section 25.68.281 (,ire—. a-maximum-of 'two goods, services and%or secondary-business-r3ign's) provided that these signs are: 1) dleariy ancillary-to-the-ma-in-business--signage; 2) that the overall:aggregate=sign-area^limit is not exceeded; and 3) that the design of these signs is-consistent with the (existing-sign-program to the satisfaction of-the ARC. As will be discussed later some of the secondary business signs may be registered federally regulated trademark signs. In this instance these signs may not be architecturally consistent with the main business sign. However, the following section will seek to at least mitigate the lack of consistency through appropriate size reduction. B. SIZE CRITERIA FOR SIGNS HAVING MORE THAN THREE COLORS . M'unic- pal�CoZie-Section-25-68 448.O-in part states "sign programs for commercial complexes, shopping centers, other commercial/industrial developments and individual business signs shall be limited to �Ho more t'�han theee colors which will minimize contrast" . This code provision has worked well in limiting the number of colors in a sign. However, federal law prohibits cities from - requiring change to the color, copy or design of registered federally regulated trademark signs . The city is obliged to grant a permit even though its ordinance may say otherwise. The city attorney has looked into this matter and determined that the maximum sign sizes allowed under the ordinance is premised aesthetically on the use of no more than three colors that will minimize excessive contrast. Signs which use more than three colors or which extend the number of colors in an approved center sign program beyond three colors have the potential to be aesthetically offensive. In order to reduce the impact created by excessive use of color, the size of the proposed sign or signs should be reduced by 20% for each color in excess of three (3) colors. For example a sign which has a maximum code size limit of 20 square feet but which wishes to use five (5) colors would have its maximum size reduced by 40% (i .e. two extra colors x 20% _ 40%) to a maximum size of 12 square feet. We have had instances where the sign, be it in a center with an approved program or an individual sign with more than 3 r STAFF REPORT ZOA 95-3 FEBRUARY 6, 1996 three (3) colors, has been found by the ARC and city council to be consistent or even an enhancement of the sign program. Where a sign is found to be desirable due to its quality, uniqueness or design or other desirable feature staff is recommending that the architectural review commission may waive the size reduction otherwise required by this amendment. If the proposed 20% reduction seems excessive to commission, staff could look at a lesser amount of reduction, for instance 10% per color in excess of three colors . C. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that signs which have more than 3 colors or which add colors to an approved sign program beyond three ( 3) colors should be reduced in size by 20% of the maximum allowed sign size for each color in excess of three (3) unless the ARC makes appropriate findings relating to quality, uniqueness, design or other desirable features, in which case it may waive the size reduction or part thereof. III . SUMMARY: Staff is recommending two separate amendments to the sign ordinance as follows: i) That a separate category of permitted signs be created for signs identifying goods, services and/or secondary businesses available on the premises. Said signs must be clearly ancillary to the main business sign, comply with the maximum area limit of the ordinance, not exceed the code limit of two such signs, and must be consistent in design with the main business sign. ii) Signs which have more than three colors or which extend the number of colors in an approved center sign program beyond three shall be reduced in size by 20% of the maximum allowable sign area for each color in excess of three ( 3) unless the ARC makes a specific finding that the proposed sign is desirable due to its quality, uniqueness, design or other feature. If ARC makes such a finding, the required reduction in size may be waived by ARC. iii) Where a secondary business sign is a registered federally regulated trademark said sign shall only be permitted if the maximum of two (2) goods, services and/or secondary business signs is not exceeded and the maximum aggregate sign area is 4 f STAFF REPORT ZOA 95-3 FEBRUARY 6, 1996 not exceeded. where registered federally regulated trademark signs result in the number of colors in the sign or center sign program exceeding three (3) , said registered federally regulated trademark sign(s) shall be subject . to size reduction pursuant to Section 25.68.486, as amended. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That planning commission recommend to city council approval of an amendment to the sign ordinance. V. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft resolution B. Legal notice Prepared by eve Smith Reviewed and Approved by Phil Drell SRS/tm 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO SIGNS. CASE NO. ZOA 95-3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 16th day of January, 1996, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to February 6, 1996, to consider the amendment of the zoning ordinance section 25 . 68 relating to 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. 80-89, " in that the director of community development has determined the amendment to be a class 5 categorical exemption; 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 recommend approval of the zoning ordinance text amendment: 1 . The proposed amendments relating to signs are consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance and protect the community health, safety and general welfare. WHEREAS, the planning commission finds and determines that the presence of an excessive number of colors in a business sign causes visual clutter whose negative aesthetic effect tends to reduce surrounding praperty values and make the city a less desirable place to shop, visit, and reside; and WHEREAS, the planning commission finds and determines that such visual clutter may be offset or mitigated by an appropriate reduction in the total size of a sign. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows : 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That it does hereby recommend approval to the city council of ZOA 95-3 as provided in the attached exhibit labeled Exhibit "A" 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 6th day of February, 1996, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PAUL BEATY, Chairperson ATTEST: PHILIP DRELL, Acting Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ` EXHIBIT "A" Section 1. The following paragraph is hereby added to the end of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25 .68.440 : "The foregoing criteria shall not be construed or applied in such a manner as to violate any legal rights bestowed by state or federal law. " Section 2 . That Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25 .68.480 is amended to read as follows : 1125 .68.480 Sign colors. To the extent not prohibited by law, the number and type of sign colors shall be as approved by the architectural review commission. The City Council finds and determines that the maximum sign sizes allowed by this chapter are premised aesthetically on the use of no more than three colors that will minimize excessive contrast. Accordingly, sign programs for commercial complexes , shopping centers , other commercial/industrial development, and individual businesses shall provide that if more than three colors are used, in a sign or if a sign being installed in a center with an approved sign program extends the number of colors beyond three (3) colors, then the maximum size allowed for that sign shall be reduced by 20% for each such additional color. The architectural review commission may waive the above noted required size reduction or part thereof if it specifically finds that the proposed sign is desirable due to its quality, uniqueness, design or other features as determined by the architectural review commission. " Section 3. That Section 25 .68. 281 be added to regulate goods, services and secondary business signage: "25.68.281 Goods, services and/or secondary business signs . Pursuant to the limits contained in Section 25 .68 . 090 I businesses may have up to two (2) goods, services and/or secondary business signs to identify goods , services and other businesses available or conducting business on the premises . Said signs shall be clearly ancillary to the main business sign and in no event shall the aggregate sign area exceed the maximum permitted under Municipal Code Section 25.68 et. seq. Design of said sign(s) shall be architecturally consistent with the main business identification sign to the satisfaction of the architectural review commission. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. a Where a pecondary business sign is a registered federally regulated trademark sign, said sign shall only be permitted if the maximum of two (2) goods, services and/or secondary business signs is not exceeded and the maximum aggregate sign area is not exceeded. Size of said federally regulated trademark signs shall be subject to size reduction pursuant to Section 25.68.480, as amended. " 4 . '` LAW OFFICES OF RECEIVED BEST, BEST 6 KRIEO NOV 17 1995 V 1� 0�'tobePMTChYROFEPO�A�PMbC]-C9 M'RiMENI RE CC E iY EU MEMORANDt7M O T 23 Pn 3 21 CITY CLEFr,,s C.`ric TO: Ray Diaz, Acting City Manager P City of Palm Desert �1 FROM: Dave Erwin, City Attorne '�` RE: Ordinance Amending 25-68.440 and 480 G+� Ray: I would like to talk with you about this in the next week or so. I will be in the League meeting in San Francisco and will return on Thursday, October 26th. But, let's talk about this. It is possible we can deal with a modification of the trademarks and copyright matters. DJE/vcd attachment DJE73789 \ — ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALFORNIA, AMENDING SECTIONS 25. 68.440 AND 25. 68.480 OF THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE, PERTAINING TO SIGNS. WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that the presence of an excessive number of colors in a business sign causes visual clutter whose negative aesthetic effect tends to reduce surrounding property values and make the City a less desirable place to shop, visit, and reside; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that such visual clutter may be offset or mitigated by an appropriate reduction in the total size of a sign. The City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, DOES ORDAIN as follows: section 1. The following paragraph is hereby added to the end of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25. 68 . 440: "The foregoing criteria shall not be construed or applied in such a manner as to violate any legal rights bestowed by state or federal law. 01 Section 2 . That Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25 . 68 . 480 is amended to read as follows: 1125.68.480 Sign colors. To the extent not prohibited by law, the number and type of sign colors shall be as approved by the architec- tural commission. The City Council finds and determines that the maximum sign sizes allowed by this chapter are premised aesthetically on the use of no more than three colors that will minimize excessive contrast. Accordingly, sign programs for commercial complexes, shopping centers, other commercial/industrial development, and individual . businesses shall provide that if more than three colors are used in a sign, then the maximum size allowed for that si n s shall be reduced by 20% for each such additional color. 1, Section 3 . The City Clerk shall certify as to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and shall cause the same to be published once in the Palm Desert Post, a newspaper of general circulation, printed, published, and circulated within the City of Palm Desert, and the same shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of , 1995, by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, by the following vote, to wit: MSR73649 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BUFORD CRITES, Mayor City of Palm Desert, California ATTEST: SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California MSR73649 _2 l 06 or t AA-el o via a Svc 2 S 1��/Y�Cs y9 O U s sec r� � q q4 f oam 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 95-3 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider amendments to the Sign Ordinance, Section 25 . 68 of the Municipal Code as it relates to mini bank branches located in supermarkets and other non-branch locations, and as' t relates to signs having more than three (3) colors . f; SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 16, 1996 , at 7 :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. Infprmation concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the department of community development/ planning 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 (or city council) at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLISH: Desert Post PHILIP DRELL, Acting Director December 27, 1995 Palm Desert Planning Commission t `' �' ---� City of Palm Desert Council Agenda Request Meeting of December 14, 1995 To be considered under: Consent Calendar_ Resolutions_ Ordinances_ New Business X Old Business_ Informational Items_ Public Hearings_ Other 2. Item Title: (Please provide the wording that should appear as the item's title on the agenda). Direction to conduct hearings on proposed sign ordinance amendments r la ing to mini bank branches 3. Financial: (Complete if applicable) (a) Account/Project# (b) Amount Requested (c) In the Current Budget? (c) Appropriation Required? Approved by Director of Finance: 4. Submitted by: Steve Smith/Community Development Department 5. Approvals: Department Head City Manager h CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �J STAFF REPORT I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II . REQUEST: Direction to conduct hearings on proposed sign ordinance amendments relating to mini bank branches III . DATE: December 14 , 1995 ----------------------------------------------------------------- BACKGROUND: � ( ��,�✓ ""^ IThe_recent-pas_.has--seen-a-movement- y-anks-to-open-mini branch Toc`a_tn_n_s-in_sup-�ermarkets . With this activity comes requests for signs . At Union Bank in Ralphs they have six (6) bank employees and staff approved a minor sign addition "Union Bank" in 8 inch letters . At Vons in Palms to Pines we had a request at Architectural Review Commission on November 28th from Wells Fargo Bank for a 27 square foot, 18 inch letters, sign. This mini branch has no employees and essentially offers an ATM with a rack of brochures . Bank of America has a mini branch in Luckys at Country Club Drive and Monterey Avenue and has spoken with staff regarding signage. DISCUSSION: tjY— snrequested them--c"ity�coun il�directstaff=to,zpr—pare.and process;appropriate.amendments ta"regulate these-signsIf=council �ha's.�any suggestionsTas ta_how the:city..should.regulateFthese-signs please feel 'free'to'forward such information to staff . Issues we will be considering will include: i) Should these minor uses be entitled to signage at all; ii) Should these uses be entitled to signage if they offer only an ATM at the site; iii) Should the signage relate to the size of the "mini branch" and/or what the formula should be for determining the size of such signs . I _ � STAFF REPORT PROPOSED SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS DECEMBER 14 , 1995 RECOMMENDATION: That the city council direct staff to prepare and process appropriate amendments to regulate signage at "mini bank branches" . Prepared by: SS/db 2 9 - 1 HEATH, December 11, 1995 Heath and Company Signs Nationwide III RECEIVED DEC 141995 COMklkl DES Litt OF 11lNE "ermw Mr. Stephen R. Smith RI City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 Re: WELLS FARGO BANK SIGNAGE VON'S - 72675 HWY 111, PALM DESERT, CA Dear Mr. Smith: The signage requested for the referenced location is to identify a'full'service banking kiosk located within the store. The kiosk includes access to an ATM machine as well as access for loan applications, opening accounts and a variety of ATM banking services. A representative of the bank is available at the kiosk on a predetermined schedule. The signs requested will not only identify the kiosk location to those going to Von s for shopping,but will also identify the banking location to all patrons of the entire shopping complex. Thank you for your consideration. Yo ve o n Z. PZ NZP:cn 2121 Orange Street,Alhamhra,CA 91803 (818)457-3000 (800)421-9069 FAX(818)457-3013 12-11-1995 01:34PM FROM TO 16193417098 P.01 Helt,.� and Company �igns-Naficnwide- REATH �I i FAX COVER SHEET I. II Date .:........................_.... ............... $3 To EY ...SN/717-71.................................... ...........7.,a2.4.25....f}kI/ ...1(1....,,...:...,............,... l; A ompanv Cf1)!..D.F....P44 ....j.���E.�'T.,,:...��,�1....L7��-....._.......................... Address :............ ........... ...... ........... ....... .._..... ............. ..... ...R E C E_I�/,.ED..................... City/State 7btat nutn6er of pages ltt....................._................._... ._................_.............._......................................,..............._....... dudingcoversheet ...,,W0........... DEC 11 1995 II P.OMMUNR DEVELOPMENT OEPARIMENI CITY Of PALM DESERT j' C0mmentS :i ................—1—............... ..............._.............._........ ......................................................................................,.............,......... ii II ........................................._..,.............................................-..,...................................I I .......... fl II ...........—................................................-.................,..........................I.:. .......................................................................I... ................................................. .................................... �I . .........................................................._............................................. ................................................................. ............. �I ................ ............ ................................................_...........................I.................. ......_......_...,...,......._. ). ................... .......................................—....................-,.........................._...............'. ..... j ................................... I _,................................_..................... _........ .......................... ............................. ......,... 'I ................................d....................._............................................._.......u................................_..,...._........................... .._.... I ............ _ ... ........ ................ .....................................,..l............... ......................... . .........................I.—..........—..... .............................e........................ .................................................................................. From ...JI ,.Allwlt X-.7 ................. 11 uu I( have not terAved all I r pages or have a 4mrienced any dit miles with this tlansm)ss)on ple8se advise sender at: Heath and Company, M,OEM(ALHAML OM 2121 Orange Street,Alhambra,CA 91 An3 (819)457.3000 FAX(a1 S)457-30t] III ❑DAILIES 4703 Bengal Street,0a11as,TX 75235 (214)637.000 FAX(214)638-1013 ❑TAMPA(OL08MAR) 3985 Tampa Read,Oldsmar,R.34877 (813)855.4415 FAX(813)854.3037 O NATIONAL OOO MATRIG/SWCE 2525 Walnut WE lane,10101,0.N129,TX 75M0 (800)421 0151 Fly(214)62C-024Z ❑CORPORATE OFFICES 2525 Walnut Hill Lane,#101,Dallas,TX 75229 (214)620-1707 FAX(214)820.2306 i 12-11-1995 01:35PN FROM TO 16193417098 P.02 �BEMN December 11, 1995 Heath arW Company Sighs Nationwide l i Mc.l Stephen R. Smith !� CiF' of Palm Desett 1, t3 5101%d'Watiug Drive ' Palm DckA CA 9220-2578 ?! Re.: WELLS FARGO BANK SIGNAGE V014'S - 72615 HWY ill, PALM DESERT, CA Dear bft.:Smith: ,j Tbb:signago regrueswd£or the refeieuced location is to identity a'full'service banking kiosk located within ;i the store. u ' T t6ldosk'includes access to an ATM machine as well as access for ioan applicatior1% opening accounts and a Vatiety of ATM banking services. A rapreseatative of the bank is available at-the kiosk on a Pre-determined schedule. The.sighs eyirested will not only identify the kiosk location to those going to Von's for.shoppinE.but will i. also identify the bantdug location to 211 patrons of the entire shopping complex. it Thank you for yow covsidetation. a Y ve l� otton X Ye y N7,1'cn _ It �v i P121 Orange Shot,Alhambra,CA 91803 (818)457.3000 (800)421-9089 W(818)457-3013 ` TOTAL P.02