HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrd 794 ZOA 95-3 Mini-Bank Branches ti
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. 79/ 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: / CfUNCIL) ,ACTION:
Steve Smith-h / ffpP16M I DENIED
OTHER
Reviewed and Approved 2
Phil Drell -444
tm f4T: -r+ - Q - —
-
• s'AIN o
�IEETiN6.QATE lI�4 '� .I FI ED BY:
I
724 Utxginai on Fil with Cite G.LaAk's vtx .Ji
❑ CONTINUED TO 2
Er-PASSED TO 2ND READINGLtied.„ 2
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
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
9 P
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
11 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 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
ST:
PHILIP DRELL, Actin.gSecretary
Palm Desert P anning Commission
2
•
PLANNING COMMISSION R LUTION 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
O ••
PLANNING COMMISSION iOLUTION 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
!I
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 .
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 (±.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
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
p—
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 e
Steve Smith
Reviewed and Approved
Phil Drell
SRS/tm
5
6'
4
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:
PAUL BEATY, Chairperson
ATTEST:
PHILIP DRELL, Acting Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
2
a
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
r-
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:
"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
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