Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrd 772 ZOA 94-3 Sign Ordianance CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TRANSMITTAL LETTER I . TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council II . REQUEST: Consideration of approval of amendments to the sign ordinance as recommended by the planning commission. III . APPLICANT: City of Palm Deser- IV. CASE NO: ZOA 94-3 MEETING DATE c7k1>toAc-- V. DATE: January 26, 1995 GC:T a>Jyf;';fl C'�PASSED TD 2ND READING+"k-712- a— VI . CONTENTS : t�8,33e 13 A. Staff Recommendation B. Discussion C. Draft Ordinance No. 772 D. Planning Commission Minutes involving Case No. ZOA 94-3 E. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1675 F. Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 3, 1995 G. Related maps and/or exhibits A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 772 to second reading. B. DISCUSSION: As directed by city council September 22, 1994 , staff reconvened the sign task force. The task force met twice in November 1994 and its recommendations were forwarded to planning commission. The proposed sign ordinance amendments were presented to the planning commission Tuesday, January 3, 1995 . The planning commission heard from three members of the sign task force generally endorsing the amendments . There was discussion on how restrictive the provisions for "open signs" should be. Sonia Campbell argued for color control (black on white only) and the prohibition of logos on the open sign. In the end commission decided that since the size was only three square feet, that the colors used and whether or not a logo was placed on it should not be a concern. CITY COUNCIL ZOA 94-3 JANUARY 26, 1995 Planning commission was concerned that the special event banners could be up for extended periods of time. Accordingly a clause was added limiting these special event banners to no more than 30 days . Staff also reported that several existing "open signs" on El Paseo were measured and found to be 54 inches in height. The height limit in section 1 subsection "B" was changed from 48 inches to 54 inches . As well, planning commission felt that the sunset clause in the ordinance would insure that the ordinance is not stretched beyond the acceptable level . Planning commission unanimously adopted its Resolution No. 1675 recommending approval of the proposed amendments . Prepared by: .� 0,- Reviewed and Approved by: -' SRS/tm 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 1995 and construct, they should just be required to design at this point, but not construct. In the event if it became necessary because of a loss of temporary spaces, then they must construct within a 30 day period. Action: Moved by Commissioner Spiegel, seconded by Commissioner Whitlock, by minute motion amending P . . ing Commission Resolution No. 1659 and eliminating the w••' d ' . d construct" from Department of Community Developme a � ': Condition No. 1 . Carried 4-0 . (Commissioner Fernandez arrived at this time. ) • B. Case No. ZOA 94-3 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant,GBH F C Request for recommendation to city /04, l0 council approval of an amendment to the sign ordinance. Mr. Smith explained that the city council in September asked staff to reconvene the sign task force which was originally constituted in 1989 . They got together 12 people from the business community and met initially November 7 . At that point in time, members of the task force outlined a series of changes, revisions and proposals they would like to accomplish that would be covered under the city' s sign ordinance. Staff took that list of items and tried to pull it together. Some of the matters as outlined in the report were already permitted and they just needed to get together and do it; other matters did require amendment to the ordinance. That information was brought back to the task force on November 30 . Staff presented the information in a better from at that point and with a few exceptions, the task force unanimously recommended the changes be processed through the city council and planning commission. He explained that commission' s recommendation would be forwarded to the city council . He said the following issues were discussed: 1) The El Paseo Business Association requested that they be permitted to install offsite signs directing people to El Paseo; that could be done without an amendment to the ordinance. They did need to have them designed and the proposed locations specified. 2 ) The matter of open signs specifically for businesses on El Paseo, although it would apply citywide. Several businesses had been putting open signs out within the setback area along El Paseo and the ordinance right now did not permit that type of sign. It was 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 1995 the feeling of the task force that these types of signs could be acceptable if the design criteria was restrictive enough. In the draft resolution on page 3, section 1 paragraph B was that they would create a section permitting pedestal mounted open signs . A maximum height of 48 inches was stipulated, but staff felt that 54 inches would be acceptable. Staff proposed that the 48 inch height be changed to 54 inches . The signs would have a maximum face area of three square feet. In measuring some of the signs along El Paseo, he said they were in the range of 15" by 22" and one was 18" by 18" . The three square foot limit would allow the ones that were there, which were around 2 and 2 1/2 square feet, and three square feet would allow slightly larger open signs . Commissioner Spiegel asked if these could be in windows . Mr. Smith stated that these would be out in the setback area; most buildings along El Paseo were five feet back from the property line and then there was a ten foot sidewalk between the curb and the property line. The open sign would be placed within that five foot setback area; typically it was placed in the landscaped area right on the corner of the sidewalk. The signs could not impede pedestrian traffic flow and they were not to contain extraneous verbiage advertising the business, specials or sales events . The sign had to be removed when the business was not open. Even with that criteria the task force discussed extensively whether there should be color control and whether or not the business name and/or logo should be allowed. Some people wanted just the word "open" , others wanted the business name. Staff took the position that considering the size of the signs, they did not want to regulate color; if the business community wanted to regulate color, there was an organized business association on El Paseo that could through their bylaws procedure create a more restrictive standard if the membership wanted it. He did not feel the city should be enforcing the fact that someone put in blue on white instead of black on white copy. As well, they discussed whether logos should be permitted on the signs . Considering the size, he felt any logo would be very small and they should not control whether someone put a logo on an open sign. He said that commission would receive some discussion on these issues because staff invited the members of the task force to be present to address the commission. 3) The restaurant industry specifically sought permission to identify special events and promote them and it would be done on a group basis . When the task force met the second time it was decided that the chamber would coordinate this effort and that it would be a citywide effort where they would identify various special events that they wished and 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 1995 would design a special type of welcoming banner. In the draft ordinance staff suggested that up to four special events could be identified each year and then the chamber would coordinate it--the banners would all be the same size, color and copy. Commissioner Spiegel asked what kinds of events this would cover; Mr. Smith stated that the Bob Hope Classic was mentioned and various golf and tennis matches . Commissioner Spiegel asked if there was a time limit; Mr. Smith said that staff was suggesting that the event signs could be up one week prior to the event, during the time of the event, and one week after the event. Commissioner Spiegel noted that if the event was three months, they could be up all year round. Mr. Smith said that he was not aware of any event that lasted that long. Mr. Smith stated that the Cook Street area businesses suggested a need for directory signs at street entrances from Cook Street, as well as directory signs in front of the multi-tenant buildings in the industrial park. Mr. Smith noted there was already a provision allowing for multi-tenant identification. The provision for directory signs at the street entrances could be accomplished similar to the model home tour sign program in that these would be located on the public rights-of-way, so they needed to get together to design a sign and then through an encroachment procedure and the architectural review commission they could accomplish this if that was what was wanted out there, but it would have to be done on a group basis . No amendment to the ordinance would be necessary to accomplish that. Mr. Smith indicated that one of the major issues with the task force was available window signage. Currently there was a five square foot limit. That applied to a business with ten feet of frontage on El Paseo and also applied to Cal Spas; Cal Spas was located about 850 feet or more from the street and they had about 200 feet of window area, but they were still limited under the current ordinance to five square feet of temporary window signage. They were proposing a major change to that limit. Most of the people that requested the additional window signage were located in commercial centers where businesses were substantial distances from the street. He stated that they did propose to separate out El Paseo from other commercial areas . Their first thought was to leave the five square foot limit on El Paseo. They changed that position and were now suggesting a ten square foot limit for El Paseo. In the remainder of the 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 1995 general commercial areas along Highway 111 specifically, they would increase the five square foot limit to a 20 square foot limit. That would apply to businesses with up to 50 feet of window exposure. With greater than 50 feet of linear window, they would get up to 50 square feet of temporary window signage. Greater than 100 feet of linear window exposure, other than on El Paseo, would be entitled up to 75 square feet of temporary window signage. He noted that it sounded like a lot, but in the case of a 100 foot wide window area, typically they were eight feet high and 800 square feet of window glass, then they could have up to 75 square feet of temporary window signage. He said that using Marshall 's as an example on Town Center Way, they had weekly sales items that came in from corporate that they hoped to be able to advertise in the window. What they did now was hang the signs three feet in back of the glass, which was not deemed a sign under the ordinance. He said that put most of their advertising devices over the shopping carts, which was okay in the mornings, but later in the afternoon when most of the carts were out in the store or parking lot, there were people walking into signs in the store. He stated that they were looking at nine percent of the window area covered with signs . They called it temporary window signage, but in fact it could be fairly permanent. They also tried to take into consideration distance from the street. They created two sub-categories where if a business was greater than 250 feet from the street, then those businesses based on whatever window exposure they had, they could double their normal allotment--if they were otherwise entitled to 20 square feet of window signage which most of the smaller tenants would fall into that category, if the business was in a center like Marshall ' s or Mervyn' s, they would fall into the greater than 250 feet from a public street category and would be able to double their otherwise entitlement. He said there was a third category where if they were greater than 600 feet from a public street, which included the Desert Springs Marketplace center across from the Marriott, the Price Club/Home Base Center, and the Lucky' s center on Washington. They were suggesting that those business in those circumstances would be able to triple their basic allotment. Staff was comfortable with the above formula for temporary window signage. He said he looked at many businesses and even with the tripling of the basic entitlement staff didn't see any situation where 40% of the window area would be exceeded. However, staff was proposing that this whole amendment would have a sunset clause in it. It must be revisited within one year and if it is felt that it is too lenient and the city does not want to continue the program, 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 1995 then it would close on its own unless specifically (through planning commission and council) extended within that one year. He said that would be in the amendment to the ordinance. It would just be the amendments that were being enacted and the key one was the window signage amendment. He also noted that he did an extensive city survey with two members of the council and this was their way of making sure that the changes weren' t taken too far. Commissioner Spiegel clarified that they were looking at three things : the open signs, the restaurant owners special event signs, and the window signs . Mr. Smith concurred, but noted that the special event signs while originating from the restaurant community, would apply to everyone. Mr. Diaz noted that they would have to have city council affirmation, which would prevent someone from having a year long special event. Chairperson Jonathan opened the public testimony and asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal . MS . SONIA CAMPBELL, 73-910 El Paseo, stated that she was a store owner and president of the El Paseo Business Association. As far as the open signs were concerned, they were in favor of the 54 inch height and the three square foot signage, but they would like to have the name of the business on it also, or if the name was too large, just the word open. She said they would rather have that then any type of logo, or a coffee shop sign depicting a cup of coffee. They would also like to have a clean, uniform sign on the street and as far as she would be concerned, she would not have an open sign. As far as their legislation was concerned, they could not amend their bylaws; their bylaws for the association were to promote and advertise the street, not to go ahead and make any laws, so they depended upon the city and code enforcement to enforce the signage. Commissioner Spiegel asked if Ms . Campbell was suggesting that they don't have any controls that would supersede the city' s . Ms . Campbell replied no, they depended upon code enforcement to be out on the street. Commissioner Spiegel said that whatever was passed for window signage would apply to El Paseo and they would have no way of establishing other ground rules for the businesses on El Paseo; Ms . Campbell concurred. Commissioner Spiegel said that if they were to adopt an open sign that didn' t require a logo for the rest of 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 1995 the city, then El Paseo could not require that for El Paseo; Ms . Campbell said they would like to have the open sign, just a clean open sign for El Paseo to have a uniform street, not for the whole city. Commissioner Spiegel asked Mr. Diaz if El Paseo could have a separate rule from the rest of the city. Mr. Diaz replied yes . Ms . Campbell said they would also prefer to have the open signs in a standard color, just black on white so that it would be a standard sign for everyone. Commissioner Spiegel asked if Ms . Campbell was speaking for the entire El Paseo Business Association, and not just herself; Ms . Campbell said she was speaking for the whole street. Chairperson Jonathan noted that as the resolution exhibit A was written, it did not refer to El Paseo; he asked if it was staff ' s intent to create open signs for anywhere in the city. Mr. Smith replied that they were looking for a citywide standard, considering the size at three square feet, so the maximum would be 21" by 21" . He did not see the need to create differing standards; the size was very restrictive on its own. Commissioner Spiegel noted that the El Paseo merchants were asking for a specific color and way of identifying the merchant. Mr. Smith stated that he heard otherwise at the task force meetings--there were people who wanted the choice of color and hoped to have the business name on the sign. He said that whatever way the commission wanted to go was fine with staff . Code would go out and enforce what the city enacted. MR. ROBERT J. LEO, Executive Director of the Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce and a resident of Palm Desert, stated that the task force was a study in efficiency and effectiveness . Never had he served on a task force that only had two meetings, that brought such diverse people together who walked away shaking hands and agreeing with everyone at the end of the second meeting. He felt the ordinance with the sunset clause would give the business people the opportunity to test the amendments to see if they worked. Palm Desert was changing and when the ordinance was passed, there wasn't as much growth or development as right now. He felt that overall the three areas identified as the open signs, special events, and window signage would give them the chance to see if this was the kind of signage that still maintains an aesthetic standard that they want to maintain in Palm Desert. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 1995 Commissioner Spiegel asked if Mr. Leo would have any objection to a specific time limit on special events , such as one week. Mr. Leo replied no, but he would not limit it to one week. He felt they were probably looking at a 30 day span. Commissioner Spiegel felt that if there was a special event, there should be a time limit on the event so that advertising was not up for long periods of time. Mr. Leo felt the suggestion was one week before, one week during, and one week after--24 to 30 days would work. He said they would like to have the signs down as quickly as possible also. Mr. Smith indicated that the section had a provision where the chamber would propose the special events to the city council , so if there was going to be a special event that would last longer, that was something the council would want to look at . Chairperson Jonathan said in the third category for the additional window signage, as he understood it, was for temporary signs and asked how "temporary" was being defined for this purpose. Mr. Smith replied on-going; the ordinance was not real specific . What code enforcement had been enforcing was that this was a sale sign or special sign for the window. Chairperson Jonathan asked Mr. Leo if the committee addressed the issue of what "temporary" meant for purposes of window signs . Mr. Leo replied no, not specifically. Mr. Diaz said that in other cities he had been with, they were by definition a sign painted on the window and thereby considered a temporary sign. There was no time limit placed on that sign and it did not require a permit . He felt otherwise they would be controlling it by size and reminded commission that there was the sunset clause . All the control there was size, 25% of the window in that case . Here there was a maximum of 40% when they were 600 feet away. In actuality everyone else was talking about 9% . Once they started defining signs on windows and putting time limits on them as window signs, then they would get into problems . Chairperson Jonathan said that he was not objecting to it, but as a point of clarification, when they said temporary, it was a different usage for that word. The sign that went on the window within the size limitation could be on year round. Mr. Diaz said that was correct and it might be able to last longer than the outside sign that was described as permanent, but by definition they said the sign inside the window was a temporary sign. Chairperson Jonathan closed the public testimony and asked for commission comments . 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 3, 1995 Commissioner Whitlock commended Mr. Smith and the task force for putting the proposal together so concisely. She felt the sunset clause was ideal and whomever deserved the credit for that she commended. Because of the sunset clause she would be prepared to make a motion for approval . Commissioner Spiegel agreed; he said that their objective was to make Palm Desert as successful as possible, not to hurt any of the merchants and with the sunset clause, if there was a lot of abuse to any of the amendments, it would become quite obvious within 12 months . The only thing he wanted to add was the 30 day limit on special events . He would not like to see them go on forever. With that addition he was in favor. Chairperson Jonathan added that he had some significant reservations about some of the sizes, particularly when they could be tripled, but the sunset provision was innovative and he seconded Commissioner Whitlock' s commendations and that was persuasive to him and he was willing to give it a one year try. He asked Commissioner Whitlock if she was willing to amend her recommendation to include the 30 day limit for special event signage. She replied yes . Action: Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, approving the findings as presented by staff . Carried 5-0 . Moved by Commissioner Whitlock, seconded by Commissioner Spiegel, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1675, recommending to city council approval of ZOA 94-3, subject to the amendments . Carried 5-0 . VIII . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE UPDATE None. 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1675 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 94-3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 3rd day of January, 1995, hold a duly noticed public hearing 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 amendment relating to signs are consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance and protect the community health, safety and general welfare. 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 94-3 as provided in the attached exhibit labeled Exhibit "A" . 3 . That the planning commission recommends to city council that the ordinance which implements this resolution should contain a provision that the amendments contained therein shall be rescinded automatically and have no effect whatsoever one year after the effective date of the city council approval ( i .e. 30 days after second reading) unless the city council acts to extend the ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1675 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 3rd day of January, 1995, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BEATY, FERNANDEZ, SPIEGEL, WHITLOCK, JONATHAN NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE SABBY JONATHAN, Chairperson ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1675 EXHIBIT "A" Section 1 That section 25 . 68 . 340 Signs for pedestrian traffic be and the same is hereby amended as follows : 25 . 68 . 330 Sign for pedestrian traffic. A. Where the principal sign for a business is located so that it cannot be seen by pedestrian traffic, an identification sign, in addition to that otherwise allowed in this chapter, shall be permitted. Such a sign shall be no larger than three square feet (three feet on each side) and it shall be designed and located so as to not distract from the appearance of the building or violate the intent of this chapter. (Ord. 129 ss 4 (part) , 1977 : Ord. 98 ss 1 (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A ss 25 . 38-12 . 05) B. Businesses in the commercial and industrial districts may place a pedestal mounted "open" sign with a maximum height of 54 inches and maximum face area of 3 square feet in front of their place of business . Said sign must be placed on private property in a location which does not impede pedestrian traffic flow. Said signs shall not include extraneous verbiage advertising the business, specials or sales events . Said signs must be removed when the business is not open for business . Section 2 That section 25 . 68 . 350 Special event signs be and the same is hereby amended as follows : 25 . 68 . 350 Special event signs . A. With the approval of the director of community development, a business may erect one temporary sign, mounted on a wall facia or freestanding, advertising special events, promotions or sales . The director may approve up to thirty square feet of sign area depending upon the type of event, building design and right-of- way frontage for a period not to exceed thirty days per year. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1675 Signs approved under this section shall be compatible and harmonious with the color of the building and adjacent buildings . When improperly used, special event signs constitute a public nuisance and may be abated. Special event signs for periods in excess of thirty days may only be permitted pursuant to a resolution of the city council granting such approval which shall specify the period during which the sign may be displayed. (Ord. 587 ss 2 (Exhibit A ss 13) , 1989; Ord. 422 Exhibit A ss 7, 1985 : Ord. 272 (part) , 1981; Ord. 129 ss 4 (part) , 1977 : Ord. 98 ss 1 (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A ss 25 .28-12 . 08) B. The Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce may designate, subject to city council affirmation, up to four (4) special events per year which its membership wishes to promote through the use of special event banners . Said chamber of commerce to design and make available to businesses in the city for a fee a special event banner which may be installed up to seven ( 7 ) days prior to the designated event, during the designated special event and for up to seven ( 7 ) days after the conclusion of the designated special event, for a total time period not to exceed 30 days . Said special event banners shall not exceed 20 square feet in area. Design of said special event banners shall be reviewed and approved by the city prior to distribution by the chamber. Once the design has been approved by the city, said special event banners may be installed on private property without further approval or permit from the city. Section 3 That section 25 . 68 . 340 Temporary signs within window areas be and the same is hereby amended as follows : A. On El Paseo between Portola Avenue and Highway 74 temporary informational signs not to exceed ten ( 10) square feet of the window area may be placed on the inside of said window and shall not require prior approval of the city. B. In the general commercial (other than the area described in section A above) , planned commercial and service industrial districts 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1675 businesses shall be entitled to a basic twenty (20) square feet of temporary informational window signage which may be placed on the inside of said windows without the prior approval of the city. C. Businesses falling under section "B" above, which have greater than 50 feet of linear window exposure shall be entitled to up to 50 square feet of temporary window signage. Businesses having greater than 150 feet of linear window exposure shall be entitled to up to 75 square feet of temporary window signage. D. Businesses falling under section "B" and "C" above which are set back more than 250 feet from a public right-of-way (street) may double their otherwise entitled temporary window signage. Businesses falling under section "B" and "C" above which are set back more than 600 feet from a public right-of-way (street) may triple their otherwise entitled temporary window signage. E. Notwithstanding the above sections A, B, C and D, in no event may temporary window signage exceed 40% of the window area of the business . 5 • F=Ra_f: f.:k=.. ;='l.11�._:CC_:(1..1..:Ct:::�'�a -I.t-�:i.�i space .a.�, for �' 9 ! U (.r..0.L...J�.5 c.t_:nF:.) ire C.j,..to t'y` (_,1.ti'�r..(;; Stamp CITY OF PALM DESERT Proof ofF=t�blit:Publication of11 :�::' '1_' FINANCE D �, EP„RP, ENT tVtifiej :95 JAN 17 Pfl 9 39 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. ZOA 94-3 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. STATE k_ Cf: CALIFORNIA, SAID pu0c hearing will be held on Thursday, County of Riverside, IJanuary `26, 1995, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 am a ca.t.i.zen of the ► h.ited Fred Waring Drive,Palm Desert,California,at which State5 and a resident of the time and place all interested persons are aforesaid;to Countyaforesaid; l cel'ft overattend and be heard. Written comments concerning the age of eighteen,1 years, all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information d not a partyto or interested concerning the proposed project and/or negative i _r p iri t.t-5 above--entitled �THatter,. I declaration is available for review in the department of community development/planning at the above an the princi.pal r_:lerk: of address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the printer of the Desert Post, proposed actions in court, you may be limited to a newspaper.per. of general circulation, raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written printed and published !�.�.:: ;1;:1.'y in the planning City of Palm Desert, C.:c_x..wity of correspondence delivered to the tannin commission (or city council)at, or prior to,the public hearing. /s/ SHEILA R. GILLIGAN,City Clerk Riverside, and which newspaper City of Palm Desert, California has Lz.o i a iudned a. newspaper of 27403 (PUB JAN 11, 1995) taerieral circulation by the Superior Court of the (:_ uity of Riverside, State of California, under the date of October 5, t.r96.4, Case 1''1._int.:er 83658 ii that the notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not-- smaller than nonpareil) , has i:e.?en p._th1.a..shecl :in each rE..,-iular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any sa._appi.errx nt thereof CA.) the fo:l.l.cs.iiricl date. tcr-wit: 1/1.7../95 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is. true and correct. Dated at. Pa.lrn Desert,, Ca..la.for-ni.a this: ';1 ii.driec �-- -- • • . ti `� CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission DATE: January 3, 1995 CASE NO: ZOA 94-3 REQUEST: Approval of amendments to the sign ordinance . APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I . BACKGROUND: September 22 , 1994 city council in response to business community requestsf to cvn for adjustments sgn to the sign ordinance directed force which had been formed when the fsign reconvene the sign ordinance was last updated in 1989 . The sign task force is comprised of 12 persons representing various business interests , the architectural review commis7 , 19o4 and the chamber of commerce . and task force e met they hoped November could be and outlined area achieved. Staff reviewed tthe hevrrequests s ,and 9presented a report to the task force when it 4 . the task With a few exceptions, which will that delineated changeslater be , yprocessed force unanimously recommended through city council and planning commission. II . ANALYSIS : At the November 7 , 1994 task force meeting the following issues were discussed: A. El Paseo Business Association requested that it be permitted to install off-site signs directing people to El Paseo . Response: This type of sign request can be accomplished without amendment to the ordinance . th t B. Several business owners on rmitlneat Paseo smalquextedrior a'opene ordinance be amended to P signs . Response: rs , in While these signs have existed yea located aCopenthe ordinance currently does not permit exterior signs . Section 1 of the draft resolution would allow STAFF REPORT ZOA 94-3 JANUARY 3 , 1995 pedestal-mounted "open" signs with a maximum height of 48 inches and maximum face area of three square feet. These would be pedestrian sized signs and would only indicate that a business is "open" . No extraneous verbiage would be permitted ( i .e. sales, 40% off, etc. ) . These signs could not be located in the public right-of-way. Signs could include business name and/or logo, but the primary purpose would be indicate that the particular business is "open" . These signs would be removed when the business is not open. The El Paseo business representatives, while they concurred that these signs should be permitted, were split on whether the signs should include the business name or logo. As well, they could not agree on whether the colors should be limited or should be left to the individual business . Staff is proposing that the city establish a provision which would allow the basic sign subject to height and size limits, and would leave any further restrictions ( i .e. color and whether business names or logos could be included) up to the recognized El Paseo Business Association. The group could so amend it bylaws and then the members would adhere to the standards which they voted to accept. C. Representatives of the restaurant industry asked that the ordinance be amended to permit various business groups to band together to promote special events . Response: We proposed to amend the ordinance to allow various business interests to determine which special events they, as a group, would like to promote as special events . As an example, the restaurant industry group would meet and determine that they would like to promote three special events throughout the year which they would identify. They would design special banners for those events . The city would permit the banners to go up one week before the event, and require that they be taken down one week after the event concludes . These banners would meet certain criteria, i .e. all the same colors , all the same size, must be mounted on buildings and on pr_iv4te _property. We don' t want them tied between two palm trees . 2 STAFF REPORT ZOA 94-3 JANUARY 3, 1995 Currently the grand opening banners are limited to 30 square feet in size. We would suggest that these special event banners be limited to 20 square feet--that would still allow 2 feet by 10 feet. A business would be allowed one special event banner per street frontage. So a corner business would be entitled to two. We would suggest that in order to maintain consistency of quality and color that the group would order the banners from the manufacturer rather than each individual member of the group going to his own supplier. In discussing this matter with the task force, it was decided to allow this type of special event promotion subject to it being coordinated through the chamber of commerce. It is expected that the chamber will identify various "special events" . It will design banners and make them available to businesses for a fee. The identified special events and the design of the banners is subject to affirmation by the city. In the draft ordinance staff suggests that up to four (4) s ecial events could be identified per year. D. The representative for the Cook Street business area suggested a need for business directory signs at street entrances from Cook Street, as well as directory signs in front of multi-tenant buildings in the industrial park. Response: The directory signs in front of individual multi-tenant industrial buildings are permitted under the ordinance section 25 . 68. 335 . The business directory sign at the street entrance points from Cook Street could be done as the model home tour program signs . The businesses in that area should agree upon a design for the directory sign, present it to the city and when approved, have it/them installed. These signs will be located on part of the public right-of-way and as such, following approval by architectural review commission, will require an encroachment permit from public works department. No amendment to the ordinance is required. E. Several,members of the task force indicated that adciitiona window signage was needed to promote sales beyond the five (5) square feet permitted in section 25 . 68 . 340 . 3 STAFF REPORT ZOA 94-3 JANUARY 3 , 1995 Response: Most of the people requesting additional window signage were located in commercial centers where businesses are a substantial distance back from public streets . It was staff ' s proposal to retain the existing five square foot limit for El Paseo between Portola and Highway 74 . Other general commercial , planned commercial and service industrial zoned areas would get a basic 20 square feet of window signage. Businesses with greater than 50 feet of linear window exposure, other than on El Paseo, would be entitled to up to 50 square feet of temporary window signage . Greater than 100 feet of linear window exposure, other than on El Paseo, would be entitled to up to 75 square feet of temporary window signage. Most business windows are 8 feet high or greater. Therefore, a 100 foot wide window would have an area of at least 800 square feet ( 100 ' x 8 ' ) . The window sign(s ) then would amount to 9 . 3% ( i .e . 75 square feet of sign in an 800 square foot window area) . In a 60 foot wide window the percentage covered by sign( s ) would be 10 . 4% ( i .e. 50 square foot sign in a 480 square foot window) . In a 16 foot wide window store front on Highway 111 , the 20 square feet of window sign( s ) would amount to 13 . 9% ( i .e . 20 square foot sign( s ) in 144 square feet of window) . Now we also recognize that in certain centers ( i . e. Price Club Center, Ralphs at Country Club and Cook, Luckys on Washington Street, Desert Crossing, Palms to Pines and Waring Plaza) businesses are located a substantial distance back from the public streets . In these instances , we propose to expand upon the basic entitlement established above . If a business is located more than 250 feet from a public right-of-way, its basic entitlement would be doubled. A 60 foot wide window more than 250 feet from a public right-of- way could then have up to 100 square feet of signage, but this Wou. d still only amount to about 21% of the window area. A 200 foot wide window 250 feet back from a public right-of- way could have up to 150 square feet of signage (75 square 4 STAFF REPORT ZOA 94-3 JANUARY 3 , 1995 feet by 2 ) . This would amount to 9 . 4% of the window covered by sign(s ) . In the case of businesses with extreme setbacks ( i .e. Home Base area, the Ralphs center at Country Club and Cook, both over 600 feet from a public street) we propose to allow these businesses to triple their basic entitlement. Cal Spas , located between Price Club and Home Base, is located more than 600 feet from Dinah Shore Drive and has 52 feet of frontage. Under this proposal it would be entitled to 150 feet of window signage ( i .e. 50 square feet by 3) . This would amount to 36% of the window area . The Bazaar, located next to Cal Spas , has 137 feet of linear window exposure. It would be entitled to 225 square feet of window signage which would amount to 20 . 5% of its window area ( i . e . 225 : 1096 = 20 . 5%) . The task force for the most part endorsed this proposal . The El Paseo representatives differed with some people urging an increase in the basic entitlement while others wished to retain the existing five square foot maximum. Considering that we are proposing to increase the basic entitlement in most business areas from five ( 5 ) square feet to twenty ( 20 ) square feet, then staff feels that an increase for El Paseo businesses from 5 to 10 square feet for temporary window signs is reasonable. Of course, if the El Paseo Business Association wishes it could amend its bylaws to require a more restrictive standard ( i .e . 5 square feet) . While staff is comfortable with the above formula for temporary window signage, we feel that a certain maximum percentage of the window area which may be used for temporary window signage should be prescribed. We are suggesting that in no event may temporary window signage exceed 40% of the window area of the business . III . SUNSET CLAUSE: Many in the community consider amendments to be major changes in city policy ( i .e. open signs , special event banners and increased size of wilidgw_s_igns ) . As a safety net we propose to include a sunset clause in this ordinance . The ordinance will automatically expire one ( 1 ) year after its approval by city council unless it is extended by the city council . Assuming the ordinance is 5 STAFF REPORT ZOA 94-3 JANUARY 3 , 1995 approved by February or March 1995 , then it would be staff ' s intention to revisit the issue in November or December 1995 to consider the pros and cons of these changes . IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the planning commission recommend to city council approval of an amendment to the sign ordinance. V. ATTACHMENTS : A. Draft resolution B. Exhibits distributed to task force C . Update report to city council Prepared by /� y<<�.�L • Reviewed and Approved by SRS/tm 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1675 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 94-3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 3rd day of January, 1995, hold a duly noticed public hearing 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 amendment relating to signs are consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance and protect the community health, safety and general welfare. 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 94-3 as provided in the attached exhibit labeled Exhibit "A" . 3 . That the planning commission recommends to city council that the ordinance which implements this resolution should contain a provision that the amendments contained therein shall be rescinded automatically and have no effect whatsoever one year after the effective date of the city council approval ( i .e. 30 days after second reading) unless the city council acts to extend the ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1675 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 3rd day of January, 1995 , by the following vote, to wit: AYES : BEATY, FERNANDEZ , SPIEGEL, WHITLOCK, JONATHAN NOES : NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE SABBY JONATHAN, Chairperson ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ , Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1675 EXHIBIT "A" Section 1 That section 25 . 68 . 340 Signs for pedestrian traffic be and the same is hereby amended as follows : 25 . 68 . 330 Sign for pedestrian traffic . A. Where the principal sign for a business is located so that it cannot be seen by pedestrian traffic, an identification sign, in addition to that otherwise allowed in this chapter, shall be permitted. Such a sign shall be no larger than three square feet (three feet on each side) and it shall be designed and located so as to not distract from the appearance of the building or violate the intent of this chapter. (Ord. 129 ss 4 (part) , 1977 : Ord. 98 ss 1 (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A ss 25 . 38-12 . 05) B. Businesses in the commercial and industrial districts may place a pedestal mounted "open" sign with a maximum height of 54 inches and maximum face area of 3 square feet in front of their place of business . Said sign must be placed on private property in a location which does not impede pedestrian traffic flow. Said signs shall not include extraneous verbiage advertising the business, specials or sales events . Said signs must be removed when the business is not open for business . Section 2 That section 25 . 68 . 350 Special event signs be and the same is hereby amended as follows : 25 . 68 . 350 Special event signs . A. With the approval of the director of community development, a business may erect one temporary sign, mounted on a wall facia or freestanding, advertising special events, promotions or sales . The director may approve up to thirty square feet of sign area depending upon the type of event, building design and right-of- way frontage for a period not to exceed thirty days per year. 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1675 Signs approved under this section shall be compatible and harmonious with the color of the building and adjacent buildings . When improperly used, special event signs constitute a public nuisance and may be abated. Special event signs for periods in excess of thirty days may only be permitted pursuant to a resolution of the city council granting such approval which shall specify the period during which the sign may be displayed. (Ord. 587 ss 2 (Exhibit A ss 13) , 1989 ; Ord. 422 Exhibit A ss 7, 1985 : Ord. 272 (part) , 1981; Ord. 129 ss 4 (part) , 1977 : Ord. 98 ss 1 (part) , 1975 : Exhibit A ss 25 . 28-12 . 08) B. The Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce may designate, subject to city council affirmation, up to four (4 ) special events per year which its membership wishes to promote through the use of special event banners . Said chamber of commerce to design and make available to businesses in the city for a fee a special event banner which may be installed up to seven ( 7 ) days prior to the designated event, during the designated special event and for up to seven ( 7) days after the conclusion of the designated special event, for a total time period not to exceed 30 days . Said special event banners shall not exceed 20 square feet in area. Design of said special event banners shall be reviewed and approved by the city prior to distribution by the chamber. Once the design has been approved by the city, said special event banners may be installed on private property without further approval or permit from the city. Section 3 That section 25 . 68 . 340 Temporary signs within window areas be and the same is hereby amended as follows : A. On El Paseo between Portola Avenue and Highway 74 temporary informational signs not to exceed ten ( 10) square feet of the window area may be placed on the inside of said window and shall not require prior approval of the city. B. In the general commercial (other than the area described in section A above) , planned commercial and service industrial districts 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1675 businesses shall be entitled to a basic twenty (20) square feet of temporary informational window signage which may be placed on the inside of said windows without the prior approval of the city. C. Businesses falling under section "B" above, which have greater than 50 feet of linear window exposure shall be entitled to up to 50 square feet of temporary window signage. Businesses having greater than 150 feet of linear window exposure shall be entitled to up to 75 square feet of temporary window signage. D. Businesses falling under section "B" and "C" above which are set back more than 250 feet from a public right-of-way (street) may double their otherwise entitled temporary window signage. Businesses falling under section "B" and "C" above which are set back more than 600 feet from a public right-of-way (street) may triple their otherwise entitled temporary window signage. E . Notwithstanding the above sections A, B, C and D, in no event may temporary window signage exceed 40% of the window area of the business . 5 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM TO: SIGN TASK FORCE MEMBERS SMITH,STEVE S , ASSOCIATE PLANNER DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 1994 SUBJECT: SUGGESTED CODE CHANGES FROM FIRST TASK FORCE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 7 , 1994 Date of Next Meeting: Wednesday, November 30, 1994 8 : 30 a.m. - Community Services Conference Room The following items were discussed at the meeting and our responses follow: i) Sonya Campbell indicated that El Paseo needed off-site sign(s) directing people to El Paseo. Response: El Paseo Business Improvement District should have sign( s ) designed and select desired locations for installation. Plans would then n works go to Architectural departmentReview ew Commission for review, public encroachment permit (assuming it is to be located on public property) and finally to city council . An amendment to the ordinance is not required to accomplish this request. ii) Several business owners on El Paseo requested that the ordinance be amended to permit neat, small exterior "open" signs . Response: Mr. Diaz indicated that he would work on this matter immediately to permit these signs ahead of the actual code amendment. He will report on same at the next meeting. As wel3,--we will include an amendment to actually permit "open" signs . The criteria we would request would be to allow pedestal mounted "open" signs with a maximum height of 42 inches and maximum area of 3 square SIGN TASK FORCE MEMBERS NOVEMBER 21 , 1994 These would be pedestrian sized signs and would only indicate that a business is "open" . No extraneous verbiage would be permitted ( i .e. Sales , 40% Off, Etc. ) . These signs could not be located in the public right of way. Signs could include business name and/or logo, but the primary purpose would be to indicate that the particular business is "open" . These signs would be removed when the business is not open. iii ) Linda Kirkendale requested that the restaurant industry be permitted to decide as a group to promote certain special events through the use of banners . Response: We propose to amend the ordinance to allow various business interests to determine which special events they, as a group, would like to promote as special events . As an example, the restaurant industry group would meet and determine that they would like to promote 3 special events throughout the year which they would identify. They would design special banners for those events . The city would permit the banners to go up one week before the event, and require that they be taken down one week after the event concludes . These banners would meet certain criteria, i .e . all the same colors , all the same size, must be mounted on buildings and on private property. We don' t want them tied between two palm trees . Currently the grand opening banners are limited to 30 square feet in size. We would suggest the these special event banners be limited to 20 square feet - that would still allow 2 feet by 10 feet. A business would be allowed one special event banner per street frontage . So a corner business would be entitled to two . We would suggest that in order to maintain consistency of quality and color that the group would order the banners from the manufacturer rather than each individual member of the group going to his own supplier. iv) Buff Benson representing the Cook Street business area suggested a need for business directory signs at street entrances from Cook Street as well as directory signs in front of multi-tenant buildings in the industrial park. 2 SIGN TASK FORCE MEMBERS NOVEMBER 21 , 1994 Response : The directory signs i underront of d thedual multi- ordinance . tenant industrial buildings is permitted The business directory sign at the street entrance points from Cook Street could be done as the model home tour program signs . The businesses in that area should agree upon a design for the directory sign, present it to the city and when approved have it/them installed. v) Several members of the group indicated that additional window signage was needed to promote sales . Response: Most of the people requesting additional window signage were located in commercial centers where businesses are a substantial distance back from public streets . It is our proposal to retain the existing 5 square foot limit for El Paseo between Portola and Highway 74 . 1 Other general commercial and planned commercial oned areas would get a basic 20 square feet of window signage . Businesses with greater than 50 feet of linear window exposure, other than on El Paseo, would be entitled to up to 50 square feet of temporary window signage. Greater than 100 feet of linear window exposure, other than on El Paseo, would be entitled to up to 75 square feet of temporary window signage . Most business windows are 8 feet high or greater. Therefore a 100 foot wide window would have an area of at least 800 square feet ( 100 ' x 8 ' ) . The window sign(s) then would amount to 9 . 3% ( i .e . 75 square feet of sign in an 800 square foot window area. In a 60 foot wide window the percentage covered by signs ( s ) would be 10 . 4% ( i .e . 50 square foot sign in 480 square foot window) . In a 16 ' wide window store front on Highway 111, the 20 square feet of window signs (s ) would amount to 13 . 9% ( i .e. 20 square foot sign(s) in 144 square feet of window) . Now, we . also recognize that in certain centers (i .e. Price Club Center, Ralphs at Country Club and Cook, Luckys on Washington Street, Desert Crossing, Palms to Pines and Waring Plaza businesses are located a substantial distance back from 3 SIGN TASK FORCE MEMBERS NOVEMBER 21 , 1994 the public streets . In these instances, we propose to expand upon the basic entitlement established above. If a business is located more than 250 feet from a public right-of-way its basic entitlement would be doubled. A 60 ' wide window more than 250 feet from a public right-of-way could then have up to 100 square feet of signage, but this would still only amount to about 21% of the window area. A 200 ' wide window 250 feet back from a public right-of-way could have up to 150 square feet of signage (75 square feet X 2 ) . This would amount to 9 . 4% of the window covered by sign( s ) . In the case of businesses with extreme setbacks ( i .e. Home Base area, the Ralphs center at Country Club and Cook, both over 600 feet from a public street, we propose to allow these businesses to triple their basic entitlement. Cal Spas , located between Price Club and Home Base, is located more than 600 feet from Dinah Shore Drive and has 52 feet of frontage . Under this proposal it would be entitled to 150 feet of window signage ( i .e. 50 square feet X 3) . This would amount to 36% of the window area. The Bazarre, located next to Cal Spas, has 137 feet of linear window exposure. It would be entitled to 225 square feet of window signage which would amount to 20 . 5% of its window area ( i . e . 225 : 1096 = 20 . 5% ) . While we feel comfortable with the formula outlined above, it may be that in order to assure that some unexpected situation doesn' t pop up that we want to establish a maximum percentage of the window area that can be covered with temporary window signs . The Task Force can discuss this issue and see if it wishes to establish such a maximum, and if so, what the limit should be. STEVE SMITH ASSOCIATE PLANNER SS/db 4 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Crites and City Council FROM: Ramon A. Diaz, Assistant City Manager/Director of Community Development and Planning DATE : December 8 , 1994 SUBJECT: Sign Task Force Report Please be advised that the sign task force was convened pursuant to the direction of the city council at its September 22 , 1994 meeting. The task force met on November 7 , 1994 with 12 representatives of various businesses representing a broad geographic area of the city. Issues brought up at the November 7 , 1994 meeting included: 1) Open signs 2 ) The need for additional window signs 3) Directional signs for the industrial area 4 ) Directory signs for the industrial area 5 ) Restaurant owners wished the ability to promote certain special events through use of banners November 14 , 1994 Mayor Crites, Councilmember Benson, Jim Engle Jr. of Imperial Sign Company and Steve Smith of the planning staff conducted an extensive tour of the city reviewing signs and other issues . Following the November 14 , 1994 tour, and based on comments received from the task force members, staff prepared proposed amendments which were then presented to the sign task force on November 30 , 1994 . Due to the required lead time to have this appear on your agenda, this report was prepared prior to November 30 , 1994 meeting. We will report on the outcome of the task force meeting orally at the December 8 , 1994 meeting. It is our intention, if the proposed amendments are deemed satisfactory to the task force, to set the matter for hearing by planning commission early in January 1995 . When the planning commission is satisfied, it will recommend the amendments to the city council which should be set for hearing in February or March 1995 . RAMON A. DIAZ ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING ORDINANCE Ili 637 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COiJNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT RELATING TO AWNINGS AND SIGNS SECTION 25.68. CASE NO. : ZOA 89-1 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 28th day of September, 1989, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Section 25.68 relating to signs and awnings; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with requirements to the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement 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 arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said city council did find the following facts to justify its action as described below: 1. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the objectives of the zoning ordinance. 2. That the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the adopted General Plan and affected Specific Plans. 3. That the Zoning Ordinance Amerdnent would better serve the public health, safety, and general welfare than the current regulations. 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 a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 89- 1, provided in the attached exhibit, labeled Exhibit "A" to amend Municipal Code Section 25.68. 3. These amendments are limited in their effect to regulating the construction of new on-premises advertising displays. A new on- premises advertising display means, for purposes of this section, a display whose structure or housing has not been affixed to its intended premises. Construction means, for purposes of this section, the manufacturing or creation of a new on-premises advertising display. } ORDINANCE NO. : 637 i 4. That notwithstanding the above noted section limiting the effect of these amendments, any illegally installed signs may be abated pursuant to section 25.68. 5. The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in the Palm Desert Post, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this llth day of April, 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BENSON, CRITES, SNYDER NOES: NONE ABSENT: KELLY ABSTAIN: WILSON WALTER H. SNYDER, Mayor ATTEST: r "A--'{-`3,--- '-SHEILA R ILLI , Ci Clerk City of a Desert, California SS/db 2 OM1DA ICE NO. : 637 FIIBIT "A" Section 8 of Ordinance 587 shall read as follows: SECTION 8: That Section 25.68.310 Freestanding signs be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: A. A building, commercial complex, shopping center or other commercial or industrial developments housing more than one (1) tenant and having frontage on a public street shall be entitled to one freestanding sign on each street frontage to identify the building, commercial/industrial complex, or shopping center. The area of such sign(s) to be determined as follows: 1. Freestanding signs for buildings, commercial complexes, shopping centers and other commercial/industrial developments located on less than five acres of property shall not exceed one-half the total allowable signage of the front of the building and shall be subtracted therefrom and in no event exceed fifty (50) square feet. Maximum height of these signs shall be six (6) feet unless topographic or other physical features exist necessitating a higher sign but in no event shall total sign structure height exceed then (10) feet from the 2. Freestanding signs for buildings, commercial complexes, shopping centers and other commercial/industrial developments housing more than one tenant located on five acres of land or more shall be allowed one identification sign on each right-of-way with an allowable sign area based on a ratio of ten square feet per acre to a maximum of 100 square feet. Maximum height of these signs shall be six feet unless topographic or other physical features exist necessitating a higher sign but in no event shall the total sign structure height exceed ten feet from the gra d. B. Individual businesses located on their own individual property, having frontage on a public street and individual (unshared) access from said public street shall be entitled to a freestanding sign subject to the area and height limits delineated in part 1 and 2 of subsection "A" above, as may be applicable based on the area of the site. 3 4 ORDINANCE NO. : 637 - C. When apc=-oving any freestanding .:1 the architectural review carmissi_n shall affirmatively :..;xe the finding that said approval shall visually enhance the aesthetic quality of the property on which the sign is to be located. D. All freestanding signs shall be placed within a permanently landscaped area of not less than twenty-four square feet, and be architecturally compatible with the building or complex and not encroach in the public right-of-way. E. Notwithstanding the limit of one sign on each right-of-way when a shopping center or industrial has street eet frontage 9 on any one street in excess of 1600 feet then an additional sign shall be permitted subject to the signs being separated by a minimum distance of 400 feet. In the case of centers in the regional commercial zone having over 7000, 000 square feet of gross leasable retail floor area, said center identification signs may contain the name of tenants and/or activities concbicted within the center which operate during evening hours. Section 9 of Ordinance 587 shall read as follows: CTION 9: That Section 25.68.390 be and the same is hereby rescinded. Section 11 of Ordinance 587 shall read as follows: SECTION 11: That Section 25.68.490 be and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: 25.68.490 Glare from Signs: The following sentence shall be added as a eond sentence: "Internally illuminated signs shall be limit,d to a maximum four hundred thirty (430) milliamps ballast and lams". SS/db 4 ORDINANCE NO. 631 AN ORDINANL,r, OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE C'TY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT RELATING TO SIGNS. CASE NO. ZOA 90-3 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 13th day of December, 1990, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider amendment of zoning ordinance amendment to Section 25. 68 relating to signs; 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. 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 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, California, as follows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the council in this case. 2. That it does hereby approve ZOA 90-3 as provided in the attached exhibit labeled Exhibit "A" . PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this 10th day of January, 1991, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BENSON, CRITES, KELLY, SNYDER NOES: NONE ABSENT: WILSON ABSTAIN: NONE ^fit' WALTER H. SNYDER, yor ATTEST: c/,Q• .l ' ('/ /f L)— ' SHEILA R. O-ILLIGAN, C ty Clerk City of Palm Desert, ,talifornia SRS/tm ORDINANCE NO. 631 EXHIBIT "A" Section 1 : That Section 25 . 68 . 090 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code be amended to add subsections I and J, which will read as follows: "I . Business and identifications signs that mention more than two ( 2 ) goods or services sold on the premises . J. Business and identification signs that employ slogans, sayings, or mottos. " Section 2 : That Section 25. 68 . 440 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code be amended to add subsection K, which will read as follows : "K. That the quantity of information displayed in a proposed sign does not cause visual clutter. " SRS/tm 2