The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSR - Ord. No. 1190 - Zoning Amdmnt-PDMC Sec 26.58 - Signs ��;"!i�'C ��,?��,..w��.��?'�---�.�. �, "" "ry'��'s'i��.�r �'id_...,_..�_�C 7. � / CITY OF PALM DESE � �`��T�2��'�`��;g DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: Approval of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment updating and revising Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.68, Signs. SUBMITTED BY: Tony Bagato Principal Planner CASE NO: ZOA 09-104 DATE: June 25, 2009 CONTENTS: A. Draft Ordinance B. Exhibit"A", Draft Signage Ordinance Section 25.65 C. Legal Notice D. October 11, 2007 City Council Minutes E. August 28, 2008 City Council Minutes for Desert Arches Sign Program F. December 11, 2008, City Council Minutes for Carl's Jr. Variance G. Architectural Review Commission Notice of Action H. Planning Commission Approved Resolution I. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated May 5 and May 19, 2009 Recommendation: Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 1190 to second reading. Executive Summary: Approval of staff's recommendation will approve a Zoning Ordinance Amendment updating Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.68, Signs. The current signage ordinance has not had a comprehensive update since the City of Palm Desert was first incorporated. The new signage ordinance will provide staff and the business community with a user-friendly tool for designing and constructing new signs. The new ordinance also provides standards for current signage issues that have been raised by the business community and members of the City Council. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment has been reviewed by a Signage Subcommittee. On April 14, 2009 the Architectural Review Commission recommended approval of the draft signage ordinance. On May 5, 2009, the draft signage ordinance was presented to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission was generally Staff Report ZOA 09-104 Page 2 of 14 June 25, 2009 in support of the signage ordinance, however, they wanted more time to discuss some of the details, freeway signage and the Creative Sign section. On May 12, 2009, a study session was held with three Planning Commissioners, staff and one person from the general public. Commissioner Schmidt prepared a letter with suggested changes to the ordinance that better clarified certain sections. Staff reviewed the suggested changes, and incorporated a majority of the items into the draft ordinance. In addition, staff modified the proposed development standards for freeway signs and the Creative Sign section based on the discussion at the study session. On May 19, 2009, staff presented the draft signage ordinance with the changes from the study session and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the draft signage ordinance without the Creative Sign section (4-1, Commissioner Schmidt voting no). Commissioner Schmidt was in favor of a Creative Sign program. Staff is recommending that the City Council approve the signage ordinance with the Creative Sign program, with the understanding that this section does not allow the Architectural Review Commission or staff to approve any sign that is prohibited or more than 20% larger than what the ordinance allows. Discussion: I. BACKGROUND: The City's Zoning Ordinance was originally adopted in 1975 and many sections, including the signage ordinance, have been modified piecemeal over the last 34 years. This has resulted in staff working with an outdated and inconsistent document that guides our daify tasks and interactions with the business community. On October 11, 2007, the City Council formed a Signage Subcommittee to address the needs of the business community for outdated standards for non-residential real estate signs. As the subcommittee was addressing non-residential real estate signs, a proposed property owner of an industrial/office complex along the north side of Gerald Ford Drive was requesting approval of signage facing Interstate-10. The City Council denied the signs that were located above the roll up doors, and invited the property owner to work with staff and the subcommittee to develop new signage standards for businesses with freeway frontage. On December 11, 2008, the Cart's Jr. Variance request for an additional monument sign was presented to the City Council. The City Council was not willing to approve the variance and requested staff to consider amending the signage ordinance to allow larger retail shopping centers additional monument signs. As part of the discussion, the City Council directed staff to prepare the new signage ordinance. Since that December 11, 2008,meeting, staff has been working with the Signage Subcommittee, the Architectural Review Commission and Planning Commission to G\Planning\Tony Bagato\Signage Ordinance\City Council Hearing\City Council Staff Report 06-25-09.doc Staff Report ZOA 09-104 Page 3 of 14 June 25, 2009 develop a new signage ordinance that is being presented today. The new signage ordinance addresses the current signage issues that have been brought up by the City Council, the Signage Subcommittee and staff. In addition, the new signage ordinance has been reorganized, reworded, and modified to include tables, graphics and images to illustrate the signage requirements in the current ordinance. This staff report is written in such a way to highlight the important changes that staff is recommending in the new signage ordinance. Included in the report are photos and graphics to better illustrate the changes. Each section covers what the current signage ordinance allows, the reasons for the modification, and the proposed changes to the ordinance. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment is a comprehensive update to Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.56, Signs. The following sign issues have been discussed by the City Council, Planning Commission, Signage Subcommittee, Architectural Review Commission, and staff. A. NON-RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE SIGNS (REVISED): Current Code: The current signage ordinance states that non-residential real estate signs are limited to one sign no larger than three square feet (18"x18") for buildings with less than 200 feet of street frontage. If a business has more than 200 feet of frontage, 12 square feet (3'x4') is the maximum size allowed. Reasons for the Modification: Over the past two years, staff has seen an increase in non-residential real estate signs. Many of them were designed much larger than what the current code atlowed. The photos below illustrate the various types of signs that staff is working to address for noncompliance: G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Signage Ordinance\City Council Hearing\City Council Staff Report 06-25-09.doc Staff Report ZOA 09-104 Page 4 of 14 June 25, 2009 ASK,��, � ��m;�,�� '�� g��f� � � �� , �� o -._� ,.�� N N B��ey p�opert�� ---__� ��n�;��a �,�,�.,�,, G:1PlanninglTony Bagato\Signage Ordinance\City Council Hearing\City Council Staff Report 06-25-09.doc Staff Report ZOA 09-104 Page 5 of 14 June 25, 2009 J� � � �, ��. ��., ��, b de-1 R1� � � � � ' F �5 k s x''��r�: r��p1�, 'S � L �t)Nti�(,� �� • r, • �� , B(Il(]f�l,l�I)N,1fE«�� ,� i�F�l�E �`�`,;:'i, E��z.j �� Staff contacted the various commercial brokers to tell them that the signs were larger than what the signage ordinance allowed. After staff explained the current requirements, the brokers stated that three square feet for many businesses was too small and the size requirements needed to be changed. Mr. Dick Baxley, from Baxley Properties, spoke on behalf of many commercial realtors in front of the City Council, and he stated that the current standards were outdated and that they needed to be revised. Based on Mr. Baxley's comments, the Signage Subcommittee was formed to discuss the real estate G\Planning\Tony Bagato\Signage Ordinance\City Council Hearing\City Council Staff Report 06-25-09.doc Staff Report ZOA 09-104 Page 6 of 14 June 25, 2009 signs within the city. The Signage Subcommittee was formed with two City Council members, Mr. Baxley, staff and other business community representatives. The Signage Subcommittee members reviewed many photos of real estate signs throughout the city. Much of the discussion focused on illegal signs that were cluttered with "riders" and designed with more than one sign for a building. The riders are the "add-on" signs that extend outside of the main sign area and provide additional information specific to the site. Each photo above has a rider added on to the main sign. After the discussion of the various types of signs, the Signage Subcommittee agreed that a 12 square foot (3'x4') size was appropriate for the main sign, and that a 1'x4' rider could be allowed. Some of the subcommittee members objected to making custom signs with custom riders for each property that is advertised. There was discussion about allowing a 12 square foot sign with one rider that could be an add-on. A photo of this type of sign is illustrated below: �`�o�' et� � yL ...�.Y]�. . ; �� . ' u. "`5 � I �' �� g �.. Y$ i?73-3$"11! , •MM.M�11 e Y/r�p�R1I1t.4111 Iv As shown in the photo above, several subcommittee members stated that the add-on rider clutters the main sign and that the riders should be provided within the main area. The subcommittee members discussed allowing a 4'x4' sign so that rider could within main sign area to eliminate clutter. G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Signage Ordinance\City Council Hearing\City Council Staff Report 06-25-09.doc Staff Report ZOA 09-104 Page 7 of 14 June 25, 2009 New Code: The new code standard described below is staff's recommendation described in Table III (page 34 of Draft Ordinance, attached) of the draft signage ordinance. • One two-sided sign per frontage; • Maximum size of 96 square feet; • 6 feet high Maximum; • No riders outside of the 16 square foot area; • Non-illuminated B. SIGNS FACING THE FREEWAY(NEW): Current Code: The current signage ordinance does not have any specific standards for businesses facing the Interstate 10 freeway. Alf signs facing the freeway that have been installed to date were reviewed and approved based on the general wall sign standards used for any business with street frontage. Reason for the Modifications: On April 22, 2008, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approved a sign program for the property known as Desert Arches Center with a requirement that the signs facing the freeway be located adjacent to the service doors. The applicant was requesting that the signs be approved above the service doors for more visibility. Several ARC members stated that they were disappointed with many of the signs that had been approved along the freeway frontage, and they believed that the signs were causing visual clutter from the freeway. The applicant appealed the approval by the ARC and requested that the City Council approve the sign program with the business names located above the service doors facing the freeway. On September 4, 2008, the City Council denied the appeal and invited the property owner to join the Signage Subcommittee to address design standards for signs facing the freeway. The Signage Subcommittee reviewed photos of signs along the freeway in the city, as well as other cities in the San Bernardino area. Photos of freeway signs are identified below: G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Signage OrdinancelCity Council Hearing\City Council Staff Report 06-25-09.doc Staff Report ZOA 09-104 Page 8 of 14 June 25, 2009 i'� k ��, j,� '� .. �_.Y ,p �M T ��j � �cr:{'. q V;:r� ti��t ,$ '� � , �3,�`� �`1 4 �' B�M�e �';..�1 ` N .,�' ._'�i.�;'zu'*��,�.'`"k: u; ys��"`.. �,�.. �: ,�l� �.. G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Signage Ordinance\City Council Hearing\City Council Staff Report 06-25-09.doc Staff Report ZOA 09-104 Page 9 of 14 June 25, 2009 � � ,x � � ��.� �� . � � � � �� ;, � � %�,3K'��ah,�'� A .��y"� �� '�� f� �' �',��;��r��r�t��,�� 3�et� x ia r , NS g�'�S� � �$,^�,� : �� -e` ��y �r �za,�"' ��z;� > v � �'✓r�'�'� . t 3 ,��£�Y,� #< � �� ; 4�n�' %�t� ¢�,,�2�i'' � � , .,x ��n��"+��.S��P y 9 `7w j�� `r��`'?t�y '`A,•,�� t? A � +9��a� � i [� y��` �p�/v"+,�&�A ''.��b . b � U� ,r � :, '- '' ,, ' � ��YS �� 9 - � 4 Sm :,.., - � , , :' ,, r��x„��°�.x�g,��t�� ,E�� i'y , � '. . ' .'�� . � .. °�'y,�,�+k s' ,^'� �1� ,� .� �"�i. �r � r �� R� � " . tp xa .,�",� ..�;:y .� ,�yN e�Y.��'�^!'iv.e '�?!i�°.�f.��"°'y� -^p"�ix"1��'�=x�'�':. rt A^ i.. ,�� .+alt .. � .. �r� .�?r"'"�+'�,�M'. �a �"�w� "�+ ,�' � �., ��.,Y*T+ .M . M!4�'aY�2 +�ys .� y 'wC"/�' �,��` ^ �"� � �� .. d '�'�µp ' # ° �: � � +k,�d '3Q� qa'-�' -k "wt.!�"t� � ,�'in � �, ':�er «.�x��`..�.> !��g-,��+�,�L ��``a�,�o- i�-r�: q a ��,°a d`� +s�+V�..4 s�`�5+�*,Yy�v'��`,�".n,«�:� ,�,� y r Y * � �,-.� y ifi �y, r., 1 �; � .y„ , •�'`� -"`s.�'��+�5� ��,�.� ��"�.!�+"'.�'"�"• � °� ��e��T��,�y�''��"''�"�" -.�� '3�( 1.Y �' � '� 'l�^�.; .N!"�� l.' r"' .„ 3C . �2 �� r,�; �r �_ .�.� �_ ,,.r �, � ' ' . .. �.'gh•+K sir,�:"�#;, w�:<. ra.�.�"��, .... ...�.,. .,.... ��..�:. .. .�.. G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Signage Ordinance\City Council Hearing\City Council Staff Report 06-25-09.doc Staff Report ZOA 09-104 Page 10 of 14 June 25, 2009 After reviewing the photos and discussion, the Signage Subcommittee concluded that the existing sign for Closet Tailors was the type of sign that was acceptable for businesses along the freeway. Staff researched the Closet Tailors sign and found that the letters were 12 inches high and non-illuminated. � L �JSET' �2., TA I L C� [� S After researching the size of the signage for store fronts, staff recommended that two standards should be allowed: one standard for larger, stand alone buildings, and one standard for multi-tenant buildings. At the Signage Subcommittee meetings, staff recommended a 50% reduction for single tenant buildings (i.e. Costco) in size from the size of the sign that is allowed on the non-freeway facing side, and 12-inch letters for multi-tenant buildings, similar to the Closet Tailors sign above. All freeway signs would be non-illuminated. During the Planning Commission meeting, some of the Commissioners stated that 12-inches may be too small and requested staff to study the possibility of allowing larger letters. Staff prepared an exhibit showing what a sign might look like if it was 16-inches instead of 12-iches and found that 16-iches can be the maximum allowed and not appear cluttered. G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Signage Ordinance\City Council Hearing\City Council Staff Report 06-25-09.doc Staff Report ZOA 09-104 Page 11 of 14 June 25, 2009 Staff believes that the proposed modifications will address the sign clutter concerns of the City Council and the Architectural Review Commission for businesses facing the freeway. The new code standard described below is staff's recommendation for signage facing the freeway. New Code: The proposed signage ordinance specifically addresses businesses facing the freeway to allow adequate signage for identification on site, while limiting the size to eliminate clutter and large signs facing the freeway. The proposed ordinance will read as follows: Signs facing the freeway: Businesses located in buildings with one side facing the freeway shall be entitled to one sign on the freeway side of the building in addition to other allowed signs for the front of the building, provided the freeway facing sign complies with the following requirements: 1. Signs for single tenant buildings shall be limited to 50% of the total sign area allowed on the front of the building; 2. Signs for multi-tenant buildings, individual business signs shall be limited to a maximum of 16-inch high /etters; 3. All signs facing the freeway shall use a single color, except for federal trademark signs, and a c/ean /etter sty/e font; and 4. All signs facing the freeway shall be non-illuminated individual letters or logos. C. CREATIVE SIGN (NE1l1n: Current Code: The current signage ordinance does not provide staff, or the Architectural Review Commission, with any flexibility in approving a unique sign that may not strictly comply with sections of the signage ordinance. New Code: To address unique or creative signs that may not meet all the sections of the signage ordinance, staff is recommending a new section be added for a Creative Sign Program. The purpose of the Creative Sign process is to provide criteria for signs that are unique in their design approach and use of materials G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Signage Ordinance\City Council Hearing\City Council Staff Report 06-25-09.doc Staff Report ZOA 09-104 Page 12 of 14 June 25, 2009 and to provide a review process for the application of sign regulations and design criteria to creative signs. Approval of a Creative Sign may modify the standards provided in this Chapter as to sign size, height, illumination, number of colors, location, orientation, or other aspects of signs within the limits of this Section. Examples of a Creative Sign that may not meet our current standards are shown below: .��'"�",� "� �4 ,, � ,� ,'i a ,��, �. ,.� � � � �� . � x' ��,,; �c�� rr "' $ �1MUp��q ii� � � i Y�4 }ll� i ��9� ,, i ,, ) � i� i ,<' �' �i i � ��,j;i� �t� �"� G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Signage Ordinance\Ciry Council Hearing\City Council Staff Report 06-25-09.doc Staff Report ZOA 09-104 Page 13 of 14 June 25, 2009 ��. � �'i $_ �+ � ��`, �.. ;, ,�'��} F,.� � � ;: ,, ��;, y �. �N` �r i o �,� � h' �� f "�, �r,` k, ?�``^sa:"��", -�,s F �^1 ��. ». On May 19, 2009, the Planning Commission approved the Signage Ordinance without the Creative Sign section because some of the Commissioners were concerned with allowing signs that do not comply with all the standards. However, the section is not an open approval for any type of sign due to the limits provision in 25.68.110. F. It states that the approva� of a creative sign cannot approve any prohibited sign type, and any sign approved cannot be more than 20% larger than what the ordinance allows. It also requires that any creative signs be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Commission. Staff still believes that this section is needed and will provide a benefit to the business community. D. USER-FRIENDLY ORDINANCE: The current signage ordinance has not had a comprehensive update since the City of Palm Desert was first incorporated. The signage ordinance has had piecemeal updates since 1975, which has resulted in an inconsistent tool for staff and the business community. For example, staff has been working with Westfield's graphic designer to better understand the ordinance. The graphic designer stated that many sections of the current signage ordinance G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Signage OrdinancelCity Council Hearing\City Council Staff Report 06-25-09.doc Staff Report ZOA 09-104 Page 14 of 14 June 25, 2009 are too wordy with unclear sentences and no graphics, charts and/or diagrams to illustrate the requirements. The new ordinance has been reorganized, reworded, and reformatted. Tables, graphics and photos of specific signs have been added to illustrate the development standards. Staff believes that this new signage ordinance will provide a benefit to the business community by clearly identifying development standards, procedures, policies and the overall goal for signage within the city of Palm Desert. III. ENVIRONMETAL REVIEW: The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment will modify current development standards for signs. The proposed ZOA will not result in a negative impact to the environment. Therefore, the project is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act. IV. CONCLUSION: The new signage ordinance will provide staff and the business community with a user- friendly tool for designing and constructing signs. The new ordinance also provides standards for current signage issues that have been raised by the business community and the City Council. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment has been reviewed by the Signage Subcommittee and approved by the Planning Commission, without the Creative Sign section, and Architectural Review Commission with the Creative Sign section. Submitted by: Department Head: �� Tony B gato auri Aylaian Principal Planner Director of Community Development Approva . / ��.; Homer Croy ACM for D elopment Services Joh . ohlmuth Cit�i� anager G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Signage Ordinance\City Council Hearing\City Council Slaff Report 06-25-09.doc