HomeMy WebLinkAboutSupptl Info - Ord. No. 1190 CITV Of Pfll �l OESERT
7j-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
��i� PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260-2575
'rEt:760 346—o6n
Fn�c:760 34i-7o98
i n(oC�'palm-deser[.org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. ZOA 09-104
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A ZONING ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT UPDATING PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTION 25.56 SIGNS.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The City of Palm Desert Community Devefopment Department is proposing a Zoning
Ordinance Amendment for a comprehensive update to Palm Desert Municipal Code
Section 25.56, Signs. The signage ordinance is being updated to reorganized, reformat
the current ordinance, as well as provides new sign standards for non-residential real
estate signs and signs facing the freeway.
PROJECT LOCATION:
City of Palm Desert
PUBLIC HEARING:
SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, June 25, 2009 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council
Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert,
California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be
heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall
be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed Zoning
Ordinance Amendment is available for review in the Department of Community
Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be
limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or
prior to,the public hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk
June 15, 2009 City of Palm Desert, Cafifornia
( i,
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 11, 200T
VIII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B
MR. MICHAEL BRACKEN, Palm Desert, CA, thanked the City for being one of the
major sponsors of the California State University, San Bernardino - Paim Desert
Campus Golf Classic. The Eighth Annual event was held in late April at the Classic
Club and raised in excess of$55,000. Now that the new school year was underway,
he could report that as a result of all of CSUSB's scholarship activities, a total of
$168,000 was awarded to students. Fourteen (14)students were from Palm Desert,
and he would provide the Mayor's O�ce with a letter confirming their names. He
presented a plaque recognizing the City's sponsorship to Mr. Ortega and noted that
the 2008 Tournament was scheduled for Monday, April 21, at the Classic Club.
�' MR. DICK BAXLEY, Palm Desert, CA,said he was before the City Council on behalf
of the Commercial Real Estate Brokerage Community, a number of whom were in
attendance today as well. They had found that they were in violation of the City's
Sign Ordinance,which they understood and wanted to do whatever was necessary
in order to be good neighbors. He'd read the Ordinance and, as it was also pointed
out to him, it was a fairly old regulation; it permits one, 3' x 4' sign for every 200
lineal frontage feet of building, and if less than 200 feet, it was limited to a 3' x 3'
square sign. He said not only does it have an impact on how they've been operating
for 20 years without it being noticed, but their clients were also very concerned
because they wanted their vacancies filled or property sold with some degree of
visibility. They were requesting a group be formed so that they could work with the
City and review the Sign Ordinance,ensuring that they fairly address both the issues
important to the City and the community, and to the commercial clients in order to
achieve an updated ordinance. He suggested the group include City officials, sign
companies,the brokerage community,and anyone else felt to be appropriate for the
task.
Mayor Kelly asked that the City Manager's Office handle this request.
MR. ROB BALLEW, Family YMCA of the Desert, announced they were celebrating
their 25th Anniversary in the Desert with their headquarters in Palm Desert. He said
each day there were 1,700 kids in their Child Care Program and 400 in the Sports
Programs offered from 29 sites in the Coachella Valley currently, seven in
Palm Desert. They felt the City of Palm Desert had been more than a wonderful
partner to the YMCA, and he expressed sincere appreciation. As part of this week's
celebration, they would be holding their Family Fun Day on Saturday, October 13,
from 3:00 p.m . to 6:00 p.m. in Palm Desert Civic Center Park, and he thanked City
Parks Staff for assisting them in the arrangements for use of the Park, with
attendance anticipated at nearly 700.
MR. PETER RITTENHOUSE, Executive Director of the Joslyn Senior Center of the
Cove Communities, 73-750 Catalina Way, Palm Desert, said he was appearing
3
�,. �
MINUTES
REGULAR PqLM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AUGUST 28, 2008
JF Yes.
RDK Motion carries by unanimous vote.
For ur ose f clarificatio :
Councilman Ferguson moved to deny the application in its entirety. Motion was
seconded by Fine�ty and carried by a 5-0 vote.
B. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF AN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
COMMISSION ACTION, DENYING A REQUEST TO ALLOW SIGNAGE
LOCATED HIGHER THAN THE MAN DOORS ON THE REAR OF
BUILDING "A" FACING THE FREEWAY FOR DESERT ARCHES
BUSINESS CENTER LOCATED AT 75-178 GERALD FORD DRIVE
Case No. SA 08-260 (Sign-A-Rama, Applicant/Appellant).
Assistant Planner Kevin Swartz stated the subject property was located east
of Cook Street along Gerald Ford Drive, south of the I-10 Freeway. The
Appiicant submitted a sign program to the Architectural Review Commission
(ARC)for DesertArches Business Center. All signs had been approved with
the exception of the signage for Building"A"facing the freeway;tenant signs
above the roll up doors were proposed. The ARC denied the request
because they didn't want signs facing the freeway, but it was wi�ling to
approve signage above the man doors. Staff was recommending to uphold
the ARC decision. Further responding, he confirmed the Appiicant filed an
appeal to the ARC decision.
Mayor Pro Tem Spiegel asked about the height limitation for signage facing
the freeway.
Mr. Swartz responded it was 20 feet, and the Applicant was proposing 16
feet, which would meet the City's requirement. However, the ARC didn't
want a clutter of signs facing the freeway and having it look like Riverside or
Moreno Valley.
MR. RON ROBINSON stated he was co-ownerof the building,and stated he
appreciated the opportunity for his appeal to be heard by Council. He said
he wasn't asking fo� any waivers or special treatment, only the same sign
program already approved for neighboring tenants. He said the lot he
purchased had special circumstances because it was to the rear of the
Center and situated behind D'Mundo Tile on Gerald Ford Drive. The private
circular road that ran through the business pa�lc was the only access to his
building. He didn't have frontage road access, even though his building had
a Gerald Ford address. He noted he had faxed a letter to each
Councilmember on Monday that showed the site plan. The site plan
17
. � r,. .
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AUGUST 28, 2008
....
illustrated the only access to his building was through a driveway, with a � �
multi-story hotel (Candlewood Suites) on the comer in front of his building,
and as one entered the Center's circular road, there was a three-story
building next to his, giving his building virtuaily no presence on Gerald Ford
Drive or Cook Street. The only viable sign program with any visibility would
be via the freeway; his onty signage was in front of the building for
identification. He provided recent photographs taken of the interior circular
entry road that illustrated his building had no visibility. He had been working
with the City since the beginning, and his initial request was denied. In order
to comply with City standards,he redesigned the building,added arches,and
improved the landscaping, costing him $200,000. He said he wouldn't have
purchased the building in the rear of the development, if he didn't feel he had
freeway signage. He hired a sign company to make a first-class sign
program that was consistent with the City's Ordinance, in fact, according to
the square footage and linear square footage of the buildings, he was
allowed signage of 30 inches high and 12 feet wide, yet he was only asking
for 24 inches high and 12 feet wide; there were significant number of
examples next door where the signage exceeded what he was requesting.
He said he was only asking for an even hand and treatment, and an
opportunity to conduct business, which was not easy in today's market. He
said freeway signage would be a huge plus for his business. He offered to `�
answer questions.
Councilman Ferguson asked if it was the Applicant's intention forthe lettering
to be the same size, color, and style to appear as uniformed in the depiction
presented on page 5 of 7 of the Sign-A-Rama submission.
MR. ROBINSON responded the submittal was intended to showthe size and
the scope of his signage, but he was willing to make it the same color if
required. He said his tenants would be restricted to stay within the guidelines
of the proposed sign program if approved. Further responding, he believed
the same presentation was made to the ARC by his apprentice and
representative from Sign-A-Rama, but the ARC would only approve signage
above the seven foots doors. He said that
worthless because it wouldn't be visible from he freeway. e He unoted
Mr. Ed Landen was present to answer any questions about what was
previously presented to the ARC.
Mayor Pro Tem Spiegel asked if the Applicant had finro businesses backing
up to one another.
MR. ROBINSON responded it was one business that went from one end of
the building to the other. Further responding he said the other building that
was under construction had better signage opportunity because it faced out
towards the driveway and private road, but it didn't have freeway frontage.
18
. . �,... � .
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AUGUST 28, 2008
He noted they could have requested signage for the back of that buiiding, but
they didn't. He said the redesign of the arches were helpful in redirecting
people to the buildings. The subject building was not designed as an
industrial building or office building that required signage, it was designed as
a showroom building, which was 50% improved showroom and 50%
improved warehouse for storage. Parking was maximized to accommodate
showroom, o�ces, etc. Further responding, he said he was involved in real
estate investment and was the owner of the subject building. The small
showroom was occupied by a walk-in bathtub business,and the other space
was occupied by a developer.
Councilman Ferguson stated he agreed with staff's initial philosophical
statement about cluttered signs because when he drove through Moreno
Valley and saw all the solid faced walls with no windows, it looked like an
unattractive place to get off on the freeway. The industrial overlay was
created with the General Plan to add fast food drive—thru's, which weren't
allowed anywhere else in the City, to encourage people to come off the
freeway. In his opinion, the Appllcant's signage above the rolled-up doors
wouldn't draw anyone off the freeway, and he saw very little upside for the
Applicant, and a huge downside for the City. He noted D'Mundo Tile dfd not
advertise along I-10 freeway for people to get off the freeway to go to their
business.
MR. ROBINSON responded D'Mundo Tile and the hotel had exposure to
traffic because they were situated on Gerald Ford Drive. He said he's been
developing, purchasing, and owning property in the desert for nine years,
and he knew there was a tremendous amount of traffic between Palm
Springs, Indio,and Coachella,bycontractors,residents,and consumers. He
said people may hear of the Walk-in Bathtub Company, but they don't know
where it's located. When people drove from Cook Street to Washington
Street, there's opportunity to see where a business is located. Responding
to question, he said his business was in real estate, and his tenants were the
Walk-in Bathtub Company and a real estate developer. He was advised by
his brokers about the importance of this signage because he had no access
to the consumers unless it had freeway signage. He didn't understand why
his sign program was denied when all the buildings surrounding his already
had signage facing the freeway. He understood the ARC didn't want to have
clutter, but his sign program was very clean. He said it was hard to expect
any level of success in this project without freeway signage.
Mayor Pro Tem Spiegel stated the Applicant's proposed sign program was
more appealing than what the ARC approved.
Councilmember Finerty inquired about the City's policy with regard to
signage facing the freeway.
19
. � (
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AUGUST 28, 2008
.....
Mr. Swartz responded anyone could request a signage program, but it � �
required the approval of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). He
said ARC had previously approved sirriilar sign programs facing the freeway
for larger buildings, such as the Self Storage facility. However, the ARC
regretted approving some of them, and it didn't want to continue making the
same mistake.
MR. ED LANDEN stated he had been in the sign business forfive years with
Sign-A-Rama. He said the sign program he created for this particular project
was consistent with what had previously been approved for other projects,
and his sign program was within the City's Ordinance and standards. He
displayed pictures of other developments with a similar sign program,which
he didn't write, but were approved by the ARC. Those approved program
had up to 30-inch tall letters on 24-foot units, and the Applicant was
requesting 24-inch tall letters on 30-foot units. He recognized the other
buildings were larger and perhaps produced more sales tax revenue, but
there were some retail-type of businesses in that Center. He hoped the City
Council would reconsider the ARC decision and benefit his client.
Councilman Kelly stated he usually supported signs on the basis of a
commercial area where it provided commencial admiration, but this being an e ~
industrial park was a different ball game. He didn't think there should be
commercial storefront operations in an industrial area, which weren't any
different than the operations on Cook Street and Joni Drive. He said in the
past there were proposals for billboards along that same area, and the
Council violently opposed it. Responding to question about the current
billboards in Palm Desert that advertised City businesses off the freeway, he
said he prefeRed they weren't there unless it advertised a commercial
operation like Gateway.
Councilmember Finerty concurred with Councilman Kelly's comments. She
empathized with the Applicant and his situation, but it was the iot he had
chosen. She agreed with ARC that if the City continued on this path, it will
start to look like a giant billboard and clutter the City, and it wasn't in the
City's best interest. Therefore, she asked that staff look at amending the
current Ordinance to prohibit signage on the freeway side. She said the size
of the business was irrelevant in this matter. She said ARC had done their
job, and it had realized the signage clutter. She wondered if a small sign
could be installed in front of the property out by Gerald Ford Drive, or
perhaps in front of the hotel.
Councilman Ferguson said he recently had a discussion with Ms. Aylaian, ��'
and with Sign-A-Rama on a separate business relocation matter, and the
tension, history, and philosophy of signage was discussed. He said the �
City's Sign Ordinance Committee may very well provide some definitive
20
. �� (
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 28, 2008
decisions on what was and wasn't allowed. He pointed out the ARC differed
remarkably from the Planning Commission, because it had complete
aesthetic discretion to evaluate buildings individually and could come up with
a different conclusion on very similar buildings; the ARC evaluated the
proximity of a neighborhood, the site plan, and a variety of issues
surrounding a project. He believed the ARC was trying to tell the City
Council that the current trend for signage needed to be stopped before it
looked like Fontana or Moreno Valley, and that it had made some strides to
help some of the buildings early on when there was nothing but rose lands.
In addition, the subject building was located near the University and Cal
State campuses to University Park, and he didn't want to have industrial
signs leading up to the intellectual capitol of the City's community. Finally,
the Applicant purchased a building in an unpopular location, and he didn't
blame the Applicant for trying to add value to it by increasing its signage, but
it didn't force him to agree and would be voting no on this matter.
Mayor Pro Tem Spiegel stated the ARC made a mistake in approving
signage over the man doors because it wasn't an appealing option. He
understood the City currently had signage facing the freeway,and he agreed
with Counciiman Ferguson's comments, but he felt the City needed to
re-evaluate its Signage Ordinance and set it straight. He agreed it wasn't fair
to the Applicant, but the City needed to begin making a stand.
Mayor Benson stated she was not 1n favor of signage facing the freeway, but
she would agree to some type of monument signage on Gerald Ford Drive
that would direct people to businesses to the rearof Desert Arches Business
Center. She said there was nothing worse than going to an address and not
�nding the business, similar to what the City was experiencing at University
Park. Councilman Kelly concurred.
Councilman Ferguson suggested the motion include an invitation to the
Applicant to participate in the Sign Task Force that had a number of freeway
frontage owners within development buildings facing the same situation.
Councilmember Finerty moved to, by Minute Motion: 1)Deny the appeal and uphold
the Architectural Review Commission decision; 2
Applicant/Appellant on a viable location for appropriatedmonument sign ge foW�Desert
Arches Business Center; 3) invite the Applicant/Appellant to participate in the ad hoc Sign
Task Force. Motion was seconded by Ferguson and carried by a 5-0 vote.
21
�'` �
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2008
private donors. With the current economic times, it typically translated to
increase child abuse. Because of the lack of local resources and the great
need to treat and prevent child abuse in the community, she asked that the
Council give strong consideration to their CDBG in February.
With no further testimony offered, Mayor Spiegel left the public comment period
o en for 30 days.
B. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION ACTION DENYING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE
FOR AN EXCEPTION TO PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTION 25.68, SIGNS, TO PERMIT A THIRD MONUMENT SIGN
IN THE UNIVERSITYVILLAGE CENTER,WHICH CURRENTLY HAS
THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MONUMENT SIGNS THE CODE
ALLOWS, FOR CARL'S JR. LOCATED AT 36-879 COOK STREET
Case No.VAR 08-304(National Sign and Marketing/Edward C. Blend,
Applicant/Appellant).
Assistant Plann Kevin Swartz stated Carl's Jr. was located inside the
University Village Center, which was located on the southwest corner
of Cook Street and Gerald Ford. He said the Palm Desert Municipal
Code Section 25.68,allowed for one monument sign perfrontage,and
University Village has two frontage roads; Cook Street and Gerald
Ford Drive. He said University Village currently had an existing
monument sign at each frontage road; therefore, the applicant was
asking for a Variance for a third monument. The Applicant didn't want
multi-tenant signs, instead wanted public identification signs. Carl's
Jr. fronts along Gerald Ford Drive, and the Applicant was proposing
to erect a monument sign along Cook Street in the desert landscaped
area, six feet from the face of the curb. The sign meets all
development standards, but the Planning Commission agreed with
staff that the proposed monument sign would create clutter along
Cook Street and since all the businesses in the area complied with the
Sign Ordinance, approval today would set a precedence for all
businesses. The Applicant appealed the action of the Planning
Commission for a monument sign. Staff was recommending that the
City Council reaffirm the action of the Planning Commission denying
the Variance requested by Carl's Jr. He added both Architectural
Review Commission (ARC) and Planning Commission had a
discussion for a temporary sign. Current lease signs were located
along Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive,which were approved at the
staff level with a temporary use permit on a yearly basis. He
concluded his presentation and offered to answer questions.
Responding to question about the location of the Carl's Jr. monument
32
�.
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2008
sign, he said the monument sign would be on Cook Street, and Carl's
Jr. fronts on Gerald Ford Drive.
Councilman Ferguson asked what legal findings needed to be made
in order to support a Variance from the City's Code.
Mr. Erwin noted those findings were set forth in the staff report as
finding unusual physical hardship (dealing with dimensions of the
property in some manner), extra ordinary circumstances applicable to
this property that wouldn't generally apply to others within the same
zone, strict interpretation of the City's Ordinance in the application
would deprive the Applicant the privileges enjoyed by others in the
same zone or location,and that the granting of the Variance would not
be a detrimentat public health,safety or welfare,or materially injurious
to other properties in the vicinity.
Councilman Ferguson asked if any of the four elements mentioned by
Mr. Erwin found by the ARC or Planning Commission.
Mr. Swartz responded that they weren't discussed.
Councilman Ferguson responded it must of been discussed, because
proliferation of signs was mentioned, which meant there wasn't
anything unique about Carl's Jr.that wasn't different about Rock's Fire
House or every other store along Cook Street.
Mr. Swartz responded the ARC and Planning Commission did not find
anything unique about Carl's Jr.
Councilman Kelly noted he traveled on Interstate 10 towards
Sacramento on Interstate 5, and it seemed that every off ramp had
fast food restaurants listed on a sign on the freeway; he asked if the
City's attempted to do the same.
Councilman Ferguson responded he and Councilmember Finerty were
on a Signage Subcommittee on what to do with these stores that sort
of front the freeway, and the best conclusion they've come up with
was a sign for everything that was at that intersection, but only one
monument. However, they've been informal discussions thus far, but
the Committee has met with Real Estate and Commercial Property
individuals, and he agreed it was a good solution, but the City didn't
have it yet.
Councilman Kelly suggested meeting with State Highway Department,
because the signs off Interstate 10 were Caltran's signs. He said
33
� �r �
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2008
those signs identified hotels and restaurants that were adjacent to that
interchange.
Councilman Ferguson replied it was a great idea.
Mayor Spiegel declared the public hearing o en and invited the Applicant to
address the Council at this time.
MR. STEVE ROSEBLUM, Applicant representing National Sign
Marketing Corporation, 1350 First Street, Chino, California, stated he
represented CLK Inc., who was the operator of the Carl's Jr.
restaurants in the Coachella Valley. He said he's had 10 years
experience in the signage industry along with 10+years in retail, and
2+ years working for a municipality. He said he would be calling on
Mr. Carl L. Karcher, President of CLK Inc., and Mr. Fred Evans with
The Evans Company, who's the landlord to speak. He said the
original design intent on the project was to match the identification
signs at the entrance to the Center. Their proposed design would
utilize the exact same concrete block and lighting as specified by the
developer in order to provide a sign that complimented the rest of the
signage there, as well as provide a nice curbside appeal without
creating clutter in that shopping center. The Applicant recognized iYs
a key important element for the City. Unfortunately, due to the site
geographic conditions and reduced visibility on Cook Street, Carl's Jr.
was disadvantaged from its competitors and merits the granting of this
Variance for a monument sign. He said if someone happened to
research and look up Carl's Jr. on Cook Street, which it did have a
Cook Street address, they wouldn't find it because it actually fronted
on Gerald Ford. The proposed signage they were looking for was
designed to meet City Code requirements, which allowed similar
businesses to have monument sign at their site. The key difference
was that they were not in a shopping center.
Councilman Ferguson interjected and stated Mr. Carl Karcher, who
was also a good friend of his, was aware of the location of his
restaurant, and he was also aware there were two monument signs
for each frontage and those were already taken. He said if the
Council followed the ApplicanYs logic, then the City would have the
clutter that was mentioned by staff.
MR. ROSENBLUM replied he will cover some of those facts. He
displayed an image of the proposed sign, and stated the site had
unique conditions; it was in a hidden area of the shopping center. He
said Carl's Jr. received approximately 60%of its business through the
drive thru, but if a motorist was driving down Cook Street, they
34
� `
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2008
wouldn't be aware the other side existed because it was di�cult to
see. He said all the other competitors had street oriented signage and
also enjoyed high visibility where Carl's Jr, didn't, which was one of
those conditions they must meet, so they were at a disadvantage.
They have established a team of support of the developer at the
shopping center to add a monument sign due to the unusual
characteristics of this. He noted Council was probably familiar with
the intense research and proposals that went into the design of the
shopping center, and when that shopping center went in, it was
important for them to look nice. They worked together with the
landlord to develop something because they were a key tenant to
them. He said they would be the only tenant that would be allowed to
have a monument sign, and that was the key difference; no one else
would be entitled to that. He said Carl's Jr. was specifically
disadvantaged due to those unique characteristics. This proposal will
help remedy the disadvantages and allow them to be a viable
competitive business at a prominent location within a community. He
said the client needed to be successful or it would be a disservice to
the City, the development, and the business itself. He said they met
the conditions the City Attorney mentioned and Councilman Ferguson
inquired about. Responding to question about how he met the
conditions, he said, it was unique in that they were a fast food
restaurant that fronts on one street, and actually had an address on
a different street, and they would not affect another business or cause
a slippy slope for those business. He was not well-versed on the
conditions as the City Attorney, and stated they would not cause
future di�culty for the City if this Variance was approved.
Councilman Ferguson stated a Variance was almost impossible to
meet; however if it was an exception or something else, it might be
different. He said the Applicant failed to mention he was at an
advantage by being the only drive-thru restaurants north of a frontage
street parallel to Interstate 10 because of the City's Freeway Overlay
Zone.
MR. ROSENBLUM responded he could understand his point, but
unfortunately with the immediate complications near by, it was
certainly critical people knew they were there. Further responding, he
said he was 90% sure Jack in the Box had a monument sign, which
was the most immediate competition near Carl's Jr.
Councilman Ferguson couldn't recall seeing a monument sign, but
would take the Applicant's word; however, he found it difficult to
believe.
35
. � �,�-� .
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2008
Ms. Aylaian didn't believe Jack in the Box had a monument sign off
the street.
Councilman Ferguson noted the City had an agreement with the
developer that he would have two monument signs for his
development.
MR. ROSENBLUM stated that in order for business success in today's
economic times, it was imperative they worked progressively towards
opportunities to increase business traffic. He said granting the
Variance was an opportunity for the City to help a local business
succeed. During today's City Council meeting, it was discussed the
City's number one revenue source was sales tax revenue. He said it
was truly important the City worked together with its businesses to
insure a strong financial future for both entities. He said the City
Council's granting the proposed design will support the City's intent of
supporting business partnership with responsible development.
Finally, he said Carl's Jr. was part of the fabric of the Coachella
Valley, specifically Palm Desert for more than 25 years. He
concluded his presentation and offered to answer questions.
MR. CARL KARCHER, President of CLK, Inc., stated they made a
decision a number of years ago to be at the subject location, and one
of the reason was due to the limited amount of drive thru space
available in Palm Desert. At the time they chose the site, they looked
at the infrastructure, mountains, office space, and short hills behind
the site that were all slated for housing. So, they had envisioned
employees working there, construction workers, and homeowners to
be there. At their corporate board meeting on Tuesday this week,
they had Mitt Romney, and former Senator James Talent from
Missouri conference in to talk about the economy, and they felt the
economy would not tum around quickly and the Country was in for a
major recession; so it would be quite a while before the homes they
had envisioned to be developed. He knew about the apartments and
hotel going in, but their business needed critical mass to support a
restaurant, because they were only doing about 1/3 volume of what
was needed. He believed they met the four criteria points needed for
a variance. He said Jack in the Box, Arco, and the Hampton Inn had
monument signs. With regard to the clutter, he said the stretch at
University Village from Cook Street to the Gardens, had one
monument sign. At the Village, the Evans group decided their two
monument signs would be non-descriptive, short, and with no tenants
on it, even though they could, but they decided against it. He said if
they had three tenants on that monument sign, one additional sign on
36
� \. • �,
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2008
this huge stretch wouldn't create clutter. He hoped to obtain the
Council's support and stated he was available to answer questions.
MR. FRED EVANS, stated he viewed this situation with a different set
of glasses, in that these were difficult times, and every idea brought
to the table needed to be supported. He said every tenant was having
individual challenges, and the most di�cult challenge in today's
market was leasing space; allowing those spaces to go dark would be
the worse thing that could happen. He said as a landlord and
developer, he had to take these opportunities with tenants who were
trying hard, doing well, and had invested in the Center and the
community. He said technically the City was correct, the Municipal
Code allowed a certain number of signs, but everyone was in a
condition where it needed to look beyond the Municipal Code and do
what's correct for the community and tenants. He will continue to do
whatever he had to do for his tenants because that was his job. He
said all involved were in it together.
Mayor Spiegel asked how Mr. Evans could guarantee only one sign
would be there when there were other tenants that might one another
sign.
MR. EVANS replied they had an agreement with Mr. Karcher, CLK
Inc., and it was already written in stone, and it was based on the fact
that he was the only drive-thru tenant allowed in the Center by the City
and the Evans Group. Further responding, he said the Fire House
and others had already agreed not to pursue another sign, and those
deals were already done. Following up to a comment made about
freeway signs, he said Caltrans and Lamar Advertising had an
agreement to not allow freeway signs because Lamar Advertising
believed it would take away from their marketing dollars.
Councilman Ferguson noted he represented Lamar Advertising, and
stated the comment was patently false.
MR. EVANS replied he hoped it wasn't true, but he was given that
information directly by Lamar Advertising.
MR, KARCHER stated they used to have a sign at the Bob Hope exit,
and they came down last year and they were gone. He called
Caltrans to find out how to get freeway signs, and they said it only
worked if the City had a population of 6,000 or less. So he installed
signs up at Thousand Palms where they had them up for years at the
intersection. He said Bermuda Dunes,which was a small community,
also had one sign up. He received a letter from Caltrans this past year
37
, �. �.�
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2008
stating the signs were coming down because the outdoor companies
objected to those signs, and because the Coachella Valley was larger
than 6,000. He said Caltrans had specific requirements for those
signs.
Councilman Kelly encouraged him to follow-up with his legislative
representative Senator Benoit, because there were more billboards
from Monterey Avenue and Gene Autry Trail than there were to Moro
Bay through San Bernardino County, through Los Angeles County,
through Ventura County, and San Luis Obispo County.
With no further testimony, Mayor Spiegel closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Benson understood the Applicantwanting a third sign,
but she didn't think the City needed to reduce their standards because
of the recession. She said everybody in town was feeling the same
thing whether it was a restaurant, walk-in, or drive-thru. She said it
was just a sign of the times, and a monument sign wouldn't attract
more customers. She said the City only had one drive-thru, and it was
by design, which was why they created a zone by the freeway. She
would be in favor of reaffirming the action of the Planning
Commission.
Councilman Ferguson stated he wished this was a closer call for him,
but he knew the laws, and knew there was no way the Applicant was
near meeting the standard for a Variance. He said the City had a
quirky thing called "exception," which had a dubious legality in his
opinion, but the Applicant wasn't asking for that, it was asking for a
Variance. He said many had asked the Council to bend, twist, or
change the City's Code because of the economic times. He said he
and Councilmember Benson about 15 years ago created the Freeway
Overlay Zone that allowed the drive-thru,and it was specifically meant
to cater to people just coming off the freeway, and for years the City
had a Planning Director that kept trying to stretch it further and further.
He said the last time the Evans Company came to the City Council,
they had a tenant called Bad Ass Coffee that wanted a drive-thru, and
the Council said no because it was north of Gerald Ford Drive. The
fact that Carl's Jr. even got a drive-thru was remarkable to him.
However, the Applicant was now requesting a frontage sign that was
300 feet away from the Carl's Jr. on Cook Street, would simply not fly
with him, in addition to the precedence it would set, and the law it
would have to ignore. He and Councilmember Benson, and former
Councilman Crites developed a view corridor at Cook Street with the
Evans Company to writing the aesthetic gateway to the City, with the
Universities on the other side where they wanted people to have a
38
. � (
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2008
visually easy enticing way to enter the City. They recognized sooner
or later Cook Street would replace Monterey, particularly with the
Walmart and Sam's Club there, and the traffic congestion at Dinah
Shore Drive. So far,that corner had developed beautifully, so he was
amazed the Evans Company would now come back and ask the City,
on the basis of an agreement with Carl Karche�, CLK Inc.,which didn't
prevent them from entering into an agreement with someone else. If
it was a closer call, he would feel better because then he would find
a way to help the Applicant. He couldn't support the request as
presented.
Councilman Kelly stated he viewed this different than his colleagues
because there were extenuating circumstances. For example,
a100-foot frontage allowed for one monument sign, and a 1,000-foot
frontage also allowed for one monument sign,which didn't seem right
to him. As far as other tenants coming to the Council for help, he
thought they should come to the Council, and if there was something
Council could do, it should help. He said that Center could create
traffic, but he didn't see the same catastrophe. He's looking at all the
acreage at that Center, which he estimated was 20 acres, and all
those office buildings would not need a monument sign.
MR. EVANS responded it was 26 acres with only two monument
signs.
Councilman Kelly reiterated he saw this situation differently, and
thought the Council needed to go out there and help the Applicant to
put another sign out on Cook Street in order to get traffic there. He
thought the City could assist in designing a sign that wouldn't cause
clutter. He said the City did so many other things like the Facade
Enhancement Program where it gave money to dress up a building,
so the City did things to stimulate business, but it didn't do it for
everyone. He said that was the reason why the City had a City
Council. It was not like an adding machine, where you pushed
buttons and something came out, things weren't always automatic.
He agreed the City had ordinances to adhere to, but the City Council
was here to make decision in unique situations,which he believed this
was.
Councilman Ferguson agreed the Council awarded Facade
Enhancement funds based on lineal footage of the frontage, and he
thought it would be far easier and much more legal to amend the
City's ordinance to allow for more monument signs through the
process it was already going through for large developments. Every
time he drove by Walmart and Sam's Club, he noticed they had a lot
39
, �,�� � �
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2008
more than two faces per side on that development, and he'd rather
amend the Ordinance and allow for big shopping centers to have
multiple monument signs, than to say they were so extraordinarily
different to qualify them for a variance.
Councilman Kelly agreed and stated it was a good point, and why not
allow extra monument signs when there was a larger complex, like 26
acres.
Councilman Ferguson responded the Committee was in the process
of cleaning it up, so it's a great point to insert for the Council's
consideration; however, it may take a little bit longer, but at least it will
be done right and legally.
Councilman Kelly suggested a temporary sign at that location while it
worked on the Ordinance. He had read in the staff report that the
Applicant did not want to consider a temporary sign.
MR. ROSENBLUM replied they woutd agree to a temporary sign.
Councilman Kelly thought for sure a temporary sign would help that
Center. He said if people were being attracted into Carl's Jr., it would
attract people into the Village Center, thereby helping the entire
Center.
Councilman Kelly moved to allow the Applicant to have a temporary sign until the
Ordinance included language that would accommodate for larger complex to have
additional monument signs. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and received a no-action on
a 2-2 vote.
Councilman Ferguson moved to refer this to the Signage Subcommittee and ask
them to do frontage signs based on linear frontage and not just one sign per side
regardless of how large the development was. Motion died for lack of a second.
Mayor Spiegel asked how long it would take to bring the Ordinance back to
the City Council.
Ms. Aylaian replied staff currently had a number of signage related issues
with the Zoning Ordinance they hoped to tie up and clean up with an update
of a Zoning Ordinance, but if staff was reviewing just this particular issue,
they could have it back in 30 days to address monument signage per lineal
foot per frontage.
Mayor Spiegel commented Mr. Evans would probably be able to place more
than one monument sign with the size of his property.
40
. �`... �
MINUTES
REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DECEMBER 11, 2008
Councilman Kelly responded it could be adjusted accordingly.
Councilman Ferguson stated if an ordinance was introduced in 30 days, by
the time it reached the second reading, it would probably be 60 days. He
said the City's been putting off the Sign Ordinance for so long that he would
rather do the whole thing as a package.
Ms.Aylaian stated if staff would be working on the whole Sign Ordinance,the
first week in February would be a more appropriate time.
Mayor Spiegel questioned why not allow the Applicant a temporary sign until
the ordinance was approved.
Councilman Ferguson replied there would be a million people that would love
temporary signs because the Signage Subcommittee was dealing with
realtor's and commercial property owners.
Councilman Kelly recognized he was not on the Signage Subcommittee, but
he was expected to speak up and state his opinion on behalf of the people
that elected him, and just because he wasn't on the Signage Subcommittee,
his one vote had the same weight.
Ms. Aylaian stated she had explained to the Applicant that he wouldn't need
a continuance because if the City was amending it's ordinance, he wouldn't
need a variance. Responding to comment, she confirmed the Applicant
would still have to go through ARC and the City's discretionary review.
Councilman Kelly asked if the Signage Subcommittee had business
representation.
Ms. Ayaian replied it had representation from broker's and businesses.
Mr. Erwin stated the Applicant needed to agree to the continuance because
there was a time limit within which the City needed to act.
MR. ROSENBLUM agreed to the February 12, 2008 continuance.
Mayor Spiegel re-opened the public hearing.
Councilman Ferguson moved to continue the matter to the meeting of February 12,
2009, with staff to work with Signage Subcommittee on related amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance in the interim. Councilmember Benson seconded the motion and carried by a
4-0 vote, with Finerty ABSENT.
41
C11V OF Pfll �l DESERI
73-5�� FRED WARING DRIVE
w%,
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346—o6ti
Fnx: 76o 340-0574
info�palm-deserc.org
April 14, 2009
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION
CASE NO: ZOA 09-104
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a new
comprehensive sign program for the City.
Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the
applicant, the Architectural Review Commission granted approval of the new sign
guidelines as presented.
Date of Action: April 14, 2009
Vote: Motion carried 6-0
(An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the
City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any
amendments to this approved plan would need to be re-submitted to Commission
for approval.)
STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved
by the Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building
and Safety.
�
L,PtlMRO OM If(10.EO/�/F1
CITY Of Pfll �l DESERI
73-5�0 FRED WARING �RIVE
PALM �ESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEt: 76o 346—o6�i
Fnx: 76o 340-0574
i nfo@palm-desert.org
March 24, 2009
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION ACTION
CASE NO: ZOA 09-104
NATURE OF PROJECT/APPROVAL SOUGHT: Request approval of a new
comprehensive sign program for the City.
Upon reviewing the plans and presentations submitted by staff and by the
applicant, the Architectural Review Commission granted a continuance to the next
meeting.
Date of Action: March 24, 2009
Vote: Motion carried 4-0-0-2, with Commissioners Gregory and
Van Vliet absent
(An appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the
City of Palm Desert within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. Any
amendments to this approved plan would need to be re-submitted to Commission
for approval.)
STAFF COMMENTS: It is your responsibility to submit the plans approved
by the Architectural Review Commission to the Department of Building
and Safety.
CONTINUED CASES: In order to be placed on the next meeting's agenda,
new or revised plans must be submitted no later than 9:00 a.m. the
Monday eight days prior to the next meeting.
..
;,RIYI[OOM 11(Y(U0111l1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2503
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT UPDATING
AND REVISING PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 25.68.
SIGNS.
CASE NO: ZOA 09-104
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did
on the 5th day of May 2009, hold a duly noticed public hearing, which was continued to
May 19, 2009, to consider the request by the City of Palm Desert for approval of the
above noted; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act",
Resolution No. 06-78, the Director of Community Development has determined that the
project will not have a negative impact on the environment and is exempt from CEQA,
and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning
Commission did find the foltowing facts and reasons to exist to justify the
recommendation to the City Council of said request:
1. That the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the
Policy 12 of the Palm Desert General Plan Community Design Element.
2. That the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment will provide the signage
standards, guidelines and regulations that are consistent with the Palm
Desert General Plan Community Design Element.
3. That the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety or general welfare, or be materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the City of Palm Desert.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Palm Desert, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Planning Commission in this case.
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of ZOA
09-104.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2503
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 5th day of May 2009, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: CAMPBELL, DELUNA, LIMONT, TANNER
NOES: SCHMIDT
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
!� .
VAN G. T NER, Chairperson
ATTEST:
—�,---'`-_
LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2503
EXHIBIT A
CHAPTER 25.68 - SIGNS
25.68.010 — Intent and Purpose
A. This Chapter is intended to implement the goals and policies of the general plan,
particularly with regard to developing a city that is visually attractive and preserving and
enhancing the visual aspects of the city's streets, highways, vistas and view sheds.
B. The purpose of this Chapter is to:
1. Provide each sign user an opportunity for adequate identification while guarding
against excessive advertising and the confusing proliferation of signs by
regulating the time, place, manner, and design quality under which signs may be
displayed;
2. Ensure signs are in harmony with the building, the neighborhood both existing
commercial and residential or existing or proposed residential communities and,
other signs in the area by eliminating sign clutter and promoting compatibility,
proportion, simplicity, design quality, and sign effectiveness; and
3. Protect the safety of motorists and pedestrians by minimizing the distraction of
excessive, intrusive signs, as well as to protect the life, health, property, and
general welfare of residents and visitors.
25.68.020 — Applicability of Chapter
A. Signs allowed. The sign standards provided in this Chapter are intended to apply to all
types of signs in all zoning districts in the city. Only signs authorized by this Chapter
shall be allowed. Signs erected illegally shall be abated in compliance with Section
25.68.130 (Abatement of Illegal Signs).
B. New zoning district. If a new zoning district is created after the enactment of this
Chapter, no signs shall be allowed until this Chapter is amended to govern the new
zoning district.
C. Sign review criteria. The sign review criteria specified in Section 25.68.030. D (Design
Review Criteria) shall be used by the applicable review authority during the design
review process to ensure that signs are well designed, compatible with their
surroundings, and do not detract from the overall visual quality of the city.
D. Nonconforming signs. An existing legally permitted sign that does not conform to the
requirements of this Chapter shall be deemed a lawful nonconforming sign and shall be
subject to the requirements of Section 25.68.110 (Nonconforming Signs).
E. Official signs. Nothing contained in this Chapter shall prevent the installation,
construction, or maintenance of official traffic, fire, or police signs, temporary traffic-
control signs used during construction and maintenance of utility facilities, and
substructure location and identification signs required to protect these facilities, devices,
and markings of the state Department of Transportation, Director of Community
3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2503
Development, City Council, or of other competent public authorities, or the posting of the
notices required by law.
25.68.030 — Sign Permit Application and Design Review Required
A. Sign permit application. It is unlawful for any person to place, alter, or to permit the
placement or alteration of a sign, including painted signs upon any property without first
obtaining an approved sign permit application from the Department of Community
Development. Signs that are exempt from this requirement are listed in Section
25.68.040 (Exempt Signs).
B. Application contents. Applications for sign permits shall be made on a form provided
by the Department of Community Development and shall be accompanied by a fee as
established by City Council resolution. The application shall provide the information and
material specified in the Department's handout for a sign permit application.
The applicant shall also provide a signed statement from the property owner or
authorized representative that the owner or representative has reviewed the proposed
sign(s) and approves of the proposed sign(s) and their location prior to submittal of the
sign permit application to the city.
C. Design review required. The following sign types and sign programs shall be submitted
to the Architectural Review Commission for approval prior to approval of a sign permit
application:
1. Freestanding signs (monument signs);
2. Comprehensive sign programs in compliance with Section 25.68.100;
3. Individual signs for any building with more than 100 lineal feet of building
frontage facing a public or private right of way; and
4. Any sign that the Director of Community Development determines should be
reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission due to the unique design,
context, cotor, size, shape, location, or circumstance of the sign.
D. Sign review criteria. In approving or rejecting a sign permit application, the reviewing
authority shall consider the design review criteria provided below. The design criteria
shall not be construed or applied in a manner as to violate any legal rights bestowed by
state or federal law. The reviewing authority shall find:
1. That the sign is necessary for the applicanYs enjoyment of substantial trade and
property rights;
2. That the sign is consistent with the intent and purpose of this Chapter and Title;
3. That the sign does not constitute a detriment to public health, safety and welfare;
4. That the size, shape, color, height, and placement of the sign is compatible with
and will have a harmonious relationship to the building it identifies, the
surrounding neighborhoods, and other signs in the area;
4
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2503
5. That both the location of the proposed sign and the design of its visual elements
(lettering, words, figures, colors, decorative motifs, spacing, and proportions) are
legible under normal viewing conditions prevailing where the sign is to be
located;
6. That the location, height, and design of the proposed sign does not obscure from
view or unduly detract from existing or adjacent signs;
7. That the location and design of the proposed sign, its size, shape, illumination,
and color are compatible with the visual characteristics of the surrounding area
so as not to detract from or cause depreciation of the value of adjacent
developed properties;
8. That the location and design of a proposed sign in close proximity to a residential
district does not adversely affect the value or character of the adjacent residential
uses;
9. That any neon tubing used in conjunction with an open pan channel sign is
incorporated as an integral part of the sign design with careful attention to color,
intensity of light, and the use of colors that are not overly bright ; and
10. That the quantity of information displayed in the sign does not cause visual
clutter.
25.68.040 - Exempt Signs
The following signs, if not illuminated, shall be allowed in residential, commercial, and industrial
zoning districts without a sign permit application subject to any specific limitations provided
below:
A. Non-residential only; one identification sign not exceeding one square foot in area
displaying only the name and address of the owner or occupant and/or hours of
business operation;
B. Temporary signs in compliance with Section 25.68.090 (Temporary Signs) except
special event banners and new business establishment identification signs in
compliance with Section 25.68.090;
C. Signs inside a building set back five feet or more from a window and not readily visible
from public right of way;
D. Directional or safety signs provided that signs do not exceed three square feet per face;
E. Official emblems or flags of nonprofit organizations;
F. Religious, charitable, educational, or cultural posters not exceeding 16 square feet in
area and not displayed for a period greater than 30 days;
G. A no-trespassing or no-dumping sign not exceeding three square feet shall be permitted
for each property in addition to other authorized signs;
5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2503
H. Governmental or other legally required posters, notices, or signs;
I. Political signs in compliance with the provisions of Subsection 25.68.090 C;
J. Directional and public convenience signs for public and quasi public uses. The total
number of signs allowed shall be based on the minimum number necessary for
adequate public identification as determined by the Director of Community Development;
K. Utility or telephone pay station signs;
L. Bingo signs, provided that said signs shall not exceed a maximum three square foot in
area; not installed more than 48 hours before the event; and removed immediately
following the event;
M. Lottery signs for a business licensed to sell California State Lottery tickets shall be
entitled to one window or door mounted lottery decal five and one-half inches by five and
one-half inches and no more than one specific identification poster not to exceed 7
square feet; and
N. "Open" signs, either mounted on the inside of a window or on a pedestal near the main
entrance if a window sign is not used. Maximum sign area shall be three square feet.
Signs may be double sided. Pedestal signs shall be located on private property and shall
not interfere with pedestrian movement. Signs shatl not flash, move, blink, rotate, or
appear to do any of the foregoing.
25.68.050 — Prohibited Signs
The following signs, displays, and devices, as defined in Section 25.68.150, are prohibited in the
city:
A. Advertising devices;
B. Awnings that are back-lit (internally illuminated) so that the awning radiates light;
C. Business and identification signs that mention more than two goods or services sold or
available on the premises;
D. Cabinet or can signs that are internally illuminated with translucent panels that allow the
entire sign background to be illuminated. Signs with internal illumination are permitted
only if the sign background is opaque and the only portion of the sign that appears
illuminated is the lettering and/or a registered trademark or logo;
E. Electronic changeable copy signs;
F. Commercial mascots;
G. Neon signs, except "open" signs placed in windows and neon tubing used in conjunction
with open pan channel signs;
H. Off-site outdoor advertising signs (billboards);
6
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2503
I. Pole signs
J. Roof signs;
K. Signs that rotate, move, flash, blink, or appear to do any of the foregoing with the
exception of approved time and temperature displays;
L. Signs on public property, in the public right-of-way, or on public utility poles unless
otherwise authorized by this Chapter. Signs shall include, but not be limited to, realtor,
open house, and garage sale signs. This prohibition shall include all portable signs
including those placed on vehicles with the exception of vehicle identification signs, and
permitted signs on taxicabs;
M. Signs that do not identify a current use on the premises, name of the owner or user, or
that do not promote a product, an interest, service, or entertainment available on the
premise. Signs shall not advertise a business, accommodation, service, or activity not
provided on the premises on which the sign is located;
N. Signs located in a manner that the sign or a portion of the sign or sign supports interfere
with the free use of a fire escape, exit or standpipe, or obstruct a required door, stairway,
ventilator, window, or public way or are otherwise hazardous;
O. Signs that imitate an official traffic sign or signal, or contain the words "stop," "go,"
"slow," "caution," "danger," "warning," or similar words, excepting construction signs and
barricades, and except when the words are incorporated in the permanent name of a
business;
P. Temporary or portable freestanding signs, including A-frame and similar types of
portable signs, except as otherwise provided in this Chapter; and
Q. Vehicle signs.
25.68.060 — General Provisions for all Signs
A. Compliance required. No person shall erect, re-erect, construct, enlarge, alter, change
copy, repair, move, improve, remove, convert, or equip any sign or sign structure in the
city, or cause or permit the same to be done, contrary to or in violation of any of the
provisions of this Chapter.
B. Uncertainty of Chapter provisions. The Architectural Review Commission shall have
the authority to interpret the provisions of this Chapter at the request of the Director of
Community Development, or when an appeal of a decision of the Director is filed with
the Architectural Review Commission.
C. Sign integration requirement. All signs shall be designed as an integral part of the
overall building design and shall be located in a manner consistent with the building's
design.
7
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2503
D. Sign construction. Signs that are not temporary signs shall be constructed of
permanent materials, including but not limited to metal, wood, acrylic, or other
comparable durable weatherproof materials.
E. Sign area computation.
1. The area of a sign shall be measured within a single continuous perimeter of not
more than eight straight lines enclosing the extreme limits of writing,
representation, emblem, or any figure of similar character, together with any
material or color forming an integral part of the display or used to differentiate the
sign from the background against which it is placed.
, — �,
- —, sp�vu�cn
����tal
�
I I L
-______' I OP
�'- �
�Cle�ners� N
;_____________________,,�
Lettering Wfth No Sig�Board Lettering With No Sign Board
I+� _...'i,,.�
r — ——t
� � s��wsder,
�
� �,� � -�---�-�...-�...��..
� ���� �
�
M � � �
� � ' .�
� �
�"'1 1--�' �n
� �
� ��� Lettering With Sign Board
F'� 'i'�
2. In the case of a sign designed with more than one exterior surface (e.g., two
sides), the area shall be computed as including only the maximum single display
surface that is visible from any ground position at one time.
3. The supports, uprights, or structure on which any sign is supported shall not be
included in determining the sign area unless the supports, uprights, or structures
are designed in a manner as to form an integral background of the display.
F. Sign height measurement - monument signs. The height of a monument sign shall be
measured from the highest part of the text area of the sign to the grade of the adjacent
street or the surFace grade beneath the sign, whichever the Director of Community
Development determines is appropriate given the physical characteristics of the site.
Decorative features of the sign approved by the Architectural Review Commission may
be excluded from the measurement of sign height.
8
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2503
G. Sign height - wall signs. The upper most part of a wall-mounted sign shall not be
higher than the eave line of the building on which it is located as measured from the
underside of the eave and in no event higher than 20 feet.
H. Electrical raceways and conduits. Electrical raceways and conduits shall be placed so
that they are not within public view. Where this is physically impractical, or doing so
would damage significant architectural features or materials, the Architectural Review
Commission may grant a waiver of this requirement provided all raceways, conduits, and
similar devices are designed in a way that they appear to be part of the overall sign or
building design.
I. Frontage on two or more streets. A business on a lot that has frontage on more than
one street shall be allowed the authorized sign area on each street; provided, that the
permitted sign areas may not be accumulated on one street and shall not exceed the
allowed sign area of any one street.
J. Sign removal or replacement. When a sign is removed all brackets, poles, and other
structural elements that supported the sign shall also be completely removed. All holes
and affected building surfaces shall be restored to match the adjacent portion of the
building.
K. Sign colors. The standards for signs in this Chapter are premised aesthetically on the
use of limited colors per sign so as to minimize excessive contrast and thereby establish
more readable, less confusing signs. Signs for commercial complexes, shopping
centers, other commercial and industrial development, including individual businesses,
shall be limited by the following:
1. Signs shall be limited to a maximum of three colors per sign. If a federally
regulated trademark sign has more than three, then the maximum size allowed
for that sign shall be reduced by 20 percent for each additional color.
2. For purposes of calculating reductions in size where more than three colors are
involved, the maximum sign size resulting from the first 20 percent reduction
shall form the basis for the second 20 percent reduction, and so on for each
subsequent 20 percent reduction. For example, if the maximum size allowed for
a given three-color sign is 10 square feet, then the maximum size allowed for a
five-color sign would be 6.4 square feet: 80% x (10 x 80%).
9
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2503
L. Illuminated signs and lights. The following standards shall apply to all illuminated
signs:
1. All illuminated signs shall be designed with a dimmer system to avoid undue
glare or reflection of light on private property in the surrounding area.
2. External light sources shall be shielded from view and directed to illuminate only
the sign face.
�� 3��
Do this Don't do this
3. Internal illumination is permitted only if the sign background is opaque and the
only portion of the sign that appears as illuminated is the actual lettering and/or a
registered trademark or logo.
4. Reflective-type bulbs and incandescent lamps shall not be used on the exterior
surFace of signs so that the bulb or lamp is exposed to view from any direction.
5. Each new illuminated sign shall be subject to a 30-day review period during
which time the Director of Community Development may determine that a
reduction in illumination is necessary due to negative impacts on surrounding
property or the community in general. In addition, and at any time, the Director
may order the dimming of any illumination found to be excessively bright.
M. Signs to face public or private right-of-way. All signs permitted under this Chapter
shall be placed on the side of property facing a public or private right-of-way.
N. Maintenance of signs.
1. For the public health, safety, and welfare all signs shall be maintained in a safe,
presentable, and good structural condition at all times, including the replacement
of defective parts, wiring, ballast, painting, repainting, cleaning, and other acts
required for the maintenance of the sign. If the sign is not made to comply with
safety standards, the Director of Community Development shall require its
immediate repair or removal in compliance with the Chapter.
2. Signs illuminated either internally or externally shall be capable of being fully
illuminated and legible with the face(s) intact (without holes or other exterior
damage). Any illuminated sign not in compliance with these and other
maintenance standards in this Section shall be cited by the Director of
Community Development and shall be brought into compliance with applicable
standards or proof of a contract for repair and maintenance shall be approved
within 30 days or shall be subject to abatement as a public nuisance. Illuminated
signs that, because of expired or damaged lighting elements, become non-legible
shall be ordered to remain unlighted until repaired.
10
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2503
3. When a sign is removed or replaced, all brackets, poles, and other structural
elements that supported the sign shall also be removed. Affected building
surfaces shall be restored to match the adjacent portion of the structure.
4. In the case of abandoned signs, the identification, name, and copy pertaining to
the abandoned business shall be removed and replaced with a blank panel or
white space within 30 days of vacating the business.
5. When it is determined by the city that a sign may cause imminent danger to the
public safety and contact cannot be made with a sign owner or building owner,
no written notice shall be required. In this situation, the city may correct the
danger. The city shall cause to have removed any sign that endangers the public
safety, including abandoned, materially dangerous, electrically or structurally
defective signs.
6. Notices of violation shall be sent by the Director of Community Development by
certified mail. Time periods provided in this Section shall be deemed to
commence on the date of the mailing. Any person having an interest in the sign
or the property may appeal the citation ordering the removal of compliance by
filing a written notice of appeal with the Director of Community Development
within 30 days after the date of mailing the notice, or 30 days after receipt if the
notice was not mailed.
7. Signs removed by the city shall become the property of the city and may be
disposed of in any matter deemed appropriate by the city. The cost of the
removal of any sign by the city shall be considered a debt owed to the city by the
owner of the sign and the owner of the property and may be recovered in an
appropriate court action by the city or by assessment against the property. The
cost of removal shall include any incidental expenses incurred by the city in
connection with the sign's removal.
25.68.070 — Permanent Signs
The following tables provide regulations for permanent signs in residential and nonresidential
zoning districts. References in the last column provide additional regulations for specific sign
types located elsewhere in this Chapter. In the case of an inconsistency between regulations
provided in the tables and regulations provided for specific sign types, the regulations for
specific sign types shall take precedence.
The number and area of signs as provided in this Chapter are intended to be maximum
standards. However, the standards do not necessarily ensure architectural compatibility.
Therefore, in addition to the enumerated standards, the approving authority shall also give
consideration to a sign's relationship to the overall appearance of the subject property, as well
as the surrounding community with the goal being to minimize visual pollution, excessive
illumination, and excessive contrasting colors. Compatible design, simplicity, and sign
effectiveness are to be used in establishing guidelines for sign approval.
11
� � � �
� �° a
� �, � Q a
o E >,c o o E
�U U O V U �
U
�,..�"'. p � cNn � � O
� � � � � �' � A � �,
�' Z O � Z O Z O Z �
0
��
w `� ca � � cv
� �� L L L `
.��� � � � � � � �
., � O � � O 'X �
�
� �
C
� � .,q> �
V �. �� � E ° ° E
� Ct ,a..�• •� c�i N °� ca � +� c � N �
U
V C 7 U
� O ,� L C C � E C � � � C N
.,.1 � C o � Q � � � •a � ,o L
0 � Za� Qa� Qa� � c°� Qa�iEa
�
C� +�" o° � o° �
Z � � L 3
� �
Z � '�+*a" O L O L
0 � O O
", � � � � �
J `�'� 3 `° 0 3 °'
� �
a � � a c a� °" v> � �
WZmoo mo '�n � �
G �
m � c� o � � rno � o �
H y � N �
� Q� � � � t � �
� �-� a' tn � a' p O U t�
� C O p � � N O �
M "^' � � � N p
C Z � �� L � � �.�0 � � d'
N � � ' � O � m � � � � � C
, N e- fB � � � C � � � �
0 W d' O c� — � �
Z � � U
O E '
O J a a � � E � � a� a �. °'
F, J E �D .u�i a� a ai � � � o-.� a� �
� > � cn cn c a �
J Q •�( "i' N � p� x +r �' U tn p� � � O
(n Z � � � E °� E N •°'� X (=j o � � �
� C'� ' O •� Oc°� Qc� a�iEa�i � a O �
O � � °' °' c
rn
N � � � �� '�
� � ' � � �
� � a�
� O � ° � � � o �
� — — � _ � �
� � � � E � E � E
C)
� ' c = c
Z d � � 0 O
�
R1 � — ca � � '�' *'
Z � ' , Q' � �v-, — •c v m v �
Q = " ' d v� r+ � X �+ C � � L
�J C71 � � N � � '~ p � y ' .O � G1
a ' °'
� Z 5 �I � a� � � � � � �nE 'a � � �
� fn � N �N � U U M �f%1 � U `d' �Vl � QJ
�
� � aNi c
+� � � �° N � ^ �n � M
� � � � � � � � � a�i c � � �
o � � o cn .
� +� � L V � � O � � O M `p O "a C
"c� o � � > '� �' � o � � �� 3aai
Qr' — .� c� �� .E c � a� c o c
Q � c� av� O c°� �vU .� O � �oU r°�
�� o �v
�
:�w �
3 c � � �
�q` � >, �? �, � �
.J �Qwo Xc � �
W o C �
� � s �
� � �' �
F' *o.,a� `c
V *i„ � �' Z' > cu�i
li V .a��.� � V � � � �
� � � '� � •Ec o �
L
� �'4.�+ a � � L
� � �
Q �'' Q � Q � � C
V r. O = +. — �
Z °� " ° 3 � ° 3 � ^�' �
� ,� � L � O ` � � U
O � � � p C � � � �+�. O
*3..� � � 0 � � 0 ? ,tn
J �� �' 3 c� � � � � c v°�i
c`� 0 3 � `o �
� �
_ � "� � °' � � rn a�i Q' v� � v� � �
m o 'v� co '�n m o 'u� '- "-'
WZ cou� � w
-� +� �� a�i
m � v� �, � M
H � � � � °��' �
� � � V � N
M � � � $ '� �' Q!
Z �
� � � � � � �
(V W � N `p � O �
Z � C `
O
� N
•� C.
� O � �, � � �
N = H
J a .� 3 v� v� � � �
O � � � N �n � }` o�o
� Z � � � o, cc
� � � � � t N
Z � � O
� � t/� ,y � � c�i� N v
f� y � � c v� � d
a� a .� �
� ot- o � o � .�o` `� m
O � � o � � � � � �
V `' � � � •NN =
� N �
c
tl� 0 o v�, p 'v�
Z � � c � � �'
� � w
� � � �o
� ta 4' � :� �� ?�- c `o
t� C � N � � � C � �
N � d � � � d � � !n
a N N �VI Z 7I � � � � � � � � ~
cc 'in U ° r: 'v� 2 � �
N'
... �;
�
�
Q
'k3`� o
�.�� �
co
N
���;
� �
U �� �
� �
V� +� � N � �
0 � o �'-� �
,,� �' � � � � �
U' c� � 3
� � � � o3 .N �
Z '� cm � s � �oa�
"`" ` °� � a v� o � a�
Z fi/9� i� a � �� .� �o -�
0 C
� - �
.J � �«+ � c c�
s
'� ..w,,
� � � � � s
� .� � o '� s
� � � � �
� � mocN
� � �
— Z � o- � o.
� p „4 . ca c� �
J Z � " � .� `� c`�� ,� �
� a "� C .� � C ,� � �
� � � � 7
a � � ��, � � ��, � �
� Q .� o � ,� � �
� ° �, c� o ° c�
C� ,� � o � � � o � c
M � #�" o � v_�
�_ � �� Q� � '�
� W fn fB +.. X N r-.
NC '� O � p f6 Lf� � � �
C � _ v`- � �-- •� � �
c �
Z O
z C� � �, �
O Z � �°
� � '� �
� o '� � � �
o W � � °- �
� �
� p z o0
z J c � `o
� a t� C � �
� � �, o �
cn Z � .N � � o �
� v �'�` � �•� � V
� ' � � — = N
V � � C j � � O
O m � l� a.
Z � a�
Z � � •y � `►- `� �
� ^"�" 3 tA O � C � � d.'
� � C cp � � O � � 'V
a +� •N � � � � t �
� � m = 0 � C U "-' �'
�
m � .� � .a � �. � O
� w
�n.
Tv �;
Q Q
� c�i' o
� L 00 00
�? '� p �
� � �
CO �
� N �
N
C G�'
� '� �"
V � � N
� � � �
� � �; } �
� � q� � � � a� � �
0 �" �` � ° � � � � ° �'� �
� �
� .'��- � -0 � 3 � � � � 3s c
Z C �' � +? � o3 .N �E � � � 03 .� �
d� � � -� E � �? � c� ca �-' c� �
Z �/SOG � o � •rn° � � � o �rnoc`aa
� C
N � a�
J t/� ,�,, � c c�v � � m
Q �`" •�'• � � � N � �
� .+,. � � � > p� �
� (� C �
N '- .0
~ '� � 3 7r � � �
y � o � � � o � � $
Q � m O C N m O C N
� `
� ? � � � O m � � � �O � $ �O p �
� Q � C
W � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � m
J a cf ' f° � � � o � c� c�,v �a � o o � :a � � .__ cv �
m -� � � � '� � ti � � c ,� o o � oa� � u� U � c �
Q J fJ� mo .� o � � o .rno � � �� .� �� � � � o �
`� � � � � � N � N o � •N � � .c � o coQ �n �
HQ � o00 �- c`v "- oo � a `- 4- ° � � c � � � `F" o
� � � o � � �0 o � �nmo � � � o
C� � � � � � � � � � � � a� a� � o � a� •� o c -� � �
O _ � (�J � � � �'O
tCj WC r�i N N ln U C X f�� N U C X (A O � (p '6 � x � tn �
N cC l� 4-L- O � � � � � � f0 O � ln � C � '7 X � Oa. o i
l!� � I� 4= O N �- � I� 4=. f6 fB � � � fB � ;�.
C (/�
Z � c
�
Z V � (j`� � C
p Z � ,,,,, . �
� �
� � � � � � �
� � � � �� Qc�
a� � � ...
� � Z O ° � o
Z J = -o L
�
o � �
O Q � c �° a' -�
� � 'o �' � � � �.
o c
� Z � ' � � c � c o �
� � p �,' � m � U �'N E }'
' U
0 � f,t � f6 j 'p '� — � .N
V ' m � LL Q m � LL d
C� C
Z a� � � c
Z � 'y � � `�- � � •N � � �
Z � N C p � O O � _ � � 0 �N1
� � C � � 0 � � � � f� O � � � > � �
d c •N ce°i p '� O O � � c � c o � �
� � ;� •- � s � •N v c� c o O �
� p0 " ' � c � � a � � .� � c � � w
� d p � `�-' j o � m d � � +�>_.• � m C
� � � � � Q � � � .a � O > 0. � �8
�/1 — � cn �
-■;� � �� tn � cn
N t�
a
�
� �' � � N � "'' � � � � _
�,�, 'G? �� � � O .� U - C -
'� � .� C �'C �'� O N 3 � � p
Q � � � � 00 tA - � O
a � p� V � C '�j .� C C� C � > p CO
LY`' N '� ,� C � ��n � "O
(n .� a � (B E tA N f/) C .� O N
C'd'
� � �
U �.,. �n
;,a Q; � o
� z
� � � `�
3
0 � £ a�
� �' � �
C� �
Z c � so .E
o�
Z t%i`QG' � �° �
� � ; O '�n �
c
J �.�..' � c �a c -c° c�a
Q � '�C � �� j ��
� ca�
� � _' a� .° � °' � rn
� � o � � � o '� :c �
� �
Q m O C N m O C N
� Z V C � � t +�+ � V �
Q +Q� .�� � �'t p � � C � � 3
J Z L' � f� 'C ++ � �-. C 7 � � C � � �
p� ' o � � v� U ca c 3 — E -a � c� � � � � � �
m a _ rn� � � � o � � 'X a� �. � r �
Q ,J � $ � c�,vo caQ � a�it � f° 3 � � � � � '� � �
� � � co � >, � �n � � E o � � � o �
~ a 3 cn � � ,� m � c� a� v�.g� mm � � c� � � � �
C� E N O � � �N f0 � O (A *L.. N (� � � •Q�� � L
Q W {+� O � '�-� � X O � � � � � fB � � � N � � C +� U
N � '''� C � '� X � a s � ,a�•� X m'j •>,�° °c�� � -� � .c
cucv � � � co Hm �na � u� .n � cv � \ � .a � �
Z 0 � v�
� L
Z C� � � � � O rn
� . �, � �
� ? E o � .s '�n a�i v`�i 'v
"xr a, � O � � '� fB
� Q � � � p 'C � 3
J �: �
� ' $ � Q- � ,E � � '� a`�i
N � a ° � cxaa�°i � � '�
� Q '� � v�iEc`a £ O �
Z J = � `o �
� Q � � � c
� �
(n � m o c o
�
� Z m �, � c o °� � c
� � a 1- �'� � � �''°'
U � 'a � � � ° � ca
m � u.. a m �
� � c
Z � � � •N � -�
Z R o � N o c c �
Q V<` N O
a � s � _ � -� � cc�°i o
ca
tn = � � � c o c .� � �n
� � ° N 'a °' � ma � c
- fn � M . LL ��
r�►� m
�s � L � o �?
� � o � a� >
.�+ � � 0 V C�'C m
N
� '"` '''' i N X �C � O�O
� :S: C m � •L � .0 � p �
� � E N �. Q� ,U � 00
� �
� rL., -Q �
� H � U .0 U N � Q% N
� �'
�"' `� �
�')**� t�
c.� ;� � � �
� � �
H Q �' � � o .�n
� c � c � � � �'
os L c
.� o
(7 ^-� = .o � � �'��� �
,� _ a� o ._ � �
�. *� -� E � �
Z � � � o � �3rr `�'
_ ,
Z t�►� t� c� _ �n � .� �, o
0 c
N ,� � � _
J � w — �n ° � ca � o
Q � "f > f� U � � �' �
� � � a�°i � ca� � .�s �o
� `f��+c ' 3 � � � `� u�'iL .� ra�°i
_ '� � � °' oa� " s � � a�
mo c�o �ocsa'� 'v�ia�i
Z �a `
� a� o v v�
� � � � a� c �
W � � a� � °� •� — o .° �
J Z C � c .r o � ��.�., .c �a � cn
m a � a�°i ��n � � �- v� � o �
1'f1 L c c � o a� `n �
� J cv • a� � � � s ca
a � � N � oa��i � � � o � �
� � � � mo � � � ° � co
�
r� � y� o �� � � °'c � � � � •c °'
O � o � � �� � '�n � "o m � u�
� � �
� � "� � o p � � � � 0 � v�� cx0
N lf� „"" t� � � � H E .S �tA O �
Z O ' �
z t� � ;�
� � � �'
�
� z 'E o a aw
J � «� � ,rnv�i � o
0 W � � � c '�n �
� '� � �
Wa, � 2O .n Ou
Q J ;af � -o G , c
Q �
fy � � � o c � ,af �,rn
't�% � � :.� � � �.
g Z � v, � a�i c c a�i
� � p �" � r 'o d � E
O V� � .° v� �, °- c � m c
V m � o Z �y' o � °
� _ �i E
Z a� � �
a�
Z � N Of 'v� �n
� � ' v� O � c vNi � �
fJ � � ° 'v, � c :, c �
� .N � � �Ml V C
d �` � -C � N ' � � �
� m � U '� � m C :.�-, b> �
d � � L !4 GI � � N
�t 'a (n � LL tA .a � � �
�;
� C
� m p
'�C �='' 00 � a�o
.p � � o 0
� C° � �
� N N N
� �� �:
.�G
V �'� a
;,� <t } Z o
� � �, Z
I— p ^�
tn '� ,� s }, �
*.
0 a � � L � � o
� ..�I ":: -a � o� �.n° -a
Z C � a� .c ,c � � � o �
Z v? tL � cccv ° '_ c `�
a � c3a > c° 0 �3v�i
0 C o
N � � —
J � � � ° a��i � � o � -o �i
c
� � � .a? � — � o -a � 3
� � c aco � •N's .rn� 3 ° -�
� � � � N � Na� � orn._
I-- '� �, m � � �, � � a� a� 3
� � '� o� a�i °' > a' X o .�'o `o
Q co +. o c .c a� '�n � Z � o
Z �a ° �
� � � O � � a� a��i �
W o .� � '- � `� ° � � o
JZQ � � N � � c`v o � o ou�ic� Z'
� � � � c � � -o -� .� � c`v �
Q J tI! � � ° -c °' ca N L }: c � c� a r-
~ a � aa? m � � v� `m s � v� 3 � � � c
C� E � � � m 3 � � 'a�i o � o o-� �'uQ'i
eh � 'K � � o � ° '� ��n � -a a� �- cv a c 3
o W �t �, � � � �v .o X � � .� ° �.� � o
N � � o � � .°'s .�c f° a�ix3 �°\n �� � � c
� v� cv v� � �. � � a� c� c� .� a.� 3
� � c
Z O
c o � o
Z V = � =
� Z � � � ca L � � � c � vi
H � � °-c �- � rn fl.�3 f° v>
� Q �� ` m° c •� �` � � •� 'u�
pW :� "� �'� � 'u�i �'� r •N'-'aa�ia�
y �? � � � a� "coo � ;> 3 �
� 0 ZOn Oc3vQ � O � Qo
p '� O�
� �
v) Q � � °',rn
N V� �y a�' :� � .� c c
Z m � � � .rn � ,g'
� � � ~ N � � �' c�ao
O � °' = y € .
� a � � � � � � 3
za� y =
Z tra N a�'i `� � 'N °�
v1 N � �- c 0 �N
� � aNi o � t � � _ �
V," _ �:. C +� � N � C N �
�C f0 � � d ep y �'' �
d � �� � � o = � �n = � 3
m � �' E �, d �N � � 'v� w o
y � d � � � N m � �c mc c
`� � � � c�o � cc � Q i: :a �
�, �
�3 C '~' '� �
d� ' c
C >,_ � �
Q �; C (B fA .` U� J �
.'� i�. � '�� N � 0 O
"�j y�' � •` p -�p Q O O
'� 0 a C Q,t� �p CD CO
� L fa �, � lf� Lf� �j
Q r� U � .-� N N N
C �
� _ �
�" p�,�,
V :t Q ° � u�
� z �- �
� Q � �
� � q� c � � o,
� y ccaoc .E •� � �;
m
r .� •� � .° �. o � .� `o .- •� a�i
� C.� � � ca`�i � o � >' � c�nE
Zco � — La � � �
� d a� � •� � � � 3 u -o
Z ir/� � z °' oa c� a�i � ooaE
O c
N C� � � ° a� � o
J � � � c��o o •� � � o .�
a � , � � � > m � � �
� � d � � �° af°i •� s '3c� -
� '� 'S o3 3 � °' cou��i
V� c� o � a�i .� a�i � oo � � �
Q '� � c0 � N m O C N � f� Q.
Z �
W � '� `
mQ � a�°i � � rn
a J � -� 3 �
� � '�
F" Q � � o a�
� a �
M � �i�C � � � � $ �
U �
� W � f� (� f� � N.� Q
N � , �,.� � � � u� 0 !�
Q � tf! � N � �— Q M
Z Q L" O O
Z V � " _
� .«.: �
� c -o ui c � ui �'
� Z � � a� cv � a� c� � a�i
_ ,� Ec � Ec •v_' �
� •� $ � f/) � L L � '� L L L
J W ��� a� a� � • a� .�
O � � �--a3 � °-� °' s a�
� � � oo � � oo a� c�
� 0 �= Oa�'iQ ° Oa�'iQ ° Oa`�i
Z ..Jj c � � o -� �
o a Cfl C � � � *�-. N C
N � � � � � a� � � c�
N t/� � ° � ° o c o .v� � 2
Z � � o � � � o m E 3 0 •= c � O�
� � pF' � � � .� °c' � += c-v° a� c•�-a � O
� � N .a� a� � s � � .c � �n � � E
U � Q '� � o � • � �o .� 3 �� N � °
m � a� m � a mo � a � � �
C� c
Z rn
Z � �N � C
y � L �
� � d R � �� � � � �
a C c c� •� t� u� � � c�o
Of w �. � e0 y � 7 C �.
N � � � c �+ � � .:� � f�Q 'p
� .p a 'o a O t � 0 � fB
O� � F- �C a- � �
�
t� �
0 �" Y
r'��y 'w• o
'C '�
"� �y' c��,
� N
�
��
� '� �`'
� �
J ,4 0
� z
I— o �
� � w � �
� c � � o c
0 tt. � . -o m
J � � V L � � �
/11 w � � f6 (0 .� N
v �"'„ �J' L f0 � � C �
� L N
� .�+ 7 � '�
Z !J� {�" Z N �U a O �.
N �
.�
J � ++
s
� � ��'
� �'� � �
� � ' � o
� L -� a
Z �o Q� � c/�
co .� m
� 0 � � � v
� Q m cc�a � � N �
� '� N
Q J � f� (p O +-� G�
� Q p � �-� C
U � � °-� � N --
�
�"� a' � '! �� $ � � C� _
Q � � (p � V — v aI
N C � lL') C tn � � N
� +� N 'p O Z
O �
Z Q C � O O O
Z V � N ,�. � � a
� �' E
� � c �ri
O Z � `� c°� � °' = H
� Q � � � co -o � o 0
O W ,� � Q � 3r w rn
�' c °- ° ° � ao
� 0 � Oo Q ° � ui
J v� c�
C
Z J � � C
p Q -o a� o
c y :r
N t/� � � o y a�i
N Z m rn c v�
� � o d
� o ~ ° � °'
� �
O � �t � a� N �
U � '� � c
C� •� a�
Z .. o y 'H
Z r� � U H Z'
� d �a
� � d o � � �
C! _ -� �° a
a � � >, a`�i � d
tA � � N .� � �7 F-
� o �° �
� � a m 'v� � �
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2503
25.68.080 — Standards for Specific Types of Permanent Signs
A. Building-mounted wall signs.
,�41,1�i �� �����
!i;,�' �� ���
�k �R
�� ,
r�� +':
? lx :r�a � �. � � �
� � �� : � u���" �a�`� �� �
� � �
�"�.�....ts��yi�^�c.�u����,a'�"�,as,�,'���,� �'��..ihu;��Ll��jt't;.��.�.�agc��, �."a�'��� .
�`" 13
zx � •
f � �.
�: �2
� ��
���^��£�'re �z�str,iw� ��a. �"�'�"p� ���a �: ,� � �;:
.§ 1 �. @,'� „ „<� c. � ��� �` ,`��7 .
�.. u,..
1. Signs shall be located only on a building frontage and shall not extend above an
eave or parapet, or above or below a fascia on which they are located.
� � SIGN' ,�
a
�
.;,�
,
Appropriate Wall Sign Location
� � ���� �
�----
� � �
;
Not Allowed
21
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2503
2. Electrical raceways for signs shall be designed as an integral part of the sign or
building design and shall not be visible.
_
;_ ..
_ _ e
w_ . � .� .:� -� ��.. w -
_ _ :.�._�_ _ _ : . �. v
3. Signs shall be placed flat against the wall and shall not project from the wall more
than required for normal construction purposes and in no case more than 12
inches.
4. Signs shall be located within the middle 50 percent of the building or occupancy's
frontage measured from lease line to lease line.
� • i a���T ---� ��i�!T�
�., �;
�-�---91i FT�E'f +—�G�E�'---.�
Appropriate Wall Sign Location
22
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2503
5. Signs located on adjacent walls on the same building shall be separated by a
minimum of 30 feet measured along the exterior walls of the building.
���� e� �� �
t
��"M '��'
��
� �-�� � �
Sf
{
� �
$. �� �_ �`
�
Required Separation for Wall Signs
B. Freestanding monument signs.
�i�� �,s,.�.,.
� ';��1�1�k�,�a
i��;�1V,���u��n'
i •
�,�
a
f�'i►� J
�$ .. �
� rQ� a
R ♦ , � �� -� rr:'
. ,.:ss, .. ,.
�.. ..
1. A single tenant building, commercial or industrial complex, or shopping center
shall be entitled to one freestanding monument sign per frontage on a public or
private street.
2. When a shopping center or industrial park has street frontage on any one street
in excess of 1,600 lineal feet, one additional sign shall be permitted.
Freestanding signs on the same street shall be separated by a minimum distance
of 400 lineal feet.
3. All freestanding monument signs shall be placed within a permanently
landscaped area, be architecturally compatible with the building or complex, and
not encroach in the public right-of-way.
23
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2503
4. When approving any freestanding sign the Architectural Review Commission
shall affirmatively make the finding that the approval shall visually enhance the
aesthetic quality of the property on which the sign is to be located.
5. Freestanding monument signs shall not contain phone numbers.
C. Secondary business signs.
��' �'� ,� � , ��`� ' �
��u9a� �� �� �s �����x�: �'���a�y �, �����`�' x z„
'�sx�t �%.�'' n���� t�, �" �,��.��: k'��
✓ y,
�� �,-
G ,: %'��;. �y �",�:,
� a 0,
> N'
Main Building Sign
� �� x �
s. � `�� ''".,,.'.`, ,.
`� condary � �. Secondary �
���9�a9� ,�t'I�t(3�a"��TI11S Signage �'�,� ,"'"•
� �
� �� � .
� �.
a�dc.se
� '� �' a� � '�
1. Secondary business signs shall be clearly ancillary to the main business sign and
in no event shall the aggregate sign area exceed the maximum permitted under
this Chapter.
2. The design of secondary business signs shall be architecturally consistent with
the main business identification sign.
3. The total aggregate sign area of the primary sign together with the secondary
sign shall not exceed the maximum sign area allowed for the business.
4. Where a proposed secondary business sign is a registered federally regulated
trademark sign, the size of the trademark sign may be subject to size reduction
requirements in compliance with Section 25.68.060 (Sign Colors).
5. No more than two secondary signs allowed except as otherwise provided in this
Chapter.
6. Secondary signs shall not contain phone numbers.
7. Slogans, mottos, or sayings may be used instead of secondary business
signage.
24
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2503
D. Window signs - permanent.
� § '� � � � � 1
� FINE MENSWEAp SINCE 1923
y�r5 �
�p Y !
��
1. Signs shall be allowed only on windows located on the ground floor of a building
frontage.
2. Signs shall be permanently painted, etched, or mounted on the inside of
windows.
3. Signs within five feet of a storefront window shall be counted as a window sign.
4. Window signs shall be allowed in addition to the aggregate sign area allowed for
wall and projecting signs.
E. Signs on awnings, marquees, canopies, arcades, or similar structures.
-�,-
�.a �.
f�tt;:6�r` ��ga.,;�'a� ; �; �"���� t�a a`"����:
� �a�,�' `������
1 a�+�
`��� �: —�—s��;. �taP
,,
�...
.a
3,I
1'�=
�s
1. All awnings shall be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review
Commission. The awning shall be architecturally compatible with the building and
as a result an awning may not be appropriate for every building.
2. Signs on awnings shall be kept in good repair, clean, and not faded.
3. Signs on awnings (lettering and numbers), including lettering style and colors
shall blend aesthetically with the awning and building to which it is attached.
4. When required by the Building Official, street address numbers shall comply with
the requirements of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 15.15.010 and Table
15.15.020 A.
25
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2503
5. Awnings shall not contain phone numbers.
F. Projecting signs.
" �i p
��
���,
�, :
,�.;
�
.�.
�
�7..
t�a�.
� +..
���,�I� � � �I �'.�a�
� � xPJ.
p
1. Projecting signs shall not extend below eight feet from the sidewalk or the right-
of-way.
G. Pedestrian oriented signs.
1. Where the principal sign for a business is located so that it cannot be seen by
pedestrians on the same side of the street, one business identification sign, in
addition to other signs allowed in this Chapter, shall be permitted subject to the
following standards:
a. Signs shall be no larger than three square feet(on each side);
b. Signs shall be projecting, hanging, or mounted on a pedestal. Signs on
pedestals shall not exceed 54 inches in height;
c. Signs shall not be used as "open" siqns; and
d. Signs shall be designed and located so as to not distract from the
appearance of the building or violate the intent of this Chapter.
2. Businesses in the commercial and industrial districts may place a pedestrian
oriented, pedestal mounted "open" sian in front of their place of business subject
to the following standards:
a. Maximum sign area shall be three square feet;
b. Maximum sign height shall be 54 inches;
c. Signs shall be placed on private property in a location that does not
impede pedestrian traffic flow;
d. Signs shall not include extraneous verbiage advertising the business,
specials, or sales events; and
e. Signs shall be removed when the business is not open for business.
26
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2503
3. For businesses on EI Paseo between Portola Avenue and Highway 74, the
following additional standards shall apply:
a. Signs permitted under this Subsection shall be limited to the word "o en"
and the business name only;
b. Logos are not permitted;
c. Signs shall be in two colors only, excluding florescent colors; black and
white will be considered colors and sign shall not contain extraneous
decoration;
d. Signs shall be mounted on a pedestal using one of the two sign colors;
and
e. Signs shall be professionally manufactured and well-maintained at all
times.
H. 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 letters;
3. All signs facing the freeway shall use a single color, except for federal trademark
signs, and a clean letter style font; and
4. All signs facing the freeway shall be non-illuminated individual letters or logos.
I. Directional signs for courtyard or plaza businesses. Where commercial buildings or
complexes are designed to contain tenant spaces oriented to an interior courtyard or
plaza and where the principal business identification sign is located on that courtyard or
plaza frontage, the commercial building or complex shall be permitted a pedestrian
directional sign(s). The directional sign shall group the names of businesses and/or
principal services to be found in the courtyard or plaza subject to the following
standards:
1. Signs shall be located at major pedestrian entrances to the plaza or courtyard;
2. Signs shall not encroach into the public right-of-way;
3. Signs shall be properly integrated into the architectural and landscape design of
the building; and
27
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2503
4. Signs including supports shall have a maximum width of four feet whether wall
mounted or freestanding.
J. Attraction boards for theaters and nightclubs. In addition to the principal sign area,
one attraction board to advertise nightclub or theater entertainment shall be allowed. The
information on the attraction board shall be limited to coming and current entertainment
only. Attraction boards shall not be used to advertise rates or prices of attractions.
K. Restaurant menu boards. In addition to the principal sign area, a restaurant may have
one sign on a wall or window displaying the menu and/or daily specials. When a
restaurant is set back more than five feet from the public right-of-way or pedestrian
walkway, a freestanding easel may be set up within the setback to display the menu
board during hours when meals are being served. The sign shall not encroach into the
public right-of-way or obstruct pedestrian movement.
L. Gasoline service stations. Gasoline service stations shall be limited to those signs
approved by the Architectural Review Commission as a part of their action on a
conditional use permit and/or amendment thereto. Service station signs shall not exceed
the following limitations:
1. One double-faced freestanding monument sign not to exceed 24 square feet in
area or not to exceed eight feet in height, and advertising only the name of the
company;
2. One 10 square foot maximum wall sign advertising the company name and/or
operator; and
3. One wall or ground sign, not exceeding eight square feet in area and eight feet in
height for a ground sign, advertising the actual lowest price per gallon including
all taxes at which gasoline are currently being offered. Any special conditions
required for sale at the lowest price shall also be indicated.
25.68.090 — Temporary Signs
The following temporary signs shall be allowed subject to the requirements of this Section.
Temporary signs in violation of this Section shall be treated as illegal signs and shall be subject
to abatement under the requirements of Section 25.68.130 (Abatement of Illegal Signs).
Nothing contained in this Section shall prevent the City Council from granting a special permit
application or otherwise permitting signs, displays, or advertising pertaining to a civic, patriotic,
or special event of general public interest taking place within the city when it can be found that
the signs, displays, or advertising will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, interest,
or safety, nor injurious to adjacent property or improvements.
A. Number, size, height, and duration. Table III provides standards for temporary signs.
Temporary signs are allowed in addition to the number of permanent signs allowed for
the property.
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2503
TABLE III
TEMPORARY SIGNS
Sign Type Maximum Maximum Maximum Duration Additional
Number Area Height Standards
Temporary window signs
Commercial Allowed for sales
and Industrial and promotions.
Zones
Lineal feet of
window area
50 lineal ft. or One sign 20 sq. ft. (1) N/A 30 days Placed on inside of
less Max. 25% of window.
total window
area
50 lineal ft. to One sign 50 sq. ft. (1)
100 lineal ft. Max. 25°/a of
total window
area
More than 100 One sign 75 sq. ft. (1)
ft. Max. 25% of See Notes (1) and
total window (2) at the end of the
area table for additional
information in
certain cases.
Special signs
Special event One sign 30 sq. ft Below eave 30 days per 25.68.090 D,
banner Building- line of building. year
mounted or
freestanding.
New business One sign. See Section Below eave 60 days Allowed only while
establishment 25.68.070 1a, line of building. permanent signs are
identification 1 b or 1 c. being obtained.
29
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2503
TABLE III
TEMPORARY SIGNS
Sign Type Maximum Maximum Maximum Duration Additional
Number Area Height Standards
Trade and One sign per 16 sq. ft. per During active On property where
construction street 20,000 sq. ft of 8 ft building construction is
project signs frontage. site area. permit. taking place. Shall
Shall not Max.32 sq. ft. Removed list only firms
obstruct before notice connected with the
visibility at of completion. development
intersections. project.
New residential development
New I double face 48 sq. ft. per 8 ft. Until all units
subdivision sign, or 2 sign face in the project
identification single face are sold
sign signs per
street
frontage.
New Two signs per 15 sq. ft. each 8 ft. Until all units Sign placement to
subdivision street frontage in the project direct persons to the
directional are sold subdivision
signs entrance.
Realty and lease signs
Realty sign - One sign per 3 sq. ft., plus 4 ft. During time 25.68.090
street frontage one rider sign; when realty is
Single-family 5 in. X 16 in. offered for sale
residential or rent.
Realty sign - One sign per 3 sq. ft. 4 ft. While a 25.68.090
street frontage salesperson is
Open house physically
sign present on the
premises
Realty sign - One sign per 12 sq. ft. 4 ft. During time 25.68.090
street frontage when realty is
Other than offered for sale
single-family in or rent.
a residential
zone.
30
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2503
TABLE III
TEMPORARY SIGNS
Sign Type Maximum Maximum Maximum Duration Additional
Number Area Height Standards
Lease One two-sided 32 sq. ft. 6 ft. Displayed after May advertise lease
potential sign per street ARC project potential for future
sign- frontage approval. development prior to
Removed and during
Future before notice construction. No
development of completion. riders outside of the
32 square foot area.
Realty sign - One two-sided 16 sq ft. 6 ft. During time No riders outside of
sign per street when realty is the 16 square foot
Nonresidential frontage. offered for sale area. Shall not be
zones or rent. illuminated.
Personal One sign per 3 sq. ft 4 ft. 2 days within a Only on the property
property sale, street frontage 30-day period. where the event is
block party, being held.
or similar
event
Political signs - See Section 25.68.090 C. (Political Signs)
Notes:
(1) Businesses that are set back more than 250 feet from a public right-of-way
(street) may double the temporary window sign area. Businesses that are set
back more than 600 feet from a public right-of-way (street) may triple their
otherwise entitled temporary window signage.
(2) Does not include signs and decorations painted on or applied to windows
pertaining to holidays and seasonal events when the signs contain no reference
to the goods or services sold or provided by the establishment. All signs and
decorations shall be removed within 10 days following the applicable holiday.
B. Standards for temporary signs. Temporary signs shall be subject to the following
standards and any additional standards for specific types of temporary signs:
1. Signs are allowed on private property only and shall not be placed in public
rights-of-way or at off site locations;
2. Sign shall not be attached to roofs, temporary structures, trees, utility poles, light
standards, and similar items in the public right-of-way;
3. Signs shall not be illuminated;
4. Signs shall not move in any manner;
31
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2503
5. Signs shall be constructed of durable material suitable to their location and
purpose; and
6. Signs and their components shall be promptly removed at the time of expiration.
C. Political sign regulations. Political signs shall comply with the following requirements:
1. Political signs shall not be located in the public right-of-way;
2. No fee or permits shall be required for the right to erect political signs;
3. Where the sign is proposed to be placed on private property, the applicant shall
secure the permission of the property owner;
4. Signs shall not be placed in any manner to create a hazard to public health or
safety; and
5. Signs shall be removed within 30 days following the election.
D. Special event signs.
1. With the approval of the director of community development, a business may
erect one temporary sign, mounted on a wall fascia or freestanding, advertising
special events, promotions or sales. Approval of a sign permit application may
allow up to 30 square feet of sign area depending upon the type of event,
building design, and right-of-way frontage for a period not to exceed 30 days per
year.
2. 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 30 days may only be permitted in compliance with a
resolution of the City Council, which shall specify the period during which the
banner may be displayed.
E. Open house signs. Off-site open house directional signs shall be permitted for an open
house, subject to the following provisions:
1. No flags or banners shall be used; and
2. Signs shall be located on private property only, unless prior written approval for
unique circumstances is obtained from the Director of Community Development.
25.68.100 — Comprehensive Sign Program
A. Purpose. The purpose of a Comprehensive Sign Program is to integrate all of a non-
residential projecYs signs with the overall site design and the structures' design into a
unified architectural statement. A Comprehensive Sign Program provides a means for
the flexible application of sign regulations in order to provide incentive and latitude in the
design and display of multiple signs and to achieve, not circumvent, the purpose of this
32
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2503
Chapter. Approval of a Comprehensive Sign Program may modify the standards
provided in this Chapter as to sign number, size, height, illumination, location,
orientation, or other aspects of signs within the limits of this Section.
B. Applicability. The approval of a Comprehensive Sign Program shall be required
whenever any of the following circumstances exist:
1. Whenever 3 or more separate tenant spaces are present on the same site;
2. Whenever 3 or more non-exempt signs are proposed for a single-tenant;
3. Whenever signs are proposed to be located on the second story on a multi-story
building;
4. Whenever an existing multi-tenant development of 3 or more tenants is being
remodeled or rehabilitated to the extent that it requires review and approval by
the Architectural Review Commission; or
5. Whenever the Director of Community Development determines that a
Comprehensive Sign Program is needed because of special project
characteristics (e.g., the size of proposed signs, limited site visibility, the location
of the site relative to other lots, buildings, or streets, etc.).
C. Approval authority and limitation. The Architectural Review Commission shall be the
review authority for a Comprehensive Sign Program.
D. Application requirements. A sign permit application for a Comprehensive Sign
Program shall include all information and materials required by the Director of
Community Development.
E. Standards. A Comprehensive Sign Program shall comply with the following standards:
1. The proposed sign program shall �omply with the purpose and intent of this
Chapter;
2. The proposed signs shall enhance the overall development, be in harmony with,
and relate visually to other signs included in the Comprehensive Sign Program,
to the structures and/or developments they identify, and to surrounding
development when applicable;
3. The sign program shall address all signs, including permanent, temporary, and
exempt signs;
4. The sign program shall accommodate future revisions that may be required
because of changes in use or tenants;
5. The sign program shall comply with the standards of this Chapter, except that
deviations are allowed with regard to sign area, total number, location, and/or
height of signs to the extent that the Comprehensive Sign Program will enhance
the overall development and will more fully accomplish the purposes and intent of
this Chapter;
33
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2503
6. Approval of a Comprehensive Sign Program shall not authorize the use of signs
prohibited by this Chapter; and
7. Review and approval of a Comprehensive Sign Program shall not consider the
signs' proposed message content.
F. Findings. In order to approve a Comprehensive Sign Program the following findings
shall be made:
1. The Comprehensive Sign Program complies with the purpose of this Chapter,
including the Design Criteria;
2. Proposed signs enhance the overall development and are in harmony with other
signs included in the plan with the structures they identify and with surrounding
development;
3. The Comprehensive Sign Program contains provisions to accommodate future
revisions that may be required because of changes in use or tenants; and
4. The Comprehensive Sign Program complies with the standards of this Chapter,
except that flexibility is allowed with regard to sign area, number, location, and/or
height to the extent that the signs proposed under the Comprehensive Sign
Program will enhance the overall development, achieve superior quality design,
and will more fully accomplish the purposes of this Chapter.
G. Revisions to Comprehensive Sign Programs. The Director of Community
Development may approve revisions to a Comprehensive Sign Program if the intent of
the original approval is not affected. Revisions that would substantially deviate from the
original approval shall require the approval of a new/revised Comprehensive Sign
Program by the Architectural Review Commission.
25.68.110 — Nonconforming Signs
A. Lawfully permitted nonconforming signs.
1. Lawfully permitted on-premises signs existing at the time of the adoption of the
ordinance codified in this Chapter on that do not comply with the
requirements of this Chapter shall be deemed lawful nonconforming signs. .
2. Nonconforming signs shall not be expanded, extended, rebuilt, altered, or
reconstructed in any way, except for normal maintenance or to protect public
safety.
3. It shall be the express responsibility of the seller of property or a business to
advise the buyer of the provisions of this Section relating to the removal of
nonconforming signs upon the transfer of ownership of a business.
B. Lawful nonconforming signs to be removed. It shall be the responsibility of the
business owner, sign owner, or property owner to ensure compliance with this Section.
34
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2503
Nonconforming signs shall be removed or made to comply with the requirements of this
Chapter as follows:
1. Within 30 days of the issuance of a sign permit application for a sign on a
property on which a nonconforming sign(s) exists. Prior to the issuance for a
property on which a nonconforming sign(s) exists, the applicant or owner shall
file with the city an irrevocable bond in the amount of $10,000 to guarantee the
nonconforming sign(s) shall removed or made to conform with the requirements
of this Chapter within a specified time; or
2. Upon the transfer of ownership of the business; or
3. Upon the altering of the nonconforming sign or sign structure in any way or the
addition of new sign(s) or a new sign structure; or
4. After 90 days of the discontinuance of a business or before a new business
occupies the building, whichever comes first.
C. Nonconforming signs maintenance. Except for normal repair or maintenance not
exceeding 50 percent of the value of the sign, nonconforming signs shall not be
modified, altered, moved, or replaced except in compliance with the requirements of this
Chapter.
D. Lawful nonconforming offsite signs (i.e. billboards). Nothing contained in this
Chapter shall be construed to limit the ability of an owner of a lawful nonconforming off-
site sign (i.e. billboard) to periodically change advertising copy.
25.68.120 — Abandoned Signs
A. Removal of abandoned signs.
1. An abandoned sign or an abandoned nonconforming sign shall be removed
within 30 days by the owner or lessee of the premises upon which the sign is
located or by a person, organization, or other entity that directly or indirectly
receives a benefit from the information contained on the sign. All wording
advertising or relating to the discontinued business shall be removed from all
nonconforming signs.
2. A sign frame or structure that has been abandoned shall be removed within 30
days by the owner or lessee of the premises upon which the sign frame or
structure is located.
B. Presumption that a sign is abandoned. A sign that identifies or advertises a business
that has ceased; is located upon a structure that has been abandoned by its owner; has
not identified a bona fide business, lessor, service, owner, product, or activity available
upon the site, for more than 90 days shall be presumed abandoned.
C. Notice that a sign is presumed abandoned. The Director of Community Development
shall send the person responsible for a sign presumed to be abandoned an Abandoned
Sign Notification. Failure of the person to respond within 30 days to the Abandoned
35
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2503
Sign Notification shall serve as prima facie evidence of intentional permanent
abandonment of the sign.
25.68.130 — Abatement of Illegal Signs
A. Enforcement authority. The Director of Community Development shall be the
enforcement authority for this Chapter.
B. Abatement of illegal signs. The Director of Community Development shall not permit,
and shall abate, any sign within the city that fails to meet the requirements of this
Chapter or other applicable law, including temporary signs. Any illegal permanent signs
shall be abated by the City.
C. Notification and appeal. The Director of Community Development shall notify the
owner or user of a permanent sign that has been installed without a sign permit that the
illegal sign shall be removed within 10 days. Upon receipt of this notice, the owner or
user of a permanent sign that is determined to be illegal does have the right to file an
appeal regarding the decision or notice within 10 days thereafter to the City Council
pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 8.20 of this Title.
25.68.140 - Penalties
A. Violations of any of the provisions of this Chapter are infractions and/or misdemeanors
punishable as provided for in Palm Desert Municipal Code, Section 8.20.020(L).
B. If the installation of a sign is commenced prior to obtaining an approved sign permit
application the applicable fee for a sign permit application shall be doubled.
25.68.150 — Definitions
The following words and phrases shall apply in this Chapter:
"Abandoned sign" means a sign that is advertising a use that has ceased; is located upon a
structure that has been abandoned by its owner; does not identify or advertise a current bona
fide business, lessor, service, owner, or product available upon the site; or that identifies or
advertises an event or activity that has occurred.
"Advertising device" means any balloon, flag, pennant, propeller; oscillating, rotating, pulsating,
light; or other contrivance except a sign used to attract attention for the purpose of promoting
(either directly or indirectly), the sale of products of any person.
"Advertising display" means any device, contrivance, statue or structure other than a sign used
as a display, regardless of size and shape, for the purposes of attracting attention or making
anything known, the origin or place of sale of which is on the property with the advertising
display.
"Awning Sign" means a sign painted on, printed on, or attached to the surface of an awning.
36
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2503
"Back-lit Awning" means an internally illuminated, fixed, space-frame structure with translucent,
flexible, fabric reinforced covering designed in awning form and with graphics or copy applied to
the visible surface of the awning.
"Business sign" means a sign displaying information pertaining to goods or services offered or
produced by the business located on the property, but not including advertising devices or
advertising displays.
"Building frontage" means that building elevation that fronts on a public street, alley, driveway,
parking area, pedestrian plaza, courtyard, or arcade.
"Cabinet sign" means a sign that has one or more plastic, acrylic, or similar material faces
(panels) attached to a metal frame (cabinet). These signs may or may not be internally
illuminated.
"Commercial mascot" means humans or animals used as advertising devices, typically by the
holding or wearing of insignia, masks or costumes associated with or advertising the
commercial establishment. Includes sign twirlers, sign clowns, etc.
"Construction sign" means a temporary sign stating the names of those individuals or firms
directly connected with the construction or development project, their addresses and their
telephone numbers.
"Externally lighted sign" means a sign whose immediate source of illumination is not enclosed
by the surface of the sign structure.
"Face or wall of a building" means the outer surface of any main exterior wall or foundation of a
building, including windows and store fronts.
"Freestanding sign" means a sign supported by upright pedestals or braces placed upon or into
the ground and detached from any building.
"Freeway signage" means any building sign that is visible and has frontage along the Interstate -
10.
"Height of a sign" means the greatest vertical distance measured from the ground level directly
beneath the sign to the top of the sign.
"Identification sign" means a sign limited to the identifying name, symbol or insignia, or any
combination thereof, of a building, use, or persons occupying the premises on which the sign is
located.
"tnternally lighted sign" means a sign with an immediate source of illumination that is completely
enclosed by the surface of the sign structure.
"Nameplate" means a sign not exceeding one foot by three feet signifying only the name of the
occupant and his occupation or specialty.
"Outdoor advertising structure or sign" means a sign placed for the purpose of advertising
products or services that are not produced, stored, or sold on the property upon which the sign
is located.
37
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2503
"Political sign" means any sign concerning candidates for political office or involving a ballot
issue.
"Price sign" means a sign limited to the name or identification of items or products offered for
sale on the premises, and the price of the items or products.
"Projecting sign" means a sign other than a wall sign suspended from or supported by a building
or structure and projecting outward there from.
"Real estate sign" means a temporary sign advertising the sale, lease, exchange or rent of the
property upon which it is located, and the identification of the person or firm handling the sale,
lease, or rent.
"Roof sign" means a sign affixed on, above, or over the roof of any building, or any sign affixed
to the wall of a building so that it projects above the eave line of a roof. The lowest point of a
mansard style roof shall be considered the eave line.
"Sign" means anything of visual appearance primarily used for, or having the effect of, attracting
attention from the streets, sidewalks or other outside public areas for identification purposes. A
sign shall not mean displays of inerchandise or products for sale on the premises, or signs
inside buildings except when less than five feet behind a window and facing public view, or
ornamentation, design, statuary, architecture, landscaping, pictures, paintings, or other art forms
unless, in the case of any exceptions listed in this Chapter, the attraction, because of location,
size, use, or the nature thereof, has the effect of attracting attention for identification purposes
when viewed from an outside public area. The basic intent behind this definition is not to
discourage product displays, design or art forms epitomizing simplicity, good taste, and
compatibility with the community's desired image.
"Sign face" means the surface or that portion of a sign that is visible from a single point as a flat
surface or a plane and considered together with the frame and the background.
"Vehicle sign" means any sign that is attached to or painted on a vehicle or trailer that is parked
on or adjacent to any property, the principal purpose of which is to direct people to a business,
or attract attention to a product sold or business located on the same property or nearby. On
street legal vehicles, the following signs or insignia are not considered to be "Vehicle Signs,"
and are not regulated as Vehicle signs:
1. Messages on a vehicle where the primary purpose of which is to be used in the regular
course of business to transport the personnel or products, or to provide the services (not
including general advertising) that are advertised on the vehicle;
2. Commercial messages that do not exceed a total of 3 square feet in size; and
3. Commercial messages on mass transit vehicles that pass through the city.
"Wall sign" means a sign attached to or erected on the exterior wall of the building or structure
or on a canopy marquee or similar overhang with the exposed face of the sign in a plane
approximately parallel to the plane of the exterior wall and not extending above the eave line.
The lowest part of a mansard-style roof shall be considered the eave line.
38
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2503
"Window sign" means a sign posted, painted, placed, or affixed in or on a window exposed to
public view. An interior sign that faces a window exposed to public view that is located within
five feet of the window is considered a window sign for the purpose of calculating the total area
of all window signs.
39
���� P��
��. ( os'�i 9/oq
, � .
Baxle
Propert es
�.�
S'Iss- Leas18�
Management
DATE: May 19, 2009
TO: City of Palm Desert
Planning Commission FAX: (760)340-0574
Tony tbag,ato@ci.palm-desert ca us
FROM: Dick Baxley
Baxley Properties,Inc
Email: dbaxley@baxleyproperties com
RE: Signs in Palm Desert
Dear Planning Commission:
I apologize for not being able to attend the Planning Meeting being held tonight in
person but am traveling to my nephews graduation.
My request is limited to those signs on buildings visible from I-10. I would like to see
letters taller than the proposed 12",at least 16", preferable 20"and that these freeway
visible signs be able to be night lighted. The building owners will appreciate your
consideration.
� 113-3310
Fax: �so.773.3013
73-712 Alessandro, Suite B-4 • Palm Desert, CA 92260
www_buxlevpropertieti r�>m
1
�, (,.
. MINUTES
ALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 5 200q
character of the neighborhood. It was just noticeable. Her concern is that
when Palm Desert put in R-1 zoning, it was so they would maintain the
character of our neighborhoods. Her concern is, and Ms. Theodoratus is
probably a terrific landlord, but she is a distant landlord. It was terrific that
she had a property company to manage it, but she had concerns about
having Palm Desert starting to morph into rental neighborhoods, even if
it's just one neighbor who says this is my primary residence. That was her
biggest concern.
Chairperson Tanner shared Commissioner Limont's thought process. He
recognized that these are tough economic times and understood that, but
at the same time this is a neighborhood that was developed for primary
dwellers. He knew that there were rental properties in there, and
understood that, but not short term. He didn't want to see Palm Desert
Country Club turn into a one-week, two-week rental property area. So he
was not in favor of this moving forward.
He noted that there was a motion on the floor and asked for a second.
There was no response; the motion died due to the lack of a second.
Action:
It was rnoved by Commissioner Limont, seconded by Commissioner
DeLuna, to deny Case No. CUP 09-180.
Ms. Aylaian noted that staff would need to prepare a resolution of denial
that would come before the Commission at the next meeting. After
discussing the matter further, keeping the public hearing closed,
Commissioner Limont amended her motion, and Commissioner DeLuna
amended her second, to continue the matter to May 19 and instructed
staff to prepare a resolution of denial. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner
Campbell voted no).
`.�. B. Case No. ZOA 09-104— CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant
Request for a recommendation of approval to the City
Council of a zoning ordinance amendment updating and
revising Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.68, Signs.
Mr. Bagato gave a power point presentation, reviewing the staff report in
detail. He recommended approval.
6
_ _
� �
4� � . �_
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY � �nna
Commissioner Limont asked for clarification that illumination on signs
along the freeway is allowed. Mr. Bagato explained that currently it is
allowed, but the new code would require them not to illuminate them.
Commissioner Campbell asked if the Closet Tailors sign was legible from
the freeway going 70 mph. Mr. Bagato said that was subjective; he could
see it. Commissioner Campbell thought it looked pretty far away.
If they approved this tonight and moved forward, Chairperson Tanner
asked how that would affect the buildings currently sitting on the freeway
with signage in excess of the new ordinance. Mr. Bagato said that since
they were approved under the current code, which is legal, they would be
grandfathered in. They would remain as long as they remain; if someone
else took over that space or if Gateway Place wanted to change their sign,
they would have to comply with the new code. There would be some
issues because there are some sign programs like the Kelly Paper Store
that actually have approvals at 24-inches, so some of them wouldn't
conform to the current code because of past approvals; they would be
grandfathered in. But anything new would be enforced. Chairperson
Tanner asked if it would be the same thing for the illumination along the
freeway. Mr. Bagato concurred.
Commissioner DeLuna commented that staff has done a very good job
with trying to regulate. She herself had concerns. Now that Palm Desert
has so many more new buildings going in, if all of them had signs as big
as some of the ones previously approved, it would look like a constant
billboard driving down the freeway, so she thought staff had done a good
job addressing the issues and making it something that is user friendly, yet
is still in keeping with the reflection of the way Palm Desert wishes to be
noticed and commended staff's efforts.
Commissioner Campbell asked about political signs. Mr. Bagato explained
that those standards hadn't changed. They are allowed as long as they
are on private property. During the election period, the current code says
they are supposed to be removed within 30 days. They kept that the
same, but the signs are allowed under law. He reiterated that they were
basically keeping the same standards for 99% of the code.
Since elections tend to be close to holiday times in general, Commissioner
Limont asked if they could consider reducing that amount of time, such as
15 days. Commissioner Campbell agreed that they go up pretty fast and
should come down just as fast. Mr. Bagato deferred that to the City
Attorney. Commissioner Limont asked if they could reduce the time
because sometimes they just straggle. Mr. Hargreaves explained that the
7
MINUTES � �
� ALM DESERT PLANNING COMMI�SION MAY 5 20a4
whole sign issue is very complicated because it is considered speech and
they have the First Amendment free speech. Commercial signs are
somewhat problematic; political signs are very problematic because they
are regulating in an area that is very much protected by our constitutional
rights. They could regulate if we have a compelling interest. What they
have done in Palm Desert, and it has been recognized for some time, is
left provisions in the code that they generally understood they would have
difficulty enforcing, but they've asked people that run for offices within the
city to abide by the sign ordinance as a matter of good faith in terms of city
government. Sometimes they do, and occasionally they don't, and we go
through this trauma every time we have an election campaign. They try to
keep people within certain limits for the aesthetics for the city, but on the
other hand, we understand that our ability to enforce them, and somewhat
limit them, is somewhat problematic. It's almost more of a code of ethics
than an enforceable sign ordinance on some of these issues.
Chairperson Tanner asked if there was any provision in the ordinance that
would allow the public to take these signs down as opposed to the
candidates themselves. Mr. Bagato said they are located on private
property, so they would be trespassing and they couldn't do that. Ms.
Aylaian explained that many of the candidates will use the same signs
from one election to the next. They do like to get them back since they
own the signs. They might appreciate the help, but they might request that
the signs be returned to them. Mr. Hargreaves noted that there are more
aggressive sign ordinances, and La Quinta has a pretty aggressive one in
terms of the number of signs, but the enforceability of some of those
prohibitions is somewhat questionable. Chairperson Tanner indicated that
they also require them to be down in a shorter amount of time after an
election. Mr. Hargreaves said that we at times have taken forward
proposals, and there was talk at one time of having every political sign that
comes up to get a stamp of approval from the City, and by doing that the
candidate was basically acknowledging that it was their sign and they
would have it down within a specific amount of time. Ultimately, City
Council decided at that time that unless it was really broke, let's not mess
with it because it is such a touchy subject to try to regulate. Every two
years it becomes an issue and then kind of goes away.
Commissioner Schmidt asked when the new sign ordinance becomes
final, if it would have a chapter index similar to the old code. Mr. Bagato
said yes, it would be codified and would have an index as wetl.
Commissioner Schmidt thought it was remarkable to her that the old code
has enough left in it, if it was so antiquated, to be most of the new code. It
obviously was a good sign code and they were spiffing it up some, and an
extraordinary amount of work went into it, and is still going into it, and she
8
j (
. MINUTES
ING COMMIS. ION MAY S nna
was very grateful for that. She really felt it was a mouthful and it has been
worked on for over two years, and yet it is before them tonight once.
She had some questions that needed to be answered, and what she really
felt is that they should continue this and call for some sort of group study
session between Architectural Review (ARC), and maybe even the Sign
Subcommittee, so they could be comforted with some of these questions,
because this vehicle is going to stay with the City for a long time. She
didn't like to pass law for any single purpose, and she saw a semblance of
that threaded throughout the new ordinance. She would just like to be
clearer on what that really meant. Mr. Bagato said that the time to try and
get the Subcommittee together with both Planning Commission and ARC
would be a bit challenging, Also, he might have to look at doing some kind
of moratorium on signs, because if the news is out that they are going to
regulate the signs at the freeway, they could have people applying for
every business along the freeway right now and ask for approval under
the current code. Commissioner Schmidt said a moratorium would be fine.
Mr. Bagato would recommend a moratorium then, at least for signs facing
the freeway. Also, technically, commercial real estate signs right now are
out of compliance. They weren't addressing them until the ordinance was
updated.
Commissioner Limont asked for clarification on why they weren't
addressing them if they are out of compliance. Mr. Bagato explained that
they went to City Council and stated that our current codes are too
restrictive and outdated, and the Council said work with staff and the
Subcommittee. As long as they aren't too offensive or too cluttered, they
have allowed them to remain, even if they don't meet the current code. But
if there were ones staff thought were a problem or created a safety
hazard, too big or too cluttered, they have been asked to redo them. So
they have done that, but they can have a 4-foot by 6-foot out there that
doesn't meet the current code because they don't want to enforce
something right now that is at three square feet.
Comrnissioner Campbell agreed with Commissioner DeLuna. She thought
that staff did a good job on this and covered quite a bit of the laws or
requirements needed for signage. She thought the pictures were very
helpful and made it more understandable. There was a Signage
Subcommittee to discuss all of this with staff, and staff said that they may
have other people applying. Were they going to make them stop until they
put it into law? That would stop it, and people would have to come in front
of Planning or staff to get their signage approved.
9
MINUTES � �
PALM DE_SERT PLANNING COMMI�SION MAY S nnc
Commissioner Schmidt said she would express some of her concerns.
She did not see much about enforcement in the ordinance. It referred to
8.20.020. She thought that needed to be beefed up. Mr. Bagato explained
that the enforcement section basically referred to our municipal code
section for all enforcement; Code Enforcement has the ability to go out
and enforce, cite, and take legal action. So it was just referring back to
Chapter 8 of our Municipal Code. He didn't include it because it's already
how we do business today. Commissioner Schmidt said she pulled all of
that out and was aware of it.
Commissioner Schmidt noted that it also didn't speak to the removal of
non-conforming signs really specifically that she could find. She thought
that if they were going to make changes, they really needed to make it
very clear, as Mr. Bagato said the other was not, and there didn't seem to
be anything that she could see except the word neighborhood somewhere
that relates to how some of these signs impact existing residential
communities, and there was a lot of bare ground between the freeway and
Ef Paseo, a lot of which is for residential use and commercial use. She
didn't see that in the ordinance. Mr. Bagato explained that the tables are
broken down between the zones. Typically there weren't signs in a
residential zone. Commissioner Schmidt understood that, but asked about
residential zones adjacent to a large commercial center. There was
nothing in there to address the woman who has spent her life savings, or a
couple in their dream home, and suddenly they're facing a Kohl's sign. Mr.
Bagato said that was correct. It was difficult to address signs for every
possible scenario in the city. They would apply the same standards today,
and they do have a section in the code, and the general purpose is that
signs in the city are intended for identification purposes and not
advertising. There were very clear goals describing that: to eliminate
clutter and promote architectural compatibility within existing
neighborhoods. For example, when Kohl's went through their signage, it
was next to a residential property in the back (Falling Waters). He took
that to Architectural Review and recommended non-illumination just based
on that fact. So staff does look at signs in context of the surrounding
property, it was just hard to draft every single possible scenario in a code
to do that, so they have the ultimate clause, which is architectural
compatibility with the building, as well as the neighborhood. He felt with
Palm Desert staff and the Architectural Review Commission that they are
prepared to handle those kinds of cases.
Commissioner Limont asked if the Code Department, and Mr. Ponder was
here this evening, if they have had issues of any magnitude with regard to
signs or through the architectural process, or do they pretty much nip it in
the bud, so it was just a few here and there? Mr. Bagato said typically
10
MINUTES ����� �
PALM DESERT Pl ANNING COMMI�G�pN MAY � �nno
with code enforcement, people put up signs without a permit, and then the
problem becomes, if it wasn't something staff would approve, they've
already spent money on something that is difficult to approve or they won't
approve it, but typically they haven't had too many complaints, or any that
he was aware of, with signs facing residential zones.
Commissioner Limont indicated that her biggest issue was with real estate
signs in the medians that say open house. She thought real estate signs
were supposed to be on private property, were for the residences for sale,
that fiype of thing. She also agreed with Commissioner Schmidt; if we are
going to redo this, let's make sure we are addressing these issues so that
Code isn't getting yelled at from both sides. They are supposed to enforce
this, yet we're giving them nothing to enforce. Mr. Bagato explained that
signs aren't allowed in public rights-of-way. He thought what she might be
talking about were enforcement issues, which would continue to be
enforcement issues whether or not a new code is adopted, because the
code says signs in the public right-of-way aren't allowed. People put open
house signs in the medians and those are in violation. Those are
problematic and will be enforced.
Mr. Bagato reiterated that the code is how we're already operating in
staff's opinion and didn't see it as a major change, except for what the
Signage Subcommittee directed them to do. From staff's standpoint, it was
to make it more user-friendly and easier to read.
Commissioner Limont asked if the Code Department had input into the
new sign ordinance. Mr. Bagato said yes: Code, City Attorney, and some
sign companies that he deals with on a daily basis because he was also
concerned about the business comrnunity too and wanted to do something
user-friendly, and wanted to make sure they agreed with it. Best Signs and
Sign-A-Rama both reviewed it. He worked on it quite a bit to try to make
sure he was doing his best to serve what City Council wanted, as well as
the business community and what staff already does today. From an
enforcement perspective, Ms. Aylaian added that they intentionally do not
go through all the enforcement in Title 25. They refer back to Title 8,
because what happens is over the years, they want to say what they have
to say once and say it correctly. If they say it multiple places and go
through and rnodify it piecemeal over the years, they pick up the change
they want to make in one section, but not in another, and then they
contradict each other. So the intent generally is to refer back to Title 8,
which is where they address public nuisances and abatement procedures
and the processes available for enforcement, not just of Title 25, but of the
other titles as well. They want to refer everything back to that area so that
if they want to change how things are enforced, they would change it in
11
� (
MINUTES �
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMI�G�nN MAY � nno
one place and it doesn't buiid in inconsistencies in the code. That was a
very deliberate decision to not address great detail of the enforcement. in
fact, the only thing they put in there that was different from other places
and that was the charge of double fees for signs erected without getting
permits in advance. But generally, they wanted to steer them back to our
code enforcement process, which is covered elsewhere.
Mr. Bagato noted that sign removal was addressed on page 36 of the draft
resolution; they have a section for lawful non-conforming signs to be
rernoved. Basically 25.68.120 addresses all the non-conforming sign
issues and it was reviewed by Code Enforcement and the City Attorney.
Staff worked with a sign consultant who has written hundreds of codes, so
this was recommended by them, as well as Code Enforcement, to be
more compatible with our standards in Chapter 8.
Commissioner Schmidt said that was why she would like more time with
this. She could understand from a staff point of view that they would want
to make it user-friendly. The way she believed the Commission should
look at it is to look at it is as it applies to the city overall and everyone who
lives in or does business in it. From that perspective, she had to look at it
differently. She wanted to make very certain that they don't let the horse
out of the barn because they hurried with it. She thought a great deal of
work has gone into it and that it was close, but it wasn't final or ready at
this point. She thought they owed it to the city who they senre to take an
extra day, even if it was complicated to arrange, she would be available,
and go over some of these things. She didn't like it being pushed. She
thanked him for giving them the document two weeks ago, that was very
helpful, but that was the first time she has seen that document and she
spent a great many hours on it since then and she was still not happy.
She asked Mr. Bagato to give her a good example of a creative sign. That
was new to the code as she understood it. Mr. Bagato showed an
example of a sign that was reviewed by ARC for the Wachovia building on
Highway 111 at Monterey. It didn't get built as proposed with signage on
the architectural projection, but with the right building design, staff and the
Architectural Review Commission believed that these types of signs could
be allowed to fit a building design, but under the current code it wouldn't
be allowed. This would be a case of making specific findings if they felt it
was compatible under the creative sign program and could be approved.
The current code doesn't address signs on an architectural projection. He
noted that it was hard to write a code to address every possible scenario,
so this was their way of being able to look at something unique or creative.
They didn't want to give away the farm, but wanted to be able to allow
signs that if designed correctly and are creatively unique, but don't meet
12
�. _... . .._ ._. _....�
/�
t�� �'�,
MINUTES �
PALM DE�ERT PLANNING COMMI���pN MAY S �nnc
our code, they want to be able to present specific findings to approve it.
One of the City Council members on the Subcommittee was also a little
concerned with this section, and staff made it clear that any sign for
maybe the first couple of years would go to the City Councii so that it
wasn't just ARC making these decisions.
Commissioner Schmidt reiterated that the Director of Community
Development would provide criteria for the creative sign program. If an
applicant wanted to go that way, then it would go before Architectural
Review and they would pass it or not pass it. If they didn't pass it, it would
go straight to Council. Mr. Bagato said it would only go to City Council if
the applicant filed an appeal. Commissioner Schmidt noted that it would
not come back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Bagato indicated that
ARC is the review authority for signage, and City Council the ultimate
appealable decision maker. Signs generally don't go before Planning
Commission. The only time they might see them is on new development;
they were now requiring that signage location be identified as part of the
project. That was the only time they would really see them. Today they
only see them was if someone was requesting a variance and that would
come to the Planning Commission. Otherwise, today Planning
Commission would not see signs, and that would remain the same. There
were specific findings in Section 68.110 on page 34. So there were three
different findings and a bunch of criteria that staff would have to find and
ARC would have to agree with those findings. Commissioner Schmidt
noted it wasn't as subjective as it sounded. Mr. Bagato agreed, and
thought it was pretty specific.
Commissioner Limont thought it was interesting that Commissioner
Schmidt brought up that issue, because that was the one she circled and
said no. They review height, and architecture, and disagree. They have
had some pretty good discussions about extending and allowing people to
go above the height limitations for architectural reasons or not, and to her
this was too loose; just that one section. And she agreed, staff has done a
great job and she went over this as best she could. She didn't disagree
that a study session would be helpful. She didn't know if it was
appropriate, but one of her thoughts was if they sat down with staff,
because Council has met on this, Code has met on this, staff has been on
it, and they've had a lot of players on it. But the only problem she had was
with "C".
Commissioner Schmidt's main concern was that they don't encourage
variances, which is what typically comes before them with almost every
building she has seen since she has been here. And this old sign
ordinance is very restrictive and was written that way for a purpose: to
13
� _ (
MINUTES
� ALM DE�ERT PLANNINC COI�!MISSION MAY S �nno
discourage big signage in this city. So she didn't want them to step off the
cliff and open Pandora's Box for variances. And when it doesn't come to
the Planning Commission, it becomes/remains a vehicle of Architectural
control, and quite honestly, she has seen advance in buildings and
building color that she wondered about. That is their duty and they do it
very well, but she just wanted to make sure that they weren't just making
this more staff friendly and opening it up to things they don't want in the
city. There was so much undeveloped in the city, and she has seen this in
her experience where they think it's right and that it's good, but as the city
develops, they realize there is a roadway full of signs and that was not the
intent of this ordinance. Mr. Bagato said that was the section added by
staff, so they could recommend moving it forward without that section
being endorsed by the Planning Commission, if that was the decision of
the whole. He couldn't speak for future staff members, but the intent
wasn't to build bigger signs; the whole intent of the ordinance is to address
them for identification purposes and make sure they are architecturally
compatible with the building. He thought if they looked at some of the
signs throughout the city today, that's the process. If they know sign
companies, they are pretty grueling with them already on what they can
have. He knew his intent was not to allow someone to have bigger, much
bigger, or a brighter sign.
In the last week, Commissioner Schmidt said she drove the entire city,
street by street in the commercial sectors, drove Indian Wells, La Quinta,
Cathedral City, and Palm Springs. She was very impressed with Palm
Desert, in particular for its size and it's attendance to keeping things calm,
cool and collected. She was not criticizing; she was just saying take the
time to do this thoroughly and right. There had been so much time put in
on it there was very little in her mind that needed to be added, but she was
not comfortable voting this through tonight. The motion was that they
continue this to either the next or the following regular meeting of the
Planning Commission, and as soon as possible, the Commission, with at
least staff, go over this a little more thoroughly and anyone who wishes to
sit in on that should be welcomed and invited: the Committee, Council,
ARC, anybody. Commissioner Limont thought they should do it as soon as
possible with a moratorium on signs in the interim, because it was only fair
to staff and people getting their businesses going that they do this as
quickly as possible. Commissioner Schmidt didn't know if she would have
the authority to move for a moratorium on signage, but she would certainly
move for a continuance. Commissioner Limont said for their education
with staff, and then put it on the next one.
Mr. Bagato asked if they wanted an "agendized" study session, or if they
wanted to meet with him one on one. If it was for everyone, the Brown Act
14
, MINUTES � �
G COMMI�SI�N Mev � �nno
required that an agenda be published at least 72 hours prior, and to invite
others, they wouid have to publish it as well. It was a little more difficult to
try to have everyone involved. Commissioner Limont asked if they could
just have a study session for Planning Commission and have it in the little
conference room. Mr. Bagato said yes. Ms. Aylaian noted that she hadn't
heard if everyone was interested in a study session or not; staff was
always available to meet one on one either to go over it or go out in the
field and look at examples and answer specific questions. If the majority of
the Commission was interested in a study session, they would set that up.
Two things she would add is one� if they were looking to broaden that to
involve other parties, the ordinance has already been through the
Architectural Review Commission and they were done with it. If they were
asking the City Council to set up a study session to go over it, their
calendar is pretty full, so that would project out the time that it would take.
If they wanted to keep it just for the Planning Commission, it could
probably be a quicker date. She also urged not to look at any moratorium
because she thought that would do irreparable damage to the business
community. Staff processes signs every day and to stop businesses that
are trying to upgrade or to open from being able to process new sign
applications she thought would be a disservice to the community.
For anyone presently trying to process their signage, Commissioner
Schmidt asked if they would be free to continue as long as it complied with
the existing ordinance. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. Commissioner
Lirnont noted that the freeway is a big issue.
Chairperson Tanner reiterated that it had been proposed to do a study
session with staff. He asked if they could open it up to individuals from
ARC without inviting them. Ms. Aylaian explained that study sessions are
open to the public, so anybody that was interested could attend.
Chairperson Tanner said he was all in favor of having a study session. He
too was rather uncomfortable. They were presented with freeway signs
which years ago were not present in Palm Desert. They were also
concerned now with real estate signs, no vacancy signs, and leasing
signs. They were all very important to the City of Palm Desert, and as far
as he was concerned, he didn't think he had enough information even in
front of him, and there was no question that staff did a great job. The sign
committee that was part of ARC to get this to this point, He also
encouraged the Signage Subcommittee to be part of the study session.
He was in favor of doing that and was in favor of doing that prior to the
next meeting so this matter could come back to them within a two-week
period of time. He also encouraged an open discussion at that meeting.
15
,
MINUTES �r �'
PALM DESERT PLAI�hING COMMIS�ION MAY 5 200q
Chairperson Tanner asked if there were any other questions of staff, then
o ened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak in
FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to, the public hearing.
MR. DICK BAXLEY, Baxley Properties at 73-712 Alessandro in
Palm Desert, informed the Planning Commission that he is a
member of the Signage Subcommittee. He said they worked hard
and there was a lot of variety of opinions. He thought 99% of what
was in front of them was agreeable to everyone, including the real
estate signs. But that was not his purpose for being at the meeting.
He was a prime violator and those signs would be fixed. What he
was very concerned about were the freeway signs and the freeway
visibility when cars are going by at 70 or 80 mph. He strongly
disagreed that it was for identification only. The signs were not
readable and those poor people who have buildings out there that
are empty or barely filled up, they need better visibility on the
freeway. And that was his only concern, the freeway visibility, not
bothering the neighbors, not hitting the city streets, but freeway
visibility. A 12-inch sign on the small buildings was not adequate for
any kind of visibility at alt, and he believed they should be lighted.
He also thought that could be done tastefully. He understood the
City's concern about what other places look like, but we are
nowhere close to that, but he thought a little bit bigger and lighted
would go a great deal toward helping those businesses be
successful in an incredibly difficult timeframe. Those were his
comments and he thanked them for their time.
There was no one else wishing to speak. Chairperson Tanner closed the
public hearing and opened the discussion for Commission comments.
Commissioner Limont said her only issue was with "C", which she felt
gave too much of a free hand. In going over, studying and reading what
they were provided by the Planning Department, and she agreed with her
fellow Commissioners that they did a great job. She also agreed with the
changes that need to be made out on the freeway, with cleaning up the
real estate signs, and she had no problem with the Spinello signs or the
Prime Choice signs--she thought they were elegant, and real estate signs.
But also, she wanted to make sure this Commission was in favor of it, so if
they needed a study period, she was all for it and would make time.
Commissioner Campbell stated that she wouldn't be available for the
study session, but the other Commissioners could get together and that
was fine with her.
16
�
MINUTES �,¢ C.�
ALM DESERT PLANNIN , �n���,��SSION MAY � �nna
Chairperson Tanner reo ened the public hearing and asked for a motion.
Commissioner Schmidt restated her motion to continue the public hearing
to May 19, 2009 and convene a public study session on the proposed sign
ordinance to allow for the Commission to finalize their questions. and
concerns. Ms. Aylaian suggested Tuesday, May 12, at 6:00 p.m. in the
Administrative Conference Room. Commission concurred. Commissioner
Limont seconded the motion. Commissioner Schmidt asked if it was
possible to invite everyone who has been concerned to that public
meeting. Ms. Aylaian said staff would extend the invitation to everyone
that was involved in the Signage Subcommittee, although in the past they
would generally need three or four weeks to get the schedules to mesh.
She understood that the Commission would like to hear this at their next
meeting, and they would schedule it, invite people, and hope for the best.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Schmidt, seconded by Commissioner
Limont, continuing Case No. ZOA 09-104 to May 19, 2009 and scheduling
a study session on May 12, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. Motion carried 5-0.
IX. MISCELLANEOUS
None.
X• COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES
A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
None.
B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE
None.
C. PARKS & RECREATION
Chairperson Tanner reported on the issues that were discussed.
D. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMI7TEE
None.
17
��� �.� �c �
. o.��os/o�
��
-----Original Message-----
From: InformationMail
Sent: Tuesday, May 05, 2009 7:51 AM
To: InformationMail
Subject: Contact Us Submission
Submission information
-----------------------------------------
Submitter DB ID : 645
Submitter's language : Default language
IP address : 66.74.2.232
Time to take the survey : 20 min. , 3 sec.
Submission recorded on : 5/5/2009 7:51:02 AM
Survey answers
-----------------------------------------
Your Contact Information
First name: * 7ohn
Last name: * Dockery
E-mail Address: * jtdockerv�a�mail.com
Address line 1 32 Merill Dr
Address line 2 Not answered
City Palm Desert
State �q
Zip code: * 92260
Phone number 346-1096
I Am a:
Palm Desert Business Owner [x]
Palm Desert Resident [x]
Comments:
Planning dept hearing on Muni Code Sec 25.68 Signs. re Sign Walkers. I DO NOT
support the BAN, however I DO SUPPORT, requiring permits/fees, and a 60 day
maximum usage. I am currently a marketing/advertising company that handles
Retirement Sales, Going Out of Business sales, (legitmate ones). These sales
occur mainly for local businesses, that for various reasons, age, no family to
continue business, health, deaths, economics preventing continuation. Sign
Walkers have become the #1 successful advertising media and critical to the sales
success. We hire, through Labor Ready, and similiar temp agencies, LOCAL folks,
who need part/full time work, 4-6 people for 60 days, who HAVE WORKERS COMP,
through the agency, TAXES with held, and spend the money LOCALLY. These sales
typically generate HUGE SALES TAX REVENUE (1-2 years gross sales) in 60 days
time. I respectfully request your consideration to LOCAL businesses that have
provided jobs and TAX REVENUE for years, exit with their dignity and cash for
RETIREMENT.
Thank you, John Dockery,JSD Advertising and Consulting, Palm Desert,
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PI_ANNING COMMISSION MAY 19 200
There were no other comments or discussion. Chairperson Tanner cailed
for the vote. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Schmidt voted no).
Commissioner Schmidt explained that she was not really happy that
construction was commenced and still ongoing before the proper permits.
She felt that this should be continued until things are properly done and i's
are doted and T's are crossed. So her vote was no.
It was also moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by
Commissioner Limont, adopting the findings and Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2502, approving Case No. CUP 09-174, subject to
conditions. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Schmidt voted no).
`*�r► D. Case No. ZOA 09-104— CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant
(Continued from May 5, 2009)
Request for a recommendation of approval to the City
Council of a zoning ordinance amendment updating and
revising Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.68, Signs.
Mr. Bagato noted that there was a study session on May 12. Basically, his
presentation would highlight those provisions, the changes since that
study session, as well as the previous discussion issues on May 5. He
noted that several pages indicated in red were included in the
Commission's packets. The red lettering indicated either new words or
strikethroughs for removals. They were modified words and sentences to
clarify portions of the code for better understanding and clearer purpose.
Secondly, they reviewed signage and proposed 16-inch high letters
maximum for freeway fronting signs, depending on the overall length of
the sign. He included a drawing demonstrating the difference between the
12-inch and 16-inch high letters. Staff felt that 16 inches would be
appropriate as a maximum, depending on the name size and could be
designed without clutter.
The last option was the Creative Sign Program. There was some
discussion about amending some of the wording so that they weren't
necessarily encouraging businesses to ask for exceptions or promoting it,
and instead looking at it more as just criteria to allow the process if
someone wanted to do it. There was also some discussion about
eliminating it, so staff had two proposed actions. The first was to amend
the more restrictive code, which again had limitations that Architectural
Commission could only approve a sign that would be no more than 20%
larger than what the code allows, and it also did not allow prohibited signs
to be approved, so no one could ask for a billboard, a pole sign, or a neon-
18
MINUTES
PALM DESFRT PLANNING COMMI�SION MAY 19 2p0
flashing sign as a creative sign because it was not allowed. But the new
wording was added to be stricter and make it clear that it is just a process
and was not encouraging it. Before them was his recommendation and
that was that the Planning Commission, by minute motion, do three
separate things in minute motion: approve the majority of the draft sign
ordinance inctuding the standards for real estate signs; secondly, approve
the new standards for freeway signs with 16-inches being the maximum
height as long as it isn't cluttered along the building; and the last option
was approving the amended restrictive standards for creative signs or
remove it all together, and then adopt the resolution. Staff would revise the
ordinance to fit into the motion. He asked for any questions.
Commissioner Schmidt asked when Mr. Bagato said the Planning
Commission draft, if he was referring to the redlined version. Mr. Bagato
replied yes, the other pages that weren't included, plus the redlined
version.
Regarding non-illuminated signs facing the freeway, Commissioner
Campbell commented that when going by at night, they really couldn't see
whose business it is. She asked if all the letters were 16-inches and
everybody had the same size and the same font, if they could all be
illuminated the same. Instead of one blue, one red or one green, it if it was
all neutral, and every single one was the same. Mr. Bagato said that could
be a recommendation by the Planning Commission. The discussion of the
Signage Subcommittee was that they didn't want to continue what was
already happening, and the current illuminated signs were an issue. Staff's
recommendation in response to that was to propose non-illuminated signs.
Some of the Subcommittee members agreed, some didn't. The business
community didn't agree. He also mentioned that Dick Baxley of Baxley
Properties couldn't be at the meeting, but he did write a letter and
requested that there be some kind of illumination and he although he
preferred 16 over 12, he would like to see 20-inch high letters. Mr. Bagato
thought that 20-inches could look pretty big and cluttered, so he wouldn't
recommend 20. From staff's position in working with the Signage
Subcommittee, non-illuminated was proposed; he could request maybe
reverse channel, which appeared as a halo illumination and only back
lighting. It would provide some illumination. To give some consistency,
they could all be a white color. They could also potentially allow an
exterior light fixture to light the wall as a solution. He thought the concern
was having these different colored neon signs, and the problem when
having federally trademarked signs, if it is red, they couldn't control that
not lighting up red. Then the next one could be black with white
background and it could appear cluttered.
19
MINUTES
T PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 1 g 200
Commissioner Campbell noted that the attorney's wording was to modify
all signs facing the freeway and shall use a single color except for
federally trademarked signs. Mr. Bagato said that was correct, but if they
lit up, that color would light up differently, and that was their concern. As
well, the Subcommittee didn't want too many of these different colored
signs lighting up.
Commissioner Schmidt asked if the Subcommittee studied rear-lighted
signs. Mr. Bagato said no.
Chairperson Tanner noted that when driving down the freeway, most of
the back of the buildings are facing the interstate and are very well lit
because of where they are. If they have gone out at night, just the parking
lot illumination brings the signs out. Mr. Bagato noted that most buildings
have wall scones on them that light up; they have parking lot lighting, so
this isn't a pitch dark environment. Staff's position was if they have a sign
up, then it at least serves as identification for someone driving around the
back looking for deliveries or looking for the spot. It wasn't meant to
advertise to the freeway. It's not pitch dark out there, so there was some
illumination from parking lots as well as the building.
Commissioner Limont indicated that was one of the discussions in the
study group that signs are for identification, not for advertising. That was
the key issue. As long as they were identifying the building, because the
entrance is from Gerald Ford or Dinah Shore, that's where their signs are
located.
Regarding the difference in letter size from 12- to 16-inches,
Commissioner DeLuna asked how far these buildings were from the
freeway. Referring to his handout, Mr. Bagato said that was a general
drawing; buildings could be up to their property line, but there was an 80-
foot railroad easement. So there was 80 feet between any of these
property lines to the freeway because of the railroad, and there might be
other easements back there, but at least 80 feet away. Most have some
kind of driveway at least 24-feet wide and some have parking that would
be longer; so some of these buildings are 100 feet away. The drawing was
of a typical 30-foot tall building with 20-feet wide multi-tenant spaces,
which is what Closet Tailor was designed to. It is a 30-foot tall building
with 20-foot wide spaces, so he based that design on what 12 inches
would like. And that would be over 100 feet away from the freeway.
Commissioner Schmidt noted that at the study session they talked about
picking a font, or two or three, to recommend or require. She asked if
anyone had looked at that, other than for a trademark. Mr. Bagato
20
MINUTES
ALM DESERT PLANNING GOMMIS�ION MAY 19 2009
explained that for code purposes, he was reluctant to identify a specific
font type. It would be subjective, but Architectural Review could look at it
and stated that it should be a clean, clear letter font style because to
identify one by code, if that one font ever disappeared or changed and it
was in the ordinance, they would have to go back to City Council to
change it. He thought it would be probtematic in specifying specific font
types. He said it should be clean, clear and not cluttered so even though it
was subjective, it was still clear cut.
Commissioner Schmidt reiterated that Architectural Review Commission
would determine what they would like to see on the building, with those
criteria. Mr. Bagato said that was correct. Because most of the cases for
the smaller businesses, these were multi-tenant buildings. If a building has
more than three tenants, they automatically have to do a sign program
and that has to go to Architectural Review. At that time they would be able
to piggy back off of the sign program to eliminate clutter and to look at
these signs and basically make them more uniform in a similar font style
for every tenant. So they basically have two ways of reviewing these multi-
tenant signs.
On page 36 on abandoned signs and removal, Commissioner Limont
noted that they took out the word "immediately" and put in "within 30
days." She knew that they discussed this, but if it was an abandoned sign
or non-conforming. Mr. Bagato indicated that with non-conforming, the
language was going to be to get rid of that immediately. On page 35 he
struck out that last sentence that was basically going to state that "...do
not comply with this requirement shall be deemed lawful non-conforming
signs." And then they get removed.
Commissioner Limont noted that was under lawful. Mr. Bagato said that
abandoned signs were a little more tricky because that meant they would
have to be able to take 30 days to identify that the business is out of
business and to notify the property owner that they have x amount of days
to get that sign off the wall. So it was kind of a different issue. They
needed time to investigate that the business is no longer there before
issuing a notice to the property owner that the sign is abandoned because
the business is gone. Commissioner Schmidt noted that it could be 120
days. Mr. Bagato confirmed that it would be 120 days on the abandoned
signs.
Commissioner Schmidt said she was happy with the draft ordinance as it
incorporated her proposed changes. Chairperson Tanner asked if there
were any more questions of staff. There were none.
21
MINUTES
ALM DESERT PLANNINC GOMMISSION MAY 19 200
Chairperson Tanner noted that the public hearing was oqen and asked if
anyone wished to speak in FAVOR of or in OPPOSITION to the proposed
amendments. There was no one and the public hearing was closed.
Chairperson Tanner stated for the record that Commissioner Schmidt had
some great suggestions and it appeared to him that she spent a great
amount of time on this and her changes were incorporated into the new
ordinance. They've had the same ordinance for quite some time and it
was necessary to make some changes and he thanked Commissioner
Schmidt for the time she spent on it and for coming to the study session
last week and presenting them; job well done. He asked for a motion.
Commissioner Schmidt asked about the Creative Sign program.
Commissioner Limont stated that she wanted it removed. Chairperson
Tanner asked if the proposed motions had to be done separately; Mr.
Bagato said no, not if they all agreed on the Creative Sign portion. Staff's
position was to keep the Creative Sign section, but two options were
presented.
Commissioner Limont stated that she was in favor of everything but the
Creative Sign section. Chairperson Tanner stated that he was also in favor
of everything but the Creative Sign section. He asked for a motion.
Action:
It was moved by Commissioner Limont, seconded by Commissioner
DeLuna, by minute motion, approving:
1. The majority of the Draft Signage Ordinance, including the
new standards for the Non-Residential Real Estate Signs;
and
2. The new standards for Freeway Signs allowing a maximum
of 16-inch letter height, depending on the overall length of a
sign, instead of 12 inches, so long as it does not appear
cluttered on the building as determined by the Director of
Community Development; and
3. Removal of Section 25.68.110 for Creative Signs from the
Draft Ordinance.
Commissioner Schmidt asked for clarification on the motion. There were
two options for Creative Signs. "A" was to approve the amended, more
restrictive standards; and "B" removed the Creative Signs. Chairperson
Tanner reiterated that the motion was to allow a maximum of 16-inch high,
22
MINUTES
ERT PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 19 2009
non-illuminated signs and removal of the Creative Signs from the Draft
Ordinance.
Chairperson Tanner noted that there was a motion and a second.
Commissioner Schmidt asked for clarification that if they were in favor of
the Creative Sign section as amended, then they would be voting no; and
if they wanted the Creative Signs section totally removed, the vote would
be yes. Chairperson Tanner concurred.
He called for the vote. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Schmidt voted
no).
It was moved by Commissioner Limont, seconded by Commissioner
De�una, adopting the findings and Planning Commission Resolution No.
2503, recommending to City Council approval of Case No. ZOA 09-104 as
amended by the minute motion. Motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner
Schmidt voted no).
Chairperson Tanner thanked staff and Commissioner Schmidt for all their
hard work.
IX. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Discussion of Staff Report regarding Massage Establishments
within Palm Desert.
Mr. Swartz stated that per Commission's request, staff prepared a report
outlining the number of massage establishments. They were broken down
into two categories: independent stand-alone massage establishments,
and massage establishments as a secondary use. He asked for any
questions.
Commissioner DeLuna stated that it was her understanding that there are
19 stand alone massage parlors currently in the city of Palm Desert. Mr.
Swartz clarified that there are 19 approved massage establishments, 12 of
them are stand alone, and 7 are a secondary use. Commissioner DeLuna
explained that she was still concerned about the stand alone, not the ones
located in other facilities, but the stand alone massage facilities. She
indicated that per public record, there had been police activity in one
recently and that only increased her concern about the safety, not only of
the people who work in them, but the safety of the people who would
frequent them. She didn't think Palm Desert needed to have the number of
23