Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppointment - Two City Councilmembrs - Neon Signs SubcommitteeCITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT REQUEST: APPOINT TWO (2) CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO A SUBCOMMITTEE THAT WILL WORK WITH STAFF AND THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY TO DEVELOP NEW STANDARDS FOR ILLUMINATED WINDOW SIGNS ("NEON SIGNS"). SUBMITTED BY: Tony Bagato Principal Planner APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert DATE: February 24, 2011 CONTENTS: City Council Minutes, dates November 18, 2010 Recommendation: By Minute Motion, appoint two (2) City Council members to a subcommittee dealing with illuminated window signage. Discussion: On July 27, 2010, the City Council directed staff to prepare a Zoning Ordinance Amendment removing the neon sign prohibition and to develop standards that would allow neon signs with approval by the Architectural Review Commission. After the meeting, staff researched ordinances from other cities to develop new standards for illuminated window signs. On September 28, 2010, the Architectural Review Commission discussed the proposed standards and recommended approval with some modifications. Staff made the modifications and presented the ordinance to the Planning Commission on October 19, 2010. After discussion by the Planning Commission, a recommendation of denial was approved on a 3-2 vote. Staff presented the proposed ordinance to the City Council on November 18, 2010.. After the presentation, discussion, and public hearing, the case was referred back to staff with a request that a subcommittee be formed. The subcommittee will consist of two (2) City Council members, representatives of the business community and staff to develop new standards for allowing illuminated window signs. Staff anticipates that the subcommittee will meet several times over the course of one to two months. Staff Report February 24, 2011 Page 2 of 2 Fiscal Analysis The formation of this subcommittee will have no fiscal impact on the City. Submitted by: Department Head: Tony Bagato Lauri Aylaian Principal Planner Director of Community Development Approval: A. Wohlmuth anager CITY COUNCIL A✓✓ TION APPROVED DENTED RECEIVED OTHER 1VdEET G ATE ' AYF,S: 6 'DOES: �..�.� ABSENT: ABSTAIN: VERIFIED BY: L12le Mtn Original on File with City`CleWs Office GAPlanning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Formats\Staff Reports\ZOA\ZOA 10-311\Subcommittee Staff Report.doc MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2010 Mayor Finerty declared the public hearing omen and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING the Ordinance. With no public testimony offered, she declared the public hearing closed. Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1217. Motion was seconded by Benson and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Ferguson ABSENT. C. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, PROVIDING SIGNAGE STANDARDS FOR ILLUMINATED WINDOW SIGNAGE IN SECTION 25.68 OF THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE Case No. ZOA 10-311 (City of Palm Desert, Applicant). Principal Planner Tony Bagato stated on July 27, 2010, the City Council directed staff to adopt an ordinance to allow illuminated window signage after the City began enforcing the prohibition adopted last year when business owners came to speak to the City Council about their existing signs. He said the proposed Ordinance allows all new signs to be reviewed with new requirements and any existing signs will be grandfathered. The requirements for illuminated window signs will only be allowed in non-residential areas; signs cannot be combined with any reflective material such as glazed tiles, which causes more reflection off the window; signs will not occupy more than 25 percent of the store front window area; and no more than one window per frontage. The designing criteria meant they should be created or improve the store front design and cannot advertise products such as Budweiser. He said if the location of the business is next to a residential area, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) recommended illuminated signs to be turned off when the business is closed. He said the approval process would require ARC approval and the City Council can call up any of the cases up for review. The standards will be added to the Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.68, Section M; the ARC approved the proposed Ordinance on a 6-1 vote, with Commissioner Vuksic absent. When staff presented this matter to the Planning Commission, they recommended denial on a 3-2 vote. He said three commissioners were concerned illuminated signs would create a negative impact to the City, particularly on Highway 111 and El Paseo. He said staff was still recommending approval based on the direction of the City Council and the adopted restrictions proposed, because staff believed it can create a balance with businesses and also limit the visual impact. He offered to answer questions. Councilman Kroonen stated that in reviewing the minutes of July 27, 2010, which he did not participate in, it appeared quite clear the Council had in mind the revision of the Ordinance to permit neon or illuminated signs. From his perspective, he believed staff did a good job of returning to the Council with it, but the question was not "shall we or shall we not have," the question 22 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2010 was how could the City adjust its Ordinance in order to permit them. He asked staff if he was correct in his assumption. Mr. Bagato answered yes, stating that was the direction by the City Council. Councilman Kroonen stated it appeared to him that perhaps the Planning Commission was not answering the right question. The question wasn't yes or no, but rather how to. Mr. Bagato agreed, stating some of the commissioners recommended staff enforce the existing prohibition to not allow neon signs, which was the position of the majority of the commissioners. The Planning Commission had one recommendation, but staff believed neon signs can be controlled well enough to not become a negative impact. Councilman Kroonen asked if "illuminated window signs" equaled neon signs and neon equaled illuminated. Mr. Bagato answered yes. He said when staff was enforcing prohibition of neon signs, staff found out there was also LED and flourescent signs, so staff wanted to encompass all or any type of potential sources that could be used. Councilman Kroonen noted paragraph M of Section 3 with reference to "Current signs will be allowed to remain with approval from the Planning Department." He asked what would happen if the Planning Commission did not grant approval, would the signs have to be removed. Mr. Bagato stated the direction was to grandfather all existing signs. Staff worked with Code Enforcement in taking photographs of all existing ones and requiring businesses to get them documented so that if they tried to change signs in the future, the City will have a record of what was previously there. Further responding, he confirmed the language in the first paragraph should read, "illuminated window signs shall not be allowed in residential zones." Councilman Kroonen stated he was also concerned about the 25% of the frontage window area. He said in some larger windows it may allow for a large illuminated sign that might detract from the goal. Mr. Bagato agreed, but one of the ARC caveat's is that it enhance the storefront, so signs are subject to the design and individual store front. He said the ARC will review cases, and the City Council will receive a copy of those cases in their City Council packet, and if there are concerns, Councilmembers can call those cases up within fifteen days and request for it to be discussed before the City Council. 23 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2010 Councilman Kroonen stated in the event the ARC determines there is a negative impact and denies the case, could those cases be called up as well. Mr. Bagato answered yes, stating it could also be appealed by the Applicant. Councilman Spiegel stated he thought this matter was already approved on a six-month period. Mr. Bagato answered no, stating they had a six -months prohibition of enforcing outside signage. Councilmember Benson stated she was not against illuminated window signs, but she didn't want to see one on every window and thought something in the language should be included that limited three or four in a block, and if somebody else wanted to add one, they would have to wait until one went out. She didn't know if language could be inserted or if this needed to go back to the Planning Commission to answer the question, which was to help the Council figure out a way to help the merchants and certainly those grandfathered. She said in the thirty years she's been on the Council, she's never had a complaint about neon signs, but she didn't want to see Highway 111 or El Paseo become glitzy. Mr. Erwin responded he wasn't sure how that could be accomplished, but will certainly look to see if there was a possibility. Councilmember Benson stated she didn't want every store on El Paseo to have a neon sign. Responding to question, Mr. Bagato said existing illuminated/neon signs will be grandfathered, and new businesses will have to go through the ARC. Mayor Finerty asked if the photograph in the previous staff report, where there is a "Tecate" beer sign, a business that was grandfathered. Mr. Bagato answered yes, stating since the Ordinance wasn't previously being enforced, staff couldn't pick and choose what could get grandfathered, which was his understanding. He said staff had to allow all of them to remain with existing businesses, and overtime as businesses changed, hopefullythe signage will be eliminated down to one. He said the subject business mentioned had seven neon signs. Councilmember Benson stated she thought the signs went with the business and not the property. OW MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2010 Mr. Bagato stated someone had bought the business and maintained it as a liquor store and didn't change the window signs. He said it was still maintained with the property and the business, but if they wanted to start changing them with new liquor signs, staff could enforce the new code. Mayor Finerty asked why the City had allowed and not taken action on the Taqueria place that had several signs on the window, because it certainly didn't enhance the neighborhood. Mr. Bagato stated when staff tried to enforce the Ordinance that prohibited all the neon signs and started notifying the businesses, there was a public outcry that the City was enforcing the Ordinance in poor economic times. Therefore, staff recommended a temporary prohibition on the enforcement for two years, and staff was directed to come up with a Zoning Ordinance amendment and to grandfather all existing businesses. It was his hope to grandfather only one neon sign, but City Attorney said it wasn't possible to limit the number of signs it could grandfather on each business, but agreed to revisit that possibility. Mayor Finerty declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. MS. MARI SCHMIDT stated she was a City of Palm Desert Planning Commissioner. She said the question that baffled the Commission when this matter was presented was on whether the City could or couldn't grandfather existing businesses, because the City had allowed the signs to be installed without any kind of action. She noted City Attorney Dave Erwin was not at the meeting when this was discussed, but Mr. Hargreaves was present. She said Mr. Hargreaves said there was some grey area that could be enforced and have the neon signs removed, but that he needed to speak to Mr. Erwin about it, which was the last time the Commission heard anything on that point. She hoped to convince the Council to take another close and studied look at what it may endorse. She said the object of the subject ordinance revisions was to allow illuminated/neon signage in all windows except in residential zoning and/or facing residential areas, and to allow businesses which are presently not in compliance and thereby breaking the law, to be grandfathered. The background on this matter was due to a few business complaints, and staff was instructed to prepare a revision to the Ordinance allowing illuminated/neon signage in non-residential windows. She believed the original intent was to put in place a temporary allowance of two years to help businesses cope with the economic downturn. She said the following issues were wrong with the proposed ordinance: 1) There was little or no survey of all the existing businesses to gather any consensus on whether or not to favor this change; she believed El Paseo merchants were among them; 2) Approving the proposed ordinance would open a "pandora's box," 25 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2010 which can never be undone, because the ordinance had not been enforced nor did the City have the manpower to control the City's Ordinance; 3) The Ordinance will change the character of the City. She said people came to Palm Desert from all over the world because of the nature and character of this City and allowing this "Coney Island" approach to lighting up the City will cause irreparable harm to the City's image; the cost and residual effects of this about face action will be immeasurable; 4) The proposed Ordinance modifications were vague as the use of the term "storefront window" indicated just that. However, the Ordinance did not pertain to retail; it encompasses everything that is not residential, office, second story businesses, banks, service stations, and massage establishments; 5) A number of businesses have recently installed these signs in order to be grandfathered into the proposed Ordinance requirements before taking effect; 6) The concept that the economy is bad, the need to attract business, and the need for illuminated signs was sheer fantasy. She asked where was the research that proved lighting up a window with an "open" sign will bring more business than ordinarily would come to shop, particularly in Palm Desert. She pleaded with the Council to instruct staff to take a closer look at what all this meant and to canvass the existing businesses, commercial, and non-residential participants for the real impact of this incredible change in the character of the neighborhood. She said existing perpetrators, some 50 businesses, as told by staff, should be fined and made to remove the signage until this issue was properly studied and resolved. She said the proposed Ordinance changes should be carefully studied if the City chose to continue to pursue this nonsense; she said at least compare apples to apples. She shared that one evening when she was having dinner on El Paseo, her seat faced 14 stores in her direct view and thought it was truly a beautiful sight, which was one of the reasons she chose to live in Palm Desert. However, she became sadden with the thought of how awful it would be to have neon signs on all those windows. She said there was no hurry to approve the subject Ordinance and asked the Council to take a much longer look at the proposed Ordinance before it let the horse out of the barn. She offered to answer questions. Councilman Spiegel asked which businesses recently installed neon signs. MS. SCHMIDT answered The Gas Light. Councilman Spiegel stated he thought their signage had gone through ARC. MS. SCHMIDT said she had no idea, and only knew the signs had appeared in the last couple of weeks. Councilman Spiegel stated the name had changed because it was a new business. He said in order to install a new sign it had to go through ARC. 26 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2010 Mr. Bagato answered the sign on the building would have, but he didn't know about the window signs. MS. SCHMIDT noted there were three window signs. Councilmember Benson inquired about The Gaslight signage itself, on whether it was lit or not. MS. SCHMIDT answered no. Councilman Spiegel stated he didn't disagree that a closer look needed to be taken; however, he questioned whether this was the time to do it. He said anything that hurt the merchants, hurt the City of Palm Desert. He said until this evening he never had a complaint from anyone visiting or living here about too many neon signs and tonight wasn't an end-all. Councilman Kroonen stated people are always looking for opportunities to compromise and hoped there would be one for the position taken by a majority of the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Commission. It seemed to him this issue could be compromised and respectfully asked the Planning Commission to look again to see if there was a way for additional illuminated signs to be incorporated. He believed well-meaning people can discuss these matters and come up with original solutions that perhaps haven't been thought of, because he was not encouraged to vote yea or nay at this time and believed this issue can be resolved in a way that might be satisfactory to all parties. His recommendation would be to refer this matter back to the Planning Commission and ask for an additional look, because he didn't think the Planning Commission was answering what he considered to be the right question. The question as he read the minutes of the meeting of July 27, 2010, was not yea or nay on eliminating signs. The question was how could it be accomplished. MS. SCHMIDT responded that in all fairness, it was not the way she interpreted what was presented to the Commission at the meeting. She said the Commission was normally a reactive body and its been her experience when they attempt to be proactive, as this might indicate, which was her opinion and the majority of the Commission, that it's a mistake. She did not hear at that meeting that the Commission was instructed to draft some sort of ordinance and that it was a done deal. Councilman Kroonen stated he didn't mean to be argumentative, but he was basing his comments on the minutes of the July 27 meeting, "Mr. Erwin suggested a motion that would direct the City Attorney and City Staff to prepare amendment to the Sign Ordinance that would delete the prohibition of neon signs and require that all signs go through the normal Architectural Review Commission process." If that wasn't shared, he could understand why Ms. Schmidt took her position. 27 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2010 MS. SCHMIDT stated the Commission was told by staff that they had received instruction for the Commission to work at it. Councilmember Benson asked if there was a committee that made the proposed recommendations before it went to the Planning Commission. Mr. Bagato stated the Architectural Review Commission reviewed the proposed Ordinance, but he was the one that researched local and other resort cities that had an existing ordinance. He said other resort cities with district areas like El Paseo, didn't allow neon signs in walking districts, but allowed them in areas like Highway 111 where there was more driving traffic, which was another possibility or compromise that could be reviewed. He proposed the Ordinance to the ARC and minor modifications were made and then forwarded to the Planning Commission. He expressed to the Planning Commission that staff was directed to do this, but that they could have their own separate recommendation. Further responding, he said the ARC voted in favor of the proposed Ordinance. Councilmember Benson suggested having a committee with representation from El Paseo to weigh in, similarly to what the City's done on other projects relating to signage, before it's presented to the Planning Commission once again. She agreed there was no hurry, because she certainly didn't want to do anything that would hurt business. Mayor Pro Tern Ferguson stated he was just alerted to a family situation he needed to attend to but wanted to say good bye, because this was his last City Council meeting. However, with regard to this issue, he said there were some very artistic neon signs like About Face on San Pablo, and Kate Spade, and others who went above and beyond to make some artistic statement on their window, but placing a complementary Budweiser sign from a beer manufacturer was not what the Council had in mind for art in Palm Desert. He wished there was a way to provide a discretionary panel and was disappointed with the ARC, because they are charged with the task to review these matters on a case by case basis like they did with the Palm Desert Motor Lodge. It had historical significance, artistic merit, Art -deco feel, and it had a place in the City, but to grandfather everything from a Budweiser, Pacifico or Corona sign, which was doing nothing but selling beer was unacceptable. He was sensitive to the retail business, but it wasn't the life blood of the City, and if it detracted from people who want to spend more money in Palm Desert, he agreed a committee might be the way to go. He will no longer be serving as a Councilmember, so this was his two -cents worth. He hated to leave on this kind of a note, but he had to leave. He thanked everyone for his time on the Council and said good night and left the Council Chamber. RE MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2010 NOTE: Mayor Pro Tern Ferguson left the meeting at 5:23 p.m. MS. SCHMIDT stated her concern was that unless all businesses were spoken to, the assumption couldn't be made everyone wanted the proposed Ordinance, and the merchants of the City brought in the tax dollars, which was her point. She said she didn't want to argue, but she just wanted to make it clear that those who didn't like the proposed Ordinance were not being arbitrary. The Ordinance as drafted was not right and thoroughly vague and needed more work. MS. BARBARA DEBOOM stated that after hearing a couple of issues this evening, but having not been involved, as the business voice of the community she would offer some of the City businesses to get together to form a committee. Additionally, she was concerned about the issue with lights being off on El Paseo or throughout the City, because many restaurants are the livelihoods to the community that keeping the lights on was a perfect way to shop at night, because people are enticed to return to shop. She said to have the streets dark at night would be a deterrent. She suggested having a curfew for lights to be turned off at 10 o'clock may be another option, but agreed this issue needed more study. With no further testimony offered, Mayor Finerty declared the public hearing closed. Councilmember Benson reiterated the City needed a committee of business people and others to look at this before a decision was made, because it was too important as mentioned by Ms. Schmidt. She said the Council never did anything that was detrimental to the City, and the Council always tried to be business friendly. Although some have said the Council was not, it's not true, because the Council did everything the business community had asked them to do. She said this was another issue that needed the full attention of a committee before it returned to the Planning Commission. Councilman Kroonen and Mayor Finerty concurred. Councilmember Benson moved to refer the matter back to staff for establishment of a subcommittee, working with the Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce and the City's Business Community, to provide further study regarding illuminated window signage, and said recommendation to be brought back through the Zoning Ordinance Amendment process. Motion was seconded by Spiegel. Ms. Klassen asked if the public hearing needed to be reopened if this item was being continued or will it return as a newly noticed item. Mr. Erwin responded this item will have to be renoticed and returned as a public hearing. 29 MINUTES ADJOURNED REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2010 Ms. Klassen announced the motion carried by a 4-0 vote, with Ferguson ABSENT. D. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF AN AMENDED ASSESSMENT FOR A PARCEL OF LAND IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT SECTION 29 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (NO. 2004-02). Mr. Greenwood stated the Monterey Ridge Development formerly known as Falling Waters is located in the Section 29 Assessment District, more formerly known as Assessment District 2004-02. The project is located directly east of Ashley Furniture Store and the adjacent Walmart Store on the corner of Gateway Drive and 351h Avenue. He said the project had been subdivided into condominium lots and the action before the Council was to approve reapportionment of the assessments from the larger parent lot to the smaller condominium lots. Mayor Finerty declared the public hearing open and invited public testimony FAVORING or OPPOSING this matter. With no public testimony offered, she declared the public hearing closed. Councilman Spiegel moved to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 2010 - 84, confirming an Amended Assessment for a parcel of land in the Section 29 Assessment District (No. 2004-02) and fix the amount of the fees and costs for such amendment. Motion was seconded by Kroonen and carried by a 4-0 vote, with Ferguson ABSENT. XVIII. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. CITY MANAGER Report on New Burrtec Dedicated Routes and Service Days for all Regular Municipal Waste Collection (Residential and Commercial). Mr. Wohlmuth called attention to the informational report regarding routes for solid waste and recycling collection contained in the agenda packets. Since preparation of the report, City staff approached Burrtec about delaying the change until mid -June 2011 instead of on November 29, 2010. He noted that the request is a requirement of the City's Franchise Agreement but will be waived for six months, allowing Burrtec to develop their new routes by mid -June and provide adequate notice to all residents. Notification will also be given on the City's website. He said it was hoped that enough people will still be in town as of mid -June so that they get accustomed to the new collection. He offered to take any CounciImembers' comments on the proposed route maps to Burrtec, noting that the change was being made for reasons of efficiency and according to the Franchise 30