HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrd. 1262 - ZOA 13-224 - Illumnted Wndow Signage; �:� ��.,: � �;, s a� ��"„ �.�1:.:���.__ -- --..--
� �r�<A� ��.�� �..���_�?c��_...,.._.._._.
CITY OF PALM D� S��t�� i� ��� ��;�,L�;;;; __.�..._.�...��.._._._-_
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNI ' .T � � �� � � . � �
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A ZONlNG ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO
MODIFY SECTION 25.56.080.D. (SECTION 25.68.080.D.
CURRENTLY) WINDOW SIGNS, ALLOWING (LLUMINATED
WINDOW SIGNAGE FOR ALL BUSINESSES, EXCEPT FOR
BUSINESES LOCATED ON EL PASEO
SUBMITTED BY:
APPLICANT:
CASE NO:
DATE:
Tony Bagato, Principal Planner
City of Palm Desert
ZOA 13-224
September 26, 2013
CONTENTS: Ordinance No. 1262
Desert Sun Legal Notice
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2607
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated August 8, 2013
Planning Commission Staff Report, dated August 8, 2013
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, dated October 19, 2010
City Council Meeting Minutes, dated November 18, 2010
Recommendation
Waive further reading and pass Ordinance No.1262 , to second reading
approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment 13-224 amending Palm Desert
Municipal Code Section 25.56.080.D. — Window Signs (currently
25.68.080. D. ).
Executive Summary
This staff report is one of three that will amend current policy, as has been discussed for
the past few years. These amendments were presented at joint Planning
Commission/City Council study sessions on March 22, 2012 and May 9, 2013. This
report focuses on an ongoing issue/discussion related to illuminated (neon) signs. In
2010, staff began enforcing the prohibition on iNuminated window signs. After receiving
public opposition from several business owners, the City Council directed staff to
�
�
,�
>
�
�
Ordinance No. 1262
Staff Report
ZOA 13-224
Page 2 of 7
Sepiember 26, 2013
prepare a zoning ordinance amendment with standards that would allow illuminated
window signs.
A proposed zoning ordinance amendment was presented to the Planning Commission
on October 19, 2010. The Planning Commission, on a 3-2 vote, made a
recommendation of denial. On November 18, 2010, the City Council discussed the
zoning ordinance amendment. Based on the Planning Commission's recommendation
of denial, the issue was referred back to staff to work with two City Council members in
a subcommittee.
Staff worked with current Mayor Harnik and former council member Kroonen to study
illuminated window signs. After consideration, the subcommittee believed that
illuminated window signs are not objectionable as long as the business does not have a
lot of window signage cluttering their storefront. The recommendation of the
subcommittee is to allow illuminated window signs subject to the cuRent maximum of
25 percent window coverage.
On July 23, 2013, staff presented the proposed amendment to the Chamber of
Commerce for feedback and comments. No comments were received about the
proposed changes. On August 6, 2013, the proposed amendment was reviewed and
discussed by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission recommended
approval of the ordinance with one modification that would not allow the new illuminated
signs on EI Paseo.
Plannin4 Commission Action
On August 6, 2013, the Planning Commission reviewed and discussed the proposed
zoning ordinance amendment. Commissioners DeLuna and Dash expressed concems
about allowing illuminated window signs for businesses on EI Paseo. They stated that Ef
Paseo has a different character and nature than other parts of the City. After the
discussion, the Planning Commission recommended approval of ZOA 13-224 allowing
illuminated window signs except in windows fronting on EI Paseo.
Backctround
Currently, any illuminated window sign that is not a three square-foot "open" sign is
prohibited. In 2010, staff began enforcing the prohibition due to an increased number of
illuminated window signs and complaints from a local business owner. The City's Code
Compliance Division mailed letters informing businesses with neon window signs that
they were not allowed. After receiving notices to remove the neon window signs, several
business owners raised concems about the increased enforcement. Due to their
concems, they went before the City Council and requested that the Council to allow
neon window signs.
G:1Ranning\Tony BagetolStafl Repcxts�ZOA�ZOA 13-224 Wmdow Signs4CCSR_ Illuminated Window Signs.docx
Ordinance N0. 1262
Staff Report
ZOA 13-224
Page 6 of 7
September 26, 2013
recommendation, the following changes will be made to Section 25.56.080.D. — Window
Signs of the new code (current Section 25.68.080.D.):
1. The aggregate area of all window signs shall not exceed 25 percent of the
total window area of a storefront.
2. Signs shall be permanently painted, etched, or mounted on the inside of
windows.
3. Illuminated (LED, neon, etc.) window signs shall be allowed as permanent
window signs, and shall not exceed 15 square feet in size. The area covered
by the illuminated sign(s) shall count towards the maximum 25 percent
window coverage limitation as described above. These signs shall not be
allowed in windows fronting on EI Paseo and shall not rotate, move, flash,
blink, or appear to do any of the foregoing.
4. Window signs shall be allowed in addition to the aggregate sign area allowed
for wall and projecting signs.
5. Signs within 5 feet of a storefront window shall be counted as window signs.
Conclusion
In 2010, the City Council directed staff to develop standards for illuminated window
signs to address concems expressed by the business community. Staff presented an
ordinance that was not approved and that was directed back to staff to work with a
subcommittee to research the issue further. The recommendation of the subcommittee
is to allow illuminated window signs that are limited to 25 percent of the window area.
Staff believes that the proposed standards will provide for reasonable, limited use of
illuminated window signs without negatively impacting the overall aesthetic quality of the
City.
Environmental Review
According to the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff must determine
whether a proposed activity is a project subject to CEQA. If the project is subject to
CEQA, staff must conduct a preliminary assessment of the project to determine whether
the project is exempt from CEQA review. If a project is not exempt, further
environmental review is necessary. Further review from a non-exempt project would
result in a Negative Declaration, a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR). Generally, an EIR must be prepared if a project may have a
significant impact on the environment.
G:WlanninglTony BagatolStatf Repcxts\ZOA�ZOA 13-224 Window Signs\CCSR_ Illuminated Window Signs.docx
Ordinance No. 1262
Staff Report
ZOA 13-224
Page 7 of 7
September 26, 2013
In this case, staff has determined that the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment is
not a project subject to CEQA because the adoption of new signage standards will not
result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment.
Fiscal Imaact
There is no fiscal impact to the City associated with the Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Submitted By:
� � T
� � ��
Tony Bagato, Princ pa#'�lanner
Department Head:
�� .
C
auri Aylaian, Director of Community Development
Johr� N): Wohlmuth, City Manager
G:WanrringlTony BagarolStalf ReportslZOA1ZOA 13-224 Window SignsICCSR_ IHuminatad Window Signs.doac
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO MODIFY
SECTION 25.56.080.D. (SECTION 25.68.080.D. CURRENTLY) WINDOW
SIGNS, ALLOWING ILLUMINATED WINDOW SIGNAGE AND
ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR THOSE SIGNS
CASE NO: ZOA 13-224
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, Califomia, did on the
day of 2013, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider
the request by the City of Palm Desert for approval of the above noted; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, Califomia,
adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2607 on August 6, 2013, recommending
approval of ZOA 13-224; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act,"
Resolution No. 2013-16, the Director of Community Development has determined that the
project is not considered a project for CEQA purposes; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, said City Council heard and considered all
testimony and arguments of all interested persons; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDANED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOLLOWING SECTION OF THE PALM
DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE IS HERBY AMENDED:
SECTION 1: The Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.56.080.D. - Window
Signs is herby amended and revised as described in Exhibit A,
attached.
SECTION 2: That the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, Califomia, is herby
directed to publish a notice of this ordinance with the Exhibit A
provided at City Hall in the Desert Sun, a newspaper of general
circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert,
California, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
adoption.
ORDINANCE NO.
PASSED,APPROVED
Desert, California, at i
of
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Paim
s regular meeting held on the day
, by the following vote, to wit:
JAN C. HARNIK, MAYOR
ATTEST:
RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, CITY CLERK
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
G\Planning\Tony Bagato\Slaff Reports�ZOA�ZOA 13-224 Window SignsICCORD_Illuminaled Window Signs.docx
II
ORDINANCE NO.
EXHIBIT A
Section 1. 25.56.080.D.— Window Signs (25.68.080.D. current code)
1. The aggregate area of all window signs shall not exceed 25 percent of
the total window area of a storefront.
2. Signs shall be permanently painted, etched, or mounted on the inside
of windows.
3. Illuminated (LED, neon, etc.) window signs shall be allowed as
permanent window signs, and shall not exceed 15 square feet in size.
The area covered by the illuminated sign(s) shall count towards the
maximum 25 percent window coverage limitation as described above.
These signs shall not be allowed in windows fronting on E( Paseo and
shall not rotate, move, flash, blink, or appear to do any of the
foregoing.
4. Window signs shall be allowed in addition to the aggregate sign area
allowed for wall and projecting signs.
5. Signs within 5 feet of a storefront window shall be counted as window
signs.
G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\StaH Reports�ZOA�ZOA 13-224 Window Signs\CCORD_Illuminated Window Signs.docx
3
N
CV
M
Q
N
� � N
��slU�
�F�Q
�ZN
n' � N
O W N
J �
U O
N
Z
W
Q
�..%
—� v@ m� E n c' ° �
o�" �= ro� c� c�p L'c � a>.c�a m w
N�� d 0 d T� C� O 7 C> tp N 7� 9 N p� � c0 d_ J
y u,7'cNwv� a,��w� -�aN �-`�v,��n�0 c����NEo� �c U
� � �,o E� 0_N y�°� a`°i �@ m a E� o N y o,� Y E � ����r' o� o � m
� N N 7 � T� U
Q � �'��aNi� a�iaaaiayid N� � � a�3.o�na ca�a$,.... nV o
p, oroa� Xv,o. t �3��H� cm cawc°� mcoomC � Z._
O � � c���� �o°x'2o y� °'�«y`°�0 �° . �m~° �ac��`L'V NU
F" C� 3.� � C�U7 f0 «� r N C N fp r U Uf � � N U� N aO �� ��� C � � C
N �
N c� '� � w � � �°� �� m o� N m` � � U E o rn'S � r o w $ Y N
� �� ioo��m� °�ny'�£� m� ������c�� 'a cc ��a,�c�,o m
Z E 5 c°� N aai o � �� c�. °— @ � m � ��� aE m o c� d 0�
� 30 �;��NX �oy��tc�a �3 �a��.c��0� N3t°�C�°@a�i JA
Q 'U N =.p L d .� d L N V� 3 ""' C C Ny C>. C N '� C T OV L� � y w Q.
� . C p1 ,.�. ~ C N vj �p rC j� m p> > � p 47 �C L O N c6 � 3 m p 1] 7 � S O
3c° 5 ca ' m' � o c� o nc ro E9 E �� N`—° °� �LL �' � cg� � d
W ( j U c� •3 � � •N L � � ,^ « = r � � � E a � o m N •� � � o y � o . � � � � �,
Q? >,�' °E ;�N roQ >��o -c `°a�id�.���@` a�a�f0 3L° a�i U
Z� o�.o �cNoio3¢a� Nvi3aaU
Z � m�mat; m�v �c'v a' `-c_m°' u� o�d«a E�
� (� � _' (9 � Ti O 01 T N L C� N ��7 C c�0 �� L aL N� fn �� u 0 7 C y o C
�� N 'C a � T II� C � C� 0 6� 3 O N I] GI �� V N� Ul C ~` N C�� r y�
«1 N l0 N�i D� in � O C b 01 � N 'n
W�ri �m �N3°> ° w8'�v3cym� �6�°�m o��°07
Il1N �� y m�d'o ��Q�+°tO�`�c o� �a��cm �aCi�—'����at
4-' Z � c�'� m m ro U; c� d O m d U OU o �� � a L @ �a m m � T�
o c� �7 _ m aco a U
� � @ iC U� � N C N C�� N� � O J � a.�.+ �� T O N � f' U � L @`� L y�
f'V oc CU���� �N=� 3u°'in°E v�iFL-�`� rn�2 c� �U`—°v5>v�ai�
d N d X N �i . O N O T�J C m O C C T� d U �� O'_
ON �'E �U" �O> Odo3`°�0�� �am9-�m@«m tmc�O� �'>=-000�
Q W U C Q C C 0 c0 (0 m �N T 7 G> E� d C@ T� d � d� U(O $ L C
�� d L� � c �> mt'o, . m'� � a°� c � d� 0�. �� L d u°'i ° c _Q m �� c cc m`� °' c
QQ r� `°E`�L3 m aO�y ro�N °'No�Ym�m �Eym�, p�c_'y
F-V y n-o�o a�� �o�';� �� o�oc� �' � 3 E�E��oot
1--� Oc omc�a�c3d �.;���c1Oc�L �oE.,°-�v°cmo c'n�.�Eoc�trn�"
Wd dc y`��°`mm3 m� U�NoE���� mo°n�ooQ> ��;c�n�`°°' �� n
F-V oCo dm'oNo9� Lagi�yy�E`° 1- a�i�o>��v o� �m ° �� ��'���.L�.
ZZ N� F��-a>>.�a�oc �oaa��G� m� c`�vNa�O �a@im3� �d�?ia�j'ca�.�Do
LL,' tY -C �� � L C c0 N C d« C N� N' �p >' p 3 a 1] E " fD �'@O �j 'C
Q� p O N �� =� N�� w� N� C t� �p D7 � y l0 V O. E E 0 E cV0 C j C. N O
f- Z'tJ N° 3°3� ! F- w Nmy �-�c m N@ E �c�-cc ��o�yc
�� W � �r� ° c o o � a°� $� c y a� '� m L ff� m� v�° V�iUUs�OGI�_� a
VW ,�3 Qma3`°cmi,dnE O�vti�o`�o� ONa�o.o,n U
C7
�
0
N
�
C ��
� E
�
�N
_
N
J
m
�
a
�
/
�
�
PLANNING COMMISSfON RESOLUTION NO. 2607
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO
MODIFY SECTION 25.56.080.D. WINDOW SIGNS, ALLOWING
ILLUMINATED WINDOW SIGNAGE AND ESTABLISHING STANDARDS
FOR THOSE SIGNS (SECTION 25.68.080.D. CURRENT ZONING
ORDINANCE)
CASE NO: ZOA 13-226
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 6�h day of August 2013, hold a duly noticed public hearing 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. 2013-16, the Director of Community Development has determined that the
project is not considered a project for CEQA purposes.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
' and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning
�� Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the
� recommendation to the City Council of said request:
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 Zoning
Ordinance Amendment 13-224 as proposed.
"� � \
PLANNING COMMISSIGi`� RESOLUTION NO. 2607
; PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City
� of Palm Desert, California, at its regular meeting held on the 6�h day of Auqust 2013, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: DASH, DE LUNA, and STENDELL
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: GREENWOOD
ABSTAIN: CAMPBELL
� �� � �- ��� �
NANCY DE LI�'NA, CHAIRPERSON '
ATTEST:
_�
' .� �%��-�✓� iG/z
� �� LAURI lXYLAIAN, SECRETARY
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
G\P'annmg�Monica QReillylPlar.ni^g Comm:ss on�2013�Resoiut�ons�Res No 2507 IP�mirated Winclow S�gns tlotx
2
� "� ; ��
PLANNING COMMISSIG�rRESOLUTION NO. 2607
EXHIBIT A
�
� Section 1. 25.56.080.D.— Window Signs (25.68.080.D. current code)
1. The aggregate area of all window signs shall not exceed 25 percent of
the total window area of a storefront.
2. Signs shall be permanently painted, etched, or mounted on the inside
of windows.
3. Illuminated (LED, neon, etc.) window signs shall be allowed as
permanent window signs, and shall not exceed 15 square feet in size.
The area covered by the illuminated sign(s) shall count towards the
maximum 25 percent window coverage limitation as described above.
These signs shall not be allowed on EI Paseo and shall not rotate,
move, flash, blink, or appear to do any of the foregoing.
4. Window signs shali be allowed in addition to the aggregate sign area
allowed for wall and projecting signs.
5. Signs within 5 feet of a storefront window shall be counted as window
signs.
;
�
l_
i
C'.P�ann�rg�Mon�ca ORa�I!y',P'a:�ra•g Cumm�tsion��0�.i`Reso'�t ons\Res No 2oGJ'ilumina'ed W rdcw S•yns docx
3
MINUTES � �
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 2013
Vice Chair Dash clarified that it is for onsite first aid.
Mr. Bagato replied yes. He said that he is not aware of any of the hotels in Paim
Desert that have a medical office.
Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing open and asked for any pubiic testimony IN
FAVOR or OPPOSITION.
With no testimony offered, Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Campbell moved, by Minute Motion, to recommend to the City
Council approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 13-223 amending Palm Desert
Municipa( Code Section 25, Zoning, in its entirety. Motion was seconded by Vice Chair
Dash and carried by a 4-0 vote with Commissioner Greenwood ABSENT.
Commissioner Campbell moved, by Minute Motion, to waive further reading and
adopt Resolution No. 2606. Motion was seconded by Vice Chair Dash and carried by a
4-0 vote with Commissioner Greenwood ABSENT.
��► B. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a recommendation to the City Council
to approve a zoning ordinance amendment to modify Section 25.56.080.D.
Window Signs, allowing illuminated window signage and establishing
standards for those signs (Section 25.68.080.D. current zoning ordinance).
Case No. ZOA 13-224 (City of Palm Desert, Applicant).
Commissioner Sonia Campbell recused herself from this vote as she has a
business on EI Paseo.
Mr. Bagato noted that the next three cases were separated due to being more
controversial, and requiring longer discuss+on.
Mr. Bagato orally presented his staff report and onscreen presentation. He stated
that in 2010 the City Council directed staff to iook into allowing illuminated
window signs (neon signs) after receiving complaints from business owners.
Later in 2010, a subcommittee was formed with two City Council members
appointed, Mayor Harnik and former councii member Kroonen, to study the
matter further. The subcommittee drove around the City and reviewed signs. Mr.
Bagato showed onscreen photos of various rypes of illuminated window signs.
The subcommittee believed that clutter was the main issue with some of the
businesses. Staff believes if a business owner chooses to have an illuminated
sign that is 25 percent of the window area, then no other window signage would
be allowed. He listed the items that would replace the current code. He offered to
answer any questions.
Commissioner Ken Stendell inquired how signage will be enforced to clean up
the clutter.
6
GPPlanning�Mon�p ORe�lly`,Planrnng Cammission�20t3`.Minutes�8-673 mm dax
MINUTES ,�� . �
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISStON AUGUST 6, 2013
Mr. Bagato responded that once the code is adopted, the City will work with the
business community. The City will send out letters to inform the businesses of
the code, and give them a timeframe to come into compliance.
Commissioner Stendell asked if some of the older businesses, such as Country
Club Liquor, would be amiable to follow the rules which he believes could
become a (egal battle.
Mr. Bagato replied that potentially it could be a legal battle; however, technically
they are not in compliance today. He explained that some of the signage
provisions have not been enforced since the economy took a downturn in 2007-
2008. He commented that Country Club Liquor would not be grandfathered in,
nor would any of the other businesses.
Vice Chair Dash inquired if the City is permitting neon on EI Paseo to the same
extent as other areas of the City or will EI Paseo be addressed differently.
Mr. Bagato replied that the proposed amendment will be citywide. He said that
staff could look at separate standards for EI Paseo, if the Planning Commission
prefers this as a recommendation.
Vice Chair Dash stated that he feels a different approach should be taken for EI
Paseo than what is being considered citywide. He feels EI Paseo should retain
the dignity and classic appearance.
Mr. Bagato asked Vice Chair Dash for clarification. He said that in his mind EI
Paseo functions in two ways. There are the businesses that front EI Paseo, and
then there are the businesses that front on the Presidents' Plaza parking lots. He
asked if the concern is with the pedestrian walking areas or the parking lots.
Vice Chair Dash replied that his concern is with the pedestrian areas.
Chair DeLuna agreed with Vice Chair Dash. She stated that she is troubled by
the complexity of this issue, and that she wants to be sensitive to the needs,
requests, and wants of business owners; however, she also feels that the
character and nature of EI Paseo is different than anything else in southern
California. She said with the possibility of a five-star hotel coming in, the hotel
could bring in a more upper scale clientele than they have today. She also said
that when she thinks of EI Paseo, she thinks of places such as Rodeo Drive in
Beverly Hills, California; Worth Avenue in Palm Beach, Florida; and Fifth Avenue
in New York, New York. Chair DeLuna stated that when you enter Rodeo Drive
or Worth Avenue, you do not see a corridor in neon signs. She does not think the
businesses on EI Paseo need to have large illuminated window signs, and feels
they could be distracting. She commented that the Apple sign was very bright
when it was first installed and then it was toned down. She asked if there is a
limit or level of lumins that could be adjusted so signs are not bright while you are
driving down the street. After voicing her concerns, she stated that there should
be a study on illuminated signs on EI Paseo.
7
G.'Planning�.Monica ORedly\Planning Comm�ssion�2013\Mm�tes`.&&13 min docx
MINUTES -� �
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 2013
Vice Chair Dash commented that EI Paseo is the signature attraction for Paim
Desert, and agreed with Chair DeLuna. He said it is something that needs to be
thought about.
Mr. Bagato responded that illuminated signs on EI Paseo could be studied
further; however, he recommended opening the public hearing for public
testimony. He noted that the Planning Commission could direct staff to study
further. He also noted that most of the EI Paseo storefronts are going to be
anywhere from 10 to 12 to 15 feet from the curb so there is a lot more glass
closer to you as you are driving by. Although, he said he does not see Gucci or
Ralph Lauren wanting an illuminated sign other than an "open" sign.
Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing open and asked for any public testimony IN
FAVOR or OPPOSITION.
MS. SONIA CAMPBELL, owner of Spectacular Shades, 73910 EI Paseo, stated
that she has a neon sign that does not blink and is on all the time, but is facing
the Presidents' Plaza parking fot. She said that she only sees open signs on
windows along EI Paseo, and nothing that is not in good taste. She stated that if
the Planning Commission decides to make EI Paseo a different corridor she's
fine with that. She also agreed that Country Club Liquor has too many signs on
their window.
With no further testimony offered, Chair DeLuna declared the public hearing closed.
Chair DeLuna asked if a business owner has signs on their window that are
technically within the 25 percent coverage area, would it be considered cluttered.
Mr. Bagato responded that it could be considered cluttered; however, it would be
in compliance with the ordinance. If the City wants to control or have a uniform
look to the window, the City would have to require permits.
Chair DeLuna asked if the signs could be redundant under the new ordinance or
would they be required to have a different message on the signs.
Mr. Bagato replied that under the code two wall signs are not allowed, but the
sign text could be repeated on the window. They can also have a blade sign that
projects from the side. He stated that the business could have the same sign
text, but on different types of signs.
Chair DeLuna asked if a barber pole outside on the bui(ding considered a sign or
advertising.
Mr. Bagato said that a barber pole is not technically defined as an advertising
device. He also said some people might consider it a decoration.
Vice Chair Dash inquired if a modification in the ordinance could read no more
than one or two signs, whichever is appropriate, within the 25 percent area.
8
G\Planning�.Monica OReiIlylPlanning Cm+mission�2013`.Nknutes`8-6-13 min docx
MINUTES � �
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 2013
Mr. Bagato responded that it could be difficult because there are some stores
with bigger storefronts, and the business may want multiple signs. He noted that
the Ciry has always tried to limit per the percentage and not the number of signs.
He said that changing the number of signs would change the existing code
without addressing neon signs.
Vice Chair Dash stated that he would support limiting the amount of signs within
the parameters of the general limit.
Ms. Aylaian stated that she is hesitant to add more restrictions to the number of
signs or the amount of signage all in one area simply because there are so many
different windows, different businesses, and different sizes. She said if a store
has 10 big glass windows along the front, and you force them to put all of their
signage in one portion of the 10 windows, you are limiting the creativity in what
they do. She said it is different for a small store that has a single window. She
stated because there is so much variety in windows, signage, and architecture
for the buildings, she is hesitant to be that restrictive.
Vice Chair Dash stated he understands Ms. Aylaian's concern.
Vice Chair Dash inquired about the product signs (Budweiser, Miller Beer, Red
Bull, etc).
Mr. Bagato responded that in past discussions regarding signage regulations, the
Ciry could only set parameters for size and light, but they cannot get into content.
He said the City cannot dictate who the business is advertising for because it
then gets into freedom of speech.
Ms. Jill Tremblay, City Attorney, agreed with Mr. Bagato's assessment on the
content regulation.
Chair DeLuna asked if television and other media have different First
Amendment standards from signage.
Ms. Tremblay responded that there are different regulations for media, which are
under federal regulations, and not what they are looking at in this instance.
Chair DeLuna asked if there are ethical or moral standards for signage.
Mr. Bagato replied that he believes Chair DeLuna is referring to adult
entertainment. He said that there is a basic public decency standard in the code.
Ms. Tremblay stated that not all speeches are protected by the First Amendment
so some indecent speech would not necessarily be protected. The City would
have to look at those instances as they come up.
Chair DeLuna asked if the City has certain discretionary powers when someone
applies for signage as well as for a conditional use permit.
9
G.\Plann�ng\Monica ORe�lly\Planning CommissioM2013`MFnutes`.8-6-13 min docx
MINUTES � �
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 2013
Ms. Aylaian stated that for an aduit themed bookstore, as an example, the
business would be able to cover 25 percent of their window area with signs. The
signs would be able to say things like "adult books, videos, & novelties."
However, if they were to install a sign with sexually explicit graphics in it, then the
City would be able to prohibit that.
Ms. Tremblay commented that would be correct.
Chair DeLuna said that she is getting a consensus to continue the hearing or
designating that EI Paseo and Highway 111 corridor be considered differently
from the rest of the City, and asked how they should proceed.
Ms. Aylaian responded that there seemed to be a unanimous concern with neon
or illuminated signs on EI Paseo. She stated that the Planning Commission could
make a motion with staff's recommendation, but prohibiting neon signs facing EI
Paseo for the length of EI Paseo. The same request could be made for Highway
111. She stated that an additional study is not necessary, and a motion could be
made at this meeting.
Commissioner Stendell commended Mr. Bagato and staff for the report that was
put together. He said he understands some oi the concerns that the
Commissioners have shared. He stated that staff is trying to establish a zoning
ordinance that will be simplified and hold Citywide rather than having an
individual Part A for one place, and a part B for a different place. He said that the
cost basis of the tenant that is going to rent on EI Paseo versus Dinah Shore
Drive is going to be a different rype of business. Commissioner Stendell stated
that he would hope the businesses going into EI Paseo would self-police
themselves to a point of not cluttering up windows. He said that he's seeing what
is being presented to them, and how it affects the City as a whole rather than
surrogating into subsections.
Chair DeLuna voiced that she still feels EI Paseo should be set apart.
Vice Chair Dash asked if there are requests for neon signs on EI Paseo.
Mr. Bagato responded that they do not receive requests for neon signs; staff was
directed not to prohibit neon signs or enforce them. He recommended moving
forward by removing neon signs on EI Paseo or recommend moving it forward
as-is.
Commissioner Stendell asked if advertising cannot be dictated.
Ms. Tremblay replied that is correct.
Chair DeLuna moved, by Minute Motion, to recommend to the City Council
approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment 13-224 modifying Section 25.56.080.D.
Window Signs, allowing illuminated window signage and establishing standards for
those signs with the exception of EI Paseo by not permitting i(luminated signs a(ong the
10
G`Planning�Monip OReilly\Planrnng Commission�2013�Minutes�&6-13 min docx
MINUTES � .�
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 6, 2013
frontage of EI Paseo only. Motion was seconded by Vice Chair Dash and carried by a 3-
0-1 vote with Commissioner Greenwood ABSENT and Commissioner Campbell
ABSTAINING.
Vice Chair Dash clarified that the exception does not include the Presidents'
Plaza parking lot.
Chair DeLuna replied that is correct. She said she has no concerns with the
parking area or the alleyway.
Chair DeLuna moved, by Minute Motion, to waive further reading and adopt
Resolution No. 2607. Motion was seconded by Vice Chair Dash and carried by a 3-0-1
vote with Commissioner Greenwood ABSENT and Commissioner Campbell
ABSTAINING.
Ms. Aylaian indicated that they now have in the current and new ordinance a
clause that says 'any new sign insta(led with illumination fevels that the Director
determines is annoying to neighbors could be changed.' She said if they see new
signs that are too bright to please report it to staff during the first 30-day period.
C. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a recommendation to the City Council
to approve a zoning ordinance amendment to modify Section 25.56.080.G.
Pedestrian-Oriented signs to allow A-frame signs and to modify the standards
related to EI Paseo (Section 25.68.080.G. current zoning ordinance). Case
No. ZOA 13-225 (City of Palm Desert, Applicant).
Ms. Aylaian noted that Commissioner Campbell will not participate in this vote as
she has a business on EI Paseo.
Mr. Tony Bagato, Principal Planner, orally presented his staff report and
PowerPoint presentation. In 2009, the City Council approved a new sign
ordinance. During the meeting, an EI Paseo merchant asked the Council to allow
A-frame signs. He said a committee was formed with two properiy owners, a
merchant and former Councilmember Kroonen. Mr. Bagato showed onscreen
photos of various A-frame and pedestal signs. He noted that the code only allows
signs using two colors and the word "open." After being discussed by the
pedestrian sign committee and staff, they believed the code shou(d be amended
to allow A-frames. He said that they also had concerns with visual clutter, and
they discussed limiting the usage to only allow them during the summer months
(June 1-October 1) or during early morning hours. Mr. Bagato continued and
listed the modifications to Section 25.56.080.G. Pedestrian Signs. He offered to
answer any questions.
Chair DeLuna asked if there is a regulated set of business hours for merchants
on EI Paseo.
Mr. Bagato replied that there are no resirictions.
11
G.�Plann�ng\Monica ORe�IIy�Planning Commission12013\Minutes�8-G13 min docx
�
CITY OF PALM DESERT
�
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY
COUNCIL TO APROVE A ZONlNG ORDlNANCE AMENDMENT TO
MODIFY SECTION 25.56.080.D. WINDOW SIGNS, ALLOWING
ILLUMINATED WINDOW SIGNAGE AND ESTABLISHING
STANDARDS FOR THOSE SIGNS (SECTION 25.68.080.D. CURRENT
ZONING ORDINANCE)
SUBMITTED BY: Tony Bagato, Principal Planner
APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert
CASE NO: ZOA 13-224
DATE: August 6, 2013
CONTENTS: Planning Commission Resolution No. 2607
Exhibit A— Draft Ordinance Amendment
Desert Sun Legal Notice
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, October 19, 2010
. City Council Meeting Minutes, November 18, 2010
Recommendation
Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2607,
recommending that the City Council approve Zoning Ordinance Amendment
13-224 amending Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 25.56.080.D. —
Windaw Signs (currently 25.68.080.D.).
Executive Summary
This staff report is one of three that will amend current policy, as has been discussed for the
past few years. These amendments were presented at joint Planning Commission/City
Council study sessions on March 22, 2012 and May 9, 2013. This report focuses on an
ongoing issue/discussion related to illuminated (neon) signs. In 2010, staff began enforcing
the prohibition on illuminated window signs. After receiving public opposition from several
business owners, the City Council directed staff to prepare a zoning ordinance amendment
with standards that would allow illuminated window signs.
A proposed zoning ordinance amendment was presented to the Planning Commission on
October 19, 2010. The Planning Commission, on a 3-2 vote, made a recommendation of
Staff Report �
ZOA 13-224
Page 2 of 6
August 6, 2013
�
denial. On November 18, 2010, the City Council discussed the zoning ordinance
amendment. Based on the Planning Commission's recommendation of denial, the issue
was referred back to staff to work with two Ciry Council members in a subcommittee.
Staff worked with current Mayor Harnik and former council member Kroonen to study
illuminated window signs. After consideration, the subcommittee believed that illuminated
window signs are not objectionable as long as the business does not have a lot of window
signage cluttering the storefronts. The recommendation of the subcommittee is to allow
illuminated window signs within the currently allowed 25 percent window coverage.
On July 23, 2013, staff presented the proposed amendment to the Chamber of Commerce
for feedback and comments. No comments were received about the proposed changes.
Backqround
Currently, any illuminated window sign that is not a three square-foot "open" sign is
prohibited. In 2010, staff began enforcing the prohibition due to an increased number of
illuminated window signs and complaints from a local business owner. The City's Code
Compliance Division mailed letters informing businesses with window signs that they were
not allowed. After receiving notices to remove the neon window signs, several business
owners raised concerns about the increased enforcement. Due to their concems, they went
before the City Council and requested that the Council to allow neon window signs.
On July 27, 2010, the City Council directed staff to prepare a zoning ordinance amendment
that would allow illuminated window signs. 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. The majority of
the Planning Commission opposed allowing illuminated window signs and made a
recommendation of denial. The recommendation of denial was approved on a 3-2 vote.
On November 18, 2010, staff presented the proposed ordinance and both the
recommendation for approval from the ARC and the recommendation of denial from the
Pfanning Commission. After the public hearing and discussion by the City Council, the
matter was referred back to staff with a request that a subcommittee with two City Council
members be formed to study the matter further. On February 24, 2011, current Mayor
Harnik and former council member Kroonen were appointed to the subcommittee. The
subcommittee met severa! times, drove around the entire City, and reviewed signs like
those shown below:
G:�Pianninq\7ony Bagato�Statf Reports�ZOA�Zoning OrdinancelPC Heanng Docs 8-6�Illummafed W�ndow S�gns StaH Report.docx
Staff Report �
ZOA 13-224
Page 5 of 6
August 6, 2013
.�
After reviewing and discussing the various types of illuminated window signs, the
subcommittee believed that clutter was the biggest problem with some of the businesses. In
the first two photos above, the businesses have illuminated signs with little or no other
window signage. In these two cases, the illuminated signs were not objectionable. However,
in the last two photos, the businesses have several illuminated window signs and other
advertising signs in the window. The concern with these two businesses is that there is too
much signage. Based on these findings, the subcommittee believed that illuminated window
signs shouid be allowed within the 25 percent window coverage limitations of the current
ordinance, and that the window sign standards should focus on eliminating visual clutter.
The current code allows each business to have a maximum of 25 percent of the window
area dedicated towards non-illuminated signs. Staff believes that illuminated window signs
could be added to this section. !f a business owner chooses to have an illuminated window
sign that is 25 percent of the window area, then no other window signage would be allowed.
This would address the needs of the business community, but also address the City's
concern with visual clutter. To allow illuminated window signs, Section 25.56.080.D. —
Window Signs of the new code (current Section 25.68080.D.) would replace the current
section in entirety as follows:
1. The aggregate area of all window signs shall not exceed 25 percent of the total
window area of a storefront.
2. Signs shall be permanently painted, etched, or mounted on the inside of
windows.
3. Illuminated (LED, neon, etc.) window signs shall be allowed as permanent
window signs, and shall not exceed 15 square feet in size. The area covered by
the illuminated sign(s) shall count towards the maximum 25 percent window
coverage limitation described above. Illuminated window signs shall not rotate,
move, flash, blink, or appear to do any of the foregoing.
4. Window signs shall be allowed in addition to the aggregate sign area allowed for
wall and projecting signs.
5. Signs within 5 feet of a storefront window shall be counted as window signs.
Conclusion
In 2010, the City Council directed staff to develop standards for illuminated window signs to
address concerns expressed by the business community. Staff presented an ordinance that
was not approved and that was directed back to staff to work with a subcommittee to
research the issue further. The recommendation of the subcommittee is to allow illuminated
window signs that are limited to 25 percent of the window area. Staff believes that the
proposed standards will provide for reasonable, limited use of illuminated window signs
without negatively impacting the overall aesthetic quality of the City.
G.tPlanningtTony BagatolStaH Reports�ZOA�Zonrng OrdinancelPC Heanng Docs 8-6\Illummated Window S�gns StaH Report.docx
Staff Report �
ZOA 13-224
Page 6 of 6
August 6, 2013
Environmental Review
�
According to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff must determine
whether a proposed activity is a project subject to CEQA. If the project is subject to CEQA,
staff must conduct a preliminary assessment of the project to determine whether the project
is exempt from CEQA review. If a project is not exempt, further environmental review is
necessary. Further review from a non-exempt project would result in a Negative
Declaration, a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Generally, an EIR must be prepared if a project may have a significant impact on the
environment.
In this case, staff has determined that the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment is not a
project subject to CEQA because the adoption of new signage standards will not result in a
direct or indirect physical change in the environment.
Submitted By:
�
'�7 � `
Tony Bagato, Principal Planner
Department Head:
/_�
' �
Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development
G�Planning\7eny Bagato4Stafl RepoRslZOA\Zoning O�dinancelPC Heanng Docs 8-6lllluminated W�nOow Signs StaH Report dxx
� 11 � i � ► ► ► . � 11 11 � • • : � ' 1 1
VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Request ior consideration of the October 5, 2010, meeting minutes. �
Commissioner De Luna wanted to clarify the meaning of her being listed as
ABSENT for a vote and wanted it specified as ABSENT for that pa�ticular vote.
Mr. Becker replied that upon talking with the City Clerk, she confirmed that
having Commissioner De Luna listed as ABSENT under that vote signifies that
she was ABSENT for only that vote since she recused herself and left the
Chamber. The minutes appropriately reflect this action.
Action:
Commissioner Campbell moved and Commissioner De Luna seconded the
approval of the October 5, 2010 meeting minutes. Motion carried unanimously
5-0.
VII. CONSENT CALENDAR
NONE
VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Chair Limont stated that anyone who challenges any hearing matter in
court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else .r
raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence
delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing.
A. Case No. ZOA 10-311, City of Palm Desert, Applicant
Recommendatlon of App�oval for a Zoning Ordlnance Amendment
providing signage standards for illuminated window signage in
Section 25.68 of the Palm Desert Municlpal Code.
Principal Planner Tony Bagato orally presented his staff report and Power
Point presentation to the Planning Commission regarding neon window
signs. He showed examples of signs that fall under this proposed new
ordinance. He stated that the previous ordinance was established in 1978
and at that time, neon signs weren't specifically mentioned in the
ordinance. By virtue of not being explicitly permitted, they were prohibited.
As the signs appeared, the enforcement was strictly on a complaint-driven
basis. {n 2009, staff was instructed to update the ordinance. Direction was
given that all neon signs were now to be explicitly prohibited and that the
Code Enforcement Division shoufd work with businesses to bring them into
�
2
� YI � i �\ ► ► �1111 � • •: � ' 1 1
compliance. Upon receiving numerous compiaints from businesses about
being asked to remove their signs, staff was instructed by the City Council
� to suspend enforcement and inform the public that any NEW neon signs
had to go through the Architectural Review Commission process.
Mr. Bagato outlined ths new regulatians that would be added to the
ordinance. They state that: No signs can be added after the faGt (for
grandfathering purposes�; the signs cannot be in residential areas; they
cannot be combined with reflective materials; they can only cover up to
25% of the window (not including glass doors}; and, there must be only one
neon sign per frontage. When a business is across from a residential area,
then the neon sign must be turned off at night. Signs must identify the
business or have aesthetic merit; those signs that advertise products sold
or that list prices or phone numbers will not be permitted at all. Staff
recommends approval and with that, Mr. Bagato took questlons.
Commissioner De Luna began by asking about the new ordinance and if, in
theory, svery shop on E! Paseo and on Highway 111 could potentially have
a neon sign in their window as long as it met ce�tain criteria. Mr. 8agato
said that was correct. Commissioner De Luna mentioned that a business
called in upon hearing about the new slgn ordinance, complaining that it
would hinder their ability to advertise in this bad economy. Mr. Bagato
stated that that did transpire. It was Skitzo Kitty, on Hwy 111, who has a
` neon sign and their other sign is a non-illuminated wooden sign. The owner
wanted to be able to keep his neon sign lit until closing at 9 p.m. since the
wooden one would not be seen in the daric when he was still open.
Commissioner Limont asked about the advertising of products and if those
will stiif be allowed. Mr. Bagato said that some busirtesses would be
grandfathered in with respect to those that already have 'Corona' and
'Budweiser signs. But no new product signs and none displaying a phone
number o� anything related to products that are sold inside ihe business
would be permitted. She asked about what percentage of the window the
Apple sign uses. Mr. Bagato stated that the Apple sign isn't a window sign,
iYs a'wall-sign' Iocated above ihe store. And that sign has gone through
ARC and meets all of the requirements for illuminated wall signage.
Commissioner Tanner asked for clarification about the ordinance stating
that existing signs in business windows, even if there are more than two,
will be ailowed to stay. Mr. Bagato stated that was true and it is for that
reason that the Ciry wants them inventoried and documented now, so when
there is enforcement, those businesses can't change them or add more at
the last second.
...
3
� 11 � i � ► \ \ � 11 11 � • • : � ' 1 1
Foilowing this question, Chair Limont asked to clarify what they are being
asked to do and stated that, as she understands it, the Commission is
being asked to grandfather those signs that are in existence today because �
of lack of enforcement from years past. Mr. Bagato responded that he
talked with the City Attorney, Dave Erwin, who believes that yes, we do
need to allow existing signs to continue to exist. Chair Limont asked if we
were able to enforce the current prohibition tegally, or is the City walking
too fine of a line? Commissioner Tanner followed up with asking what
happens if we CAN'T enforce this, what would businesses do. Mr. Bagato
stated that, under the proposed ordinance, all new signs of either existing
or new businesses must go through the ARC for review.
Mr. Bob Hargreaves, Oeputy Ciry Attorney spoke vn behalf of City Attorney
Dave Erwin to Commissioner Limont's question about legallty. He stated
that he hadn't had a chance to talk in depth with Mr. Erwin about this
matter, but if the ordinance forbids neon, then legally the City can enforce
the prohibition. However, the longer the City waits to enforce something
from the start of a violation, then the more diminished the ability to enforce
becomes.
Commissioner Schmidt asked how many signs would be grandfathered in
under this new ordinance. If the City is going to give carte-blanche to allow
existing signs, she wanted to know what that number is. Mr. Bagato didn't
know off hand, but Ms. Ayfaian stated that Code Enforcement has been �
keeping inventory ot how many businesses have neon signs currently and
that number is near 50, although some of these businesses have
numerous signs. Commissioner Schmidt stated that she understood that
none of the stores on EI Paseo have any. Various Commissioners stated
that some stores on EI Paseo do in fact have neon signs. She asked if any
existing business that doesn't currently have a neon sign could now
request one under the grandfathe� clause. Mr. Bagato stated that the
ordinance reads [in part] that all new neon signs for ALL businesses,
existing and new, would have to go through ARC from this polnt forward.
Commissioner Schmidt wanted to ask about existing scrolling marquis
signs, and if they are included in this ordinance. Mr. 8agato stated that
those are considered 'moving signs' and those certainly are prohibited. She
then asked if the color of illuminated signs is controlled by the code or the
Architectural Committee. Mr. Bagato stated that the City doesn't regulate
color up to three colors; after three colors there are requirements to reduce
the size of the sign for each additional color used. The bottom line is that
any new sign that comes up, either from a new business or an existing
business will have to go before the Architectural Review Commission.
.�
4
� 11 � i �►1 \ �1111 � • •: � '---�- (
Mr. Bagato stated that if the Ptanning Commission wanted to move for
denial, then their recommendation would be forwarded to the City Council
� ior direction. A recommendation can be made for denial and enforcement
of prohibition of all neon signs, if that is what the Planning Commission
requests.
Commissioner Schmidt asked if any attempt has been made to reach out to
those businesses that DO NOT have neon signs and how they felt about it.
Mr. Bagato stated that no real attempt was made to contact non-signed
businesses. Commissioner Schmidt asked if this applied to the EI Paseo
Gardens. Mr. Bagato stated that it does.
Chair Limont opened the public hearing for comments. Hearing none, she
closed the public hearing and asked for commissioner comments.
Commissioner Schmidt commented on the impact of signs and the
grandfathering of signs. She doesn't feel it's proper and it's opening up a
can of worms for those that oppose neon signs.
Commissioner De Luna stated that theoretically EI Paseo could end up
looking like Las Vegas. She doesn't mind the "Newport Beach look" but not
the "Venice Beach look". She went on to state that if the City allows neon
signs, then every business could get one and then how would that
,r business stand out? She stated that the idea of neon signs was to make a
buslness stand out, but if everyone had them, then nothing would stand
out. She thinks that that specific argument doesn't wash and wants to
prohibit all neon signs. With thai she moved for denial.
Commissioner Schmidt seconded the motion for denial, but then added
further discussion: Neon signs could be a distraction. She read an articfe
that said one-in-three trucks on I-10 is so unsafe that they need to be
pulled off of the road. She said that that is meant to get your attention, as
are neon signs. And since they are attention grabbers, she would hate to
see an accident because a sign distracted a motorist while they were
driving.
Commissioner Tanner offered his thoughts on the matter stating that he is
not in favor of neon signs, but understands that businesses need
something more than just regular signs to attract business. As the proposal
has been presented today, and that the City Council has voted in favor of
changes; he is now in favor of having all new signs go for revisw with the
ARC as part of the permitting process. He indicated that he would not vote
for the denial of staff request to change the zoning ordinance.
�..
5
11 � i �► ► \ �►111 �
Y�
� � � j � � �
Commissioner Campbell agreed with Commissioner Tanner in that staff
and City Council have worked to have the ordinance read in favor of all
new signs going through ARC so they can be monitored appropriatefy. So
she is in favor of grandfathering existing signs.
Chair Limont talked about Palm Desert and its sense of being. She went on
to say that the city isn't flashy, it's not Las Vegas, and that EI Paseo is the
feather in the cap. The City and the Commissioners have worked hard to
get it to where it is today and to maintain that Iook and feel and sense of
what is Palm Desert. She stated that she is not in favor of this ordinance
and with that reiterated the cur�ent motion and second and called for the
vote in favor of denying the Zoning Amendment.
Action:
IX.
Commissioner De Luna moved and Commissioner Schmidt seconded the
motion to deny ZOA 10-311. The motfon carried for denial 3-2
(Commissioners Tanner and Campbell voting NO).
MISCELLANEOUS
A. Vllla Portofino
Discussion of terminating for cause a Senior Housing Development
Agreement ("Development AgreemenY') with Royce Intemational for
the development of Villa Portofino due to default by the developer.
Commissioner De Luna recused herself and exited the Council Chamber.
Assistant Planner Kevin Swartz presented his staff report to the
Commission. Royce International entered into an agreement with the City
of Palm Desert to develop a parcel with senior assisted living facilities, a
club house, villas and casit� units in 1999. Royce International submitted a
condominium map to the State without City approval thus breaching one of
the terms of their Development Agreement (DA). With the subdivision in
place, they then sold portions of the pro)ect without approval of the transfer
by the Ciry, which is also required by the Development Agreement. Royce
International no longer owns the project or any of the sub-divided parcels,
Staff recommends terminating the current Development Agreem9nt for the
benefit of the Ciry and future developers. This will cause each new property
owner to entitle their own property for their projects. Mr. Swartz entertained
questions from the Planning Commission.
�.r
..r
.rl
0
MINUTES 1� `�
ADJOURNED REGULAR
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2010
Mayor Finerty declared the public hearing open 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 EI 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 EI 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 EI 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, hopefully the
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.
24
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 finro 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 EI 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, 6ecause 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 EI 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 EI 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 EI Paseo to weigh in, similarly to what the City's done on other projects
relating to signage, before iYs 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 Tem 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
Dese�t Motor Lodge. It had historical signi�cance, 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.
:
MINUTES �
ADJOURNED REGULAR
r�
PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING NOVEMBER 18, 2010
NOTE: Mayor Pro Tem 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 EI 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 ciosed.
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
Ordinance No. 1262
Staff Report
ZOA 13-224
Page3of7
September 26, 2013
On July 27, 2010, the City Council directed staff to prepare a zoning ordinance
amendment that would allow illuminated window signs. 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. The majority of the Planning Commission opposed
allowing illuminated window signs and made a recommendation of denial. The
recommendation of denial was approved on a 3-2 vote.
On November 18, 2010, staff presented the proposed ordinance and both the
recommendation for approval from the ARC and the recommendation of denial from the
Planning Commission. After the public hearing and discussion by the City Council, the
matter was referred back to staff with a request that a subcommittee with two City
Council members be formed to study the matter further. On February 24, 2011, current
Mayor Harnik and former council member Kroonen were appointed to the
subcommittee. The subcommittee met several times, drove around the entire City, and
reviewed signs like those shown below:
G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports VOA VOA 13-224 Window Signs\CCSR_ Illuminated Window Signs.docx
Ordinance No. 1262
Staff Report
ZOA 13-224
Page 4 of 7
September 26, 2013
CLUBHOUSE
LIQUOR 14/44 DELI
G:\Planning\Tony Bagato \Staff Reports1Z0A\ZOA 13-224 Window SignaCCSR_ Illuminated Window Signs.docx
Ordinance No. 1262
Staff Report
ZOA 13-224
Page 5 of 7
September 26, 2013
After reviewing and discussing the various types of illuminated window signs, the
subcommittee believed that clutter was the biggest problem with some of the
businesses. In the first two photos above, the businesses have illuminated signs with
little or no other window signage. In these two cases, the illuminated signs were not
objectionable. However, in the last two photos, the businesses have several illuminated
window signs and other advertising signs in the window. The concern with these two
businesses is that there is too much signage. Based on these findings, the
subcommittee believed that illuminated window signs should be allowed within the 25
percent window coverage limitations of the current ordinance, and that the window sign
standards should focus on eliminating visual clutter.
The current code allows each business to have a maximum of 25 percent of the window
area dedicated towards non -illuminated signs. Staff believes that illuminated window
signs could be added to this section. If a business owner chooses to have an
illuminated window sign that is 25 percent of the window area, then no other window
signage would be allowed. This would address the needs of the business community,
but also address the City's concern with visual clutter.
At the August 6, 2013, Planning Commission meeting, several Commissioners were
concerned with allowing illuminated window signs on El Paseo. This is a modification of
what was discussed by the subcommittee. Based on the Planning Commission
G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\ZOA\ZOA 13-224 Window Signs\CCSR_ Illuminated Window Signs.docx
Staff Report
ZOA 13-224
Page 3 of 6
August 6, 2013
G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports \ZOA\Zoning Ordinance\PC Nearing Docs 8-6\Illuminated Window Signs Staff Report.docx
Staff Report
ZOA 13-224
Page 4 of 6
August 6, 2013
7�
MEXICAN FOOD
G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Staff Reports\ZOA\Zoning Ordinance\PC Hearing Docs 8-61uluminated Window Signs Staff Report.docx