Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission recommends allowing rotating vehicle 'carousels' with strict limits: one per business/property and four maximum in CF zone
Summary
The commission recommended that City Council adopt an ordinance to allow rotating vehicle display carousels in the Commercial Freeway zone under a Special Use and Development Permit, and amended the recommendation to cap carousels at one per business or property and a maximum of four across the zone; the recommendation passed 4‑1 and was found exempt from CEQA.
The Claremont Planning Commission on April 7 recommended that the City Council adopt a code amendment to allow rotating vehicle display platforms ("carousels") in the Commercial Freeway (CF) zoning district under a Special Use and Development Permit (SUDP), and amended staff’s recommendation to limit carousels to one per business or property with a maximum of four in the entire CF zone.
Daniel Kim, assistant planner, said the proposed amendment to Titles 16 and 18 of the Claremont Municipal Code would clarify that rotating signs designed to attract attention do not categorically prohibit carousel displays featuring passenger vehicles in the CF zone and that any carousel would require SUDP approval with conditions to address lighting, banners and motorist safety. Kim described prior hearings (December and a city council first reading in February) and said the council asked the commission to advise on a total‑number cap (staff suggested between three and six) to avoid proliferation across the 16 parcels in the CF zone.
Public commenters raised aesthetic and community‑character concerns. One speaker said the displays were "horrendous looking" and asked that the commission limit carousels to one per dealership; another called the proposal "gaudy" and urged the commission to consider Claremont’s image and the potential visual clutter when viewed from the freeway.
Commissioners debated alternatives: sticking with the December intent (two per business/property, up to six total based on three existing dealerships), lowering the per‑business cap to one with a total of three, or setting a middle ground. Some commissioners noted legal constraints—code language must refer to "business" or "property," not only dealerships—and staff noted only one dealership had expressed interest in installing a carousel. Commissioner Rosenbluth moved, and Commissioner Callaway seconded, a recommendation that would allow carousels by SUDP, limit the number to one per business or property (whichever is less) and set a maximum of four for the entire CF zone. The motion passed on roll call 4 ayes, 1 nay, with two absences; commissioners also found the item exempt from CEQA.
Under the recommended approach, any future carousel proposal would still require SUDP review where staff and the commission could impose time limits, lighting and safety controls or deny the permit based on parking constraints or other impacts. The item now returns to city council, where staff anticipated first reading of an ordinance on May 12 and a second reading and potential adoption on May 26 if no further modifications are requested.
