HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.1 ImagesDirectionlTrctSgnComplnt
"..
.
.
...
CITY OF DUBLIN
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 12, 1993
SUBJECT:
Images Directional Tract Sign Complaint
REPORT PREPARED BY:
Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director
EXHIBITS ATTACHED:
/Attachment l: Memorandum from City Attorney
RECOMMENDATION: tr-
~
Direct Staff to monitor compliance with the
conditions of approval, but take no other
action at this time.
DESCRIPTION:
At the March 22, 1993 City Council meeting, Mr. Peter Baldo complained
regarding the Images Directional Tract Sign that was placed in Mr.
Baldo's single-family neighborhood at 7753 Barn Hollow Court. The
City Council requested the City Attorney to prepare a memorandum
regarding what options are available to the City Council to remove the
sign.
The City Attorney has prepared the memorandum (see attached). It does
not appear that there are any viable options for the City Council to
remove the sign at this time. The permit for the sign could become
revocable for cause and the sign could be removed in the future.
~.......-
ITEM-::~--~~-------------------::::::-::~--::~-:::::-:::::-------
11617 Silvergate Drive
.
.
.,;
Michael R. Nave
Steven R. Meyers
Elizabeth H. Silver
Michael S. Riback
Clifford F. Campbell
Michael F. Rodriquez
Kathleen Faubion
Frederick S. Etheridge
Wendy A. Roberts
David W. Skinner
Steven T. Mattas
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK & SILVER
A Professional Law Corporation
peninsula Officc
Gateway Plaza
777 Davis Street, Suite 300
San Leandro, CA 94577
Telephone: (510) 351-4300
Facsimile: (510) 351-4481
1220 Howard Avenuc, Suite 250
Burlingame, CA 94010-4211
Telephone: (415) 348-7130
Facsimile: (415) 342-0886
Sonoma County
(707) 546-3126
Of counsel:
Andrea J. Saltzman
MEMORANDUM
Reply to:
San Leandro
TO:
city council
FROM:
Elizabeth H. silver
city Attorney
RE: Directional Tract sign (The Images)
At the March 22, 1993, Council meeting, the council asked for
advice regarding what options are available to the Council to
remove the directional tract sign which has been erected in the
side yard of the residence located at 7753 Barn HollOW court.
The sign in question is a Directional Tract Sign which may
contain only the name and location of a subdivision and directions
for reaching the same. (Zoning ordinance, section 8-87.10 (f) .)
A Directional Tract Sign no larger than 12 feet in height and 32
sq~re feet in area may be located in the required yard of property
in any zoning district if a conditional use permit (CUP) is
granted. (Section 8-87-60(a).)
The application for a Directional Tract sign to be located at
7753 Barn Hollow Court was processed by the Zoning Administrator
in accordance with section 8-94.0 et.seq. of the Zoning Ordinance.
The application was granted for a sign no larger than 12 square
feet and no higher than five feet, subject to conditions, and an
appealable action letter was sent by the planning Department. No
notice of appeal was filed within ten days after the date of the
approval of the sign. The approval thus became effective ten days
after approval, in accordance with section 8-94.6 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
The council may amend the sign Ordinance to prohibit
Directional Tract signs in residential areas or otherwise.
However, such an amendment would be prospective only and would not
affect the CUP which has been granted for the Directional Tract
Sign at 7753 Barn HolloW court which would then become a legal non-
A TJACM"' .1
,
,.~
.
.
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
PAGE:
city council
Elizabeth H. silver
Directional Tract sign
April 7, 1993
2
conforming sign.
Although a building permit is required for certain signs (Sign
Ordinance, section 8-87.81), one is not required for a non-
electrical sign less than eight feet in height (Dublin Municipal
Code section 7.28.290 (20)) and, thus, no building permit was
required for the sign.
The CUP is valid unitl February 27, 1995 or until the last lot
or home is sold, whichever occurs' first. It is also revocable for
cause in accordance with section 8-90.3 which allows the zoning
Administrator, after hearing, to revoke a CUP for various reasons
including if it is "detrimental to the public health or safety."
If the sign is not maintained in a "secure and safe condition"
the CUP may be revoked and the sign removed if the sign owner does
not correct the problem. (Section 8-87.82.)
The sign Ordinance does provide for summary removal of
"illegal signs" but this sign does not fit within any of the
definitions of an "illegal sign" at this time. (Section 8-87.74.)
In conclusion, it does not appear that there are any viable
o~~ons for the council to remove the sign at this time. If the
sign becomes "detrimental to the public health or safety" or is
not maintained in a "secure and safe manner," it may be removed in
the future.
~~ N- J;hc
Elizabeth H. silver
city Attorney
cc: city Manager /
planning Director/
wpd\atty\ehs\sign
..
......