Tuesday, August 3, 2010

Residential Parking Management – Dunwoody Ordinance Amendment Proposal


I received this document in advance of Monday's work session in order to be fully prepared to discuss the issue; due to several requests I am posting it here in advance of the agenda being officially published on the City site.
08092010_Residential Parking Requirements

15 comments:

Heyward said...

A little help here...would this mean one can not leave a car parked in their driveway?

Chip said...

Two points: 1) quoting from the memorandum: "Surprisingly, staff has found very little language in our neighboring jurisdictions that discusses this code compliance concern." Maybe that's true because it's really a non-issue for most neighboring jurisdictions.

2)Rather than going "whole-hog" and righting an ordinance specifically focused on a single-issue, the Council should consider adopting a "Nuisance Ordinance" including excessive number and parking of vehicles in view to be considered a "nuisance". I believe that's what Cobb County does.

Chip

waterman said...

Yes, this is pretty unnecessary. Can't we keep our local government simple? This is like taking a sledgehammer to a finishing nail.

Terry said...

The proposed ordinance uses four specific terms of parked, stopped, standing, or stored. It goes on to prohibit vehicles such as limos, dump trucks, tow trucks, flat bed trucks, etc. from being parked, stopped, standing, or stored in a residential area.

A strict interpretation would be that construction trucks at a home worksite would be prohibited, since the trucks would be stopped or standing at a minimum. The black car service that picks one up for an airport trip could not stop or stand at a house while waiting for the passenger.

This entire proposal is a bad idea and should be tossed out as fast as it is brought up.

Bob said...

I’m not making it a political partisan issue at all. I find it Ironic that a city filled with Republicans (I am one), that claim smaller government out of our lives is even thinking about putting this up as an issue.
I have no idea who Glory is so I have no bone to pick here.
I just find it weird, that Joe H, Gerri Penn and I agree that this is just plain STUPID. I think I am accurate when I say that the three of us do not share the same political views.
This is ISSUE based, not political in my mind
Council members who back this should pack up their houses and move to a community or town that has covenants in place before your buy.
If you want to live that life style, go live in Country Club of The South, hide behind the gate and let only those people with the double secret password inside.
We are a city of 40+ thousand and have over 150 K here on a daily basis.
Despite the beliefs of some of the council, we are not all retired, living on big government pensions topped by retiree benefits from a major corporation. We are not all making 6 figures and have antique car collections. Did you know that over 100 families a week have to go to the Food Bank at St Pats? Hunger in Dunwoody !!!! That is OK as long as they do not live in your neighborhood. Because you think we live still live next store to Wally and Beaver Cleaver does not mean we all want to
Despite what you think this is not a planned Walt Disney community and is most definitely not Mayberry
People may not want to admit it, but we are a City of many of races, cultures economic stature, political and religious beliefs, young and old
Stop trying to "protect us from ourselves” and do the jobs you were elected to do, govern. Fix my roads, protect my property and provide me a safe place to live and work. Do not try to be my parent or tell me what is best for me. That is not why you were elected. Please don’t tell us again that you are responding to hundreds of emails demanding this change. Don’t insult my intelligence. I do not want to do another Open Record Request and count the emails again.
Telling the residents how many cars they can park on their property is not an issue to waste any time over.
I have submitted an open records request seeking information from the City retreat where this STUPID idea came from. The council could make it easy on us all by having the councilman or men stand up and stand behind this Stupid idea. (Do you get the idea that I think this is STUPID?)
Will let everyone know what I get back

Dunwoodydude said...

John, I don't live in your district, but I have to agree with the other posters here. The City of Dunwoody is NOT the Dunwoody Homeowners Association. And to echo another poster, some of the "unintended consequences" of this ordinance seem pretty absurd. If I have a party at my house does this mean I can't have more than four cars parked in my driveway? Personally, I don't think "lots of cars in a driveway" is a nuisance. Let's look at more important issues like school re-districing. Please!

Bob said...

The DHA never discussed at anytime how many cars to park or what colored lights you could hang over the holidays.
This City council, or least some members of the city council are doing things that would have embarassed DHA members in the past.
As a former president of the DHA I know it embarasses me.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the author of this bill never attended a DHA meeting
In short they are worse than a homeowners association because the seek to legally stick their noses into you personal lives and property.

TwoDogsTrucking said...

The City of Dunwoody is unnecessary government.

Rick said...

i suspect Council will first strike the limit on cars. I did a search and could not fine one, not one, city or county that limited the number of cars. I agree with Bob that the car collector exemption is garbage. This thing needs a complete overhaul to have a chance. I doubt it comes up after Monday.

rebecca said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rebecca said...

Is this ordinance even necessary? I, too, think it's S.T.U.P.I.D.

Bob said...

I got the Open
records Request back today and there is mention of discussionb but no names attached who actuall thought up this thing

Joe Hirsch said...

Bob, they all probably know who had this idea and they all could simply say who it was. However, rather than being honest with the citizens, they are choosing to be silent for selfish political reasons - putting themselves above the city. That says a lot. I'm really getting frustrated with our city leaders.

jpecss4000 said...

I could understand an ordinance where vehicles parked on city roads outside of one's house should be controlled for safety reasons, but to attempt to control how many vehicles one parks on their own property is allowing government a bit too much say in how people run their lives. What next? Will the Dunwoody officials determine what color we can or cannot paint our homes? How many pets we can have? How many people can live in our house? Where does this stop? I am a collector of classic cars and enjoy the hobby and at times have more than 4 cars in my drive way (which is a circular driveway with lots of room to park my cars). I think residents need to put a stop to this attempt to control how we live in this city and if necessary take all steps to get these 'control freaks' out of office... Please let me know how to join forces and fight this stupid proposal... and find out the names of the officials that proposed it so I can insure they don't get my vote next time.
Jim

jpecss4000 said...

OK... time to think about voting in new city officials next election. This is going too far telling me how many vehciles I can park on my own property... Tell these 'control freaks' to concentrate on more important issues like crime, street repairs, and maybe more than having the Dunwoody police parked somewhere eating donuts and looking for seat belt offenders instead of cruising areas for real crime offenders. This is way out of their jurisdiction and we need to remember who these officials are and fix it so they don't hold office next election. I'll join any group that wages war against such ordinances as this. It's rediculous. I collect classic cars and if I want to bring them to my house and park them on my property, then that's my right and I don't want some goverment agency infringing on that right. Where does it stop? What's next? How many pets I can have?
Ko,