Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Draft of Dunwoody Sign Ordinance – for consideration on October 25, 2010


10252010 Dunwoody Sign Ordinance Amendments - Draft 3 2010

8 comments:

Joe Hirsch said...

There are 43 changes from the first read - that were not voted on in front of the public!?! Changes after the first read should not be made behind closed doors. Will you support giving this a full cycle review or do you support voting on it now?

Robert Wittenstein said...

Joe,
None of these changes were made behind closed doors. All were the result of the discussion that occurred in public at the First Read.

It has been published here and on the city's web site a week in advance and we will hold a public hearing at the meeting for additional community input.

Joe Hirsch said...

Hi Robert,
You really voted on 43 different changes? No, staff made the changes after the meeting and put them in their words. This should have been done BEFORE the first read, with an attached memo from staff explaining the proposed changes. Doing it this way circumvents the purpose of Community Council, Planning Commission and even City Council. If you wanted to change the height of a sign from 3 feet to 4 feet, you would have to vote on it during an open meeting. But if staff wants to change the height, they just get to change the text when no one from the public is there? That's ok with you? Wow.

NellieWoodson said...

Really, you gotta chill man. Smoke a doobie or something. Hate to see you if something critical ever happened in life if you go all ballistic with something so minor as inconsequential edits to a sign ordinance.

During the depression my grandfather carried a sandwich board sign for strip joints, opium dens, and the like. Do you think he gave a damn about the content of the signs, and that "exotic" was spelled incorrectly? Hell no, he was consumed with the critical undertaking of feeding his family.

You need to put life's issues in their proper perspective.

Joe Hirsch said...

Hey Nellie, I mean WishboneNolan, you said you were leaving this blog last month. You really don't know anything about me, so please keep your personal, boring and uniformed opinions about me to yourself. I'm trying to discuss a sign ordinance and the way our government is run, as it was posted on this blog. Try staying focused in your comments, without quoting some random other person or telling stories from your supposed glory days, and maybe you will be taken seriously. But it's great that you decided to create another fake account to offer your input. More people should also get involved. It would be great to see you write a comment that doesn't attack others.

DunwoodyFamous said...

Robert and John: I'm with Joe on this.

Inexplicably, the Community Development contractor circumvents (and it seems selectively) the established process of working through community groups before proposal items get to council. Why do our elected folks continue to tolerate it?

Maybe we should disband all of the community groups, if council will not fully hold true to the community group review process they laid out.

And the community is still waiting for an explanation of how/why this Community Development contractor withheld from council and the public that a sign attorney was working with them. This attorney input should have come at the beginning of the ordinance process, not at the eleventh hour.

John Heneghan said...

Yet this evening (Oct 19th), there has been a new revision of the sign ordinance posted to the
City site for you to review.

The main change happens on page 8 in the definition of Standard Informational Sign where by the maximum area went from I believe 16 square feet in the first read to 12 square feet in Monday's edition and now back to 16 again.

These suggested changes came to council from residents and it was decided by the member of Council who proposed the change to revert back to the original text in that section.

As far as City Staff, I can attest that they work very hard with the various community committees trying to put forward the best work product as possible. I respect the many volunteers that serve on these committees as well as the opinions of the business community and homeowner associations. I just wish everyone gave feedback on proposed ordinances at the beginning of the process but that isn't realistic therefore changes suggested by interested parties have been entertained right up to the last minute before the public hearing on the matter and the 2nd read. Sometimes these changes are seen by Council as major and the matter is referred back through the cycle for another review. We have already done this once to the sign ordinance and it may be done that way again on Monday.

I am also looking forward to the approval of the video equipment this coming Monday because I believe it will increase the transparency and amplify the voice of the various community committees reviewing and proposing various ordinance changes. Having video available on the web showing the actual conversations and discussions is something that is lost in the memo telling the City Council how they voted.

I too get frustrated with the process, but I have to believe that everyone (Staff, Council and Citizens) are all working openly to craft laws that will serve the common good of the community.

Please keep the blog comments coming, they along with all the other feedback we receive is an an integral part of the process.

On Monday we will have open public comment at the start of the meeting as we always do and two public hearings, one on the final 2011 budget (amended from last week based on conversations at the work session) as well as the Sign Ordinance and an I encourage your full participation in the process.

The final agenda with all documents for Monday should be up on Friday.

Joe Hirsch said...

Thanks John. The new branding for Dunwoody: Come join us and waste your time! Like Bob asked, I would like to hear a public explanation from Planning staff and our attorney about their meeting with Henderson & Huntley law firm in February about the sign ordinance. That meeting cost us $900, yet they decided not to share anything they learned from it. They even kept City Council in the dark too. Someone needs to explain why waiting 8 months to reveal this during the first read is supposedly beneficial to the process. It would be troublesome to see City Council approve this on Monday.