Saturday, July 6, 2013

Dunwoody City Council agenda for Monday July 8th

Monday, July 8th
Dunwoody City Hall
41 Perimeter Center East
Dunwoody, GA 30346
6:00 p.m. - Work Session Packet
7:00 p.m. - Work Session Packet

CAD - 2 - CAD Update  (6 pm agenda)

Update on Changes to Ambulance Service Provision in DeKalb County.

Presentation of the 2012 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (Audit).

Hearing & Second Read - ReZoning 13-051: Pursuant to the City of Dunwoody Zoning Ordinance, Applicant, HDP Acquisitions, LLC c/o Hotel Development Partners, LLC, Seeks Permission to Rezone Property Currently Zoned Office-Commercial-Residential Conditional (OCRc) to Office-Commercial-Residential Conditional (OCRc) to Allow For a Change of Previous Conditions.

Hearing & Second Read -Special Land Use Permit SLUP13-051: Pursuant to the City of Dunwoody Zoning Ordinance, Applicant, HDP Acquisitions, LLC c/o Hotel Development Partners, LLC, Seeks a Special Land Use Permit For a Change in the Maximum Allowable Building Height of Two-Stories to Eight-Stories.

Discussion of Emergency Notification Sirens.

Discussion of Trees Atlanta Agreement for Tree Plantings Within the City Parks.

Discussion of Mount Vernon Road and Vermack Road Intersection Improvement.

Discussion of Project Agreement with the Georgia Department of Transportation for Perimeter Center Traffic System Upgrades.

Discussion of Resolution to Establish Print Fees for GIS Maps.

Discussion of Transmittal to Georgia Department of Community Affairs for Codification of City Code Chapter 8, Buildings and Building Regulations

Discussion of Contract Award for RFP 13-02 Public Safety Video Surveillance Project - IronSky.

Discussion of Revised IGA with DeKalb County for the Provision of Election Services

FIRST READ: Ordinance to Amend Chapter 25, Section 25-32. (Building Construction Codes)


TwoDogsTrucking said...

The Pandora's box of CAD2CAD is due for another update in which we learn it's progressing, almost there, getting close or just about at the next phase and then we go live. Researched & found : (, (DeKalb's RFP), (Winbourne consulting). The RFP mentions CAD2CAD interoperability but are they thinking of us and how much will this cost the city? The 911 change is a waste of money, valuable staff time & it endangered lives. Don't make this mistake w/fire service.

dpgroupie said...

More like "dog with a bone". Seriously, give it a rest. Those "bitter pills" have passed their expiration date. The change to Chattcom has been a blessing, and I speak from experience as a neighborhood watch coordinator who has called many times. I also had a personal experience with a 911 medical emergency and they came FAST. Saying the switch has endangered lives is just plain wrong.

Rob said...

At a tremendous cost, the city of Dunwoody decided to have residents call a third party...who will then call Dekalb fire. This is faster than Dunwoody residents calling DF directly...absolutely not!

The only emergency dgroupie has had lately is his infamous Hawk Emergency...

Elizabeth said...

I have a few questions about the zoning rewrite I am hoping you can answer.

1. I noticed in the recent amendment that there is a new regulation relating to Household Pets:

Section 27-10.40 Household Pets
No more than 3 household pets may be kept on any lot in a residential zoning
district, except that on lots exceeding 2 acres in area, one additional household pet
may be kept for each additional acre of lot area in excess of 2 acres, up to a
maximum of 10 household pets. Litters of animals of not more than 6 months of age
are not counted for the purpose of calculating the total number of household pets on
a lot in a residential zoning district.

"Household pet" is now defined as "a domestic companion animal that is customarily kept for
personal use and enjoyment including domestic dogs, domestic cats, canaries,
parrots, parakeets, domestic tropical birds, hamsters and guinea pigs. Household pet
does not include livestock, poultry, pot belly pigs, pit bulls, or snakes" Since pitbulls and snakes are not "household pets" under this definition, does that mean that residents may own an unlimited number of them?

2. It seems to me that the growing of food crops is restricted to "community gardens" and "Industrial Districts" but perhaps I am not reading this correctly. Can anyone point me to where gardens are still permitted in residential areas?

Many thanks.

SDOC Publishing Internet Solutions said...

I can help you out with this one.

Community gardens are mentioned 18 times in Chapter 27 and presented in several different ways. There is the text of the code you mentioned, and several tables that simplify the "yeses" and "nos". The answer to your question is on page 18 of the PDF (marked page 4-3 in the document) and is a table presenting what activities are permitted and to what degree, and which are not.

At the bottom of the table is a listing for "Agriculture". Community gardens are expressly permitted by right in all residential zoning districts per this table. ("P" stands for "Permitted" and there is a "P" in the column headed by all residential zoning designations.)

Conversely, "livestock" is not permitted, as indicated in the same table. I'm afraid your interpretation of the text to mean "unlimited numbers" is not correct.

Hope this helps. :-)

Elizabeth said...

sdoc, are you saying that someone's backyard garden is considered a "community garden" (even though they are the only ones growing in it) and therefore is OK under this zoning rewrite?

I am not sure I understand about the second question. Are you also saying that "pit bulls" are now considered "livestock"? I think that is a stretch. They are dogs. My concern is that if anything, we want MORE limitations on these types of dogs, not less. I don't see anything in the zoning that limits the number of pit bulls per household like there for, say, shitzus.

27-10.40 says (with certain exceptions) 3 household pets per lot. The definition of household pet excludes pit bulls. So, pit bulls are not subject to the 3 per household limitation? I am not arguing in favor of pit bulls here. I am trying to understand the intent. It seems to me there is a hole here.

SDOC Publishing Internet Solutions said...

During the rewrite process, gardens for edible crops (as opposed to flower gardens for decorations) were all considered "community gardens".

The idea of pit bulls being "livestock" did not come up during any of the discussions. Your best bet is to address that question with Community Development.

Elizabeth said...

Mr. Heneghan, I do not support the new changes to the zoning rules that provide that pit bulls are exempt from the 3-dog-per-lot limitation. Thank you.