Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Dunwoody Council to discuss Building Lease, Planned Developments, Home Occupations, Companion Animals, Rooming Houses, Stream Buffers and much, much more.

Tuesday, September 17th
Dunwoody City Hall
41 Perimeter Center East
Dunwoody, GA 30346
6:00 p.m. - Full Packet

It will be a long night for the Dunwoody City Council starting at 6 pm, as we discuss the many proposed changes to the zoning and land development codes.  Get ready to hear, “What problem are we solving?” over and over as we weigh the proposed changes.

At our first read of Aug 5th, we provided input on all topics raised from Community Council, Planning Commission, and Staff. Due to time limitations, several topics were highlighted as needing further discussion that will take place tonight as outlined in this memo. These included:

• Minimum project sizes for existing residentially-zoned properties rezoned to Planned Development Districts (Section 27-6.20) (I am on record as wanting larger parcels for Planned Developments.)
• Home occupations (Section 27-10.30 and attached white paper)

Opinions of community: Pro & Con
Zoning Rewrite Hype-Free Zone: What does it really say?
DHA is against Home Occupations 
• Household pets (Section 27-32.10-H - 3 Companion Animals?)
• Rooming house
• Stream buffers (Section 16-8.10)

Council provided Staff a list of those items that required discussion that had not been previously addressed. These items, as well as the items requiring further discussion, will frame the discussion for the September 17 meeting:

• Zoning districts for health clubs and other participant sports (Section 27-5.20)
• Adult use issues (Section 27-8.40-A)
• Front yard gardens (potentially Section 27-9.50)
• Kindergarten/day care fencing (Section 27-9.110)
• Bicycle parking (Section 27-12.5)
• On-street parking (Section 27-12.10) (Previously stated that I am against any limitations)
• Shared parking (Section 27-12.40-E)
• Public hearing notice requirements (Section 27-18.60)
• Appeals of administrative permits (Section 27-24.10)
• Nonconforming multi-family uses in O-I (Section 27-29.10)
• Single-family residences and households (Sections 27-4.10-B, 27-8.20-A, 27-32.10-
D, and 27-32.10-H)
• Bike lanes/sharrows (Section 16-16.20-J)
• Sidewalks (Depends on nature of interest)

 Many of the aforementioned topics required additional research and input from Staff –the results of which are manifested in text amendments below and attached white papers. Additional discussion may be needed to decide if the amendments are sufficient for clarifying information.

Council requested Staff revise the location of the “definitions sections” so they are consistent between the chapters. This change will be completed when the transmitted draft is cleaned and distributed in the packet for the second read.

Lastly, after the special called meeting in August, Staff was contacted by the Atlanta Apartment Association with concerns of the proposed nonconforming language as they relate to multi-family uses and structures; the memo from the Association is attached. The primary issue the Atlanta Apartment Association had was losing the ability to rebuild if various willful damages occurred outside of their control. As a result, Staff is currently working with the Association on language that forwards the intent of the proposed regulations while addressing their concerns.

Agenda
Zoning Rewrite Memo
CC & Planning Commission Mins
Chap 16 - Land Development Changes
Chap 27 - Zoning Ordinance Changes
Home Occupation Research done by City
Atlanta Apartment Association Memo
Lease of 4555 N Shallowford (at Pernoshal Court) by Emory to operate an out-patient surgery center.

3 comments:

Ken Thompson said...

Isn't the lease of 4555 N. Shallowford property a fait accompli? I've noticed ongoing renovations for a few weeks now. Did council previously approve this work on spec? Did Emory have reason to believe this was a reasonable expenditure w/o council approval?

John Heneghan said...

Ken, are you sure of the address? 4555 is at Pernoshal Court.

Could you be talking the building next to the old postal facility? We leased that awhile back and work is allowed.

Ken Thompson said...

Ah. My mistake. Definitely the PO facility--glad to see it is going back into service.