Discussion Draft Chapter 8: Development Standards

Correct, the new standard technically DOES apply to all districts. However, there are standards in most Form Districts that specify how high buildings along the sidewalk may be raised. These are more restrictive than this provision and would supersede it.

Correct. There is a parking requirement on paper only. Almost all R1-R4 is on a street with on-street parking, except major corridors.

Okay. I think I have it. The elimination of parking minimums enacted two years ago didn't change the underlying minimum found in the R-4 section of the code because of the exemption from the exemption in 16-36.001. The minimum in the R-4 code section didn't really mean anything because it was negated in most cases by 16.28.014(12) which eliminated minimum parking where there is a public street in front of the house. So you are just cleaning up the code by eliminating the parking requirement in the underlying zoning. Did I hear this correctly last night?

This excerpt from Section 74.32 only appears to apply to R-1 through R-5, and does not appear to cover all zoning classifications. The proposed 8.4.6.C. appears to affect all zoning classifications.

See 74.32(11.1) which reads, The following provisions apply only to the R-1 through R-5 districts:(a)Imported material. Material that is deposited on-site from fill that is obtained from off-site is limited to 600 cubic yards.(b)Top of cut slope. The top of cut slope shall be set back at least four feet from any property line.(c)Toe of fill slope. The toe of fill slope shall be set back at least four feet from any property line.(d)Prohibition. Fill that is not restrained by a retaining wall shall not be undertaken on any part of a site where the natural slope is steeper than 2:1.(e)Retaining wall standards. Retaining walls in the buildable area of a site must:(i)Be set back from the property line at a distance that is at least equal to its height, where the height is measured from the ground level (existing),(ii)Not exceed a height of six feet, where the height is measured from the ground level (existing), and(iii)When tiered, the face of each upper retaining wall must be separated from the face of the nearest lower retaining wall by at least a minimum horizontal distance equal in length to the height of the upper retaining wall, where the height of the upper retaining wall is measured from the ground level after any grading has been carried out. Note: The term "ground level (existing)" is defined in section 74-37 of the Code. Note: The city Land Development Code contains controls on the construction and use of retaining walls in areas other than the buildable area.

Where in Chapter 74 is the max. wall height? I was not able to locate.

PZ1 is the existing "high-capacity transit" parking exemption area, as well as zoning districts with no parking requirements. Under the high-capacity transit exemption, no parking is required with a 1/2 mile walk of a MARTA station, including R1-R5 zoning district. This has been law for seven years and supersedes the requirements of zoning district. Houses can be built today with no on-site parking in these areas.

We're sorry for the confusion. We will try to explain this at the Q&A session on Monday 1/13. You're correct that the existing BL Overlay does not technically exempt R1-R4. However, another existing code section (Sec. 16-28.014(12)) allows lots to count on-street spaces (whether marked or not) towards parking requirements. The result is that all R1-R4 citywide has no effective on-site parking requirement, except along streets that are signed as "no-parking." This law has existed for seven years, well before the BL Overlay was adopted. Since then, a handful of new houses have been built without on-site parking, but most builders choose to provide on-site parking in order to secure a higher sales price.

I am totally confused. Director Holmes stated directly that Sec. 16-36.001 indeed exempted properties Zoned R1-4 from the recent City Council action eliminating minimum parking requirements in the Beltline Overlay. The Parking Zone Map and this table seem to suggest that parking minimums will be eliminated in the Beltline Overlay even as it passes through single-family residential areas. This is a major change.

Two lots separated by a true "alley" (as opposed to a narrow City street -- see Peace Avenue/Latta Street in O4W) are contiguous.

Thank you for your feedback. We will consider this as we revise Module II.

Thank you for your feedback. We will consider this as we revise Module II.

Thank you for your feedback. We will take this into consideration as we revise Module II.

Thank you for your feedback. The creation of PK2 (for the Beltline Overlay) was a recent action of City Council. For that reason, we do not anticipate many changes to it.

Thank you for your input. There are already limits on the amount of parking allowed in PZ2, but we will review the numbers based on your feedback.

Agreed - the removal of the setbacks from RG2 into the new UG-3 is particularly problematic and requires this kind of clarification.

Employees. Be careful removing or reducing parking because you may need a certain number of care givers around the clock.

Thanks for the response. That would have been great in the instance (would also be nice if the city would stop ignoring my requests for a traffict study at the intersection with the goal of adding a curb between east and west lanes on 10th to prevent people turning across lanes into the QT... but i digress. Thanks again!

Thanks for the suggestion.

Thanks for your comment. Driveway placement is regulated by zoning and the agency with jurisdiction over the street. In the case of Northside Drive, that is GDOT. The City cannot require a developer to obtain a variance to its zoning when such variance is required by the State of Georgia. In the case of 10th, which is a City street, we can explore strengthening this. Condition C.1.d above, which requires use of side streets for driveways would help (it would have required the driveway to be off of Fielder Ave instead of 10th.

This is not currently codified in zoning. We will reach out to the appropriate parties to see if they have standards.

The purpose is to minimize indirect connections between the door and the sidewalk and reduce the distances non-drivers must travel to access the building.

Thanks for the suggestion.

Thanks. We will look into adding this as relief.

Relief is not the same everywhere, especially in other chapters. There are some situations where it is other than 10%, or where use of a percent isn't applicable to the relief. An example of the latter would be areas with existing steep topography, which (today) qualify for greater relief in order to reduce grading impacts.

The existing City Council established this policy in its recent updates to the Beltline Overlay. As you may recall, the initial draft of the Beltline Overlay updates included no requirement for these uses and was amended as shown here.

Thank you for your comment. To-date, we have not received any comments opposing this modified existing provision from the large-scale developers typically subject to it. If this is a concern, we encourage them to share their comments here or by sending an email to atlzoning2@atlantaga.gov. Lastly, please note that this provision doesn't require stepped construction when the building is set far from the "protected district" Every tall building on Peachtree Street between Buckhead Village and Brookwood Station is subject to this existing provision.