Discussion Draft Chapter 8: Development Standards

This standard seeks to ensure that large development sites incorporated new streets that form an interconnected network. A grid pattern, per se, is not required. Many parts of Atlanta have connected streets that are curvilinear in layout. Ansley Park and Inman Park are examples of this.

Thank you for comments. We will address this in the revised Chapter 8 draft.

Thanks. We will specify this.

A2 is allowed in where fences and walls are prohibited, except when required for certain alcoholic uses. A3 allows them without this limitation.

Thank you for your feedback.

Thank you for your feedback. We will be updating various provision regarding coordination with other City departments.

Agreed. They will not typically, but where there are extremely high transmission lines it is sometimes an option.

Yes. We have coordinated with the Arborist Division. If the TPO is adopted with a different standard, we will modify these to match it.

This will be updated. Thanks/

Thanks for your feedback.

As drafted, this is OZD, but we will look into clarifying this. Thanks!

Great point. Thanks!

All Relief provisions will be updated and clarified following release of Module III.

The Zoning Ordinance is administered by the Director, who may consult with other City Departments before rendering decisions. We will explore adding such a notation for this provision.

Thanks!

No change is proposed from existing standards found in Sec. 74-43(c)(11.1), which allows multiple walls but each cannot exceed 6 feet in height. It has been rewritten and graphics added.

Leland cypress will not be outlawed as part of the zoning code. This provision simply states that it may not be used to satisfy landscaping that is required by this code. Typically, required landscape includes street trees, buffer trees, etc. It does not include optional trees, such as on a private residential lot.

Please note, this only requires to landscaping that is REQUIRED by the zoning ordinance, such as street tree plantings and required transitions (buffered); it would not apply to additional optional plantings. All of these types of activities already do, and will continue to, require landscape plans as part of permitting.

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.