×

Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.

Discussion Draft Form & Frontage Districts

Review and comment on the draft Form & Frontage Districts

The Discussion Draft Form & Frontage Districts focus on the physical shape of new development. They include standards related to bulk (floor area ratio), massing, height, setbacks, lot coverage, building orientation, and more. The draft include existing standards from over 200 zoning districts, plus new standards that emerged from ongoing public input.

Please share any thoughts you have about the Discussion Form & Frontage Districts with us. Your comments will be used to shape the future drafts of ATL Zoning 2.0.

File name:

-

File size:

-

Title:

-

Author:

-

Subject:

-

Keywords:

-

Creation Date:

-

Modification Date:

-

Creator:

-

PDF Producer:

-

PDF Version:

-

Page Count:

-

Page Size:

-

Fast Web View:

-

Choose an option Alt text (alternative text) helps when people can’t see the image or when it doesn’t load.
Aim for 1-2 sentences that describe the subject, setting, or actions.
This is used for ornamental images, like borders or watermarks.
Preparing document for printing…
0%

Click anywhere in the document to add a comment. Select a bubble to view comments.

Document is loading Loading Glossary…

AI Tools

Hide

Welcome to your personal document assistant, powered by AI.

You can ask me questions and I will review the document to provide answers with page references for you. Please be patient, it might take a second and note that I might not always get it right - if you have questions it's easy to check the page sources or contact staff to clarify.

Start with a general question and then follow up with additional questions to narrow the focus of the response if needed.

What would you like to know?

Powered by Konveio
View all

Comments

Close

Add comment


in reply to C Patton's comment
Thanks for your comment!
replies
in reply to C Patton's comment
Should be posted under RN1 Now see that Lot Coverage is the same
replies
Suggestion
40% is far too restrictive (and jump from 50%) for R4 lots Probably the case for other residential Zoning categories as well. Also this document leaves off the new front porch (8' deep) and Garage setback (10' from front of conditioned area) requirements. These 'new' requirements are also unreasonable for R4 lots. Am afraid that you will find most R4 lots will have a difficult time meeting these = lots too small to configure this way = variance requests
replies
in reply to Philip's comment
Answer
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts.
replies
in reply to Philip's comment
Answer
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts.
replies
in reply to Christine & Rocco Testani 2630 Birchwood Drive, 30305's comment
Answer
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts.
replies
Suggestion
We are Garden Hills residents and oppose any change to our current R4 zoning designation and oppose changes to current ADU classification. Thank you for the consideration of our input.
replies
Suggestion
Good morning - I am a resident of Garden Hills and own and reside in a property currently classified as R-4. I would like to express my opposition to the proposed changes related to accessory units. Specifically, the proposed changes to the number of ADUs allowed (from 1 to 2) and the changes to the owner occupancy rules for properties with ADUs are most concerning to me. I hope these changes do not go into effect. Thank you for incorporating this feedback into your decision making process.
replies
Suggestion
Good morning - I am a resident of Garden Hills and own and reside in a property currently classified as R-4. I would like to express my opposition to the proposed changes related to accessory units. Specifically, the proposed changes to the number of ADUs allowed (from 1 to 2) and the changes to the owner occupancy rules for properties with ADUs are most concerning to me. I hope these changes do not go into effect. Thank you for incorporating this feedback into your decision making process.
replies
in reply to Cary Aiken's comment
Answer
Thank you for your comment. 35 feet is the current height limit in most neighborhoods, except historic districts.
replies
Suggestion
35 feet is much higher than the original 1920s houses in my neighborhood.
replies
in reply to Lisa Gunther's comment
Answer
Thank you for your suggestion. We will take it into consideration as we develop the revised draft. Per Sec. 29.001 of the existing zoning, there is currently no owner occupancy requirement for ADUs. The only standard is that that ADUs may not be used for short-term rental unless the owner lives on the property. "An accessory dwelling unit may be used as short-term rental provided that the primary property owner resides onsite."
replies
in reply to Lisa Gunther's comment
Answer
Thank you for your suggestion. We will take it into consideration as we develop the revised draft.
replies
Suggestion
All structures should have the same set back of 15 ft.
replies
Suggestion
I am a resident of Garden Hills, and I own a house which is currently zoned R-4. I am opposed to increasing the allowable number of ADUs from one to two. I also oppose lifting the owner occupancy requirement for ADUs.
replies
in reply to Matt's comment
Answer
Please see our response to your other comment. There are many zoning districts that could accomplish what you describe, but this particular RN4 is a conversion of the R4B district, which only allows one primary unit per lot.
replies
in reply to Matt's comment
Answer
Thank you for your comment. As of note, this RN4 is a conversion of the current R4B district. There are other districts proposed that allow the type of development you describe, but these would need to be applied to areas after the new code is adopted, often as part of neighborhood planning efforts. The proposed zoning update does not include zoning map changes beyond conversions from old to new district names.
replies
Suggestion
These restrictions on height and massing make dwelling unit restrictions redundant. These are sufficient to maintain neighborhood character and dwelling unit restrictions should be eliminated. What difference does it make for traffic if a family of 6 lives in a single family house or 3 couples live in a triplex?
replies
Suggestion
Please eliminate the dwelling unit restrictions. With height restrictions and lot coverage restrictions, neighborhood character will be maintained. The triplex next door to me (that wouldn't be allowed to be built today) looks exactly like the single family homes in my neighborhood. It shouldn't be prohibited. Meanwhile, a 6k SF modern home can be built that looks nothing like the neighborhood, as long as it isn't a triplex or a quadplex. We need housing variety in my neighborhood, for older couples who want to downsize or young people who can't afford a single family home. Our neighborhoods are more vibrant when they are diverse. Please don't miss this opportunity with the zoning rewrite to move away from limiting how a house can be subdivided while still maintaining an outward appearance that fits with the neighborhood.
replies
in reply to Greg Levine's comment
Answer
The existing R4 zoning allows multiple buildings on a lot. For example, there can be a house, a garage, a barn, a guesthouse, and/or an ADU today.
replies
Question
An I understanding this correctly, the old r-4, now rn1 and rn2 will now allow 3 buildings on a lot? I hope I am wrong.
replies
in reply to Jim Winer's comment
Answer
Thank you for your comment. This will be specified in Module II.
replies
in reply to Jim Winer's comment
Answer
Thank you for your comment.
replies
in reply to Jim Winer's comment
Answer
Thank you for your comment. We will take it into consideration as we revise the draft code.
replies
in reply to Jim Winer's comment
Answer
Thank you for your comment. This will be specified in Module II.
replies
in reply to Jim Winer's comment
Answer
Module II will specify how elevations are calculated, but underlined terms (such as ground story elevation) are defined by hovering one's cursor over the text. In this context, it refers to existing elevation (which will be defined in Module II).
replies
in reply to Jim Winer's comment
Answer
Correct. This was an accidental omission.
replies
in reply to Jim Winer's comment
Answer
All diagrams in this draft are placeholder, as noted at the May 20th meeting. The diagrams will be updated for each Atlanta district in the final codes. They are diagrammatic only.
replies
in reply to Jim Winer's comment
Answer
The intention is to carry forward most, if not all, existing supplemental standards. Many have already been incorporated into the draft Form & Frontage Standards. The remainder will be in Module II.
replies
in reply to Jim Winer's comment
Answer
Thank you for your comment with regard to the core residential districts (R1-R5, RG, MR), those are largely being incorporated u unchanged, except with new tools that align them better to existing physical patterns.
replies
Suggestion
These coverage requirements are overly restrictive for these small lots. For properties that do not have on-street parking, the simultaneous requirements to set garages back by minimum distances mean that garages must be at the back of properties along long driveways. This means that a substantial portion of the lot is unavoidably covered. For a 50'×150' lot, parking and driveway takes up a minimum of 1680 sqft, which is more than 20%, leaving only 2445 sqft for other impervious surfaces . This should be turned into a requirement on the capacity to manage rainwater, addressable through water tanks, detention ponds, and pervious hard surfaces, and extending credit for things like green roofs. Either that, or the prohibition on front facing garages should be removed and front setbacks redefined to exclude parking surfaces so that the need for long driveways can be alleviated.
replies
in reply to DSol's comment
Answer
Thank you, both, for your feedback. We will take your concerns into consideration as we develop the revised drafts.
replies
in reply to SiteAdmin's comment
Suggestion
I believe that is what Stephanie was suggesting, and I concur.
replies
in reply to Stephanie Salyer's comment
Suggestion
Agreed Stephanie. If we have a RN4 neighborhood at 65% building coverage before variances then it's basically a concrete jungle after you add driveways, etc.
replies
in reply to Kelly in Edgewood's comment
Suggestion
I think 50% makes sense for the character of the neighborhood.
replies
in reply to Stephanie Salyer's comment
Answer
Thank you for your comment! We will take it into consideration as we develop the revised drafts.
replies
in reply to Stephanie Salyer's comment
Answer
Thank you for your comment. One of the proposed changes would allow the (currently allowed) accessory unit to be attached/within the existing structure. This has been proposed to reduce tree impacts. Historically, it was common for an attached accessory unit to occupy a partially exposed basement, such as where the property falls away from the street. This can be seen all across many pre-World War II neighborhoods. In addition, the code is proposing a building coverage standard, which does not currently exist. This will reduce the portion of the lot that can be impacted by foundations.
replies
in reply to Stephanie Salyer's comment
Answer
Conditional zoning will be maintained. However, conditional zoning is only reflected on the zoning map, not in the text of the code.
replies
in reply to Stephanie Salyer's comment
Answer
Thank you for your comment. As noted on July 9th, this reflects what is currently allowed under R5 zoning. Today, R5 allows a side-by-side duplex to be split into two lots. Each resulting lot is allowed one principal unit, one accessory unit, and additional guest houses. Please see 1359 Finley Street in Edgewood for an example of what the current R5 allows. I will record your comment as suggesting that what is allowed should be reduced from the current allowance. Is that correct?
replies
Suggestion
No more multiunit housing in midtown. Xoxo Watershed management
replies
in reply to SiteAdmin's comment
2 primary and 4 ADUs is not feasible with the existing infrastructure in these neighborhoods. It is failing where this has been attempted already. There needs to be appropriate feasibility and impact assessments done before something like this is proposed and put into policy.
replies
in reply to SiteAdmin's comment
This sounds terrible. How is this going to help with the issues around impervious surfaces and watershed issues as well as trying to maintain existing canopy? The issue in Atlanta is not about lack of housing but lack of affordable options. This type of building does not support more individual home ownership but further supports these large corporations continuing to monopolize the rental market.
replies
in reply to SiteAdmin's comment
We need to ensure that existing conditional zoning is reflected in this code. Allowing 2 primary units and up to 4 ADU is not appropriate for these lots. How can 50% lot coverage be maintained with these additions?
replies
Question
4 accessory units is way too much for these lots - how can 50% lot coverage be maintained with a primary unit and 4 adus?
replies
in reply to Matt's comment
It seems like the lot coverage percentages should be informed by watershed and green space need related issues rather than who had the most politically and financial agency.
replies
in reply to SiteAdmin's comment
Suggest making this a requirement for all if you're making it require it for some.
replies
Question
Why is this not required across a lot types? Especially if we're trying to encourage more walkable neighborhoods.
replies
Question
Why are these required for some and not for others? If we want to encourage more walkable neighborhoods this should be a standard across all lot types.
replies
in reply to SiteAdmin's comment
If an increase to the number of ADUs is being discussed/allowed, we need to also consider if building these units will disturb existing tree canopy. We should ensure our existing tree coverage, especially healthy over story trees are maintained over building additional units.
replies
in reply to deLille Anthony's comment
100% - and this also helps address watershed, carbon capture, and heat Island effect issues as well.
replies