×

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%
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

Commenting is closed for this document.


in reply to Laurel David's comment
Answer
Thank you for your comments.
replies
in reply to Laurel David's comment
Answer
Yes. There are some neighborhoods that want to control for height compatibility without having to become a historic district. These districts could be applied in the future to those areas.
replies
in reply to Laurel David's comment
Answer
This is being clarified in the next draft. Thanks!
replies
In the current code there are eleven zoning districts that are roughly less in intensity than RG-1. The new code is proposing nine RN, 2 RC and 6 RH districts - most of which have only minimal differences. This seems like too many and too confusing.
replies
in reply to Laurel David's comment
Answer
This will be defined in Module II, which will be released on December 4th.
replies
Are these new districts? i didn't see them in the conversion table. seems like a lot of single family neighborhood districts to add to all the RH districts that seem similar.
replies
is this measured from the alley as shown on GIS? what if the alley has been effectively taken by all the property owners to the middle of the former alley line? I'm assuming they would need to have the alley formally abandoned first before being able to use that area as part of their setback. Not really a zoning comment, but more a note to create/streamline the alley abandonment process.
replies
define "Existing Range"
replies
If these residential districts aren't changing from the current code (except for maybe some tweaks and clarifications) consider not changing the names so as not to alarm single-family homeowners/neighborhoods. I fear OZD will be flooded with calls and questions
replies
in reply to Georgi's comment
Answer
The 30-foot front-yard setbacks has been codified in this district since at least 1982. The new code would allow a shallower setback where that is the prevailing built pattern on the street, in order to match existing patterns.
replies
in reply to Georgi's comment
Answer
It would only apply in historic districts that currently retain their underlying zoning, such as in the West End. It would not apply in historic districts that do not retain underlying zoning (e.g., Poncey-Highland). However, standards of historic districts will continue to supersede any underlying zoning with regard to height, massing, setbacks, etc.
replies
in reply to Georgi's comment
Answer
There is no change. The maximum height limit today is 35 feet.
replies
Question
Honestly just curious - why such massive front yards?
replies
Question
Does this zoning also apply to Historic districts?
replies
Question
It seems that there is a 5' reduction in max building height - why is that?
replies
Suggestion
Does the 4' height restriction allow for a box hedge in a 4' high planter, for example? Ideally it should, especially along a primary street to reduce noise and capture particulates.
replies
in reply to 10rk4's comment
Suggestion
100% agree with this - can we approach this with the 'end in mind'?
replies
in reply to deLille's comment
Answer
You can hide all comments by clicking the icon in the top right corner of the document review panel.
replies
Suggestion
This commenting format doesn't work very well when the posted comments are covering up the data one needs to be able to see in order to comment.
replies
in reply to Grace Roth's comment
Answer
Great comment. We wills hare this with the City's Historic Preservation staff.
replies
in reply to Grace Roth's comment
Thanks for your suggestion.
replies
in reply to Grace Roth's comment
Answer
Not per-se. The alternate forms are a function of use. If the district allows commercial uses, the shopfront would be allowed for commercial uses.
replies
in reply to Grace Roth's comment
Answer
Thank you for your suggestion.
replies
in reply to Grace Roth's comment
Answer
Only one would be required. This will be clarified in the next draft.
replies
in reply to Eric Kronberg's comment
Answer
These are conversion of existing multifamily districts, which currently allow 20 ft side lots and have no unit cap.
replies
in reply to Grace Roth's comment
Answer
Thank you for your suggestion.
replies
in reply to Grace Roth's comment
Answer
Thank you for your comment.
replies
in reply to Grace Roth's comment
Answer
The ability to subdivide lots would remain unchanged in what are currently R-1 through R-5 districts. No subdivision of secondary/accessory units would be allowed.
replies
in reply to Grace Roth's comment
Answer
Thank you for your suggestion.
replies
in reply to Grace Roth's comment
Answer
Thank you for your suggestion.
replies
in reply to Grace Roth's comment
Answer
Yes. There should be no change from the current number of nonconforming lots because these are conversions of existing districts. See below: link You can review all the analyses below: link
replies
There needs to be some way for the City to encourage and incentivize preservation, adaptive reuse, and maintenance beyond just penalizing noncompliance. It's difficult to police and too many buildings are demolished by neglect because property owners can not or do not want to follow the district regulations. Additionally, UDC should do comprehensive compatibility reports for each block face rather than having an applicant do it every time. That way there would be some accepted truth that we're all working from.
replies
What type of support is considered to actually support significant places and not just ban the demolition? There needs to be some way for the City to encourage and incentivize preservation, adaptive reuse, and maintenance. Too many buildings are demolished by neglect.
replies
I think this could be more flexible so smaller parks could have pavilions/shelters. Also would be great to see public bathrooms required!!!!
replies
Question
Is there a table that shows which alternate form uses are allowed by which zoning districts?
replies
I feel like we may want to encourage some variety in shopfronts - not all big windows are inviting. Sometimes something cozier could be more approachable.
replies
Question
Would you have to do all of these or choose one option? Or something else?
replies
in reply to Eric Kronberg's comment
Another option could be to have the max number of units related to the lot size in a ratio form.
replies
Suggestion
This should be able to be waived if the property is close to a public park/trail.
replies
Suggestion
RN3 - RN7 feel very similar to me. As an affordable housing builder/developer working in multiple different neighborhoods, it would be simpler if there were fewer categories so we wouldn't have to get so into the weeds of what is allowable by zoning on every single project.
replies
Question
Does this plan contemplate lot subdivision so a property owner could sell accessory units fee simple? Otherwise, I would be concerned that increasing density but not increasing ownership opportunity would increase the wealth gap.
replies
Question
Has analysis been done of how many nonconforming lots would exist? Thinking of older, interior neighborhoods where entire blocks of lots are <7500 SF.
replies
Suggestion
If housing looks like the other housing in the neighborhood, it should NOT be limited in the number of dwelling units. Legalize duplexes and quads and increase the SF maximum for ADUs.
replies
Suggestion
If the typology matches the SF neighborhood, it shouldn't matter how many dwellings are included. Legalize unassuming duplexes and quads even in predominantly SF neighborhoods.
replies
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