×

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 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
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