×

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 Boards

To help with your review of the draft districts

Since posting the materials from the 5/20 meeting online, several people have asked for information on how technical terms are defined or measured. This document, a reformatting of the boards that were on display on 5/20, contains this information.
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…
Powered by Konveio
View all

Comments

Close
in reply to Scott Ball's comment

SiteAdmin Jul 15 2024 at 3:24PM on page 6

Answer
Agreed. The City of Atlanta limits driveway width today. This will be carried forward.
replies
in reply to Scott Ball's comment

SiteAdmin Jul 15 2024 at 3:23PM on page 5

Answer
Agreed. Module II will specify what happens in this condition. It will also specify standards for outliers.
replies
in reply to GCheatham's comment

SiteAdmin Jul 15 2024 at 2:56PM on page 2

Answer
Thank you for your feedback. The intention is to incorporate existing standards, which prohibit long-term leasing, but do allow household members and/or household employees to live in the structure. This will be clarified in the revised drafts.
replies
in reply to deLille Anthony's comment

SiteAdmin Jul 15 2024 at 2:52PM on page 12

Answer
Thank you very much for your comment. We will take it into consideration as we develop the revised drafts.
replies
in reply to GCheatham's comment

SiteAdmin Jul 15 2024 at 2:50PM on page 2

Answer
Thank you for your input. We have received significant input regarding this topic and will be updating and clarifying standards as part of the next draft.
replies

GCheatham Jul 9 2024 at 7:23PM on page 2

Question
If I own an R1, R2 or R3 property and live in the primary unit, can I lease a guest house for long-term rental?
replies

deLille Anthony Jul 9 2024 at 4:00PM on page 12

Suggestion
Setback flexibility should have clear parameters to ensure setbacks are preserved for adjacent neighbors and not exploited to gain more buildable area. While saving trees is very important, sacrificing a significant portion of the setback for a fast-growing tree that could be replaced in ten years may not be worthwhile. Therefore, I recommend that any setback variance greater than 20-25% receive NPU approval first.
replies

GCheatham Jul 9 2024 at 12:29PM on page 2

Question
How will the requirement that the owner of a lot with a guest house live on the property be enforced?
replies

GCheatham Jul 9 2024 at 12:28PM on page 2

Question
Is the current zoning codes definitional limitation on "guest house" as being a lodging unit "for temporary guests" gone with the wind (along with the provision that such units not have independent kitchen facilities)? If so, aren't "guest units" simply accessory dwelling units of potentially significantly larger size, limited only by the number that can be on the lot and by the requirement that the property owner live on the property?
replies
in reply to Scott Ball's comment

SiteAdmin Jul 9 2024 at 10:00AM on page 10

Answer
It will not for residential uses. Retail, services, and eating/drinking uses will be required to keep the street-facing door unlocked during business hours, as is the current requirement. Entry from the forecourt would be allowed.
replies
in reply to Scott Ball's comment

SiteAdmin Jul 9 2024 at 9:54AM on page 8

Answer
Thank you for your feedback. We will take it into consideration as we develop Module II.
replies
in reply to Scott Ball's comment

SiteAdmin Jul 9 2024 at 9:54AM on page 7

Answer
Thank you for your feedback. We will take it into consideration as we develop Module II.
replies
in reply to Scott Ball's comment

SiteAdmin Jul 9 2024 at 9:53AM on page 7

Answer
Thank you for your feedback. We will take it into consideration as we develop Module II.
replies

Scott Ball Jul 8 2024 at 10:30AM on page 13

thank you for all of these
replies

Scott Ball Jul 8 2024 at 10:23AM on page 10

I assume that the zoning will not attempt to mandate an amount of time each day that the doors are unlocked? Does the door requirement apply to forecourt buildings? Its nice when entry is through the forecourt.
replies

Scott Ball Jul 8 2024 at 10:18AM on page 9

So I am going to need to insert a single glass block every 20 feet.
replies

Scott Ball Jul 8 2024 at 10:13AM on page 8

If you are after a relationship between the sidewalk and the ground floor, the bench mark for height needs to be set at the sidewalk. That relationship will be random if you measure it from any elevation at the exterior wall(s) of the building. The requirement will become more non-sensical as the front setback increases, grade has more effect, and relationship between sidewalk and structure changes. Also you can use planters/ terraces to raise grade at an exterior wall and by-pass these height restrictions .
replies

Scott Ball Jul 8 2024 at 10:04AM on page 8

measuring from grade is going to be problematic when there is dramatic topography. If nothing else, there should be bench mark options that kick in at 3% slope in any direction. These options could include picking the elevation of any point on the sidewalk, or grade on the front facade, or maybe something else. If you rely on a single method for establishing the bench mark there will be a lot of odd results and many variance applications.
replies

Scott Ball Jul 8 2024 at 10:00AM on page 7

Nice. As stated earlier, it does make sense to allow street walls or screens to could towards width build out in some instances.
replies

Scott Ball Jul 8 2024 at 9:58AM on page 7

Much of this code is considering only very simple, box-like massing on flat grade. Once more complicated massing is introduced, grade varies significantly, and section changes are in the floor plan, all of this gets a lot more complicated. Right off looking at this, I would put my 1/2 story on the first or second floor by limiting the spaces that count as floor area. That would allow me to build out the third floor fully. All you are wanting to do here is limit the roof form is some way, so doing that as roof massing or pitch issues will do a lot better than introducing story limitations. Regulating by story makes little sense in low rise buildings and greatly complicates the administration.
replies

Scott Ball Jul 8 2024 at 9:44AM on page 7

Limiting by story and height is unnecessary. Story limitations are helpful in high rise areas so that developers do not loose FAR when they have higher ceilings in the lobby or upper floors. If you limit by height in these cases, then it incentivizes lower ceiling heights. Limiting by height, story, FAR and massing has no benefit I can think of. Limiting by story in low rise areas with a lot of topography is problematic (makes no sense to leave the underside of a building open or unusable when there is a significant slope). All you are after here is a massing issue- is there any value at all in doing this with stories? From the diagrams, much of the thinking here seems to be related to controlling the roof form, but you could do that with a roof form requirement. Nothing in this regulation prevents me from putting the half story on the bottom of the house. FAR typically excludes many types of unoccupied spaces thus controlling the shape of this third floor with floor area stipulations rather than massing regulations is problematic.
replies

Scott Ball Jul 8 2024 at 9:26AM on page 6

Usually build out frontage requirements for width allow street screens at the facade so that it doesn't have to be the building that does the entire job. Also should provide an exception for small lots that the build out width can be reduced as much as needed to allow a 9' driveway.
replies

Scott Ball Jul 8 2024 at 9:22AM on page 6

Best if this requirement is combined with a limit to driveway width so the driveway does not become a 5 car parking lot. With big lots and deep setbacks, circular drives out front can be nice, maybe consider allowing those.
replies

Scott Ball Jul 8 2024 at 9:18AM on page 5

Existing range is problematic when there are not enough structures on the block face. If there is one structure on a block, every new structure on the block face will have to be that exact setback. There should always be a default range that is allowable when there are not sufficient structures of like use and kind to establish an existing range.
replies

Scott Ball Jul 8 2024 at 9:11AM on page 4

great- thank you!
replies

Scott Ball Jul 8 2024 at 9:09AM on page 4

A general goal of form based code is to move away from buffer requirements and rely more on the transitional form requirements. Step up zones of differing development intensity in increments- ie don't have a zoning map that puts a skyscraper next to a single family house. Buffers are an ineffective means for mitigating the effects of a bad zoning map. Single family/ missing middle/ high intensity.
replies

Scott Ball Jul 8 2024 at 8:58AM on page 3

It would be great if the city would be clear about impervious surface being surface that is impervious, and pervious surface as being surface that is pervious. Wood decks are pervious. Pavers are only as pervious as their sub base.
replies

Scott Ball Jul 8 2024 at 8:54AM on page 2

Thank you for this section. Know that an attached guest house is not a guest house- it is part of the primary dwelling. Nothing prevents a separate entry, or anything other than separate utilities if the unit is attached to a house. Also- if an owner lives in a unit of a house with a guest unit or ADU upon C.O. and then moves out sometime later, then that would constitute a change in use but not in structure, so the structural regulations should be in structure and use should be in use. If an owner moves out, does this mean that code enforcement will evict the tenant? Probably the best way to accomplish this is to require a business license for property owners who want to rent their property and deal with the conditions for that business use with the business license.
replies

Scott Ball Jul 8 2024 at 8:43AM on page 1

Suggestion
It would save a tremendous amount of grief if these requirements could be housed in the department that actually regulates and permits the work. Even though you can use zoning to require things of the owner in the ROW, Zoning does not apply to the ROW itself, so inevitably that work will need to be administered by transportation or public works as a ROW encroachment permit. Those departments keep their own regulations and respond to different criteria than zoning does. Currently the parks department regulates and permits trees in the ROW and that creates 3 different departments to permit the ROW requirements. For much of the sidewalk zoning requirements, transportation requires that someone indemnify the City for that work in perpetuity which is bizarre. If an enforceable indemnity can be given to the city for things in the ROW, then that permanent liability should run with the property, not an individual. In any case, know that if you split the department that sets a requirement from the department that has administrative responsibility for permitting and enforcing those requirements, you will always be creating a hellish situation for everyone involved in permitting.
replies
in reply to bh790fxb's comment

SiteAdmin Jun 25 2024 at 3:09PM on page 12

Answer
No, there would not be. Today, all zoning districts that allow residential uses require "useable open space." This includes things such as balconies, all landscaping, rooftop decks, and patios. The proposed use of "amenity space" would reduce the amount required but hold what is provided to a higher standard. As an example, tree islands in parking lots would no longer count.
replies
in reply to bh790fxb's comment

SiteAdmin Jun 25 2024 at 3:06PM on page 9

Answer
Ground story window and door requirements and blank wall prohibitions already exist most zoning districts. These are being incorporated into the new code.
replies

bh790fxb Jun 25 2024 at 9:44AM on page 9

Suggestion
In areas where public safety is of vital concern, have you considered that windows might be more dangerous than a "blank" brick wall? If the goal is visual interest, there are districts where that may be appropriate, but I highly doubt that city-wide the zoning needs to regulate what can and can't be done on wall facades. Existing fire and building codes should be the rule on required openings, not zoning standards. I would also urge consideration to the enforcement cost of this on existing structures.
replies

bh790fxb Jun 25 2024 at 9:31AM on page 12

Suggestion
Will there be a list of pre-approved outdoor amenities from which to choose? This may be extremely challenging to accomplish in many existing infill locations. It would be worth considering cost, maintenance, serviceability, and space constraints that may be different for infill vs a new multifamily development and to word the ordinance accordingly.
replies

bh790fxb Jun 25 2024 at 9:15AM on page 6

Suggestion
It may be worth looking into other requirements that may have the same effect. Odd shaped lots, existing easements and setbacks, along with larger parking requirements could very likely make this requirement more onerous than helpful
replies
in reply to Jennifer Friese's comment

SiteAdmin Jun 12 2024 at 2:17PM on page 4

Answer
These will be found in Module II and will be based on the current transitional yard and transitional height plane standards.
replies
in reply to Jennifer Friese's comment

SiteAdmin Jun 12 2024 at 2:16PM on page 1

Answer
There is no difference from current regulations.
replies
in reply to Jennifer Friese's comment

SiteAdmin Jun 12 2024 at 2:15PM on page 14

Answer
Thanks for the suggestion!
replies
in reply to Jennifer Friese's comment

SiteAdmin Jun 12 2024 at 2:14PM on page 13

Answer
Thank you for the suggestion. We will take it into consideration as we prepare future drafts.
replies
in reply to Jennifer Friese's comment

SiteAdmin Jun 12 2024 at 2:11PM on page 12

Answer
This provision would allow buildings to be placed slightly closer to the lot line on one side to avoid impacting trees on the other. Today, the BZA often grants setbacks varies to reduce the impacts of new construction on trees. This would make that by-right.
replies
in reply to Jennifer Friese's comment

SiteAdmin Jun 12 2024 at 2:09PM on page 12

Answer
This term means a single house that could have multiple units in it. For example, a duplex or triplex that appears as a single house from the exterior. There are man of these in the Midtown Garden District and some other neighborhoods built before World War 2.
replies

Jennifer Friese Jun 5 2024 at 10:54AM on page 4

Question
Where do we find the metrics for Transition Type Low, Med., High etc?
replies

Jennifer Friese Jun 5 2024 at 10:45AM on page 1

Question
How is this different than the current Minimum Lot Size requirement?
replies

Jennifer Friese Jun 5 2024 at 10:36AM on page 14

Suggestion
or historic preservation.
replies

Jennifer Friese Jun 5 2024 at 10:34AM on page 13

Suggestion
or historic preservation.
replies

Jennifer Friese Jun 5 2024 at 10:30AM on page 12

Question
How does allowing a smaller side setback on one side preserve boundary trees? I believe this change would do just the opposite.
replies

Jennifer Friese Jun 5 2024 at 10:21AM on page 12

Question
What's a house-form plex?
replies
View all