×

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 Conversion of Existing Zoning Districts

This document shows the conversion of existing zoning districts to the new Form & Frontage and Use Districts.

As an example, the "R1" zoning district would be renamed to "RH1-U1" and would be labeled as such on the official zoning map
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…
Powered by Konveio
View all

Comments

Close

Commenting is closed for this document.

Stephanie Salyer Jul 10 2024 at 9:12AM on page 1

Suggestion
It will be important to make sure that any zoning with conditions are reflected here. And if more appropriate those zoning districts with conditions may need to be zoned differently than stated in this conversion to ensure it is clear to developers what the actual zoning stipulations are. For example R5C only allows 50% lot coverage and 55%FAR and ADUs are not allowed with zero lot line subdivisions. Currently the total number of units allowed per lot for R5 is two (primary plus 1 adu OR a duplex). This conversion states that there could be up to six units on an R5 lot which is not in alignment with the conditional zoning or current R5 zoning. It seems like the current R5C district aligns better with the RC2 rather than the proposed RN5. Additionally feasibility studies need to be shared that show how this proposed increase to density is not going to negatively impact tree coverage, watershed, and other outdated infrastructure that may not be able to support this level of density.
replies
in reply to dpsmiami's comment

SiteAdmin Jul 10 2024 at 8:59AM on page 1

Answer
I believe you are referring to "zero lot line" subdivision, where a side-by-side duplex can be split into two separate lots by-right. This would still be allowed in R5-equivalent under the proposed draft. However, the accessory unit could NOT be split to have its own lot.
replies
in reply to SiteAdmin's comment

dpsmiami Jul 9 2024 at 7:09PM on page 1

Question
I did not hear this addressed at July 9 meeting (might have missed it) and asked it in a question at 7:26 pm but it was skipped over. So would the transition from R-5 to U4 retain the lot split required to achieve the 6 units or just allow it by right? Aren't there limits on lot splitting that serve to constrain the creation of 6 units in R-5 lots, i.e. not every R-5 lot can be split? And so if you allowed 6 units without a lot split then this would effectively allow a much easier route to the 6 units?
replies
in reply to tadbook's comment

SiteAdmin Jul 3 2024 at 12:13PM on page 1

Answer
As you note, the current code limits the number of ADUs and primary residences, but it also allows a property owner to 1) split the two primary units into two lots using zero lot line subdivision and each resulting lot is allowed one ADU, then 2) add "guest houses" to each new lot (only restricted by a limit of 30% of the floor area of the primarily unit. Will explain what is currently allowed at the July 9th meeting. We hope you can join us. Register here: link
replies
in reply to Kelly in Edgewood's comment

SiteAdmin Jul 3 2024 at 12:12PM on page 1

Answer
R5-C is not a zoning district. The properties are zoned R5 and have additional restrictions imposed via conditions (-C). The zoning map shows properties with conditions by adding a "-C" to the end. Examples include MRC-3-C, RG-3-C, R5-C, etc.
replies

tadbook Jul 3 2024 at 7:55AM on page 1

Question
Do I understand correctly that this changes the zoning for R5 from 2 units to 6 units per lot? (2 main + 4 accessory)? That sounds like a huge increase in density.
replies

Kelly in Edgewood Jul 2 2024 at 4:12PM on page 1

Question
R5-C is missing from this chart. What will the new zoning be for R5-C?
replies
in reply to Patrick Ford's comment

SiteAdmin Jun 11 2024 at 9:20AM on page 1

Answer
As currently envisioned, PD-H would be eliminated. All properties zoned PD-H would be converted to new Form & Frontage and Use Districts. Site-specific conditions, such as an approved site plan, would be readopted as part of adopting the New Zoning Ordinance. No future PD-H zoning applications would be allowed.
replies

Patrick Ford Jun 10 2024 at 1:30PM on page 1

Question
Where does the existing PD-H zoning designation go in Zoning 2.0. I cannot find it here
replies
in reply to Patrick Ford's comment

SiteAdmin Jun 5 2024 at 4:25PM on page 7

Answer
Correct. The Buckhead Village SPI is very site-specific.
replies
in reply to Patrick Ford's comment

SiteAdmin Jun 5 2024 at 4:23PM on page 8

Answer
Correct. The Buckhead/Lenox SPI is site-specific, with special maps, etc. At this time we do not plan to convert it to the new format.
replies
in reply to Jennifer Friese's comment

SiteAdmin Jun 5 2024 at 4:18PM on page 8

Answer
S-M means "Special District - Midtown." Special Districts are currently proposed to be incorporated into the new Zoning Ordinance relatively unchanged due to their complexity and/or specificity. As a result, we have not copied the text over. You can review the existing SPI 16 Subarea 1 (Midtown) text here: link
replies

Jennifer Friese Jun 5 2024 at 12:17PM on page 8

Question
Where can we find metrics for S-M districts? I did not see them in Form & Frontage Discussion Draft. Does S-M stand for Small-Medium?
replies

Patrick Ford Jun 5 2024 at 11:03AM on page 8

Question
By my understanding of the Zoning 2.0 process, no changes are being made to the SPI-12 code and its subareas, correct so the Proposed Form and Frontage district S-BS is essentially a renaming, correct?
replies

Patrick Ford Jun 5 2024 at 11:02AM on page 7

Question
By my understanding of the Zoning 2.0 process, no changes are being made to the SPI-9 code and its subareas, correct so the Proposed Form and Frontage district S-BV is essentially a renaming of SPI-9, correct?
replies
in reply to SiteAdmin's comment

Jennifer Friese Jun 1 2024 at 12:02PM on page 1

Suggestion
Thank you
replies
in reply to Jennifer Friese's comment

SiteAdmin Jun 1 2024 at 9:54AM on page 1

Answer
These are found under 2.2.8 and 2.2.9. They are new districts based on R3 (CR1) and R4 (CR2) that will limit building height to the height of surrounding uses. These districts would be available for areas zoned R3 and R4 today that want to preserve the low-rise (often "ranch house") scale of the neighborhood, without having to become a historic district to accomplish this.
replies

Jennifer Friese Jun 1 2024 at 7:45AM on page 1

Suggestion
This USE category does not reflect the current standards in RG3 districts - RG3 should be in USE category U6 for an apples to apples conversion.
replies

Jennifer Friese Jun 1 2024 at 7:11AM on page 1

Suggestion
This is not an apples to apples conversion. The new category would allow more physical density without adding people density. In order for Atlanta to remain the City in the Forest we need to be mindful about lot coverage, min lot size and transitional height planes.
replies

Jennifer Friese Jun 1 2024 at 7:03AM on page 1

Question
What is CR2 and where can its metrics be found on the Form & Frontage Discussion Draft?
replies
View all