×

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.

Revised Discussion Draft Form Districts - CLEAN

Review and comment on the draft Form Districts

Note: The "clean" and "redlined" versions are identical. The "redlined" version shows changes made since the May 20th draft.

The Revised Discussion Draft Form 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 Revised 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…
Powered by Konveio
View all

Comments

Close

in reply to crome's comment
Answer
Thank you for your feedback. We are recommending a 5-foot setback to provide space for outdoor displays and cafe seating - both of which cannot occupy a public right-of-way. We anticipated that this would "read" as a wider sidewalk in front of the corner store. This is especially important in areas where the surrounding pattern of residential sidewalks is narrow.
replies
Suggestion
Allow 0' front and side setbacks to match existing corner stores with historic charm
replies
in reply to crome's comment
Answer
Thank you for your feedback! If you look at the end of this document, there's an "alternative form" standard so corner stores can be closer to the street.
replies
Suggestion
Virginia Highland Neighbor here - I live on Greenwood Ave. My favorite buildings on the street are the physical therapy stone building on the corner of Greenwood and Barnett, and the apartments at the corner of St Charles and Frederica. Those feel the most neighborhood-y and friendly to me walking through the neighborhood. The secret is that they both have zero side setback and only 0' or 10' front setback. I would love if more of the 8plexes and other small condo buildings could redevelop into a "brownstone" style feeling neighborhood. A small coffee shop or market in a corner would be welcome too. Some of the 20+' plus setbacks end up with broken furniture, dead landscaping, trash, and other junk (example 930 Greenwood). Get rid of that setback area that is dragging the character of the neighborhood down. Existing single family homes are fine to stay like they are . Add another max setback for SFH in this zone. to match existing (30'?). Also consider an exception to allow topography to dictate the setbacks. Forcing a similar setback for all buildings you end up with some condos way down the hill (see 880 Greenwood) with no interaction with the street, or way up out of eyes view with an imposing, uncomfortable feeling (see 766 St Charles). It seems like there has been a lot of resistance to change from neighbors, any many people with positive things to say may not take the time to come on here and comment, but my personal opinion is that lower setback requirements that slowly redevelop over 10, 20, 30+ years would make Greenwood and St Charles Ave a more pleasant street experience and neighborhood to live in.
replies
in reply to elizlewin's comment
Answer
Thank you very much for your comment. Many other Virginia-Highland residents have also made us aware of this concern regarding the RG-2 conversion. We are looking into strategies for addressing RG-2 and RG-3 embedded in neighborhoods differently.
replies
in reply to peterharrell's comment
Answer
Thank you very much for your comment. Many other Virginia-Highland residents have also made us aware of this concern regarding the RG-2 conversion. We are looking into strategies for addressing RG-2 and RG-3 embedded in neighborhoods differently.
replies
in reply to peterharrell's comment
Answer
Thank you very much for your feedback. Many other Virginia-Highland residents have also made us aware of this concern regarding the RG-2 conversion. We are looking into strategies for addressing RG-2 and RG-3 embedded in neighborhoods differently. Please note that RG-2 is a multifamily district today. The existing code permits multifamily in existing houses.
replies
in reply to juckins's comment
Answer
Thank you very much for your comment. Many other Virginia-Highland residents have also made us aware of this concern regarding the RG-2 conversion. We are looking into strategies for addressing RG-2 and RG-3 embedded in neighborhoods differently.
replies
Suggestion
I object to this zoning for Saint Charles Ave and Greenwood Ave in Virginia Highland. It is not appopriate for those streets. It will destroy our tree canopy and I not want 3-story 275-foot long apartment buildings on my street. Also our current setbacks allow for green space and front porches, which is why I bought my home. Please DO NOT zone Saint Charles Ave and Greenwood Ave UG3A. It needs to remain RG-2.
replies
I am a resident of Virginia Highland and am opposed to the proposed zoning change. Drastically reducing the front and side setbacks as well as increasing lot coverage to 85% would not only work directly against the initiative taken by Atlanta’s City Council to increase the city’s tree canopy coverage but also negatively impact this historic neighborhood by taking away its large trees, green spaces and porches.
replies
Suggestion
As a Virginia Highland resident, I would like to ensure that any new construction of housing maintains appropriate setbacks from neighboring properties. I am opposed to changing zoning of current residential lots in Virginia Highland to allow building to the property line and I want to keep both front and side setbacks at least as large as they are. (Peter Harrell, 1102 St. Louis Place NE, Atlanta, GA 30306)
replies
Suggestion
As another resident living in Atkins Park, I am opposed to any chances that would allow conversions of lots that currently have single family homes on them to provide for multiple units. There is certainly a place for more density in the neighborhood, e.g., converting parking lots into mixed use, or allowing current commercial space to expand into larger commercial space. But I am opposed to turning single family homes into multi-unit properties and/or turning current residential lots into commercial lots. (Peter Harrell, resident, St. Louis Place NE, Atlanta, 30306)
replies
in reply to CqLee's comment
Answer
Thank you very much for your feedback. Most of the districts converting to UG3 already have a 0-foot side setback. If your comments regards the conversion of RG-2, many other Virginia-Highland residents have also made us aware of this concern regarding the RG-2 conversion. We are looking into strategies for addressing RG-2 and RG-3 embedded in neighborhoods differently.
replies
in reply to CqLee's comment
Answer
Thank you very much for your feedback. The existing RG-2 setback west of Barnett street is already 5 feet due to its location in the BeltLine Overlay. This said, many other Virginia-Highland residents have also made us aware of this concern regarding the RG-2 conversion. We are looking into strategies for addressing RG-2 and RG-3 embedded in neighborhoods differently.
replies
in reply to CqLee's comment
Answer
Thank you very much for your feedback. Many other Virginia-Highland residents have also made us aware of this concern regarding the RG-2 conversion. We are looking into strategies for addressing RG-2 and RG-3 embedded in neighborhoods differently.
replies
in reply to CqLee's comment
Answer
Thank you very much for your feedback. Many other Virginia-Highland residents have also made us aware of this concern regarding the RG-2 conversion. We are looking into strategies for addressing RG-2 and RG-3 embedded in neighborhoods differently.
replies
Suggestion
Allowing the possibility for storefronts along St Charles and Greenwood is extremely dangerous to the culture and community in the current real estate climate. It will not be locals who take advantage of these allowances, but investors who will squeeze everything they can out of a plot and thereby ruin what makes it such a desirable area.
replies
Question
What is the purpose of 0' setback? This seems problematic for all parties
replies
5' is extremely small setback for a historic neighborhood. Keep existing standards
replies
Suggestion
With the slope of St Charles, water runoff during rainfall is already heavy...adding more hardscapes over existing draining materials will create a real drainage problem. Additionally, 85% is way too high to maintain the neighborhood community standard of tree canopy, outdoor spaces and front porches...everything that makes this neighborhood a destination.
replies
in reply to SiteAdmin's comment
Question
That’s great to hear that there is understanding and empathy on this team for what we are fighting to sustain on St Charles and Greenwood. We plan to attend the Feb 3 meeting, Will that meeting include review of these “likely”updates Or will we just continue to raise the same pre-update concerns? If not Feb 3, what is the date when we will be able to review and comment on how our concerns for “embedded” neighborhoods have been addressed?
replies
in reply to Jeffkeesee1's comment
Answer
There's no need for photos. I'm very, very familiar with the area. My spouse lived on Bonaventure in the 1990s. With regard to updates, we'll likely have an update after Module III is released in early February. Thanks for your feedback.
replies
in reply to SiteAdmin's comment
Question
That you for that confirmation. Obviously we don’t want our street that has been residential for 100 years to be replaced with commercial storefronts. I can’t imagine how anyone would advocate for that. Thank for hearing our concerns. Please let me know when the new proposal is ready for review and feedback; I will do my best to rally as many neighbors for you to get constructive feedback and buy-in on the update. Also, happy to lead a tour or send photos or submit housing survey if it helps this team understand what we are standing up for. Thanks.
replies
in reply to JWS's comment
Answer
This code and the code testing graphic both show the same requirement. The smallest setback allowed on any one side is 4 feet, but total cumulative setback of both sides is 14 feet. One side could be 4 and the other 10, one 5 and the other 9, or both 7 feet (current standard).
replies
Question
The "code testing" graphic for N1 - R2 shows a 4ft setback with total of 14ft which is accurate?
replies
in reply to Jeffkeesee1's comment
Answer
My apologies. There is a user with a similar name from Ansley Park. Under the discussion draft UG3 the condition you describe would be allowed. However, as previously noted, we've received a lot of opposition to this RG-2 conversion and are exploring other options in response to the feedback from you and your neighborhoods. Thanks for reviewing the draft so carefully!
replies
in reply to ebhyatt's comment
Answer
Hi. If this is regarding the RG-2 in Virginia-Highland, there is currently no height limit under existing zoning. This said, we are working on a strategy for these areas in response to neighborhood concerns. Thanks!
replies
in reply to ebhyatt's comment
Question
Which neighborhood are you referring to? Thanks!
replies
Suggestion
Why would the neighborhood want huge apartment buildings?!? This is a unique neighborhood with a long history and in a very high tax zone. Adding unsightly buildings will affect my property values as well as the livability of this community. Stop bowing to developers and the glean of more tax money!
replies
Suggestion
Currently, 2 story is the highest. Changing this to 3 story will change what makes this neighborhood unique. Stop bowing to developers and the glean of more tax money!
replies
Suggestion
Changing side set backs are typically 15'. Changing this to ZERO will have buildings on top of one another. Stop bowing to developers and the glean of more tax money!
replies
Suggestion
Current set backs are typically 30'. Changing this will change what makes this neighborhood unique. Stop bowing to developers and the glean of more tax money!
replies
Suggestion
The current average is 55%. It needs to stay at that level to maintain tree canopy, green space and front porches. Stop bowing to developers and the glean of more tax money!
replies
in reply to SiteAdmin's comment
Thank you for the background in that and that makes sense for existing storefront streets; I’m trying to understand how this would affect St Charles Ave in VaHi. I’m trying to understand how they would apply to my street. Could someone by the house next to me, tear it down, and build a storefront with no setbacks and covering 85% of the lot in the middle of our residential block, RG2?
replies
in reply to Jeffkeesee1's comment
Answer
There are two reasons for this classification. First, there are many parts of the City that already require ground story storefronts regardless of building use; we need a way to reflect this in the new code. Additionally, during the Focussed Workshops, we asked whether there was interest in requiring large buildings to provide ground story storefronts in additional locations; we received strong support for this. The standard requires large buildings on designated "storefront streets" (see link). Please note that nowhere in Ansley Park is designated a "storefront street" due to the existing character. However, in areas that are designated a "storefront street," buildings must provide ground story that is suitable for future retail, but may be used as other uses today. For an examples of the on-the-ground effect of this standard, Midtown east of Piedmont Avenue has also had this standard along major streets for several decades now.
replies
Question
Still trying to figure out all the affects of this on our little multi-family residential streets. Why does the proposed new zoning include definitions for “storefronts” at all? Does that mean someone could sell their home next to my home it would be torn down and developed as a store covering 85% of the lot? I would want to prevent that (unless that is the goal of this exercise? To eliminate housing?)
replies
in reply to SiteAdmin's comment
That’s great! As I am unfamiliar with this software and this process, what is the best way for me to stay apprised of how/when these changes have been made/proposed?
replies
in reply to Jeffkeesee1's comment
Answer
Thank you for your input! Several Virginia-Highland residents have made us aware of this concern regarding the RG-2 conversion. We are looking into strategies for addressing RG-2 and RG-3 embedded in neighborhoods differently.
replies
Suggestion
First off, I’m sorry I’m a bit late to this process! Many things impact our lives and our homes in Virginia Highland - movie filming, road race closure, neighbor renovation permitting - and those impacts (temporary inconveniences, really) are communicated very directly and effectively with signage and flyers. I didn’t realize that one of the many email notifications that I receive from the city weekly would potentially be the most drastically and permanently impactful on the largest financial investment we’ve ever made; our home. Greenwood & St Charles are unique, effectively hybrid, building zones. They were originally developed as single family homes, followed by some non-compliant, in-fill apartments created in the mid 1900s. It is my understanding that zoning was subsequently changed to RG2 to accommodate those noncompliant structures. As we consider new zoning standards, do we compound the zoning mistakes of the past by painting this neighborhood with too broad a regulation brush? Or do we learn from what works in this hybrid neighborhood to make exceptions to zoning rules or even separate zoning? Do we just lose the legacy character of these streets to gentrification and development? Or do we maintain it and allow intelligent growth with well-considered guidelines? Greenwood Avenue and Saint Charles Avenue need a zoning overlay that accommodates both types of structures and lot layouts; front setbacks for porches and street connectivity, side setbacks for existing windows/chimneys/driveways/light/drainage, and lower maximum land coverage to keep a healthy tree canopy that supports wildlife, mitigates watershed impacts and rain runoff, and lowers yard temperatures. (A large number of those trees in VaHi are in existing setbacks; in fact, we planted trees in our side yard to shade the house in the summer. That isn’t possible with diminished setbacks). Thank you for allowing our feedback in this process. We are certain that the goals of the zoning process can be achieved without sacrificing any of the wonderful aspects that make Atlanta neighborhoods unique.
replies
in reply to DSol's comment
Answer
Thank you for your feedback. N2B is the current R-5 district, which has a max. 55% lot coverage.
replies
in reply to DSol's comment
Answer
Thank you for your feedback. N2A is the current R-4A district, which has a max. 55% lot coverage.
replies
Suggestion
Lot coverage should be closer to 50% to maintain the watershed. So many of us live along creeks that flood because there is not enough penetrable surfaces surrounding due to densification and concrete.
replies
Suggestion
Lot coverage should be closer to 50% to maintain the watershed. So many of us live along creeks that flood because there is not enough penetrable surfaces surrounding due to densification and concrete.
replies
in reply to SiteAdmin's comment
Suggestion
Yes it does. So a small grass/landscaped strip, then sidewalk. That's pretty standard now.
replies
in reply to phiae01's comment
Answer
This was discussed at the Module I Q&A in July (see slide 43 here link). Essentially, 20 years ago MR was created to replace RG districts. As part of the rewrite, MR districts are being substituted for their equivalent MR, then converted to the Form and Use Districts. MR-3 has a zero-foot side setback (see 16-35.010(2)(c) of the existing code). It sounds like you are referring to small RG-3 lot within a neighborhood. If possible, please email specific comments to atlzoning2@AtlantaGa.Gov and we will look into it. Thanks!
replies
in reply to phiae01's comment
Answer
The pedestrian zone is where you walk (i.e. the sidewalk). If you look at newer developments, you'll see an amenity zone planted with trees. Next to that is the pedestrian zone. These are already code requirements. I hope this helps!
replies
in reply to SiteAdmin's comment
Question
Why are we amalgamating commercial and multi-family zones into a single zone? I thought that many of the answers are that "we are doing a one for one conversion right now." Right now my understanding is that my RG3 zone has setbacks (7' or 3', I cannot remember). So why are some one-for-one conversions, yet this one is not one-for-one?
replies
in reply to SiteAdmin's comment
Question
How does this differ from a pedestrian zone?
replies
in reply to phiae01's comment
Answer
This district is a conversion of existing commercial and multifamily districts, many of which have no side setbacks today. Please note that Module II, which will be released on December 4th, will contain standards that apply citywide for when this district abuts a "House Scale" district. This will not be a "setback" but rather a "transition."
replies
in reply to phiae01's comment
Answer
The "amenity zone" refers to the portion of the sidewalk along the curb that is reserved for street trees, utility poles, etc.
replies