×

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 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
in reply to phiae01's comment
Answer
This means that there is no numeric limit on the number of dwellings allowing, but height and FAR limits would still apply and limit the achievable number. This column is needed because a few existing districts, such as R-5 or MR-MU, limit properties to a set number of units, regardless of size. However, UG3 is a conversion of existing districts that have no such numeric limit today.
replies
Question
Why are the side setbacks reduced to zero? Why not set to say 3 or 4'? Could my neighbor sell their property and then the new owner build right to the lot line? That would impinge upon my property (and vice versa). It would not allow space for air conditioning condensers (that's where they currently are) and now allow them access to the side of their properties for maintenance without coming onto my lot. And it would increase fire risks. It would not allow any trees. This is not how RG3 exists now in NPU-F
replies
Question
What is an amenity zone? Many houses in RG3 are single family, or houses that were split up based on school desegregation many decades ago. So what does it mean for an amenity zone to be required for RG3A that are actually SFH?
replies
Question
Allowing unlimited dwelling units per lot seems inappropriate given the size of the lots and the height limits. Why have no limits been proposed?
replies
in reply to Jennifer Friese's comment
Answer
Thank you for your feedback.
replies
Suggestion
I still don't think that this Form category reflects the existing conditions in RG3. I do appreciate the height cap and the concept of building coverage, however these metrics still allow more dense construction than what is currently allowed. My biggest concerns are the 1000sf lot size minimum (R4 is 9000, RG3 ranges) and the zero side and rear setbacks. It is possible to have more people density without more physical density. The metrics in this form would not allow any trees. And zero rear lot lines will negatively impact adjacent residential districts.
replies
Suggestion
I still find this adjustable side set back problematic. It allows for the possibility of two 35' high houses to be built at 4' from each other. 8' between houses is a fire hazard, it does not allow for air, light nor privacy. I understand that this was put in place to better respect trees yet I fear it will prevent any trees being able to grow between close houses.
replies
in reply to Jennifer Friese's comment
Answer
They are on this page. The only difference between UG3A and UG3B is the allowed density. All other standards are the same.
replies
Question
Hi There, Where are the form standards for UG3-A (RG-3)? Thanks!
replies
Question
will building height still be measured from grade to the mean level between highest and lowest point of a gable roof?
replies