×

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 Chapter 3: Rules for Zoning Districts

Review and comment on the draft rules of interpretation.

The Rules for Zoning Districts chapter contains the terms and standards used in assorted zoning districts. Most of the standards within this chapter are unchanged from existing standards but have been consolidated for ease of use.

Please share any thoughts you have about the Rules for Zoning Districts with us. Your comments will be used to shape the future drafts of ATL Zoning 2.0.

Click anywhere in the document to add a comment. Select a bubble to view comments.

Powered by Konveio

Comments

Close

Most recent

Most replied

Most supported

By page

Replies

Michael Barnett Mar 31 2025 at 8:24PM on page 63

Suggestion

In general, I am struggling to understand how to apply these design standards to the typical gated apartment development that we see throughout the city.

replies

Michael Barnett Mar 31 2025 at 8:18PM on page 63

Suggestion

So an apartment building with 5 units on the ground floor has to have a street facing entry for each unit? I feel like there are a lot of examples where that doesn't work.

replies

Michael Barnett Mar 31 2025 at 8:16PM on page 63

Suggestion

In a mixed use building where the ground floor has retail spaces that are not street facing (a shopping arcade) and the second floor has offices, that would constitute separate uses and separate street facing entries would be required for each use? The arcade couldn't have a single street facing entry?

replies

Michael Barnett Mar 31 2025 at 8:08PM on page 62

Suggestion

I love all of this. Well Done!!

replies

Michael Barnett Mar 31 2025 at 8:00PM on page 53

Suggestion

I would encourage you all to illustrate how a traditional storefront display- like the ones at Macy's might come to life. I would hope that we would allow for a percentage of the glazing requirement to be utilized for that type of display.

replies

Michael Barnett Mar 31 2025 at 7:48PM on page 45

Suggestion

I think that over time we will find the need to expand this list to be more specific for a whole variety of uses we deem to be inactive like vending areas and back of house spaces like kitchens and commercial laundry equipment.

replies

Michael Barnett Mar 31 2025 at 7:43PM on page 45

Suggestion

Which should not be confused with monumental stairs.

replies

Michael Barnett Mar 31 2025 at 7:31PM on page 41

Suggestion

If it's only unenclosed on one side does that make it "unenclosed" under this exception? Like what if it were only open on what side? Would that be "unenclosed"? Could you build a full covered roof deck with its own roof if it were open on just one side? What if that one open side were the side facing the rear yard? It would make the street front appear to be a full story taller than it should be, and unfortunately we are legitimately seeing this being built today.

replies

Michael Barnett Mar 31 2025 at 7:26PM on page 41

Suggestion

What limits the size of Stairway access so that the access doesn't become the size of a room that could be used for purposes other than access?

replies

Michael Barnett Mar 31 2025 at 7:20PM on page 38

Suggestion

How would this work in a single family home that uses an open concept floor plan where the ground floor may have some individual rooms (coat closet and half bath) but is mostly open from front to back. You could then have a mezzanine 1/3 the area of the main floor for free and not count it as a floor. The effect along the street front would be that of a building with an extra floor more than the code allows.

replies

Michael Barnett Mar 31 2025 at 6:31PM on page 34

Question

Are we talking about surface on-grade parking or are we also talking about structured parking decks?

replies

Michael Barnett Mar 31 2025 at 6:25PM on page 32

Suggestion

How might a hotel that needs a vehicular drop-off/arrival entry accomplish this? This is architecturally very difficult for certain building types.

replies

Michael Barnett Mar 31 2025 at 6:14PM on page 26

Suggestion

What if it's a nuisance tree? Is that still allowed to get the 50% reduction? How large is the reduction in linear feet along the property line? Can one tree allow me to reduce the full length of the side yard setback on one side of the property? If I avoid that tree on one side can I still build to side yard setback line on the side of the house with the preserved tree as long I shape the building to avoid the tree, and do I still get the full-length-50%-reduction on the other side? What if the adjacent house has a non-conforming setback and is already 3' from the property line? What if that house has windows on the side facing the 50% reduced setback creating an extreme fire hazard for the new construction next door? Whose responsibility is it to know that zoning plan review or the building plan review? But I think this is largely being covered by the Tree Protection Ordinance which is a better forum to hash this issue out.

replies

Michael Barnett Mar 31 2025 at 6:01PM on page 25

Suggestion

Should children's playground equipment be included here? Where should pre-fabricated gazebos be covered in the code?

replies

Michael Barnett Mar 31 2025 at 5:57PM on page 25

Suggestion

I'll be honest, I don't know how I feel about my neighbor digging a basement all the way to the lot line, front back and sides of their property. And while that is extreme, it happens quite regularly now in London where real estate is at an extreme premium. How would we feel about skylights in the front yard setback to allow daylight into a basement?

replies

Michael Barnett Mar 31 2025 at 5:51PM on page 25

Suggestion

I'm a little concerned about fire escapes. First, they aren't allowed by code anymore as a means of egress. So if you need it for egress it would have to be an existing condition which would be grandfathered. But it's allowance here would allow me to put balconies connected with stairs on the side of my building all the way to the lot line and call it a "fire escape". Because while I can't use it as a means of egress, I can still have it, and it will run up the height of the building on the lot line.

replies

in reply to Jim Winer's comment

Michael Barnett Mar 31 2025 at 5:41PM on page 24

Suggestion

100% yes Mr. Winer. You could use this exception to create a "bay window" that was almost the full length of the room or even the whole facade and pick up an extra 2' of buildable area. There needs to be a limit on the length of these based on the total length of the facade. Like only 25% of any individual facade can use the bay window exception. I might go so far as to recommend that they are allowable in the front and rear yard setbacks only and not allowed in the side yard setbacks. When you add up the new minimum offset, and add an administrative allowance for tree protection, and then get an extra 2' you are on the property line in districts that do not allow ZLL.

replies

Michael Barnett Mar 31 2025 at 5:26PM on page 22

Suggestion

I'm confused why this would be "may be". It wouldn't be advantageous to use the access easement so it's probable that no one would use the access easement as that would reduce the lot's buildable area. They would prefer to use the property line instead. How would this work for alleys which are an access easement?

replies

Michael Barnett Mar 31 2025 at 5:19PM on page 21

Suggestion

Is this in either direction or in both directions? I'm confused if this is the two buildings to the left or the two buildings to the right or is it the two buildings to the left and right or is it the building to the left and the building to the right? The graphic illustrates it perfectly, but the language is a bit confusing.

replies

in reply to Michael Barnett's comment

SiteAdmin Mar 31 2025 at 5:01PM on page 17

Question

This refers to the streetscape, which means that it can be required to extend into private property. For 40 years the City has required developers to widen sidewalks with redevelopment by putting a portion of the sidewalk on private property. Typically, an easement is granted to the City, but this would require a dedication of the land.

replies

in reply to Michael Barnett's comment

SiteAdmin Mar 31 2025 at 4:55PM on page 14

Answer

Please see the previous comment about this section working with the tree protection ordinance. We will clarify this, though.

replies

in reply to Michael Barnett's comment

SiteAdmin Mar 31 2025 at 4:54PM on page 14

Answer

This section aligns closely with the tree protection ordinance. A tree surrounded by buildings generally would not be able to satisfy that provision. Nothing in these draft outdoor amenity space standards will require public access to the privately-owned amenity space. Requiring public access to private property would pose legal challenges. Supreme Court rulings over the past decade have reaffirmed that governments cannot require this.

replies

in reply to Michael Barnett's comment

SiteAdmin Mar 31 2025 at 4:46PM on page 13

Answer

Thank you for suggestion.

replies

in reply to Michael Barnett's comment

SiteAdmin Mar 31 2025 at 4:44PM on page 14

Answer

Thank you for your suggestion.

replies

in reply to Michael Barnett's comment

SiteAdmin Mar 31 2025 at 4:39PM on page 13

Answer

Condos and all other residential uses have 24/7 hours of operation. We will clarify this.

replies

in reply to Michael Barnett's comment

SiteAdmin Mar 31 2025 at 4:35PM on page 12

Answer

Thank you for your feedback. Outdoor amenity space is intended to be uncovered, except as provided in "g" below. An amenity space under an elevated building would not count.

replies

in reply to Michael Barnett's comment

SiteAdmin Mar 31 2025 at 4:31PM on page 10

Thanks for your comment.

replies

in reply to Michael Barnett's comment

SiteAdmin Mar 31 2025 at 4:28PM on page 10

Answer

Thank you for your comment!

replies

in reply to Michael Barnett's comment

SiteAdmin Mar 31 2025 at 4:25PM on page 9

Answer

This occupied area above your comment is not an architectural detail or roof projection - it's a cantilever of the primary structure.

replies

Michael Barnett Mar 30 2025 at 5:32PM on page 17

Question

Does this mean that the Director can override the department of transportation's roadway design to encroach further into the road to create the streetscape? Because we can't increase the overall right-of-way without compensation?

replies

Michael Barnett Mar 30 2025 at 5:25PM on page 14

Suggestion

This is the most valuable outdoor amenity space at 2.5 SF per actual SF. So what happens when the tee dies through neglect, environmental damage, or age? How does this remain our most valued outdoor amenity space?

replies

Michael Barnett Mar 30 2025 at 5:21PM on page 14

Suggestion

Per comments above, let's have some standard around the minimum width of the sidewalk and whether that sidewalk counts in the calculation of space. What happens when the tree is located in an interior building courtyard requiring you to enter the building to access the space? Does the building owner control access to the amenity?

replies

Michael Barnett Mar 30 2025 at 5:13PM on page 13

Suggestion

I am always fearful of how these can be employed. Back in college my professor told me how the Trump Tower (nothing political intended here just referencing the physical building) has a public amenity space that is on a low roof. That roof is in close proximity to the public sidewalk (at least in horizontal distance), and the path to get to the roof was calculated as part of the public amenity space so that the space is ultimately large enough for only a couple of people. Obviously no one knows its there and no one uses it. Let's just make sure we can't repeat that mistake in Atlanta.

replies

Michael Barnett Mar 30 2025 at 5:04PM on page 14

Suggestion

I think that to get what we really want out of these spaces we need to eliminate this exception allowing 50% to be concealed, 42" high walls, and effectively one entrance. If all of those exceptions were employed on a space, no pedestrian would ever use the space. Visually I would think it was a fully private space that I was not allowed to enter.

replies

Michael Barnett Mar 30 2025 at 4:56PM on page 13

Suggestion

Could someone use this hours of operation exception to their extreme advantage? What might happen if a condo and hotel were in the same building? There would be one common amenity space requirement for the building. What if the condo had hours of operation of only 2 hours a day 8-10 AM Monday through Friday. Could the hotel claim nearly exclusive use of that amenity space?

replies

Michael Barnett Mar 30 2025 at 4:49PM on page 12

Suggestion

Can we do better than 7.5'? If someone built the code minimum here it would be practically useless. No one wants to be in a 300SF space with a 7.5' ceiling. And the way this is written there doesn't appear to be anything that would prevent the whole space to have a building on top of it. Only accessory structures are limited. I can imagine a common amenity space on the 5th floor (top of parking podium) of a 15-story building with units built directly over the amenity space which we commonly see in other cities. I would suggest at least 30' and provide an exception for accessory structures to have a minimum 7.5' clear height.

replies

in reply to Michael Barnett's comment

SiteAdmin Mar 30 2025 at 4:44PM on page 8

Answer

Thank you for the suggestion.

replies

in reply to Michael Barnett's comment

SiteAdmin Mar 30 2025 at 4:43PM on page 7

Answer

Thank you for your feedback. Please see Sec. 10.1.5 below for how it is calculated: link

replies

Michael Barnett Mar 30 2025 at 4:36PM on page 10

Suggestion

I have to sometimes wonder if pools are truly impervious. The major part of lot coverage is for storm water runoff. In a rain event pools collect and hold the water. The top of the pool coping is usually 6" above the water line and the emergency outflow is usually about 2" above the water line. That pool can hold a lot of water in a rain event and dissipate it slowly which wouldn't contribute to storm water runoff. Just something to think about.

replies

Michael Barnett Mar 30 2025 at 4:28PM on page 10

Suggestion

I would caution that flatwork can be construed to mean only site constructed poured paving. A natural stone pathway could be argued as outside the scope of flatwork. That would still be covered based on the definition in 2. but sometimes specificity helps since this is an element where we rely on a licensed professional to certify the coverage rather than independently verifying. Speaking of specificity, I would recommend adding landscape and retaining walls to the listed elements.

replies

Michael Barnett Mar 30 2025 at 4:18PM on page 9

Suggestion

Graphically this looks like a 3' or less overhang and the stoop below looks like less than 4' in height, so wouldn't this be excluded from the building footprint? If you were using the roof overhang then you would calculate 3' back from the edge of the overhang. I think this belies that this is going to be complicated to calculate and to determine which will lead to abuse.

replies

Michael Barnett Mar 30 2025 at 4:07PM on page 8

Suggestion

Since the graphic is showing what I think is a pool, I suggest also showing a small pool pavilion, which is very common and would help to clarify that these structures are not miscellaneous garden structures and would calculate towards building coverage.

replies

Michael Barnett Mar 30 2025 at 4:03PM on page 7

Suggestion

Total floor area is a very vague term that should be further defined. The current code uses the term gross floor area. We routinely see this vagueness abused. DCP doesn't independently verify floor area (and no one blames them for that), correctly relying on the architect of record to certify the floor area. But when we do independently verify the area, we see design professionals using the net floor area, or the conditioned floor area, as this yields larger buildings. The preference here is to be specific by stating the finished face of the building. Some additional specificity would be helpful to understand how stairs, elevator shafts, double height spaces, and covered porches where there is an occupiable space above are calculated as all of these elements increase the bulk and massing of a building on a lot especially single family residential.

replies

in reply to Laurel David's comment

SiteAdmin Feb 20 2025 at 12:22PM on page 63

Answer

No. This is intended to refer to "primary" dwelling units. We will update this.

replies

in reply to Laurel David's comment

SiteAdmin Feb 20 2025 at 12:18PM on page 56

Answer

Thanks. This is one of the "administrative variations" that is frequently requested and almost always approved. These alternative compliance standards seek to codify existing practice.

replies

in reply to Laurel David's comment

SiteAdmin Feb 20 2025 at 12:16PM on page 53

Answer

Thanks for the suggestion

replies

Laurel David Feb 18 2025 at 2:34PM on page 63

Question

Does this apply to ADUs. what if it is in the backyard and doesn't "face" a street?

replies

Laurel David Feb 18 2025 at 2:32PM on page 56

Suggestion

Nice! we've always had to ask an exception to be able to do this

replies

Laurel David Feb 18 2025 at 2:28PM on page 53

Suggestion

you might want to change the order. As currently written it this section seems to contradict what it says above. make the current subsection "a" the last one so it acts like an exception to what is above.

replies

in reply to LarryA's comment

SiteAdmin Feb 7 2025 at 5:06PM on page 37

Answer

Thank you for your feedback.

replies

Leave this field blank