×

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.
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%
Comment Drag

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 Michael Barnett's comment

SiteAdmin Apr 2 2025 at 2:03PM on page 63

Answer
Those are typically older RG-zoned complexes that will become illegal under the new code. For the past 20 years, the newer codes (which this references) have required more urban format, such as the complexes around Historic Fourth Ward Park, along the Beltline, in Midtown, in Buckhead Village, etc.
in reply to Michael Barnett's comment

SiteAdmin Apr 2 2025 at 1:59PM on page 63

Answer
Yes, this is the current code in most parts of Atlanta, except RG districts.
in reply to Michael Barnett's comment

SiteAdmin Apr 2 2025 at 1:56PM on page 63

Answer
As worded, the intent is to require the ground story retail spaces along the street to have an entrance from the street, even if they have a second entrance from the interior. An example of this would be Cafe Lucia on Walton Street in the Healy Building.
in reply to Michael Barnett's comment

SiteAdmin Apr 2 2025 at 1:45PM on page 62

Answer
Thanks!
in reply to Michael Barnett's comment

SiteAdmin Apr 2 2025 at 1:44PM on page 53

Answer
Thanks. What design features of Mary Mac's do you mean? I've never noticed any displays when walking by.
in reply to Michael Barnett's comment

SiteAdmin Apr 2 2025 at 1:23PM on page 41

Answer
Thanks for your point. We will clarify.
in reply to Michael Barnett's comment

SiteAdmin Apr 2 2025 at 1:20PM on page 41

Answer
This existing provision is interpreted as the overall size of the shaft. Office of Buildings doesn't allow interior spaces to be any larger. We will try to clarify this.
in reply to Michael Barnett's comment

SiteAdmin Apr 2 2025 at 1:17PM on page 38

Answer
True, but the overall height (in feet) would not be increased. Existing regulations typically allow a building height of 35 feet in "House Scale" districts. This controlling height limit will remain.
in reply to Michael Barnett's comment

SiteAdmin Apr 2 2025 at 1:11PM on page 34

Answer
This is for at-grade surface lots. Parking structures are buildings foremost and are held to setback standards.
in reply to Michael Barnett's comment

SiteAdmin Apr 2 2025 at 1:09PM on page 32

Answer
Please also see 8.3.2.C.1.c which continues to allow hospitals and lodging to have circular drives within the front yard/built-to-zone.
in reply to Michael Barnett's comment

SiteAdmin Apr 2 2025 at 1:05PM on page 32

Answer
When driveways with drop-offs are perpendicular to the curb, they are held to the maximum width within the front yard but may increase in width one past the facade line..
in reply to Michael Barnett's comment

SiteAdmin Apr 2 2025 at 1:01PM on page 26

Answer
This text was written before the draft TPO language was released. We will update this section at such time as it is adopted.
in reply to Michael Barnett's comment

SiteAdmin Apr 2 2025 at 12:55PM on page 25

Answer
Thanks for the suggestion! We will clarify that.
in reply to Michael Barnett's comment

SiteAdmin Apr 2 2025 at 12:52PM on page 25

Answer
This is currently allowed. Anything underground may be built to the lot line today.
in reply to Michael Barnett's comment

SiteAdmin Apr 2 2025 at 12:50PM on page 25

Answer
Thanks. We will discuss this with the building officials.
in reply to Michael Barnett's comment

SiteAdmin Apr 2 2025 at 12:38PM on page 21

Answer
It is the two CLOSEST. If a property has a house on each side, then those are the two closest. On corner lots, there will only be houses on one side, so the adjacent has and the one next to that are the two closest.

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.

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.

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?

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

Suggestion
I love all of this. Well Done!!

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.

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.

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

Suggestion
Which should not be confused with monumental stairs.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.
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.

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?

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.
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.
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.
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.
in reply to Michael Barnett's comment

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

Answer
Thank you for suggestion.
in reply to Michael Barnett's comment

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

Answer
Thank you for your suggestion.
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.
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.
in reply to Michael Barnett's comment

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

Thanks for your comment.
in reply to Michael Barnett's comment

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

Answer
Thank you for your comment!
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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.
View all