WIXLIB

Topic 7: MR/RG Single and Two-FamilyMinimum Lot SizesWhat are we trying to solve? Today multi-family districts allow single-family and two-family houses. However, theminimum required lot sizes for these uses are much larger than is characteristic ofAtlanta’s historic patterns. The large lot sizes discourage providing single-family and two-family houses in multifamily districts, even if they would be appropriate or desirable.What is being proposed? Allow the following lots sizes in MR and RG districts: Detached single-family and two-family lot: minimum 1,000 sq ft lot, minimum 20 ftwidth Zero lot line (i.e. townhouses): minimum 800 sq ft lot, minimum 16 ft width (typical)9

Topic 7: MR/RG Single and Two-FamilyMinimum Lot SizesMinimum lot size. MR-1 through MR-4: 2,000 1,000 square feet for single-family andduplex, 2,000 square feet for all other uses. MR-5 through MR-6: 5,000 1,000 square feet for single-family andduplex; 5,000 square feet for all other uses.Minimum street frontage. MR-1, MR-2 and MR-4B: 20 16 linear feet for zero lot linedevelopment; 20 linear feet for all other uses. MR-3 through MR-4 A and MR-5 through MR-6: 40 20 linear feet forsingle-family and duplex; 16 linear feet for zero lot line development;40 linear feet for all other uses.Zero-lot-line development. Zero-lot-line subdivision is permitted for residential uses provided aminimum of 1,000 800 square feet in lot area is provided.20’6’616 sq.ft.buildablearea3’50’3’Example 1: MR-1 District 1000 Square Feet of lot - 616 Square Feet buildable area with 3 feet ofside yard setbacks and 6 feet rear yard setback10

Topic 8: MRC building placementWhat are we trying to solve? MRC is a mixed-use district that is used across the city. Current regulations do not require a side/rear yard setback for non-residential uses orfor residential uses with no windows along a side/rear lot line. Residential uses with windows along a side/rear lot line must provide a minimum 20 ftside/rear yard setback. Twenty feet is far greater than required by building code. It is also inconsistent withAtlanta’s traditional development patterns and good urban design.What is being proposed? Eliminate the 20 ft setback requirement for residential units with windows. Retain existing transitional yard requirements adjacent to R and RG districts.PlanElevation11

Topic 9: Unified Development PlansWhat are we trying to solve? Most districts discourage coordinated master planned developments. If master planned developments are subdivided, each lot must comply with all zoningrequirements, despite being part of a master planned development. This discouragescommon parking areas, larger open spaces, and good urban design. Relief may only be granted by variance/special exception, but master planneddevelopments often do not meet the code’s technical hardship requirements.What is being proposed? Allow unified development plans by Special Administrative Permit in all districts, exceptR-1 through R-5, R-LC, and PD- districts. Use the current provisions of SPI-12 as a model for the citywide standards. Allow the site (before subdivision) to determine conformance with side and rearsetbacks, transitional yards, transitional height plains, lot coverage, on-site parking andloading, open space, and floor area ratio.Subdivision plan with Preapproved Site DevelopmentPlan must comply withzoning requirements utilizingthe entire area undercommon control.Each lot after subdivisionmay or may not comply withzoning requirements12

Topic 10: Non-Conforming Minimum FaçadeHeightsWhat are we trying to solve? Many new zoning districts require minimum building facade heights along certainstreets. Existing buildings with facades that are less than the minimum height requirement facechallenges when making small additions because the code requires the additions to betaller than the existing building. Relief from this requirement can only be granted by the Board of Zoning Adjustment.What is being proposed? Allow existing buildings that do not meet the minimum building facade heightrequirement to expand their footprint up to 35 ft in any direction before the minimumbuilding facade height requirements apply.13

Topic 11: SUP TransfersWhat are we trying to solve? The transfer of ownership of a Special Use Permit (SUP) must be approved by the CityCouncil, even though the permit itself and its provisions do not change. The transfer of ownership would function better as an administrative process.What is being proposed? Give the Office of Zoning and Development the authority to approve the transfer ofownership of a Special Use Permit. Require change of ownership applicants to provide verification of their ability to adhereto the terms and conditions of the Special Use Permit of which they are proposing toreceive ownership. This would not allow for any changes to the conditions, criteria, orsite plans assigned to previously approved SUPs.Application Filed with Office ofZoning and Development by newownerReviewed by Zoning AdministratorRecommendation byZoning CommitteeDecision made by City Councilupon meeting all the criteriaApplication Filed with Office ofZoning & Development by proposednew ownerDecision made by the MayorReviewed and Approved by Directorof Office of Zoning & Developmentupon meeting all the criteriaExisting transfer processProposed transfer process14

Topic 12: Sidewalk RequirementsWhat are we trying to solve? Newer zoning districts require sidewalks to be installed with development. Older zoning districts (e.g. O-I, R-LC, RG, C, I) lack sidewalk requirements. Single-family developments are only required to provide sidewalks when subdivisionoccurs. New infill houses that are not part of subdivisions can be built without repairing orupgrading the sidewalks in front of them.What is being proposed? Require the following new sidewalks to be installed with development in O-I, R-LC, RG,C, and I: Minimum 5 ft amenity zone along the curb for items such as street trees, benches,utility poles, public art, waste receptacles, fire hydrants, traffic signs, traffic controlboxes, newspaper boxes, transit shelters and similar items. Minimum 10 ft walk area on arterial and collector streets. Minimum 6 ft walk area on other streets. Require the following new sidewalks to be installed with development in R-4 and R-5(except when historic, landmark, or overlay standards apply): Repair existing sidewalk, or Install amenity zone and walk area to match abutting properties’, or If no sidewalk exists on abutting properties, install amenity zone and walk area tomatch the block, or If no sidewalk exists on the block, install a minimum 2 ft amenity zone andminimum 5 ft walk area. Walk areas may be reduced to a minimum of 3 ft to avoid existing trees. Enable the Director of the Office of Zoning and Development to make adjustments tosidewalk requirements if: Existing sidewalks are not in need of repair; or Trees existing in the proposed sidewalk zone contain trees having a diameter atbreast height (DBH) of 6 inches or more; or Topographic conditions would result in a sidewalk 12 inches above or below thefinished curb; or Topographic conditions would prevent driveway access upon completion of thesidewalk; or Physical conditions exist such as existing structures, existing utility devices, or rockoutcroppings in the sidewalk area; or Sidewalks on the block are of a different size; There are no sidewalks on the block; or If historic district or SPI district regulations conflict.15

Topic 12: Sidewalk Requirements16

Topic 12: Sidewalk Requirements17

Topic 12: Sidewalk Requirements18

Topic 13: Storage Pods in R-districtsWhat are we trying to solve? Storage pods are increasingly used on properties for short-term storage needs. There are no standards for their location and duration in the Zoning Ordinance.What is being proposed? Define “storage pods”. Create new regulations in R-1 through R-5 districts. Create a maximum time limit of 60 days in any 365-day period per lot. Require storage pods to have visible notation on the exterior of the container statingthe dates of delivery and retrieval of the pod. Require storage pods to be located away from streets and visibility triangles.19

Topic 14: Non-Conforming LotsWhat are we trying to solve? There needs to be clarity in the subdivision requirements regarding limitationson non-conforming lots when they are created between adjoining propertiesduring the re-plat process.What is being proposed? Update the portion of the subdivision code that addresses re-plats betweenadjoining properties. Prohibit the creation of non-conforming lots that would increase the degree ofnonconformity with both the subdivision and zoning regulations.Piece of land sold toadjoining property40 feet streetfrontageNon-Conforming lot40’ frontageConforming lot with50 feet streetfrontage50’ frontage40 feet streetfrontageNon-Conforming lotwith new boundary40’ frontageConforming lot with50 feet streetfrontage50’ frontageExample: R-5 zoning district re-platting process which does not increase the degree of nonconformity.20

Thank You!For more information please contact info@canvasplanninggroup.comor visit www.zoningatl.com21

AN ORDINANCE BYZONING COMMITTEEZ-17-93AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OFATLANTA (PART 16), AS AMENDED, AND THE LAND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCEOF THE CITY OF ATLANTA (PART 15), AS AMENDED, BY AMENDING ANDCLARIFYING VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE TEXT OF THESE ORDINANCES,INCLUDING INDIVIDUAL ZONING DISTRICT AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS,WITH REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS THAT FOLLOW: ACCESSORY STRUCTUREHEIGHT (SECTION 1 BELOW); ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SIZE (SECTION 2BELOW); ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS (SECTION 3 BELOW);BICYCLE PARKING (SECTION 4 BELOW); DELETION OF UNUSED SPI ZONINGDISTRICTS (SECTION 5 BELOW); INDEPENDENT DRIVEWAYS (SECTION 6BELOW);RG AND MR SINGLE-FAMILY AND TWO-FAMILY LOT SIZES(SECTION 7 BELOW); MRC BUILDING PLACEMENT (SECTION 8 BELOW);MASTER PLANS (SECTION 9 BELOW); NONCONFORMING FAÇADE HEIGHTS(SECTION 10 BELOW); TRANSFER OF SPECIAL USE PERMITS (SECTION 11BELOW); SIDEWALK STANDARDS IN CONVENTIONAL ZONING DISTRICTS(SECTION 12 BELOW); TEMPORARY STORAGE CONTAINERS (SECTION 13BELOW); NONCONFORMING LOT REPLATS (SECTION 14 BELOW); TO REPEALCONFLICTING LAWS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.WHEREAS, the current Atlanta Zoning Ordinance was adopted in 1982 and has been amendednumerous times since its adoption; andWHEREAS, a wide variety of state and federal statutory provisions have been adopted andamended since 1982 that impact the City’s zoning ordinances, subdivision ordinances, and otherland use provisions; andWHEREAS, the combination of numerous amendments over the years, and changing laws andregulations at the state and federal levels, has resulted in a zoning ordinance that is unnecessarilycomplex and difficult to access, particularly for members of the public and property owners; andWHEREAS, the tremendous growth and change of the City, as well as the various changes thathave occurred in the zoning ordinance since 1982, created a need to review existing zoning,subdivision, and other land use regulations and consider a new, updated approach to how thecity’s zoning, subdivision and other land use regulations are structured and the extent to whichthey adequately address and protect the public health, safety and welfare; andWHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council of the City of Atlanta undertook to begin the processof substantially reviewing and revising the Atlanta Zoning Ordinance, including related laws, byProposed amendments are in boldface and italicized type.

performing a comprehensive “diagnostic” analysis of existing zoning code provisions with theassistance of professional city staff and a coalition of consultants; andWHEREAS, this diagnostic was performed over a period of one year and included a widevariety of stakeholder input, professional analysis, and public input, including public forums andZoning Committee presentations; andWHEREAS, this diagnostic process resulted in a document completed in late 2016 thatsummarized the information and comments gathered, analyzed the current ordinance against bestpractices nationally and current legal considerations, and made a series of recommendations forfuture changes to the Zoning Ordinance, including related regulations and substantial structuralcode alterations; andWHEREAS, the recommendations set forth in the diagnostic were broken down into two basiccomponents: those that could be completed in a relatively short period of time, which werereferred to as “quick fixes”; and those that would require a comprehensive overhaul of thecurrent Zoning Ordinance and would likely require a period of two to four years to complete; andWHEREAS, a consultant team was retained to review, seek public input on, and draftamendments to those ordinance provisions identified in the diagnostic as quick fix changes, to befollowed by the introduction of legislation codifying these proposed changes in the ZoningOrdinance and related regulations in two phases; andWHEREAS, this Ordinance constitutes the first phase “quick fix” amendments, and consists ofa series of Zoning Ordinance amendments, all of which have followed the proceduralrequirements of the Zoning Ordinance for adoption of text amendments, as well as some relatedSubdivision Ordinance amendments, involving the following subject area categories: accessorystructure height (section 1 below); accessory structure size (section 2 below); accessory uses inresidential districts (section 3 below); bicycle parking (section 4 below); deletion of unused SPIzoning districts (section 5 below); independent driveways (section 6 below); RG and MR singlefamily and two-family lot sizes (section 7 below); MRC building placement (section 8 below);master plans (section 9 below); nonconforming façade heights (section 10 below); transfer ofspecial use permits (section 11 below); sidewalk standards in conventional zoning districts(section 12 below); temporary storage containers (section 13 below); and nonconforming lotreplats (section 14 below);WHEREAS, after lengthy and careful review occurring over a period of years, including thediagnostic referenced above and the required zoning ordinance amendment public hearings, aswell as several public forums held throughout the City of Atlanta, the City Council finds that thefollowing amendments are needed in order to clarify and improve certain provisions of theAtlanta Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance, provide consistency with the City’sProposed amendments are in boldface and italicized type.

Comprehensive Development Plan and other comprehensive planning processes, updateconsistency with state and federal law, and advance the public health, safety and welfare;NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ATLANTA, GEORGIAHEREBY ORDAINS as follows:SECTION 1 – ACCESSORY STRUCTURE HEIGHTSection 1.A. That Section 16-28.006(7) of the Zoning Ordinance, which currently reads asfollows:“16-28.006(7) Yard Defined. General Limitations on Occupancy: A yard is an openspace, other than a court, unoccupied and unobstructed by any structure or portion of astructure from 30 inches above the general ground level of the graded lot upward (exceptas provided in section 16-28.008 below); provided, however, that fences and walls maybe permitted in any yard subject to height and sight distance requirements established bythese or other regulations, and further provided that poles, posts and other customary yardaccessories, ornaments and furniture shall be permitted in any yard, subject to section 1628.008(9).”be amended to read as follows:16-28.006(7) Yard Defined. General Limitations on Occupancy: A yard is an open space,other than a court, unoccupied and unobstructed by any structure or portion of a structurefrom 30 inches above the general ground level of the graded lot upward (except asprovided in section 16-28.008 below); provided, however: (a) that fences and walls maybe permitted in any yard subject to height and sight distance requirements establishedby these or other regulations; (b) that poles, posts and other customary yardaccessories, ornaments and furniture shall be permitted in any yard, subject to section16-28.008(9); and (c) that HVAC mechanical equipment may extent up to 44 inchesabove the general ground level of the graded lot.Section 1.B. That Section 16-28.008(1) of the Zoning Ordinance, which currently reads asfollows:“16-28.008(1) Limitations on projections into required yards and open spaces: Eaves,sills, belt courses, energy generation devices, cornices, ornamental features, chimneys,flues, ducts, pipes, air conditioners, bay windows, and the like may project not more than20 inches into any required yard or open space, except where such projections areprohibited by other lawful regulations.”be amended to read as follows:Proposed amendments are in boldface and italicized type.

16-28.008(1) Limitations on projections into required yards and open spaces: Eaves,sills, belt courses, energy generation devices, cornices, ornamental features, chimneys,flues, ducts, pipes, window or similarly affixed air conditioners, bay windows, and thelike may project not more than 20 inches into any required yard or open space, exceptwhere such projections are prohibited by other lawful regulations. For additionalprovisions related to the placement of structures within yards see Sec 16-28.006(7).SECTION 2 – ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SIZESection 2. That Section 16-28.004 of the Zoning Ordinance, which currently reads as follows:“Sec. 16-28.004. - Accessory uses and structures.The following regulations and requirements apply to accessory uses and structures:(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this part, use of accessory buildings asdwellings or lodgings is prohibited.(2) Accessory buildings shall be constructed concurrent with or after construction ofprincipa

In 2015 the City of Atlanta commissioned a team of consultants to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the City's Zoning Ordinance. This included review of: 1. The ability of the Zoning Ordinance to implement City policies, including those in the Comprehensive Development Plan, small area plans, and other documents; 2.