.png)
Zoning 2.0 Draft 2
Zoning 2.0 is reaching the finish line. They published Draft 2 of the new zoning ordinance in December and plan to make minor adjustments and circulate the final draft in March to be adopted in April. It has been a long road, over ten years, thank you for staying with it, making your comments on the drafts and emailing your feedback to the City. Public participation is so important! The City has been listening to our voices, over-all we have been successful keeping our code and conversions consistent with a few exceptions. We were successful keeping R4 (new N1) single family with one ADU, and we were mostly successful keeping commercial encroachment from within the neighborhood with one exception. Following is an overview outstanding concerns and a “cheat sheet” to find where you can read about it in the code along with comment suggestions – but please, have a read and write in your own thoughts. It is important to weigh in on the interactive document. There have been many changes, for example the City has gotten rid of close to 20 SPI districts. We still have SPI-16 (now Midtown Legacy) for now but SPI-17 (corner lot of 14th at Piedmont) was dissolved. We have been told that there would be “no change” to SPI-16 however omitted language could provide loopholes in new development. Zoning 2.0 - Zoning & Land Use Committee Comments |
Zoning 2.0 Draft 2 - Overview - Outstanding Concerns
Ansley Park Specific Issues
Ansley Terrace and Ansley Walk Terrace should remain at a neighborhood scale and be converted to N6A-R2
These large lot multi-family properties are unique in that they are embedded in a N1 (R4) neighborhood and actually face single family homes.
They were built with the old RG-3 with 40’+ front yard setbacks to fit in with the surrounding neighborhood and are great examples of hidden density. Zoning 2.0 is proposing a conversion to UG-3 but that would allow new development with a 5’ minimum and 15’ maximum front setback and 0 side setback.
Ansley Terrace was zoned RG3 with Conditions when it was built in 1989, meaning the builders had worked extra carefully with the neighborhood to retain residential use and mimic the sweeping front and side setbacks of the surrounding houses. Zoning 2.0 proposes that all Conditional Zoning before 2000 is abandoned which negates the public participation process and ignores neighborhood input.
FORM N6A would allow unlimited units but would require new development to be at a neighborhood scale with setbacks that more closely resemble the old RG-3.
USE R2 should be the consistent USE within the whole neighborhood. Ansley Park has a long history of fighting commercial encroachment within the borders of our neighborhood, it is something that unites our neighbors and is expressed as policy in our Neighborhood Plans in 1964, updated 1973 and updated again 2025. Introducing use RX1 to our neighborhood is contrary to the goals and priorities of our residents.
Midtown Legacy District- SA1 (SPI-16) – should be specific to require a Type A Transitional Height Plane and Medium Transition Screen 2.
We were told that nothing would change in SPI-16, currently the standard is the traditional THP with a 20’ yard requirement. A Type A THP and Medium Transition Screen 2 most resemble that standard and needs to be specified for Midtown SA-1. Given the history, this is a significant enough issue that it warrants something more than a footnote at Sec. 7.4.6-A
Midtown Legacy District SA1 (SPI-16) – Development on Peachtree should continue to require egress from the primary and side streets and not the alley.
The alley between Peachtree Street and Peachtree Circle is unique in that it has single-family houses backing into high rises. All of the buildings on Peachtree have been designed for egress from the primary and side streets, we would like to memorialize this practice in the SPI since the new city-wide standard would require egress from the alley.
Ansley Park and Citywide Concerns
Side yard setbacks in N1 (R4) should be 5’-14’.
Many of the R4 (and R5) neighborhoods were built over 100 years ago before there were any zoning standards. As a result, many houses were built right on the lot lines. There is no system in place to determine if an existing house sits on an adjacent lot line when plans are turned in to build at 4’ from a subject property line. Fire safety should not be discounted, the Universal Fire Code requires 5’ between buildings. At 4’, maintenance of both buildings would be jeopardized as a 20’ extension ladder requires a 5’ clearance to meet OHSA standards . Administrative relief and variances would continue to allow hardship lots to build closer to lot lines if necessary but the 5’ side setback should be the standard.
Massing of ½ Story Flat-roofed buildings should include a step-back formula.
Currently flat roofed buildings throughout the city appear to loom over adjacent pitched roofed buildings. We are pleased that the new draft has addressed this by adding a ½ story height limitation in N1 (R4) and by requiring that new development must measure height from existing grade. As we read the draft now, it seems that a flat roofed building could push the entire ½ story to the front façade . Implementing a step-back formula that mimics a 45-degree transitional height plane could solve the problem, we suggest it begins at 27’ high and steps back 8’ at the front and two sides and may not occupy more than 50% of the floor area below. In this configuration, the massing would echo the massing of a pitched roof building while still allowing the flat roofed building to have the living space and roof decks on top.
Transitional Height Planes - All protected districts House Scale, N1, N2, N4A HC (old R1-R5, HD, LD) should remain as a Type A Transition only.
The new zoning draft allows more mass to shift toward N1, N2, N4A HC (R4, R5 and HD, LD) lots because adjacent new development can choose a Type A or a Type B transition with Low Screening. A Type B transition with Low Screening provides no deference to the smaller property at all, it will allow new development to loom over existing properties since the THP can begin at 10’ from the lot line (or center alley line) and 40’ up before the step back with only a fence in between. The current standard protects all R1-R5, HD, LD with the traditional Transitional Height Plane the new code should reflect this by only allowing a Type A Transition.
Zoning 2.0 Draft 2 - Public Comment “Cheat Sheet"
This is a primer to help navigate the on-line draft where you are encouraged to make public comments. Suggested “sound bites” are listed below for your convenience but feel free to put things into your own words.
Make these comments in Zoning 2.0 Draft 2
(you can also make comments on the Zoning Maps).
Chapter 2 – page 32 – N1 Form District (this is the conversion for R4)
SIDE SETBACKS:
- Keep 7’ side setbacks in N1
- keep at least 5’ setbacks in N1 to comply with fire code
- err on the side of caution, no less than 5’ side setbacks
Chapter 2 – 35
MASSING OF FLAT ROOFS
- Install a step-back formula to ensure flat roofed buildings are not out of scale with pitched roofed buildings in N1
- we need an imaginary Transitional Height Plane for flat roofed buildings
- the mass of a flat roofed building should not be at the front and sides of the building
- we need better standards to ensure flat roofed buildings fit in scale with traditional houses
Chapter 2-51
FORM N6A
- This should be the form conversion for Ansley Terrace and Ansley Walk Terrace
- N6A is a more congruent conversion for AT and AWT (RG-3) because it allows people density but not building density
- N6A is a neighborhood scale category that allows hidden density that fits into traditional neighborhoods
Chapter 2 – 53
UG3 (the RG-3 conversion for Ansley Terrace and Ansley Walk Terrace)
- UG3 does not fit in form within a traditional neighborhood because of the small front, side and rear setbacks
- the small or zero setbacks in UG3 will destroy greenspace and tree canopy
- UG3 is not the correct Form within House or Neighborhood scale neighborhoods
Chapter 3- 39 (new city wide standard that all new development must have egress from the alley)
ALLEY ONLY EGRESS
- the alley between Peachtree and Peachtree Circle should be an exception to this rule, it is where single family homes back up to high-rises
- Ansley Park has long established agreements with the development on Peachtree that abuts the Peachtree Circle alley that egress is from the primary and secondary streets and not the alley.
- Please mark this alley exception in the Midtown Legacy district
Chapter 3-42
MASSING OF ½ STORY FLAT ROOFED BUILDINGS
- There should be a step-back formula so massing isn’t pushed to front and sides of building.
- A step-back formula would keep new flat roofed buildings in scale with traditional pitched roofed buildings
- Please consider a step-back formula that mimics a Transitional Height Plane
Chapter 6-3
ADJACENT TRANSITIONS TO LANDMARK AND HISTORIC DISTRICTS
- The adjacent transitions on more densely zoned lots adjacent to Landmark or Historic districts or sites that have underlying zoning of house or neighborhood scales should be Type A only, that best matches the existing standard
- A Type B transition allows too much massing when adjacent to a protected Historic/Landmark district/site.
- Historic/Landmark districts/sites should continue to be the most protected category
Chapter 7-68
MIDTOWN LEGACY DISTRICT
- Ensure the standard does not change please specify a Type A transition only with Medium Screen 2.
- Type A Transition with Medium Screen 2 only
- SPI-16 requires a 20 Transitional Yard when next to R4 (N1) – ensure that Medium Screen 2 is specified to keep this in place. (Med Screen 1 only has a 10’ yard)
Chapter 7-79
MIDTOWN CONT.
- Please note exception to new city-wide standard that says all egress must come from alley. The alley between PT and PTC is unique in that it has single family homes backing into high-rises, the long-standing agreements have been for egress for PT development to be from Peachtree, 16th and 17th.
- Do not allow new development on Peachtree to have egress from the alley in SA1
- The alley between PT and PTC is not wide enough for two way traffic and would be overwhelmed if new high-rises were required to use it.
Chapter 8-46
TRANSITIONS ADJACENT TO PROTECTED DISTRICTS
- R1-R5, HD/S, LD/S (House Scale, N1-N2b, N4) should continue to be protected by the traditional height plane ie. the Type A Transition with Medium Screening the other choices do not prevent new development from looming over existing houses.
- R4 (new N1) is still a Single-family zone that allows ADUs – it should continue to be as protected from the massing of adjacent construction as the other single-family zones (R1-R-3 – new House Scale zones)
- Do not demote R4, R5, HD/S, LD/S to a less protected transition category for adjacent development.
- UG3 should only be allowed a Type A Transition
Chapter 8-48
Type B Transition
- Type B Transitions place too much massing next to protected districts
- Why is the building setback for contiguous properties 10’ and not 20’ for Type B?
Chapter 9 - Page 30
Administrative Relief
-House and Neighborhood Scale should remain excluded from Administrative Relief as they are in the current code (R1-R5 and some RGs)
- All changes to development rules should go through the variance process.
- Administrative relief bypasses public input
- Small changes in House and Neighborhood scale metrics could lead to negative impact on surrounding neighbors.
- 10%-30% variations on a myriad of Zoning standards could have a negative impact on our streetscape and neighborhood character.
- Relief should only come with a case-by-case assessment through the Variance process
Ansley Park Civic Association | PO Box 570119 | Atlanta, GA 30357 - Contact Us